AN Columnist: Why "zero emission" really does mean zero

Automotive News' (sub. req.) Lindsay Chappell argues that "if zero isn't zero" then emissions for all vehicles must be recalculated. Of course, Chappell is referring to vehicles like the Nissan Leaf, which is touted by the automaker as a "zero-emissions" vehicle. Chappell asserts that this "zero isn't really zero" mentality has become a "tiresome piece of anti-electric vehicle propaganda," stating that:

If someone wanted to discourage Americans from driving an electric vehicle, it would be clever logic to point out that the car is causing coal soot and sulfur to come out of a tall smokestack somewhere.

But come on.

By this logic, we should go back and restate all the EPA calculations of every Chevrolet Cruze, Ford Focus and Honda Fit because someone neglected to include the emissions generated throughout the entire supply chain in the math.

Of course, Chappell backs his argument by pointing out that to fill up a Cruze, the gas pump pulls fuel from an underground tank that was filled by a truck. That fuel truck spewed smoke from its exhaust pipe as it transported gas from a fuel storage facility. That storage site, in turn, received fuel from a facility that refined it from oil that was shipped across the ocean in a massive tanker, and so on.

So, Chappell urges, people had better be cautious in claiming that zero emissions isn't zero. Makes sense to us.

[Source: Automotive News – sub. req.]