mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

EV Adoption Cleaning California Air, But Not In The Areas That Need It Most

EV proponents argue that one of the biggest benefits in the switch to all-electric powertrains is a substantial decrease in local emissions, leading to cleaner air. However, according to a recent study, the cleaner air associated with more widespread EV adoption disproportionally benefits affluent neighborhoods.

The insight was highlighted in a report from BNN Bloomberg, which cites a study conducted by researchers from the University of California at Berkeley, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Miami.

Traffic on the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco.

According to the report, researchers examined the geographic distribution of over 400,000 EV rebates issued in California between 2010 and 2021. Researchers also modeled estimated emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide, as well as the particulate matter (PM 2.5) typically associated with internal combustion engine exhaust, brakes, tires, and power plants. Larger, heavier EVs with larger battery packs and higher range can create additional PM2.5 pollution compared to smaller, lighter EVs due to increased brake and tire degradation.

The research indicates that communities classified as disadvantaged received just 7 percent of the state EV incentives, while communities classified as least disadvantaged claimed 46 percent of the rebates. Additionally, wealthier communities saw a reduction in PM2.5 emissions that was four times greater than that in disadvantaged communities, with 17 percent of disadvantaged communities actually seeing a rise in PM2.5 pollution. Those communities where PM2.5 pollution increased are located near 39 percent of California’s fossil fuel power plants.

“These communities receive far fewer rebates and therefore see substantially less air quality improvement as a result of decreased tailpipe emissions,” said the lead author of the study and PhD student at U.C. Berkeley, Jaye Mejía-Duwan. Mejía-Duwan also indicated that disadvantaged communities can often suffer increased power plant pollution as a result of increased EV charging in wealthier communities.

Back in 201, California revised its EV rebate program to limit participation by high-income households earning more than $200,000, while expanding refunds for low-income households from $2,000 to $7,500. Nevertheless, researchers determined that the revisions had only a marginal impact on the percentage of incentives awarded to disadvantaged communities.

“Replacing conventional vehicles with electric vehicles is very helpful in terms of reducing statewide carbon dioxide emissions,” Mejía-Duwan said. “But these kinds of technological solutions don’t actually change the underlying political, social and economic structures that allow this inequity to exist and be perpetuated.”

Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM electric vehicle news, GM political news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. This is really just a DUH article based on the results that anyone could have foretold. When you have the cheapest EV on the market being the Bolt at around $27,000………………Oh wait. Forget that. GM killed the Bolt.

    When you have the next cheapest EV coming in at around $40,000 and climbing quickly from there, would you expect any other results from this? Ford, GM and the others don’t give a flying rats *ss about what’s really happening to the climate or how it impacts the middle to lower income families. All these turds care about is building another over weight, over priced Hummer or F150 Lighting that sells for 100 grand or more. It’s about status. It’s about the almighty buck. Screw the lower income and those of us who can’t afford an 80 grand Silverado EV or 110 grand Hummer or 70 grand Lyriq station wagon on steroids. Or the 50+ grand Tesla’s.

    The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The great American way.

    Reply
  2. They are missing one key part of the article

    “Modeled”

    They don’t have any real world data, just are saying, “hey, EV’s are better so yeah, cleaner air duh dude!” Unintelligible gibberish that these researchers are putting out aside, why didn’t they just go and measure???? It’s obvious. Most smog is made from dirt knocked up from road use, and the increase weight of BEV’s anctually knock up more dust and dirt. That’s 99% of the impact of vehicles right there. You got about 5lbs of brake material that lasts you 3-5 years depending on your driving, so that awash. Todays vehicles make almost no sulfur or NOX, and in many ways clean out the air they take in as they burn dust/methane/alkanes and any other unwanted particles in the air and leave behind 99.99% pure water and C02, which is NOT A POLUTANT.

    Also, in California, the dominate winds in California all come from the ocean, so measuring air in any major city will just come back as ocean air as unlike Denver/louisville/Huston/Nashville and other such cities that are in geographic bowls, they continuously get fresh air.

