Global declarations on electric vehicles, carbon life cycle and Nash equilibrium

Abstract

Universal environmental policies adopt strategies that enhance and encourage the production and usage of electric vehicles (EVs). Universal cooperation is evident in the framework of agreements or protocols so as to successfully lead countries towards the predetermined goals. The question is whether this trend can reduce global warming or CO2 emissions worldwide. By adopting game theory, this study analyses electricity carbon life cycle in leading EV countries. Results show that although the spread of EVs in Europe and the USA can mitigate carbon emissions, the production and use of electric vehicles in some countries, such as China and India, become a new source of such emissions. This reverse effect is due to the emission of greenhouse gases from electricity sources in these countries. Game theory also suggests that countries with unclean electricity sources should reconsider their plans to produce and use EVs. This study confirms that although carbon emission and global warming are global problems, regional and local policies can be substituted with a single comprehensive approach for an effective means of CO2 emission reduction.

Graphical abstract

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy (2023) 25:21–34
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02399-7
REVIEW
Global declarations onelectric vehicles, carbon life cycle andNash
equilibrium
BaherBakhtyar1 · ZhangQi1· MuhammadAzam2· SalimRashid3
Received: 2 November 2021 / Accepted: 2 September 2022 / Published online: 19 September 2022
© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
Universal environmental policies adopt strategies that enhance and encourage the production and usage of electric vehicles
(EVs). Universal cooperation is evident in the framework of agreements or protocols so as to successfully lead countries
towards the predetermined goals. The question is whether this trend can reduce global warming or CO2 emissions world-
wide. By adopting game theory, this study analyses electricity carbon life cycle in leading EV countries. Results show that
although the spread of EVs in Europe and the USA can mitigate carbon emissions, the production and use of electric vehicles
in some countries, such as China and India, become a new source of such emissions. This reverse effect is due to the emis-
sion of greenhouse gases from electricity sources in these countries. Game theory also suggests that countries with unclean
electricity sources should reconsider their plans to produce and use EVs. This study confirms that although carbon emission
and global warming are global problems, regional and local policies can be substituted with a single comprehensive approach
for an effective means of CO2 emission reduction.
Graphical abstract
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

22 B.Bakhtyar et al.
1 3
Keywords Electric vehicle· Carbon life cycle· Universal declaration· Carbon emission· Electricity generation
Introduction
The transition from petroleum as an energy source in the
transportation sector and concerns over the climate change
issues result in increasing numbers of electric vehicles
(EVs) being included in many transport plans of govern-
ments around the world (Needell etal. 2016). A year after
the Paris Agreement was enacted in 2015, governments
confirmed that the constructive spirits of multilateral coop-
eration on climate change continue at the Morocco Climate
Change Conference 2016. Eight major countries, namely
Canada, China, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, the UK and
the USA, vowed to increase the percentage of EVs in their
government fleets (IEA 2022). These countries also pledged
to encourage other countries to join the pioneers.
Decisions adopted in Morocco include the support of the
policies of the eight major countries in establishing various
incentives for the use of electric cars (Duffy and Opp 2017).
In 2017, the United Nations (UN) Climate Change Confer-
ence discussed previous agreements on climate change
despite the shock of the USA. Finally, a group of 30 coun-
tries introduced the Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA),
which targets power generation without coal in 2030 (Hurri
2020). After the USA left, China got the leading role in
most of the panels at Katowice (2018), and the number of
country members of PPCA increased to 80 countries in
this conference (Blondeel etal. 2020). In 2019 in Madrid,
although major carbon producer countries blocked the way
of any agreement, the European Union (EU) agreed on the
European Green New Deal, which aims zero emission by
2050 (Davidson 2019). Although the coronavirus disease
2019 (COVID-19) halted many climate activities in 2020,
including UN conferences that were planned to be held in
Glasgow, it was the reason to intensively decrease carbon
emissions and improve the quality of climate all over the
world, at least for a limited time (Gabbatiss 2020; Kroll etal.
2020).
The Cop26 summit was finally held in Glasgow in
November 2021, and the countries agreed on a statement
aimed at limiting global warming to 1.5°C. At the last
moment, the Indian representative opposed the term ‘phas-
ing out’ coal, and the summit replaced it with ‘phasing
down’ in the final statement (Guardian 2021).
In line with the policies adopted at the UN Climate
Change Conferences, various new policies are published in
the USA, China and European countries as the major produc-
ers and markets to achieve the intended objectives. In 2017,
the European Commission announced a new restriction on
carbon emissions for carmakers (Hoppe and Kersting 2017).
Apart from France and Britain 2045, Netherland 2035 and
Norway 2025 aim to ban gas and diesel in their countries
(Hoppe and Kersting 2017; Figueres etal. 2018). In Novem-
ber 2020, Britain pushed forward a ban on non-hybrid fossil
cars in 2030 (Guardian 2021). The European Commission
planned Electric Vehicle Quotas for the years after 2021 in
attempt to regulate automobile users on the basis of g/km
CO2 emissions (Hoppe and Kersting 2017).
The most successful US plan for EVs is called the Zero
Emission Vehicle (ZEV) programme. The ZEV programme
is a set of regulations which push carmakers to sell EVs in
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Mas-
sachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island
and Vermont (Milovanoff 2020). The main target of this pro-
gramme is to ensure EV makers, researchers and developers
by expanding the market with more than 40 zero emission
models available to the US public (Axsen etal. 2020; UCS
2017).
China introduced various programmes, such as Accelerat-
ing New Energy Vehicles Promotion (2014), Financial Sup-
port Scheme for New Energy Vehicle Promotion 2016–2020,
Double Quota Programme (Zhang and Qin 2018)—CAFC
and NEV quotas (2019) and Electric Vehicle Charging Infra-
structure Development 2015–2020 (Wang etal. 2018; Du
etal. 2018). These policies support electric car production
and market in general. According to some new rules, EVs
are eligible to exemption from traffic regulation and support
for promoting charging infrastructure (Li etal. 2018; Ji and
Huang 2018).
This work is based on a narrative approach (Fig.1), which
starts with studying the universal declarations and analys-
ing major EV countries. Figure1 shows the Key steps in
conducting the study.
In this study, the major EV countries are those that are
leading EV production and usage in the world. The authors
classified European countries as a unique leading district as
all European countries follow the same EU rule. The USA is
another leading country, despite all variations in regulations
and EV production in different states. China, as the most
populated country, has an aggressive plan towards electric
transportations. Finally, the authors look at India because
this country expected to be a leading EV country in the next
decade.
This study is based on the diffusion of CO2 during elec-
tricity generation and EV manufacturing and intends to
address one of the weaknesses of universal declarations.
Countries have different potentials and capacities, and a
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

