I'm wary of the truthfulness of anything from the WSJ Op-Ed, and with good reason. That said, I checked out this article at it appears to be largely based on a deliberate mischaracterization of an article from the Journal of Industrial Ecology, which can be read here (for free it appears):
The Op-Ed author is trying to claim that the article supports his thesis that EVs have a bigger environmental impact than ICE vehicles. To do this he must assume that an EV will only be driven for 50K miles in its lifetime: otherwise he bumps up against the article's main thesis, which is that even at 65K miles, with the article's very conservative assumptions, an EV has a carbon advantage over ICE. The advantage grows significantly with longer, and more realistic lifetimes.
I think this is typical of an WSJ Op-Ed. Anyway, here's the abstract of the cited article:
> Electric vehicles (EVs) coupled with low-carbon electricity sources offer the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions from personal transportation. In considering these benefits, it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting. In addition, while many studies have focused on the use phase in comparing transportation options, vehicle production is also significant when comparing conventional and EVs. We develop and provide a transparent life cycle inventory of conventional and electric vehicles and apply our inventory to assess conventional and EVs over a range of impact categories. We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules. Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle. Improving the environmental profile of EVs requires engagement around reducing vehicle production supply chain impacts and promoting clean electricity sources in decision making regarding electricity infrastructure.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012....
The Op-Ed author is trying to claim that the article supports his thesis that EVs have a bigger environmental impact than ICE vehicles. To do this he must assume that an EV will only be driven for 50K miles in its lifetime: otherwise he bumps up against the article's main thesis, which is that even at 65K miles, with the article's very conservative assumptions, an EV has a carbon advantage over ICE. The advantage grows significantly with longer, and more realistic lifetimes.
I think this is typical of an WSJ Op-Ed. Anyway, here's the abstract of the cited article:
> Electric vehicles (EVs) coupled with low-carbon electricity sources offer the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions from personal transportation. In considering these benefits, it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting. In addition, while many studies have focused on the use phase in comparing transportation options, vehicle production is also significant when comparing conventional and EVs. We develop and provide a transparent life cycle inventory of conventional and electric vehicles and apply our inventory to assess conventional and EVs over a range of impact categories. We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules. Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle. Improving the environmental profile of EVs requires engagement around reducing vehicle production supply chain impacts and promoting clean electricity sources in decision making regarding electricity infrastructure.