1

Thomas
Michael Thomas

Prof. Bedell

CAS 138T

April 10, 2020

Climate Change: Electrifying Transportation

Early 20th century Spanish born, American raised philosopher George Santayan coined

the phrase “Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it” in 1905.1

Santayan’s statement is often misquoted, and has led to the rise of the similar sounding but

different in meaning phrase ‘history repeats itself’.2 Although this phrase arose from a mistake, it

has proven itself to be true in at least one aspect: apocalypse predictions.

History is littered with warnings of impending doomsday proceedings beginning as far

back as 2800 B.C.3 That first warning from a recovered clay tablet from what would eventually

become the Assyrian Empire used disobedient children and the observation that “every man

wants to write a book” as evidence that “the end of the world is evidently approaching”.4 Since

this first prediction, countless other groups have issued doomsday proclamations including

Pope Innocent III who foresaw the Second Coming of Christ in 1284, Charles Smyth’s

calculations about the Great Pyramid of Giza predicting apocalypse in 1881, and the Yerkes

Observatory in Chicago announcing that the passage of Halley’s Comet would poison the

atmosphere and “snuff out all life on the planet” in 1910.5

While the same warning comes again and again, the reason and the logic behind the

prophecy changes every time. Since the Assyrian tablet referencing a pandemic of authorship

and irreverent teenagers, each prediction has had a more scientific backing than the previous

one. Pope Innocent III based his prediction off of the Revelation of Saint John which predicted

666 years of chaos after the rise of the Antichrist.6 The Pope, who believed the Antichrist was

the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, based his date off of that. Charles Smyth, the Royal

Astronomer of Scotland at the time, believed that the Great Pyramid at Giza was actually built
2
Thomas
by Noah of the Old Testament of the Bible and thus had theological significance. He counted

1,881 notches in the Great Gallery of the Pyramid and from there surmised his date.8 In 1910,

the newly discovered technique of chemical spectroscopy was used on Halley’s Comet, and it

was discovered that the comet’s trail included the toxic gas cyanogen, and that on this pass of

the comet, the Earth’s orbit took the planet directly through part of the 15.5 million mile long trail

of the comet.9 Each passing apocalypse prediction has had a more science based, logical

reasoning.

All the apocalypse events mentioned previously have helped pave the way for the

current apocalypse causing event: climate change. While the other predicted doomsday events

never came to pass, all the available evidence suggests that this one will. The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change even said that the scientific evidence for “warming

of the climate system is unequivocal”.10 Although the earth naturally has cycles of global

warming and cooling and has in fact gone through 7 in the last 650,000 years.11 However, this

current cycle is unprecedented because it is more than 95% likely to be fully or partially caused

by human activity starting mainly around the early to mid 20th century.12 Specifically, this is

referring to increased carbon emissions from two main sources. First, the production of

electricity by coal and fossil fuel powered methods.13 Second, the popularization of the internal

combustion engine powering transportation and the increased carbon emissions associated with

operating those engines and related industrial processes.14 The global community has achieved

general consensus that keeping the average temperature rise under two degrees Celsius would

be enough to ward off the worst effects of global warming, but that lowering that standard further

to one and a half degrees would be significantly less intrusive to society.15

No matter the level of intrusion, impacts will still be felt all across the world. The

temperature increase will be less noticeable in the high temperatures during the day, and

actually more noticeable in the low temperatures not being as low at night.16 Although daytime

temperature shifts will generally be less extreme than the nighttime shifts, daytime changes are
3
Thomas
still a significant problem. If the global temperature increase is kept to 1.5 degrees Celsius, 14

percent of the Earth’s population will be exposed to severe heatwaves with a frequency of at

least once every five years. However, if the temperature change creeps up to 2 degrees

Celsius, the population at risk more than doubles to 37%.17 The impacts of global warming

reach far beyond heatwaves. Food and water supplies will be threatened, food sources will be

threatened with new diseases, and insect borne diseases will run rampant as insects gain

swaths of new breeding ground.18 Furthermore, sea level rise will literally sink many of the

world’s greatest and most important cities. Much of Vietnam including the national economic

center Ho Chi Minh City will disappear under the tides by 2050.19 So will Bangkok in Thailand,

