[In this post, as in all my posts, I am writing in my capacity as Executive Director of Climate Tech Action Network, and these views are not the views of my employer, Toyota Research Institute, Toyota Motor Corporation, or the fine folks at Toyota Motor North America.]
Updates
CTAN is having a Holiday Party, and I would love to see you there! December 13, Barebottle Brewing in San Francisco, we will be celebrating, networking, and raising money for CTAN. Get your tickets here!
We will also be giving out an award for Climate Tech COO of the Year, and nominations close in a couple of weeks, so please submit your nominations ASAP.
EVs and Equity
We had a great panel recently with some really amazing panelists on the topic of Navigating an Equitable EV Transition. This panel was a collaboration between CTAN and the Berkeley Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE), and it was a real privilege to have such an august partner in this discussion.
The rapid transition from internal combustion engines (ICE) to electric vehicles (EV) will create big economic and social displacements, as the rollout of any new technology will. Automakers stand to reap huge profits from subsidies intended to ensure the rapid phaseout of old ICE cars in favor of new EVs, although not all automakers will benefit equally, and some may not survive the transition. As Ray Zalinsky, the Auto Parts King (Dan Akyroyd) said, in Tommy Boy:
So the kids cry when you tie an old tiger to a tree and shoot him. But that's life! America's in a state of renewal. We've gotta have the strength to tie a few factories to a tree and bash 'em with a shovel.
Economic disruption is always harder for people who are less privileged, or have fewer resources. So it’s incumbent on automakers to take that opportunity, and the public trust that comes with it, and try to do what they can to make that transition as equitable as possible.
One of the best points of the night was made by Michael Randolph, Transportation Planner for the City of Oakland. Oakland is certainly among the most progressive cities in the nation, and the message was simple: Cities have to plan for EVs, because if they don’t, then poor people get screwed. Some of the issues that cities need to consider are: Where will the chargers go? How can we make sure that underprivileged communities and apartment dwellers have access to curbside charging? And, most EVs these days are bought by people in upper income neighborhoods, with the help of government subsidies. But lower income neighborhoods near highways suffer the most severe health effects from the pollution of ICE vehicles, so they don’t share equally in that benefit. Simply giving city planners the resources to try to figure this stuff out will make a huge difference in how people are affected by the EV transition.
Another panelist, Ken Branson, is a climate policy advisor to State Senator Josh Becker, one of the most active voices in California climate policy. Ken is an old friend and colleague from our days fighting methane leaks at Kairos Aerospace, and he made a great point about how we achieve carbon neutrality. In an ideal world, the easiest way to reduce carbon emissions from transportation would be to invest heavily in public transit, and get people to drive less. But historically, asking people to voluntarily change their behavior has not been very effective. Or, as I have said previously,
Often times, you hear people say things like “Americans will need to learn to live more simply, and travel less” and I think that’s a nice sentiment and also you might as well wish for a pony that eats CO₂ and shits hydrogen, because Americans have absolutely no intention of giving up steaks and cars and flying.
So, the least disruptive way to achieve carbon neutrality is to give people something that is as close to a drop-in replacement for their current mode of transportation as possible. Personally, I often spend time in traffic dreaming of the day when I will be able to take a high speed ferry from Oakland to Mountain View. But, practically, we really need to make it easy for people to own EVs. And, for lower income Americans, that means a lot of subsidies, and a lot of investment in charging infrastructure in their neighborhoods, even if the cars aren’t there yet. Because they will be, and soon. And if we don’t get on the ball, the people living in those neighborhoods won’t have any way to charge their cars, and they’ll still have lousy public transit options, and they’ll be screwed. (And I still won’t have my goddamn ferry.)
A recent Expert Voices article in the journal Science argues very persuasively that the international goal-setting model of climate policy is in desperate need of a rethink. There are many important roles for international bodies in fighting the climate crisis. But “goal-setting” tends to place most of the emphasis on how much carbon we need to cut, at the expense of attention paid to how we’re going to do it. At a national and local level, climate policy can be thought of in terms of redistributive conflict: decarbonizing the economy will make some groups winners, and some groups losers, and the fights over the distribution of the gains and the losses are where we should focus most of our limited political power. Figuring out how to make decarbonization win-win instead of win-lose will draw stronger support for climate-forward policies, and will help us focus on the most important goal of climate mitigation: helping people, and saving lives.