23Global declarations onelectric vehicles, carbon life cycle andNash equilibrium
1 3
single policy for all regions and countries of the world
can create problems or has low efficiency. For example,
banning the use of coal in developed European countries
does not have the same consequences in countries such as
China and India because it seriously disrupts employment
and growth and development of the countries.
This study shifts the view of global organisations and
policymakers from ideal conditions to real situations,
ultimately leading to more realistic universal declara-
tions. This kind of view of the region’s existing resources
and economic conditions leads to the improvement of the
initial drafts of the global statements and eventually to
the advancement of the efficiency of the major policies
of the international organisations. The EV in this study is
an example of this type of public prescriptions for vari-
ous countries. This study challenges the performance of
universal declarations in the fight against air pollution and
global warming and shows why the failure of some targets
can be predicted.
EV trend andglobal carbon emission
The question is whether the trend in producing and using
electric cars can reduce carbon emission worldwide and
result in a decline in global warming. In addition to building
EVs, electricity is required for their use. Most of these cars
are charged at night and by residential electricity, which, in
turn, increases the power consumption of homes. Fischer
etal. (2019) confirmed that load peaks in residential electric-
ity usage strongly depend on the deployed charging infra-
structure and can easily increase by up to 3.6 times than the
present number (Fischer etal. 2019). For high-power charger
systems, countries need various charging profiles and can
make new grid distribution problems (Sharma and Sharma
Fig. 1 Key steps in conducting
narrative review in this study 1. Selecng review topic
2. Defining the objecves and
formulang the research queson
3. Developing the review protocol
4. Search the literature through
keywords
5. Selecng the literature
6. Analysis the content
7. Synthesising the content with the
game theory
8. Discussion on findings and
conclusion
9. Wring and reporng
3. Planning
2.
Conducting
1. Reporng
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

24 B.Bakhtyar et al.
1 3
2019). The main question here is how willing are countries
to compensate their electricity shortage. This question also
highlights that selected countries should determine which
type of electricity sources are/will develop their EVs.
Consequently, authors analyse electricity resources for
the selected areas based on their electricity carbon life cycle
calculation. Published reports about electricity sources in
some of the leading EV countries confirm that these coun-
tries burn coals to generate electricity for EV usage and even
EV production in their factories (Chen etal. 2018; Pehl etal.
2017; Oberschelp etal. 2019).
Clean EV versuspolluter EV
Recent claims suggest that electric cars do not cause any
pollution and that the zero emission goal can be achieved
by increasing the production and use of electric cars (IEA
2017). However, researchers know that only by considering
specific conditions in the production and electricity sources
of EV can countries reduce carbon emissions. Discussing
how to achieve the zero emission goal in the transporta-
tion sector or automotive industry is too early (Casals etal.
2016). No convincing evidence shows that EVs are produced
as a substitute for fossil fuel cars in the universal scale. The
fuel car market is growing (Helmerset al. 2019); the EV
market is also growing (Bloomberg 2019) in parallel but
not to replace petrol or diesel cars. Thus, the production and
deployment of EVs should be closely studied.
Several case studies confirm that the manufacturing of
EVs has between 15% and 68% higher emissions than that
of normal petrol cars (Janjic and Petrusic 2014; Archsmith
etal. 2015; OAM 2012). However, the amount of emitted
carbon is subjective and dependent on energy sources. An
EV produced in Kentucky, where 73% of electricity comes
from coal (EIA-Kentucky 2020) produces more carbon
emission than a similar EV manufactured in Alaska, with
47% gas and 27% hydroelectric power (2020) as energy
sources (EIA-Alaska 2020).
In the global scale, the scenario is the same. EV produc-
tion in France, where the major energy source is nuclear
power, is not significantly different from normal petrol car
production, compared with EV production in countries
where the main energy source is coal or heavy oil. These
countries emit a large amount of CO2 in the manufacturing
of each electric car compared with that of similarly sized
petrol cars. In general, manufacturing emission can vary up
to 30% depending on the variety of energy sources used in
different factories or countries (Edelstein 2016).
Conventional plants generate electricity using oil, coal
and natural gas. EV owners must acknowledge their share
in global warming because the CO2 production of these cars
is largely subjected to electricity sources. The life cycle
estimates of electricity generation from coal, oil/diesel and
natural gas produce 1050, 778 and 443 g CO2e/kWh, respec-
tively (Sovacool 2008). These estimates indicate that an EV
consuming electricity with natural gas as the primary source
produces less pollution than the same EV that uses electric-
ity from coal.
The EV emissions by country on the basis of the EV life
cycle are measured in g CO2e/km and determine the total
emissions for EVs, including the total emissions for EVs
and manufacture emissions; CO2 emissions from fuel com-
bustion in power plants; CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions from
fuel extraction, transportation, processing, distribution and
storage; and grid losses. Accordingly, the ranges of emission
are 70 for Iceland and Paraguay, 318 for South Africa and
370 for India (Wilson 2013). Furthermore, EVs in Paraguay
represent a clean, anti-global warming industry, whereas the
transportation facility in India produces 370 g CO2/km that
has more pollution than normal petrol cars.
For instance, a research shows that a petrol Toyota
Corolla 1.8 (made in 2012) produces 157 g CO2/km; EVs in
India, South Africa, Australia, Indonesia and China produce
370, 318, 292, 270 and 258 g CO2e/km, respectively (Stuart
2012). A research by University of Sydney (2019) confirms
that in many countries, hybrid cars have less emission than
electric and conventional cars and EVs cannot be the best
choice. For example, a small Toyota Corolla in Australia (2L
4cyl Petrol 91RON, 1 Spd CVT, 4-door 5-seat Hatch, 2WD,
Released: 2018) has 163 g CO2e/km, whereas the same size
electric BNMi3 (BMW I01 i3 i3s BEV 120Ah Pure Electric,
1 Spd Other, 4-door 4-seat Sedan, 2WD, Released: 2019)
has 130 g CO2e/km. However, a hybrid Toyota Corolla
(1.8L 4cyl Electric/Petrol 91RON, 1 Spd CVT, 4-door 5-seat
Hatch, 2WD, Released: 2018) has only 101 g CO2e/km (UoS
2019).
As previously mentioned, EV emissions depend largely
on the variety of electricity sources in different geographic
locations. The average CO2 emission per 1 kWh of generated
electricity in Canada, Japan, Australia and South Africa are
220, 505, 752 and 949 g CO2/kWh, respectively (Bakht-
yar etal. 2014). The amounts for the UK, Italy, Germany,
Greece and France are 511, 443, 556, 732 and 112 g CO2/
kWh, respectively (Bakhtyar etal. 2017).
EV market
More than 2,264,000 plug-in vehicles were sold worldwide
in 2019, which shows a 9% increase compared with that in
2018 (Irle 2020). Experts believe that market development
in the two largest economies (China and Europe) pushed EV
market higher than expected in 2018 and 2019 (Jones etal.
2020). Rationally, 2020 is excluded in our survey because
of COVID-19. By the end of 2019, the stock of light-duty
plug-in vehicles totalled approximately 7.5 million units and
more than 700,000 plug-ins were added to the world’s EV
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

