
Even Electric Vehicle Owners Fall For EV Misinformation
Photo byMost people around the world have fallen for misinformation about electric vehicles, believing that they're more dangerous and less environmentally-friendly than they really are.
A University of Queensland-led study published in the journal Nature Energy has found that people in Australia, the U.S., Germany and Austria were more likely to agree than disagree with misinformation on EVs—even when they actually owned one themselves.
The misinformation tested included the claims that EVs are more likely to catch fire than petrol cars, that they don't produce emission savings and that they emit electromagnetic fields that damage health—all claims that are demonstrably false.
'We know this sort of false information is out there and circulating, but the scale of acceptance is concerning and poses a significant challenge to the global transition to more sustainable transport", said Dr Chris Bretter from the UQ Business School.
"The fact that even EV owners were more likely than not to agree with misinformation underscores just how embedded it's become in society."
Perhaps surprisingly, education doesn't seem to make a great deal of difference when it comes to falling for misinformation around EVs. What does, though, is what the researchers call a 'conspiracy mindset'.
"The biggest predictor of whether a person accepted misinformation statements was actually conspiracy mentality—a tendency to believe conspiracies occur and seeing the world through a lens of corruption and secret agendas", said Professor Matthew Hornsey.
"This same outlook has also been associated with opposition to science-backed technologies like vaccinations and wind farms."
Many respondents believed there was a secret agenda to exaggerate the benefits of EVs; others thought that decisions were being made unethically, and for motives of profit. Some had unfounded or exaggerated concerns about the damage of EVs towards health and the environment.
"The results show public understanding of EVs has been distorted by an information landscape shaped by myths, selective framing and speculative reasoning", said Hornsey.
When it comes to specific claims, EVs aren't more likely to catch fire than conventional vehicles - indeed, according to data from the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, EVs are 20 times less likely to catch fire than petrol and diesel cars.
Meanwhile, according to research from Carbon Brief, it takes less than two years for a typical EV to pay off the 'carbon debt' from its battery. Over the full vehicle lifecycle, CO2 emissions from an EV are around three times lower than an average petrol car, it said.
And as for emitting electromagnetic fields, research from fact-checking organization Science Feedback found that electric vehicles do indeed generate low-frequency magnetic fields for their occupants - but that there's no evidence that these fields have any impact on human health.
The researchers found that both traditional fact sheets on electric vehicles and conversations with ChatGPT led respondents to be less likely to fall for misinformation about EVs.
"Given the global need to transition toward more sustainable transport options, it is crucial we address the prevalence of misinformation about energy efficient technologies like EVs", said Bretter.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
26 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Tesla Stock Gains After Elon Musk Says Posts About Trump 'Went Too Far'
Shares in Tesla rose premarket, after Elon Musk gave a tentative launch date of June 22 for robotaxis, and said he swung too hard at President Trump:


Medscape
28 minutes ago
- Medscape
Napping Patterns Tied to All-Cause Mortality Risk
SEATTLE — Timing, duration, and variability of daytime napping are associated with an increased risk for mortality in middle- to older-aged adults, new research showed. An analysis of UK Biobank data, which included more than 86,000 non-shift workers, showed that longer naps, greater variability in daytime napping duration, and higher percentages of naps around noon and in the early afternoon are associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality. 'Our study fills a gap in knowledge by showing that it's not just whether someone naps but how long, how variable, and when they nap may be meaningful indicators of future health risk,' lead investigator Chenlu Gao, PhD, with the Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News . 'However, it's important to emphasize that these are associations. Because the design of this study is observational, we cannot determine whether napping patterns cause higher mortality risk or simply reflect underlying health conditions,' Gao cautioned. The findings will be presented on June 11 at SLEEP 2025. An Early Indicator of Declining Health? 'While many studies have examined the links between sleep and mortality, they have largely focused on nighttime sleep, often overlooking daytime sleep. However, napping is an important component of the 24-hour sleep-wake cycle and may carry its own health implications,' Gao explained. For the study, the researchers examined whether actigraphy-measured objective daytime napping behaviors predict all-cause mortality in 86,565 non-shift workers. The cohort had a mean age of 63 years at baseline, and 57% were women. They were monitored by actigraphy for 7 days, and daytime napping was defined as sleep between 9 AM and 7 PM. Median nap duration was 0.40 h/d, with 34% of naps taken between 9 and 11 AM, 10% between 11 AM and 1 PM, 14% between 1 and 3 PM, 19% between 3 and 5 PM, and 22% between 5 and 7 PM. During a follow-up period of up to 11 years, 5189 (6.0%) participants died. Overall, as individuals aged, naps tended to become longer and more irregular, with timing shifting toward the afternoon. After adjusting for potential confounders, including demographics, BMI, smoking, alcohol use, and nighttime sleep duration, longer nap duration was associated with an increased risk for mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20 for 1 SD; P < .0001). Greater intraindividual variability (HR, 1.14 for 1 SD; P < .0001) and a higher percentage of naps between 11 AM and 1 PM (HR, 1.07 for 1 SD; P = .0005) and between 1 and 3 PM (HR, 1.07 for 1 SD; P = .0002) were also associated with an increased risk for mortality. 'These findings highlight the potential importance of considering napping behaviors in risk stratification of mortality in middle- to older-aged adults,' the researchers noted in their abstract. 'Longer or more irregular naps may reflect poor nighttime sleep, circadian rhythm disruption, or underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, depression, or early neurodegenerative changes. Our findings suggest that certain patterns of napping could serve as early indicators of declining health,' said Gao. However, the researchers did not specifically test these mechanisms in this study, and further research is needed to clarify the biological pathways underlying these associations, Gao cautioned. Ask About Napping Commenting on the research for Medscape Medical News , James A. Rowley, MD, professor of medicine and program director, Sleep Medicine Fellowship, Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said the 'major take-home message is that if physicians ask about a patient's sleep habits, they should also be asking about napping, not just the nocturnal sleep period. In other words, physicians should be asking their patients, 'do you nap during the day?'' 'One cannot ignore daytime napping and an evaluation for the etiology of daytime napping is important,' said Rowley. Rowley noted that the key questions to consider include whether the patient is obtaining sufficient nocturnal sleep. Could an underlying sleep disorder — such as sleep apnea or restless legs syndrome — be contributing? Might another medical condition, such as chronic heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, be disrupting nighttime sleep and prompting daytime napping?


Washington Post
31 minutes ago
- Washington Post
With average used-car prices hitting $30,000, is pre-owned worth it?
I often advise individuals seeking to replace their old car to buy a pre-owned vehicle, mainly due to depreciation. According to Kelley Blue Book, new vehicles lose value by nearly 30 percent over the first two years. Considering this fact, allowing someone else — in this case, the prior owner of the car when it was new — to take that kind of hit would make sense. Just wait and buy a used car to save a lot of money, right?