Zero-emissions mandate is bad idea for Pennsylvania

Climate change is a huge issue facing our country and our planet. Like most high-profile political issues, there is a wide range of options for confronting this crisis and curbing the emissions that are a key driver of global warming. Some deserve debate and are receiving bipartisan attention in Washington and at the state level. Some are outright bad ideas, like the zeroemissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate that Gov. Tom Wolf is considering, which would disproportionately impact lower income and rural Pennsylvanians, and harm national security. We must tackle climate change without killing consumer choice and raising costs for working families.

As with most bad ideas these days, the ZEV mandate has its roots in California, where embattled Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order a year ago requiring that all new cars and trucks sold in the state be zero-emissions by 2035. President Biden mirrored that plan this past August, issuing his own executive order with the stated goal of moving half of new production to electric automobiles by 2030.

Pennsylvania would be unwise to follow suit. Everyone agrees that electric vehicles (EVs) will be a part of our future. Top-down mandates, however, lead to market distortions, are unpopular with consumers, and discriminatory. Rural Pennsylvanians cannot be expected to trade in, say, a gasoline-powered pickup truck for an EV with limited charging capacity outside of more denselypopulated areas. Nor should lower income families be expected to fork over $50,000 for a new Tesla. The concerns of low and middle-income residents do not appear to be addressed by the pending Pennsylvania executive order.

There is a national security consideration too, should we stop producing cars and trucks with internal combustion engines in this country. China has a stranglehold on the EV battery market. According to a 2019 report, Chinese chemical companies account for 80 percent of the world’s total output of raw materials for advanced batteries. Indeed, President Biden’s Climate Czar John Kerry said earlier this year that it is “absolutely correct” that there is a Chinese “cornering of the market with lithium and other rare earths” used to manufacture these batteries. With the state of U.S.-China relations, do we want to be outsourcing key components of our automotive supply to a hostile adversary?

What some may not know are the environmental shortcomings to ramping up EV manufacturing. These cars and trucks have an environmental cost, especially when compared with increases in the efficiency of traditional automobiles.

Most importantly, EVs are obviously powered by the current electrical grid, meaning they’re only as clean as the electricity they’re charged with. Right now, 63 percent of American energy comes from fossil fuels. That isn’t changing drastically any time soon.

The batteries are hazardous and difficult to recycle (less than 5 percent are reused), meaning the environmental cost of building an EV is more substantial than one might think. The impact of mining, refining and disposal for each new battery manufactured is significant. A recent study in Nature found that 1 million EVs sold globally translates to 250,000 tons of waste.

I believe the threat of climate change to our economy, national security and quality of life is real and requires direct action, but not action that just sounds good and amounts to a solution that doesn’t solve the problem while creating new problems along the way. In short, Pennsylvania certainly should not be following California’s lead on EV’s. A topdown ZEV mandate will raise costs and reduce choice for Pennsylvanians, and make our country more dependent on China. It’s not something we can afford, and nor should our leaders should even entertain.