Opinion: There are lots of conflicting stories about electric cars so I have looked at some of the common claims and how psychology influences our choices. The biggest issue is cost. Many people say they’d buy one if they could. Some models are expensive, but much cheaper models from China are pouring into the market.
The coalition scrapped the clean car rebate scheme for electric cars at the end of last year, which meant sales were slashed, so many electric cars are now heavily discounted. It seems the psychology of the rebate is more powerful than a low price. Critics claim rebates just help rich people get expensive Teslas – but if no one bought electric cars new, we wouldn’t have them second-hand at lower prices. And when people buy electric cars, they’re not just helping save the planet for themselves, but for everyone, especially communities more vulnerable to climate change.
Our psychological make-up leads us to focus on upfront costs and discount the long-term benefits of electric cars, such as lower running costs. Wouldn’t you like a car fuel bill of $8 a week? In Melbourne, more people are buying electric cars in the cheaper outer suburbs than the inner suburbs, because the outer suburbs have longer trips that need more fuel – and they charge their cars via solar for zilch.
Cost isn’t the only issue. Electric car batteries use rare metals like lithium that require deep mining and are heavy, expensive and hard to dispose of – and their manufacture creates more gas emissions than petrol cars. But this imbalance in emissions reverses after a couple of years, and armies of engineers are developing batteries that are cheaper, lighter and safer. MG will use solid state [non-lithium] batteries from next year.
We can be over-optimistic that things will turn out fine no matter what we do.
The limited range of electric cars is another challenge, but this range is increasing rapidly and is mostly an issue for owners who take long trips. Some critics say we should just use public transport, like rail, instead of electric cars. But public transport is more costly in New World countries with sprawling cities – like New Zealand. The issue doesn’t have to be either/or. We need both.
To increase our uptake of electric cars, we need to overcome several psychological barriers. Our risk judgment is often biased, and we downplay the risk of our current choices changing the climate irreversibly. This is partly because we overestimate rare but vivid risks, like homicides, and discount more gradual risks, such as climate change.
We also discount risky consequences of our actions that will occur in the future, rather than straight away. So we find it hard to be concerned that sea levels will be much higher in 50-100 years if we don’t cut our emissions. We block out the implications of this outcome. And we can be over-optimistic that things will turn out fine no matter what we do.
There are other psychological barriers to actions, beyond risk perception. Some of us are fatalistic, believing nothing we do will make a difference to emissions. But every positive action helps, and if we take up specific actions to address the issue, our fatalism retreats. Our actions also influence the people around us.
Pessimists insist we can’t overcome these psychological barriers. But it can be done, especially with helpful legislation. An example is Norway, which set a goal that all new cars should be electric or hydrogen by 2025. And the largest car market in the world, China, is moving rapidly in the same direction. As the number of electric cars multiplies and they drop in price, even sceptics will change their minds – regardless of whether they “believe in” climate change. How many people still drive a horse and buggy?
John McClure is emeritus professor of psychology at Victoria University of Wellington Te Herenga Waka.
