Beyond Electric Vehicles Mitigating California’s Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Executive Summary
California produces significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which have contributed to increasing natural disasters and decreasing quality of life. To mitigate the issues that accompany these emissions, the current transportation sector approach focuses on solely producing zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. While this is a crucial step towards reducing GHG emissions, it overlooks the unrealistic demands that this approach would place on energy and resources. To combat these issues while supporting the current shift to ZEVs, California should look to diversify investments in alternative modes of transport as a more practical approach to achieving the carbon neutrality target by 2045. These investments further decrease emissions while also increasing overall quality of life through a more efficient transportation system. This approach includes the following recommendations:
- Continuing to promote ZEVs
- Investing in alternative forms of public transportation
- Promoting and incentivizing active transportation where possible
These recommendations will help address the inefficiencies of the current automobile-heavy transportation system and create a more sustainable, efficient, and livable environment.
Introduction
In 2019, California’s overall GHG emissions were roughly 418.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) (California Air Resources Board 2), with a per capita rate of 10.6 MTCO2e. In comparison, other OECD nations such as Denmark, Spain and the United Kingdom were at lower per capita rates of roughly 7.9, 6.62 and 6.7 MTCO2e respectively (OECD.Stat). These emissions have had a significant impact on the state, which has suffered firsthand the effects of climate change. California has seen wildfire spread within its forestland nearly triple during the time frame of 2012–2021, in comparison to the previous decade (Schmidt). Additionally, by the end of the century, the Sierra Nevada snowpack has a projected loss of 48–65 percent due to temperatures rising, directly impacting California’s water supply (California Department of Water Resources). These effects will directly impact residents. For example, over half the population of Greater Los Angeles live in neighborhoods that face high risks of experiencing at least one of five severe climate threats — extreme heat, wildfire, drought, extreme precipitation, and sea-level rise (Amubieya). Finally, this increase in variable weather patterns will further impact Californians by potentially spilling over into other industries, including agriculture (California Department of Water Resources), and exacerbating the already direct damaging effects of climate change.
In order to address the looming threat of these natural disasters, California must take action against climate change by reducing its GHG emissions. This requires the state to focus on the transportation sector, which is the most damaging sector roughly accounting for 40 percent of total GHG emissions within California (Galbraith and Duggan). The majority of these emissions are the result of light-duty vehicles and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, which make up 82 percent of transportation-related GHG emissions in the United States as a whole (Lashof and Saha). Due to its large population and heavy reliance on cars, California has the second highest transportation-related carbon footprint in the country after Texas (Lashof and Saha). This highlights the importance the state holds in reducing GHG emissions and leading in the transition towards renewable alternatives.
Addressing the Status Quo: California’s ZEV Solution
Steps have already been taken in efforts to reduce California’s overall GHG emissions. Over the past few years, state regulators have collaborated to devise strategies to mitigate climate change. Mainly, adjustments in the transportation sector are spearheading these efforts. In August of 2022, California regulators put forward a roadmap so that by 2035, all new cars sold in the state would be ZEVs. This falls in line with Governor Gavin Newsom’s overarching aim to slash GHG emissions by 85 percent from 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality within the state by 2045 (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom).
The switch to ZEVs is critical, as both battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) provide an alternative to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles while also being a massive improvement regarding life cycle emissions. According to Georg Bieker, the life cycle GHG emissions for a BEV in 2021 is roughly 60–68 percent less than ICE vehicles within the United States, and as projected should increase to 62–76 percent by 2030 as the electricity generation mix begins to decarbonize (Bieker 3). As for FCEVs, which are alternative zero-emission vehicles instead powered by hydrogen, they have a huge variation regarding emissions. FCEVs powered by ‘green hydrogen’ — hydrogen produced from renewable energy — have been found to decrease life cycle GHG emissions in comparison to ICE vehicles by roughly 46–72 percent within the United States (Bieker 4). On the other hand, FCEVs powered by ‘gray hydrogen’ — hydrogen produced by reforming methane from natural gas — still manage to decrease life cycle GHG emissions by 26–40 percent in comparison to ICE vehicles (Bieker 4). In addition, similar patterns can be seen in medium- and heavy-duty BEVs. This transition is just as crucial, with medium- and heavy-duty vehicles disproportionately contributing to climate change; despite making up only 10 percent of on-road vehicles in the US, they contribute 26 percent of global warming emissions from on-road vehicles (Environmental Protection Agency).
