Electric Vehicles: The future of four wheelers
Elon Musk once stated, “I think there are more politicians in favour of electric cars than against. The reasoning for that varies, depending on the person, but in some cases, they don’t believe in climate change — they think oil will last forever.”
The co-founder and CEO of Tesla, which manufactures electric vehicles (EVs) might have referred to Donald Trump.
In his recent election speech, Trump promised to end the electric vehicle (EV) mandate in the US, as soon as he’s in office.
The statement has created shock and awe among environmentalists and diplomats.
At a time, when the world is struggling and striving to limit global warming to below 2°C under the Paris Agreement, the announcement of the potential cancellation of EV legislation could have far-ranging repercussions.
History repeats itself
Like Trump, former President George W. Bush was also a climate change sceptic.
In 2001, after taking office, Bush announced that the US would not implement the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement brokered by former Vice President Al Gore and signed by former President Bill Clinton. Bush stated that the deal would hurt the US economy, lead to higher energy prices and invite other countries to take advantage of an agreement with little enforcement capabilities.
At that time, developing countries including India and China did not require to limit their GHG emissions.
During his presidency in 2017, Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, formally notifying the United Nations. This was despite the US releasing more cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere than any other country.
Trump believed the Agreement imposed unfair economic burdens on the US, potentially harming American businesses and workforce. Finalised in 2020, the withdrawal process made the US the only country to exit the accord.
Observers felt that Washington weakened the Agreement by dismantling the ‘modest’ policies and initiatives of former US President, Barack Obama to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, in 2021, within a few months in office, President Joe Biden re-entered the country into the Agreement.
In contrast to Trump, Biden’s shift to battery-powered cars was one of his top climate and industrial policies. He set a goal of having 50 per cent of all new vehicle sales to be electric by 2030.
Falling short of expectations
Countries have to submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline their plans to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
The US set ambitious targets, including a significant reduction in GHG emissions by 2030. EVs are crucial to these mitigation plans and reducing support could obstruct the passage of the goals and affect the country’s competitiveness in the automotive industry.
According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) report, the worldwide NDCs for 2023 fell short of the commitments.
Seeing the fallouts, it’s time the nations stood together to see how the Agreement could be amended to make it effective. It should not allow countries to get away by rejecting the Agreement.
Trump believed the Agreement imposed unfair economic burdens on the US, potentially harming American businesses and workforce. Finalised in 2020, the withdrawal process made the US the only country to exit the accord.
Observers felt that Washington weakened the Agreement by dismantling the ‘modest’ policies and initiatives of former US President, Barack Obama to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, in 2021, within a few months in office, President Joe Biden re-entered the country into the Agreement.
In contrast to Trump, Biden’s shift to battery-powered cars was one of his top climate and industrial policies. He set a goal of having 50 per cent of all new vehicle sales to be electric by 2030.
Falling short of expectations
Countries have to submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline their plans to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
The US set ambitious targets, including a significant reduction in GHG emissions by 2030. EVs are crucial to these mitigation plans and reducing support could obstruct the passage of the goals and affect the country’s competitiveness in the automotive industry.
According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) report, the worldwide NDCs for 2023 fell short of the commitments.
Seeing the fallouts, it’s time the nations stood together to see how the Agreement could be amended to make it effective. It should not allow countries to get away by rejecting the Agreement.
However, it rests on the coal being burnt to charge the plug-in vehicles, as electric grids must become cleaner before EVs turn emission-free. Several countries are working towards that by transitioning to lower-emission means.
Jessika Trancik, associate professor of energy studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology said, “The reason EVs are an appealing climate solution is that if we can make our grids zero-carbon, then vehicle emissions drop way down. Whereas even the best hybrids that burn gasoline will always have a baseline of emissions they can’t go below.”
The Positive Effects
Zero tailpipe emissions — EVs do not emit exhaust gases into the air; they improve air quality and reduce the impact of air pollution on human health.
Reduced GHG emissions — Fewer GHGs are emitted than petrol or diesel cars, despite the production and the electricity required to fuel the EVs.
Renewable energy sources — The electricity used can come from renewable sources, reducing their environmental impact.
Charging stations — Electric charging stations, also known as Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE), reduce the greenhouse gas effect and environmental pollution.
Quieter than gasoline-powered cars — EVs help to reduce noise pollution.
Statistics Speak
Reports have warned that 2023 and 2024 have been the hottest years in history. Scientists say the world is on its way to heating more and it could become unbearable to live in certain places.
Experts reason that the Paris Agreement does not have strict enforcement mechanisms and no punitive measures for non-compliance.
Moreover, without the US being part of climate action, no agreement would be beneficial for limiting emissions. The threats to cancel EV mandates highlight the ongoing challenges. Such actions underscore the need for more robust and legally binding international agreements. These must ensure long-term commitment and accountability from all nations.
