Electric vehicles are often seen as the key to sustainable mobility. However, their actual climate footprint depends heavily on how long they are used— and what emissions are generated during production, use, and disposal. A well-maintained combustion engine vehicle that is already in circulation and continues to be used or exported can, under certain conditions, be more climate-friendly than an electric vehicle that is replaced after only 150,000 km.

The reason lies in the high emissions caused during production—especially the battery (Scope 3). If the vehicle is replaced prematurely, it adds an environmental burden that is not offset by local emission savings.

A meaningful evaluation must consider emissions according to the GHG Protocol, across all three scopes:

• Scope 1: Direct emissions from operation – e.g., tailpipe emissions in combustion engines.
• Scope 2: Indirect emissions from electricity generation – e.g., depending on the energy mix used for charging.
• Scope 3: All other emissions from raw material extraction, production, maintenance, transport, and end-of-life. EVs often show higher Scope 3 emissions, especially due to battery manufacturing.

Only when all three scopes are taken into account — from sourcing to recycling — can we assess the true environmental footprint. Simply focusing on “zero local emissions” is incomplete and potentially misleading.

That is why we compare the ecological footprint of combustion engine and electric vehicles across their entire lifecycle – based on reliable data and studies we have researched to the best of our knowledge and belief. If you discover any errors or outdated sources, we welcome your feedback at: [email protected].