Max, this is an awesome article! This 1) is super well researched and 2) made me feel feelings for James and I hope he finds, as the French say, "je ne parle pas français". What a beautiful language :)
I will give two small gripes, which are somewhat in conflict with one another, but whatever. First, the environmental analysis you posted from WSJ and the write up in general focus solely on CO2 emissions...which like are obvious the most important in general. But, specifically in cities, we should care about NOx and particulate matter emissions, both of which are the product of combustion engines and not (at least directly, and definitely in substantially different magnitudes) from EVs. Basically the density of inefficient combustion engines in cities is one reason for air quality issues and associated human health impacts.
Second, in the age of tangible impacts from climate change, there is a real cost to not widely adopting EVs as soon as feasible as a consequence of worsening environmental conditions, and cities bare the cost of Sandy/Ida/annual 100 year storms/shifting water tables/etc. So when we talk about the increased burden on city infrastructure due to increased vehicle weight as a consequence of batteries...yeah, that's valid, but you have to compare that (not insignificant!) cost against an X% increased probability of flooding/environmental catastrophe and the associated costs from that. One is chronic, one is acute, but they both result in infrastructure costs and neither should be discounted.
Anyway, gotta get back to hanging with James. Love the analysis, happy new beers <3
Thanks for reading, always appreciate the support. RE: particulate matter you’re spot on that it’s a huge health risk, though I would be interested to see what the relative gains in public health are from an increased percentage of the population walking and cycling. My bet would be that they would be enough to offset them, though I haven’t looked into this deeply enough. Regardless though, I’d still argue that getting more people to walk, bike, ride transit is still more impactful to reducing overall particulate levels, and without all the hurdles I outlined in this piece.
To your second point yes, I agree that preventative measures against floods/hurricanes are important, but again I’d argue that (for cities) widespread adoption of EVs is not the only, nor even the optimal way to do so. Things like encouraging alternative modes is something many people (though not all! I know we’ll never get rid of cars nor would I want that) can start doing immediately. Definitely would push for electrification of things like 18-wheelers, large delivery vehicles, buses etc. but for infrastructural preservation my thought would be that reducing car usage as a whole is still a better track than switching to EVs.
Again, thanks for reading, always appreciate the insights from someone who’s well-versed in the space!
Max, this is an awesome article! This 1) is super well researched and 2) made me feel feelings for James and I hope he finds, as the French say, "je ne parle pas français". What a beautiful language :)
I will give two small gripes, which are somewhat in conflict with one another, but whatever. First, the environmental analysis you posted from WSJ and the write up in general focus solely on CO2 emissions...which like are obvious the most important in general. But, specifically in cities, we should care about NOx and particulate matter emissions, both of which are the product of combustion engines and not (at least directly, and definitely in substantially different magnitudes) from EVs. Basically the density of inefficient combustion engines in cities is one reason for air quality issues and associated human health impacts.
Second, in the age of tangible impacts from climate change, there is a real cost to not widely adopting EVs as soon as feasible as a consequence of worsening environmental conditions, and cities bare the cost of Sandy/Ida/annual 100 year storms/shifting water tables/etc. So when we talk about the increased burden on city infrastructure due to increased vehicle weight as a consequence of batteries...yeah, that's valid, but you have to compare that (not insignificant!) cost against an X% increased probability of flooding/environmental catastrophe and the associated costs from that. One is chronic, one is acute, but they both result in infrastructure costs and neither should be discounted.
Anyway, gotta get back to hanging with James. Love the analysis, happy new beers <3
Thanks for reading, always appreciate the support. RE: particulate matter you’re spot on that it’s a huge health risk, though I would be interested to see what the relative gains in public health are from an increased percentage of the population walking and cycling. My bet would be that they would be enough to offset them, though I haven’t looked into this deeply enough. Regardless though, I’d still argue that getting more people to walk, bike, ride transit is still more impactful to reducing overall particulate levels, and without all the hurdles I outlined in this piece.
To your second point yes, I agree that preventative measures against floods/hurricanes are important, but again I’d argue that (for cities) widespread adoption of EVs is not the only, nor even the optimal way to do so. Things like encouraging alternative modes is something many people (though not all! I know we’ll never get rid of cars nor would I want that) can start doing immediately. Definitely would push for electrification of things like 18-wheelers, large delivery vehicles, buses etc. but for infrastructural preservation my thought would be that reducing car usage as a whole is still a better track than switching to EVs.
Again, thanks for reading, always appreciate the insights from someone who’s well-versed in the space!