pros and cons of cars essay

IELTS General Training

A hub for IELTS GT test takers to help them reach their goal.

Essay 77 – Advantages and disadvantages of having a car

Gt writing task 2 / essay sample # 77.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Some people claim that there are more disadvantages to having a car than its advantages. Do you agree or disagree? Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of having a car.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer 1: [Agreement]

The invention of automobiles was one of the most important events of the last century. However, some people argue that people who have cars have more drawbacks than its benefits. In this case, I agree with it. Furthermore, I will discuss both the positive and negative sides of car ownership.

Of late, people look for a way to feel more comfortable on the roads and for many, this can come with a car. In simple words, driving vehicles makes people’s life more convenient as this mode of transport takes all the hassles out of travel arrangements, like booking tickets for trains or buses and waiting in the long line, for example. Besides, personal vehicles have redefined the notion of empowerment for women and mobility for millions of individuals. Personal freedom derived from owning an automobile means people can go to work, shopping and other destinations whenever and at any time without depending on public transport’s fixed schedules.

On the contrary, all of these benefits have come at an enormous cost to the environment. Driving a motor vehicle contributes significantly to environmental damage. The first factor is air pollution as it releases greenhouse gases, like Nitrogen dioxide for example. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, car accounts for nearly 25 per cent of all greenhouse gases released into the ecology. The second factor is water pollution. Cars contaminate water sources in several ways. One is through deicing chemicals and oil, brake dust, and runoff of automotive fluids. In addition, the improper disposal of car oil is also a reason for groundwater pollution. Last but not least, cars contribute considerably to solid waste. This means millions of cars are scrapped every year. But regrettably, in most cases, these cars are not recycled. Ultimately, these are disposed of through a landfill site, which in turn leads to the destruction of the natural environment.

To wrap up, while the car is a convenient mode of transportation, it also has grave disadvantages. In my opinion, the negative impacts attached to having cars vastly outweigh any advantages. This is because it threatens the very existence of mankind.

Model Answer 2: [Disagreement]

In contemporary times, there are conflicting opinions about whether cars bring more harm than benefits, and some clearly express the view that owning cars brings more demerits. In my view, however, the advantages of owning a car significantly outweigh the disadvantages. This essay delves into this issue while also discussing both benefits and demerits of owning automobiles.

To begin with, having an automobile provides immense convenience and saves precious time. For instance, people who live far away from their workplaces or schools can avoid the hassles of public transportation and reach their destinations on time. Furthermore, cars provide freedom of movement, allowing people to travel and explore new places, and engage in outdoor activities such as camping, hiking, and skiing. These benefits contribute to a person’s overall quality of life. And perhaps this is why people who own cars would not want to live without them.

In addition, cars play a crucial role in the economy, providing numerous job opportunities in industries such as manufacturing, sales, maintenance and driving. Furthermore, the availability of cars enhances accessibility to essential services such as healthcare, grocery shopping, and emergency services. If someone, for example, does not own a car, it is less likely that he or she would go out and walk for several miles to get to a shopping mall in a city.

On the other hand, critics argue that cars can be a source of pollution, traffic congestion, and accidents. It is evident that car accidents claim thousands of innocent lives each year. Moreover, owning an automobile is expensive. It requires paying taxes, buying fuel, paying for the servicing and so on. This is why economically less affluent citizens in most countries can not afford a car.

In conclusion, the benefits of owning a car, including convenience, time-saving, mobility, and economic opportunities, outweigh the potential drawbacks. Since cars bring more advantages than disadvantages to their owners, I firmly disagree with the notion.

One Comment to “Essay 77 – Advantages and disadvantages of having a car”

On point!… Short and precise!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Privacy Overview

What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a car?

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Fully explain your ideas

To get an excellent score in the IELTS Task 2 writing section, one of the easiest and most effective tips is structuring your writing in the most solid format. A great argument essay structure may be divided to four paragraphs, in which comprises of four sentences (excluding the conclusion paragraph, which comprises of three sentences).

For we to consider an essay structure a great one, it should be looking like this:

• Paragraph 1 - Introduction
• Sentence 1 - Background statement
• Sentence 2 - Detailed background statement
• Sentence 3 - Thesis
• Sentence 4 - Outline sentence
• Paragraph 2 - First supporting paragraph
• Sentence 1 - Topic sentence
• Sentence 2 - Example
• Sentence 3 - Discussion
• Sentence 4 - Conclusion
• Paragraph 3 - Second supporting paragraph
• Paragraph 4 - Conclusion
• Sentence 1 - Summary
• Sentence 2 - Restatement of thesis
• Sentence 3 - Prediction or recommendation

Our recommended essay structure above comprises of fifteen (15) sentences, which will make your essay approximately 250 to 275 words.

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

A friend of yours is thinking of going on a camping holiday for the first time this summer. He/She has asked for your advice. Write a letter to your friend. In your letter, explain why you think your friend would enjoy a camping holiday describe some possible disadvantages say whether you would like to go camping with your friend this summer

In the past, people used to travel abroad to look for many differences from their home country. nowadays, cities throughout the world are becoming more and more similar. what are the reasons？is this a positive or negative development？, in the future all cars, buses, and trucks will be driverless. the only people travelling inside these vehicles will be passangers. do you think the advantages of driverless vehicles outweigh the disadvantages, many offenders commit more crimes after they serve the first punishment. what does this happen, and what measures can be taken to solve this problem, some people say that in order to be happy, you must have a job you love doing. others say that other factors are more important do you think that people can only be happy if they have a job they really enjoy give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experience..

How the Automobile Changed the World, for Better or Worse

New MoMA exhibition explores artists’ responses to the beauty, brutality and environmental devastation of cars and car culture

Nora McGreevy

Correspondent

In the early 20th century, cars roared into society and revolutionized modern life. Automobiles and their attendant culture molded labor practices , the fight for civil rights , cities, the arts, social life and the environment in radical—and dangerous—ways.

Artists who observed these changes responded with a range of emotions, from fervent admiration to horror. Now, “ Automania ”—a new exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York City—takes readers on a ride through some of these responses, from an Andy Warhol silkscreen to Robert Frank photographs and a car hood painted by Judy Chicago.

As Lawrence Ulrich reports for the New York Times , the show takes its title from “ Automania 2000 ,” an Oscar-nominated 1963 short animated by married British artists Joy Batchelor and John Halas . In the film, which art enthusiasts can watch online , a consumer craze for automobiles leads scientists to develop “40-foot supercars” that house families consigned to eating petroleum-based foods and ceaselessly watching television. Eventually, the crush of vehicles clogs roads, and the cars themselves spin out of control.

The bulk of the exhibition takes place on MoMA’s third floor. But viewers can also wander downstairs to the outdoor sculpture garden and peer into the windows of several exceptional car designs. Per a statement , nine cars from the museum’s permanent collection are stationed throughout the show, including a famed mint-green “ Beetle ” and a rare Cisitalia 202 , a cherry-red 1946 racing car that owes it curved, seamless appearance to Italian workers who hammered its metal frame by hand.

Brett Berk of Vanity Fair notes that MoMA was among the first museums to treat cars as design objects, hosting the exhibition “ 8 Automobiles ” in 1951. In the show’s catalog , then-curator Arthur Drexler made the (intentionally) provocative claim that automobiles were a kind of “hollow, rolling sculpture,” according to the Times .

Some artists found themselves enamored with the form and power of these new machines. In Italian futurist Giacomo Balla’s Speeding Automobile (1912), shards of white, black, red and green seem to explode out of the canvas in an abstract composition evocative of the energy of a race car.

Other artists reckoned with cars’ deadly potential. Today, crash injuries are estimated to be the eighth leading cause of death for people of all ages around the world. Pop artist Andy Warhol probed the routine horror of fatal crashes and their coverage in the media in Orange Car Crash Fourteen Times (1963), which reproduced the same newspaper image of a deadly collision on an enormous 9- by 14-foot canvas, as Peter Saenger reports for the Wall Street Journal .

Beyond the immediate bodily harm posed by vehicles, artists have also reckoned with their vast environmental cost. In a series of photocollages from the late 1960s, Venezuelan architect Jorge Rigamonti captured the dystopian industrial landscape of his home country, which is one of the biggest exporters of oil in the world. Pollutants also appear in an 1898 lithograph by French post-Impressionist Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, which shows a male motorist speeding ahead, spewing a cloud of thick smoke over a nearby woman and dog.

Visitors unable to explore the exhibition in person can listen to online audio tours adapted for both adults and children . In one recording, Chicago—the groundbreaking artist who created The Dinner Party (1979) and ushered in a new wave of American feminist art —explains that her work in the exhibition, Flight Hood , was inspired by her time as the only woman in a 250-person auto body school. In 2011, she painted this car hood with a “nascent butterfly” form that references her first husband, who died in an automobile crash.

Cars and car culture have long been tied to Western notions of manliness and rugged individuality . By using a piece of metal so often associated with masculinity as her canvas, Chicago subverted expectations.

“This work is based on a series of paintings that my painting instructors hated,” she recalls in the clip. “… I understood, intuitively, that this imagery that my male painting teachers had rejected because it was so female centered, that there was something subversive about mounting it on the most masculine of forms—a car hood.”

Lead curator Juliet Kinchin , who organized the exhibition with Paul Galloway and Andrew Gardner, also sought to emphasize women’s contributions to the male-dominated auto design industry. Relevant artifacts include textile artist Anni Albers’ upholstery materials and designer Lilly Reich’s 1930 sketches for a folding car seat .

“Women have actually been featured in these stories from the beginning,” Kinchin tells Vanity Fair . “That was something we wanted to tease out.”

All told, Galloway says that he hopes the exhibition pushes museumgoers to reconsider their relationships with their vehicles.

“This is absolutely a moment when we’re rethinking our history with things that we used to love and cherish,” he tells Vanity Fair , “and acknowledging that some of those things maybe were poisonous, or bad ideas, or death traps.”

“ Automania ” is on view at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York City through January 2, 2022.

Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Nora McGreevy | | READ MORE

Nora McGreevy is a former daily correspondent for Smithsonian . She is also a freelance journalist based in Chicago whose work has appeared in Wired , Washingtonian , the Boston Globe , South Bend Tribune , the New York Times and more.

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

• Skip to content
• Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

• IELTS Sample

IELTS Writing Task 2/ Essay Topics with sample answer.

Ielts essay # 18 - discuss the advantages and disadvantages of having a car, ielts writing task 2/ ielts essay:, some people claim that there are more disadvantages of the car than its advantages., do you agree or disagree discuss the advantages and disadvantages of having a car., idea generation for this ielts essay:.

• Owning a car is expensive and requires additional costs to maintain and repair it. Not all families can afford it.
• Cars have increased the level of air and noise pollution in cities, causing more humans to suffer from respiratory, heart diseases, or cancers.
• City travellers have to spend longer hours on traffic jams. Using more private car, the density of traffic has been increased phenomenally and citizens have had to stay longer time on traffic load.
• As the number of private cars increased, more car passengers have been injured or died by severe accidents.
• More pedestrians’ accidents have been reported annually. As the usage of private cars increases, it is more probable that people walking through the street die by them.
• Private car is more expensive than the public transportation. Paying huge money for tax, renewing of licence, or air care, people have to pay more for using cars.
• More fossil fuels are consumed as more cars are used by people, leading other generations to face a shortage of these fuels.
• The governmental expense will be raised far dramatically. To build and maintenance of more highways for more cars, hire more police force, the local government have to consider a larger budget.
• The use of cars to commute has decreased the average health of car users as they do not need to do any physical movement.
• The consumption of fuels to run the car is contributing to the rise if global warming and affecting the ozone layer.
• The car owners need to worry about the safety and parking places for cars wherever s/he travels.
• It saves the time as the commuters can reach his destination quickly than it would be required in a public bus.
• The private car is a convenient mode of transportation. Having more comfortable seats, ventilation or other novel technologies help people to feel better than using other methods, like a bicycle or a public bus.
• Users have more secure privacy compared to using public transportation.
• This will increase more job opportunities because more workers will be involved in working in car companies or as drivers, reducing the unemployment rate.
• The local state will have more budgets, paid by car owners’ taxes, to renew the roads. Annually, car drivers have to pay hundreds of dollars for renewing their car insurance, licence, tickets, or air care.
• Other industries have been developed as car industries developed. The more humans use more private cars, the more car companies have to raise their technology, leading other mother industries to be developed too.
• People can have absolute freedom on deciding the schedule and roads to reach their destination.
• A private car owner can utilise his time but it is very tough to do so on a public bus.
• In a car, a person does not have to worry about the dust, noise and fumes present in the road while in public transportation it is not always possible to avoid those.
• IELTS Essay
• Advantages and Disadvantages Essay
• IELTS Writing Task 2
• IELTS Essay Sample

IELTS Materials

• IELTS Bar Graph
• IELTS Line Graph
• IELTS Table Chart
• IELTS Flow Chart
• IELTS Pie Chart
• IELTS Letter Writing
• Academic Reading

Useful Links

• IELTS Secrets
• Band Score Calculator
• Exam Specific Tips
• Useful Websites
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• Academic Reading Tips
• Academic Writing Tips
• GT Writing Tips
• Listening Tips
• Speaking Tips
• IELTS Grammar Review
• IELTS Vocabulary
• IELTS Cue Cards
• IELTS Life Skills
• Letter Types

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• HTML Sitemap

Pros and Cons of Electric Cars

Thinking about buying an EV? Read our list of top pros and cons of electric cars to help you decide if electric is the right way to go for your next vehicle.

Getty Images | Viaframe

The Pros and Cons of Electric Cars

The electric vehicle revolution is underway, with dozens of new electric cars, trucks and SUVs expected to join those already on the market over the next few years. At the same time, billions of dollars are being spent to build robust public charging networks.

Advertisement

Cars powered by electricity promise to be cheaper to operate and kinder to the environment than vehicles propelled by internal combustion (gas or diesel) engines. With new models debuting at a rapid clip, shoppers have a growing number of options to choose from.

Still, electric vehicles (EVs) aren't for everyone. The electric car industry is still in its infancy, and many hurdles must be overcome before the broad adoption of electric vehicles is affordable, reliable and truly environmentally friendly.

Are you a candidate for EV ownership? This guide will help you answer that question.

Tomwang112 | Getty Images

Pros of EVs: Lower Fuel Costs

The vast majority of electric vehicle charging in America is done overnight, with EV owners using home charging stations to recharge their cars. While the cost of home charging varies greatly by where you live, it's almost universally less expensive than fueling a similarly sized gas-powered vehicle.

While recharging your vehicle using a public DC fast charger can cost many times what your home electricity costs, it's still generally less expensive than fueling a gas car for the same number of miles you can drive.

Charging at home can also take less time than driving to a gas station and filling your car. With a home charger, you take a few seconds to plug your car in at night, and it's 100% charged when you want to head out the following morning. There's no going to the gas station and waiting in line.

Lucid Group, Inc. |

Pros of EVs: They Accelerate Quicker Than Gas-Powered Cars

Because electric motors reach their peak torque the instant you apply power, electric cars have better acceleration from a stop than gas-powered cars. With gas cars, you must wait for power to build as the engine speeds up.

The difference leads to electric vehicles, including the Lucid Air , Tesla Model S and Porsche Taycan , being some of the quickest cars you can buy. Even mainstream and affordable EVs, such as the Chevrolet Bolt EV and Kia EV6 , offer better acceleration than similarly priced gasoline-powered vehicles.

Note that we refer to EVs as "quick," but we don't say "fast." In many cases, the acceleration advantage of EVs tapers off at high speeds, where internal combustion-powered vehicles can still accelerate with authority. While some EVs can hit high top speeds, they generally don't match the maximum speed of gas-powered vehicles.

BMW of North America, LLC |

Pros of EVs: They Are Whisper Quiet

If you haven't heard, electric vehicles are much quieter than gas-powered vehicles. So much so, in fact, that the U.S. federal government requires that they make artificial noises at low speed so that pedestrians and others with visual impairments know they're in the area.

When driving an EV, the loudest noise you'll hear comes from the tires and the sound of the wind swooshing past your vehicle. You might also hear a bit of whine from the electric motors when you're accelerating.

Some automakers have created unique EV noises that can be heard inside the car as you drive. For the BMW i4 and iX , BMW collaborated with renowned composer Hans Zimmer to create the BMW IconicSounds Electric, which provides a melodic yet space-age sound.

FG Trade | Getty Images

Pros of EVs: Less Maintenance and Fewer Repairs

Electric vehicles have far fewer moving parts than cars powered by internal combustion engines and require much less maintenance. While they still need some periodic upkeep, they don't need oil changes. Of course, even EVs should have occasional checks to ensure they're in tip-top shape.

Because some of the energy created by an electric car's braking is used to charge its batteries, an EV's friction brakes don't generally need to be replaced as often.

Many EVs can take advantage of over-the-air updates, so even if something is amiss, it can be fixed without a trip to the shop.

While an EV's battery pack can fail, the government requires that it is protected by at least an eight-year/100,000-mile warranty . Some EV makers offer even more coverage than required. However, repairs can be very costly once an EV is out of warranty.

Getty Images |

Pros of EVs: No Tailpipe Emissions

Electric vehicles don't have tailpipes and don't directly inject greenhouse gases into the environment. Instead, any pollution comes from producing the energy used to recharge your EV's batteries.

How clean that power is depends on the energy production mix where you're charging. In regions where most electricity is produced by coal, your environmental footprint can be significant. Your footprint is smaller in areas where solar, wind and hydroelectric power are a large part of the energy mix.

Kia Motors America |

Pros of EVs: They Are Energy Efficient

Electric motors propel cars many times more efficiently than internal combustion gasoline or diesel engines. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 87% to 91% of the energy an electric car consumes goes to moving the vehicle down the road.

On the other hand, gasoline-powered vehicles only use 16% to 25% of the energy they consume to drive the wheels. Most of the energy an internal combustion engine produces is heat energy, which is wasted.

EVs recapture energy when they go downhill, coast or brake. That power is put directly back into the battery pack.

deepblue4you | Getty Images

Pros of EVs: Cost Savings After Purchase

Between low charging costs and lower maintenance expenses, the cost of owning an EV is cheaper over the long run than owning a gas-powered car.

While EVs cost more, that price difference is earned back over the car's life. At what point in an EV's life it becomes cheaper than a gas car depends on an array of factors, including where you charge, how efficient your EV is, how your energy is produced and how much you drive.

Getty Images | iStockphoto

Pros of EVs: You Can Get Tax incentives

Federal, state, local and utility incentives can subsidize the purchase of many EVs. While the Federal Electric Car Tax Credit applies to far fewer EVs than it once did, it provides as much as a $7,500 tax credit to eligible buyers of qualifying electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

State, local and utility incentives vary greatly by where you live but can reach into the thousands of dollars in instant rebates and tax credits. Non-monetary incentives, such as carpool lane access, are available in some areas.

Some employers offer preferred parking and workplace charging as a benefit to employees driving electric vehicles.

Ford Motor Company |

Pros of EVs: Some Can Provide Backup Power

With some newer EVs, you have the ability to use the energy stored in their battery packs to power external devices. They can be as small as chargers for your power tools, or as large as your home's critical systems during a power outage.

The Ford F-150 Lightning's Pro Power Onboard system, for example, provides as much as 9.6 kW of power, with outlets in its cab, bed and front trunk.

Using an EV to supply power to your home is called back-to-grid, or B2G, technology. It will be an important feature that will likely see broad adoption on future EVs.

General Motors |

Pros of EVs: Advanced Tech Features

As some of the newest designs on the road, many of today's EVs feature cutting-edge technologies, including advanced safety, infotainment and connectivity features.

EVs with all-wheel drive have some of the most sophisticated traction management and maneuverability systems you can buy, such as the Crab Walk capability of the GMC Hummer EV Pickup . The Genesis GV60 includes face-recognition technology that unlocks the doors when it recognizes you and then uses fingerprint technology that allows you to start the vehicle.

Many EVs can update their systems and, in some cases, add features without visiting a dealership. Over-the-air updates let automakers communicate directly with the vehicle, sending updated software to manage an EV's various systems.

