Fossil-fuel capital wants to accelerate a transition to private electric cars, but these are by no means a sustainable solution. It is capitalism that has to go, argues John Clarke

On 23 December, the presidents of Honda and Nissan, Toshihiro Mibe and Makoto Uchida, signed a memorandum of understanding ‘projecting the establishment of a holding company by August 2026’ that would constitute a merger between the two companies. Mitsubishi Motors has already become part of the Nissan alliance and this latest initiative ‘would create the world’s third-largest carmaker’ worth more than $50 billion. This represents ‘the biggest reshaping in the global auto industry since Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and PSA merged in 2021 to create Stellantis in a $52bn deal.’

Al Jazeera makes clear that, while this move is largely an attempt to salvage the economically troubled Nissan, it is also driven by a realisation that ‘carmakers in Japan have lagged behind their big rivals in electric vehicles and are trying to cut costs and make up for lost time.’ Indeed, as the larger partner in the venture, Honda has been strongly motivated by ‘Nissan’s experience building batteries, electric vehicles and gas-electric hybrid powertrains.’

The electric vehicle is a central component of the response of the major capitalist concerns to the mounting, irrefutable evidence of a global climate disaster. As such, it speaks to much that is problematic about the notion that capitalism can become an environmentally sustainable system. Before considering the serious implications of any move towards the mass production of private electric vehicles, it would be useful to look at the broader strategy of green capitalism.

Going green

The first thing that must be understood is that, some levels of diversification and the pursuit of new markets notwithstanding, a timely transition away from fossil fuels is simply not part of corporate strategy. In his book Crude Capitalism: Oil, Corporate Power, and the Making of the World Market, Adam Hanieh points out that despite ‘talk of low carbon solutions’, the major oil companies ‘have no intention of ending their core focus on fossil fuels’ (p.276).

There is a scientific consensus that ‘carbon emissions must be halved by the end of the decade.’ Yet, the largest firms have plans ‘to spend $103 million each day for the rest of the decade on new oil and gas projects’ (p.276). These same firms have made ‘financial commitments for new projects that will produce 116 billion barrels of oil over the next seven years – equivalent to about two decades of US oil production at 2020 levels’ (p.277). We may also assume that the vehicles that will burn much of this fuel will still be coming off the assembly lines.

This profit-driven and destructive strategy, however, is not being pursued in any state of ignorance. Oil producers and car manufacturers are perfectly aware of the dimensions and severity of the climate crisis. Indeed, it has been well documented that leading oil companies knew of their role in generating climate change decades ago. As the impacts of global heating have become devastating and irrefutable, these companies have shifted from a strategy of concealment and denial to one of acknowledging the problem, while seeking to dominate and control the responses to it.

Companies that are involved in the extraction of fossil fuels or whose products are deeply connected to oil consumption, such as car manufacturers, have sought to buy time in the face of climate disaster by promoting industry friendly notions of ‘clean growth’ and ‘clean tech’.

Nicolas Graham’s Forces of Production, Climate Change and Canadian Fossil Fuel Capitalism offers a detailed examination of the aggressive efforts of major oilsands producers in Canada to ensure that research and development and public policy are, as I put it in a review of the book that I wrote for Counterfire, based on the perspective ‘that fossil-fuel extraction can be rendered less ecologically damaging while, at the same time, an incremental process of transition from carbon unfolds.’ As Graham points out, however, such ‘an approach simply does not square with the scientific consensus on the scale and time frame for transition beyond carbon’ (p.188).

Electric vehicles play a particular part within the false strategies that are being developed within the framework of green capitalism. It isn’t that the development of such vehicles can’t play an important role in transitioning away from fossil-fuel use, but it is a monstrous deception to suggest that the mass production of electrically powered private vehicles, so as to eventually replace those powered by petrol and diesel, can offer a viable way forward.

Any serious consideration of the issues involved points to the conclusion that a major shift from the use of private vehicles, however they are powered, towards greatly expanded, efficient and fully accessible systems of public transport is an essential question if human societies are to achieve environmental sustainability and deal effectively with the threat posed by global heating. Such an approach would obviously not be to the liking of major car manufacturers like Honda and Nissan, but it is an unavoidable consideration that must be addressed.

EV production unsustainable

Last April, the Chicago Policy Review noted that the Biden administration had allocated billions of dollars towards promoting the development of electric vehicles. It argued that ‘sustainable mass transit should be the central U.S. transportation policy solution to fight climate change’. It also concluded that ‘EV production is unsustainable’ and pointed out that ‘President Biden’s goal of 50% of new cars sold as electric by 2030 would require a 15-fold increase in EV production, necessitating a substantial expansion of manufacturing and increased use of fossil fuels.’

‘EV batteries are composed of several rare earth minerals, including cobalt and lithium’ and a global shift to EVs would mean the expansion of destructive mining operations on a terrible scale. This would involve a further assault on the environment and on people throughout large parts of the Global South. Moreover, there is also a lack of regulation over the large volume of water necessary to mine lithium, causing water shortages for local farmers and causing harm to the surrounding ecology.’

Even though ‘EVs do not directly emit fossil fuels, the energy generated to charge an EV predominately comes from fossil fuel power plants. Power plants account for two billion metric tons of CO₂ per year, a value that could exponentially grow with greater use of EVs.’

The article also provides some thought-provoking indications of what moving towards adequate systems of public transport might involve. Efficient and adequate local and national networks could be established that met the needs of populations and did so in ways that were far more sustainable than the present reliance on private vehicles from which, it is clear, our societies must move away.

A vast operation to manufacture electric vehicles on a scale that would replace the existing global stock of oil-fuelled vehicles is simply not viable as a solution to the climate crisis. It would take too long to accomplish, even if it did represent a sustainable option. As it is, such an undertaking would require a massive consumption of energy and materials and would involve a process of catastrophic environmental degradation.

The viable alternatives that must be pursued, if global heating is to be addressed, come up against the profit needs of the most powerful capitalist interests. The transfer away from fossil fuels can’t unfold according to a timetable set by the oil companies and the forms of transition that are undertaken can’t be left in the hands of Honda and Nissan and their counterparts in other countries.

We must, of course, fight for and win key demands that curtail carbon emissions and achieve sustainable forms of transition that address the climate crisis, while meeting the needs of workers and communities. However, the irrational absurdity of a vast global switch to the destructive mass production of electric vehicles is one more shocking confirmation of the inability of capitalism to build a sustainable relationship with the natural world.