By Julianne Meagher ’27
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the first electric vehicle made in the US was created in 1890 by William Morrison, a chemist from Des Moines, Iowa (“The History of the Electric Car”). While the vehicle could only go 14 miles per hour, it sparked a new goal for inventors, especially through oil crises and shortages. In the current day, electric cars show much better speeds and efficiency through being powered by a lithium-ion battery that has the capability to collect energy through a process called regenerative braking, where friction created by braking is collected and charges the battery slightly (“Alternative Fuels Data Center: Electric Vehicle Benefits and Considerations”). Electric vehicles can be charged at public or at-home charging points and the electricity can be produced through fossil fuels, solar power, hydropower, wind energy, nuclear power, and coal, showing how versatile and available the energy for EVs is, while conventional vehicles require a specific mix of crude oil and petroleum (“Alternative Fuels Data Center: Electric Vehicle Benefits and Considerations”).
Though these vehicles can act as a solution to the pollution caused by internal combustion vehicles, they have their fair share of problems and unknowns. In other words, a transition to electric cars may pose a suitable solution for climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, however, attempting a full adjustment may receive pushback due to the expenses related to electric vehicles for consumers, a lack of trust or belief from the public in electric vehicles, potential global conflict connected to obtaining materials for electric vehicles, and environmental effects that stem from components of electric vehicles. Still, a compromise can be found in electrifying public transit to lower emissions while allowing consumers to decide their fuel of choice.
The first angle to highlight is the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Internal combustion vehicles — cars or trucks that run on gasoline or diesel — are known producers of greenhouse gases which deplete the ozone layer, lead to health issues, and pollute the air. Electric vehicles initially seemed like a solution, as they had virtually no tailpipe emissions and could be powered without depleting oil reserves. In spite of that, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) conducted by Eckard Helmers & Martin Weiss in their article “Advances and critical aspects in the life-cycle assessment of battery electric cars” showed that the electric car’s record wasn’t scot-free. An LCA focuses on the entire span of the vehicle’s “life,” from production to disposal (or recycling), while giving specific attention to aspects like the effects of energy conversion in the engine and the impact of the entire supply chain from electricity creation to conversion (Helmers and Weiss). Helmers and Weiss found that the creation and disposal of batteries for electric vehicles has a worse effect on marine and freshwater life due to overly nutrient-dense runoff that supports algae but suffocates animal life. Furthermore, the resources needed to build electric vehicles contribute to more mineral resource depletion than internal combustion vehicles, specifically in the production of the battery and powertrain (Helmers and Weiss). These environmental impacts are not to be overlooked and should be analyzed when considering an all-EV nation.
An additional point to consider is the expenses associated with electric vehicles. According to the World Population Review, a website that analyzes every census from all of the countries and compiles them, the average income of a family in the United States is $130,390 (“Average Family Income by State 2025”). The mean price for a new conventional vehicle in 2025 is $47,000, while the average cost for a new electric vehicle is $55,000 (“Electric vs. Gas Cars: Is It Cheaper to Drive an EV?”). To offset this, owning an EV has tax incentives, with a tax credit of $7,500 for new electric vehicles and a tax credit of $4,000 for used electric vehicles, but these aren’t applicable in all regions or circumstances and may be at risk due to changing political party control in the United States. Families across the country depend on cars to travel and access public places, so a transition to more environmentally friendly but more expensive vehicles may not be appropriate.
On top of the sticker prices, electric vehicles need to be charged to drive. While gas stations are commonplace installations in even the most rural areas, electric charging ports are only starting to be installed in communal spaces like malls and large parking garages. These businesses get to decide the price per kilowatt-hour, how much energy a device left running will use in an hour, and the prices can vary from $0.16 to $0.50 per kilowatt-hour (“Alternative Fuels Data Center: Electric Vehicle Benefits and Considerations”). To avoid public costs, electric vehicle owners can purchase and install at-home charging ports. However, these ports will cost around $2,000 just to purchase and could lead to a spike in utility bills (“Electric vs. Gas Cars: Is It Cheaper to Drive an EV?”). Some regions may be cheaper or offer lower rates for time periods with less electricity usage, but this is not universal.
Another detail to consider is maintenance. While most mechanics can do routine oil changes and simple maintenance on conventional vehicles, electric vehicles are entirely different. The lack of ubiquitous car shops requires electric vehicle owners to go back to their dealer or a specially trained mechanic for maintenance (“Electric vs. Gas Cars: Is It Cheaper to Drive an EV?”). Since the market is more limited, these places can charge higher prices and have fewer locations for consumers. Overall, electric vehicles prove to save the consumer money in the long-run, but can be expensive early on and a huge hurdle for the majority of families in the United States.