25Global declarations onelectric vehicles, carbon life cycle andNash equilibrium
1 3
sales (ZER 2016). In 2018, the number of electric passenger
cars with a 63% increase passed 5,000,000 units.
The worldwide sales including battery electric vehicles
(BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) show
that China, the USA and Norway are on the top of the list
in 2019. China ranked first by selling more than 3,367,000
cars in 2019, whereas the USA sold 1,448,000 cars. Norway,
as the top European country, sold more than 384,000 new
cars which are more than those sold in Germany and France
(Irle 2020).
In 2008, China, as the most populated country, started
providing various incentives, including subsidies, cash pay-
ments, no-license driving and tax exemptions (Wang etal.
2017). After President Xi Jinping called for an ‘energy
revolution’ in 2014, the production and sale of electric cars
accelerated. As a result of government support and incen-
tives, China’s electric car sales increased by 223% in 2015
and 188% in July 2016, thus overtaking the USA (Zhaoyuan
and Ishwaran 2020).
The cumulative sales in September 2016 were approxi-
mately 570,000 EVs in Europe, 521,403 in the USA, 521,649
in China and 145,000 in Japan (Cobb 2016). Furthermore,
the order changed rapidly as China’s large market showed a
tendency towards EVs, following the government support.
In 2016, China became the largest plug-in electric
bus market in the world with a stock of 173,000 EVs
(ZER 2016). In 2017, China’s market sold 930,000 BEVs
and 280,000 PHEVs. In 2018, this amount increased to
1,750,000 BEVs and 540,000 PHEVs. By 2019, the amount
grew to 2,580,000 BEVs and 770,000 PHEVs (IEA 2020),
indicating a 277% increase in EV sales in China between
2017 and 2019, as presented in Table1.
China’s EV market is not limited to electric cars as it
continues to lead in electrifying two-/three-wheeler vehicles
and urban buses. Almost 500,000 buses are in world circula-
tion, and most of them are in China. In 2019, approximately
100,000 unit buses were delivered globally. Approximately
95% of these global deliveries belonged to China (Irle 2020).
Although the electric bus market declined between 2016 and
2020, in 2019, China registered 72,000 new E-buses more
than Europe (2000 registered E-buses) and other parts of the
world (1440 registered E-buses) (IEA 2020; Zhaoyuan and
Ishwaran 2020).
Although the USA is proud to be the revival place of
EVs, the Americans now seem to be lagging behind their
Chinese and European rivals. As exhibited at the present
time, the US market is not as rapid as the Chinese market,
and the one million EVs targeted by the US president for
2015 was not reached (Sheperdson 2016). The low prices
of diesel and petrol may be the main barrier to reach the
2020 target (De Rubens 2018).
The US EV market sold 210,000 BEVs and 190,000
BHEVs in 2015. The following year, the market traded
300,000 BEVs and 270,000 PHEVs. The amounts of BEV
and PHEV increased to 400,000 and 360,000 in 2017,
respectively. The US EV market showed a stable devel-
opment and vended 640,000 BEVs and 480,000 PHEVs
in 2018 and 880,000 BEVs and 570,000 PHEVs in 2019
(IEA 2020; Zhaoyuan and Ishwaran 2020). Figure2 indi-
cates the BEV and PHEV production trends in China, the
USA and Europe between 2014 and 2019.
As presented in Figure2, Europe has an increasing
number of EV fleets in BEVs and PHEVs. The European
market confirms that the EV market has been seriously
accelerating since 2014 when Europeans were able to deal
130,000 BEVs and 70,000 BHEVs. The European market
passed the US market in 2016 in BEV and BHEV produc-
tion for the first time (IEA 2020). Although a tight com-
petition exists in BHEV, China seems unattainable in the
BEV market. In 2019, China sold more BEVs than Europe
and the USA when they had an equal share in 2015.
In recent years, other competitors have also entered the
EV market, such as India. India has an ambitious policy
that aims to be a 100% EV country by 2030 (BBC 2019).
It started using 530 EVs in 2009. This number increased
to 4,350 in 2015. The National Electric Mobility Mission
2020 is helping India emerge as a leader in the affordable
and efficient two-wheeler and four-wheeler EV market in
the world by 2020 (Dixit 2020; Sarode and Sarode 2020).
Similar to China, India has an aggressive approach to the
EV market (Mohanty and Kotak 2017). The high popula-
tion and large market sizes in both countries have moti-
vated EV companies to help in advancing their respective
markets.
Table 1 BEV and PHEV sales
in major EV districts (IEA
2020)
The numbers denote thousand vehicles
Major dealers 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
BEV PHEV BEV PHEV BEV PHEV BEV PHEV BEV PHEV BEV PHEV
China 60 30 210 90 460 170 930 280 1750 540 2580 770
USA 140 150 210 190 300 270 400 360 640 480 880 570
Europe 130 70 210 170 300 290 430 430 630 610 970 780
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

26 B.Bakhtyar et al.
1 3
Electricity carbon life cycle inmajor EV countries
One of the most practical and most comfortable ways to
enter the EV market is finding the average CO2 emission
per kWh of generated electricity in a particular country. The
electricity carbon life cycle shows the amount of carbon
dioxide released for each kWh of electricity.
Sovacool (2008) collected the data of carbon dioxide
ranges, as shown in Table2. The table indicates the esti-
mated (g CO2e/kWh) for common energy sources, including
fossil or renewable energy sources.
To find the average CO2 emission per kWh of generated
electricity, researchers need to have a primary energy use
for electricity generation in selected countries and the total
electricity usage for selected areas from secondary data then
calculate produced CO2 based on primary electricity shares
for each country or region.
The USA attempted to change the primary energy source
from coal to gas between 2010 and 2017. During this period,
the country successfully reduced electricity emissions (EESI
2018; Martin and Saikawa 2017). However, a wide gap still
exists among the electricity emissions in different states.
For instance, in 2020, the released data by Alternative Fuels
Data Center (AFDC) confirm that the CO2 emitted from
electric cars has decreased to 1922 in California, decreased
to 972 in Idaho and decreased to 8106 pounds of CO2 equiv-
alent (Peters 2020) in Kentucky, making the use of electric
cars in the USA more reasonable than before. Figure3 shows
a comparison between EV pollution in national and selected
US states between 2016 and 2020 (AFDC 2020). Figure3
illustrates EV pollution in selected American states and the
US average.
Therefore, although the primary sources of energy in dif-
ferent American states vary, the use of EVs in the entire
country is still rational and increasing.
‘Fight against Pollution’ is the name of the anti-emission
plan of China that was announced by President Xi Jinping
in 2014. According to the energy revolution, China planned
to move towards clean energy. China, as the world’s largest
energy-consuming nation, also announced a reactor plan to
accelerate the substitution of low-emission energy (Ahlers
and Shen 2018). In addition, China set a plan for cleaning air
by giving subsidies to farmers, stopping them from burning
straws and relocating polluter factories (Wood 2019).
An estimation shows that China’s economy is growing
rapidly with an average of 4.5% annually, but because of
Fig. 2 BEV and PHEV mar-
kets in leading EV countries
(2014–2019)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
BEVPHEVBEV PHEV BEVPHEVBEV PHEV BEVPHEVBEV PHEV
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
ChinaThe USA Europe
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

