Our columnist argues that while the pace of EV adoption has been positively glacial, this variable, among many other solutions, needs to accelerate if it’s to truly bring about positive change.
By Zachary Perlmutter
In a 1992 comedy special during a spot on climate change, the late George Carlin argued that while Earth will likely survive any damage thrown its way, we humans are doomed if we don’t change our behaviour. It seems as though, 34 years later, his claim has continued to ring true. Because while we have caused immeasurable global environmental degradation, much of the worst of it hasn’t happened yet. Unfortunately, despite global awareness about climate
change being as prevalent as ever, the actual desire to fix the issue has remained relatively slow and ineffective. This is most obvious in the apparently easy option of electric vehicles (EVs), which have gained traction over time, but have been struggling amidst rising temperatures and the depletion of resources needed to make them functional.
Perhaps the most-pressing issue surrounding EVs is their lack of temperature resilience. According to Consumer Reports, EVs aren’t able to effectively withstand certain extreme temperature conditions. Simply put, whenever the temperature drops to sub-frigid or climbs to sweltering levels, EVs, which have to rely on internal batteries to regulate their inside temperatures, slow down significantly. This is especially apparent with Teslas, which have performance issues regardless of whether it’s -18C or 29C. Combine that with their frequent tendency to explode, thanks to their lithium batteries being highly volatile, and it’s no wonder why many people are hesitant to trust them.
One alternative to lithium that’s been suggested is salt. In markets like China and Southeast Asia, salt has been used to power EVs as it holds up in colder weather and is relatively cheap. However, this method hasn’t been tested in colder climates like Canada, so it’s not a guarantee according to Scientific American. Furthermore, certain types of salt, particularly road salt, are harmful to roads and the environment, making them a problem as well.. It’s also possible that relying on salt could drive up its market price, which would be bad for food industries.
Let’s face it: EVs aren’t a perfect solution to carbon reduction. Yes, they might have the edge slightly on that front, but it’s really up to humans to regulate our environmental footprint. True, we’ve made some progress, especially with the increased sales of EVs, but lifestyle choices, such as what we eat, matter as well. Given that I doubt people are willing to collectively alter their diets, or even commute more by foot, it’s a hard ask. Especially when the automobile and meat industries have incentives to stay in business indefinitely, even with their wasteful practices. In fact, mass production of meat is regarded as one of the top polluters annually, even more than gasoline production, with the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment suggesting that it contributes roughly 32% of the total methane released into the atmosphere.
Despite some advances, EV sales are also still lagging behind projections targets. According to a 2022 UN climate study, if the world is to meet its eco-friendly target by 2040, roughly 60% of new automobile sales have to be electric by that time. In The U.S. alone, 90% of new automobile sales by 2030 would have to be electric. For a country so polarized politically that it can barely agree on sensitive matters like abortion and gun regulations, that’s a really hard sell. You’d sooner convince pigs to sprout wings and fly.
Then there’s the matter of costs. Simply put, creating EV-friendly infrastructure in urban and rural environments isn’t cheap, especially given the bureaucratic red tape around zoning. This has all been laid out on the Canadian government’s website as a cost that could potentially be written off, but that doesn’t mean that everyone will want to follow the steps to make it happen. And while it’s true that organizations like Plug ‘N Drive have been handing out financial incentives to buy new EVs, is that enough? What would the total cost to upgrade the built environment with electric charging stations be, and would that increase our taxes? These are questions that need answers for an EV-friendly world to be practical, and they need answers soon.
Yet arguably the biggest obstacle to adopting EVs on a larger scale has been apathy from politicians. Simply put, environmental awareness isn’t a good sell when lobbyists and foreign interests are constantly meddling in progress. Oil, after all, has been tried and true for over a century, and it’s relatively cheap thanks to subsidies. And while closing the Strait of Hormuz may stimulate reconsideration of EV adoption, I feel that this is merely an anomaly in the ongoing battle to protect the fragile environment.
Ultimately, this leaves us with a decision: do we strive to improve the ecological situation, even at the expense of uncertainty, or do we stick with the status quo and keep accelerating the inevitable? EVs might not be perfect, but gas cars demand a rethink on so many levels. And if we don’t find ways to make EVs worth our time, then we might as well be sealing our fates now.
I know it sounds like doom-and-gloom, but we only have one planet to live on and we’re failing it. So while change might be scary, is this really the legacy that we want to be leaving for ourselves? We still have time to mitigate our own damage, but it’s up to us to take that first step. I hope it’s the right one.