A legally binding structure could help prevent policy reversals and ensure that climate action remains a priority, regardless of political changes.
The co-founder and CEO of Tesla, which manufactures electric vehicles (EVs) might have referred to Donald Trump.
In his recent election speech, Trump promised to end the electric vehicle (EV) mandate in the US, as soon as he’s in office.
The statement has created shock and awe among environmentalists and diplomats.
At a time, when the world is struggling and striving to limit global warming to below 2°C under the Paris Agreement, the announcement of the potential cancellation of EV legislation could have far-ranging repercussions.
History repeats itself
Like Trump, former President George W. Bush was also a climate change sceptic.
In 2001, after taking office, Bush announced that the US would not implement the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement brokered by former Vice President Al Gore and signed by former President Bill Clinton. Bush stated that the deal would hurt the US economy, lead to higher energy prices and invite other countries to take advantage of an agreement with little enforcement capabilities.
At that time, developing countries including India and China did not require to limit their GHG emissions.
During his presidency in 2017, Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, formally notifying the United Nations. This was despite the US releasing more cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere than any other country.
Trump believed the Agreement imposed unfair economic burdens on the US, potentially harming American businesses and workforce. Finalised in 2020, the withdrawal process made the US the only country to exit the accord.
Observers felt that Washington weakened the Agreement by dismantling the ‘modest’ policies and initiatives of former US President, Barack Obama to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, in 2021, within a few months in office, President Joe Biden re-entered the country into the Agreement.
In contrast to Trump, Biden’s shift to battery-powered cars was one of his top climate and industrial policies. He set a goal of having 50 per cent of all new vehicle sales to be electric by 2030.
Falling short of expectations
Countries have to submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline their plans to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
The US set ambitious targets, including a significant reduction in GHG emissions by 2030. EVs are crucial to these mitigation plans and reducing support could obstruct the passage of the goals and affect the country’s competitiveness in the automotive industry.
According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) report, the worldwide NDCs for 2023 fell short of the commitments.
Seeing the fallouts, it’s time the nations stood together to see how the Agreement could be amended to make it effective. It should not allow countries to get away by rejecting the Agreement.
Trump believed the Agreement imposed unfair economic burdens on the US, potentially harming American businesses and workforce. Finalised in 2020, the withdrawal process made the US the only country to exit the accord.
Observers felt that Washington weakened the Agreement by dismantling the ‘modest’ policies and initiatives of former US President, Barack Obama to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, in 2021, within a few months in office, President Joe Biden re-entered the country into the Agreement.
In contrast to Trump, Biden’s shift to battery-powered cars was one of his top climate and industrial policies. He set a goal of having 50 per cent of all new vehicle sales to be electric by 2030.
Falling short of expectations
Countries have to submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline their plans to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
The US set ambitious targets, including a significant reduction in GHG emissions by 2030. EVs are crucial to these mitigation plans and reducing support could obstruct the passage of the goals and affect the country’s competitiveness in the automotive industry.
According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) report, the worldwide NDCs for 2023 fell short of the commitments.
Seeing the fallouts, it’s time the nations stood together to see how the Agreement could be amended to make it effective. It should not allow countries to get away by rejecting the Agreement.
However, it rests on the coal being burnt to charge the plug-in vehicles, as electric grids must become cleaner before EVs turn emission-free. Several countries are working towards that by transitioning to lower-emission means.
Jessika Trancik, associate professor of energy studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology said, “The reason EVs are an appealing climate solution is that if we can make our grids zero-carbon, then vehicle emissions drop way down. Whereas even the best hybrids that burn gasoline will always have a baseline of emissions they can’t go below.”
The Positive Effects
Zero tailpipe emissions — EVs do not emit exhaust gases into the air; they improve air quality and reduce the impact of air pollution on human health.
Reduced GHG emissions — Fewer GHGs are emitted than petrol or diesel cars, despite the production and the electricity required to fuel the EVs.
Renewable energy sources — The electricity used can come from renewable sources, reducing their environmental impact.
Charging stations — Electric charging stations, also known as Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE), reduce the greenhouse gas effect and environmental pollution.
Quieter than gasoline-powered cars — EVs help to reduce noise pollution.
Statistics Speak
Reports have warned that 2023 and 2024 have been the hottest years in history. Scientists say the world is on its way to heating more and it could become unbearable to live in certain places.
Experts reason that the Paris Agreement does not have strict enforcement mechanisms and no punitive measures for non-compliance.
Moreover, without the US being part of climate action, no agreement would be beneficial for limiting emissions. The threats to cancel EV mandates highlight the ongoing challenges. Such actions underscore the need for more robust and legally binding international agreements. These must ensure long-term commitment and accountability from all nations.
A legally binding structure could help prevent policy reversals and ensure that climate action remains a priority, regardless of political changes.
