You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Federal vehicle subsidies are focused on electric cars. There’s a better way.
The United States is about to spend a ton of money on electric vehicle subsidies. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) contains a tax credit of up to $7,500 for electric cars and trucks, depending on multiple complicated rules and requirements that will be phased in over time.
Unfortunately, the IRA has no such subsidies for another promising electric vehicle: the e-bike. (Progressive members of Congress tried to insert one but were slapped down.) These are both far cheaper and a far more efficient use of resources.
Fortunately, e-bikes are cheap enough that it doesn't take the federal government to make a difference with policy. Even medium-sized cities can increase uptake with modest subsidies. The key will be to also change street design and regulations so that people feel confident enough to ride.
The problem with American electric vehicles is the same problem as with our gas-powered models: They’re too dang big. The Ford F-150 has been the top-selling automobile in the country for many years, and the electric version — while admittedly quite nifty — weighs 3.25 tons. The new electric Hummer is even more ridiculous, coming in at 9,000 pounds, with a 212-kilowatt-hour battery that weighs more than a Mazda Miata.
That elephantine size drastically reduces the environmental benefits of switching to an EV. Cars still require tons of steel, aluminum, and plastic to manufacture, which typically means emitting lots of greenhouse gases, particularly for steel. (A Swedish state-owned company has worked out a zero-carbon steel technology, but it is only just entering the market, and its full production system won’t be online until 2026.) The majority of U.S. electricity is also still being produced with fossil fuels, at least for the time being.
Now, that is not to say that we shouldn’t be subsidizing EVs. Driving is a major source of emissions and we do need to electrify automobiles. Instead of our current path, we should be following the example of Norway, where the vast majority of cars sold are already electric thanks to a combination of subsidies and taxes, but there is also a progressive weight tax to push against this tendency toward bloat.
Still, in addition to switching over to EVs, we would be wise to simply drive less. In addition to developing zero-carbon sources of energy, we can also reduce emissions by using energy more efficiently — and the e-bike is the perfect tool here. We don’t actually need to use a massive metal box for as many trips as we do. More than 95 percent of car trips are 30 miles or less, and nearly 60 percent are five miles or less. Electric assistance means e-bikes can be used for commuting in most locations since you don’t get nearly as sweaty. Cargo bikes are perfect for a trip to the grocery store, or for dropping the kids off at school. With proper snow removal, you can even ride in the dead of winter, as a bunch of Finnish schoolchildren have ably demonstrated.
Then because they don’t weigh 9,000 pounds, e-bikes are a hugely more efficient use of scarce resources. A single e-Hummer battery is roughly 350 times the size of the one in Rad Power’s popular RadRover 6 — which also costs $2,100 instead of $87,000 and up, and can use ordinary wall power instead of an expensive high-voltage charger. Put simply, mass e-bike adoption would give us hundreds of times more decarbonization for our policy dollar.
This logic is so compelling that e-bike sales have actually already outpaced electric car sales for many years straight. It’s a simple and cheap way to cut down on car trips and all their associated expenses, and gets you a bit of exercise to boot. So when Denver set up an e-bike rebate program, it was a wild success — a recent additional pool of rebate money was snapped up in 20 minutes. This rebate could also be collected right at the point of sale, rather than having to remember to file it with your taxes, which surely improved uptake. Similar programs are also bearing fruit in Vermont and Oregon, and one is being set up in California.
But this must be a tiny fraction of the potential pool of buyers. America, with its sprawling cities, dangerous multilane “stroads,” and meager pedestrian or cyclist infrastructure, is one of the most bike-hostile countries in the world. Even in dense cities like New York, cyclists are routinely flattened by cars. This undoubtedly prevents many people who would take up an e-bike from doing so.
However, it’s not that difficult to make even a relatively sprawly city safe for e-bikes. The key thing is to build physically separated bike lanes with curbs, bollards, parking, or other obstacles that keep cars out, and connect the lanes into a citywide network so people can get close to their destination without ever leaving the lane. Longer distances are no big deal with electric assistance — what matters is safety. Any cyclist knows that with American drivers, traditional painted bicycle gutters will be instantly used for double parking (if not lunatic passing on the right), which can make them more dangerous than no lane at all.
It’s also worth mandating speed governors and speed limits in bike lanes (which are already present in many places). Many de-restricted e-bikes can easily go 30 or even 50 miles per hour — essentially making them a motorcycle. That is both dangerous in a bike lane with many normal bikes traveling much more slowly, and risky for the cyclist who is going motorcycle speeds without proper motorcycle-grade protective gear. A full-face motorcycle helmet in particular is far, far more protective than the typical bike helmet.
Now, there should be speed governors in cars as well — indeed, it’s probably more important than for bikes — but that’s a subject for another article.
American cities have a long, long way to go before they become as bike-friendly as Amsterdam or Copenhagen. But we should remember that not that long ago, both of those cities were nearly as car-infested as Tulsa is today. It took years of activism, political mobilizing, and policy reforms to turn them into cyclist paradises. There’s every reason for American cities to start following that trail.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: Colorado’s major snow storm will continue well into the weekend • More than 900 people in Pakistan were hospitalized in a single day due to extreme air pollution • Devastating flooding continues in Spain.