    Reply
    1. So park your car in the garage, leave it running with the door closed. Sit behind your car and wait 30 min. Then tell us how pollutant free your car is.

      Reply
      1. EV fires and self driving crashes kill way more people than garage fumes.

        Reply
        1. A proper working Cat emits 0 carbon monoxide. Any car in California that has a license plate had a proper working Cat as they do emissions testing.

          If you want to talk about 1960’s tech, let’s go ahead. I’d like to see the emissions and safety of a 1960’s BEV running on steel tubes sulferic acid batteries. ☢️

          Reply
        2. Not even close – CO poisoning from cars kills over 400 people a year in the US. There were a total of 52 EV fires in 2020 (many of which were from recalled Chevy Bolts and Hyundai Konas), while during that same year there were 199,553 ICE car fires. Imagine if the media reported ICE car fires, they would have less time to spread other narratives. Of course there are more ICE vehicles on the road, so if we look at it from # of fires per 100k sold then ICE related fires are 3474.5/100k and BEVs are 25.1/100k which shows that they are at least 100 times LESS likely to combust than an ICE vehicle (especially Hyundai and Kia ICE cars). The media is quick to highlight every rare Tesla crash and point to ‘self driving’ as the cause, but following an investigation nearly all (>95%) of these turn out to be driver error or manipulation of safety features, not the proper use of Auto Pilot or FSD, but they NEVER redact their story. There was a recent national headline story that suggested Tesla FSD was the cause of a crash into a house and the picture clearly showed it was a Pole Star (which lacks these features) – I’m sure most heard/saw it, but there was never a correction, therefore the narrative continues. You don’t have to like BEVs, but don’t propagate a false narrative that the HateStream media pushes to punish Elon/Tesla for stepping out of line.

          Reply
          1. Wow, ummm, facts???

            Pretty much every single one of those deaths are due to a furnace…. Not a car. Most attempted suicides from piping exhaust into a car end up failing because the lack of carbon monoxide. Carbon dioxide is also poisonous at certain levels, but is so much less lethal that most get intervention before they succeed

            But in a country we’re under 1% of all vehicles on the road are BEV’s, and their current rate of incidents, wow….remember the ford pinto only recoded 27 deaths despite selling millions of examples. Tesla autopilot is almost to that level already

            Reply
            1. Yeah, only seven killed. No big deal….

              Reply
            2. Look it up
              “Tesla Autopilot Deaths Count: 31”

              Remember the Pinto? It was one of the industry’s hottest-selling subcompacts during the 1970s. Its success enhanced the reputation of Lee Iacocca – until an estimated 500 deaths and hundreds of injuries were linked to a faulty design that made the gasoline tank vulnerable to explosion after rear-end collisions.

              Reply
              1. Teslas killed more per capita than Pintos did.

                Reply
                1. per capita isn’t a way they figure the death rate its deaths per Million miles.
                  “Total number of Tesla’s sold from its existence until today (2008 – Q1 2023): 4,061,776 vehicles.”
                  “Over three million Pintos were produced over its ten-year production run”
                  Other than the numbers killed by Pintos I couldn’t find any information to compare.

                  I wonder if anyone really thinks a 70s Pinto is safer than any new car today?

                  Reply
                  1. The Pinto itself didn’t kill anybody the gas tank did only after getting rear ended. Teslas literally exploded standing still and crashed into barriers on autopilot.

                    Reply
                    1. “From 2012 to the year 2020, there was close to one vehicle fire for every 19,000,000 miles traveled. From 2012 to the year 2020, there was one Tesla vehicle fire for every 205,000,000 miles traveled. Not only are Tesla battery fires a rare occurrence, but Teslas are actually safer than gas-powered vehicles when it comes to catching fire.”

