Electric vehicles (EVs) have ridden an unprecedented wave of popularity in the wake of the global oil crisis caused by the conflict in the Middle East.
In Australia, sales rose more than 150% in April year-on-year, while across the Asia Pacific region they surged 80% in the first three months of 2026 – except in China, where huge sales growth has remained stagnant. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), about 75% more EVs were sold in Latin America and about a third more in Europe.
IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in May that record EV sales “are now providing some relief amid the largest oil supply shock in history,” and falling battery prices would provide further impetus to the industry.
Still, the battery, by far the most expensive component, remains a major hurdle in the electric car arsenal. EV critics have long argued that electric car batteries, which are mostly made of lithium-ion, can burn and are more difficult to extinguish than those in gasoline cars. But this claim belies the fact that combustion engines are very prone to fire.
Larger, heavier EV batteries have also been targeted as a potential source of increased road damage. Yet experts say that when it comes to wear and tear on the highway, large trunks are by far the biggest culprits.
cobalt is calling
Once containing vital minerals such as cobalt and nickel, EV batteries have also raised concerns about exploitative supply chains – particularly regarding cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
In Australia, a headlines A prime-time TV news program broadcast in March investigated Chinese-owned cobalt mines in the DRC. It exposed them as places where thousands of people, including many children, work in terrible conditions amid severe pollution.
Citing cobalt as “the main element in practically every storage battery on the planet, from our EVs to our homes”, the program said the effort for a “clean, green future” of renewable energy and electric cars comes at a “deadly and devastating cost”.
But critics say the report fails to mention a key point: EV battery chemistry has largely switched to lithium iron phosphate technology that does not require cobalt.
David McCleary, chief executive of the Smart Energy Council of Australia, which advocates renewable energy, questions why EV batteries and other renewable technologies are highlighted in the story, when “many other products we use contain cobalt” such as mobile phones, tablets and laptops.
Acknowledging “legitimate concerns” about exploitation in extended critical mineral supply chains for renewable energy technologies, McCleary supports investment in domestically produced critical minerals and the manufacturing of batteries and solar panels. He says this will improve supply chain transparency and strengthen energy independence.
Green energy advocates say the EV industry has responded to supply chain concerns and supported innovations that have removed cobalt from most contemporary electric car batteries.
“Electric vehicle makers are moving away from cobalt because it is expensive, toxic and ethically risky,” wrote Neeraj Sharma, a chemistry professor at the University of New South Wales, Australia. For example, cheaper chemicals based on salt (sodium-ion) batteries are also coming to market, he says.
Controlling critical mineral narratives
Experts are referring to a “narrative war” over critical minerals. Canada’s conservative and pro-fossil fuel Fraser Institute think tank released a 2023 report claiming that nearly 400 critical mineral mines would be needed to meet EV demand.
The report’s author, Kenneth P. Green, who has long argued for a shift away from renewable energy to investing in “cheap” fossil fuels, said, “There is a risk that mineral and mining production will be lower than anticipated [EV] The demand is significant,” he said.
However, in its 2026 Global EV Outlook, the IEA says geological reserves of critical minerals are currently sufficient to support long-term EV demand – even in a scenario where most fossil fuel-powered cars are phased out. That said, the concentration of battery production in China creates supply chain risks.
The energy agency said the “momentum” behind lithium-free sodium-ion batteries would also reduce demand for critical minerals. The IEA is calling for a rapid increase in battery mineral recycling as a way to strengthen supply chain transparency and resilience.
‘Job kill’ or valid criticism?
But how should real concerns about harmful extraction and myths about EV supply chains be balanced?
While McCleary calls such media EV misinformation a “hit job” by fossil-friendly media, Vlado Vivoda, an expert on critical minerals and energy security at the University of Queensland in Australia, says not every criticism is necessarily “coordinated or made in bad faith.”
“Many concerns about mineral extraction, processing, labor conditions, land impacts, waste and supply-chain concentration are real,” he told DW.
He says this is why pro-transition narratives calling for “pure” clean energy can be easily criticized.
Philip Newell, communications co-chair of the global coalition group Climate Action Against Disinformation, told DW that real concerns about “extraction injustice” need to start with “empowering local communities harmed by mining.” This could be through benefit-sharing, or through “strengthening and better enforcing environmental and labor laws around the world”.
Energy crisis fuels misinformation
Opposition to EV and battery technology has potentially increased during the current energy crisis.
“Recent efforts to outlaw clean technologies need to be understood partly in relation to the broader energy crisis, oil price volatility, and new concerns about energy security,” Vivoda said.
Still, he says suggestions that clean technologies are “as bad, or perhaps worse, than the fossil-fuel system” ultimately create “inertia” around the energy transition.
He says the low-carbon energy transition should provide the kind of transparency in the supply chain that was often missing in the fossil energy sector.
“The appropriate response is not to romanticize ‘clean’ technology, but to honestly compare systems and see how new supply chains are better regulated than old supply chains,” he said.
Edited by: Tamsin Walker