Do we trust a GM petrol-head when they tell us EVs will take decades?

On one level, yes. Realistically the switch to EVs (electric vehicles), or whatever we switch to, won't happen overnight. Logic tells us that we will continue to consume petrol - and diesel - for years and years to come. But it will begin to fall. The shift will happen not because we are running out of oil - we've been 'running out' since we started getting it out of the ground - but because the price will rise. And rise it will, as world demand continues to grow in tandem with the increasing difficulty of extracting oil from deeper, dirtier and more difficult to reach reserves. Consumers will drive the switch to EVs (and other alternatives) when they see that the non-petrol vehicle is available at a comparable initial buy price, with similar utility. Simple, so we almost agree. "Decades" may be an exaggeration, but 2 decades of demand in a lop-sided bell-curve is conceivable with a sudden drop off then long tail into the future.

However what this statement really tells us is that GM's local arm is not serious about making the switch anytime soon. Indeed, they may be accused here of dampening down the prospect: Plug-in electric vehicles are decades away from replacing conventional cars in the garages of average Australians, according to Holden. It doesn't sound like a statement of commitment to change, does it? Even though Holden's is committed to the GM Volt it doesn't sound like they expect to sell many. Not soon, anyway.

So who is talking EVs down? None other than Holden's energy and environment director, Richard Marshall. Well he should know, eh? Sitting as we do on a mountain of coal, in a country with an avowed commitment to digging that coal out, generating electricity and burying the carbon somewhere deep, of course we wouldn't actually be interested in switching to EVs. Would we? Hmmm. We'd rather pump up our remaining, dwindling oil and gas reserves (OK, we do have lots of gas) and keep our cars running as they should - on petrol or diesel. Why talk up EVs when we can have what we have now, in spades? Oh yeah, but we'll have to import more oil just to keep up with current demand, let alone what we want in the future. Of course continuing to maintain the oil industry is best for the country. Why even think about EVs or other alternatives?

But I'm being a bit difficult, for Holden's Energy and Environment guy has other plans, too: "We need to do other things; we can't sit around and wait for electric vehicles to become cheaper," he said. "We need a multi-path approach." Can't argue against that, although EVs would seem high on that list. What Mr Marshall really wants to sell is the current fleet of cars (big, hungry Commodores) with an ethanol mix in the tank: Marshall said ethanol was an attractive option because fuel sources were widely available in Australia, it was affordable and it offered a "whole of life" reduction in CO2 of up to 94 per cent, depending on the fuel source.

Now that 94% "whole of life" reduction in CO2 is interesting. I wonder how that comes about? The GM Holden line of thought is that it is dependent upon source, and a few possibilities are provided: "It's a good cash crop which could provide more jobs and at the same time help to rejuvenate the soil and reduce carbon dioxide," he said. Sugar cane was also a ready source. "There's a good health argument to say that we'd be better off putting sugar in our cars than putting it in food," he said. Well that helps, doesn't it?

Maybe, maybe not. We do need to do something about human dietary sugar abuse, yes; and farmers will appreciate both a good revenue stream and improved soil. But how exactly does increased ethanol production and consumption reduce either the cost of fuel, or our overall atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions? If all we did was plant trees, granted we would be helping the environment by sequestering CO2 and lowering the water table, amongst other good things. But if we are planting trees only to harvest them in 5 or 10 years all we are doing is providing a small hope for the future, not a present solution. Ah, but that's where we make do with our excess sugar cane! Which is all very well but ethanol doesn't just spring forth from these plants and make its merry way to the gas pumps without some processing. Indeed by the time we have added the energy expenditure involved in ploughing and planting the crop (be it sugar cane or melaleucas), watering it, feeding it, processing it and then piping or trucking the ethanol to the storage areas where it can be mixed with petrol and then (again) piped or trucked to the gas pumps.. well we are probably behind in the carbon emission game, not ahead. And sugar cane is not the best way to make ethanol anyway, even if it did make sense.

All that we get out of ethanol, seriously, is a way to bolster the status quo, to fend off the inevitable. It would give GM Holden (and other local Aussie car makers) some breathing space in which they could continue to build the cars they build today without having to sink more money into new drivetrains and overall designs. What is not mentioned is that the taxpayer will again have to fund the inefficiencies inherent in this approach and continue to shore up these dinosaurian car makers. What will actually happen is that other car makers will take the initiative, jump into EV production, get the cars to market with leasing plans and innovative plug-and-play battery solutions that will allow consumers to make a choice. GM Holden is not willing to be the innovator, they don't want to lead, or to take a risk - they want someone else to do it. Instead they want to stick with the past, squeezing out the last possible drop of profit from their tired old ideas. If they are right and ethanol proves to be 94% more amazing than anyone ever thought, great, all power to them. But if they are wrong then they will effectively be handing the Aussie car market to the innovators. So nothing has really changed, has it?