In addition to environmental and financial concerns, electric vehicles also pose a risk for global conflict. Dan Coffey discusses the history and future of transportation in his article “ON THE ROAD AGAIN.” According to his account, the car industry itself began with oil, where a large amount of fracking led Henry Ford and others to push for combustion engine vehicles (Coffey 90). As the world adapted to the new invention, oil’s reputation began to shift in the public eye, as conflict broke out in areas that had oil wells, spills damaged waterways and animal life, and the environmental impact of fossil fuel usage was studied (Coffey 91). These discoveries and issues created a need once again, and people turned to renewable energy and electric cars. “The electric revolution appears poised on the brink of transforming the world of mobility,” Coffey writes. “While the electric car does promise to liberate the world from CO2 and oil spills, the new battery technologies rely on critical materials, such as lithium, cobalt and nickel. These fresh dependencies mean new points of political tension and environmental degradation, remarkably similar to those produced by the industrial exploitation of oil and rubber” (Coffey 90-91). It seems that the history of transportation innovation is a cycle, where lithium and cobalt mining is riddled with ethical concerns like child labor, unsafe mining practices and political tension between countries and industries (Coffey 92). There is also a large unknown as the electric car market emerges, companies are focused on speed and profit while disregarding transpiring issues. As the market, company competitiveness, and demand for these electric cars increases, accidents, abuse, conflict, and rushed workmanship may follow, leading to electric cars having mixed interpretations due to their components and problems, just like gas ones.
A final angle to contemplate is the public’s receptiveness to electric cars. In a nation built on choice and freedom, a forceful transition to a new vehicle fleet could be met with extreme resistance. The underlying push for electric cars isn’t seen as an issue to every American, and this was shown by a poll conducted by Pew Research Center. Interviews performed by Pew Research Center on people who don’t view climate change as an urgent issue showed that 46% of people believe human sources are causing global warming, 26% believe the rising temperature is a normal part of Earth’s climate and life cycle, and 14% believe there is no evidence of the globe warming at all (Pasquini et al.). These same interviewees were asked their opinions on renewable energy and electric vehicles. Many believed that a fast transition would lead to economic decline and excessive change to a society that has been reliant on fossil fuels since the industrial revolution. Some also held the opinion that the resources to build alternate sources of energy were unavailable and less trustworthy than the tried and true fossil fuels. In a country with a variety of regions and climates, the technology to provide a reliable power grid would be expensive and complicated. A second study on a new group of interviewees found that “the idea of phasing out the production of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035 faces more public opposition than support. About six-in-ten Americans (59%) say they oppose this, while 40% favor it. The share of Americans who favor phasing out gas-powered vehicles has declined 7 points since 2021. Support is down among both Democrats and Republicans” (Spencer et al.). The public’s lack of trust and confidence in electric vehicles and infrastructure across political parties and age groups shows the main obstacle in the transition.
At DHS, an additional survey was conducted, using a few of the same questions as the Pew Research Center surveys. About 70% of the survey pool believed climate change was caused by human activity (Meagher). Out of those people, only 30% said they were somewhat or extremely likely to purchase an EV. Around 9% of people claimed that climate change was due to natural causes, 9% claimed that there was no evidence for climate change, and 12% had no opinion or were unsure. Out of the poll, 35%, claimed they were neither likely nor unlikely to purchase a vehicle, and only 2 respondents stated that they were very likely to purchase an electric vehicle. As these individuals are the current and future generations of consumers, their lack of enthusiasm and belief highlights the major hurdle to the switch from fossil fuels to electricity.
Consequently, it may seem that a nation with a fleet of electric vehicles feels impossible, and, if you believe in it, that climate change is an unstoppable force that will consume the environment of today. Fortunately, there is a solution that fixes some of the roadblocks in the transition to renewable energy while allowing for freedom of choice and deliberate research and construction. According to Sofia Martinez and Constantine Samaras in writing for the Environmental Science and Technology journal, “The United States (U.S.) transportation sector accounted for 28% of the total U.S. energy use and 67% of the total U.S. petroleum use in 2021. The transportation sector is also the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs), accounting for 28% of the approximately 6.3 gross billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2–e) emitted in 2021” (Martinez and Samaras). Public transportation is a necessary resource for society, as it gives everyone access to public spaces and reduces emissions and energy use through allowing more than triple the amount of people to ride than in the average car. The electrification of public transit would immensely help with both lowering emissions and allowing for more research on electric infrastructure before an all-electric transportation sector is achieved.