Pros of EVs: Environmentally Friendly

While some will argue this point, EVs are generally considered less damaging to the environment than vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. While building EVs creates a massive carbon footprint, operating them for years with a small carbon footprint more than makes up for the difference.

Because they have no tailpipe emissions, electric vehicles hold the promise of creating less air pollution in cities.

Pros of EVs: They're Getting Better All the Time

It's still the early days of the electric vehicle revolution. The industry's technology is advancing at a rapid pace, with innovation coming to every area in the production, design and operation of EVs.

Today's EVs have longer ranges than those available just a few years ago – a trend expected to extend into the future. At the same time, automakers are introducing technologies that allow their vehicles to recharge faster than ever. For example, the 800-volt architecture in the Kia EV6 enables it to take advantage of DC fast-charging network operator Electrify America's quickest charging stations.

New battery technologies are on the way to improve range, quicken charging speed and reduce the amount of scarce materials needed to make batteries.

praetorianphoto | Getty Images

Cons of EVs: They Have Limited Driving Ranges

Many shoppers aren't considering EVs because they perceive them to have less range than a gasoline-powered vehicle. While some EVs have very short ranges on a single charge, others meet or exceed the distance you can drive a gas car on a single tank.

When considering EVs with various ranges, it's important to know how many miles you drive daily. Most drivers in America can drive for several days without needing to charge a typical electric vehicle.

Cons of EVs: Battery Range Diminishes With Age

Whether one year or a decade old, you can expect a gas-powered vehicle to go about the same number of miles on a single gas tank. The same isn't true of EVs, where battery degradation can reduce their ranges as they age.

How much an EV battery's range is reduced over time depends on several factors, including its original quality, how you drive, how you charge and the environmental conditions where you travel.

Yaorusheng | Getty Images

Cons of EVs: Lack of Reliable Fast-Chargers

Not everyone will take their EV on long trips, but drivers want to know they can. That's a problem for EV drivers today, especially if they don't have access to Tesla's robust and reliable supercharger network.

Tesla's Superchargers aside, America's public DC fast-charging network isn't as prevalent or reliable as it needs to be to provide drivers with confidence.

If you get to a gas station and it's closed, you can generally go down the street and find another one. That's not the case with the DC fast-charging stations that charge an EV in 30 to 40 minutes. An out-of-order charging station can leave you stranded if the next station is further away than your car's remaining range.

The government and charging networks are currently investing billions of dollars to alleviate this issue. Also, automakers such as Ford and GM have recently announced deals with Tesla that will allow drivers owning EVs made by these carmakers to access Tesla's Supercharger network.

SimonSkafar | Getty Images

Cons of EVs: Long Recharging Time

You can fill up your gas tank in as little as five to 10 minutes. It takes far longer to charge an EV , even if you're using a public DC fast-charging station. The quickest-charging EVs available today can charge from 10% to 80% in as little as 18 minutes.

Most take longer than that, and it can stretch into hours if the charging station is crowded and you have to wait for a spot to open.

Charging an EV using a home Level 2 charging station can take several hours. However, you probably won't notice how long it takes, because most home EV charging happens overnight. You simply plug your car in when you get home, and the next morning it's fully charged.

(Getty Images) |

Cons of EVs: They Cost More to Buy

One massive barrier to the widespread adoption of electric cars is their price. While the price gap between gas-powered vehicles and EVs is narrowing, electric cars are still more expensive than equivalent gas vehicles.

The 2023 Hyundai Kona is a good example. The gas-powered Kona has an affordable starting price of just $22,140. The battery-electric 2023 Hyundai Kona EV is priced from $33,550.

Depending on the EV you choose, however, a substantial part of the price difference can be offset by federal and state purchase incentives.

Cons of EVs: Home Charging Costs Can Be High

The most cost-effective way to charge your EV is by doing it at home. While you can use the Level 1, 120-volt charging cable that comes with many EVs, installing a Level 2, 240-volt home charging station is far more practical.

Home charging stations start at just a few hundred dollars and can go to about $1,000, depending on their capabilities. The wiring of your charging station can cost you big money, though. If your house can't handle the extra load without major upgrades, or the location where you need to charge is a long way from your electric panel, the cost of an electrician can escalate quickly.

In many cases, you can offset many home charging station installation costs with federal, state, local and utility buying incentives.

Cons of EVs: They Can Be Terrible in Cold Weather

Batteries don't like cold weather. You can expect an EV to see significantly limited range, compared to EPA estimates, when you drive it in ice-cold winter conditions. It's not a permanent condition – the car's higher range will return once the weather warms up.

The amount of range reduction varies by vehicle, with some models showing dramatically less range than others when the weather is at its worst.

The worst part about cold weather range reductions is their unpredictability. You can count on a gas car being somewhat close to its usual range in extremely hot and cold weather, and you can find a nearby gas station if it doesn't. You can't expect the same from EVs and America's sparse fast-charging networks.

ROBYN BECK | Getty Images

Cons of EVs: Battery Production Has a Terrible Environmental Impact

While electric vehicles hold great environmental promise, their batteries aren't so environmentally friendly. Many materials used in today's EV batteries come from countries with terrible ecological and human rights records.

That's starting to change due to America's Inflation Reduction Act. Eventually, mining the minerals used in EV batteries and refining those materials will move to countries with more environmental protections.

kaptnali | Getty Images

Cons of EVs: Few Options for Battery Recycling and Disposal

In theory, EV batteries are recyclable, though a robust industry in the U.S. to do so has not yet emerged.

Developing the infrastructure to recycle old EV batteries will be critical to future electric car production. In theory, the minerals used in the old batteries can be integrated into new EVs, reducing the need to mine and refine new materials.

Another way old EV batteries can be used is in non-vehicle applications. Even a somewhat depleted-range EV battery can be repurposed to store the energy from a home's solar panels until it's needed after dark.

Cons of EVs: They Lose Substantial Range When Towing

With the massive amounts of torque electric motors provide, EVs can be great at towing. Just don't plan on getting your EV's maximum range when you do.

Like gas-powered vehicles lose fuel economy, the range of EVs drops dramatically when you're towing. The best solution for hauling heavy loads is still a diesel-powered vehicle, though EVs might catch up eventually.

Cons of EVs: It's Hard to Have One If You Rent

To have the easiest and least expensive EV ownership experience, you need to have a home or workplace charging solution and use it instead of pricy public DC fast chargers.

If you live in an apartment, condominium or a house with no exclusive off-street parking space where you can install a Level 2 home charging station, affordably owning an EV becomes much more challenging.

As we discuss in our guide to owning an EV without dedicated parking , it can still be done, but it requires more patience and planning.

Cons of EVs: Lack of Incentives Right Now

The federal Inflation Reduction Act's changes to the Federal Electric Car Tax Credit program were supposed to give the burgeoning EV industry a shot of adrenaline. Instead, it took a relatively straightforward tax credit and created a bureaucratic nightmare that made most EVs sold today ineligible for the program.

Most EVs that would have qualified buyers in 2022 to get up to $7,500 in tax credits won't get them anything in 2023. Strict battery raw material sourcing and American assembly rules wiped out the federal credits for any EV made outside of North America. They reduced the amounts available on many produced in North America.

As EV supply chains shift, the federal incentive should be available for more EVs.

Many states offer incentive programs, though some, including Oregon and New Jersey , have run out of money and are not currently available.

Bill Oxford | Getty Images

Cons of EVs: Registration Fees Can Be Higher

Some states charge higher registration and title fees to owners of electric vehicles. The thinking is that since EVs don't burn gas, charging the higher fees offsets the gas tax revenue that the government is missing out on.

There are even states that offer incentives to buy an EV, then take some of the money back with higher fees.

Maskot | Getty Images

Cons of EVs: Some Dealers Are Terrible at Selling Them

While some dealerships and vehicle brands have embraced EVs and have provided employees with the tools and knowledge to sell them, many shoppers will tell you the level of expertise among retailers is uneven, at best.

Automakers are working hard to bring their dealerships up to speed, encouraging them to invest the money and effort to support electric vehicles. Not all are choosing to do so.

If you're in the market for an EV, your best bet is to look at owner's forums dedicated to the vehicle you want. Most have areas where they discuss the best and worst dealerships to work with.

gguy44 | Getty Images

Con That's Not Actually a Con: EVs are Terrible During Natural Disasters

Every time there's a natural disaster, especially one where the electric supply is disrupted, critics come out of the woodwork to talk about how EV owners will be stranded because they can't charge their cars.

The truth is a bit different. Because most EV drivers charge their vehicles each night, an EV is far more likely to have a full or nearly full charge when a disaster strikes than a gas car is to have a topped-off tank of gas.

It's true; you can't charge your EV when there's no electricity. But you also can't fuel a gas-powered car, as gas pumps are powered by — wait for it — electricity.

skynesher | Getty Images

Should You Buy, or Should You Wait?

The decision of whether you should buy an EV comes down to whether there's an option that meets your needs, lifestyle and budget. Many new EV models are on the way, ranging from economical electric crossovers, including the Chevrolet Equinox EV, to high-power electric pickup trucks .

At the same time, North America's public fast-charging networks are adding hundreds of new locations each year, spurred on by generous federal incentives.

Given the pace that the marketplace is changing, you might consider leasing an EV. Not only does it allow you to live the electric vehicle lifestyle without the commitment of buying, but it also doesn't lock you into today's technology, which might be outdated just a few years down the road.

U.S. News and World Report |

More EV Shopping Tools From U.S. News & World Report

With the growth of the electric vehicle segment, U.S. News & World Report has built a library of information to help you find the right electric car and get a great price when you buy or lease it.

Some of our guides include:

• Upcoming Electric Cars
• The Best Electric Vehicles of 2023
• Electric Vehicles With the Longest Range in 2023

How Much Do Electric Cars Cost?

• How Does the Electric Car Tax Credit Work?

An easy way to find a great price on a new EV purchase or lease is by taking advantage of the U.S. News Best Price Program . It connects shoppers with local dealers, offering significant savings with pre-negotiated prices, home delivery and online sales options.

Pros of Electric Cars

• Lower Fuel Costs
• They Accelerate Quicker Than Gas-Powered Cars
• They Are Whisper Quiet
• Less Maintenance and Fewer Repairs
• No Tailpipe Emissions
• They Are Energy Efficient
• Cost Savings After Purchase
• You Can Get Tax incentives
• Some Can Provide Backup Power
• Advanced Tech Features
• Environmentally Friendly
• They're Getting Better All the Time

Cons of Electric Cars

They Have Limited Driving Ranges Battery Range Diminishes With Age Lack of Reliable Fast-Chargers Long Recharging Time They Cost More to Buy Home Charging Costs Can Be High They Can Be Terrible in Cold Weather Battery Production Has a Terrible Environmental Impact Few Options for Battery Recycling and Disposal They Lose Substantial Range When Towing It's Hard to Have an One If You Rent Lack of Incentives Right Now Registration Fees Can Be Higher Some Dealers Are Terrible at Selling Them EVs are Terrible During Natural Disasters (Con That's Not Actually a Con)

Browse Cars

Recommended Articles

John M. Vincent and Cherise Threewitt March 7, 2024

Electric Cars With the Longest Range

Warren Clarke April 5, 2024

Cheapest Electric SUVs

Cherise Threewitt Jan. 19, 2024

How Much Does it Cost to Charge an Electric Car?

Warren Clarke Jan. 16, 2024

Cheapest Electric Cars

Cherise Threewitt Nov. 2, 2023

How Electric Car Tax Credit Work

John M. Vincent and Jim Motavalli April 24, 2023

• Electric vehicles
• The top pros and cons of...

The top pros and cons of electric cars

• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to Facebook
• EnergySage Staff

As subject matter experts, we provide only objective information. We design every article to provide you with deeply-researched, factual, useful information so that you can make informed home electrification and financial decisions. We have:

Sourced the majority of our data from hundreds of thousands of quotes through our own marketplace.

Incorporated third-party data and information from primary sources, government agencies, educational institutions, peer-reviewed research, or well-researched nonprofit organizations.

Built our own database and rating system for solar equipment, including solar panels, inverters, and batteries.

We won't charge you anything to get quotes through our marketplace. Instead, installers and other service providers pay us a small fee to participate after we vet them for reliability and suitability. To learn more, read about how we make money and our Editorial Guidelines .

Electric vehicles offer many benefits , but they also have some disadvantages when compared to conventional gasoline-powered cars. One of the biggest questions prospective electric car buyers face is whether to purchase an all-electric vehicle (AEV), a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), or a gasoline-powered new car.

How do electric cars work?

An electric car is any vehicle powered by a battery charged by an external electricity source. There are many categories of Electric and Hybrid vehicles, including all-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids that use both electric and internal combustion engine technology.

Pros and cons of electric cars

Electric cars are growing in popularity every day. Like conventional cars, there are certain benefits and drawbacks of using an electric vehicle compared to a gasoline-powered one. Here are the top few to keep in mind:

On the pros side, electric cars are energy efficient, are better for the environment, and don't require as much maintenance as traditional gas-powered cars. On the cons side, you can't travel as far between refueling, the actual refueling process takes longer than filling a car at a gas station, and upfront costs are sometimes a barrier.

Below, we'll explore these pros and cons in further detail.

Advantages of electric cars

Electric cars are energy-efficient.

Energy efficiency refers to the amount of energy from the fuel source that is converted into actual energy for powering the wheels of a vehicle. AEVs, like offerings from Tesla are far more efficient than conventional gas-powered vehicles: AEV batteries convert 59 to 62 percent of energy into vehicle movement, while gas-powered cars only convert between 17 and 21 percent. This means charging an AEV's battery puts more towards powering the vehicle than filling a gas tank.

Electric cars reduce emissions

Emissions and carbon footprint reduction, including reduced fuel usage, is another pro for all-electric vehicles. Because they rely on a rechargeable battery, driving an electric car does not create any tailpipe emissions, a significant source of pollution in the United States. In addition, the rechargeable battery means much less money spent on fuel, meaning all energy can be sourced domestically (and often through renewable energy resources such as solar panel systems).

Improving battery technology in today's light-duty AEVs means they can drive 100 miles while consuming only 25 to 40 kilowatt-hours (kWh)  of electricity. Assuming that your electric car can travel three miles per kWh, the electric vehicle can travel about 43 miles for $1.00. By comparison, if we believe that gas costs $2.50 per gallon, an average gasoline vehicle with a fuel efficiency of 22 miles per gallon can only travel 10 miles for the same price. The distance traveled for a fuel cost of $1.00 is nearly four times as far as an electric vehicle.

Electric cars perform well and don't need much maintenance

All-electric vehicles are high-performance vehicles with quiet and smooth motors and require less maintenance than internal combustion engines, such as an oil change. The driving experience can also be fun because AEV motors react quickly, making them responsive with good torque. AEVs are newer than their gas-powered counterparts and are often more digitally connected with charging stations, providing options such as controlling charging from an app.

Disadvantages of electric cars

Electric cars can travel less distance..

AEVs, on average, have a shorter range than gas-powered cars. Most models range between 60 and 120 miles per charge, and some luxury models reach 300 miles per charge. For comparison, gas-powered vehicles will average around 300 miles on a full gas tank, and more fuel-efficient cars get much higher driving ranges. This may be an issue when looking at AEVs if you frequently take long trips. The availability of charging stations can make AEVs less suitable for activities like road trips.

Electric cars can take a long time to recharge

Fueling an all-electric car can also be an issue. Fully recharging the battery pack with a Level 1 or Level 2 charger can take up to eighty hours, and even fast charging stations take 30 minutes to charge to 80 percent capacity. Electric car drivers must plan more carefully because running out of power can't be solved by a quick stop at the gas pump.

Electric cars can be expensive

Electric vehicles (EVs) usually have a higher price tag upfront, though you can save money owning an EV over time since there is generally less maintenance on an EV, and it's less expensive to charge than fuel with gas. Also, while battery packs are more costly in EVs than conventional vehicles, they last much longer than the components of most combustion engines, and they come with 8-10 year warranties, so you're not likely to pay out of pocket for a replacement. EVs also have federal and sometimes state-specific incentives available to help reduce the initial purchase price. More and more automakers than ever are offering EVs, including BMW, Hyundai and Chevrolet.

Pros and cons of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles

Many of the same benefits of all-electric cars also apply to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. PHEVs are excellent vehicles for reducing emissions and reducing fuel usage. For short trips, your PHEV may not need to switch away from its all-electric motor, in which case the car emits no tailpipe emissions. PHEVs use 30 to 60 percent less fuel than conventional gas-powered cars. Greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced even further if the electricity is sourced from renewable resources.   

PHEVs also make great vehicles for those who cannot commit to a fully electric car because of driving and recharging needs. While AEVs are limited to their battery range, the fuel backup in a plug-in hybrid means that when the battery runs out, the vehicle can continue to run and even recharge it by using fuel. PHEVs usually have a better fuel economy than their conventional gas-powered counterparts.

Much like an AEV, one of the hurdles to owning a PHEV is how long it takes to recharge the battery. While PHEV batteries are smaller on average than those found in AEVs, a Level 1 charger may still take several hours to charge. A Level 2 charger can take one to four hours. In addition, while fast charging exists, most PHEVs do not have this charging capability.

Another factor to consider is cost: like AEVs, PHEVs have a higher price tag than many gas-powered vehicles. There are fuel savings, tax credits, and state incentives that can help offset these costs, and as the production of PHEVs expands, these prices may come down.

Are electric vehicles worth it?

All-electric and plug-in electric cars are great for drivers who want to reduce emissions and fuel costs and drive premium vehicles. However, battery charging can take a long time which may not fit your driving needs. The upfront costs also make AEVs and PHEVs a significant investment. It's ultimately up to you to decide which car is the right fit. If reducing your fossil fuel consumption is a goal, you can take steps to further reduce emissions by integrating solar panel systems into your vehicle charging.

Frequently asked questions about electric cars

What is the downside to electric cars.

Some disadvantages to electric cars include that they can't travel as far as gas-powered vehicles, you need to find EV charging stations for them, and they incur higher initial costs.

Is it worth buying an electric car?

Electric vehicles can be less expensive than gas-powered ones because you'll spend less on maintenance and fuel.

What is the range of electric cars?

Most electric cars have a range of between 60-120 miles per charge with luxury cars having ranges of up to 300 miles on a full charge.

How do you charge an electric vehicle?

All AVE drivers have to do is find a charging station and plug it in wherever you park. You may need to use an app or debit/credit card depending on where you go.

Create your own clean energy with solar panels.

Enjoy the benefits of solar without rooftop panels.

Explore heat pumps, the latest in clean heating & cooling technology.

Compare and save on EV chargers for your home

• Our offerings
• Community solar
• Heating & cooling
• Backup power
• EV charging
• For your business
• Other energy options
• Solar calculator
• Solar rebates
• Help center
• Home solar guide
• Market intel
• Refer a friend
• Mission & values
• How it works
• Editorial guidelines
• Work with us
• Solar & HVAC installers
• Corporate partnerships
• Community programs
• Utility programs

ENERGYSAGE is a registered trademark and the EnergySage logo is a trademark of EnergySage, Inc. Other trademarks are the property of either EnergySage, Inc. or our licensors and are used with permission.

© Copyright 2009-2024 EnergySage, Inc. All rights reserved.

Learn more about our success working with the U.S. Department of Energy.

Self-Driving Cars Pros And Cons: Navigating The Future Of Transportation

Self-driving cars are a double-edged sword.

Self-driving cars may have seemed like a myth a decade ago. Still, a few manufacturers have already reached Level 3 autonomous driving, which is more than halfway toward the goal of building actual autonomous vehicles. Honda did it first with the Honda Legend Hybrid EX, which is the Japanese version of the Acura TLX .

If you're unfamiliar with the rating system, a globally accepted standard goes up to Level 5, where the driver is no longer required. Car technology is evolving rapidly, especially in the electric segment.

But before we get to that, we must first understand what self-driving cars are.

Why Do They Matter?