27Global declarations onelectric vehicles, carbon life cycle andNash equilibrium
1 3
Table 2 Carbon life cycle
estimates for selected electricity
resources (Sovacool 2008)
Technology Capacity/configuration/fuel Estimate
(g CO2e/
kWh)
Wind 2.5MW, offshore 9
Hydroelectric 3.1MW, reservoir 10
Wind 1.5MW, onshore 10
Biogas Anaerobic digestion 11
Hydroelectric 300kW, run-of-river 13
Solar thermal 80MW, parabolic trough 13
Biomass Forest wood co-combustion with hard coal 14
Biomass Forest wood steam turbine 22
Biomass Short rotation forestry co-combustion with hard coal 23
Biomass Forest wood reciprocating engine 27
Biomass Waste wood steam turbine 31
Solar PV Polycrystalline silicone 32
Biomass Short rotation forestry steam turbine 35
Geothermal 80MW, hot dry rock 38
Biomass Short rotation forestry reciprocating engine 41
Nuclear Various reactor types 66
Natural gas Various combined cycle turbines 443
Fuel cell Hydrogen from gas reforming 664
Diesel Various generator and turbine types 778
Heavy oil Various generator and turbine types 778
Coal Various generator types with scrubbing 960
Coal Various generator types without scrubbing 1050
Fig. 3 Average EV pollution
(2016–2020)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Average
Naonal level
2020
California IdahoDelware Hawaii Kentucky
2016 2020
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

28 B.Bakhtyar et al.
1 3
the combined effects of structural shifts in the economy
and strong energy efficiency policies, China’s demand for
energy grows only 1% annually (IEA-China 2017). China’s
growing energy needs are answered by renewable energies
and hydro. However, all these plans and strategies do not
mean that China is going to give up burning coal (Qi etal.
2016). Although the share of coal is decreasing in China’s
total energy, the usage of coal is increasing from 945 GW in
2016 to 1096 GW in 2035 (IEA-China 2017). Anticipation
of coal usage in China’s energy sector from 2000 to 2040 is
indicated in Fig.4.
China is the first producer of solar power in the world,
although the share of generated electricity in the total elec-
tricity is less than 8%, making China the largest carbon emit-
ter in the world (Gallagher etal. 2019; Xing etal. 2020).
Moreover, China’s energy sector attempts to shift from burn-
ing coals to clean renewable energies, such as solar. China’s
solar plan supports home solar panels and massive solar
farms, such as the largest world solar farm in the Tengger
Desert (Edmond 2019). However, a new paper published by
Nature Energy confirms that countries burn a high amount
of coal, even blocking the sun’s ray, which can cause an
inefficient harvesting of solar energy (Sweerts etal. 2019).
In 2020, China transformed from a country that leans on
coal to semi-coal. A positive growth in renewable energy
use promoted the carbon emission in China compared with
that in the last decade. China, a country that depended
on coal, became a semi-coal user in 2020. In the current
situation, hydropower has a prominent role in the carbon
intensification in the country. Accordingly, states that
can generate electricity by water, such as Hubei, Qing-
hai, Sichuan and Yunnan, can reduce emission until 600 g
CO2/kWh (Gallagher etal. 2019; Xing etal. 2020). Most
states are still producing carbon emission higher than 850
g CO2/kWh. At the national level, carbon intensities vary
between 861 and 821 g CO2/kWh (Xing etal. 2020). Con-
sidering the carbon life cycle for petrol and diesel, regular
fuel cars in most Chinese provinces make less pollution
than EVs. Producing an electric car in China can cause
more pollution than in Western countries.
India, as the second most populated country in the
world, has a key role in the future energy market. The
Indian government has taken many positive steps towards
improving public access to electricity for the Indian peo-
ple. India has also implemented major steps in develop-
ing renewable energies, especially solar energy. Accord-
ing to India Power Ministry, the country generated 372K
MW electricity in 2020, which is a combination of 53.7%
coal, 1.7% lignite, 6.7% gas, 0.1 diesel, 12.3% hydro, 1.8%
nuclear and 23.7% renewable energy sources (MoP-India
2020). Attention to the Indian population and the country
target makes India worth considering as one of the future
leaders of EVs. Although India mainly focuses on two-
and three-wheeler EVs, coal remains the major electricity
source for electricity in India (Tong etal. 2018). Based
on our calculation, CO2 emission from electricity genera-
tion in India is almost 625 g CO2/kWh in 2020, making
EV usage and production inept. India pledged to reduce
carbon emission up to 33% until 2030 (Timpereley 2020).
It will happen by increasing the share of solar and nuclear
electricity to 40% of the total country electricity (Kennedy
2015). That is, 1 kWh electricity less than 410 gCO2 is
expected to be produced in 2030.
Fig. 4 Coal usage in China’s
energy sector from 2000 to
2040 IEA-China 2017)
250
600
930
1020 1029 1065 1096 1090
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2000 2010 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
GW
Years
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

29Global declarations onelectric vehicles, carbon life cycle andNash equilibrium
1 3
Game theory approach
Authors use game theory as an analytical tool to interpret
current EV situations and discuss the insights and our sug-
gestions. The economic application of game theory can
be a valuable tool to aid in the fundamental analysis of
EV industry, market and any strategic interaction between
significant producers or markets.
Game theory, which analyses the welfare-maximising
mechanism, can help us better understand how the other
incentives can affect social optimism targets. Authors actu-
ally employ game theory to check the above argument. By
implementing this game and analysing Nash equilibrium,
researchers aim to examine the possibilities of countries’
decision. Learning the countries’ preferences in a tight
economic and competitive situation is necessary. The vot-
ing game (Maksymilian 2017) environment is set up, and
the welfare-maximising mechanism is designed to analyse
optimal social strategy. The Nash equilibrium indicates
that the countries have incentives to use the electricity
sources that can provide the lowest electricity cost in pro-
duction and consumption in EVs.
There are n risk-neutral countries (players) in the world,
numbered
1, 2, …,n.
Let N represent this world, so that
Authors assume that each country is rational and tar-
gets to maximise its utility. The countries have common
knowledge of the game and choose their strategies simul-
taneously. The strategies in this game structure refer to a
matrix of two decisions – using resources (clean/unclean
electricity sources) for producing EVs and using EVs.
Let
S
=
{
s
1,
s
2,…,
s
n}
be a set of strategy where
Let
Ω={G,W}
be a set of electricity sources. G refers
to clean electricity sources and W refers to unclean elec-
tricity sources.
sip
is country
i
’s strategy/decision of using
electricity sources in producing EVs.
sic
is country
i
’s
strategy/decision of using electricity sources in using EVs.
Therefore
si=(G,W)
means country
i
prefers clean elec-
tricity sources in production EVs and unclean electricity
sources in using EVs.
A country
i
assigns a value
vi
on EV market and it
remains as public information. Note that a range of indus-
try index and Macroeconomic data can be used to estimate
the values. To simplify the analysis, assumes that
vi
is pub-
lic information. The value is economy benefit generated by
engaging in EV market via production and/or consumption
for each country. Thus,
(1)
N={1, …,n}where |N|
≥
2.
(2)
si
=
{
s
ip
,s
ic}
,∀i∈N
.
Let
Gi(
v
i
,
v
−i
,G
)
be a country
i
’s total electricity cost
function of using EVs when
i
prefers clean electricity
sources, given other countries’ benefits of engaging in EV
markets. Let
Wj(
v
j,
v
−j
,W
)
be a country
j
’s total electricity
cost function of using EVs when
j
prefers unclean electricity
sources, given other countries’ benefits of engaging in EV
markets. The total electricity cost function for country
i
in
using EVs is
where
Let
ti(
v
i
,v
−i
,S
p)
be the
i
’s total electricity cost function in
producing EVs with the property
where
Sp
=
{
s1
p
,s2
p
,……s
np}
.
The electricity carbon life cycle utility function of each
country is
where
The participation constraint of each country ensures that
they are better off playing in the EV market. That is,
Each country targets to maximise its electricity carbon
life cycle utility by choosing strategy
S
. In other words, each
country targets to minimise its total electricity carbon life
cycle cost by choosing which electricity sources to use in
production and consumption. That is,
subject to
(3)
vi
∈
[
0, v
]
where i∈N
.
(4)
Ei(
v
i,
v
−i
,s
ic)
=kG
i(
v
i,
v
−i
,s
ic)
+𝛿W
i(
v
i,
v
−i
,s
ic),
(5)
{
k=1 and 𝛽=0, if sic =G,∀i∈N
k=0 and 𝛽=1, if s
ic
=W,∀i∈N
.
(6)
𝜕
ti
(
vi,v
−i,S
)
𝜕v
i
>
0
(7)
𝜕
ti
(
vi,v
−i,S
)
𝜕v
−i
<
0
(8)
Ui(
v
i,
v
−i
,S
)
=v
i
−t
i(
v
i,
v
−i
,S
p)
−E
i(
v
i,
v
−i
,s
ic),
∀
i∈N;∀−i∈N;v
i
∈
[
0, v
]
;s
i
∈S
.
(9)
Ui(
v
i,
v
−i
,S
)
>0, ∀i∈N;∀−i∈N;v
i
∈
[
0, v
]
;s
i
∈S
.
(10)
min t
i
(v
i,
v
−i
,S
p
)+E
i
(v
i,
v
−i
,s
ic
)
where ∀i∈N;∀−i∈N;vi∈[0, v];si∈S
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

