Top 5 Climate Reasons To Reduce Driving, Even With Electric Vehicles
Sprawl and EVs still have significant carbon costs
California and other jurisdictions have been moving to scale back vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a climate solution. Yet some pro-sprawl interests query whether that is mandatory, given the appearance of electrical vehicles. It’s fair to ask: if all vehicles are “zero emission,” will we actually need to care any more about how much driving we do, when it comes to the climate impact?
The reply is unequivocally yes, and listed below are the highest five reasons:
- Gas cars shall be with us for a very long time. Because the California Air Resources Board noted within the 2022 scoping plan appendix, even with a goal to have only zero-emission vehicles sold within the state by 2035, roughly 30 percent of light-duty vehicles on the road in 2045 will still burn fossil fuels. The less of that we burn through reduced driving, the higher.
- Clean electricity generation still has a carbon cost. Even when we move to 100% electric vehicles, that energy has to return from somewhere. And if it’s large-scale solar or wind facilities, they arrive with their very own energy inputs to fabricate, in addition to land use impacts to deploy. For instance, some studies conservatively estimate it takes 10 acres of solar panels to generate one megawatt of electricity, an hour of which could potentially power about 3,500 driving miles collectively. Using that land for electricity and never food production, carbon sequestration, or open space comes with significant climate costs.
- Low-VMT development patterns reduce carbon pollution from buildings. As CARB noted, infill development (versus sprawl served by publicly-subsidized highways) uses an estimated 10 to twenty percent less residential energy, as a result of smaller unit types, sizes, and locations — not to say reduced water use from less outdoor irrigation requirements, which include their very own energy footprint to ship and treat the water.
- Reducing sprawl and VMT preserves open space and dealing lands as a carbon sink. To attain carbon neutrality by mid century or sooner, we’re going to wish to bury carbon. Natural and dealing lands are a key part of that equation, as they supply opportunities to bury carbon in soils through natural processes. Developing these lands as a substitute for top VMT sprawl can permanently foreclose that chance.
- Electric vehicles include their very own carbon footprint and pollution costs. While dramatically higher for the environment than fossil fuel-powered cars, EVs still require significant energy to fabricate, and their use on the road can create particulate matter pollution through wear on the tires and brakes and by kicking up particulate matter from the road. In addition they require large-scale mining of lithium, graphite and other minerals, which creates local environmental and energy impacts.
I could also mention non-climate reasons for wanting to scale back VMT, reminiscent of the equity advantages of constructing more housing closer to jobs and services so as to reduce transportation costs that disproportionately hurt low-income residents. But I’ll follow the climate advantages for now.
Overall, we do need to impress 100% of our transportation modes from a climate perspective. But we also have to concurrently reduce the demand for transportation by constructing smarter and higher communities in walkable, inexpensive, and transit-friendly areas.
Without that reduced driving, our climate goals shall be much harder to attain.