Fossil fuels are quickly becoming a thing of the past, and one day the human driver will likely follow. You might think it's a pipe dream, but a whole new generation of people have no interest in car ownership. They see autonomous cars as a huge win because they will be the most efficient transportation. These people want to sit back and be passengers. The current car-buying public can't stomach the idea of self-driving technology taking away what has become one of the ultimate ways of expressing freedom. But those opinions are rapidly dwindling, and their benefits are hard to ignore.

Automated driving systems are the next big step forward, so we need to know both the pros and cons of driverless cars.

Self-Driving Cars

Self-driving vehicles go by many names, but this one has become the most popular because of Tesla, even though the American automaker has been called out many times for using the term without having the technology to live up to the name. Other standard terms are autonomous vehicles, driverless cars, and automated cars.

We prefer automated vehicles as opposed to autonomous vehicles. We make this distinction purely because the autonomous vehicle does not exist yet. Autonomy suggests an artificial intelligence capable of learning and adapting. Automated cars respond to a situation using only man-made programming. This programming can be updated over time, but at the end of the day, a so-called autonomous vehicle (as they're mostly known) can only do what a line of code tells it to do. A prime example is the advanced driver assist feature known as automatic braking.

While it may appear as if the car is self-driving, it's just code. The vehicle goes through a series of yes or no questions within the blink of an eye. Is there a pedestrian in front of the car? Yes. Is the human behind the wheel paying attention? No. Will one or more pedestrians get hurt if the brakes aren't applied right now? Yes. And then it applies the brakes.

Cars with these advanced driving features are Level 2. These systems are responsible for a reduction in car crashes, but the driver still needs to be in charge of the vehicle at all times.

As mentioned, Level 3 is the highest we've gone so far; even so, it's just a higher level of automation. The vehicle can monitor its surroundings and accelerate, brake, steer, and change lanes. In certain areas where the highway code allows, a driver can even remove their hands.

Level 4 is where we reach actual autonomy. This is when the car starts to think for itself, and it can analyze complex situations and work around them. Even so, a Level 4 self-driving car still needs a steering wheel so the driver can take over if the vehicle is flummoxed. Computers can only handle so much. For now, at least.

Up until now, we've been dealing with human-driven cars. Level 5 removes human error entirely. The vehicle doesn't need a steering wheel because it can do everything a human can without human error. When discussing human error , think of distracted driving, road rage, straying over speed limits, and losing control.

Only when automakers reach Level 5 can we rightfully start using terms like driverless, autonomous, and self-driving cars.

Since the technology does not yet exist, and human drivers are still going to be around for a while, the self-driving car's pros and cons we'll be exploring are all theoretical.

Self Driving Cars Pros And Cons

According to the NHTSA, one of the main pros of self-driving cars is safety. It says that more than 90% of traffic accidents are caused by human error , so if you remove us from the formula, there will, theoretically, be a decrease in road accidents and an overall increase in road safety.

Autonomous vehicles will also be more environmentally friendly, and these cars could potentially reduce emissions. How, exactly?

Well, once computers are in charge of transport, connected technology will significantly leap forward. Many automakers have proposed that self-driving vehicles could tap into the systems that regulate traffic.

Basically, a car will know at exactly what speed it needs to move to reduce congestion. Traffic flow will increase, and the fuel savings will be immense, whether a car is powered by fossil fuels or electricity. So, reducing emissions is one big plus for autonomous vehicles.

We're also looking at fewer accidents, most likely in urban areas. Without being connected to information, improved safety in rural areas remains in the air. We must wonder how these cars will handle narrow lanes or roads without clearly painted lines. If you've ever driven on UK roads, you'll be forgiven for thinking autonomous driving is a pipe dream.

The cons of self-driving cars are both clear and not. While they may make the roads safer, we have to mention potential job losses , security issues, and more severe vehicle crashes.

The job losses as a result of the driverless car will be severe. Taxi drivers will lose their jobs because taxi services will buy vehicles that don't need drivers. Cars don't get sick or need a holiday. Delivery services also won't require humans, and Uber drivers can kiss their jobs goodbye. Once self-driving vehicles are upscaled, bus drivers will lose their jobs because the people in charge of public transportation will come to the same conclusion. That's a lot of lost jobs across the world. The future seems bleak for everyone who makes a living from driving.

Autonomous technology also poses a security threat from multiple angles. We're sure automakers will use advanced security to prevent a car from getting hacked. However, as mentioned earlier, these cars are expected to connect to loads of external servers, possibly even other vehicles on the road. This may make them vulnerable .

Cars will also have more computers than ever, putting them at greater risk to hackers. And they'll likely get hold of your credit card information because once you have nothing to do in a car, you'll probably subscribe to some streaming service. We're already seeing the first examples of this coming through for people who are waiting while charging their electric vehicles.

In the pros section, we mentioned a reduction in crashes, but one of the most significant theoretical negatives of self-driving cars is an increase in the severity of impacts. Fewer cars mean less traffic, likely resulting in a higher top speed. If an autonomous car does crash, it will probably lose control at a higher speed. A higher speed means more damage to passengers.

But the biggest con is that all cars would need to be driverless. We can't have a scenario with a 50:50 split or even a case where most vehicles are autonomous. Even if we had just 1% human drivers, human error is still in play.

Self-driving systems can be as evolved as possible, but even they can't accurately predict what a drunk person might do.

Should We Be Afraid Of Driverless Cars?

As an entity, the car is too ingrained in society to be obliterated within 50 years. Driving is also a freedom people won't willingly give up. And looking at the job losses mentioned earlier, self-driving vehicles are pretty scary. Conversely, automated vehicles can improve our lives if manufacturers can get them to function correctly over a long period.

Currently, we can't see a future where driving is wholly eradicated. Therefore, we don't believe Level 5 will ever happen. The experts agree with us on this topic. At best, we'll have Level 4 to handle all the mundane tasks, while a driver can take over when the journey gets more interesting.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Browse content in A - General Economics and Teaching
• Browse content in A1 - General Economics
• A10 - General
• A11 - Role of Economics; Role of Economists; Market for Economists
• A12 - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines
• A13 - Relation of Economics to Social Values
• A14 - Sociology of Economics
• Browse content in A2 - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics
• A20 - General
• A29 - Other
• A3 - Collective Works
• Browse content in B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches
• Browse content in B0 - General
• B00 - General
• Browse content in B1 - History of Economic Thought through 1925
• B10 - General
• B11 - Preclassical (Ancient, Medieval, Mercantilist, Physiocratic)
• B12 - Classical (includes Adam Smith)
• B13 - Neoclassical through 1925 (Austrian, Marshallian, Walrasian, Stockholm School)
• B14 - Socialist; Marxist
• B15 - Historical; Institutional; Evolutionary
• B16 - History of Economic Thought: Quantitative and Mathematical
• B17 - International Trade and Finance
• B19 - Other
• Browse content in B2 - History of Economic Thought since 1925
• B20 - General
• B21 - Microeconomics
• B22 - Macroeconomics
• B23 - Econometrics; Quantitative and Mathematical Studies
• B24 - Socialist; Marxist; Sraffian
• B25 - Historical; Institutional; Evolutionary; Austrian
• B26 - Financial Economics
• B27 - International Trade and Finance
• B29 - Other
• Browse content in B3 - History of Economic Thought: Individuals
• B30 - General
• B31 - Individuals
• Browse content in B4 - Economic Methodology
• B40 - General
• B41 - Economic Methodology
• B49 - Other
• Browse content in B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches
• B50 - General
• B51 - Socialist; Marxian; Sraffian
• B52 - Institutional; Evolutionary
• B53 - Austrian
• B54 - Feminist Economics
• B55 - Social Economics
• B59 - Other
• Browse content in C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
• Browse content in C0 - General
• C00 - General
• C02 - Mathematical Methods
• Browse content in C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
• C10 - General
• C12 - Hypothesis Testing: General
• C13 - Estimation: General
• C14 - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
• C18 - Methodological Issues: General
• C19 - Other
• Browse content in C2 - Single Equation Models; Single Variables
• C20 - General
• C21 - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions
• C22 - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
• C23 - Panel Data Models; Spatio-temporal Models
• C25 - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
• Browse content in C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables
• C30 - General
• C32 - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes; State Space Models
• C34 - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models
• C38 - Classification Methods; Cluster Analysis; Principal Components; Factor Models
• Browse content in C4 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics
• C43 - Index Numbers and Aggregation
• C44 - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
• Browse content in C5 - Econometric Modeling
• C50 - General
• Browse content in C6 - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling
• C60 - General
• C61 - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
• C62 - Existence and Stability Conditions of Equilibrium
• C63 - Computational Techniques; Simulation Modeling
• C65 - Miscellaneous Mathematical Tools
• C67 - Input-Output Models
• Browse content in C8 - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs
• C82 - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Macroeconomic Data; Data Access
• C89 - Other
• Browse content in C9 - Design of Experiments
• C90 - General
• C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
• C92 - Laboratory, Group Behavior
• C93 - Field Experiments
• Browse content in D - Microeconomics
• Browse content in D0 - General
• D01 - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
• D02 - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
• D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
• Browse content in D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics
• D10 - General
• D11 - Consumer Economics: Theory
• D12 - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
• D13 - Household Production and Intrahousehold Allocation
• D14 - Household Saving; Personal Finance
• Browse content in D2 - Production and Organizations
• D20 - General
• D21 - Firm Behavior: Theory
• D22 - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
• D23 - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
• D24 - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
• D25 - Intertemporal Firm Choice: Investment, Capacity, and Financing
• Browse content in D3 - Distribution
• D30 - General
• D31 - Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions
• D33 - Factor Income Distribution
• D39 - Other
• Browse content in D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
• D40 - General
• D41 - Perfect Competition
• D42 - Monopoly
• D43 - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
• D46 - Value Theory
• Browse content in D5 - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium
• D50 - General
• D51 - Exchange and Production Economies
• D57 - Input-Output Tables and Analysis
• D58 - Computable and Other Applied General Equilibrium Models
• Browse content in D6 - Welfare Economics
• D60 - General
• D61 - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
• D62 - Externalities
• D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
• D64 - Altruism; Philanthropy
• D69 - Other
• Browse content in D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
• D71 - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
• D72 - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
• D73 - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
• D74 - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
• Browse content in D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
• D80 - General
• D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
• D82 - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
• D83 - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
• D84 - Expectations; Speculations
• D85 - Network Formation and Analysis: Theory
• D86 - Economics of Contract: Theory
• D87 - Neuroeconomics
• Browse content in D9 - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics
• D91 - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
• Browse content in E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Browse content in E0 - General
• E00 - General
• E01 - Measurement and Data on National Income and Product Accounts and Wealth; Environmental Accounts
• E02 - Institutions and the Macroeconomy
• Browse content in E1 - General Aggregative Models
• E10 - General
• E11 - Marxian; Sraffian; Kaleckian
• E12 - Keynes; Keynesian; Post-Keynesian
• E13 - Neoclassical
• E16 - Social Accounting Matrix
• E17 - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
• Browse content in E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy
• E20 - General
• E21 - Consumption; Saving; Wealth
• E22 - Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity
• E23 - Production
• E24 - Employment; Unemployment; Wages; Intergenerational Income Distribution; Aggregate Human Capital; Aggregate Labor Productivity
• E25 - Aggregate Factor Income Distribution
• E26 - Informal Economy; Underground Economy
• E27 - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
• Browse content in E3 - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles
• E30 - General
• E31 - Price Level; Inflation; Deflation
• E32 - Business Fluctuations; Cycles
• E37 - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
• Browse content in E4 - Money and Interest Rates
• E40 - General
• E41 - Demand for Money
• E42 - Monetary Systems; Standards; Regimes; Government and the Monetary System; Payment Systems
• E43 - Interest Rates: Determination, Term Structure, and Effects
• E44 - Financial Markets and the Macroeconomy
• E49 - Other
• Browse content in E5 - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit
• E50 - General
• E51 - Money Supply; Credit; Money Multipliers
• E52 - Monetary Policy
• E58 - Central Banks and Their Policies
• Browse content in E6 - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook
• E60 - General
• E61 - Policy Objectives; Policy Designs and Consistency; Policy Coordination
• E62 - Fiscal Policy
• E63 - Comparative or Joint Analysis of Fiscal and Monetary Policy; Stabilization; Treasury Policy
• E64 - Incomes Policy; Price Policy
• E65 - Studies of Particular Policy Episodes
• Browse content in F - International Economics
• Browse content in F0 - General
• F00 - General
• F01 - Global Outlook
• F02 - International Economic Order and Integration
• Browse content in F1 - Trade
• F10 - General
• F11 - Neoclassical Models of Trade
• F12 - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
• F13 - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
• F14 - Empirical Studies of Trade
• F15 - Economic Integration
• F16 - Trade and Labor Market Interactions
• F17 - Trade Forecasting and Simulation
• F18 - Trade and Environment
• Browse content in F2 - International Factor Movements and International Business
• F20 - General
• F21 - International Investment; Long-Term Capital Movements
• F22 - International Migration
• F23 - Multinational Firms; International Business
• Browse content in F3 - International Finance
• F30 - General
• F31 - Foreign Exchange
• F32 - Current Account Adjustment; Short-Term Capital Movements
• F33 - International Monetary Arrangements and Institutions
• F34 - International Lending and Debt Problems
• F35 - Foreign Aid
• F36 - Financial Aspects of Economic Integration
• F37 - International Finance Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
• F39 - Other
• Browse content in F4 - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance
• F40 - General
• F41 - Open Economy Macroeconomics
• F42 - International Policy Coordination and Transmission
• F43 - Economic Growth of Open Economies
• F44 - International Business Cycles
• F45 - Macroeconomic Issues of Monetary Unions
• F47 - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
• Browse content in F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy
• F50 - General
• F51 - International Conflicts; Negotiations; Sanctions
• F53 - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
• F54 - Colonialism; Imperialism; Postcolonialism
• F55 - International Institutional Arrangements
• F59 - Other
• Browse content in F6 - Economic Impacts of Globalization
• F60 - General
• F61 - Microeconomic Impacts
• F62 - Macroeconomic Impacts
• F63 - Economic Development
• F64 - Environment
• F65 - Finance
• Browse content in G - Financial Economics
• Browse content in G0 - General
• G00 - General
• G01 - Financial Crises
• Browse content in G1 - General Financial Markets
• G10 - General
• G11 - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
• G12 - Asset Pricing; Trading volume; Bond Interest Rates
• G13 - Contingent Pricing; Futures Pricing
• G14 - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
• G15 - International Financial Markets
• G18 - Government Policy and Regulation
• G19 - Other
• Browse content in G2 - Financial Institutions and Services
• G20 - General
• G21 - Banks; Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
• G22 - Insurance; Insurance Companies; Actuarial Studies
• G23 - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors
• G24 - Investment Banking; Venture Capital; Brokerage; Ratings and Ratings Agencies
• G28 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in G3 - Corporate Finance and Governance
• G30 - General
• G32 - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
• G33 - Bankruptcy; Liquidation
• G34 - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
• G35 - Payout Policy
• G38 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in G5 - Household Finance
• G51 - Household Saving, Borrowing, Debt, and Wealth
• Browse content in H - Public Economics
• Browse content in H1 - Structure and Scope of Government
• H10 - General
• H11 - Structure, Scope, and Performance of Government
• H12 - Crisis Management
• Browse content in H2 - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
• H20 - General
• H22 - Incidence
• H23 - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
• H25 - Business Taxes and Subsidies
• H26 - Tax Evasion and Avoidance
• Browse content in H3 - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents
• Browse content in H4 - Publicly Provided Goods
• H40 - General
• H41 - Public Goods
• Browse content in H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
• H50 - General
• H53 - Government Expenditures and Welfare Programs
• H55 - Social Security and Public Pensions
• H56 - National Security and War
• Browse content in H6 - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt
• H60 - General
• H62 - Deficit; Surplus
• H63 - Debt; Debt Management; Sovereign Debt
• H68 - Forecasts of Budgets, Deficits, and Debt
• Browse content in H7 - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations
• H70 - General
• H74 - State and Local Borrowing
• H77 - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism; Secession
• Browse content in I - Health, Education, and Welfare
• Browse content in I0 - General
• I00 - General
• Browse content in I1 - Health
• I10 - General
• I12 - Health Behavior
• I14 - Health and Inequality
• I15 - Health and Economic Development
• Browse content in I2 - Education and Research Institutions
• I20 - General
• I21 - Analysis of Education
• I23 - Higher Education; Research Institutions
• I24 - Education and Inequality
• I26 - Returns to Education
• Browse content in I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty
• I30 - General
• I31 - General Welfare
• I32 - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
• I38 - Government Policy; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
• Browse content in J - Labor and Demographic Economics
• Browse content in J0 - General
• J00 - General
• J01 - Labor Economics: General
• J08 - Labor Economics Policies
• Browse content in J1 - Demographic Economics
• J10 - General
• J13 - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
• J15 - Economics of Minorities, Races, Indigenous Peoples, and Immigrants; Non-labor Discrimination
• J16 - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
• J18 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J2 - Demand and Supply of Labor
• J20 - General
• J21 - Labor Force and Employment, Size, and Structure
• J22 - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
• J23 - Labor Demand
• J24 - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
• J26 - Retirement; Retirement Policies
• J28 - Safety; Job Satisfaction; Related Public Policy
• J29 - Other
• Browse content in J3 - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs
• J30 - General
• J31 - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
• J32 - Nonwage Labor Costs and Benefits; Retirement Plans; Private Pensions
• J33 - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
• J38 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J4 - Particular Labor Markets
• J40 - General
• J41 - Labor Contracts
• J42 - Monopsony; Segmented Labor Markets
• J44 - Professional Labor Markets; Occupational Licensing
• J45 - Public Sector Labor Markets
• J46 - Informal Labor Markets
• J48 - Public Policy
• J49 - Other
• Browse content in J5 - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining
• J50 - General
• J51 - Trade Unions: Objectives, Structure, and Effects
• J52 - Dispute Resolution: Strikes, Arbitration, and Mediation; Collective Bargaining
• J53 - Labor-Management Relations; Industrial Jurisprudence
• J54 - Producer Cooperatives; Labor Managed Firms; Employee Ownership
• J58 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J6 - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers
• J60 - General
• J61 - Geographic Labor Mobility; Immigrant Workers
• J62 - Job, Occupational, and Intergenerational Mobility
• J63 - Turnover; Vacancies; Layoffs
• J64 - Unemployment: Models, Duration, Incidence, and Job Search
• J65 - Unemployment Insurance; Severance Pay; Plant Closings
• J68 - Public Policy
• J69 - Other
• Browse content in J7 - Labor Discrimination
• J71 - Discrimination
• J78 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J8 - Labor Standards: National and International
• J80 - General
• J81 - Working Conditions
• J83 - Workers' Rights
• J88 - Public Policy
• Browse content in K - Law and Economics
• Browse content in K0 - General
• K00 - General
• Browse content in K1 - Basic Areas of Law
• K11 - Property Law
• K12 - Contract Law
• K13 - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
• Browse content in K2 - Regulation and Business Law
• K20 - General
• K21 - Antitrust Law
• K22 - Business and Securities Law
• K23 - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
• K25 - Real Estate Law
• Browse content in K3 - Other Substantive Areas of Law
• K31 - Labor Law
• K39 - Other
• Browse content in K4 - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
• K40 - General
• K41 - Litigation Process
• K42 - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
• Browse content in L - Industrial Organization
• Browse content in L0 - General
• L00 - General
• Browse content in L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
• L10 - General
• L11 - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
• L12 - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
• L13 - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
• L14 - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation; Networks
• L16 - Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics: Industrial Structure and Structural Change; Industrial Price Indices
• Browse content in L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
• L20 - General
• L21 - Business Objectives of the Firm
• L22 - Firm Organization and Market Structure
• L23 - Organization of Production
• L24 - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures; Technology Licensing
• L25 - Firm Performance: Size, Diversification, and Scope
• L26 - Entrepreneurship
• L29 - Other
• Browse content in L3 - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise
• L30 - General
• L31 - Nonprofit Institutions; NGOs; Social Entrepreneurship
• L32 - Public Enterprises; Public-Private Enterprises
• L33 - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprises and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out
• L39 - Other
• Browse content in L4 - Antitrust Issues and Policies
• L40 - General
• L41 - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
• L44 - Antitrust Policy and Public Enterprises, Nonprofit Institutions, and Professional Organizations
• Browse content in L5 - Regulation and Industrial Policy
• L50 - General
• L52 - Industrial Policy; Sectoral Planning Methods
• Browse content in L6 - Industry Studies: Manufacturing
• L60 - General
• L61 - Metals and Metal Products; Cement; Glass; Ceramics
• L66 - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco; Wine and Spirits
• L67 - Other Consumer Nondurables: Clothing, Textiles, Shoes, and Leather Goods; Household Goods; Sports Equipment
• Browse content in L7 - Industry Studies: Primary Products and Construction
• L78 - Government Policy
• Browse content in L8 - Industry Studies: Services
• L80 - General
• L82 - Entertainment; Media
• Browse content in L9 - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities
• L97 - Utilities: General
• L98 - Government Policy
• Browse content in M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics
• Browse content in M0 - General
• M00 - General
• Browse content in M1 - Business Administration
• M10 - General
• M12 - Personnel Management; Executives; Executive Compensation
• M13 - New Firms; Startups
• M16 - International Business Administration
• Browse content in M2 - Business Economics
• M21 - Business Economics
• Browse content in M3 - Marketing and Advertising
• M37 - Advertising
• Browse content in M4 - Accounting and Auditing
• M41 - Accounting
• M49 - Other
• Browse content in M5 - Personnel Economics
• M51 - Firm Employment Decisions; Promotions
• M52 - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects
• M54 - Labor Management
• M55 - Labor Contracting Devices
• Browse content in N - Economic History
• Browse content in N0 - General
• N00 - General
• N01 - Development of the Discipline: Historiographical; Sources and Methods
• Browse content in N1 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations
• N10 - General, International, or Comparative
• N11 - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
• N12 - U.S.; Canada: 1913-
• N13 - Europe: Pre-1913
• N14 - Europe: 1913-
• N15 - Asia including Middle East
• N17 - Africa; Oceania
• Browse content in N2 - Financial Markets and Institutions
• N20 - General, International, or Comparative
• N23 - Europe: Pre-1913
• N24 - Europe: 1913-
• N25 - Asia including Middle East
• N26 - Latin America; Caribbean
• Browse content in N3 - Labor and Consumers, Demography, Education, Health, Welfare, Income, Wealth, Religion, and Philanthropy
• N30 - General, International, or Comparative
• N32 - U.S.; Canada: 1913-
• N34 - Europe: 1913-
• Browse content in N4 - Government, War, Law, International Relations, and Regulation
• N43 - Europe: Pre-1913
• Browse content in N5 - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment, and Extractive Industries
• N50 - General, International, or Comparative
• N51 - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
• N52 - U.S.; Canada: 1913-
• N55 - Asia including Middle East
• N7 - Transport, Trade, Energy, Technology, and Other Services
• Browse content in N8 - Micro-Business History
• N80 - General, International, or Comparative
• Browse content in O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth
• Browse content in O1 - Economic Development
• O10 - General
• O11 - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
• O12 - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
• O13 - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Other Primary Products
• O14 - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology
• O15 - Human Resources; Human Development; Income Distribution; Migration
• O16 - Financial Markets; Saving and Capital Investment; Corporate Finance and Governance
• O17 - Formal and Informal Sectors; Shadow Economy; Institutional Arrangements
• O18 - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
• O19 - International Linkages to Development; Role of International Organizations
• Browse content in O2 - Development Planning and Policy
• O20 - General
• O23 - Fiscal and Monetary Policy in Development
• O24 - Trade Policy; Factor Movement Policy; Foreign Exchange Policy
• O25 - Industrial Policy
• Browse content in O3 - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
• O30 - General
• O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
• O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
• O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
• O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
• O35 - Social Innovation
• O38 - Government Policy
• O39 - Other
• Browse content in O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity
• O40 - General
• O41 - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models
• O43 - Institutions and Growth
• O44 - Environment and Growth
• O47 - Empirical Studies of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence
• Browse content in O5 - Economywide Country Studies
• O50 - General
• O51 - U.S.; Canada
• O52 - Europe
• O53 - Asia including Middle East
• O54 - Latin America; Caribbean
• O55 - Africa
• Browse content in P - Economic Systems
• Browse content in P0 - General
• P00 - General
• Browse content in P1 - Capitalist Systems
• P10 - General
• P11 - Planning, Coordination, and Reform
• P12 - Capitalist Enterprises
• P13 - Cooperative Enterprises
• P14 - Property Rights
• P16 - Political Economy
• P17 - Performance and Prospects
• Browse content in P2 - Socialist Systems and Transitional Economies
• P20 - General
• P21 - Planning, Coordination, and Reform
• P25 - Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Browse content in P3 - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions
• P30 - General
• P31 - Socialist Enterprises and Their Transitions
• P32 - Collectives; Communes; Agriculture
• P35 - Public Economics
• P36 - Consumer Economics; Health; Education and Training; Welfare, Income, Wealth, and Poverty
• P37 - Legal Institutions; Illegal Behavior
• Browse content in P4 - Other Economic Systems
• P40 - General
• P41 - Planning, Coordination, and Reform
• P46 - Consumer Economics; Health; Education and Training; Welfare, Income, Wealth, and Poverty
• P48 - Political Economy; Legal Institutions; Property Rights; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Regional Studies
• Browse content in P5 - Comparative Economic Systems
• P50 - General
• P51 - Comparative Analysis of Economic Systems
• P52 - Comparative Studies of Particular Economies
• Browse content in Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
• Browse content in Q0 - General
• Q00 - General
• Q01 - Sustainable Development
• Browse content in Q1 - Agriculture
• Q15 - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
• Q18 - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy
• Browse content in Q3 - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
• Q30 - General
• Browse content in Q4 - Energy
• Q41 - Demand and Supply; Prices
• Q42 - Alternative Energy Sources
• Q48 - Government Policy
• Browse content in Q5 - Environmental Economics
• Q50 - General
• Q54 - Climate; Natural Disasters; Global Warming
• Q56 - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
• Q57 - Ecological Economics: Ecosystem Services; Biodiversity Conservation; Bioeconomics; Industrial Ecology
• Browse content in R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics
• Browse content in R0 - General
• R00 - General
• Browse content in R1 - General Regional Economics
• R10 - General
• R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes
• R12 - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity
• R15 - Econometric and Input-Output Models; Other Models
• Browse content in R2 - Household Analysis
• R20 - General
• Browse content in R3 - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location
• R30 - General
• R31 - Housing Supply and Markets
• R4 - Transportation Economics
• Browse content in R5 - Regional Government Analysis
• R51 - Finance in Urban and Rural Economies
• R58 - Regional Development Planning and Policy
• Browse content in Y - Miscellaneous Categories
• Browse content in Y1 - Data: Tables and Charts
• Y10 - Data: Tables and Charts
• Browse content in Y3 - Book Reviews (unclassified)
• Y30 - Book Reviews (unclassified)
• Browse content in Y8 - Related Disciplines
• Y80 - Related Disciplines
• Browse content in Z - Other Special Topics
• Browse content in Z0 - General
• Z00 - General
• Browse content in Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology
• Z10 - General
• Z11 - Economics of the Arts and Literature
• Z12 - Religion
• Z13 - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Social and Economic Stratification
• Z18 - Public Policy
• Browse content in Z2 - Sports Economics
• Z29 - Other
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About Cambridge Journal of Economics
• About the Cambridge Political Economy Society
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 2. paris purposes and the future we made, 3. the problem of unmaking, 4. conclusion: unmaking and is paris possible, conflict of interest statement, bibliography.

