National

After 13 years without owning a car, I finally got one.

Why it matters: Driving is one of the most direct ways we as individuals benefit from our activities raising Earth’s temperature. It’s also one of the clearest ways we can embrace cleaner technologies.

This is the story of my personal car-buying journey. I’m sharing because I learned a lot and others may have similar goals. I had three goals in mind (read until the end to find out what I got).

Efficient: As clean and efficient as possible. 

Affordable: I don’t want to spend any more money than necessary.

Versatile: I don’t want to depend on multiple cars. Most electric-car owners almost always own multiple cars.

The big picture: The U.S. transportation sector is America’s biggest source of greenhouse gases. We need systemic change, not undue focus on individual action, to tackle climate change. But exploring how we can cut our own carbon footprints helps because it teaches us about those needed systemic changes.

How it works: I wrote off a fully electric car — for now.

My Seattle apartment building doesn’t have charging, and although I probably will have access to it when I commute to an office again, I want the guarantee of home charging.

My family lives 300 miles away in a rural part of Washington state where charging en route — and charging again once I get there — would be difficult.

I want a car with all-wheel drive because of snow. The only electric cars currently available with this are Teslas, but the most affordable option costs well north of $40,000.

The intrigue: I then began looking at plug-hybrids, which can be plugged into an electricity source, allowing drivers to go short distances on a battery (i.e., city errands) with a gasoline engine for longer trips.

Subaru with its Crosstrek and Toyota with its Prius and RAV4 have appealing plug-in options.

But, but, but: A messy combination of state policies and automaker preferences are roadblocks.

Subaru is not currently selling its plug-in Crosstrek in Washington state, per a corporate spokesman. The company is prioritizing selling it in the roughly dozen states that have adopted California’s zero-emission mandate.

Representatives at Seattle-area Toyota dealerships told me they’re not receiving plug-in versions of the RAV4 and Prius because they’re so popular, and because Toyota was prioritizing selling them in other states, namely California. A Toyota spokeswoman said they’re allocating those models “efficiently and strategically as possible” to meet its regulatory requirements with state-level zero-emission mandates.

Although Washington State passed legislation last year adopting this mandate, it won’t go into effect until 2025.

I could have gone to Portland, Ore., 180 miles away to buy a Crosstrek plug-in hybrid, but then it couldn’t be serviced in Seattle, per a Subaru spokesman.

That left conventional hybrids, which use a gasoline engine and regenerative braking to power the vehicle’s battery. I narrowed the choices to two: Prius and RAV4.

They cost between $25,000 and $35,000 and get up to 50 and 40 miles to the gallon, respectively. Hybrids don’t get much attention in our society’s saturated debate about electric cars, but they should.

They emit about 25% fewer greenhouse gases compared to their fully gasoline counterparts, according to multiple studies. Fully electric cars emit close to half as much greenhouse gases, though that can fluctuate depending on the cleanliness of the electricity source.

More than 5% of U.S. auto sales market in the first quarter of 2021 were hybrids, compared to less than 2.5% for fully electric cars, according to Cox Automotive.

"Beyond substantial sales of electric vehicles, hybrids will also be necessary to meet CO2 emissions rules in practically all major automotive markets globally,” says Nikolas Soulopoulos, an electric vehicle analyst at BloombergNEF.

“They offer a distinctive efficiency advantage over non-hybridized [internal combustion engines], with relatively moderate additional costs.”

My final choice is anticlimactic (and the butt of an Elon Musk joke). I settled on a Prius, with a price tag of about $25,000. Newer models come in all-wheel drive.

The bottom line: Our world needs to dramatically shift to electric cars as soon as possible, climate experts say. Or, even better, ditch cars altogether.

In the International Energy Agency’s report on reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, the influential intergovernmental group recommended that nearly 50% of households by then should own zero vehicles, instead relying more on car-sharing, public transit and biking.

What’s next: Auto makers are promising more affordability and versatility in all-electric cars in the coming few years. With that in mind, I am leasing my Prius and plan to return it in in three years to buy a fully electric car (or, better yet, no car at all).