                      By: Andrei Nedelea
                      ” This is not the first time it’s been said that EVs are not as likely to catch fire as vehicles that have an internal combustion engine. Now it has been confirmed with data from the National Transport Safety Board, compiled by AutoinsuranceEZ, which says that hybrid vehicles have the highest fire risk.
                      Fully electric vehicles, on the other hand, were deemed far safer than both hybirds and gas cars; they are far less likely to catch fire, with just 25.1 fires per 100,000 sales. That’s compared to 3,474 hybrid fires and 1,529 ICE fires per 100,000 sales respectively.”
                      Shocking isn’t it. I know this will not make any difference but maybe someone with an open mind might be helped. By the way ICE vehicles crash on autopilot also just no one cares to report it.

                      Reply
                    2. “500 deaths and hundreds of injuries were linked to a faulty design”
                      faulty design sounds like the Pinto to me!

                      Reply
    2. Another myth busted!
      “Greenhouse gas emissions
      Main article: Greenhouse gas emissions

      Historical and projected CO2 emissions by country (as of 2005).
      Source: Energy Information Administration.[39][40]
      Carbon dioxide, while vital for photosynthesis, is sometimes referred to as pollution, because raised levels of the gas in the atmosphere are affecting the Earth’s climate. Disruption of the environment can also highlight the connection between areas of pollution that would normally be classified separately, such as those of water and air. Recent studies have investigated the potential for long-term rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to cause slight but critical increases in the acidity of ocean waters, and the possible effects of this on marine ecosystems.…”

      Reply
  3. As Dan already pointed out, the results of this research is staggeringly obvious. Most EVs are priced at ~$50,000 while the poor can’t even afford a used vehicle let alone a new one. Given this situation, even the most aggressive EV incentives aren’t going to make much of a dent in lowering pollution in these neighborhoods. Researchers need to do their due diligence and accurately explain the main sources of the pollution. Had they acquired this data first, the above study could have been avoided altogether.

    Reply
  4. Whatever we do it’s just never enough for the left wing nuts. Do what now? Give the lower income people homes in the upper income neighborhoods or just give free EV’s to people who can’t afford them? Or maybe leave it alone and let free market capitalism work? Situational conditions have always provided incentives for people the change their circumstances for the better. Or just relocate.

    Reply
  5. I suppose maybe it’s good news to transfer the emissions from the tailpipes to smoke stacks?? But in reality, today’s ICE emissions are cleaner than a coal-fired power plant. But hey that’s not in the left’s talking points.

    Reply
    1. Carl, even if the US generated all of the necessary electricity for BEVs from coal, there would be less pollution overall – Coal currently accounts for 19% of the US electricity production, just under renewables. US coal plants are way more efficient (even accounting for line loss) than individual ICE engines (28% on average – some diesels can reach 40% efficiency) – the vast majority of energy is lost to heat and friction. BEVs are much more efficient at converting stored energy to motion and are 73-81% efficient. I’m all for energy independence and the less ICE vehicles we drive, the less oil we need to import from some sh!t country that we pay to be our ally. I’m in favor of using US sourced coal and natural gas for electricity production – I’m no climate alarmist or lefty, but I do have solar panels and drive a Tesla because it makes financial sense as I’ve spent $0 on fuel to drive over the past year. I installed the solar panels in 2017 and they will pay for themselves by the end of this year – expedited by inflation.

      Reply
      1. If only BEV’s were 100% efficient, which they come nowhere close to. Going from a 65% thermally efficient coal/gas turbine across transmission lines with 5% loss, then to a battery charger with AC->DC loss of another 3-5%….. unless it’s a fast charger and then your talking about almost 10%, then to a battery, which has only 90% return on charge….. and only if your talking about that 20-80% charging middle ground. The upper and lower ends don’t charge efficiently. Then you go through an 70% efficient motor if you drive gingerly. Overall coal to BEV efficiency is ~30%.