• < Previous

Electric vehicles: the future we made and the problem of unmaking it

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Jamie Morgan, Electric vehicles: the future we made and the problem of unmaking it, Cambridge Journal of Economics , Volume 44, Issue 4, July 2020, Pages 953–977, https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beaa022

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The uptake of battery electric vehicles (BEVs), subject to bottlenecks, seems to have reached a tipping point in the UK and this mirrors a general trend globally. BEVs are being positioned as one significant strand in the web of policy intended to translate the good intentions of Article 2 of the Conference of the Parties 21 Paris Agreement into reality. Governments and municipalities are anticipating that a widespread shift to BEVs will significantly reduce transport-related carbon emissions and, therefore, augment their nationally determined contributions to emissions reduction within the Paris Agreement. However, matters are more complicated than they may appear. There is a difference between thinking we can just keep relying on human ingenuity to solve problems after they emerge and engaging in fundamental social redesign to prevent the trajectories of harm. BEVs illustrate this. The contribution to emissions reduction per vehicle unit may be less than the public initially perceive since the important issue here is the lifecycle of the BEV and this is in no sense zero-emission. Furthermore, even though one can make the case that BEVs are a superior alternative to the fossil fuel-powered internal combustion engine, the transition to BEVs may actually facilitate exceeding the carbon budget on which the Paris Agreement ultimately rests. Whether in fact it does depends on the nature of the policy that shapes the transition. If the transition is a form of substitution that conforms to rather than shifts against current global scales and trends in private transportation, then it is highly likely that BEVs will be a successful failure. For this not to be the case, then the transition to BEVs must be coordinated with a transformation of the current scales and trends in private transportation. That is, a significant reduction in dependence on and individual ownership of powered vehicles, a radical reimagining of the nature of private conveyance and of public transportation.

According to the UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), the Tesla Model 3 sold 2,685 units in December 2019, making it the 9th best-selling car in the country in that month (by new registrations; in August, a typically slow month for sales, it had been 3rd with 2,082 units sold; Lea, 2019; SMMT, 2019 ). As of early 2020, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) such as the new Hyundai Electric Kona had a two-year waiting list for delivery and the Kia e-Niro a one-year wait. The uptake of electric vehicles, subject to bottlenecks, seems to have reached a tipping point in the UK and this transcends the popularity of any given model. This possible tipping point mirrors a general trend globally (however, see later for quite what this means). At the regional, national and municipal scale, public health and environmentally informed legislation are encouraging vehicle manufacturers to invest heavily in alternative fuel vehicles and, in particular, BEVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs), which are jointly categorised within ‘ultra-low emission vehicles’ (ULEVs). 1 According to a report by Deloitte, more than 20 major cities worldwide announced plans in 2017–18 to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2030 or sooner ( Deloitte, 2018 , p. 5). All the major manufacturers have or are launching BEV models, and so vehicles are becoming available across the status and income spectrum that has in the past determined market segmentation. According to the consultancy Frost & Sullivan (2019) , there were 207 models (143 BEVs, 64 PHEVs) available globally in 2018 compared with 165 in 2017.

In 2018, the UK government published its Road to Zero policy commitment and introduced the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 , which empowers future governments to regulate regarding the required infrastructure. Road to Zero announced an ‘expectation’ that between 50% and 70% of new cars and vans will be electric by 2030 and the intention to ‘end the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040’, with the ‘ambition’ that by 2050 almost all vehicles on the road will be ‘zero-emission’ at the point of use ( Department for Transport, 2018 ). Progress towards these goals was to be reviewed 2025. 2 However, on 4 February 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that in the run-up to Conference of the Parties (COP)26 in Glasgow (now postponed), Britain would bring forward its 2040 goal to 2035. The UK is a member of the Clean Energy Ministerial Campaign (CEM), which launched the EV30@30 initiative in 2017, and its Road to Zero policy commitments broadly align with those of many European countries. 3 Norway has longstanding generous incentives for BEVs ( Holtsmark and Skonhoft, 2014 ) and 31% of all cars sold in 2018 and just under 50% in the first half of 2019 in Norway were BEVs. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Norway is the per capita global leader in electric vehicle uptake ( IEA, 2019A ). 4

BEVs, then, are being positioned as one significant strand in the web of policy intended to translate the good intentions of Article 2 of the COP 21 Paris Agreement into reality (see Morgan, 2016 ; IEA, 2019A , pp. 11–2). Clearly, governments and municipalities are anticipating that a widespread shift to electric vehicles will significantly reduce transport-related carbon emissions and, therefore, augment their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to emissions reduction within the Paris Agreement. And, since the BEV trend is global, the impacts potentially also apply to countries whose relation to Paris is more problematic, including the USA (for Trump and his context, see Gills et al. , 2019 ). However, matters are more complicated than they may appear. Clearly, innovation and technological change are important components in our response to the challenge of climate change. However, there is a difference between thinking we can just keep relying on human ingenuity to solve problems after they emerge and engaging in fundamental social redesign to prevent the trajectories of harm. BEVs illustrate this. In what follows we explore the issues.

The aim of this paper, then, is to argue that it is a mistake to claim, assert or assume that BEVs are necessarily a panacea for the emissions problem. To do so would be an instance of what ecological economists refer to as ‘technocentrism’, as though simply substituting BEVs for existing internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles was sufficient. The literature on this is, of course, vast, if one consults specialist journals or recent monographs (e.g. Chapman, 2007 ; Bailey and Wilson, 2009 ; Williamson et al. , 2018 ), but remains relatively under-explored in general political economy circles at a time of ‘Climate Emergency’, and so warrants discussion in introductory and indicative fashion, setting out, however incompletely, the range of issues at stake. To be clear, the very fact that there is a range is itself important. BEVs are technology, technologies have social contexts and social contexts include systemic features and related attitudes and behaviours. Technocentrism distracts from appropriate recognition of this. At its worse, technocentrism fails to address and so works to reproduce a counter-productive ecological modernisation: the technological focus facilitates socio-economic trends, which are part of the broader problem rather than solutions to it. In the case of BEVs, key areas to consider and points to make include:

Transport is now one of, if not, the major source of carbon emissions in the UK and in many other countries. Transport emissions stubbornly resist reduction. The UK, like many other countries, exhibits contradictory trends and policy claims regarding future carbon emissions reductions. As such, it is an error to simply assume prior emissions reduction trends will necessarily continue into the future, and the new net-zero goal highlights the short time line and urgency of the problem.

Whilst BEVs are, from an emissions point of view, a superior technology to ICE vehicles, this is less than an ordinary member of the public might think. ‘Embodied emissions’, ‘energy mix’ and ‘life cycle’ analysis all matter.

There is a difference between ‘superior technology’ and ‘superior choice’, the latter must also take account of the scale of and general trend growth in vehicle ownership and use. It is this that creates a meaningful context for what substitution can be reasonably expected to achieve.

A 1:1 substitution of BEVs for ICE vehicles and general growth in the number of vehicles potentially violates the Precautionary Principle. It creates a problem that did not need to exist, e.g. since there is net growth, it involves ‘emission reductions’ within new emissions sources and this is reckless. Inter alia , a host of fallacies and other risks inherent to the socio-economy of BEVs and resource extraction/dependence also apply.

As such, it makes more sense to resist rather than facilitate techno-political lock-in or path-dependence on private transportation and instead to coordinate any transition to BEVs with a more fundamental social redesign of public transport and transport options.

This systematic statement should be kept in mind whilst reading the following. Cumulatively, the points stated facilitate appropriate consideration of the question: What kind of solution are BEVs to what kind of problem? And we return to this in the conclusion. It is also worth bearing in mind, though it is not core to the explicit argument pursued, that an economy is a complex evolving open system and economics has not only struggled to adequately address this in general, it has particularly done so in terms of ecological issues (for relevant critique, see especially the work of Clive Spash and collected, Fullbrook and Morgan, 2019 ). 5 Since we assume limited prior knowledge on the part of the reader, we begin by briefly setting out the road to the current carbon budget problem.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was created in 1992. Article 2 of the Convention states its goal as, the ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’ ( UNFCCC, 1992 , p. 4; Gills and Morgan, 2019 ). Emissions are cumulative because emitted CO 2 can stay in the atmosphere for well over one hundred years (other greenhouse gases [GHGs] tend to be of shorter duration). Our climate future is made now. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) collates existent models to produce a forecast range and has typically used atmospheric CO 2 of 450 ppm as a level likely to trigger a 2°C average warming. This has translated into a ‘carbon budget’ restricting total cumulative emissions to the lower end of 3,000+ Gigatonnes of CO 2 (GtCO 2 ). In the last few years, climate scientists have begun to argue that positive feedback loops with adverse warming and other climatological and ecological effects may be underestimated in prior models (see Hansen et al. , 2017 ; Steffen et al. , 2018 ). Such concerns are one reason why Article 2 of the UNFCCC COP 21 Paris Agreement included a goal of at least trying to do better than the 2°C target—restricting warming to 1.5°C. This further restricts the available carbon budget. However, current Paris Agreement country commitments stated as NDCs look set to exceed the 3,000+ target in a matter of a few short years ( UNFCCC, 2015 ; Morgan, 2016 , 2017 ).

Since the industrial revolution began, we have already produced more than 2,000 GtCO 2 . Total annual emissions have increased rather than decreased over the period in which the problem has been recognised. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) publishes periodic ‘emissions gap’ reports. Its recent 10-year summary report notes that emissions grew at an average 1.6% per year from 2008 to 2017 and ‘show no signs of peaking’ ( Christensen and Olhoff, 2019 , p. 3). In 2018, the 9th Report stated that annual emissions in 2017 stood at a record of 53.5 Gigatonnes of CO 2 and equivalents (GtCO 2e ) ( UNEP, 2018 , p. xv). This compares to less than 25 GtCO 2 in 2000 and far exceeds on a global basis the level in the Kyoto Protocol benchmark year of 1990. According to the 9th Emissions Gap Report, 184 parties to the Paris Agreement had so far provided NDCs. If these NDCs are achieved, annual emissions in 2030 are projected to still be 53 GtCO 2e . However, if the current ‘implementation deficit’ continues global annual emissions could increase by about 10% to 59 GtCO 2e . This is because current emissions policy is not sufficient to offset the ‘key drivers’ of ‘economic growth and population growth’ ( Christensen and Olhoff, 2019 , p. 3). By sharp contrast, the IPCC Global Warming of 1.5 ° C report states that annual global emissions must fall by 45% from the 2017 figure by 2030 and become net zero by mid-century in order to achieve the Paris target ( IPCC, 2018 ). According to the subsequent 10th Emissions Gap Report, emissions increased yet again to 55.3 GtCO 2e in 2018 and, as a result of this adverse trend, emissions need to fall by 7.6% per year from 2020 to 2030 to achieve the IPCC goal, and this contrasts with less than 4% had reductions begun in 2010 and 15% if they are delayed until 2025 ( UNEP 2019A ). Current emissions trends mean that we will achieve an additional 500 GtCO 2 quickly and imply an average warming of 3 to 4°C over the rest of the century and into the next. We are thus on track for the ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’ that the COP process is intended to prevent ( UNFCCC, 1992 , p. 4). According to the 10th Emissions Gap Report, 78% of all emissions derive from the G-20 nations, and whilst many countries had recognised the need for net zero, only 5 countries of the G-20 had committed to this and none had yet submitted formal strategies. COP 25, December 2019, meanwhile, resulted in no overall progress other than on measurement and finance (for detailed analysis, see Newell and Taylor, 2020 ). As such, the situation is urgent and becoming more so.

Problems, moreover, have already begun to manifest ( UNEP 2019B , 2019B ; IPCC 2019A , 2019B ). Climate change does not respect borders, some countries may be more adversely affected sooner than others, but there is no reason to assume that cumulative effects will be localised. Moreover, there is no reason to assume that they will be manageable based on our current designs for life. In November 2019, several prominent systems and climate scientists published a survey essay in Nature highlighting nine critical climate tipping points that we are either imminently approaching or may have already exceeded ( Lenton et al. , 2018 ). In that same month, more than 11,250 scientists from 153 countries (the Alliance of World Scientists) signed a letter published in BioScience concurring that we now face a genuine existential ‘Climate Emergency’ and warning of ‘ecocide’ if ‘major transformations’ are not forthcoming ( Ripple et al. , 2019 ). We live in incredibly complex interconnected societies based on long supply chains and just in time delivery–few of us (including nations) are self-sufficient. Global human civilisation is extremely vulnerable and the carbon emission problem is only one of several conjoint problems created by our expansionary industrialised-consumption system. Appropriate and timely policy solutions are, therefore, imperative. Cambridge now has a Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and Oxford a Future of Humanity Institute (see also Servigne and Stevens, 2015 ). This is serious research, not millenarian cultishness. The Covid-19 outbreak only serves to underscore the fragility of our systems. As Michael Marmot, Professor of epidemiology has commented, the outbreak reveals not only how political decisions can make systems more vulnerable, but also how governments can, when sufficiently motivated, take immediate and radical action (Harvey, 2020). To reiterate, however, according to both the IPCC and UNEP, emissions must fall drastically. 6

Policy design and implementation are mainly national (domestic). As such, an initial focus on the UK provides a useful point of departure to contextualise what the transition to BEVs might be expected to achieve.