To tackle climate change, electric cars need to get cheaper

Climate-change confessions of an energy reporter

Coronavirus creates bigger risk for shared mobility

Editor's note: Amy Harder is vice president of publishing at Breakthrough Energy, a network of investment vehicles, philanthropic programs, policy advocacy, and other activities committed to scaling the technologies needed to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. She is launching a new journalism initiative there. Previously full time at Axios, Amy is now writing her Harder Line column as an outside contributor.

An energy reporter’s quest for a clean, affordable and versatile car

It's tough to buy a car that passes all three tests.

Illustration of a pattern of cars with one highlighted. 

Electric vehicles

Climate change

Elon Musk

After 13 years without owning a car, I finally got one.Why it matters: Driving is one of the most direct ways we as individuals benefit from our activities raising Earth’s temperature. It’s also one of the clearest ways we can embrace cleaner technologies.

Ominous forecasts about the impact of climate change serve as the backdrop for the world — led by U.S. lawmakers and companies — to debate big action on the problem, which could upend energy systems and our way of life.

Energy & Environment

Cutting oil production before we cut our demand for oil could undermine much of the progress that needs to be made on climate change.

Why it matters: If companies cut back on producing oil but consumers don’t cut back on consuming it, demand will exceed supply and prices will shoot up. That’s bad for our pocketbooks and risks the transition to cleaner energy.

Driving the news: This appears to be the track we’re on. Lurking in the shadows of the pandemic-induced roller coaster of oil prices we’re on now is a deeper, systemic shift within the oil industry and its investors.

Buoyed largely by politics and growing activism, Wall Street is demanding that oil companies invest less in new oil discoveries and more in cleaner energy (and pay off debts).

In response to that pressure and the collapse in oil prices starting in 2014, overall industry investments in new oil and gas resources have collapsed in recent years, according to Bob McNally, president of consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group.

Yes, but: Despite ambitious goals to reduce heat-trapping emissions, most countries have actually not passed laws that significantly reduce oil demand by targeting consumers through taxes or mandates.

Instead, most countries are pursuing less politically toxic options, like regulations that indirectly (and slowly and unevenly) reduce oil consumption.

“If we curb supply but not demand, oil prices will spike well into the hundred-dollar range,” said McNally. “Gasoline prices would follow. Such an oil price spike would harm the economy, the political careers of elected officials, and the energy transition.”

He projects that such a scenario is likely to start unfolding within the next five years.

By the numbers: The average price of a gallon of U.S. gasoline is $3.17 as of July 30, according to AAA. That’s the highest in seven years, though prices are fluctuating as the pandemic stamps down oil demand again with the Delta variant.

Where it stands: The International Energy Agency, an intergovernmental group launched in 1974 to ensure global oil security, issued one of its most impactful reports in May. It declared that no new oil and gas discoveries would be needed in a future that reaches net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

What they’re saying: “Needing no more oil and gas is only true if previous actions by governments happen and demand follows that trajectory,” Laura Cozzi, the IEA’s chief energy modeler and lead author of the report, told me. “The sequencing is important.”

In its report, the IEA identified 400 milestones that need to occur to achieve the net-zero goal, and 95% of those should be driven by policy changes affecting demand, not supply, said IEA executive director Fatih Birol, per Reuters.

This includes imposing carbon pricing and phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies, both which have direct impact on consumers’ demand for those fuels.

How it works: Public sentiment generally skews toward concern about energy affordability during periods of economic recessions and instabilities. A recent Gallup survey shows that playing out in the wake of the pandemic.

That sentiment creates headwinds for any type of policy that could be even perceived as raising the cost of energy — a key reason President Biden and other administration officials insist they’re not going to support a gasoline tax increase or any other tax on energy.

“If there is increased oil demand and if we don’t have technological innovation and policy driving a transition to clean energy, you will get higher prices for oil and gas, and that will create all kind of dynamics, including political ones.”

Richard Newell, former administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration under Barack Obama and current president of think tank Resources for the Future

The other side: Environmentalists have helped propel a social movement around climate change by fighting projects producing and moving fossil fuels around (remember the Keystone XL pipeline?). In other words, they have focused on supply, not demand of those fuels.

Tzeporah Berman, international program director at group Stand.earth, says some countries are now beginning to impose demand-side policies, like pledges to ban internal combustion engines cars within the next 15 years.

But she is cognizant of the risks our world faces if demand reduction doesn’t follow soon after.

The bottom line: “Without political leadership and courage, a lot of this could be at risk,” said Berman. “The challenge for policymakers is to move quickly putting in infrastructure for electrification and efficiency.”

Rising gasoline prices signal trouble for climate change action

High prices are bad for our pocketbooks and endanger the transition to cleaner energy.

Illustration of Earth half-submerged in gasoline. 

Column / Harder Line

Cutting oil production before we cut our demand for oil could undermine much of the progress that needs to be made on climate change.Why it matters: If companies cut back on producing oil but consumers don’t cut back on consuming it, demand will exceed supply and prices will shoot up. That’s bad for our pocketbooks and risks the transition to cleaner energy.

A year ago, almost all of us were grappling with the unknowns of the pandemic. Today, some of us are doing just fine, while others are still reeling.

Why it matters: This split-screen economy, called a K-shaped recovery, highlights the risk facing politicians, including President Biden, as they rally around bold climate action. If new climate laws aren’t inclusive of those less well off in America and around the world, they risk exacerbating inequality.

The big picture: In a K-shaped recovery, the arm of the K represents higher-income people who can work from home and shield themselves from the pandemic’s health and economic harm relatively easily. In fact, the wealth of those on the K’s arm has been growing over the past year as the stock market grew.

The leg of the K is comprised of blue-collar workers, small business owners and the half of the U.S. population that isn't invested in the stock market.

“Any change in the world is going to be harder on the people who are already exposed and vulnerable. So the trick is to make sure they benefit, if not equitably, at least proportional to the benefits of the energy transition.”

Carlos Martín, senior fellow at The Urban Institute

Where it stands: Climate change is an especially dire threat to people on the K’s legs.

Society’s efforts to transition to clean energy and the impacts of a warming world both disproportionately affect poorer people in America and abroad.

Lower-income people spend a larger amount of their paychecks on heating, electricity and transportation. This is especially so in Black and Hispanic communities, where poverty rates are higher.

Lower-income people are also less financially able to respond to or move away from places that climate change is making hotter, drier or more at risk of extreme weather.

How it works: To tackle climate change, you must either make clean energy cheaper or fossil fuels more expensive — or both.

Oil, natural gas and coal have been powering our economy for decades and make up 80% of our global energy consumption (a figure that’s barely budged in 30 years).

They’re plentiful and made cheap by government subsidies here and abroad. They’re also the main reason our planet is heating up.

Therefore, any action we take to tackle climate change is, by default, going to raise energy costs — which means those who are least able to afford it will shoulder the brunt of those costs unless policymakers work to reduce the impact.

For the past few decades, the U.S. government has primarily tackled climate change by subsidizing cleaner energy, which absorbs and eventually lowers technology costs while shielding consumers.

The intrigue: The Biden administration is leading with that in its $2 trillion infrastructure push on Capitol Hill, with a large chunk of spending going toward climate and clean energy. Such an approach could shield consumers from higher costs.

Several subsidy policies Congress is considering, forms of which are included in Biden’s package, could curb power-sector emissions up to 76% below 2005 levels by 2031, according to a recent analysis by research firm Rhodium Group.

The “federal investment shifts the cost of decarbonization from ratepayers to the federal government, resulting in negligible changes in bills even when regulations add costs to the electric system,” states the report.

Biden’s infrastructure plan seeks to shield lower-income people from the default regressivity of climate policy in numerous ways, but two of the biggest are through electric-car incentives and a new program called the Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator.

The plan proposes investing $174 billion in electric cars and charging infrastructure, including giving consumers point-of-sale rebates (on top of expanded tax incentives) to buy American-made electric vehicles.

This is key to attract lower-income buyers. Although the lifetime cost of owning an electric car may be lower than its gasoline counterpart, the sticker price remains higher, dissuading lower-income drivers, says Scott Hardman, a researcher at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California Davis.

The accelerator program would spend $27 billion in government money on mobilizing private investment into clean energy and retrofitting buildings with a “particular focus on disadvantaged communities that have not yet benefited from clean energy investments,” according to a White House fact sheet.

Yes, but: Biden’s plan also includes a clean electricity standard that supports his goal of a carbon-free electricity sector in 14 years (natural gas and coal currently comprise nearly 60% of the mix).

Standards, carbon taxes and regulations are by default regressive, hitting lower-income households harder than others unless explicit steps are taken to counteract that.

Kevin Rennert, a fellow at think tank Resources for the Future, says although such a mandate in isolation could raise electricity costs, the additional spending included in the package could offset increases.

What we’re watching: Biden’s electricity standard faces long odds against passing Congress, but at least some of his clean energy spending measures could muster congressional approval.

Editor's note: Amy Harder is vice president of publishing at Breakthrough Energy, a network of investment vehicles, philanthropic programs, policy advocacy, and other activities committed to scaling the technologies needed to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. She is launching a new journalism initiative there. Previously full time at Axios, Amy is now writing her Harder Line column monthly as an outside contributor.

In uneven economic recovery, climate action risks leaving some behind

If new climate laws aren’t inclusive of those less well off, they risk exacerbating inequality.

Illustration of a hand holding out a tiny umbrella

A year ago, almost all of us were grappling with the unknowns of the pandemic. Today, some of us are doing just fine, while others are still reeling.Why it matters: This split-screen economy, called a K-shaped recovery, highlights the risk facing politicians, including President Biden, as they rally around bold climate action. If new climate laws aren’t inclusive of those less well off in America and around the world, they risk exacerbating inequality.

Most drivers of electric cars are wealthy, and most electric cars are luxury.

Why it matters: To effectively combat climate change, the opposite needs to happen: electric cars need to become affordable and broadly appealing so the masses can and want to buy them. Only with mass adoption will heat-trapping emissions steeply decline in America’s most polluting sector.

The big picture: The stereotype of rich Californians driving their Teslas isn’t a bad thing—at least not yet. It’s part of the cycle of new technology costs. Wealthy drivers are helping drive down the cost of new electric-car technologies by being able and willing (and subsidized by governments) to be early adopters of these vehicles.

"Now we’re at a point where the technology is there, we do need to start thinking about how we make sure this transition benefits everyone,” said Scott Hardman, a professional researcher at Institute of Transportation Studies at University of California, Davis.

“But I don’t think things are going in the right direction,” he added, before sharing the following statistical snapshots.

By the numbers: Of the 11 newest battery electric vehicles introduced in the U.S. between 2018 and 2020, eight are luxury vehicles.

The average starting price of an electric car has increased over the past eight years, despite battery costs plummeting. The average price in 2012 was about $39,000. Last year, it was $52,000. (The cost of gas-powered cars is generally trending up too.)

The average salary of an electric-car owner in California is $174,000, more than double the national average.

Teslas, which make up more than 70% of the electric-car market, have even wealthier drivers, with average incomes of more than $300,000, Hardman’s research has found. (Multiple requests for comment to Tesla were not returned.)

Driving the news: The Biden administration is proposing to invest $174 billion into electric vehicles and related charging equipment, including giving consumers point-of-sale rebates to buy American-made electric vehicles.

This is key to attract lower-income buyers. Although the lifetime cost of owning an electric car can be lower than its gasoline counterpart, the sticker price remains higher, dissuading lower-income drivers, Hardman says.

The existing federal tax credit for electric cars, which President Biden is also proposing to expand, has generally benefited wealthier people who have more tax liability and can afford to wait to get their money back.