The push for this movement is already in the works with the passing of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which included $5.6 billion in funding for low or no emission transit buses in 2021 (Martinez and Samaras). Currently, the Federal Transit Administration lists the useful life benchmark of most transit buses at 12 years, which is the minimum age at which they can be phased out and replaced, but some transit agencies will keep buses running up to 25 years, though this is associated with more greenhouse gas emissions and pollution (Martinez and Samaras). Research conducted on regions that already have electric buses in circulation concluded that buses that get battery replacements and use opportune charging schedules can last 12-15 years and travel the same distance or further than conventional buses on a full charge (Martinez and Samaras).
To achieve this new wave of electric-powered buses, multiple methods and time-frames have been drafted by Martinez and Samaras. Each has different expenses and will contribute differently to climate change. The first is an immediate transition, but this is the least applicable method as it violates the FTA’s 12 year useful life benchmark minimum and would cost an estimated $39.5 billion (Martinez and Samaras). Although, this would be the best procedure to lower the greenhouse gas emissions, with an estimated 65% reduction over a 14 year period (Martinez and Samaras). A second process would be a natural phase out that aligns with the useful life benchmark. Currently, 22% of the US bus fleet is eligible for replacement, which would cost $8.5 billion upfront, then cost around $2-$3.5 billion annually until the project is completed in 2035 (Martinez and Samaras). This method would be expected to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by 56% over the next 14 years (Martinez and Samaras). The last solution to discuss is a 5% annual replacement routine. Replacing 5% of the US bus fleet each year would cost an estimated $3.1 billion per year, reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by 39% over 14 years, and would last until 2045 (Martinez and Samaras). This last method seems to be the most appropriate, as it would be less expensive for the agencies and federal government and give time for new technologies to be implemented for regions that have more inclement weather and vehicle-damaging conditions.
In short, electric cars pose a solution to the air-polluting greenhouse gases created by conventional cars. Nevertheless, electric cars are not free of criticism in aspects such as expenses, potential global conflict in obtaining materials for them, environmental effects from components, and a general sense of distrust from the public. Despite this, a solution to lowering emissions can be found in electrified public transportation and shipping vehicles, allowing choice and efficiency.
Wherever you stand on electric cars and renewable energy, you can participate in many methods, such as writing to your representatives on issues like electric vehicle tax credits, federal grants for electric infrastructure, and zero-emission mandates. You can also act in small ways, such as buying electric-powered yard equipment, like lawnmowers or pressure washers, or opting to ride a bike or walk to reduce your personal carbon footprint. However you decide, remember to travel safe and always consider multiple aspects of an issue.
Works Cited
“Alternative Fuels Data Center: Electric Vehicle Benefits and Considerations.” Alternative Fuels Data Center, https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity-benefits. Accessed 30 April 2025.
“Average Family Income by State 2025.” World Population Review, 2025, https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-family-income. Accessed 3 May 2025.
Coffey, Dan. “ON THE ROAD AGAIN.” History Today, vol. 71, no. 3, 2021, pp. 90-93. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=18a16108-6357-3e40-831c-ef84c95da5b3. Accessed 1 May 2025.
“Electric vs. Gas Cars: Is It Cheaper to Drive an EV?” NRDC, 21 March 2024, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/electric-vs-gas-cars-it-cheaper-drive-ev. Accessed 30 April 2025.
Helmers, Eckard, and Martin Weiss. “Advances and critical aspects in the life-cycle assessment of battery electric cars.” Dove Press, vol. Energy and Emission Control Technologies, 2017, pp. 1-18. Taylor and Francis Online, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2147/EECT.S60408. Accessed 29 April 2025.
“The History of the Electric Car.” Department of Energy, 15 September 2014, https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car. Accessed 12 May 2025.
Martinez, Sofia S., and Constantine Samaras. “Electrification of Transit Buses in the United States Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Environmental science & technology, vol. 58, no. 9, 2024. National Library of Medicine, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10919085/#sec2. Accessed 30 April 2025.
Meagher, Julianne O. Opinions on Alternate Fuels at DHS. A simple 3 question survey that asks respondents what they believe climate change is from/ if it even exists at all; if they would ever buy an EV, and if they own an EV. 5 May 2025. Google Forms, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18oBGOXqfzBMGIBqsF8z9PfjUyFg3V1R5Um3jF39LwX8/edit?resourcekey=&gid=302040006#gid=302040006. Accessed 8 May 2025.
Pasquini, Giancarlo, et al. “Why Some Americans Do Not See Urgency on Climate Change.” Pew Research Center, 9 August 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/08/09/why-some-americans-do-not-see-urgency-on-climate-change/. Accessed 2 May 2025.Spencer, Alison, et al. “Americans’ views of electric cars as gas alternative are mixed.” Pew Research Center, 13 July 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/13/how-americans-view-electric-vehicles/. Accessed 2 May 2025.
The Raider Press 