'Inconvenient' Fact: Morgan Stanley Says Electric Cars Create More CO2 Than They Save

For all the funds out there looking to fill their portfolio with "environmentally conscious" companies working diligently to avert an inevitable global warming catastrophe that will result in the extinction of the human race, we guess in lieu of their actual fiduciary duties to simply make money for their investors, Morgan Stanley has compiled a list of how you can get the most 'environmental healing' per dollar invested. 

As MarketWatch points out, it's not terribly surprising that of the 39 publicly-traded stocks analyzed, the solar and wind generation companies landed at the very top of Morgan Stanley's environmentally friendly the list

Morgan Stanley identified 39 stocks that generate at least half their revenue “from the provision of solutions to climate change,” something it said was a central component of investing to make a difference, as opposed to just a making a buck.


“In our view, impact investing needs to begin with companies whose products and services have a notable positive environmental or social impact,” wrote Jessica Alsford, an equity strategist at the investment bank.


Not surprisingly, alternative-energy companies ranked the highest in terms of their positive impact, and the “top five climate-change impact stocks” were all manufacturers of solar and wind energy: Canadian Solar, China High Speed Transmission, GCL-Poly, Daqo New Energy, and Jinko Solar.



What is surprising, however, is that publicly traded electric car manufacturers, darlings of the environmentally-conscious Left, were actually found to generate more CO2 than they save.  As a stark reminder to our left-leaning political elites who created these companies with massive taxpayer funded subsidies, Morgan Stanley points out that while Teslas don't burn gasoline they do have to be charged using electricity generated by coal and other fossil fuels.

This is where Tesla, along with China’s Guoxuan High-Tech fall short.


“Whilst the electric vehicles and lithium batteries manufactured by these two companies do indeed help to reduce direct CO2 emissions from vehicles, electricity is needed to power them,” Morgan Stanley wrote. “And with their primary markets still largely weighted towards fossil-fuel power (72% in the U.S. and 75% in China) the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material.”


In other words, “the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.”


Morgan Stanley calculated that an investment of $1 million in Canadian Solar results in nearly 15,300 metric tons of carbon dioxide being saved every year. For Tesla, such an investment adds nearly one-third of a metric ton of CO2.

Ironically, as we recently pointed out, Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) credits (a nicer way of saying taxpayer funded corporate welfare) is pretty much the only 'product' that Tesla seems to make money selling and is the only reason they managed to 'beat' earnings in Q2.

I'm referring to zero-emission vehicle, or ZEV, credits. California and several other states require that a certain proportion of the vehicles sold by an automaker emit no greenhouse gases. These cars earn the automaker credits, and if they don't have enough to meet their quota, they can buy extra ones from someone who does. As Tesla only makes vehicles that run on batteries and emit nothing, it usually has a surplus for sale.


The profit margin on these is very high, perhaps 95 percent. The implied $95 million of profit equates to about 58 cents a share. Tesla reported a loss of $1.33 per share this week -- beating the consensus forecast by 55 cents.


This isn't the only time ZEV credits have played a big role for Tesla. Looking back to early 2013, selling credits has given Tesla's earnings extra oomph in many quarters, likely taking them above consensus forecasts in some (on an implied basis, assuming that 95 percent margin):


Of course, Q2 wasn't the first time that ZEV credits played a huge role in padding Tesla's cash flow...


Ponder that for a moment...as taxpayers we're actually subsidizing a product (and an eccentric Silicon Valley billionaire) that is bad for the environment...


Grandad Grumps Fri, 08/18/2017 - 20:06 Permalink

Actually CO2 is not the point.

But, Morgan Stanley math does not make sense. They are not exactly saying that the CO2 emissions from a gas fueled car are X and from an electric car the amount of emissions required to electrically power that car driving the same number of miles is X.+Y. I think they are only giving us the Y number (the CO2 cost to generate the electricity)for an electric car and ignoring the X that would have been generated if the car is gas powered.


So Close So Close Fri, 08/18/2017 - 20:27 Permalink

It is not a magic bullet.  It is a step in the right direction.  And one taken against HUGE and well defended entrenched interests.  Most people are too fucking stupid to realize the implications.  But hey.. that's llfe on a planet where half the folks are lower than average IQ and 80% of the ones with above average IQ can't think for themselves.

In reply to by So Close

Slack Jack So Close Fri, 08/18/2017 - 20:36 Permalink

"Morgan Stanley Says Electric Cars Create More CO2 Than They Save."

Probably true, the vehicle greenhouse emissions are just changed to electricity power plant greenhouse emissions.

So, why is the global rise in temperatures so worrisome?

For one thing, as temperatures rise good farmland will become desert (e.g., dust-bowl conditions will probably return to the American Midwest).

Another major problem is sea-level rise.

Have a look at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

The U.S. Geological Survey people claim that;

The Greenland ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 6.55 meters (21.5 feet),
the West Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 8.06 meters (26.4 feet),
the East Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 64.8 meters (212.6 feet),
and all other ice melting will raise sea-level 0.91 meters (3 feet).

For a grand total of about 80 meters (263 feet).

So, what does an 80 meter (263 feet) rise in sea-level mean. Have a look at the following map of the world after an 80 meter rise. It means that over one billion people will have to be resettled to higher ground and that much of the most productive agricultural land will be under water. Fortunately, at current rates, the Greenland ice sheet will take over a thousand years to melt and the Antarctica ice sheet, much longer. However, the greater the temperature rise the faster the ice sheets will melt, bringing the problem much closer. Remember, the huge ice sheet that recently covered much of North America, almost completely melted in only 15,000 years (today, only the Greenland ice sheet, and some other small patches of it, remain). Since then (15,000 years ago), sea-levels have risen about 125 meters (410 feet), only 80 meters to go.

The ice sheets have been continuously melting for thousands of years. What is left of them today, is still melting, and will continue to melt. Human caused global warning will cause this remnant to melt significantly faster. This is a big, big, problem.

For HUGE detailed maps of the "World after the Melt" go to:


Global temperatures are increasing. And by quite a lot each year.

2016 is the hottest year on record for global temperatures.

This is 0.0380 degrees centigrade hotter than the previous record year which was 2015.

0.0380 is a large increase in just one year.

2015 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.1601 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2014.

0.1601 is an absolutely huge increase in just one year (at this rate temperatures would increase by 16 degrees in a century).

2014 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.0402 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2010.


The conspiracy to hide global warming data.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is given tax money to make global temperature records available to the public. However, certain people at NOAA continually sabotage this aspect of NOAA's mandate. For example, these people have (deliberately) sabotaged the web-page that delivers the temperature records.

Look for yourself:

Go to the page: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php scroll down to the The Global Anomalies and Index Data section and click the download button and see what happens. Well, you get the message:

"Not Found. The requested URL /monitoring-references/faq/anomalies-download was not found on this server."

I guess that the 2017 data must be truly horrible if they have to hide it away.


In reply to by So Close

BaBaBouy Moe Hamhead Fri, 08/18/2017 - 22:21 Permalink

" Electric is interesting to use in high population areas where pollution (CO2 is not pollution) can harm humans."Exactly... Also places like Quebec have Hydro Power Zero emmision, Absolute 0 pollution in the whole EV cycle!Also Solar generated power stored on L-ion Grid batteries will power a good segment of EV's... Get with it folks, your I-Fone doesn't run on Coal... 

In reply to by Moe Hamhead

Dsyno TBT or not TBT Fri, 08/18/2017 - 23:40 Permalink

"As if we care about CO2. Electric is interesting to use in high population areas where pollution (CO2 is not pollution) can harm humans. The tailpipe can be shifted to far away spots."Put all the coal power plants on the borders of Canada and Mexico. That way, half the pollution goes to them. That's a trick we learned as kids playing SimCity.

In reply to by TBT or not TBT

lew1024 Slack Jack Fri, 08/18/2017 - 21:03 Permalink

The whole 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' hypothesis is complete and total BS. Nobody with any context can believe any of it.Context : Randal Carlson, Lord Monckton, Professor Ivar Giaever, 1973 Nobel Prize,  Freeman Dyson, William Happer, seawapa.org, there are many, many very serior and experienced people discussing the topic, as well as folks like Randal Carlson putting our current climate into historical context.We are at the end of the best 10,000 years of climate in the last quarter million. We are far more likely to be falling into an ice age than a warmer spell. NOAA has faked temp data. The Hockey Stick a) has not actually happened, and b) was entirely the result of fancy selection of data and proxies.Nobody with context believes any of it.

In reply to by Slack Jack

Slack Jack lew1024 Fri, 08/18/2017 - 21:45 Permalink

lew1024 @ Aug 18, 2017 9:03 PM: "NOAA has faked temp data. The Hockey Stick a) has not actually happened, and b) was entirely the result of fancy selection of data and proxies."

The Hockey Stick rise is happening. Right before your very eyes.

The rise is so noticeable that your average dude has noticed it.

Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show it.

If you don't want to believe the NOAA data then you have to believe that NOAA has faked the data.

NOAA does fudge the figures a little bit, but always to hide global warming. They are responsible for providing correct figures and they generally do.

If NOAA does not like the figures they tend hide them rather than fake them (like they are hiding the data at this very minute).

In reply to by lew1024

Kfilly Slack Jack Sat, 08/19/2017 - 10:00 Permalink

With any big thing like global warming/climate change/whatever they call it next, follow the money to see who benefits. With the so called Paris Climate Accord, China was essentially free to pollute as much as wants while the US has to pay and restrict its amount of pollution. I am not defending pollution, but it does not make sense to allow one country free reign to do what it wants while imposing penalties on another country. Also, Al "Internet" Gore was set to make a fortune under global warming schemes.

In reply to by Slack Jack

Eyes Opened Slack Jack Sat, 08/19/2017 - 12:03 Permalink

"NOAA does fudge the figures a little bit, but always to hide global warming. They are responsible for providing correct figures and they generally do.If NOAA does not like the figures they tend hide them rather than fake them (like they are hiding the data at this very minute)."FFS slack...  even YOU admit the data is being rigged !!I don't know what it is you're tryin to sell but you'll find NO buyers here... as Ghandi said "FOAD"....

In reply to by Slack Jack

Itinerant Eyes Opened Tue, 09/26/2017 - 15:15 Permalink

The data is not rigged. Much of the data has been published previously, and in earlier years, was recorded in writing. You can go back and compare the written records with the raw data that NOAA presents. The only thing that changes is that they sometimes put out a new version of their temperature reconstruction. Whole books have been written about how you should adjust temperatures because of evident errors, erroneous drifting, urban heat island, measuring at different time of day, different technologies for taking the temp, different algorithms for filling in part of the global grid which previously was measured scantily. All those considerations and math are applied to the raw records, with other scientists watching with hawk eyes to bring any corrections (and help their career and prestige). Even if you take the raw data, on a global basis it makes hardly any difference, and tends to change the steepness of the warming (both positively and negatively) in various time spans.If you would look into this in detail, you would realize that the numbers are a reconstruction, and there is no fudging of raw data.

In reply to by Eyes Opened

GUS100CORRINA Slack Jack Fri, 08/18/2017 - 21:28 Permalink

Slack Jack  ... GIVE IT A BREAK PLEASE! We are all tired of your continued posts of the same stuff over and over and over again.Thank you.'Inconvenient' Fact: Morgan Stanley Says Electric Cars Create More CO2 Than They SaveMy response to title: ROFL!!!! I HAVE KNOWN THIS FOR YEARS and have data going back at least 5 years.On a more serious note: The SOLAR HIBERNATION cycle has begun and global cooling will last at least 25+ years. BOTTUM LINE: BUY AGRICULTURE because FOOD PRICES are about to go UP a LOT!!!

In reply to by Slack Jack

ThePhysicist Slack Jack Sat, 08/19/2017 - 00:21 Permalink

You've bought into all of the lies about global warming. Claiming record warmth by amounts far below the margin of error in the measurement!The raw data has been "corrected" to show warming, mostly by lowering the temperatures recorded in the past.Look at the satellite data, it is less likely to be manipulated, it shows much less warming.Take a look a proxy temperatures over the last 2000 years. We aren't near the maximum temperatures.Stop buying the bullshit and think for yourself. 

In reply to by Slack Jack

not dead yet ThePhysicist Sat, 08/19/2017 - 06:15 Permalink

Satellite temperature measurements are done by Dr John Christy and Dr Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama Huntsville. There is also another private company R S Satellite Systems that does them too. The two have correlated on the measurements, until recently. RS recently announced there was a flaw in their calculations and after correction the 20 year pause is now gone and their new records agree with the drastic warming scenarios. Imagine that years and years of supposed faulty calculations and they never caught it. More like they buckled under the pressure by the warmists and were afraid it was going to cost them money.

In reply to by ThePhysicist

Infnordz Slack Jack Sat, 08/19/2017 - 01:21 Permalink

The trouble is the AGW argument is now effectively scientifically dead because ever more data tampering/cherry-picking has been discovered from multiple official sources, including NOAA, and recently confirmed untampered-with data, for historical temperature data on land, at sea, and at the poles contradict the asserted long term warming trend!CO2 was always a rubbish "Green House Gas" anyway; far more dense Water vapour (Clouds) is a much better heat retainer.  This is easy to confirm by compared 24 hour outside temperature graphs, with and without cloud cover e.g. via a house or nearby weather station on Wunderground.  I have my own weather station which uploads data to Wonderground and shows detailed a multi-day external temperature graph on it's built-in monitor, so I'm not relying on the honesty of any 3rd parties for this comparison.Electric vehicles apparently suffer from significantly more power conversion and power transmission losses from power station fuel to wheel motor, so are significantly less net efficient that a purely mechanical combustion engine vehicle, even with regenerative braking.  Also there is additional fossil fuel costs to replace worn out Li-ion batteries because they have a limited lifespan, further reduced by more frequent charges.  Other killer issues include: charging millions of Li-ion car batteries may cause excessive peak load for the mains power systems, and physically charging the vehicle could be difficult, dangerous, or a security risk if on the road or in other shared parking areas.

In reply to by Slack Jack

not dead yet Infnordz Sat, 08/19/2017 - 06:44 Permalink

Anthony Watts of Wattsupwiththat got his start in the climate change arena by doing a weather station siting survey. Huge numbers of stations located next to parking lots or next to airconditoners and other heat sources. Lots of pictures to prove it. A great many of the official stations in the big cities are located at major airports. Fine years ago as they were located in the boonies but now they are surrounded by streets and buildings. When I was a kid we sat in one of the empty fields that surrounded Ohare to watch the planes. Now it's all buildings and pavement for miles and miles to get to Ohare. When my kid moved to Las Vegas McCarron was on the edge of town. Now it's buried inside the sprawl. Plus there all those huge casinos and hotels that soak up heat known as the urban heat island effect. For years the warmists denied there was such a thing, they knew there was, because it called into question the the quality of their official temperatures. After being confronted with the evidence for years they finally admitted there is an urban heat island effect and instead of moving their weather stations they claim they adjust the temps to correct for it. As if pulling a figure out of their backside will be an accurate reflection of the temps.There was a retired geologist who ran a webstie called the Migrant Mind. One of his things was comparing official temperatures in towns that were close together and on the same elevation with one town having a properly sited temp station and the other improperly sited. Meaning it wasn't located to give accurate temps as it may be sheltered from the elements or near a heat source like a road, parking lot, or building. In every case the town with the improper station was always warmer.

