In my book“Present-Day Corporate Communication” (www.public-relations-pro.com),I discuss in some detail how to manage untrue information such as #misinformation, #disinformation, #fakenews, alternative facts, and the like.
THE E-CAR MODEL CASE
The e-car issue is a model case for wide spread misinformation to which the public, governments, policy- and lawmakers and the media are subjected. In fact, the e-car and e-mobility have an image problem, which should be of interest – not only to communication practitioners, but also to other interested parties, in particular governments:
- Governments because they may introduce policies, that will point into the wrong direction,
- Communication practitioners because they can learn from this particular (alternative) case.
The case is particular, because in this case, and different to common experience in corporate communication, not a good image needs to be developed or defended, but an image must be corrected, which is simply too good. The German Federal Motor Transport Authority has made a statement which best describes the prevailing good reputation of e-mobility in public, with governments and large parts of the media. The agency has officially said that purely electrically powered cars do not emit any carbon dioxide. That is untrue or even worst it is a political fiction. No serious life cycle assessment supports the information that electric vehicles are climate-neutral.
DISINFORMATION OR MISINFORMATION
There are no indications that this is a disinformation. Disinformation is commonly defined as untrue communication, which is purposefully spread (for example by deliberately creating rumours or for political reasons). Typically,disinformation is represented as truth in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth to serve the perpetrator’s (hidden) purpose. In this case, however, one has to assume that we have to deal with misinformation. Like disinformation, misinformation is also false, but it is presented as truth only because the communicator does not have the facts straight and,probably unwillingly, creates an alternative truth (To learn more about untrue information,please read Rudolf Beger’s new guidebook on “Present-Day Corporate Communication”, www.public-relations-pro.com).
Those who assume that e-cars do not produce any emissions almost always make the same mistake to assume that the e-vehicle is exclusively fuelled with clean electricity, i.e. electricity produced from renewable sources such as wind, solar, or water. Those people who fuel the erroneously good reputation of e-mobility, have probably never asked where the energy used to propel e-cars is coming from. Contrary to widespread popular belief, electricity does not come from the plug. It is typically produced in a power plant. Fact is that most power plants all over the world are mainly coal and gas-fired. The climate impact of these plants is only reduced, not eliminated, by wind turbines, solar parks and other alternatives. Nuclear power plants are clean in terms of carbon dioxide emissions but have there own set of problems. This fact means that e-mobility may make air in the cities and conurbations cleaner but moves pollution from the city to distant power plants. For the world climate, it does not make any difference where the CO2 is produced as long as it is produced somewhere, it will have its negative impact on our climate and health.
THE CRUEL E-CAR FACTS
The question whether e-cars offer an ecological advantage over their entire life cycle over vehicles with conventional combustion engines can only be answered when many factors are taken into account. Neutral life-cycle assessments of e-vehicles and e-mobility suggest that the e-car’s energy balance sheet is negative. In other words, e-mobility produces more environmental problems as it is supposed to avoid. In addition to the origin of electricity, such life-cycle assessment has to be take the following factors into account (list is not comprehensive):
- The construction of an e-car, especially the production of its battery, requires an effort that does not occur with any conventional car. During production about twice as much carbon dioxide is released as for a conventional comparable product. This difference is mainly due to the batteries. This means that even before hitting the road, an e-car has already done more damage to the climate than the diesel or petrol engine alternative.
- Battery factories consume a lot of electricity when processing the raw materials and assembling the storage cells. The fact that many batteries currently come from China, where a lot of electricity flows into the grid from inefficient coal-fired power plants, puts a strain on the energy balance of e-cars. The large CO2 emissions during battery production in Asian countries, especially China, have a negative impact. Greenhouse gases change the climate completely independently of political borders.
- The climate at the place of use of the e-car is another factor in assessing its energy efficiency. In cold countries,the heating and blowers of a car are heavily used. In an e-car this is always at the expense of the battery. In contrast, in a conventional car the necessary heat is a waste product.
- A further disadvantage is if electric cars are charged at the wrong time as soon as there are millions of vehicles. Increased energy demand at a time when little renewable electricity is available can have a negative impact on the electricity mix.
- There are other sources of pollution, which an e-car produces. Therefore, it is an illusion that the mass introduction of e-cars will make cities and conurbations free from pollution.E-cars release particle pollution into the air from wearing tyres, brakes and road surfaces. It is said that today, more particle pollution comes from wear than from the exhausts of modern vehicles. Open disc brakes rather than sealed drums look to be making the situation worse.
- The extra weight of the batteries (200-300 kg) means more particle pollution compared with the petrol or diesel vehicles that we buy today.
- The race to develop improved battery technology is not simply a question of finding ways to make electric vehicles easier to charge and more convenient to drive over long distances. It is also a question of weight, size and recyclability. A major issue in particular is the weight. A lot of energy is used just to move the battery especially when the vehicle is used for longer distances, which requires a larger and heavier battery. Additional research is needed, which is forecast by experts to take a long time.
In conclusion, no serious life-cycle assessment repeats the political fiction that electric vehicles are climate-neutral. The unfortunate truth is that the e-vehicle is not the perfect environmental vehicle as it is commonly portrayed by governments, the manufacturers and the media.
CONSEQUENCES FOR AFFECTED CORPORATE AND GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATORS
What are the tasks for Corporate Communication to deal with this unusual situation in which an image must be corrected, that is not bad but too good? The key for a successful management of such a future communication challenge is careful contingency planning (a part of crisis communication planning). The first step in the contingency planning process is to identify the nature of the challenge. The second step will be to understand which key audiences will be most affected and to adapt the communication tactics to the target audiences’ characteristics and needs. The third major step will be the development of a strategy, which will deal with frustration, disappointment, anger, loss of trust and credibility. This strategy should preferably be non-defensive but based on a constructive(positive) alternative proposal. This contingency plan development process can best be compared to a situation, in which a company and its communication executives learn early about (negative) rumours about the company or its products before “they hit the fan”. Once rumours become widely public, they can damage the company’s reputation, its image and its sales.
RECOMMENDATION
To learn more about this, please read the case study “Rumours” in the Chapter “Crisis Communication” in Rudolf Beger’s new guidebook on “Present-Day Corporate Communication” (www.public-relations-pro.com).