I have long looked askance at the emphasis on electric vehicles (EVs) for solving our climate change challenge and other issues. As has been said, they are necessary but insufficient. Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is as important, or more important. Now comes a report, highlighted in the Streetsblog USA article EVs — What Are They Good For? that indicates just how insufficient they are. (The Effects of ‘Buy American’: Electric Vehicles and the Inflation Reduction Act)

If EVs were competing in the marketplace, they would be gradually replacing fossil fueled vehicles (also called ICE – internal combustion engines), but in an effort to accelerate adoption, the federal government and California are subsidizing the conversion to the tune of billions of dollars. Is this a good investment, compared to other investments that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and increase roadway safety? I doubt it. EVs will kill and severely injure more people than ICE vehicles. EVs will generate more tire and brake pollution. Most importantly, EVs support the faux environmentalist attitude that I can keep on driving my private vehicle while ignoring the damage to the livability and financial stability of cities, and the mis-allocation of transportation investments towards motor vehicles and away from walking, bicycling and transit.

For those who might miss the cultural reference of the Streetsblog headline, it is from the Motown ‘War‘ – “War, what is it good for, absolutely nothing”.