In reply to by Infnordz

Mark777 Slack Jack Sat, 08/19/2017 - 22:22 Permalink

So the earth has been warming for some 15,000 years?  And ll of that time, except for the past couple centuries, has been without technological impacts.  Hmm.  So how do you prove how much of recent warming is caused by man?  I'm not denying mankind has collectively done some stupid, callous and damaging things but the obvious conclusion is that even if technology stopped 100% tomorrow the earth will still be on a thousands of years warming trend, right?Yes, the world needs to recycle better, choose less-polluting technology, phase out the more polluting technology.  But making blanket blaming claims doesn't help, that's a large part of the resistance to the message.I recall when my (ex) spouse claimed that "probably" everyone (except her) were child abusers.  I tried to help her to see that at most it was "possibly" but she wouldn't listen.  She had, and may still have, black/white all/nothing Borderline Personality Disorder traits.  Her childhood evidently sensitized her to exaggerate her thinking, leaping to conclusions due to fear and obsession.  "All" people are not bad.  Same with the world's environment and man's impact, certainly some is irresponsible and needs attention but not all man does is "all bad".Not only that, some things are out of our control.  Volcanic eruptions have major impact.  Why isn't anyone taxing volcanoes?  Fighting wild fires in the forests may be noble but the next fires, with even more debris on the ground, will be more intense with the additional underbrush.  Why isn't anyone taxing wildfires for their pollution?Additional point:There is an 80/20 rule in business:80% of the goal can be accomplished with 20% of the costs.The remaining 20% of the goal will take 80% of the costs.Lesson:  Tackle the problems that will result in the most improvement AND least costs.

In reply to by Slack Jack

Hari_Seldon So Close Fri, 08/18/2017 - 23:28 Permalink

The conversion losses can be pretty steep from gas/oil ect.  Regeneration from braking will help but there are losses there too..  Also don't forget there is production costs for the motors and batteries.  I am pretty sure the batteries will need replacing from time to time too.  Sorry I don't have any hard data but system efficiencies are nowhere near 100%

In reply to by So Close

Offthebeach So Close Sat, 08/19/2017 - 06:40 Permalink

In a 50% goverment, govrrnment regulated, crony capitalist lobbied...it is impossible to get an accurate accounting of full in "costs" .   This was a planning problem for Lenin in the 1920's when they attempted full command economy.  But paper shuffing planners, gov and private, their jobs depend upon nice, plausible reports so  heave ho me laddies and plan away!  Meanwhile.....back in Keynsean Glass casting and breaking mine....

In reply to by So Close

bonin006 DogOfSinope Fri, 08/18/2017 - 20:38 Permalink

It does seem fishy. If the electricity cost to charge an electric vehicle is far less than the cost of gasoline (as I have heard, not personally verified), it is unlikely that the electricity consumes more carbon than burning the gasoline, and the energy build the vehicles should be roughly the same.Another point is that so-called investment in a company (unless you invest in a private placement or IPO) has ZERO effect on the companies carbon footprint. All that happens is somebody traded fiat (not the car) for publicly traded stock that somebody else already owned. If these so called environmental funds really wanted to reduce carbon, they would need to take the money, buy solar, wind or other such equipment, install it and pump that electricity into the grid to reduce coal consumption.

In reply to by DogOfSinope

junction Grandad Grumps Fri, 08/18/2017 - 20:34 Permalink

In terms of total efficiency, turning chemical energy (lithium battery or gasoline engine) to kinetic energy, the gasoline engine has about 40% efficiency, the Tesla lithium battery powered by electric power line energy has 20% efficiency.  Gasoline loses very little stored chemical energy being transported (due to evaporation and spillage) compared to using electric energy obtained over power lines, with losses from line voltage drop. Some Teslas weigh over 5,000 pounds due to the weight of the 1,000 pound lithium battery pack.  A gas tank and fuel line weighs under fifteen pounds even if the tank has a plastic bladder inside.  

