|
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Last week, we were proud to host a briefing to highlight a recent CRES Forum white paper outlining emissions-reducing alternatives to an EV-only approach.
The takeaway: the federal government is picking winners and losers, and if our goal is to lower transportation emissions, we must consider a range of fuel options for light-duty vehicles. As the paper states, it is unrealistic – if not impossible – to achieve the goal of net-zero transportation emissions by 2050, as projected by the International Energy Agency, for a number of reasons. In fact, putting all of our eggs in the EV basket may actually increase global emissions.
At this time, EVs are expensive, and in many rural, remote, or under-developed areas throughout the U.S., they simply don’t make sense, much less in the developing world. Additionally, EV batteries are incredibly mineral-intensive. Not only is the demand for several minerals more than double our current supply, but China dominates the supply chain for 21 of the 50 U.S.-designated critical minerals – many of which are used in battery manufacturing. China also leads the world in the processing of minerals and manufacturing of battery technologies. This certainly poses a national security risk, but with an economy that is three times more carbon intensive than the United States, it also poses a threat to the environment.
We must onshore our mineral supply chains and continue to build out our electric grid infrastructure, but instead of relying solely on electrification of vehicles to lower emissions in the transportation sector, we need a broader approach. By embracing alternative solutions – such as hybrid vehicles, advancing technologies to increase mileage-per-gallon, using alternative fuels – and supporting American innovation without tying the hands of U.S. vehicle manufacturers, we can and will achieve lower emissions and a stronger economy.
I encourage you to read CRES Forum’s latest white paper here.
Sincerely,
|