The UK is a Kyoto and Paris signatory. It is a member of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The UK Climate Change Act 2008 was the world’s first long-term legally binding national framework for targeted statutory reductions in emissions. The Act required the UK to reduce its emissions by at least 80% by 2050 (below the 1990 baseline; this has been broadly in line with subsequent EU policy on the subject). 7 The Act put in place a system of five yearly ‘carbon budgets’ to keep the UK on an emissions reduction pathway to 2050. The subsequent carbon budgets have been produced with input from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), an independent body created by the 2008 Act to advise the government. In November 2015, the CCC recommended a target of 57% below 1990 levels by the early 2030s (the fifth carbon budget). 8 Following the Paris Agreement’s new target of 1.5°C and the IPCC and UNEP reports late 2018, the CCC published the report Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming ( CCC, 2019 ). 9 The CCC report recognises that Paris creates additional responsibility for the UK to augment and accelerate its targets within the new bottom-up Paris NDC procedure. The CCC recommended an enhanced UK net-zero GHG emissions target (formally defined in terms of long-term and short-term GHGs) by 2050. This included emissions from aviation and shipping and with no use of strategies that offset or swap real emissions. In June 2019, Theresa May, then UK Prime Minister, committed to adopt the recommendation using secondary legislation (absorbed into the 2008 Act—but without the offset commitment). So, the UK is one of the few G-20 countries to, so far, provide a formal commitment on net zero, though as the UNEP notes, a commitment is not itself necessarily indicative of a realisable strategy. The CCC responded to the government announcement:

This is just the first step. The target must now be reinforced by credible UK policies, across government, inspiring a strong response from business, industry and society as a whole. The government has not yet moved formally to include international aviation and shipping within the target , but they have acknowledged that these sectors must be part of the whole economy strategy for net zero. We will assist by providing further analysis of how emissions reductions can be delivered in these sectors through domestic and international frameworks. 10

The development of policy is currently in flux during the Covid-19 lockdown and whilst Brexit reaches some kind of resolution. As noted in the Introduction section, however, May’s replacement, Boris Johnson has signalled his government’s commitment to achieving its statutory commitments. However, this has been met with some scepticism, not least because it has not been clear what new powers administrative bodies would have and over and above this many of the Cabinet are from the far right of the Conservative Party, and are on record as climate change sceptics or have a voting record of opposing environmentally focussed investment, taxes, subsidies and prohibitions (including the new Environment Secretary, George Eustice, formerly of UKIP). The policy may and hopefully will change, becoming more concrete, but it is still instructive to assess context and general trends.

The UK has one of the best records in the world on reducing emissions. However, given full context, this is not necessarily a cause for congratulation or confidence. It would be a mistake to think that emissions reduction exhibits a definite rate that can be projected from the past into the future. 11 This applies both nationally and globally. Some sources of relative reduction that are local or national have different significance on a global basis (they are partial transfers) and overall the closer one approaches net zero the more resistant or difficult it is likely to become to achieve reductions. The CCC has already begun to signal that the UK is now failing to meet its existent budgets. This follows periods of successive emissions reductions. According to the CCC, the UK has reduced its GHG emissions by approximately one-third since 1990. ‘Per capita emissions are now close to the global average at 7–8 tCO 2 e/person, having been over 50% above in 2008’ ( CCC, 2019 , p. 46). Other analyses are even more positive. According to Carbon Brief, emissions have fallen in seven consecutive years from 2013 to 2019 and by 40% compared with the 1990 benchmark. Carbon Brief claim that since 2010 the UK has the fastest rate of emissions reduction of any major economy. However, it concurs with the CCC that future likely reductions are less than the UK’s carbon budgets and that the new net-zero commitment requires: amounting to only an additional 10% reduction over the next decade to 2030. 12

Moreover, all analyses agree that the reduction has mainly been achieved by reducing coal output for use in electricity generation (switching to natural gas) and by relative deindustrialisation as the UK economy has continued to grow—manufacturing is a smaller part of a larger service-based economy. 13 And , the data are based on a production focussed accounting system. The accounting system does not include all emissions sources. It does not include those that the UK ‘imports’ based on consumption. UK consumption-based emissions per year are estimated to be about 70% greater than the production measure (for different methods, see DECC, 2015 ). 14 If consumption is included, the main estimates for falling emissions change to around a 10% reduction since 1990. Moreover, much of this has been achieved by relatively invisible historic transitions as the economy has evolved in lock-step with globalisation. That is, reductions have been ones that did not require the population to confront behaviours as they have developed. No onerous interventions have been imposed, as yet . 15 However, it does not follow that this can continue, since future reductions are likely to be more challenging. The UK cannot deindustrialise again (nor can the global economy, as is, simply deindustrialise in aggregate if final consumption remains the primary goal), and the UK has already mainly switched from coal energy production. Emissions from electricity generation may fall but it also matters what the electricity is being used to power. In any case, future emissions reductions, in general, require more effective changes in other sectors, and this necessarily seems to require everyone to question their socio-economic practices. Transport is a key issue.

As a ‘satellite’ of its National Accounts, the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes Environmental Accounts and these data are used to measure progress. Much of the data refer to the prior year or earlier. In 2017, UK GHG emissions were reported to be 566 million tonnes CO 2 e (2% less than 2016 and, as already noted about one-third of the 1990 level; ONS, 2019 ). The headline accounts break this down into four categories (for which further subdivisions are produced by various sources) and we can usefully contrast 1990 and recent data ( ONS, 2019 , p. 4):

The Environmental Accounts’ figures indicate some shifting in the relative sources of emissions over the last 30 years. As we have intimated, electricity generation and manufacturing have experienced reduced emissions, though they are far from zero; household and transport, meanwhile, have remained stubbornly high. Moreover, the accounts are also slightly misleading for the uninitiated, since transport refers to the industry and not all transport. Domestic car ownership and use are part of the household sector, and it is the continued dependence on car ownership that provides, along with heating and insulation issues, one of the major sources of the persistently high level of household emissions. The UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (DBEIS) provides differently organised statistics and attributes cars to its transport category and uses a subsequent residential category rather than household category. The Department’s statistical release in 2018 thus attributes a higher 140 MtCO 2 e to transport for 2016, whilst the residential category is a correspondingly lower figure of approximately 106 MtCO 2 e. The 140 MtCO 2 e is just slightly less than the equivalent figure for 1990, although transport achieved a peak of about 156 MtCO 2 e in 2005 ( DBEIS, 2018 , pp. 8–9). As of 2016, transport becomes the largest source of emissions based on DBEIS data (exceeding energy supply) whilst households become the largest in the Environmental Accounts. In any case, looking across both sets of accounts, the important point here is that since 1990 transport as a source of emissions has remained stubbornly high. Transport emissions have been rising as an industrial sector in the Environmental Accounts or relatively consistent and recently rising in its total contribution in the DBEIS data. The CCC Net Zero report draws particular attention to this. Drawing on the DBEIS data, it states that ‘Transport is now the largest source of UK GHG emissions (23% of the total) and saw emissions rise from 2013 to 2017’ ( CCC, 2019 , p. 48). More generally, the report states that despite some progress in terms of the UK carbon budgets, ‘policy success and progress in reducing emissions has been far from universal’ ( CCC, 2019 , p. 48). The report recommends ( CCC, 2019 , pp. 23–6, 34):

A fourfold increase by 2050 in low carbon (renewables) electricity

Developing energy storage (to enhance the use of renewables such as wind)

Energy-efficient buildings and a shift from gas central heating and cooking

Halting the accumulation of biodegradable waste in landfills

Developing carbon capture technology

Reducing agricultural emissions (mainly dairy but also fertiliser use)

Encouraging low or no meat diets

Land management to increase carbon retention/absorption

Rapid transition to electric vehicles and public transport

As we noted in the Introduction section, the UK Department for Transport Road To Zero document stated a goal of ending the sale of conventional diesel- and petrol-powered ICE vehicles by 2040. The CCC suggested improving on this:

Electric vehicles. By 2035 at the latest all new cars and vans should be electric (or use a low-carbon alternative such as hydrogen). If possible, an earlier switchover (e.g. 2030) would be desirable, reducing costs for motorists and improving air quality. This could help position the UK to take advantage of shifts in global markets. The Government must continue to support strengthening of the charging infrastructure, including for drivers without access to off-street parking. ( CCC, 2019 , p. 34)

The UK government’s response to these and other similar suggestions has been to bring the target date forward to 2035 and to propose that the prohibition will also apply to hybrids. However, the whole is set to go out to consultation and no detail has so far (early 2020) been forthcoming. In its 11 March 2020 Budget, the government also committed £1 billion to ‘green transport solutions’, including £500 million to support the rollout of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure, whilst extending the current grant/subsidy scheme for new electric vehicles (albeit at a reduced rate of £3000 from £3500 per new registration). It has also signalled that it may tighten the timeline for sales prohibition further to 2030. 16 As a policy, much of this is, ostensibly at least, positive, but there is a range of issues that need to be considered regarding what is being achieved. The context of transition matters and this may transcend the specifics of current policy.

3.1 BEV transition: life cycles?

The CCC is confident that a transition to electric vehicles can be a constructive contribution to achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century. However, the point is not unequivocal. The previously quoted CCC communique following the UK government’s commitment to implement Net Zero uses the phrase ‘credible UK policies, across government, inspiring a strong response from business, industry and society as a whole’, and the CCC report places an emphasis on BEVs and a transition to public transport. The relative dependence between these two matters (and see Conclusion). BEVs are potentially (almost) zero emissions in use. But they are not zero emissions in practice. Given this, then the substitution of BEVs for current carbon-powered ICEs is potentially problematic, depending on trends in ownership of and use of powered vehicles (private transportation). These points will become clearer as we proceed.

BEVs are not zero emission in context and based on the life cycle. This is for two basic reasons. First, a BEV is a powered vehicle and so the source of power can be from carbon-based energy supply sources (and this varies with the ‘energy mix’ of electricity production in different countries; IEA, 2019A , p. 8). Second, each new vehicle is a material product. Each vehicle is made of metals, plastics, rubber and so forth. Just the cabling in a car can be 60 kg of metals. All the materials must be mined and processed, or synthesised, the parts must be manufactured, transported and assembled, transported again for sale and then delivered. For example, according to the SMMT in 2016, only 12% of cars sold in the UK were built in the UK and 80% of those built in the UK were exported in that year. Some components (such as a steering column) enter and exit the UK multiple times whilst being built and modified and before final assembly. Vehicle manufacture is a global business in terms of procuring materials and a mainly regional (in the international sense) business in terms of component manufacture for assembly and final sales. Power is used throughout this process and many miles are travelled. Moreover, each vehicle must be maintained and serviced thereafter, which compounds this utilisation of resources. BEVs are a subcategory of vehicles and production locations are currently more concentrated than for vehicles in general (Tesla being the extreme). 17 In any case, producing a BEV is an economic activity and it is not environmentally costless. As Georgescu-Roegen (1971) noted long ago and ecologically minded economists continue to highlight (see Spash, 2017 ; Holt et al. , 2009 ), production cannot evade thermodynamic consequences. In terms of BEVs, the primary focus of analysis in this second sense of manufacturing as a source of contributory emissions has been the carbon emissions resulting from battery production. Based on current technology, batteries are heavy (a significant proportion of the weight of the final vehicle) and energy intensive to produce.

Comparative estimates regarding the relative life cycle emissions of BEVs with equivalent fossil fuel-powered vehicles are not new. 18 Over the last decade, the number of life cycle studies has steadily risen as the interest in and uptake of BEVs have increased. Clearly, there is great scope for variation in findings, since the energy mix for electricity supply varies by country and the assumptions applied to manufacturing can vary between studies. At the same time, the general trend over the last decade has been for the energy mix in many countries to include more renewables and for manufacturing to become more energy efficient. This is partly reflected in metrics based on emissions per $GDP, which in conjunction with relative expansion in service sectors are used to establish ‘relative decoupling’. So, given that both the energy mix of power production and the emissions derived from production can improve, then one might expect a general trend of improved emissions claims for BEVs in recent years and this seems to be the case.

For example, if we go back to 2010, the UK Royal Academy of Engineering found that technology would likely favour PHEVs over BEVs in the near future because the current energy mix and state of battery technology indicated that emissions deriving from charging were typically higher for BEVs than an average ordinary car’s fuel consumption—providing a reason to persist with ICE vehicles or, more responsibly, choose hybrids over pure electric ( Royal Academy of Engineering, 2010 ). Using data up to 2013, but drawing on the previous decade, Holtsmark and Skonhoft (2014) come to similar conclusions based on the most advanced BEV market—Norway. Focussing mainly on energy mix (with acknowledgement that a full life cycle needs to be assessed) they are deeply sceptical that BEVs are a significant net reduction in carbon emissions ( Holtsmark and Skonhoft, 2014 , pp. 161, 164). Neither the Academy nor Holtsmark and Skonhoft are merely sceptical. The overall point of the latter was that more needed to be done to accelerate the use of low or no carbon renewables for power infrastructure (a point the CCC continues to make). This, of course, has happened in many places, including the UK. That is, acceleration of the use of renewables, though it is by no means the case government can take direct credit for this in the UK (and there is also evidence on a global level that a transition to clean energy from fossil fuel forms is much slower than some data sources indicate; see Smil, 2017A , 2017B ). 19 In terms of BEVs, however, recent analyses are considerably more optimistic regarding emissions potential per BEV (e.g. Hoekstra, 2019 ; Regett et al. , 2019 ). Research by Staffell et al. (2019) at Imperial for the power corporation, Drax, provides some interesting insights and contemporary metrics.

Staffell et al. split BEVs into three categories based on conjoint battery and vehicle size: a 30–45 kWh battery car, equivalent to a mid-range or standard car; a heavier, longer-range, 90–100 kWh battery car, equivalent to a luxury or SUV model; and a 30–40 kWh battery light van. They observe that a 40-litre tank of petrol releases 90–100 kgCO 2 when burnt and the ‘embodied’ emissions represented by the manufacture of a standard lithium-ion battery are estimated at 75–125 kgCO 2 per kWh. They infer that every kWh of power embodied in the manufacture of a battery is, therefore, approximately equivalent to using a full tank of petrol. For example, a 30 kWh battery embodies thirty 40-litre petrol tank’s worth of emissions. The BEV’s are also a source of emissions based on the energy mix used to charge the battery for use. The in-use emissions for the BEV are a consequence of the energy consumed per km and this depends on the weight of car and efficiency of the battery. 20 They estimate 33 gCO 2 per km for standard BEVs, 44–54 gCO 2 for luxury and SUVs and 40 gCO 2 for vans. In all cases, this is significantly less than an equivalent fossil-fuel vehicle.

The insight that the estimates and comparisons are leading towards is that the battery embodies an ‘upfront carbon cost’ which can be gradually ‘repaid’ by the saving on emissions represented by driving a BEV compared with driving an equivalent fossil fuel-powered vehicle. That is, the environmental value of opting for BEVs increases over time. Moreover, if the energy mix is gradually becoming less carbon based, this effect is likely to improve further. Based on these considerations, Staffell et al. estimate that it may take 2–4 years to repay the embodied emissions in the battery for a standard BEV and 5 to 6 for the luxury or SUV models. Fundamentally, assuming 15 years to be typical for the on-the-road life expectancy of a vehicle, they find lifetime emissions for each BEV category are lower than equivalent fossil-fuel vehicles.

Still, the implication is that BEVs are not zero emission. Moreover, the degree to which this is so is likely to be significantly greater than a focus on the battery alone indicates. Romare and Dahlöff (2017) , assess the life-cycle of battery production (not use), and in regard of the stages of battery production find that the manufacturing stages account for about 50% of the emissions and the mining and processing stages about the same. They infer that there is significant scope for further emissions reductions as manufacturing processes improve and the Drax study seems to confirm this. However, whilst the battery may be the major component, as we have already noted, vehicle manufacture is a major process in terms of all components and in terms of distance travelled in production and distribution. It is also worth noting that the weight of batteries creates strong incentives to opt for lighter materials for other parts of the vehicle. Most current vehicles are steel based. An aluminium vehicle is lighter, but the production of aluminium is more carbon intensive than steel, so there are also further hidden trade-offs that the positive narrative for BEVs must consider. 21

The general point worth emphasising here is that there is basic uncertainty built into the complex evolving process of transition and change. There is a basic ontology issue here familiar in economic critique: there is no simple way to model the changes with confidence, and in broader context confidence in modelling may itself be a problem here when translated into policy, since it invites complacency. 22 That said, the likely direction of travel is towards further improvements in the energy mix and improvements in battery technology. Both these may be incremental or transformational depending on future technologies (fusion for energy mix and organics and solid-state technologies for batteries perhaps). 23 But one must still consider time frames and ultimate context. 24 The context is a carbon budget and the need for radical reductions in emissions by 2030 and net zero by mid-century. Consider: if just the battery of a car requires four years to be paid back then there is no significant difference in the contribution to emissions from the vehicle into the mid 2020s. For larger vehicles, this becomes the later 2020s, and each year of delay in transition for the individual owner is another year closer to 2030. Since transport is (stubbornly) the major source of emissions in the UK and a major source in the world, this is not irrelevant. BEVs can readily be a successful failure in Paris terms. This brings us to the issue of trends in vehicle ownership and substitutions. This also matters for what we mean by transition.

3.2 Substitutions and transformations: successful failure?

There are many ways to consider the problem of transition. Consider the ‘Precautionary Principle’. This is Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration: ‘In order to protect the environment, the precautionary principle shall be widely applied by the States [UN members] according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation’ (UNCED). Assuming we can simply depend on unrealised technology potentially violates the Principle. Why is this so? If BEVs are a source of net emissions, then each new vehicle continues to contribute to overall emissions. The current number of vehicles to be replaced, therefore, is a serious consideration, as is any growth trend. Here, social redesign rather than merely adopting new technology is surely more in accordance with the Precautionary Principle. BEVs may be sources of lower emissions than fossil fuel-powered vehicles, but it does not follow that we are constrained to choose between just these two options or that it makes sense to do so in aggregate, given the objective of radical and rapid reduction in emissions. If time is short and numbers of vehicles are large and growing then the implication is that substitution of BEVs should (from a precautionary point of view) occur in a context that is oppositional to this growing trend. That is, the goal should be one of reducing private car ownership and use, and increasing the availability, pervasiveness and use of public transport (and alternatives to private vehicle ownership). This is an issue compounded by the finding that there is an upfront carbon cost from BEVs. Some consideration of current vehicle numbers and trends in the UK and globally serve to reinforce the point.

The UK Department for Transport publishes annual statistics for vehicle licensing. According to the 2019 statistical release for 2018 data, there were 38.2 million licensed vehicles in Britain and 39.4 million including Northern Ireland ( Department for Transport, 2019 ). Vehicles are categorised into cars, light goods vehicles, heavy goods vehicles, motorcycles and buses and coaches. Cars comprised 31.5 million of the total (82%) and the total represented a 1.2% increase in the year 2017. There is, furthermore, a long-term year-on-year trend increase in vehicles since World War II and over the last 20 years that growth (the net change as new vehicles are licensed and old vehicles taken off the road) has averaged 630,000 vehicles per year ( Department for Transport, 2019 , p. 7). This is partly accounted for not only by population growth, and business growth, but also by an increase in the number of vehicles per household. According to the statistical release, 2.9 million new vehicles were registered in 2018, and though this was about 5% fewer than 2017 the figure remained broadly consistent with long-term trends in numbers and still represented growth (contributing to the stated 1.2% increase). 25 Of the total new registrations in 2018, 2.3 million were cars and 360,000 were light goods vehicles. Around 2 million has been typical for cars.

The point to take from these metrics is that numbers are large and context matters. Cars represent 31.5 million emission sources and there are 39.4 million vehicles in the UK. Replacing these 1:1 reproduces an emissions problem. Replacing them in conjunction with an ownership growth trend exacerbates the emissions problem that then has to be resolved. If around 2 million new cars are registered per year then the point at which the BEVs amongst these new registrations can be assumed to begin payback for embodied emissions prior to the point at which they become net sources of reduced (and not zero ) emissions is staggered over future years based on the rate of switching. There are then also net new vehicles. Given there are 31.5 million cars to be replaced over time (plus net growth), there is a high likelihood of significant transport emissions up to and beyond 2030. The problem, of course, is implicit in the Department for Transport policy commitment to end sales of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2035 and ensure all vehicles are zero-emission in use by 2050. Knowingly committing to this ingrained emission problem, given we have already recognised the urgency and challenge of the carbon budget and the ‘stubbornness’ of transport emissions, is not prudent, if alternatives exist . It is producing a problem that need not exist purely because enabling car ownership and use is a line of least resistance in policy terms (it requires the least change in behaviour and thus provokes limited opposition). It is also worth noting that the UK, like most countries, has an ‘integrated’ transport policy. However, the phrasing disguises the relative levels of investment between different modes of transport. Austerity politics may have resulted in declining road quality in the UK but, in general terms, the UK is still committed to heavy investment in and expansion of its road system. 26 This infrastructure investment not only seems ‘economically rational’, but it is also a matter of relative emphasis and ‘lock-in’. The future policy is predicated on the dominance of road use and thus vehicle use.

The crux of the matter here is how we view political expedience. Surely this hinges on the consequences of policy failure. That is, the failure to implement an effective policy given the genuine problem expressed in the goal of 1.5 or 2°C. ‘Alternatives’ may seem unrealistic, but this is a matter of will and policy—of rational social design rather than impossibility. The IPCC and other sources suggest that achieving the Paris goals requires mobilisation of a kind not previously seen outside of wartime. Policy can pivot on this quite quickly, even if perhaps this can seem unlikely in 2020. Climate events may make this necessary and popular pressure and opinion may be transformed. This is currently uncertain. Positions on this may yet move quite quickly.

Lock-in also implies an underlying sociological issue. This is important to consider regarding simply opting for substitution without greater emphasis on reduction. Even if substitution occurs smoothly, it places greater pressure on areas of reduction over which we have less control as societies and involves an orientation that has further potential policy consequences that cannot be readily quantified and which increase the overall uncertainty regarding NDCs. As any modern historian, urban geographer or sociologist will attest, car ownership has been imbricate with the development and design—the configuration—of modern societies, and it has been deeply integrated into identity. Cars are social technologies and philosophers also have much to say about this sociality in general (e.g. Faulkner and Runde, 2013 ; Lawson, 2017 ). Cars are more than merely convenient; they are sources of autonomy and status (e.g. John Urry explored the sociology of ‘automobility’; see, Dennis and Urry, 2009 ). As such, the more that environmental and transport policy validate the car, then the more that the car is normalised through socialisation for the citizen, perhaps leading to citizens being more prepared to countenance locked-in harms (congestion, etc.) prior to change, in turn, making it less likely (sub)urban spaces are redesigned in ways predicated on the absence of (or severe limits to) private transport. The trend in many countries over the car era has been that building roads leads to more car use, which leads to congestion, which leads to more roads (especially in concentrated zones around [sub]urban spaces).

According to the UK Ordnance Survey, Britain has increased its total road surface by 132 square miles over the decade since 2010 (a 9% increase). According to the UK Department for Transport, vehicle traffic increased by 0.8% in 2019 (September to September) to 330.1 billion miles travelled and car travel, as a subset, increased to 258 billion miles (a 1.5% increase). 27 The 11 March 2020 Budget seems to confirm the trend. Whilst it commits around £1 billion to ‘green transport solutions’, this is in the context of a £27 billion announced investment in roads, including upgrading and a proposed 4,000 miles of new road. As the Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, noted there is a basic disconnect here, since this seems set to increase the UK’s dependence on private transport, when it makes more sense to begin to curtail that dependence, given how significant the UK’s transport emissions are. 28 So, within the various tensions in policy, there seems to be a tendency to facilitate techno-political lock-in or path-dependence on private transportation. As Mattioli et al. (2020) argue, the multiple strands of policy and practice that maintain car dependence contribute to ‘carbon lock-in’. The systemic consequences matter both for the perpetuation of fossil fuel vehicle use in the short term and, given they are not net zero for emissions, powered vehicles in the longer term. Not only does this matter in the UK, but it also matters globally. All the issues stated are reproduced globally. Moreover, in some ways, they are compounded for countries where widespread car ownership is relatively new.

3.3 The fallacy of composition, problems that need not exist and resource risk

Estimates vary for the global total number of vehicles. According to Wards Intelligence, the global total was 1.32 billion in 2016 ( Petit, 2017 ). Extrapolated estimations imply that the total likely increased to more than 1.5 billion in 2019. In 1976, the figure was 342 million and in 1996, 670 million, so the trend implies an approximate doubling every 20 years, which if it continued would imply a figure approaching 3 billion by end of the 2030s. Clearly, it is problematic to simply extrapolate a linear trend, but it is not unreasonable to assume a general trend of growth. Observed experience is that many ‘developed’ country middle-class households have accommodated more than one car per household. This is classically the case in the USA. In 2017, the USA, with a population of 325.7 million in that year, reported a total of 272.5 million registered vehicles compared with 193 million in 1990 ( Statista, 2019A ). In any case, the world population is still growing, incomes are growing and many countries are far from a position of one car per household. China with a population of 1.3 billion overtook the USA in the total number of registered vehicles around 2016 to 2017, with 300.3 million registered vehicles in March of 2017 (Zheng, 2017). Growth is rapid and the China Traffic Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security reported a total of 325 million registered vehicles, December 2018, an increase of 15.56 million in the year ( China Daily , 2018 ). The People’s Republic is now the world’s largest car market and the number of registered cars increased to 240 million in 2018 ( Statista, 2019B ). India too has rapidly growing car ownership and on a lesser scale this is replicated across the developing world.

For our purposes, two well-known concepts and a further resource dependence risk seem to apply here. First, there is patently a ‘fallacy of composition’ issue. That is, the assumption that many can do what few previously did without changing the conditions or producing different (adverse) consequences than arose when only a few adopted that behaviour or activity. Those consequences are climatological and ecological. It remains the case that we are socialised to desire and appreciate cars and it remains a fact that private transport can be extremely convenient. It can also, given the commentary above, appear hypocritical to be suggesting shifting to a far greater reliance on public transport, since this implicitly involves denying to developing country citizens a facet of modernity enjoyed previously by developed country citizens. But this is a distraction from the underlying collective interest in reduced car ownership and use. It denies the basic premise that a Precautionary Principle applies to all and that societies that are not yet car dependent have the opportunity to avoid a problem, rather than have to manage it via either moving straight to private transport BEVs or a transition from fossil fuel-powered ICEs to BEVs with all that entails in terms of ingrained emissions. Policy may be mainly domestic, but climate change is global and aggregate effects do not respect borders, which brings us to a second concept or risk that may be exacerbated.

Second, a ‘quasi-Jevons’ effect’ may apply. Growth of vehicle use is a problem of resource use and this is a thermodynamic and emissions problem. However, it is, as we have noted, also the case that battery technology and energy mix for BEVs are improving. So, this may involve significant declines in relative cost, which in turn may create a tendency for BEV ownership to accelerate which could exacerbate net growth in numbers of vehicles. Net growth could ironically be to the detriment of emissions savings. Whether this is so, depends, in part, on what kind of overall transport policy countries adopt and whether consumers, corporations and markets are allowed to be the arbiter of which area of transport dominates. It also depends, in part, on what materials are required for future batteries. Current technology implies massive increases in costs based on securing sources of lithium and cobalt as battery demand rises. So even if a Jevons’ effect is avoided, a different issue may apply. Resource procurement is a Precautionary Principle issue since effective BEVs at the kind of numbers necessary to substitute for all vehicles seem to require technological transformation—without it, multiple problems apply whilst emissions remain ingrained.

For example, when the UK CCC announced its 2035 recommendation to accelerate the BEV transition, members of the Security of Supply of Mineral Resources (SSMR) project wrote a research note to the CCC (Webster, 2019). They pointed out that the current total European demand for cobalt is 19,800 tonnes and that producing the batteries to replace 2.3 million cars in the UK (in accordance with contemporary statistics for new registrations) would require 15,600 tonnes. The UK would also need 20,000 tonnes of lithium, which is 45% of the current total European demand. If we replicate this ramping up of demand across Europe and the globe for vehicles, recognising that there are other growing demands for the minerals and metals (including batteries for other purposes) then it seems unlikely that supply can respond, unless dependence on lithium and cobalt (and other constituents) falls sharply as technology changes. Clearly, the problem is also contingent on the uptake of BEVs. Over recent years, there has, in fact, been an oversupply of the main materials for battery production because several of the main mining corporations anticipated that battery demand would take off faster than it actually has. For example, global prices of cobalt, nickel and lithium carbonate have increased significantly over the last decade but have fallen in 2018 to the end of 2019. However, industry analysis indicates that current annual global production is the equivalent of about 10 million standard BEVs based on current technology, and as the previous statistics on global vehicle numbers (see also next section) indicate, this is far less than transition via substitution would seem to require in the next decade. 29

Shortages and price rises, therefore, are if not inevitable, at least likely. Currently, about 60% of the cost of a BEV is the battery and 80% of that 60% (about 50% of the vehicle) is the cost of battery materials. It is, therefore, important to achieve secure supply and stable costs. The further context here is the issue of UK domestic battery capacity. In 2013, the government created the Advanced Propulsion Centre (APC) with a 10 year £500 million investment commitment matched by industry. The APC’s remit is to address supply chain issues for electric vehicles. Not unexpectedly, the APC quickly identified lack of domestic battery production capacity as a major impediment. In response in 2016 another government initiative, Innovate UK set up the Faraday Battery Challenge to encourage domestic capacity and innovation. The Battery Industrialisation Centre was then set up in Coventry, to attract manufacturers in the supply chain for BEVs to locate there, focussed around a centre of research excellence. However, the APC has no control over the global supply and prices of battery materials, the investment and location decisions of battery manufacturers or the necessary infrastructure for BEVs to be a feasible technology. 30 For example, according to the APC, if domestic BEV demand were 500,00 per year by 2025, then the UK would need three ‘gigafactories’. Battery manufacture is currently dominated by LG Chem and Samsung in South Korea, CATL in China and Panasonic in Japan. None of these have current plans to build a gigafactory in the UK. In any case, there is a further problem here which raises a whole set of environmental and ethical issues explored in ecological circles under the general heading ‘extractivism’ (see, e.g. Dunlap, 2019 ). As time goes by, the UK and the world may become dependent on high price supplies of materials drawn from unstable or hostile regimes (the Democratic Republic of Congo, etc.), which is a risk in many ways (and a likely source of Dutch disease—the ‘resource curse’—for unstable regimes). So, not placing a relative emphasis on substituting BEVs for ICEs and not endorsing the current vehicle growth trend (which is different as a suggestion than rejecting BEVs entirely) avoid multiple problems and risks.

It is also worth noting that simple market decisions can have a further collective adverse consequence based on individual consumer preference and reasoning, which may also affect BEVs in the short term. Many current BEVs have smaller or low efficiency batteries and thus short ranges. These favour urban use for short journeys, but most people own cars with a view also to range further afield. As such, it seems likely that until the technology is all long range (and the charging infrastructure is pervasive) many consumers, if the choice exists and income allows, will own BEVs as an additional vehicle, not a replacement vehicle. 31 This may be a short-term issue, given the regulatory changes focussed from 2030 to 2040 in many countries. But, again, from a Paris point of view, taking the IPCC 1.5°C and UNEP Emissions Gap reports into consideration, this matters. This brings us to a final issue. What is the actual take-up of BEVs (and ULEVs)? How rapid is the transition? In the Introduction section, I suggested that the UK had reached a tipping point and that this mirrored a general trend globally. This, however, needs context.

3.4 How many electric vehicles?

The data emerging in recent years and stated in the Introduction section are a step-change, but as a possible tipping point it begins from a low base and BEVs (the least emitting of the low emission vehicles) are a subset, albeit a rapidly expanding one, of ULEVs. According to the UK Department for Transport statistical release for 2018, there were 200,000 ULEVs registered in total, of which 63,992 ULEVs were newly registered in that year ( Department for Transport, 2019 , p. 4). 93% of the total registrations were cars and the total constitutes a 39% increase on the year 2017 total and a 20% increase in the rate of registration—there were just 9,500 ULEVs at the beginning of 2010 (so, about 20 times greater in a decade). However, the 2018 data mean that ULEVs accounted for just 0.5% of all licensed vehicles and were still only 2.1% of all new registrations in that year. Preliminary data available early 2020 indicate continued growth with almost 38,000 new BEV registrations in 2019, a 144% year-on-year increase. As a recent UK House of Commons Briefing Paper notes, however, the government prefers to emphasise the percentage changes in take-up rather than the percentages of the absolute numbers or the absolute numbers themselves ( Hirst, 2019 ). The International Energy Agency (IEA) places the UK in its leading countries list by ULEV and BEV market share (measured by the percentage of total annual registration): Norway dominates, followed by Iceland, Sweden, the Netherlands and then a significant drop-off to a trailing group including China, the USA, Germany, the UK, Japan, France, Canada and South Korea. However, the market share in this trailing group is less than 5% in every case (see appended Figure 1 ). China, given its size (and because of the urgency of its urban air quality problems and its capacity for authoritarian implementation), dominates the raw numbers in terms of total ULEVs and BEVs. All this notwithstanding, the IEA confirms the general point that up-take is accelerating, but the base is low and so achieving total ULEV or BEV coverage is some way off:

The global electric car fleet exceeded 5.1 million in 2018, up by 2 million since 2017, almost doubling the unprecedented amount of new registrations in 2017. The People’s Republic of China… remained the world’s largest electric car market with nearly 1.1 million electric cars sold in 2018 and, with 2.3 million units, it accounted for almost half of the global electric car stock. Europe followed with 1.2 million electric cars and the United States with 1.1 million on the road by the end of 2018 and market growth of 385000 and 361000 electric cars from the previous year. Norway remained the global leader in terms of electric car market share at 46% of its new electric car sales in 2018, more than double the second-largest market share in Iceland at 17% and six-times higher than the third-highest Sweden at 8%. In 2018, electric buses continued to witness dynamic developments, with more than 460000 vehicles on the world’s road, almost 100000 more than in 2017…In freight transport, electric vehicles (EVs) were mostly deployed as light-commercial vehicles (LCVs), which reached 250000 units in 2018, up 80000 from 2017. Medium truck sales were in the range of 1000–2000 in 2018, mostly concentrated in China. ( IEA, 2019A , p. 9)

Over the next few years, it seems likely we will see rapid changes in these metrics. There is a great deal of discussion in policy analysis regarding bottlenecks and impediments and these, of course, are also important (consumer uncertainty, ‘range anxiety’, availability of sufficient infrastructure for charging and so on). 32 However, as everything argued so far indicates regarding transition and trends, underlying the whole is the conditionality of success and the potential for failure, involving avoidable ingrained emission and risks. There is a basic difference between a superior technology and a superior choice since the latter is a socio-economic matter of context: of rates of change, scales and substitutions. Ultimately, this creates deep concerns in terms of achieving the Paris goals. The IEA explores two forecast scenarios for the uptake of ULEVs. Both involve a projection of annual ULEV sales and total stock to 2030 ( IEA, 2019A ). First a ‘New Policies’ Scenario. This takes the current policy commitments of individual countries and extrapolates. By 2030, the scenario projects global ULEV sales at 23 million in that year and a total stock of 130 million. This is considerably less than 30% of all vehicles now and in 2030. Second, the EV30@30 Scenario. This assumes an accelerated commitment that adopts the @30 goals (notably 30% annual sales share for BEVs by 2030; IEA, 2019A , pp. 29–30). By 2030, the scenario projects global ULEV sales at 43 million in that year and a total stock of 250 million. Again, this is less than 30% of all vehicles now and in 2030.

The figures, of course, are highly conditional, but the point is clear, even the best-case scenario currently being anticipated has ULEVs and BEVs as a minority of all vehicles in 2030—and 2030 is a key year for achieving Paris, according to the October 2018 IPCC 1.5°C report. Moreover, it is notable that the projections assume continuous growth in the number of vehicles (and so continuous growth in ICE vehicles) and the major areas of numerical growth in BEVs continue to be China, so some significant part of the anticipated total will be new ingrained emissions that arguably did not need to exist. 33 Again, this is highly conditional but it at least creates questions regarding what is being ‘saved’ when the IEA claims that the New Policies Scenario results in 2.5 million barrels a day less demand for oil in 2030 and the EV30@30 Scenario 4.3 million barrels a day ( IEA, 2019A , p. 7). 34 Less of more is not a saving in an objective sense, if this is a preventable future, and it is not a rational way to set about ‘saving’ the planet. It remains the case, of course, that this is better than nothing, but it is deeply questionable whether in policy terms any of this is the ‘best that can be done’. As stated in the Introduction section, technocentrism distracts from appropriate recognition of this. At its worse, technocentrism fails to address and so works to reproduce a counter-productive ecological modernisation: the technological focus facilitates socio-economic trends, which are part of the broader problem rather than solutions to it. The important inference is that there are multiple reasons to think that greater emphasis on social redesign and less private transport avoids successful failure and is more in accordance with the Precautionary Principle.

I ended the introduction to this essay by stating that we would be exploring the foregrounding question: What kind of solution are BEVs to what kind of problem? It should be clearer now what was meant by this. Ultimately, the balance between private and public transport matters if the Paris goals are to be achieved. Equally clearly, this is not news to the UK CCC or to any serious analyst of electric vehicles and the transport issue for our climatological and ecological future (again, e.g. Chapman, 2007 ; Bailey and Wilson, 2009 ; Williamson et al. , 2018 ; Mattioli et al. , 2020 ). At the same time, the context and issues are not widely understood and the problems are often understated, at least in so far as, discursively, most weight is placed on stating progress in achieving a transition to ULEVs and BEVs. This is technocentric. Despite its general concerns and careful critical stance, the CCC is also partly guilty of this. For example, Ewa Kmietowicz, Transport Team Leader of the CCC Secretariat, refers to the UK Road to Zero strategy as a ‘lost opportunity’, and the CCC identifies a number of shortfalls in the strategy. 35 However, the general thrust of the CCC position is to focus on a rapid transition to BEVs and to overcoming bottlenecks. 36 Broader feasibility is subsumed under general assumptions about continued economic expansion and expansion of the transport system. So, there is more of a situation of complementarity (with caveats) between public and private transport, and the whole becomes an exercise in types of investment within expansionary trends, rather than a more radical recognition of the fundamental problems that we ought to think about avoiding. It is also worth noting that many of the major advocates of BEVs are industry organisations. The UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, for example, are not unconcerned but they are not impartial either; they have a vested interest in the vehicle industry and its growth. For industry, ULEVs and BEVs are an opportunity before they are a solution to a problem. There are, however, recognitions that a rethink is required. These range from direct activism, such as ‘Rocks in the Gearbox’ (along the lines of Extinction Rebellion), to analysis from establishment think tanks, such as the World Economic Forum 37 , and statements from government oversight committees. For example, the UK Commons Science and Technology Committee (CSTC) not only endorses the CCC 2035 accelerated BEV target but also states more explicitly:

In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation. The Government should not aim to achieve emissions reductions simply by replacing existing vehicles with lower-emissions versions. Alongside the Government’s existing targets and policies, it must develop a strategy to stimulate a low-emissions transport system, with the metrics and targets to match. This should aim to reduce the number of vehicles required, for example by: promoting and improving public transport; reducing its cost relative to private transport; encouraging vehicle usership in place of ownership; and encouraging and supporting increased levels of walking and cycling. ( CSTC, 2019 )

This, as Caroline Lucas suggests, speaks to the need to coordinate public and private transport policy more effectively and clearly, and there is a need for broader informed debate here. In political ecological circles, for example, there is a growing critique of the tensions encapsulated in the concept of an ‘environmental state’ (see Koch, 2019 ). That is the coordination and coherence of environmental imperatives with other policy concerns. State-rescaling and degrowth and postgrowth work highlight the profound problems that are now starting to emerge as states come to terms with the basic mechanisms that have been built into our economies and societies (see also Newell and Mulvaney, 2013 ; Newell, 2019 ). 38 New thinking is required and this extends to the social ontology and theory we use to conceptualise economies (see Spash and Ryan, 2012 ; Lawson, 2012 , 2019 ) and political formations (see Bacevic, 2019 ; Patomäki, 2019. Covid-19 does not change this ( Gills, 2020 ).

In transport terms, there are many specific issues to consider. Some solutions are simple but overlooked because we are always thinking in terms of sophisticated innovations and inventions. However, we do not need to conform to the logics of ‘technological fixes’, that we somehow think will enable the impossible, to perhaps see some scope in ‘fourth industrial revolution’ transformations ( Center for Global Policy Solutions, 2017 ; Morgan, 2019B ). For example, public transport may also extend to a future where no individual owns a range extensive powered vehicle (perhaps just local scooters for the young and mobility scooters for the infirm) and instead a system operates of autonomous fleet vehicles that are coordinated by artificial intelligence with logistics implemented through Smartphone calendar access booking systems—and coordination functions could maximise sharing, where vehicles could also be (given no drivers are involved) adaptable connective pods that chain together to minimise congestion and energy use. This seems like science fiction now, and perhaps a little ridiculous, but a few years ago so did the Smartphone. And the technology already exists in infancy. Such a system could be either state-funded and run or private partnership and franchise, but in either case, it radically redraws the transport environment whilst working in conformity with the geography of living spaces we have already developed. Will is what is required and if the outcome of COP24 ( UNFCCC, 2018 ) and COP25 ( Newell and Taylor, 2020 ) with limited progress towards the Paris goals persists, then it seems likely that emissions will accumulate rapidly in the near future and the likelihood of a serious climate event with socio-economic consequences rises. At that stage, more invasive statutory and regulatory intervention may start to occur as the carbon budget becomes a more urgent target. Prohibitions, transport rationing and various other possibilities may then be on the agenda if we are to unmake the future we are currently writing and, to mix metaphors, avoid a road to nowhere.

None declared

Thanks to two anonymous reviewers for extensive and useful comment—particularly regarding the systematic statement of issues in the Introduction section and for additional useful references. Jamie Morganis Professor of Economic Sociology at Leeds Beckett University, UK. He coedits the Real-World Economics Review with Edward Fullbrook. RWER is the world’s largest subscription based open access economics journal. He has published widely in the fields of economics, political economy, philosophy, sociology, and international politics. His recent books include: Modern Monetary Theory and its Critics (ed. with E. Fullbrook, WEA Books, 2020), Economics and the ecosystem (ed. with E. Fullbrook, WEA Books, 2019); Brexit and the political economy of fragmentation: Things fall apart (ed. with H. Patomäki, Routledge, 2018); Realist responses to post-human society (ed. with I. Al-Amoudi, Routledge, 2018); Trumponomics: Causes and consequences (ed. with E. Fullbrook, College Publications, 2017); What is neoclassical economics? (ed., Routledge, 2015); and Piketty’s capital in the twenty-first century (ed. with E. Fullbrook, College Publications, 2014).

Bacevic , J . 2019 . Knowing neoliberalism , Social Epistemology , vol. 33 , no. 4 , 380 – 92

Google Scholar

Bailey , I. and Wilson , G . 2009 . Theorising transitional pathways in response to climate change: technocentrism, ecocentrism, and the carbon economy , Environment and Planning A , vol. 41 , no. 10 , 2324 – 41

CCC. 2019 . Net Zero: The UK’s Contribution to Stopping Global Warming , London , Author

Google Preview

Center for Global Policy Solutions. 2017 . Stick Shift: Autonomous Vehicles, Driving Jobs and the Future of Work , Washington DC , Author

Chapman , L . 2007 . Transportation and climate change: a review , Journal of Transport Geography , vol. 15 , no. 5 , 354 – 67

China Daily. 2018, December 1 . China has 325 million motor vehicles , China Daily

Christensen , J. and Olhoff , A . 2019 . Lessons from a Decade of Emissions Gap Assessments , Nairobi , UNEP

CSTC. 2019 . Clean Growth: Technologies for Meeting the UK’s Emissions Reduction Targets , London , Author

DBEIS. 2018 . Annex: 1990–2016 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Final Figures by end User , London , Author

DECC. 2015 . Different Approaches to Reporting UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions , London , Author

Deloitte. 2018 . Battery Electric Vehicles. New market. New entrants. New challenges , London , Author

Dennis , K. and Urry , J . 2009 . After the Car , Cambridge , Polity

Department for Transport. 2018 . The Road to Zero: Next Steps Towards Cleaner Road Transport and Delivering our Industrial Strategy , London , Author

Department for Transport. 2019 . Vehicle Licensing Statistics: Annual 2018 , London , Author

Dunlap , A . 2019 . Wind, coal and copper: the politics of land grabbing, counterinsurgency and the social engineering of extraction , Globalizations vol. 17 , no. 4 , 661 – 82

Environmental Audit Committee. 2016 . Sustainability in the Department of Transport [Third Report of Sessions 2016–17], London , House of Commons

Faraday Institution. 2019 . UK Electric Vehicle and Battery Production Potential to 2040 , London , Author

Faulkner , P. and Runde , J . 2013 . Technological objects, social positions and the transformational model of social activity , MIS Quarterly , vol. 37 , no. 3 , 803 – 18

Frost & Sullivan. 2019 . Global Electric Vehicle Market Outlook, 2019 , Author , London

Fullbrook , E. and Morgan , J. (eds.). 2019 . Economics and the Ecosystem , London , World Economic Association Books

Georgescu-Roegen , N . 1971 . The Entropy Law and the Economic Process , Cambridge and London , Harvard University Press

Gills , B . 2020 . Deep Restoration: from the Great Implosion to the Great Awakening , Globalizations , vol. 17 , no. 4 , 577 – 9

Gills , B. and Morgan , J . 2019 . Global Climate Emergency: after COP24, climate science, urgency, and the threat to humanity , Globalizations

Gills , B. , Morgan , J. and Patomäki , H . 2019 . President Trump as status dysfunction , Organization , vol. 26 , no. 2 , 291 – 301

Hansen , J. et al.  2017 . Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions , Earth System Dynamics , vol. 8 , 577 – 616

Harvey , F . 2020, March 28 . Tackle climate crisis and poverty with zeal of Covid-19 fight scientists urge , The Guardian

Hirst , D . 2019 . ‘ Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure’ , Briefing Paper no. CBP07480, London , House of Commons Library

Hoekstra , A . 2019 . The underestimated potential of battery electric vehicles to reduce emissions , Joule , vol. 3 , no. 6 , 1412 – 4

Holt , R. , Pressman , S. and Spash , C. (eds.). 2009 . Post Keynesian and Ecological Economics , Cheltenham , Edward Elgar

Holtsmark , B. and Skonhoft , A . 2014 . The Norwegian support and subsidy policy for electric cars. Should it be adopted by other countries? Environmental Science & Policy , vol. 42 , 160 – 8

IEA. 2019A . Global EV Outlook 2019: Scaling up the Transition to Electric Mobility , Paris , Author

IEA. 2019B . World Energy Outlook , Paris , Author

IPCC. 2018 . Global Warming of 1.50C: Summary for Policymakers , Geneva , Author

IPCC. 2019A . IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation Sustainable Land Management Food Security and Greenhouse Gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems , Geneva , Author

IPCC. 2019B . The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate , Geneva , Author

Koch , M . 2019 . The state in the transformation to a sustainable postgrowth economy , Environmental Politics , vol. 29 , no. 1 , 115 – 33

Lawson , C . 2012 . Aviation lock-in and emissions trading , Cambridge Journal of Economics , vol. 36 , no. 5 , 1221 – 43

Lawson , C . 2017 . Technology and Isolation , Cambridge , Cambridge University Press

Lawson , T . 2019 . The Nature of Social Reality: Issues in Social Ontology , London , Routledge

Lea , R . 2019, September 6 . Tesla Model 3 enters sales chart at No3 , The Times

Lenton , T. , Rockstrom , J. , Gaffney , O. , Rahmstorf , S. , Richardson , K. , Steffen , W. and Schellnuber , H . 2018 . Climate tipping points too risky to bet against , Nature , vol. 575 , 592 – 5

Manzetti , S. and Mariasiu , F . 2015 . Electric vehicle battery technologies: from present state to future systems , Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 51 , 1004 – 12

Mattioli , G. , Roberts , C. , Steinberger , J. , and Brown , A . 2020 . The political economy of car dependence: a systems of provision approach , Energy Research & Social Science , vol. 66 , 1 – 18

Morgan , J . 2016 . Paris COP21: power that speaks the truth? Globalizations , vol. 13 , no. 6 , 943 – 51

Morgan , J . 2017 . Piketty and the growth dilemma revisited in the context of ecological economics , Ecological Economics , vol. 136 , 169 – 77

Morgan , J . 2019A . Intervention, policy and responsibility: economics as over-engineered expertise?, pp. 145 – 63 in Dolfsma , W. and Negru , I. (eds.), 2019 The Ethical Formation of Economists , London , Routledge

Morgan , J . 2019B . Will we work in twenty-first century capitalism? A critique of the fourth industrial revolution literature , Economy and Society , vol. 48 , no. 3 , 371 – 98

Morgan , J. and Patomäki , H . 2017 . Contrast explanation in economics: its context, meaning, and potential , Cambridge Journal of Economics , vol. 41 , no. 5 , 1391 – 418

Nasir , A. and Morgan , J . 2018 . The unit root problem: affinities between ergodicity and stationarity, its practical contradictions for central bank policy, and some consideration of alternatives , Journal of Post Keynesian Economics , vol. 41 , no. 3 , 339 – 63

National Audit Office. 2019 . Department of Transport Sustainability Update , London , Author

Newell , P . 2019 . Transformismo or transformation? The global political economy of energy transitions , Review of International Political Economy , vol. 26 , no. 1 , 25 – 48

Newell , P. and Mulvaney , D . 2013 . The political economy of the “just transition” , The Geographical Journal , vol. 179 , no. 2 , 132 – 40

Newell , P. and Taylor , O . 2020 . Fiddling while the planet burns? COP 25 in perspective , Globalizations , vol. 17 , no. 4 , 580 – 92

ONS. 2019 . UK Environmental Accounts: 2019 , London , Author

Patomäki , H . 2019, July 9 . ‘The Climate Movement? What’s Next?’, available at https://patomaki.fi/en/2019/07/the-climate-movement-whats-next/

Petit , S . 2017 . World vehicle population rose 2.6% in 2016 , Ward Intelligence

Regett , A. , Mauch , W. and Wagner , U . 2019 . Carbon Footprint of Electric Vehicles – A Plea for More Objectivity , available at https://www.ffe.de/attachments/article/856/Carbon_footprint_EV_FfE.pdf

Ripple , W. , Wolf , C. , Newsome , T. , Barnbard , P. , Moomaw , W. and 11,258 signatories. 2019 . World Scientists’ warning of a climate emergency , BioScience , vol. 70 , no. 1 , 8 – 12

Romare , M. and Dahlöff , L . 2017 . ‘ The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse gas Emissions From Lithium-Ion Batteries’ , Report No. C243, Stockholm , IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute

Royal Academy of Engineering. 2010 . Electric Vehicles: Charged with Potential , London , Author

Servigne , P. and Stevens , R . 2015 . Comment tout peut s’efondrer , Paris , Science Humaines , available at https://www.seuil.com/ouvrage/comment-tout-peut-s-effondrer-pablo-servigne/ 9782021223316

Smil , V . 2017A . Energy and Civilization , Boston , MIT Press

Smil , V . 2017B . Energy Transitions , Colorado , Praeger

SMMT. 2019 . UK Electric Car Registrations Surge in August but it’s a Long Road to Zero and Barriers Must be Addressed , Press Release September 5th, London , Author

Spash , C. (ed.). 2017 . Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics: Nature and Society , New York , Routledge

Spash , C . 2020 . A tale of three paradigms: realising the revolutionary potential of ecological economics , Ecological Economics vol. 169 ,

Spash , C. and Ryan , A . 2012 . Economic schools of thought on the environment: investigating unity and division , Cambridge Journal of Economics , vol. 36 , no. 5 , 1091 – 121

Staffell , I. Green , R. Gross , R. and Green , T . 2019 . How clean is my car? , Electric Insights Quarterly , vol. Q2 , 7 – 10

Statista. 2019A . Number of Motor Vehicles Registered in the United States from 1990 to 2017 (in 1000s) , [data updated June 2019], available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/

Statista. 2019B . Car “Parc” in China from 2007 to 2018 (millions) , [data updated August 2019], available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/285306/number-of-car-owners-in-china/

Steffen , W. et al.  2018 . Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA , vol. 115 , 8252 – 9

Taylor , M . 2015 . The Political Ecology of Climate Change Adaptation , London , Routledge/Earthscan

UNEP. 2012 . Global Environmental Outlook Report 5: Environment for the Future We Want , New York , Author

UNEP. 2018 . Emissions Gap Report 2018 , 9th ed., New York , Author

UNEP. 2019A . Emissions Gap Report 2019 , 10th ed., New York , Author .

UNEP. 2019B . Global Environmental Outlook Report 6: Healthy Planet Healthy People , New York , Author

UNFCCC. 1992 . United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , New York , Author

UNFCCC. 2015 . Adoption of the Paris Agreement and Annex: Paris Agreement , Paris , Author

UNFCCC. 2018 . Katowice Texts , Katowice , Author

Webster , B . 2019, June 6 . Britain “could be held to ransom” on electric cars , The Times

Williamson , K. , Satre-Meloy , A. , Velasco , K. and Green , K . 2018 . Climate Change Needs Behaviour Change: Making the Case for Behavioural Solutions to Reduce Global Warming , Arlington, VA , Centre for Behaviour and the Environment

Zheng , S . 2017, April 19 . China now has over 300 million vehicles… that’s almost America’s total population , South China Morning Post

Global electric car sales and market share, 2013–18.

Source : IEA (2019, p. 10).

ULEV refers to vehicles that emit less than 75 gCO 2 per km. This essentially means BEVs, PHEVs, range-extended (typically an auxiliary fuel tank) electric vehicles, fuel cell (non-plug-in) electric vehicles and hybrid models (non-plug in vehicles with a main fuel tank but whose battery recharges and which drive short distances in electric mode).

Note, there is little sign of legislative and regulatory detail to plans as of early 2020. Furthermore, there is a difference between acknowledging that the uptake of alternatively fuelled vehicles, including BEVs, is growing and drawing the inference that UK government policy (channelled primarily via the Department for Transport) is as effective as it might be (see Environmental Audit Committee, 2016 ; National Audit Office, 2019 and also later discussions).

CEM is coordinated by the IEA and is an initiative lead by Canada and China (but including a steadily growing number of signatory countries). The EV30@30 initiative aims to achieve a 30% annual sales share for BEVs by 2030.

IEA headline statistics include plug-in hybrids so 2018 becomes 46% for Norway (IEA, 2019A, p. 10).

For example, Spash (2020) and Spash and Ryan (2012) . One might also note the work of John O’Neill at Manchester University. Perhaps the most prominent ‘realist’ working on transport and ecology is Petter Naess, at Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

The UNEP 9th Report calls for a 55% reduction by 2030.

The initial rationale in 2008 was that to achieve a maximum limit of 2°C warming global emissions needed to fall from the levels at that time to 20–24 GtCO 2 e with an implied average of 2.1–2.6 t CO 2 per capita on a global basis in 2050. This translated to a 50–60% reduction to the then global total. Since UK emissions were above average per capita, the UK reduction required was estimated at about 80%. Given that emissions then increased and atmospheric ppm has risen the original calculations are now mainly redundant.

For the work of the CCC, see: https://www.theccc.org.uk/about/ .

The report also provides useful context regarding the UN sustainable development goals ( CCC, 2019 : p. 66) and CCC thinking on growth and economics ( CCC, 2019 : pp. 46–7).

https://www.theccc.org.uk/2019/06/11/response-to-government-plan-to-legislate-for-net-zero-emissions-target/ .

And further methodological issues apply in economics (see; Morgan and Patomäki, 2017 ; Nasir and Morgan, 2018 ; Morgan, 2019A ).

For a full analysis, see https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-29-per-cent-over-the-past-decade . The Carbon Brief analysis omits shipping and aviation. As the campaign group Transport and Environment notes UK shipping was responsible for 14.4 MtCO 2 , which is the third highest in Europe (after the Netherlands and Spain) and shipping is exempt from tax on fossil fuels under EU law. See p. 20: https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/Study-EU_shippings_climate_record_20191209_final.pdf .

UK coal use for energy supply reduced by approximately 90% from 1990 to 2017 and in 2019 amounted to just 2% of the energy mix and in 2019 the UK went two weeks without using any coal at all for power production (the first time since 1882); 1990 to 2010 natural gas use steadily increased from a near-zero base but has declined since 2010 as use of renewables has grown. Coal use in manufacturing has decreased by 75% from 1990 to 2017 ( ONS, 2019 ). As noted, some assessments place the reduction in total emissions at around 40% based on other metrics and the tabulated figures I provide indicate yet another percentage— all however are trend decreases indicative of a general direction of travel.

‘Embedded emissions’ or the UK carbon footprint is addressed by the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). To be clear, there is a whole set of further issues that one might address in regard of measurement of emissions—how they are attributed and what this means (where created, where induced through demand, which state, what corporation and so different ‘Cartesian’ claims regarding the significance of location are possible), and this is indicative of the conflict over representation and partition of responsibility (so whilst the climate does not care about borders, they have infected measurement and policy). There is no scientifically neutral way to achieve this, merely different sets of criteria with different consequences (I thank an anonymous referee for extended comment on this, see also Taylor, 2015 ; who argues that adaptation politics produces a focus on governance within existing political and economic structures based on borders, etc.).

Congestion charges in London or a plastic bag tax do not meet this threshold.

This is supported, for example, by The Climate Group’s EV100 initiative: a voluntary scheme where corporations commit to making electric the ‘new normal’ of their vehicle fleets by 2030 (recognising that over half of annual new registrations are owned by businesses) https://www.theclimategroup.org/project/ev100 .

Until recently Tesla had one main production centre in California. However, it now also has a $5 billion factory in Shanghai and plans for a factory in Berlin. Tesla is currently the world’s largest producer of BEVs (368,000 units in 2019), followed by the Chinese company BYD Auto (195,000 units in 2019). Tesla was founded in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Mark Tarpenning in response to General Motors scrapping its EV programme (as unprofitable). Elon Musk joined as a HNWI first-round investor in February 2004 (he put in $6.5 m of the total $7.5 m and became chairman of the Tesla board); Eberhard was initially CEO but was removed and replaced by Musk in 2007 and Tarpenning left in 2008. Tesla floated on the Nasdaq in June 2010 at $17 per share and exceeded $500 per share for the first time in January 2020. Tesla is the USA’s most valuable car manufacturer by market capitalisation (worth more than Ford and GM combined).

The European Commission’s collaborative research forum JEC has been producing ‘well-to-wheels’ analyses of energy efficiency of different engine technologies since the beginning of the century. The USA periodically publishes the findings of its GREET model (the Greenhouse gases Regulated Emissions and Energy use in Transportation model). See https://greet.es.anl.gov .