30 B.Bakhtyar et al.
1 3
The Nash equilibrium for country
i
is (G, G) if
The electricity carbon life cycle utility-maximising
analysis indicates two behaviours. Firstly, all countries
prefer the electricity sources that can offer the lowest total
electricity cost in production and consumption of EVs.
Secondly, the countries with comparative lower electricity
cost (assigns higher value) in EV production will reduce
the total electricity cost of the countries with compara-
tively higher electricity cost in EV production. Alterna-
tively, it indicates a possibility that the countries with
unclean electricity sources have cost leadership in the EV
market and become the large EV exporters.
The social optimisation (environmental perspective)
aims to maximise all countries’ utility and reduce CO2
emission worldwide. In other words, social optimisation
targets to minimise the total electricity cost of production
and use EVs, subject to the condition that this EV mar-
ket project can reduce global warming or CO2 emission
worldwide. That is,
subject to
where
g(
v
i,
v
−i,
S
)
is the CO2 emission function.
To achieve the reduced CO2 emission target in this
social optimisation problem, clean electricity sources are
required in the production and consumption of EVs used
by all the players in this game. The players (countries) are
suggested to improve the capacity of generating electric-
ity with clean sources, that is, to reduce
Gi
for any level of
sources, so that
Gi(
v
i,
v
−i
,G
)
<W
i(
v
i,
v
−i
,W
)
. The countries
with unclean electricity sources in production and con-
sumption EVs can revise their plan to increase the incen-
tive of using clean electricity sources in the first instance.
The welfare-maximising mechanism finds that the indi-
vidual utility-maximising behaviour deviates from social
(11)
Ui(
v
i,
v
−i
,S
)
>
0
(12)
𝜕
ti
(
vi,v
−i,S
)
𝜕v
i
>
0
(13)
𝜕
ti
(
vi,v
−i,S
)
𝜕v
−i
<
0.
(14)
t
i
(v
i,
v
−i
,G,s
−ip
)<t
i
(v
i,
v
−i
,W,s
−ip
)
and
G
i(
v
i,
v
−i,
G
)<
W
i(
v
i,
v
−i,
W
).
(15)
min ∑
i∈N
ti
(
vi,v−i,Sp
)
−
∑
i∈N
Ei
(
vi,v−i,sic
),
(16)
𝜕
g
(
vi,v−i,S
)
𝜕v
i
≤o,∀i∈N
,
optimisation. Countries using unclean electricity sources
with a lower total electricity generating cost may have cost
leadership in the EV market and become the large export-
ers. Moving the Nash equilibrium to social optimisation,
the authors suggest the universal agreement of minimising
the number of countries using unclean electricity sources
in the production and consumption of EVs. The purpose
of this proposal is not to exempt or demotivate some coun-
tries engaged in the EV market. Instead, it encourages the
countries to invest in infrastructures so as to improve the
capacity of electricity generating using clean sources.
Welfare maximisation can then be achieved dynamically.
Discussion
Considering that the electricity market is not based on pro-
duction cost, if electricity is generated from renewable and
clean sources, then it becomes more expensive than usual.
People will naturally lose interest in EVs, considering that
fossil fuel is a cheap energy resource. This condition holds
true, given that having cheap clean energy in many countries
remains impossible. In addition, the instabilities of oil prices
and oil supply are other reasons countries are generally inter-
ested in accelerating the EV market. The instabilities in the
Middle East and Ukraine make these countries be concerned
about the future of the oil and gas market (EFA 2022). All
universal declarations and agendas urge countries to reduce
carbon emissions and be involved in the fight against global
warming (Jakob 2020). The countries of some of the largest
energy producers are less interested in following universal
coal restriction rules.
China, the USA and India are the top coal producers in
the world (Dillinger 2020). Coincidently, China and the USA
have the largest EV markets in the world (IEA 2020), and
India has major future plans (BBC 2019) for EVs. Fluctua-
tions in oil prices and expensive renewable energies impair
many countries. Countries that do not have cheap energy
sources are willing to accept, discuss and implement clean
energy, whereas those with access to unlimited cheap coal
or oil are not interested in clean energy. They do not see
any economic advantage in renewable energy. They have
considerable fuel resources and, clearly, they cannot simply
dispose of all coal sources, close the mines or stop oil refin-
ing because universal declarations do not allow them to use
these sources.
Based on the CO2 emission per kWh mentioned in the
literature and the EV production in major electric car mar-
kets, authors can certainly say that European EVs are not air
polluters. In Europe, EVs can help with anti-global warming
initiatives if they are used instead of petrol cars.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