Altogether, this shows that the current measures to introduce ZEVs across all vehicle weight classes are an overall net positive for the environment, helping with the transition to carbon neutrality. However, it is important to acknowledge that this approach is extremely resource demanding and overlooks other sustainable transportation options. Assuming that ZEVs are the only feasible option is a misconception and neglects the various limitations and difficulties associated with them.
Where The Status Quo Falls Short
Limitation 1 — The Lithium-ion Battery Shortcoming:
While it is true that BEVs drastically decrease life-cycle carbon emissions, their manufacturing process can still have detrimental effects on the environment, particularly due to their reliance on lithium-ion batteries. Although these batteries are key to lightweight, renewable power with little to no GHG emissions, the mining of the lithium, cobalt and nickel can lead to soil degradation, air contamination, and in turn contribute to global warming (Campbell). Additionally, the extraction of lithium requires a large amount of water, with 2.2 million liters needed to produce a single ton of lithium. This poses a significant challenge in arid regions where lithium mines are typically located, causing water-related conflicts. Furthermore, lithium water contamination can be toxic and have devastating effects on local populations, with the extent of the level of contamination still unknown (Campbell).
Apart from the environmental challenges presented, replacing over 14 million registered cars currently in use in California (Carlier) with ZEVs would be a daunting task due to the requirement of lithium-ion batteries. Since lithium is a non-renewable resource, with only one quarter of the available resource being economically viable to mine (Orf), accessibility could cause issues in the future due to an exponentially growing demand for the resource driven by its energy storage capabilities. This may be mitigated in the future as the battery recycling process improves, however the current process is still risky as dead batteries pose a volatile fire hazard for recycling centers (Varanasi).
Limitation 2 — Immense Pressure on the Electric Grid
California also faces a serious issue regarding the surge in electrical demand that will accompany the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. The rapid shift to ZEVs will further add exponential demands on an already overburdened electrical power grid. The electrical grid has already faced numerous issues during heat waves, at a time when only 18.8 percent of the car fleet in the state is zero-emission electric vehicles (Bonifacic). Like many other California residents, UC Berkeley electrical engineering Professor Sascha von Meier has expressed concerns that the electrical power grid will be unable to handle the projected increase in demand, with EVs expected to account for almost 22 percent of the annual energy consumption by 2035 (Lopez). One factor that will significantly contribute to this demand will be the shift to medium- and heavy-duty BEVs, as they require much more energy in comparison to light-duty BEVs. While light-duty BEVs only require 0.2 to 0.4 kWh per mile, the current energy usage requirement for medium- and heavy-duty BEVs ranges from 0.5 kWh to 5.2 kWh per mile (Uddin). This means that the shift to medium- and heavy-duty BEVs will disproportionately contribute to the demand issues faced by the electrical power grid.
To offset these increased demands, there are plans to rapidly construct renewable energy initiatives such as solar wind farms. These initiatives are expected to help increase the power generation capacity of the electric grid while simultaneously reducing reliance on fossil fuels. However, the plans remain uncertain, and the targets are considered unrealistic. Furthermore, FCEVs are unfortunately not yet a feasible solution for this issue, with the approach being unrealistic regarding renewable hydrogen production. Currently, the primary source of hydrogen is ‘gray hydrogen’, which falls short of reaching the ambitious emission goal set.
A Look Beyond Electric Vehicles:
Although electric vehicles represent a significant first step in reducing GHG emissions from passenger transport, they are not the only solution for all transportation challenges in the state. Instead of solely focusing on technological advances, California must also diversify its current approach to include all aspects of transportation. This includes investing in public transportation and promoting more active modes of transport such as walking and cycling. Despite being briefly mentioned in California’s 2022 Scoping Update, these efforts have not been properly addressed. Non-automobile infrastructure has continuously been underfunded and must also be taken seriously to provide crucial solutions for reaching sustainability goals in California, rather than solely relying on EVs.
Several viable strategies can be pursued to deal with the problem of city-wide transportation within California without placing excessive pressure on the electrical grid. A serious option is to invest in alternative modes of public transportation, such as electric buses and trains. Alongside policies that encourage high transit ridership, such as dedicated bus lanes, highway tolls and congestion charging (Jordan), this would substantially reduce the energy demand per person. In a state like California, where driving alone is the primary mode of travel accounting for 75 percent of daily commute trips (California Air Resources Board 209), this is incredibly important as the transition to EVs would further lead to a surge in energy demand.
For this approach, it is crucial to particularly prioritize strengthening existing public transportation systems within lower-income communities in California, which have historically been underserved and underfunded. This lack of support in these communities has led to isolation from job opportunities and other resources. Given that these communities rely on public transit more than wealthier communities (Rice), making accommodations and providing more affordable alternatives would both heavily decrease energy demand per person and provide more equitable access.