Mumbai in India, and Alexandria in Egypt. Shanghai, one of the most important economic hubs

in Asia will end up above water too. And if all the economic trouble lost by these cities isn’t

enough, sociopolitical troubles will ensue too. Basra, the second largest city in Iraq will be sunk

under the water. If that doesn’t destabilize the Middle East and lead to lasting conflicts beyond

the borders of Iraq and the sunken city of Basra, nothing will. The research for these new

climate models was published October 29, 2019 in the Journal Nature Communications.20 The

damage will hit closer to home as well. The rate of sea level rise has increased over the last

hundred years, so that the world is sinking faster and faster.21 If this trend continues, the data

will rise enough by the year 2100 to put New York City under water. The financial capital of the

world will be under the Atlantic Ocean in the next 80 years if current trends continue. 40% of the

world’s population lives within 100 kilometers of the ocean coasts. Much of that land and many

of those people are at risk to the approximately eight feet of see level rise expected around the

year 2100.22 Climate change is an inimical threat to the continuation of life as we know it on

Earth.

Climate change is caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s

atmosphere. The gases come from many sources, but they all include the usage of fossil fuels.

Much of the fuel is used for electricity generation, but lots of it is used for transportation. The
4
Thomas
transportation industry accounted for 29 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions from the

United States in 2017.23 In quantities, that is 4.409 billion pounds of carbon dioxide emitted to

the atmosphere. And in the last thirty years, the emissions from the transportation sector

increased more than any other sector. Breaking down the transportation sector further, it is

revealed that 82 percent of the greenhouse gas output comes from the vehicles society relies

on to keep running. Specifically, consumer vehicles such as cars and light duty trucks, and

trucks used in shipping goods. The other 18% of the emissions come half from air travel, and

the other half split among rail, sea travel, and from the pressure engines used to propel fluids in

long pipelines.24 The obvious way to decrease carbon emissions from the transportation industry

is to change fuel sources. People started trying that decades ago. The first real alternative to

gasoline was diesel fuel. The problem with diesel is that while it has a higher efficiency in terms

of miles per gallon than gasoline, that decreased consumption is counteracted by slightly higher

carbon emissions per gallon such that using diesel ends up causing approximately the same

greenhouse gas emissions as gasoline fuel sources.25 One alternative to both gasoline and

diesel fuel is to adopt biofuels. In testing they have shown lowered carbon emissions compared

to fossil fuels, however because of the sweeping changes that would be required to adopt them,

they are not a leading candidate for adoption. They, specifically ethanol, have instead been

used as additives to gasoline in percentages ranging from 10 up to 85 in order to make the fuel

combust cleaner.26 This leaves hydrogen fuel cells and battery electric vehicles as the

alternative options. Hydrogen powered cars are a definite option, however creating and

transporting hydrogen around is very difficult. Toyota is the only major automotive company

taking hydrogen fuel cells seriously because of that.27 The hydrogen refining method is very

expensive, and it requires lots of energy.28 The two main ways Hydrogen is refined are through

‘reforming’ and ‘electrolysis’. Electrolysis is the more common method of the two; it works by

using electricity to split water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen fuel.29 However, because it

uses electricity, hydrogen fuel cells are not common. Therefore, battery electric vehicles, which
5
Thomas
take electricity and convert it directly to motion, instead of converting it into hydrogen then into

motion, are more common.

Many people have questions about the legitimacy of battery electric vehicles as an

environmentally friendly alternative to internal combustion engine powered transportation. Some

people claim that electric vehicles are actually worse for the environment than gas ones.

Research finds, however, that this is a myth.30 Research from Nijmejen, Exeter, and Cambridge

Universities shows that in 95 percent of the world, driving an electric car is better for the

environment than gas. This includes emissions from the manufacturing process and electricity

generation.31 Those are the only areas in which the myth has any ground whatsoever.

A chart normalized around the carbon emissions generated by manufacturing a gas car

would make reveals that electric cars are worse for the environment in that aspect. Producing a

battery that can store enough energy for a 90 mile charge makes a car with 15 percent more

carbon emissions than a gas powered equivalent. Likewise, constructing a 250 mile range

battery yields an extra 55 percent on top of that, bringing the total to 70 percent more carbon

emissions for a 250 mile range electric vehicle than a gas vehicle of the same size.32 This is

primarily because of the mineral mining necessary for producing batteries, specifically cobalt.