31Global declarations onelectric vehicles, carbon life cycle andNash equilibrium
1 3
In this situation, world organisations must observe
whether China and India will continue setting the ambitious
target as before or will be involved in an economic competi-
tion. Researchers should consider that China, as the owner of
the largest coal mines in the world, has access to the cheap-
est sources of energy, which always motivates their use in
power plants (Fan etal. 2020). Similar to countries in the
EU, China, India and the USA, other countries have major
future plans for developing EVs. Many of these countries
have already set different types of incentives to support the
demand and supply of electric cars (Gong etal. 2020). Most
of these countries still generate high emission electricity,
which are the main sources of their EVs. Generating elec-
tricity in India, Australia, South Africa, Greece, Malaysia
and other countries producing high amounts of CO2 and
involving each of these countries in EV development will
increase universal carbon emissions more than before (Xue
etal. 2021).
Accordingly, if a country or state is generating electric-
ity with an average pollution less than petrol or diesel (less
than 700 g CO2/kWh), then we should encourage governors
to develop EV usage; otherwise, the main policy should
focus on decreasing electricity CO2 emission. For produc-
ing EVs in factory, countries must have low electricity emis-
sion because producing electric cars causes more pollution
than producing other cars (approximately 600 g CO2/kWh).
Considering electricity drop in grid connection can reduce
this amount.
This study highlights the issues that the level of carbon
dioxide production of electric cars is not limited to daily
electricity consumption and that it is not the same in all part
of the world. In the calculations and policies, extra produced
carbon in EV production should be considered, too. After
all, the goal of universal declarations and policies should be
reducing the level of carbon dioxide and not increasing the
production of electric cars. In this regard, paying attention to
the resources of the generated electricity in each country and
region can be the main discussion of any declaration’s draft.
Nash equilibrium in game theory confirms a possibil-
ity that the countries using unclean electricity sources with
a lower total electricity generating cost have cost leader-
ship in the EV market and become the large exporters. The
application of game theory in this study also shows that the
significant EV producers and markets have incentives to use
the electricity sources that can provide the lowest electricity
cost in production.
Accordingly, in universal declarations, the priority must
be given to primary electricity sources. Developing EV pro-
duction with the current primary sources in China, India
and some developing countries generates more pollution
than current fossil cars. Although carbon emission and
global warming are universal problems, the regional poli-
cies following by local approaches, in the case of EVs, can
sometimes be more efficient than universal policies. This
study proposes that the first target of universal declarations
and agreements must aim for the infrastructure of each coun-
try instead of sectorial planning. That is, a country, which
is still generating electricity with pollution higher than 550
g CO2/kWh, should prioritise the maintenance of energy
sources rather than the production and development of EVs.
In answer to the question of this study; naturally, all
countries in the world are interested in a better place to live
in, and governments agree that a better environment can be
realised by producing fewer pollutants. However, fluctu-
ating oil prices owing to political tensions and economic
competitions on the one hand and the high price of renew-
able energies on the other hand have made it very difficult
for countries to entirely and suddenly stop consuming coal,
which is too cheap for them. Moreover, many jobs and local
economic growth and development in these countries con-
tinue to depend on coal mining. The non-production of envi-
ronmental pollutants is not related to EV production but the
change of economic infrastructure and generation of clean
energy.
A notable limitation of this study is the carbon emission
data in power plants. Usually, these figures are an estimation
based on energy usage and capacities in each country. By
contrast, in the pick of electricity usage, the emitted CO2
is much higher than the given figures. Factors such as lack
of wind or reduced sunny days in European countries also
force some of these countries to use fossil fuels temporarily
to address electricity shortages.
Another limitation of this study is the lack of accurate sta-
tistics on carbon emissions during EV production. Despite
the possibility of calculating this figure, owing to the highly
competitive condition of the car production market, the exact
carbon figures are not published by the manufacturers. The
publishing of these statistics can be considered a negative
point by manufacturers and can even disrupt the produc-
tion of electric cars. Therefore, the statistics provided in
this regard are not accurate statistics by automakers but a
variety of estimates provided by researchers. In many cases,
the material of the engine, body and battery are secrets of
the manufacturers, which makes even the estimates impos-
sible. In addition, the rapid change in the industry in terms
of engine and body and the rapid evolution of batteries have
made accessing accurate data on pollutants in the EV pro-
duction challenging.
Electric cars are one of the main components of reducing
carbon emissions. The policies of international organisations
to reduce emissions through the development of electric
vehicles globally have shown their effectiveness in European
countries. As the world’s largest economies with a signifi-
cant share in the production of pollutants, China and India
have written their plans and announced them to the world.
These countries and even other developing countries only
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

32 B.Bakhtyar et al.
1 3
need time to invest in producing low-emission energy to join
the fight to reduce carbon emissions and global warming.
Countries must accelerate EV production with low-emission
energy production to help the universal movement in this
battle.
Conclusion
Western countries, along with China and India, have started
comprehensive and codified programmes for the develop-
ment of EVs. However, the study indicates that some coun-
tries producing EVs have not yet reached the ideal limit for
low-carbon electricity generation.
The proposed regulation suggests countries not to be
involved in the economic competition in the EV sector as
they must prioritise electricity as the largest source of emis-
sions. Otherwise, the current approach by universal dec-
larations is shunting investments towards final production
instead of investing in infrastructures, such as renewable
energy or clean resources for power plants.
In some cases, developing EV production with the cur-
rent primary sources in China, India and some developing
countries generates more pollution than current fossil cars.
Although carbon emission and global warming are uni-
versal problems, the regional policies following by local
approaches, in the case of EVs, can sometimes be more effi-
cient than universal policies. This study proposes that the
first target of universal declarations and agreements must
aim for the infrastructure of each country instead of sectorial
planning. That is, a country, which is still generating elec-
tricity with pollution higher than 550 g CO2/kWh, should
prioritise the maintenance of energy sources rather than the
production and development of EVs.
Funding The authors have not disclosed any funding.
Data availability Enquiries about data availability should be directed
to the authors.
Declarations
Competing interests The authors have not disclosed any competing
interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
AFDC (2020) Emissions from hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles.
Available via DIALOG. http:// www. afdc. energy. gov/ vehic les/
elect ric_ emiss ions. php
Ahlers AL, Shen Y (2018) Breathe easy? Local nuances of authori-
tarian environmentalism in China’s battle against air pollution.
China Q 234:299–319
Archsmith J, Kendall A, Rapson D (2015) From Cradle to Junkyard:
assessing the life cycle greenhouse gas benefits of electric vehi-
cles. Res Transp Econ 52:72–90
Axsen J, Plötz P, Wolinetz M (2020) Crafting strong, integrated pol-
icy mixes for deep CO2 mitigation in road transport. Nat Climate
Chang 10:809–818. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41558- 020- 0877-y
Bakhtyar B, Ibrahim Y, Alghoul MA, Aziz N, Fudholi A, Sopian K
(2014) Estimating the CO2 abatement cost: Substitute price of
avoiding CO2 emission (SPAE) by renewable energy׳ s feed in
tariff in selected countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
35:205–210
Bakhtyar B, Fudholi A, Kabir H, Azam M, Lim CH, Chan NW, Sop-
ian K (2017) Review of CO2 price in Europe using feed-in tariff
rates. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 69:685–691
BBC (2019) India turns to electric vehicles to beat pollution. Avail-
able via DIALOG. https:// www. bbc. co. uk/ news/ world- asia-
india- 48961 525
Blondeel M, Van de Graaf T, Haesebrouck T (2020) Moving beyond
coal: exploring and explaining the powering past coal alliance.
Energy Res Soc Sci 59:101304
Bloomberg (2019) Electrics to take 57% of global passenger car
sales, 81% of municipal bus sales by 2040. Available via
DIALOG. https:// www. green carco ngress. com/ 2019/ 05/ 20190
516- bnef. html
Casals LC, Martinez-Laserna E, García BA, Nieto N (2016) Sustain-
ability analysis of the electric vehicle use in Europe for CO2 emis-
sions reduction. J Clean Prod 127:425–437
Chen X, Zhang H, Xu Z, Nielsen CP, McElroy MB, Lv J (2018)
Impacts of fleet types and charging modes for electric vehicles on
emissions under different penetrations of wind power. Nat Energy
3:413–421. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41560- 018- 0133-0
Cobb J (2016) Global plug-in car sales cruise past 1.5 million. 22 Jun
2016. http:// www . hybri dcars. com/ global- plug- in- car- sales- cruise-
past-1- 5- milli on
Davidson J (2019) COP25 ends with a whimper: A few takeaways.
Eco Watch. Available via DIALOG. https:// www. ecowa tch. com/
cop25- resul ts- failu re- 26416 06525. html? rebel ltitem= 2# rebel ltite
m2
De Rubens GZ, Noel L, Sovacool BK (2018) Dismissive and deceptive
car dealerships create barriers to electric vehicle adoption at the
point of sale. Nat Energy 3(6):501–507
Dillinger J (2020) The top 10 coal producers worldwide. World Fact.
https:// www. world atlas. com/ artic les/ the- top- 10- coal- produ cers-
world wide. html#: ~: text= The% 2010% 20Lea ding% 20Cou ntries%
20in,75% 25% 20of% 20wor ldwide% 20coal% 20con sumpt ion.
Dixit A (2020) India’s EV policy. IAEE Energy Forum
Du H, Liu D, Sovacool BK, Wang Y, Ma S, Li RYM (2018) Who buys
new energy vehicles in China? Assessing social-psychological
predictors of purchasing awareness, intention, and policy. Transp
Res f: Traffic Psychol Behav 58:56–69
Duffy R, Opp S (2017) Powering past coal alliance: 20 countries sign
up to phase out coal power by 2030. ABC Australia. Available
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