In reply to by Grandad Grumps

DogOfSinope junction Fri, 08/18/2017 - 21:01 Permalink

Not true.Jet engines have about 50% efficiency.Piston engines have about 20% efficiency, because of their rather idiotic way of converting chemical energy to kinetic energy. Can you imagine, they are so wasteful that engineers that designed them have to even use a part of that paltry created kinetic energy to cool them down using water readiators!"Gasoline loses very little stored chemical energy being transported (due to evaporation and spillage) compared to using electric energy obtained over power lines, with losses from line voltage drop."Are you trolling or authentically an imbecile? Do you realize what kand of energy is requred to transport the MASS of fuel from Saudi Barbaria or you beleive it teleports itself to the gas station?Anyhow, energy loss in electric lines is severel orders of magnitude less energy loss in fuel transport ("Well to Wheel" cost). That's why civilised countries use electric trains, trams and trolleys.Batery + electromotor in Tesla whights marginally or no more that a piston engine + battery + alternator + cooling system + transmission + petrol tank. Bonus, you don't have to dig out, transport from Saudi Barbaria, refine, store, transport to your local "lithum station", store, and then pour 15 gallons of lithium in your car EVERY WEEK - nope, you put it once and it's fine for the next 10 years.

In reply to by junction

Iskiab DogOfSinope Fri, 08/18/2017 - 22:34 Permalink

10 years my ass, that's marketing. A battery won't last that long, if they did everyone would be driving an EV right now because batteries are the roadblock to making them an economic no brainer. It's 10 years in the 1984 world we live in where 25 year shingles last 15. A battery will last 5 on the outside, and are very expensive to replace.

Comparing carbon footprints is difficult because of all the lies about numbers. To compare them it's complicated, you need to compare:

Extraction + transportation + refining + consumption
(energy grid loss is 15 percent btw)

Then with coal plants add the cost of the coal too. Things like battery life are taken at face value but they're usually BS. People try to game the math for a social agenda which is the problem.

A great example is public transportation, where people say it's better for the environment. When you look at their assumptions it's always a full bus vs. a single occupant car. The devil's always in the details. I'm a believer in EVs and solar, but all the fake political number drive me crazy.

In reply to by DogOfSinope

not dead yet Praeda2 Sat, 08/19/2017 - 07:02 Permalink

The Chinese have said they are going to build at least 6 battery plants. If they do to batteries what they did to the solar panel industry Tesla won't be building any more factories and will be lucky to keep his only one open. Plus there are other battery manufacturers in the business besides Panasonic which supplies the cells to Tesla and has put huge money into Musks battery plant and is in charge of it's construction. Musk recently got orders from Kalifornia and South Australia for batteries to supply the grid to prevent blackouts. Wonder if he is selling them at a loss like his cars just to make a sale. South Australia is heavily dependant on solar and wind and has had quite a few state wide blackouts. The batteries they are buying from Musk are a drop in the bucket and won't prevent a blackout of more than a few minutes. Hundreds of millions for a few minutes of juice. They had some backup power but they overconfidently shut it down and are now scrambling to get some which will take years.

In reply to by Praeda2

DogOfSinope malek Fri, 08/18/2017 - 21:33 Permalink

"Moaning about transporting fuel (gasoline), but ignore electric cars carrying back and forth lithium batteries all the time, to store the electricity??"ICE car has to carry back and forth a heavy engine, transmission and gass tank, too. "If jet engines are sooo much more efficient, why doesn't anybody build jet cars??"You are a fucking retard and there's nothing I can do to help you.

In reply to by malek