Other initiatives to consider include efforts to promote shared transportation, such as carpooling. These less expensive options would also alleviate traffic congestion within cities like Los Angeles and would help towards a more sustainable demand level on the grid system. Although the Scoping Plan briefly hinted at similar approaches, mainly by streamlining the access to public transportation, it failed to carry the discussion further and was left as a potential strategy rather than a future requirement (California Air Resources Board 211).
Lastly, promoting higher transit ridership will not only decrease energy demand but also decrease the demand for lithium. By investing in options such as catenary buses, this would ease the demand of lithium due to the vehicles simply running off overhead wires and not requiring batteries (Robare). In addition to catenary buses, electric trains similarly would also provide a lithium-free option for long distance travel due to their lack of batteries. Both these options not only reduce the demand for lithium, but also remove the need for environmentally damaging processes such as battery production and disposal. Building on this, electric trains are generally quicker, cheaper, and less-emission costly per passenger mile traveled in comparison to electric cars (Shahan).
In addition to public transport, California should also explore how to decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which would both reduce GHG emissions and increase accessibility. Although the California Air Resources Board recommended reducing VMT per capita by 30% below 2019 levels for 2045 and highlighted the subsequent benefits, it was not set as a regulatory requirement (89). The Scoping Plan hinted at improving public and active transportation modes but failed to establish it as a requirement and outline a strategy. Even though constructing and maintaining walking and biking infrastructure is considerably less expensive than automobile infrastructure (Medema), California lacks sufficient infrastructure to incentivize people to utilize these modes of transport. California ranks sixth in bicyclist fatalities per capita (Hubbard), highlighting the unaddressed hazards posed to cyclists. Simple enhancements to infrastructure such as protected bike lanes can make biking 10 times safer (Medema), reducing these hazards and further incentivizing active modes of transport. These transportation methods provide a great alternative to ZEVs for short-distance transportation, reducing emissions even further as well as costs and providing immense health advantages. With walking and biking to work having been proven to make you happier and more productive (Stromberg), this is an overall net gain for quality of life and can be utilized for further equity and opportunity through costs in transportation.
Recommendations:
- Continuing to promote ZEVs: California has made great strides towards carbon neutrality, with the state’s aim of only selling ZEVs by 2035. This initiative, with its obvious net benefits, requires follow-through.
- Investing in alternative forms of public transportation: California must not over rely on ZEVs however, as that step is unrealistic and extremely resource and energy demanding. It is crucial for the state to also invest in public transportation, providing alternatives and preventing lithium depletion and electric grid malfunctions.
- Promoting active transportation: providing incentives for active transportation modes such as bike lanes will help reduce congestion while promoting personal health and having net zero carbon emissions.
References
“California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019.” California Air Resources Board, California Air Resources Board, 28 July 2021, ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/ghg_inventory_trends_00–19.pdf.
“Climate Change and Water.” California Department of Water Resources, California Department of Water Resources, water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/Climate-Change-Program/Climate-Change-and-Water.
“Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” OECD.Stat, stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=air_ghg.
Schmidt, Jim. “California Forests Hit Hard by Wildfires in the Last Decade.” Wildfire Today, 5 Sept. 2022, wildfiretoday.com/2022/09/05/california-forests-hit-hard-by-wildfires-in-the-last-decade/#:~:text=InciWeb.&text=Of%20the%2032.1%20million%20acres,7.9%20million%20acres%20(24.7%25).
Carlier, Mathilde. “U.S.: Total Number of Automobiles by State.” Statista, Statista, 18 Jan. 2022, www.statista.com/statistics/196010/total-number-of-registered-automobiles-in-the-us-by-state/.
Galbraith, Kate, and Tara Duggan. “California’s New Climate Plan Will Make Our Lives Radically Different.” San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle, 11 May 2022, www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/California-s-new-plan-for-carbon-neutrality-17163632.php.
Lashof, Dan, and Devashree Saha. “California Shows How the U.S. Can Reduce Transport Emissions.” World Resources Institute, World Resources Institute, 24 Sept. 2020, www.wri.org/insights/california-shows-how-us-can-reduce-transport-emissions.
Amubieya, Olawale O. “When Air Pollution Becomes a Health Equity Issue.” UCLA Health, UCLA Health, 1 Nov. 2021, www.uclahealth.org/news/air-pollution-health-equity-los-angeles.