33Global declarations onelectric vehicles, carbon life cycle andNash equilibrium
1 3
via DIALOG. https:// www. abc. net. au/ news/ 2017- 11- 17/ 20- count
ries- have- signed- up- to- phase- out- coal- power- by- 2030/ 91610 56
Edmond C (2019) China's lead in the global solar race -
at a glance. World Economic Forum. Available via
DIALOG. https:// www. wefor um. org/ agenda/ 2019/ 06/
chinas- lead- in- the- global- solar- race- at-a- glance
Edelstein S (2016) Once again: Electric cars have lower lifetime carbon
emissions. Green car report, 10 February 2016. http:// www. green
carre ports. com/ news/ 11023 07_ once- again- elect ric- cars- have-
lower- lifet imeca rbon- emiss ions
Economy Forecast Agency (EFA) (2022) Oil price forecast
2023–2025. https:// longf oreca st. com/ oil- price- today- forec
ast- 2017- 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- brent- wti
Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) (2018) US leads in
greenhouse gas reductions, but some states are falling behind.
Available via DIALOG. https:// www. eesi. org/ artic les/ view/u.
s.- leads- in- green house- gas- reduc tions- but- some- states- are- falli
ng- behind
Fan JL, Shen S, Xu M, Yang Y, Yang L, Zhang X (2020) Cost-benefit
comparison of carbon capture, utilization, and storage retrofitted
to different thermal power plants in China based on real options
approach. Adv Clim Chang Res 11(4):415–428
Figueres C, Quere CL, Mahindra A, Bate O, Whiteman G, Peters G,
Guan D (2018) Emissions are still rising: ramp up the cuts. Nature
564:27–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ d41586- 018- 07585-6
Fischer D, Harbrecht A, Surmann A, McKenna R (2019) electric vehi-
cles' impacts on residential electric local profiles: a stochastic
modeling approach considering socio-economic, behavioral and
spatial factors. Appl Energy 644–658
Gabbatiss J (2020) IEA: ‘Green’ coronavirus recovery would keep
global emissions below 2019 peak. Carbon Brief. Available via
DIALOG. https:// www. carbo nbrief. org/ iea- green- coron avirus-
recov ery- would- keep- global- emiss ions- below- 2019- peak
Gallagher KS, Zhang F, Orvis R, Rissman J, Liu Q (2019) Assessing
the Policy gaps for achieving China’s climate targets in the Paris
Agreement. Nat Commun 10(1):1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/
s41467- 019- 09159-0
Gaurdian (2021) Cop26 ends in climate agreement despite India water-
ing down coal resolution. Available via DIALOG. https:// www.
thegu ardian. com/ envir onment/ 2021/ nov/ 13/ cop26- count ries-
agree- to- accept- imper fect- clima te- agree ment
Gong S, Ardeshiri A, Rashidi TH (2020) Impact of government incen-
tives on the market penetration of electric vehicles in Australia.
Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 83:102353
Helmers E, Leitão J, Tietge U, Butler T (2019) CO2 -equivalent emis-
sions from European passenger vehicles in the years 1995–2015
based on real-world use: assessing the climate benefit of the Euro-
pean “diesel boom.” Atmos Environ 198:122–132
Hoppe T, Kersting S (2017) EU gives carmakers electric shock. Han-
delsblatt. Available via DIALOG. https:// www. hande lsbla tt. com/
today/ compa nies/ bindi ng- quotas- eu- gives- carma kers- elect ric-
shock/ 23571 598. html? ticket= ST- 12740 092- 3OpdP PezvD fgCo3
kJCJF- ap6
Hurri K (2020) Rethinking climate leadership: Annex I countries’
expectations for China’s leadership role in the post-Paris UN cli-
mate negotiations. Environ Dev 35:100544
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2020) Global EV Outlook 2020.
Available via DIALOG. https:// www. iea. org/ repor ts/ global- ev-
outlo ok- 2020
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2022) Electric vehicles. Available
via DIALOG. https:// www. iea. org/ repor ts/ elect ric- vehic les
International Energy Agency (2017) World energy outlook 2017; China
(IEA, 2017). Available via DIALOG. https:// www. iea. org/ repor
ts/ world- energy- outlo ok- 2017- china
Irle R (2020) Global BEV & PHEV sales for 2019. EV-volumes. Avail-
able via DIALOG. https:// www. ev- volum es. com/
Jakob M, Steckel JC, Jotzo F, Sovacool BK, Cornelsen L, Chandra R,
Edenhofer O, Holden C, Löschel A, Nace T, Robins N, Suedekum
J, Urpelainen J (2020) The future of coal in a carbon-constrained
climate. Nat Climate Chang 10:704–707. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/
s41558- 020- 0866-1
Janjić A, Petrušić Z (2014) Optimal number of electric vehicles in
electricity distribution company. IEEE Conf. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1109/ ENERG YCON. 2014. 68506 05
Ji Z, Huang X (2018) Plug-in electric vehicle charging infrastructure
deployment of China towards 2020: policies, methodologies, and
challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 90:710–727
Jones B, Elliott RJ, Nguyen-Tien V (2020) The EV revolution: the road
ahead for critical raw materials demand. Appl Energy 280:115072
Kennedy C (2015) Key threshold for electricity emissions. Nat Clim
Chang 5(3):179–181
Kroll JH, Heald CL, Cappa CD (2020) The complex chemical effects
of COVID-19 shutdowns on air quality. Nat Chem 12:777–779.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41557- 020- 0535-z
Li W, Yang M, Sandu S (2018) Electric vehicles in China: a review of
current policies. Energy Environ 29(8):1512–1524
Maksymilian K (2017) Efficient voting with penalties. Games Econ
Behav 104:468–485. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. geb. 2017. 05. 006
Martin G, Saikawa E (2017) Effectiveness of state climate and energy
policies in reducing power-sector CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang
7(12):912–919
Milovanoff A, Posen ID, MacLean HL (2020) Electrification of
light-duty vehicle fleet alone will not meet mitigation tar-
gets. Nat Clim Chang 10:1102–1107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/
s41558- 020- 00921-7
Mohanty P, Kotak Y (2017) Electric vehicles: Status and roadmap
for India. Electric Vehicles: Prospects and Challenges, 387–414
MOP (2020) Ministry of Power India: Power sector at a glance.
Available via DIALOG. https:// power min. nic. in/ en/ conte nt/
power- sector- glance- all- india
Needell Z, McNerney J, Chang M, Trancik JE (2016) Potential for
widespread electrification of personal vehicle travel in the United
States. Nat Energy 1(9):1–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nener gy.
2016. 112
Oam L S (2012) Reducing emissions associated with electric vehicles.
Sustainable Automotive Technologies, pp 169–175
Oberschelp C, Pfister S, Raptis CE, Hellweg S (2019) Global emission
hotspots of coal power generation. Nature Sustain 2(2):113–121.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41893- 019- 0221-6
Pehl M, Arvesen A, Humpenöder F, Popp A, Hertwich EG, Luderer G
(2017) Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power
systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated
energy modelling. Nat Energy 2(12):939–945. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1038/ s41560- 017- 0032-9
Peters GP, Andrew RM, Canadell JG, Friedlingstein P, Jackson RB,
Korsbakken JI, Le Quéré C, Peregon A (2020) Carbon dioxide
emissions continue to grow amidst slowly emerging climate
policies. Nat Clim Chang 10(1):3–6. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/
s41558- 019- 0659-6
Qi Y, Stern N, Wu T, Lu J, Green F (2016) China’s post-coal growth.
Nat Geosci 9(8):564–566
Reuters: Business & Financial News (2014) China's president calls
for energy revolution. Available via DIALOG. https:// uk. reute rs.
com/ artic le/ china- energy/ chinas- presi dent- calls- for- energy- revol
ution- idUKL 4N0OU 2ZB20 140613
Sarode NM, Sarode MT (2020) Current scenario of electric mobility
in India and its challenges. Int J Eng Res Technol 9(8):510–515
Sharma A, Sharma S (2019) Review of power electronics in vehicle-
to-grid systems. J Energy Storage 21:337–361
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