The world continues to underestimate climate risks, and irreversible tipping points are near, UN Secretary General António Guterres toldThe Guardian. “It is absolutely essential to act now,” he said. “It’s absolutely essential to reduce emissions drastically now.” His warning comes before the COP29 summit kicks off Monday in Azerbaijan, where negotiators are set to agree on a new global finance target to help developing countries with climate adaptation. Guterres said that if the U.S. leaves the Paris Agreement again under a Trump presidency, the landmark goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would be “crippled.” Experts say 2024 is now expected to be the first full calendar year in which global temperatures exceed the 1.5 degrees target.
With climate-skeptic Donald Trump set to retake the White House in January, many are wondering what his policies will mean for U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. He’s likely to walk back pollution rules on cars and power plants, repeal some parts of the Inflation Reduction Act, boost oil and gas drilling, and pull out of the Paris Agreement. Jesse Jenkins, who leads the Princeton ZERO Lab and is co-host of Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast, said projected emissions will indeed be higher than they would under current policies, but “since Trump cannot repeal grants already awarded or tax credits already provided to date, and it is unlikely that every provision in IRA will be repealed,” they probably will remain lower than Jenkins’ so-called Frozen Policies scenario, which assumes no new climate policies since January 2021.
Jesse Jenkins/REPEAT Project
Varun Sivaram, senior fellow for energy and climate at the Council on Foreign Relations, added some global context: “Even with sharp Trump domestic climate policy rollbacks, the change in U.S. emissions is trivial on a global scale and far less meaningful than expected emerging economy emissions growth,” he said.
In case you missed it (we did!): Oil giant BP said in its most recent earnings report that it has abandoned 18 early-stage hydrogen projects. It still plans to back between five and 10 projects, but that’s down from the “more than 10” it had planned for. The move will save BP some $200 million, and “could have a chilling effect on the nascent hydrogen industry,” wrote Tim De Chant at TechCrunch.
Rivian reported Q3 earnings yesterday. Here are some key takeaways:
A new study published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment found that carbon dioxide emissions from private jets have risen by 50% over the last four years. The research analyzed data from about 19 million private flights (half of which were shorter than 300 miles) made by more than 25,000 private aircraft between 2019 and 2023. In 2023 alone, private flights resulted in about 15.6 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. Most private flights are taking place in the United States: The researchers say that while the U.S. is home to 4% of the global population, nearly 70% of all private aircraft are registered there. The 2022 FIFA World Cup was one of the most carbon-intensive events for private aircraft. Also on the list? The Davos conference and – uh oh – COP28.
Most private flights occur in the U.S. Communications Earth & Environment
Donald Trump’s election victory this week resulted in a $1.2 billion windfall for investors who bet against renewable energy stocks.
It was a curious alliance from the start. On the one hand, Donald Trump, who made antipathy toward electric vehicles a core part of his meandering rants. On the other hand, Elon Musk, the man behind the world’s largest EV company, who nonetheless put all his weight, his millions of dollars, and the power of his social network behind the Trump campaign.
With Musk standing by his side on Election Day, Trump has once again secured the presidency. His reascendance sent shock waves through the automotive world, where companies that had been lurching toward electrification with varying levels of enthusiasm were left to wonder what happens now — and what benefits Tesla may reap from having hitched itself to the winning horse.
Certainly the federal government’s stated target of 50% of U.S. new car sales being electric by 2030 is toast, and many of the actions it took in pursuit of that goal are endangered. Although Trump has softened his rhetoric against EVs since becoming buddies with Musk, it’s hard to imagine a Trump administration with any kind of ambitious electrification goal.
During his first go-round as president, Trump attacked the state of California’s ability to set its own ambitious climate-focused rules for cars. No surprise there: Because of the size of the California car market, its regulations helped to drag the entire industry toward lower-emitting vehicles and, almost inevitably, EVs. If Trump changes course and doesn’t do the same thing this time, it’ll be because his new friend at Tesla supports those rules.
The biggest question hanging over electric vehicles, however, is the fate of the Biden administration’s signature achievements in climate and EV policy, particularly the Inflation Reduction Act’s $7,500 federal consumer tax credit for electric vehicles. A Trump administration looks poised to tear down whatever it can of its predecessor’s policy. Some analysts predict it’s unlikely the entire IRA will disappear, but concede Trump would try to kill off the incentives for electric vehicles however he can.
There’s no sugar-coating it: Without the federal incentives, the state of EVs looks somewhat bleak. Knocking $7,500 off the starting price is essential to negate the cost of manufacturing expensive lithium-ion batteries and making EVs cost-competitive with ordinary combustion cars. Consider a crucial model like the new Chevy Equinox EV: Counting the federal incentive, the most basic $35,000 model could come in under the starting price of a gasoline crossover like the Toyota RAV4. Without that benefit, buyers who want to go electric will have to pay a premium to do so — the thing that’s been holding back mass electrification all along.