        Another lie is renewables being 23% of our grid. Our grid has moved legally to a “green prioritization” payment system. It’s a racketeering operation in all honestly. They count “green” power output by mathematically adding up all the wind turbines in a wind farm or all the solar panels in a solar farm, set that as the “output” despite the fact that when you drive by a wind farm half the turbines aren’t turning and solar farms point the panels in different directions to maintain power during diffferent points of the day. They they pay these companies for the full amount of their “calculated” output and chock the rest up to coal and disregard what the coal plant is actually producing. So coal plants are actually pulling tripple duty, but only getting paid for less then half of that.

        You will notice that when we switch to this system, renewables went from 5% of the power grid to 17% overnight despite for the past 20 years of investment only bringing us up from 2% to 5%. It’s all lies

        Reply
        1. Solar panels and wind turbines have to be landfilled which cancels all the “pollution” they saved. Same with EV batteries. They can’t be recycled.

          Reply
          1. Is anyone who is against anything going to research anything before just making a statement that shows no real knowledge of what is going on in renewables. So, although there are some problems to overcome, they aren’t insurmountable. 10 years ago every manufacture of ICE vehicles were saying the same as the naysayers here but today everyone but Toyota have seen the light and now are working to be 100% EVs some by 2030 some a little later but 100%.

            “In this article I show that lithium-ion battery cells have also seen an impressive price reduction. Since 1991, prices have fallen by around 97%. Prices fall by an average of 19% for every doubling of capacity. Even more promising is that this rate of reduction does not yet appear to be slowing down. Let’s put this price decline in perspective:

            The popular Nissan Leaf electric car – which is also one of the most affordable models – has a 40 kWh battery. At our 2018 price, the battery costs around $7,300. Imagine trying to buy the same model in 1991: the battery alone would cost $300,000.
            Or take the Tesla Model S 75D which has a 75 kWh battery. In 2018 the battery costs around $13,600; in 1991 it would have been $564,000. More than half a million dollars for a car battery. ”

            You really haven’t looked into the battery recycling, Tesla right now saves all batteries they deem bad so when they have enough they will recycle them and there are several companies right now doing recycling. When there are enough batteries, they see a time when they will not have to mine the minerals except to replace the small amount lost in the process.

            About 90% of the windmills can be recycled. The towers are made of 1-1/2″ steel the turbine also is mostly steel. The blades are a problem because there are not enough to make it cost effective. In reality windmills are a relatively new business and they last 25 years and are just now starting to become a big problem. Even now they are working on methods of using the blades, grinding them and making other products.

            Reply
  6. The gap between the rich and the poor in California is amongst the widest in the country. Of course the poor aren’t going to be able to afford many EV’s, especially when California has amongst the highest real estate and overall cost of living factors in the country as well. For California, things will probably only get worse, as many of the ‘rich’ are leaving and going to other states with lower taxes and lower costs of living, so there will be less tax money coming in to fund the government (which means less money to ‘help’ the poor). Of course, California, ever the innovator is trying to fix this problem by trying to pass legislation that says anyone who leaves California will somehow owe California income taxes for 10 years AFTER they leave.

    Reply
    1. Please do your research. You need read below but if you don’t it is ” annual income greater than $30 million are affected by the wealth tax.” And that’s only if it survives the courts!

      “So, what is the California exit tax? The California exit tax explained:
      The California exit tax is a one-time tax that must be paid by businesses and individuals who relocate outside of California. The tax is based on the value of the business or individual’s assets, including property, stocks, and other investments.

      It forms part of the larger California wealth tax, whereby the state imposes a tax based on its residents’ wealth.

      Those who have lived in the state at any point in time in the past and who earn an annual income greater than $30 million are affected by the wealth tax and would have to pay an annual tax on their wealth for as long as 10 years after they have left the state. “

      Reply
  7. It looks almost exactly like a Lexus.

    Reply
  8. Guess I’m not very scientific. I never realized that there was a barrier between rich and poor neighborhoods. Wow. All that clean rich-people air is trapped there, right by their homes. Oddly, when I lived in South Korea, they received huge amounts of yellow dust from China every year. Guess that sort of thing doesn’t happen in California.

    Perhaps instead of hating wealthy people, we should be thanking them for being Beta testers because they surely are.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel