Introduction
On Wednesday, April 12, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the direction of the Biden administration, proposed that two-thirds of passenger cars and a quarter of trucks sold in the United States should be electrically powered. These are the “nation’s most ambitious climate regulations to date.”
Campus Conservative, Marisa Powers
In my opinion, there are several issues with the rules proposed by the EPA. According to a poll from AP survey, “19% of U.S. adults say it’s ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ likely they would purchase an electric vehicle next time they buy a car […] About half – 47% – say it’s not likely they would go electric.” By trying to limit the production and sale of gas-powered vehicles, the administration is controlling what consumers can and cannot purchase. Electric vehicles are significantly more expensive than gas-powered vehicles, have less range, and the amount of charging stations in the United States are limited. More electric vehicles would also increase our reliance on China. China “controls 60% of the world’s lithium mining, 77% of battery cell capacity, and 60% of battery component manufacturing.” Relying on China so heavily could cause our own manufacturing and economy to suffer because of how much we would end up importing from them.
It is also important to note that electric vehicles would not have as much of an impact on the environment as the administration claims they will. An article from the Wall Street Journal states, “the Biden plan affects only the U.S., with 12% of the global fleet, so 0.36%. And swapping out a gasoline engine for a battery eliminates only half (at best) of lifetime emissions – so 0.185.”
In my view, the EPA’s proposed rules would do more harm than good. The Biden administration should not go to such drastic measures when it will have little impact on the environment.
Campus Liberal, Tasha Khosla
While I believe that electric vehicles will greatly help the U.S. reduce emissions, this proposal raises more questions than it answers. The plan itself seems idealistic and not feasible, given the current state of the automobile industry.
The Wall Street Journal cited a Goldman Sachs report detailing how “electric-vehicle consumer and battery-production tax credits alone could cost taxpayers $523 billion over 10 years.” Moreover, this report notes that electric vehicles “remain less competitive against conventional gasoline-powered cars and light trucks serving the mass market.”
Currently, many Americans simply are not interested in electric vehicles, primarily because of “range anxiety,” which is the belief that the battery will run out of charge during long-distance trips and cost concerns. The Deloitte 2022 Global Automotive Study found that 69% of Americans “said their next vehicle won’t have any kind of electrification, while only 5% saw their next vehicle being an EV.” Additionally, the study found that 53% of the respondents “didn’t want to pay more for alternative powertrains. While tax credits and other incentives help, EVs can still carry a price premium over comparable internal-combustion vehicles.” So, electric vehicles really only appeal to the affluent who do not have to worry about driving for long distances.
Yet, it is worth noting that this proposed plan is a big step for the Biden Administration in committing to climate regulations. Without a doubt, the transportation industry will need massive reforms in order to encourage the public to actually purchase these vehicles. Only then will this plan have a chance of making a difference in helping the environment.
Conclusion
Both sides agree that the EPA’s proposal has shortcomings that need to be addressed in order for this plan to be feasible and have an actual impact on the environment. Also, both sides agree that the auto industry will need reform to accommodate this plan.