Cobalt mining is terrible for the environment. Most of it is done in the Democratic Republic of the

Congo, which has weak environmental regulations with weaker enforcement. One of the major

producers, Chemaf, has been linked to environmental violations, and they’re just the ones who

got caught.33

Electricity generation as a measure of environmental harm is a more nuanced topic than

manufacturing. The relative efficiency of electric and gas vehicles depends on the location of the

charging station. Gasoline is produced in certain areas and transported around the entire world.

Electricity production much more localized. For example, in Poland and the few other parts of

the world that still rely almost exclusively on coal power plants for electricity, the electricity

produced to power an electric vehicle is worse for the environment than the exhaust of an
6
Thomas
internal combustion engine.34 In the United States, where we have some renewable energy

sources, and much of what isn’t renewable is still relatively clean such as natural gas, it is

cleaner to drive an electric vehicle than a gas one.35 The map below breaks down the gas

mileage required for a traditional vehicle to produce the same amount of emissions as an

electric vehicle by each power sector. Although it is more dependent on location than the

manufacturing process, the consumption of electricity as fuel instead of gasoline is cleaner for

the environment in the vast majority of places.

For an average driver, the disparities created by the manufacturing process are

neutralized by the cleaner electricity relatively early in the lifetime of a car. For the 90 mile range

vehicle previously mentioned, this happens in just six months. Similarly, for the 250 mile range

vehicle, the break-even point is after about two years of driving.36 The average lifespan of a

modern car is now approaching twelve years, so for the last nine years of an electric vehicle’s

life, it is saving its carbon emissions from the environment.37 When every second vehicle on the
7
Thomas
road is electric, 1.5 gigatons less of CO2 will be emitted each year. That amount is equivalent to

the entire annual output of Russia.38

Despite that immense amount of carbon savings, as previously mentioned, the

transportation industry accounts for less than a third of the total United States carbon emissions.

So, while slicing the transportation emissions to zero would be a significant blow to global

warming, it is not enough to fully achieve the global warming targets that are necessary to

prevent catastrophic change to life on Earth on its own. The technologies required to help

adoption of electric vehicle charging would also help other important sectors, such as electricity

generation and industry use, adopt more environmentally friendly practices. Those two sectors

account for 28 percent and 22 percent of United States carbon emissions respectively, which

would bring the total up to a maximum of a 79 percent reduction in emissions from current

levels.39 According to best estimates, in order to keep global temperature rise under the danger

threshold, a 40-70% decrease in carbon emissions is necessary, and that’s under the

theoretical limit of a 79 percent reduction mentioned before.40 The necessary changes have

been determined, but how to adopt and implement them is the difficulty.

Some countries are significantly further along in the implementation curve than others.

Norway, for example, is currently the global leader in relative electric vehicle adoption.41 While

the United States and China have higher quantities of electric vehicles sold per unit time,

Norway has the highest percentage of new vehicle sales being electric. The first reason for this

is the renewability of its electricity grid. The majority of Norway’s electricity comes from

hydroelectric power, so the environmental favorability of electric motors over gas engines is

even higher there than in other places. Another reason for Norway’s success is a plethora of

incentives. Norway has a 25 percent sales tax on vehicle purchases, which it removed from

electric vehicles in 2001, then in 2005 electric vehicles drivers got permission to use bus lanes.

Additionally, some municipalities offer free parking, lower tolls on roads, and other perks for
8
Thomas
electric vehicle drivers.42 This is because electric vehicles don’t have the oil and other fluids

which gas cars have and can leak on roads, leading to expensive repairs over time.

The example of Norway is impressive, but is not fully replicable in the United States.

Federal Tax credits allow for $7500 for an electric vehicle but the incentives are only for startup

manufacturers. The incentive phases out after the company has sold 200,000 qualifying

vehicles in the United States.43 In other words, the incentives are to help new companies break

into a very competitive market. The incentives do not help mass adoption the way they are

currently formatted. In order to help the environment, they must be rewritten to apply to all

electric vehicle purchases, or otherwise create some alternative to incentivize buyers. Economic

reforms are necessary to encourage electric vehicle adoption in the United States, but no single

solution is the answer.

A revised tax incentive as mentioned above is the first step; something that helps bring

the initial sticker price of a quality electric vehicle within range of the average American

consumer. The average price of a new car in the United States was just under $37,000 in 2019,

including gas and electric models.44 Because electric models make up a small fraction of those

sales, that number will be used as an average to compare gas against average electric price.

There was no available data for average sale price of a new electric vehicle, so the Tesla Model

3, which made up nearly 50% of all electric vehicles sold in the United States in 2019, will be

used as the comparison vehicle.45 The vehicle has three trim levels, starting at ~$40,000,

~$49,000, and ~$56,000 respectively, so to make a fair comparison an average selling price

between the lower trims of $45,000 will be assumed.46 This leaves an $8,000 difference

between the average purchase prices of electric and gasoline vehicles. As mentioned earlier in

this paper, electric vehicles do save the owner money over the long term as compared to gas

vehicles. Consumers are known not to be particularly concerned about long term savings and

are easily scared off by sticker prices. Accordingly, the vast majority of this price disparity must

be made up in incentives, such as taxes, that can be directly calculated into purchase price as
9
Thomas
opposed to vague, difficult to directly quantify savings such as gas money and maintenance

fees. The incentive should also get the sticker price under $40,000, because the first digit on

any price tag is the most important one.47 Therefore, the tax refund should be at least $6,000.

The funding for this refund has to come from somewhere. Thus, the introduction of a

carbon tax. Placing a tax on carbon emissions would also help push other industry sectors

towards environmental friendliness as well. And as asserted above, other sectors are essential

to truly eliminating the dangers of climate change. This tax would not be additional, instead it

would replace some corporate taxes for a time. This way, the government would not lose any

revenue, and the corporations would be incentivized to adopt clean energy policies.

In addition to providing assistance for people to purchase electric vehicles, the

government also needs to provide infrastructure for the charging of those vehicles. Current

charging infrastructure would be unable to accommodate a massive increase in demand. Gas

stations would need to be retrofitted to also have charging stations, and charging technology

Image Source 1
10
Thomas
would need continued research. Currently, electric vehicles take a comparatively long time to

charge, so with each vehicle taking up a ‘refueling’ spot for longer, stations would need to be

equipped with more spots, and possible upsized to accommodate this increase. Only then will

the infrastructure of the country be prepared to accept the increase in electric vehicles.

By taking these steps, the country should make substantial progress toward achieving

the climate change goals that are necessary to let life remain the way it is currently. The sinking

cities, the coastal paradises, and the economic havens need the rest of the world to wake up

and address climate change. This is an important way to do that, otherwise, the apocalypse

may actually come this time.

11
Thomas
Endnotes:

1
Flamm, Matthew Caleb. “George Santayana.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. University
of Tennessee at Martin. Accessed April 13, 2020. https://www.iep.utm.edu/santayan/.
2
LightHouse. “History Repeats Itself: Origin, Meaning, Explanation, Importance.”
ImportantIndia.com. Discover the Importance of India, June 26, 2017.
https://www.importantindia.com/23658/history-repeats-itself-origin-meaning-explanation-
importance/.
3
Strauss, Mark. “Ten Notable Apocalypses That (Obviously) Didn't Happen.” Smithsonian.com.
Smithsonian Institution, November 12, 2009. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-
notable-apocalypses-that-obviously-didnt-happen-9126331/.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Cohen, Jennie. “Apocalypses That Weren't.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, May 18,
2011. https://www.history.com/news/apocalypses-that-werent.
7
Strauss, Mark, “Ten Notable Apocalypses That (Obviously) Didn't Happen.”
8
Ibid.
9
Clark, Stuart. “Apocalypse Postponed: How Earth Survived Halley's Comet in 1910” The
Guardian. Guardian News and Media, December 20, 2012.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/dec/20/apocalypse-postponed-
halley-comet.
10
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report
Summary for Policymakers.” IPCC. United Nations, 2014.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf. Page 2.
11
“Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?” NASA. NASA, December 30, 2019.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.12 Ibid.
13
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report
Summary for Policymakers.” Page 28.
14
Ibid.
15
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report
Summary for Policymakers.” Page 13.
16
“A Degree of Concern: Why Global Temperatures Matter – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the
Planet.” NASA. NASA, June 25, 2019. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-
why-global-temperatures-matter/.
17
Ibid.
18
“Climate Change Impacts.” Climate change impacts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, February 2019. https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate-
education-resources/climate-change-impacts.
19
Lu, Denise, and Christopher Flavelle. “Rising Seas Will Erase More Cities by 2050, New
Research Shows.” The New York Times. The New York Times, October 29, 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/29/climate/coastal-cities-underwater.html?
auth=link-dismiss-google1tap.
20
Ibid.
21
“Sea Level.” NASA. NASA, March 19, 2020. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/.
12
Thomas
22
“Percentage of Total Population Living in Coastal Areas .” Columbia University, n.d.
https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/papers/Coastal_Zone_Pop_Method.pdf.
23
“Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” EPA. Environmental Protection
Agency, July 16, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-
greenhouse-gas-emissions.
24
Ibid.
25
“Carbon Footprint Factsheet.” Carbon Footprint Factsheet | Center for Sustainable Systems.
University of Michigan, 2019. http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet.
26
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” How
much ethanol is in gasoline, and how does it affect fuel economy? - FAQ. Energy Information
Administration, May 14, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=27&t=10.
27
Brandon, N P, and Z Kurban. “Clean Energy and the Hydrogen Economy.” Philosophical
transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences. The Royal Society
Publishing, July 28, 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5468720/.
28
“Hydrogen Production and Distribution.” Alternative Fuels Data Center: Hydrogen Production
and Distribution. United States Department of Energy. Accessed April 16, 2020.
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_production.html.
29
Ibid.
30
Harrabin, Roger. “Electric Car Emissions Myth 'Busted'.” BBC News. BBC, March 23, 2020.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51977625.
31
Ibid.
32
“Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Union of Concerned
Scientists, October 29, 2015. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave.
33
Katz-Lavigne, Sarah. “Analysis | Demand for Congo's Cobalt Is on the Rise. So Is the Scrutiny
of Mining Practices.” The Washington Post. WP Company, February 21, 2019.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/21/demand-congos-cobalt-is-rise-so-is-
scrutiny-mining-practices/.
34
Harrabin, “Electric Car Emissions Myth ‘Busted’.”
35
“Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave.”
36
Ibid.
37
Consumer Reports. “Make Your Car Last 200,000 Miles.” Consumer Reports. Consumer
Reports, November 6, 2016. https://www.consumerreports.org/car-repair-maintenance/make-
your-car-last-200-000-miles/.
38
Harrabin, “Electric Car Emissions Myth ‘Busted’.”
39
EPA, “Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”
40
Pachauri, Rajendra K. “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report.” Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. United Nations, 2014.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf.
41
Nikel, David. “Electric Cars: Why Little Norway Leads The World In EV Usage.” Forbes.
Forbes Magazine, June 19, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/06/18/electric-
cars-why-little-norway-leads-the-world-in-ev-usage/#75b0d8d813e3.
42
Ibid.
13
Thomas
43
“Qualified Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Tax Credit.” Alternative Fuels Data Center: Qualified
Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Tax Credit. United States Department of Energy. Accessed April
16, 2020. https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/409.
44
Annarhecht. “Car Prices Are Increasing-Here's How That Can Hurt Americans.” CNBC.
CNBC, October 22, 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/22/car-prices-are-rapidly-increasing-
heres-why-thats-bad-for-americans.html.
45
“Maps and Data - U.S. Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sales by Model.” Alternative Fuels Data
Center: Maps and Data - U.S. Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sales by Model. United States
Department of Energy. Accessed April 16, 2020. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10567.
46
“Tesla Model 3 Design Studio.” Tesla. Tesla Motors. Accessed April 16, 2020.
https://www.tesla.com/model3/design#battery.
47
Viswanathan, Balaji. “Let Me Ask You This: 'Do Prices at .99, Instead of 1.00, Result In.” The
Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, June 28,
2014.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/let-me-ask-you-this-
do-prices-at-99-instead-of-100-result-in-more-sales-9563222.html.

Image Source 1: Richter, Felix. “Infographic: Density of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in the
United States.” Statista Infographics. Statista, November 4, 2016.
https://www.statista.com/chart/6586/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure/.