What they’re saying: The White House appears to be aware of this dynamic. Biden is proposing investments in a “way that is user-friendly and boosts the accessibility of incentives for the broadest spectrum of Americans,” Ali Zaidi, deputy climate-change adviser at the White House, said in a recent interview.

Catch up fast: Last year, electric cars made up 2.2% of the U.S. auto market (compared to more than 4% globally), per BloombergNEF.

New laws, automaker competition and falling battery prices will drive those percentages up significantly in the coming years, according to BloombergNEF and most other models.

Automakers who make up nearly a third of the U.S. market have pledged to manufacture all-electric vehicles in the coming decades, consulting firm Rhodium Group found.

The intrigue: Cost is actually growing in importance as a reason people decide not to buy an electric car, says Felicity Latcham, associate partner at consulting firm OC&C, which conducts regular surveys on this topic.

Cheaper electric cars are coming as automakers compete to own this market.

Hyundai just launched new advertising campaigns touting new hybrid and fully electric SUVs and sedans. Offerings like this will eventually broaden the market for used electric cars, which is especially important for lower income drivers.

Yes, but: Roadblocks remain. Ask California, America’s leader in electric cars. Its goal is to get five million electric vehicles on the road by 2030 (today it has fewer than one million).

Its 11-year-old Clean Vehicle Rebate Project has been widely successful but ran out of money last month. More than 60% of all electric-vehicle owners in California have used this program.

In 2016, the legislature altered the program so lower-income people can receive more incentives and wealthier people are unable to participate in the program.

Several other states have since adopted programs like California’s, though most don’t have income limits, potentially exacerbating inequality.

The program just exhausted funding partly because of its popularity and because it didn’t receive any new funds last year.

At a recent public hearing on the program, backers bemoaned the money running out and the fact that its annual funding doesn’t allow for adequate planning. Whether it gets more money will be among the budget decisions made later this month and in June.

“When you take away the incentives, I just think you could really harm those that are on the fence,” said Eileen Tutt, executive director of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, a group of companies supporting electric cars. “If we eliminate this program now, that could ripple across the U.S. and really harm the market.”

The bottom line: “Let’s be real. We’re not even close to meeting our goals,” Tutt said of California’s aspirations. “We’ve got to get to a new set of consumers.”

To combat climate change, electric cars have to be cheaper

Only with mass adoption will heat-trapping emissions begin to decline.

Illustration of a lower prices icon comprised of a road circling a patch of grass that is in the shape of a dollar sign.

Most drivers of electric cars are wealthy, and most electric cars are luxury.Why it matters: To effectively combat climate change, the opposite needs to happen: electric cars need to become affordable and broadly appealing so the masses can and want to buy them. Only with mass adoption will heat-trapping emissions steeply decline in America’s most polluting sector.

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

The growing urgency of tackling global warming is colliding with the world’s deeply uneven use of the heat-trapping energy resources that are causing it.

The big picture: The long-simmering debate over the role rich and poor countries should fill in tackling climate change is reaching a boiling point.

Rich countries in North America and Europe, which have built their economies on oil, natural gas and coal, are calling for drastic cuts in burning these fuels. Leaders of poorer nations, particularly in Africa, are urging lenience for their still-developing economies.

Driving the news: Wealthy nations and development banks funded by them are restricting access to financing for fossil-fuel infrastructure in dozens of the world’s poorest countries.

The biggest sticking point is emerging over natural gas, which emits far less carbon dioxide and other traditional pollution compared to coal and oil.

But gas is still a fossil fuel that is contributing to Earth’s temperature rise because its primary component is methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Why it matters: To forestall the worst effects of a warming planet, the world must drastically cut heat-trapping emissions, most of which come from burning fossil fuels, says a just-released United Nations report. Yet concerns about equity — which often fall along racial lines — are emerging in response.

“The most valuable thing we can do is invest in technologies that allow countries to substitute in renewables for fossil fuels. Shutting off the spigot now for the poorest countries will be devastating for them.”