“2022 SCOPING PLAN FOR ACHIEVING CARBON NEUTRALITY.” California Air Resources Board, California Air Resources Board, 16 Nov. 2022, ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022–11/2022-sp.pdf.
“California Releases World’s First Plan to Achieve Net Zero Carbon Pollution.” California Governor, Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, 16 Nov. 2022, www.gov.ca.gov/2022/11/16/california-releases-worlds-first-plan-to-achieve-net-zero-carbon-pollution/.
Bieker, Georg. “A Global Comparison of the Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Combustion Engine and Electric Passenger Cars.” International Council on Clean Transportation, International Council on Clean Transportation, July 2021, theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021_0.pdf.
“Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, May 2022, www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
Campbell, Maeve. “South America’s ‘Lithium Fields’ Reveal the Dark Side of Electric Cars.” Euronews, Euronews, 21 Nov. 2022, www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/01/south-america-s-lithium-fields-reveal-the-dark-side-of-our-electric-future#:~:text=Lithium%20can%20be%20described%20as,soil%20and%20causes%20air%20contamination.
Orf, Darren. “Does the World Have Enough Lithium for Batteries?” Popular Mechanics, Popular Mechanics, 6 Jan. 2023, www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42417327/lithium-supply-batteries-electric-vehicles/.
Varanasi, Anuradha. “We Need Safer Ways to Recycle Electric Car and Cellphone Batteries.” Popular Science, Popular Science, 1 Mar. 2022, www.popsci.com/energy/lithium-ion-batteries-recycling-fire/.
Bonifacic, Igor. “Zero-Emission Vehicles Made up Nearly 19 Percent of Car Sales in California Last Year.” Engadget, Engadget, 22 Jan. 2023, www.engadget.com/zero-emission-vehicles-made-up-nearly-19-percent-of-car-sales-in-california-last-year-182852495.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJb7Oed7Aty6Tp-ubuBCItq4ciZD9KR9muauoYkgLlhrxIUk9Kj4lwGTYXD-hBVQKsxtPkEFlZifPSx-Ns1kBRzVUjMvePDoWDCeUSn1Vlcjya--ltibHc0rdpIdmtgHM1lO-6hojC0dGSGLG-LMpdxqD9Qq_U-W_G03NXYSAlO3#:~:text=Electric%2C%20plug%2Din%20hybrid%20and,state%27s%20Energy%20Commission%20(CEC).
Lopez, Nadia. “Race to Zero: Can California’s Power Grid Handle a 15-Fold Increase in Electric Cars?” CalMatters, CalMatters, 17 Jan. 2023, calmatters.org/environment/2023/01/california-electric-cars-grid/.
Uddin, M. Moaz. “The Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicle Market: Plugging into the Future Part I.” Great Plains Institute, Great Plains Institute, 30 Sept. 2021, betterenergy.org/blog/the-medium-and-heavy-duty-electric-vehicle-market-plugging-into-the-future-part-i/.
Jordan, Stephanie. “UCLA ITS Scholars 2018 Report on Falling Transit Ridership Gets a Second Look.” California Transit Association, California Transit Association, caltransit.org/news-publications/publications/transit-california/transit-california-archives/2019-editions/may/ridership-study-revisited/.
Robare, Matthew. “Lithium Isn’t Needed for Trains and Buses.” Renewable Energy World, Renewable Energy World, 14 July 2021, www.renewableenergyworld.com/blog/lithium-isnt-needed-for-trains-and-buses/#gref.
Rice, Lorien. “Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households: Lessons for the San Francisco Bay Area.” Public Policy Institute of California, Public Policy Institute of California, 2004, www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/report/R_704LRR.pdf.
Hubbard, Kaia. “These Are the Most Dangerous States for Cyclists.” US News & World Report, US News & World Report, 12 May 2021, www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/these-are-the-most-dangerous-states-for-cyclists.
Shahan, Zachary. “What’s Greener in Europe — a Train, a Plane, or a Car? What’s Dirtiest?” CleanTechnica, CleanTechnica, 7 Apr. 2021, cleantechnica.com/2021/04/07/whats-greener-in-europe-a-train-a-plane-or-a-car-whats-dirtiest/.
Medema, Todd. “The Hidden Cost of Cars.” Medium, Medium, 23 Apr. 2018, toddmedema.medium.com/shattering-myths-the-true-cost-of-suburbs-and-cars-1e6ffab86364.
Stromberg, Joseph. “Biking or Walking to Work Will Make You Happier and Healthier.” Vox, Vox, 15 May 2015, www.vox.com/2014/8/22/6050439/commuting-biking-walking-transportation.