Musk, during his honeymoon with Trump, boasted that Tesla doesn’t need the tax credits, as if daring the president-elect to kill off the incentives. On the one hand, this is obviously false. Visit Tesla’s website and you’ll see the simplest Model 3 listed for $29,990, but this is a mirage. Take away the $7,500 in incentives and $5,000 in claimed savings versus buying gasoline, and the car actually starts at about $43,000, much further out of reach for non-wealthy buyers.
What Musk really means is that his company doesn’t need the incentives nearly as bad as other automakers do. Ford is hemorrhaging billions of dollars as it struggles to make EVs profitably. GM’s big plan to go entirely electric depended heavily on federal support. As InsideEVsnotes, the likely outcome of a Trump offensive against EVs is that the legacy car brands, faced with an unpredictable electrification roadmap as America oscillates between presidents, scale back their plans and lean back into the easy profitably of big, gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. Such an about-face could hand Tesla the kind of EV market dominance it enjoyed four or five years ago when it sold around 75% of all electric vehicles in America.
That’s tough news for the climate-conscious Americans who want an electric vehicle built by someone not named Elon Musk. Hundreds of thousands of people, myself included, bought a Tesla during the past five or six years because it was the most practical EV for their lifestyle, only to see the company’s figurehead shift his public persona from goofy troll to Trump acolyte. It’s not uncommon now, as Democrats distance themselves from Tesla, to see Model 3s adorned with bumper stickers like the “Anti-Elon Tesla Club,” as one on a car I followed last month proclaimed. Musk’s newest vehicle, the Cybertruck, is a rolling embodiment of the man’s brand, a vehicle purpose-built to repel anyone not part of his cult of personality.
In a world where this version of Tesla retakes control of the electric car market, it becomes harder to ditch gasoline without indirectly supporting Donald Trump, by either buying a Tesla or topping off at its Superchargers. Blue voters will have some options outside of Tesla — the industry has come too far to simply evaporate because of one election. But it’s also easy to see dispirited progressives throwing up their hands and buying another carbon-spewing Subaru.
Republicans are taking over some of the most powerful institutions for crafting climate policy on Earth.
When Republicans flipped the Senate, they took the keys to three critical energy and climate-focused committees.
These are among the most powerful institutions for crafting climate policy on Earth. The Senate plays the role of gatekeeper for important legislation, as it requires a supermajority to overcome the filibuster. Hence, it’s both where many promising climate bills from the House go to die, as well as where key administrators such as the heads of the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are vetted and confirmed.
We’ll have to wait a bit for the Senate’s new committee chairs to be officially confirmed. But Jeff Navin, co-founder at the climate change-focused government affairs firm Boundary Stone Partners, told me that since selections are usually based on seniority, in many cases it’s already clear which Republicans are poised to lead under Trump and which Democrats will assume second-in-command (known as the ranking member). Here’s what we know so far.
This committee has been famously led by Joe Manchin, the former Democrat, now Independent senator from West Virginia, who will retire at the end of this legislative session. Energy and Natural Resources has a history of bipartisan collaboration and was integral in developing many of the key provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act — and could thus play a key role in dismantling them. Overall, the committee oversees the DOE, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, so it’s no small deal that its next chairman will likely be Mike Lee, the ultra-conservative Republican from Utah. That’s assuming that the committee's current ranking member, John Barrasso of Wyoming, wins his bid for Republican Senate whip, which seems very likely.
Lee opposes federal ownership of public lands, setting himself up to butt heads with Martin Heinrich, the Democrat from New Mexico and likely the committee’s next ranking member. Lee has also said that solving climate change is simply a matter of having more babies, as “problems of human imagination are not solved by more laws, they’re solved by more humans.” As Navin told me, “We've had this kind of safe space where so-called quiet climate policy could get done in the margins. And it’s not clear that that's going to continue to exist with the new leadership.”
This committee is currently chaired by Democrat Tom Carper of Delaware, who is retiring after this term. Poised to take over is the Republican’s current ranking member, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. She’s been a strong advocate for continued reliance on coal and natural gas power plants, while also carving out areas of bipartisan consensus on issues such as nuclear energy, carbon capture, and infrastructure projects during her tenure on the committee. The job of the Environment and Public Works committee is in the name: It oversees the EPA, writes key pieces of environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and supervises public infrastructure projects such as highways, bridges, and dams.
Navin told me that many believe the new Democratic ranking member will be Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, although to do so, he would have to step down from his perch at the Senate Budget Committee, where he is currently chair. A tireless advocate of the climate cause, Whitehouse has worked on the Environment and Public Works committee for over 15 years, and lately seems to have had a relatively productive working relationship with Capito.
This subcommittee falls under the broader Senate Appropriations Committee and is responsible for allocating funding for the DOE, various water development projects, and various other agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
California’s Dianne Feinstein used to chair this subcommittee until her death last year, when Democrat Patty Murray of Washington took over. Navin told me that the subcommittee’s next leader will depend on how the game of “musical chairs” in the larger Appropriations Committee shakes out. Depending on their subcommittee preferences, the chair could end up being John Kennedy of Louisiana, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, or Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. It’s likewise hard to say who the top Democrat will be.