EVs and the myth of the perfect transition
My friend Frank drives a luxury SUV, which gets around 20 miles per gallon, so when I told him in December of 2023 I was turning in my leased plug-in hybrid for a full electric vehicle, his immediate reaction was, “Well, you know about the lithium mining and child labor in Africa?”
Like too many things in our deeply divided country, individual decisions about what kind of automobile to lease or buy have become highly emotional and politicized, as have the reasons and rationalizations now being raised against EVs. Following my decision to go electric, I heard and had both spirited and heated discussions about many of them.
The environmental and social impacts of lithium and cobalt mining are often at the top of the list, followed by other supply chain issues — in particular, China’s current dominance in the EV battery market — and the potential loss of jobs in both the auto and fossil fuel industries.
The higher upfront cost of EVs, range anxiety and the limitations and perceived inconvenience of the public charging network are also part of the bigger picture.
Let us, first, be clear that many of these issues are real and serious. We must find more environmentally and socially responsible ways to obtain the minerals that are critical to the clean energy transition, as well as developing batteries that can be manufactured using abundant, easily available and less expensive materials.
Massive private and public investments — and time — will be needed to build out domestic supply chains for batteries, EVs and EV chargers so that the U.S. industry is not dependent on China or other adversarial nations.
And we absolutely need more chargers everywhere, especially in multifamily buildings, rural and remote towns and low-income, disadvantaged neighborhoods.
But let us also be clear about context. Many of the people and organizations that raise these issues have economic and political interests in maintaining the status quo of American dependence on cars with internal combustion engines powered by fossil fuels. Their arguments are a hedge for a false narrative that we can go on driving our GHG-emitting gas-guzzlers — at least until we can solve all the problems implicit in the electrification of transportation.
The myth of a perfect transition — to EVs or clean energy in general — is rooted in the idea that Americans will not accept the uncertainties, inconvenience and, yes in some cases, higher prices that come with the clean technologies involved. In other words, we want a transition without having to pay for it economically, socially or personally.
This kind of thinking and the narratives it produces are dangerous and ignore an increasingly obvious reality. The vast majority of Americans are now, passively if not consciously, accepting the uncertainties, inconvenience and, in all cases, higher costs that climate disasters driven by a warming planet are already causing.
We are the proverbial frogs in the pot of warm water, oblivious to the gradual increase of temperature that will bring it and us to a boil.
Selective opposition
Technology transitions are a vital part of American history and culture. In the energy sector alone, we have gone from wood to coal to oil to electricity produced by fossil fuels, hydropower, nuclear energy and now renewables.
The throughline here is that technology transitions are uneven and messy and often happen faster than expected. They also have environmental, economic and social impacts. New technologies generally require new materials that change the composition of supply chains, and new skills that change the nature of work and jobs. Winners, losers and unintended consequences are inevitable.
But here again, we need to look at context and the specific supply chains, jobs and unintended consequences that have become flashpoints in political debates.
Lithium-ion batteries have been powering our computers, cell phones and other digital gadgets for years, with only periodic concerns raised about lithium mining’s impact on groundwater or the horrific conditions of children mining cobalt in Africa. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever suggested we slow down the digital transition or go back to our landlines, typewriters and adding machines until those problems can be solved.
Lawmakers railing against the potential loss of fossil fuel or auto industry jobs are similarly selective. The transition from print and broadcast to digital journalism has decimated newsrooms across the country. As a reporter at a daily newspaper from 2005 to 2014, I managed to survive repeated furloughs and layoffs and saw the nature of my job change as I was required to file stories and pictures from my cell phone or any Starbucks with Wi-Fi — all without any increase in pay.
The convergence of print, broadcast and digital media continues to take a toll on the industry. In 2023 alone, 21,417 media jobs were eliminated, according to an analysis by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement and career transition service.
No lawmakers or conservative pundits are attempting to score political points by talking about those lost jobs or the central role a diverse and healthy media industry plays in a democratic society.
Transition tradeoffs
The energy transition now underway in the U.S. is different because its impact on jobs in the fossil fuel industry has been recognized, and the Biden administration is making significant efforts to help the individuals and communities struggling to adapt. The Inflation Reduction Act provides bonus tax credits for companies locating clean energy manufacturing projects in “energy communities” that have lost jobs and tax revenues from the closure of fossil fuel plants.
Many of the grants and loans funded through the IRA and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act require companies to build relationships with local communities and develop community benefit plans that often include job training programs and prevailing wage guarantees.
Will such initiatives provide comparable jobs, salaries and benefits for all displaced workers? Not likely, but they could offer communities the support needed to explore new opportunities and draw in new industries.
The point here is that technology transitions are a process. They also are imperfect, requiring time and tradeoffs.
We will not solve the problems of the transition to zero-emission transportation by slowing or stopping the changes ahead. Innovations in lithium mining will, at least in part, come from the workers and companies currently mining lithium. Battery manufacturers are already producing batteries that require less or no cobalt, and building out new supply chains that are not dependent on China.
Still, we will need lithium, cobalt and Chinese batteries for a while, to maintain demand while we grow an American EV market based on responsible mining, home-grown businesses and affordable, accessible zero-emission transportation.
The balance here will be precarious, but the tradeoff is the need for urgency.
The transportation sector generates close to one-third of U.S. GHG emissions, and light-duty passenger vehicles account for 58% of that total, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Individual vehicles — averaging 22 miles per gallon and 11,500 miles per year — pump out about 4.6 metric tons, or 10,151 pounds, of carbon dioxide per year.
With the average U.S. passenger car tipping the scale at an EPA estimate of 4,094 pounds, many cars on the road today could be emitting more than twice their weight in GHGs each year.
Given those numbers and the rising frequency and intensity of climate disasters, our transition to zero-emission vehicles can’t happen fast enough. Already, 12 states have adopted clean car rules, requiring that all new passenger cars, SUVs and light pickup trucks sold in the state be zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
Personally, I believe every new vehicle sold in the U.S. should come not only with a gas or battery gauge showing its miles per gallon or kilowatt-hour, but with an additional meter tracking the carbon emissions it is producing.
My EV narrative, so far, has been definitely imperfect. In the midst of the subfreezing temperatures that hit the East Coast in January 2024, I experienced firsthand the reduced mileage EV batteries get in cold weather.
Was I initially freaked out? Yes, and I overcompensated by topping up the battery a bit more frequently, which I can do for free at the chargers at my LEED-certified apartment building. The tradeoffs for me are the zero tailpipe emissions, lower cost of ownership (no gas or oil changes) and the exceptionally quiet and smooth ride.
I also know that when the lease on this car runs out at the end of 2026, my next EV still may not be perfect, but it will be cleaner, better and even more fun to drive.
Frank, are you listening?