Vijaya Ramachandran, director for energy and development at the nonprofit Breakthrough Institute

How it works: Governments and development banks in and funded by wealthy nations, including the United States and World Bank, largely control access to financing for the world’s 74 poorest countries as defined by the World Bank, most of which are in Africa.

The Treasury Department in August issued guidance to the world’s multilateral banks that opposes funding entirely to oil and coal and production of natural gas. It will offer narrow and qualified support for certain natural-gas infrastructure like pipelines, in the poorest countries only.

The World Bank announced similar restrictions earlier this summer, as did a United Kingdom development bank last summer.

The European Investment Bank has taken the strictest approach. It announced in 2019 it would end financing of all fossil-fuel projects, including natural gas, by the end of this year. Gas facilities that have technology installed that could capture its emissions are the only exception.

What they’re saying: “Curbing natural gas investments in Africa will do little to limit carbon emissions globally but much to hurt the continent’s economic prospects,” said Yemi Osinbajo, vice president of Nigeria, in an oped published in late August.

The 48 countries and more than one billion people of Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding Northern African nations and South Africa) account for less than 1% of the world’s cumulative carbon emissions. The entire continent is just 3%.

Even if those 48 nations suddenly tripled their electricity consumption overnight using only natural gas, it would amount to just 0.62% of the world’s annual global emissions, per a calculation by Energy For Growth Hub, a nonprofit focused on sustainable and equitable energy development.

In fact, it’s not even electricity, but cooking (with fuels like wood) that’s especially polluting. These wood fuels represent Africa’s largest single energy source, and therefore is one of the region’s largest contributors to climate change, according to a June peer-reviewed study by Duke University experts.

“Many homes in Sub-Saharan Africa are still cooking with charcoal and firewood, and urgently need to transition to cleaner options” like propane and other products derived from oil and gas, said Murefu Barasa, founder and managing partner of EED Advisory Limited, a Kenya-based consulting firm on energy access in Africa.

Yes, but: Some environmentalists agree that although poorer nations have as much right as wealthier nations to fully develop their economies, the urgency of climate change means new fossil fuels, including natural gas, can’t play a role.

“It has yet to be demonstrated that there are development pathways for the countries of the south that are not fossil-dependent pathways,” said Tom Athanasiou, executive director of EcoEquity, a think tank working with international groups to ensure equitable climate solutions. 

“We believe there are such pathways, particularly since the renewable energy revolution.”

He said richer nations need to help more to subsidize the transition costs so countries like Nigeria and Kenya can rapidly adopt cleaner energy.

The bottom line: “If the push for a net-zero 2050 is not very widely accepted around the world as being fair, it’s going to fail,” Athanasiou said. 

Editor's note: Amy Harder is launching Cipher, a new publication by Breakthrough Energy, a project focused on how to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. To keep following her journalism, sign up for her weekly newsletter here.

https://www.ciphernews.com/

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.breakthroughenergy.org%2f&data=04%7c01%7camy%40breakthroughenergy.org%7c366302330d2e4f4f369a08d97494c98f%7c16940056037441ee918a557632270fe9%7c0%7c0%7c637669004659648957%7cunknown%7ctwfp

Poor countries push for lenience in banning fossil-fuel financing

The debate over the role rich and poor countries should fill in tackling climate change is reaching a boiling point.

Illustration of a hand crushing an oil barrel as if it were an aluminum can.   

Fossil fuels

The growing urgency of tackling global warming is colliding with the world’s deeply uneven use of the heat-trapping energy resources that are causing it.The big picture: The long-simmering debate over the role rich and poor countries should fill in tackling climate change is reaching a boiling point.

Amy Harder of Breakthrough Energy

Stories

Poor countries push for lenience in banning fossil-fuel financing

Rising gasoline prices signal trouble for climate change action

An energy reporter’s quest for a clean, affordable and versatile car

To combat climate change, electric cars have to be cheaper

In uneven economic recovery, climate action risks leaving some behind