Are Electric Cars Really Helping the Environment?

TTAC Staff
by TTAC Staff
Photo credit: mpohodzhay / Shutterstock.com

A recent study by the Keck School of Medicine of USC provides new insights into the potential benefits of electric vehicle (EV) adoption. The research, published in the Science of the Total Environment journal, presents the first real-world data linking EVs to reductions in air pollution and respiratory issues. This study marks a significant step in understanding the impact of electric cars on public health and the environment.


Understanding the Impact: Research Methodology

The researchers used multiple data sources to conduct their analysis. They gathered information on the total number of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), which include battery electric, plug-in hybrid, and hydrogen fuel cell cars, from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The team also analyzed air pollution levels, focusing on nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and the rates of asthma-related emergency room visits across various California zip codes from 2013 to 2019.


Findings: Reduced Pollution and Health Risks

The results revealed a clear pattern: As the adoption of ZEVs increased within a zip code, there was a notable decline in local air pollution and asthma-related emergency room visits. Specifically, for every additional 20 ZEVs per 1,000 people, there was a 3.2 percent reduction in the rate of asthma-related emergency visits. Furthermore, the study showed a modest decrease in NO2 levels, a pollutant closely linked to traffic emissions.


Socioeconomic Disparities in ZEV Adoption

However, the study uncovered an adoption gap in ZEVs, with slower uptake in lower-resource areas. This gap highlights a need for policies that promote equitable access to clean transportation, particularly in communities disproportionately affected by pollution and related health issues.


Future Research and Broader Implications

While the study's findings are promising, the researchers acknowledge that more investigation is needed. Future research should explore additional pollutants, other vehicle classes, and broader environmental impacts of ZEVs, including the emissions from their production and disposal.


Conclusion

The study by the Keck School of Medicine of USC offers another case for the adoption of electric vehicles, not just for environmental reasons but also for public health benefits. It underscores the importance of considering local actions in the global fight against climate change and highlights the potential for significant health improvements through technological advancements in transportation.


This article was co-written using AI and was then heavily edited and optimized by our editorial team.

TTAC Staff
TTAC Staff

More by TTAC Staff

Comments
Join the conversation
 3 comments
  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next