34 B.Bakhtyar et al.
1 3
Shepardson D (2016) US may not hit one million electric vehicles
until 2020: official. Reuters: Business & Financial News. Avail-
able via DIALOG. https:// www. reute rs. c om/ artic le/ us- autos- elect
ric- moniz- idUSK CN0UZ 2MK
Sovacool BK (2008) Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from
nuclear power: a critical survey. Energy Policy 36(8):2950–2963
Stuart S (2012) Cars fuel consumption. Available via DIALOG. http://
www. carsc onsum ption. com
Sweerts B, Pfenninger S, Yang S, Folini D, Van der Zwaan B, Wild M
(2019) Estimation of losses in solar energy production from air
pollution in China since 1960 using surface radiation data. Nat
Energy 4(8):657–663
Timperley J (2020) The carbon brief profile: India. Available via
DIALOG. https:// www. carbo nbrief. org/ the- carbon- brief- profi
le- india
Tong D, Zhang Q, Davis SJ, Liu F, Zheng B, Geng G, Xue T, Li M,
Hong C, Lu Z, Streets DG, Guan D, He K (2018) Targeted emis-
sion reductions from global super-polluting power plant units. Nat
Sustain 1(1):59–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41893- 017- 0003-y
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (2017) What is ZEV? Avail-
able via DIALOG. https:// www. ucsusa. org/ resou rces/ what- zev#:
~: text= The% 20pro gram's% 20obj ective% 20is% 20to,% E2% 80%
9Czero% 20emi ssion% 20veh icle% E2% 80% 9D)
University of Sydney (UoS) (2019) How Green are Electric Vehicles?
Available via DIALOG. https:// www. sydney. edu. au/ busin ess/
news- and- events/ news/ 2019/ 05/ 06/ how- green- are- elect ric- vehic
les-. html
US Department of Energy: Alternative Fuel Data Centre (2020) Emis-
sions from hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles. Available via
DIALOG. https:// afdc. energy. gov/ vehic les/ elect ric_ emiss ions.
html
US Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2020a) Alaska; End-
use energy consumption. Available via DIALOG. https:// www.
eia. gov/ beta/ states/ states/ ak/ overv iew
US Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2020b) Kentucky; End-
use energy consumption 2018. Available via DIALOG. https://
www. eia. gov/ beta/ states/ states/ ky/ overv iew
Wang Y, Zhao F, Yuan Y, Hao H, Liu Z (2018) Analysis of typical
automakers’ strategies for meeting the dual-credit regulations
regarding CAFC and NEVs. Automotive Innov 1(1):15–23
Wang N, Pan H, Zheng W (2017) Assessment of the incentives on
electric vehicle promotion in China. Transp Res Part a: Policy
Pract 101:177–189
Wilson L (2013) Shades of green: electric cars' carbon emissions
around the globe. (Transportation research board, 2013). Avail-
able via DIALOG. https:// trid. trb. org/ view/ 12460 39
Wood J (2019) China’s pollution is so bad its blocking sunlight
from solar panels. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from
https:// www. wefor um. org/ agenda/ 2019/ 08/ china- air- pollu
tion- blocks- solar- panels- green- energy
Xing J, Lu X, Wang S, Wang T, Ding D, Yu S, Shindell D, Ou Y,
Morawska L, Li S, Ren L, Zhang Y, Loughlin D, Zheng H, Zhao
B, Liu S, Smith KR, Hao J (2020) The quest for improved air
quality may push China to continue its CO2 reduction beyond
the Paris Commitment. Proc Nat Acad Sci 117(47):29535–29542
Xue C, Zhou H, Wu Q, Wu X, Xu X (2021) Impact of incentive poli-
cies and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle market
share: a panel data analysis from the 20 countries. Sustainability
13(5):2928
Zhang L, Qin Q (2018) China’s new energy vehicle policies: Evolu-
tion, comparison and recommendation. Transp Res Part a: Policy
Pract 110:57–72
Zeeus Ebus Report (ZER) (2016) An overview of electric buses in
Europe. Available via DIALOG. https:// zeeus. eu/ uploa ds/ publi
catio ns/ docum ents/ zeeus- ebus- report- inter net. pdf
Zhaoyuan X, Ishwaran M (2020) Overview: high-quality energy for
high-quality growth: China’s energy revolution in the new era.
China's energy revolution in the context of the global energy tran-
sition 1–39
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Authors and Aliations
BaherBakhtyar1 · ZhangQi1· MuhammadAzam2· SalimRashid3
* Baher Bakhtyar
b.bakhtyar@sheffield.ac.uk
1 Department Business andEconomics USIC, University
ofSheffield, Sheffield, UK
2 Department ofEconomics, Faculty ofBusiness
andEconomics, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan,
KhyberPakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
3 Department ofEconomics, University ofIllinois, Champaign,
IL, USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com