For example, since 1985 according to Carbon Brief global coal use in power production measured in terawatt hours only reduced in 2009 and 2015 (though it seems likely to do so in 2019); China notably continues to build coal-fired power plants though the rate of growth of use has slowed. (According to the IEA Coal report, 2019, China consumed 3,756 million tonnes of coal in 2018 (a 1% increase) and India 986 million tonnes (a 5% increase). Renewables are a growing part of an expanding global energy system.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-coal-power-set-for-record-fall-in-2019 .

Staffell et al . observe that the British electricity grid produces an average 204 gCO 2 per kWh in 2019 and a standard petrol car emits 120–160 gCO 2 per km.

This is a point made by Richard Smith. There are, of course, alternatives to aluminium. One should also note that manufacturers are responding to consumer preference by increasing the average size of models and this is increasing the weight and resource use. In February 2020, for example, Which Magazine analysed 292 popular car models and found that they were on average 3.4% or 67 kg heavier than older models and this was offsetting some of the efficiency gains for emissions.

And the argument this is leading to is that it makes far greater sense to default to greater dependence on prudential social redesign, rather than optimistic technocentrism, behind which is techno-politics.

For discussion of battery technology and scope for improvement, see Manzetti and Mariasiu (2015) and Faraday Institution (2019) . Currently, most BEVs use lithium-ion phosphate, nickel-manganese cobalt oxide or aluminium oxide batteries. Liquid electrolyte constituents require containment and shielding. Specifically, a battery creates a flow of electrons from the positive electrode (the cathode made of a lithium metal oxide, etc. from the previous list) through a conducting electrolyte medium (lithium salt in an organic solution) to a negative electrode (the anode made typically of carbon, since early experiment with metals tended to produce excess heating and fire). This creates a current. Charging flows to the anode and discharge oxidises the anode which must then be recharged. The batteries are relatively low ‘energy density’ and can be a fire hazard when they heat. Given the chemical constituents, battery disposal is also a significant environmental hazard (see IEA, 2019A: pp. 8, 22–3). A ‘solid-state’ battery uses a specially designed (possibly glass or ceramic) solid medium that allows ions to travel through from one electrode to another. The solid-state technology is in principle higher energy density, much lighter and more durable. The implication is higher kWh batteries with greater range, charging capacity and durability and efficiency. Jeremy Dyson has reportedly invested heavily in solid-state technology and though his proposed own brand BEV is not now going ahead, reports indicate the battery technology investment will continue.

One might also consider hydrogen battery technology. Hydrogen fuel cell technology for vehicles is different than BEV. The vehicle has a tank in the rear for compressed cooled gas, which supplies the cell at the front of the car whilst driving. Refuelling is a rapid pumping process rather than a long wait. The gas has two possible origins: natural gas conversion where ‘steam methane reformation’ separates methane into hydrogen and CO 2 or water electrolysis, where grid AC electricity is converted to DC, which is applied to water and using a membrane splits it into hydrogen and waste oxygen. Currently, over 95% of hydrogen is from the former. Major investors in hydrogen technology are Shell (for natural gas conversion), IMT Power (in partnership with Shell) for water conversion and Toyota whose Mirai model is hydrogen powered.

Though fewer new cars were registered than in previous years, this significant metric for the total number of vehicles is the cumulative number of registrations (taking into account cars no longer registered). There are, however, some underlying issues: uncertainty regarding the status of diesel cars and problems of availability, cost and trust in BEVs seems to be causing many people in the UK to delay buying a new car; the expansion of Uber meanwhile has had a generational and urban effect, reducing car ownership as an aspiration amongst the young.

And re aviation, a new runway at Heathrow between 2026 and 2050.

See: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/852708/provisional-road-traffic-estimates-gb-october-2018-to-september-2019.pdf .

See: https://greenworld.org.uk/article/budget-deeply-disappointing-says-caroline-lucas

For example, global production of cobalt in 2018 was 120,000 tonnes, and production of about 2 million BEVs currently requires around 25,000 tonnes, so 10 million BEVs would require all of the current output. Cobalt traded at more than US$90,000 per ton 2018 but had fallen to around US$30,000 at the end of 2019.

In the UK, the current daily consumption of petrol and diesel for road transport is about 125 million litres or about 45 billion litres per year. So, BEVs are essentially substituting for this scale of energy use, shifting demand to electricity generation. National Grid attempted to model this in 2017. Their forecast (highly contingent obviously) suggests that if all cars sold by 2040 were BEVs and thus the car market was dominated by BEVs by 2050 and if most vehicles were charged at peak times in 2050 then an additional 30 gigawatts of electricity would be required. This is about 50% greater than the current peak winter demand in 2017. This was widely reported in the press. This best/worst case, of course, does not allow for innovative solutions such as off-peak home charging pioneered by Ovo and other niche suppliers. However, even with such solutions, there will still be a net increase in required capacity from the system. This has been estimated at about 10 new Hinckley power stations.

One possible long-term solution currently in development is toughened solar panel devices that can be laid as a road or car park surfaces, enabling contact recharging of the vehicle (in motion or otherwise). There are, however, multiple problems with the technology so far.

For example, analysis from Capital Economics suggests a three-way charging split is likely to develop: home recharging is likely to dominate, followed by an on-route charging model (substituting for current petrol forecourts at roadside) and destination recharging (given charging is slower than filling a fuel tank it makes sense to transform car parks at destinations into charging centres—supermarkets, etc.). They estimate UK demand at 25 million BEV chargers by 2050 of which all but 2.6 million will be home charging. As of early 2020, there were 8,400 filling stations which might be fully converted. Tesco has a reported commitment to install 2,400 charging points. These are issues frequently reported in the press.

This point can also be made in other ways. Not only does the emissions saving relate to net new sources of cars, but the contrast is also in terms of trend changes in the size of vehicle. According to the recent IEA World Energy Outlook report ( IEA, 2019B ), the number of SUVs is increasing and these consume around 25% more fuel than a mid-range car. If current growth trends continue (SUVs are 42% of new sales in China, 30% in India and about 50% in the USA), the IEA projects that the take-up of ICE SUVs will more than offset any marginal gains in emissions from the transition to BEVs.

It is also the case that the projected ‘savings’ from ULEVs are likely inaccurate. Following the EU, most countries adopted (and manufacturers report using) the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP). This became mandatory in the UK from September 2018. The WLTP is the new laboratory defined test for car distance-energy metrics. Vehicles are tested at 23°C, but without associated use of A/C or heating. Though claimed to as realistic than its predecessors, it is still basically unrealistic. Temperature range for ULEVs has significant consequences for battery performance and for use of on-board services, so real distance travelled per unit of energy is liable to be less. For similar reasons, ICEs will also travel less distance per litre of fuel so this is not a comparative gain for ICEs, it is likely a comparative loss to all of us if we rely on the figures.

See https://www.theccc.org.uk/2018/07/10/road-to-zero-a-missed-opportunity/ .

See https://www.theccc.org.uk/2018/07/10/governments-road-to-zero-strategy-falls-short-ccc-says/ .

See https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/shared-avs-could-save-the-world-private-avs-could-ruin-it/ .

For practical network initiatives, see, for example, https://climatestrategies.org .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Contact Cambridge Political Economy Society
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3545
• Print ISSN 0309-166X
• Copyright © 2024 Cambridge Political Economy Society
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Cars — The Pros And Cons Of Self Driving Cars

The Pros and Cons of Self Driving Cars

• Categories: Automobile Cars Innovation

About this sample

Words: 1228 |

Published: Dec 16, 2021

Words: 1228 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Works Cited

• Abdullah, S. (2020). Singapore’s autonomous vehicle journey: From pilot to commercialization. Asian Transport Studies, 6(4), 25-34.
• World Health Organization. (2020). Global status report on road safety 2018. World Health Organization.
• Maddox, T. E. (2018). Advancing autonomous vehicle technology: The DOT role. US Department of Transportation. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/43591
• Andrew, C. (2018). The future of driverless cars: Opportunities and challenges. ITU Journal: ICT Discoveries, 1(1), 34-41.
• Jamshed, A. (2019). Driverless cars - The Singapore story. The Singapore Engineer, 48(2), 22-23.
• Smart Nation Singapore. (n.d.). Autonomous vehicles. Government Technology Agency of Singapore. https://www.smartnation.gov.sg/what-is-smart-nation/transforming-our-lives/autonomous-vehicles
• Lekach, S. (2020). In China, the coronavirus outbreak has become a real-life sci-fi dystopia. Mashable. https://mashable.com/article/china-coronavirus-pandemic-ai-tech/?europe=true
• Nunes, L. S., & Hernandez, J. L. (2019). Cost analysis of autonomous vehicles: A societal perspective. Procedia Computer Science, 159, 79-86.
• Prince, R. (2015). The cybersecurity risks of autonomous vehicles. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(2), 227-232.
• Janakiraman, S. (2019). Autonomous vehicles and adverse weather conditions : The future challenges. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 14(22), 4064-4068.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2225 words

2 pages / 704 words

1 pages / 682 words

1 pages / 2726 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Cars

The 1920s was a transformative decade for automobile technology and culture in the United States. The era saw a rapid increase in the popularity and availability of cars, as well as significant advancements in automotive [...]

Is there ever a time that business should have precedent over the environment? Businesses of different types have been around since man’s beginning, and they have proven to be beneficial and profitable and at other times harmful [...]

Beauregard, R., & Parkhurst, H. (2017). The Impact of Automobiles on American Society: Introduction. Journal of Urban History, 43(3), 348-356.Cho, S., & Lee, H. (2019). The invention of the automobile and its effects on society [...]

The car of my dreams is a vehicle of the new generation that embodies ease of operation, power, safety, and impressive aesthetics. One of the most pressing concerns today is environmental friendliness, and I strongly share this [...]

Imagine living your daily life without cars. Cars are an essential part of our lives, cars have made transportation way easier, faster, and more efficient. Without cars, humans would have not been able to do a lot of the things [...]

We’ve all seen flying cars in plethora of science fiction movies and always wondered when would we be able to fly in those three-dimensional transport vehicles. Recently, accelerated technological advancement is turning many [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Pros And Cons Of Owning An Electric Car

There are a lot of positives and negatives that come with owning an electric car in 2024.

Electric cars are rapidly rising to mainstream status, with sales figures substantially increasing for a lot of manufacturers over the last few years. The new EV generation has increased in popularity because they present attractive benefits like a reduction in carbon emissions. EVs also typically feature the most up-to-date safety, comfort, convenience, and entertainment features. Their radical designs also mean you'll definitely be standing out from the crowd in most environments. Overall, there are plenty of benefits you can enjoy when purchasing an EV.

There are inevitably also a fair number of downsides to electric car ownership that you'll need to be aware of before you make the big decision to carry over from an ICE. Most manufacturers have slowed their transition to a fully electrified catalog, but they are all insistent on the fact that electrification is the future. Whether you like it or not, we will all inevitably be driving electric cars until full autonomy takes over, demoting us to the passenger seat. If you're ready to make the crossover as of today, these are some aspects you'll need to be aware of.

In order to give you the most up-to-date and accurate information possible, the data used to compile this article was sourced from various manufacturer websites and other authoritative sources, including the EPA, Car and Driver, and the Department of Energy.

Good Electric Cars For First Time EV Buyers

Electric cars cost far less to operate.

Electric cars are cheaper to operate, primarily because they mitigate fueling and a lot of maintenance costs. Electricity currently costs a lot less than gasoline in the U.S., resulting in much more preferable MPG returns. Obviously, this translates to significant savings over time. For example, the 2024 BMW sDrive40 on 19-inch wheels returns a 105 MPG estimate on the EPA's combined cycle . The base BMW 530i returns a 30 MPG estimate on the combined cycle. For reference, the energy contained in one gallon of gas is equivalent to 33.7 kWh of electricity.

Electric vehicles also feature fewer moving parts compared to internal combustion engine cars. This reduces the frequency and maintenance costs. Using the above comparison, the EPA estimates the base i5 costs $700 to charge every year. The 5 Series costs $2,300 to refuel annually. Owning an EV means you'll never have to change the oil, spark plugs, and timing belts or chains.

Regenerative braking systems also extend the lifespan of brake pads, as the motor takes on some stopping load. This translates to massive savings, as EV brake pads are generally more expensive. You also benefit from tax credits, incentives, and rebates, which further reduce the overall ownership cost. As charging infrastructure expands and battery technology improves , operating costs for EVs will continue to decline.

Electric Cars Are More Eco-Friendly

Electric cars are more eco-friendly because they don't produce tailpipe emissions. This translates to drastic air pollution reduction. EVs run on electricity rather than fossil fuels, which can come from renewable sources like solar, wind, and hydropower, but this isn't the case in a lot of regions.

Renewable energy sources further decreases our reliance on oils, which further reduces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions that contribute to the ongoing climate crisis. Manufacturers are also investing massive sums into cleaning up their production lines by adopting sustainable practices and using recycled materials.

The Most Efficient EVs In 2024

EVs also operate more efficiently than internal combustion engine vehicles, converting a higher percentage of energy from the power source into vehicle movement. Their more aerodynamic designs are a big reason for this. EVs don't have to integrate cooling and engine airflow, meaning designers can make smooth front ends that cut through the wind far more efficiently. Battery recycling and second-life applications further enhance EV ownership's environmental benefits. A lot of battery packs are repurposed into wall batteries, which you can use as a supplementary energy system to power your house.

10 Electric Cars That Prioritize Performance Over Efficiency, Ranked By Horsepower

Electric cars produce amazing acceleration times.

Electric cars produce amazing acceleration times due to their more powerful and efficient electric motor designs. Electric motors produce instant torque from a standstill, allowing for rapid acceleration. They're able to do this because their simpler design doesn't have to rely on a series of parts and chemical processes to get moving.

This immediate power response results in faster 0-60 MPH times compared to many traditional ICE performance vehicles. Electric motors provide consistent power across their entire RPM range, eliminating the need for complex multi-gear transmissions, so they don't struggle with a loss of power like an ICE would in between gear shifts.

Best EV Performance Cars

This may be a lot less of an entertaining way to move forward, but this simplicity enhances performance by reducing power loss and enabling seamless acceleration. Advanced battery technology also supports high power outputs, which lets electric cars maintain their impressive acceleration over longer periods. ICEs typically run out of steam once the engine speed reaches its rev limit. This is particularly true for turbocharged cars. Many modern EV manufacturers optimize their models for performance, incorporating features like all-wheel drive systems and sophisticated software to maximize traction and stability. Rimac is one brand that recently proved the brilliance of electrification by breaking a collection of performance records with its impressive Nevera hypercar.

Add TopSpeed to your Google News feed.

Google News

Electric Cars Introduce Modern Technology Features

Electric cars introduce more modern technological features by integrating advanced systems that enhance convenience, safety, and driving experience. New EVs often feature sophisticated digital displays and infotainment systems, featuring large and dazzling touchscreens, more intuitive AI-based voice control systems, and seamless wireless smartphone integration. These features eventually filter through to ICE cars, but as of right now, if you want the latest tech, you'll need to buy an EV. Many electric cars support over-the-air software updates, allowing manufacturers to improve performance, add new features, and fix issues remotely.

Advanced driver-assistance systems, such as adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assist, and automated parking, are commonly improved for newer electric vehicles . EVs are substantially heavier than ICEs because of their lofty battery packs and electric motors, so manufacturers have more of a responsibility to further develop their safety systems.

EVs also offer innovative energy management features, like regenerative braking and smart charging solutions, which optimize efficiency and convenience. Enhanced connectivity options enable remote monitoring and control via mobile apps, providing real-time information on charging status, vehicle location, and maintenance alerts. Additionally, electric vehicles often come equipped with modern design elements, such as minimalist interiors and customizable digital displays, reflecting the cutting-edge technology that defines their construction and user experience.

15 Most Aerodynamic Electric Cars, Ranked

Electric cars are more expensive.

Electric cars are more expensive due to the high costs associated with their advanced battery technology and production processes. A prime example of this is the price difference between the Toyota RAV4 and Toyota bZ4X. The RAV4 range starts at $28,675 for the base LE trim . The more upmarket XLE costs just a bit more at $30,195. If you want to jump into a similarly fitted bZ4X XLE , you'll have to fork out $43,070.

A big reason for this price difference is because of the lithium-ion battery packs. Manufacturers have to source costly materials such as cobalt, nickel, and lithium, which substantially drive up manufacturing, distribution, and logistical expenses. Developing and scaling up battery production facilities also requires massive financial investments. We've already seen how some EV start-ups are struggling to put together enough funds to keep operations going, leading to bankruptcy and class-action lawsuits.

Manufacturers have been heavily investing in research and development to innovate and improve battery efficiency, driving up development costs. Mercedes-Benz recently pulled the plug on its MB.EA architecture , resulting in them saving a projected $6.5 billion in development and production costs. The aforementioned cutting-edge features and advanced software systems also come at a cost. Charging networks benefit from a lot of government investments and funding, but the end-user definitely fits some of the bill, because these three-phase fast-charging systems are massively expensive to construct. As technology advances and production scales, we expect EV pricing to decrease over time.

Electric Cars Still Impact The Environment

Electric cars are the poster child for cleaning up the planet, but they currently still cause significant harm to the environment due to their manufacturing processes and the sources of electricity used for charging. Producing lithium-ion batteries involves mining for materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel. Mining these materials causes significant environmental degradation and pollution. Cobalt in particular has been under fire for some time, because of the humanitarian issues surrounding the industry. Solid-state battery intends to resolve most of these issues , but this technology is still years away.

• Lithium-ion battery production is energy-intensive and involves mining for metals, which can lead to environmental degradation.
• If the electricity used to charge EVs comes from fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions are still produced.
• The EV manufacturing process, particularly the battery systems, can have a significant carbon footprint.
• Disposing of or recycling EV batteries at the end of their life can be challenging and potentially harmful to the environment.
• EVs still contribute to air pollution through tire and brake wear, which produces particulate matter.
• The raw material extraction for EV production, such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel, requires a significant amount of energy.

The extraction and processing of lithium-ion materials also results in habitat destruction, water contamination, and high energy consumption. These directly go against the values of an eco-friendly electric car, resulting in defeating the purpose. We also have to consider that manufacturers ship some EVs from international regions, resulting in huge diesel emissions.

To be fair, ICE imports also struggle with this issue. Additionally, the production of electric vehicles, in general, generates substantial carbon emissions. While electric cars produce zero tailpipe emissions, their overall environmental impact depends on the electricity mix used for charging. In regions where electricity comes from coal or other fossil fuels, which is commonplace in the U.S., the environmental benefits of electric vehicles diminish. Battery disposal and recycling also pose challenges, as improper handling can lead to toxic waste and environmental pollution.

The Pros and Cons of Breastfeeding: a Balanced Perspective

This essay is about the advantages and challenges of breastfeeding. It highlights the nutritional benefits of breast milk for infants, including its role in building a strong immune system and fostering a bond between mother and child. It also discusses the health benefits for mothers, such as reduced cancer risks and postpartum recovery. However, the essay addresses challenges like physical discomfort, time commitment, and social pressures that can make breastfeeding difficult. It acknowledges that some mothers may face medical or practical obstacles that necessitate formula feeding. The essay emphasizes the importance of support systems in overcoming breastfeeding challenges and making informed decisions.

How it works

The act of nursing is a profoundly individualistic choice confronted by new mothers, accompanied by an array of advantages and hurdles. Grasping the merits and demerits can empower mothers to make discerning decisions that align with their contexts and requisites.

Foremost among the advantages of breastfeeding is its nutritive boon to the infant. Breast milk harbors an impeccable blend of essential nutrients vital for the baby’s maturation. Laden with antibodies, it fortifies the immune system, safeguarding the infant from commonplace childhood maladies and infections.

Moreover, breastfeeding nurtures an unparalleled physical intimacy between mother and offspring, fostering a cocoon of security and emotional equilibrium for both.

In addition to its benefits for infants, breastfeeding bestows health perks upon mothers. It has been correlated with diminished risks of specific cancers, such as mammary and ovarian malignancies. Furthermore, breastfeeding facilitates postpartum uterine contractions, mitigating hemorrhage and expediting recuperation. For numerous mothers, breastfeeding embodies a convenient and economical choice, obviating the necessity to procure formula and prepare bottles.

However, notwithstanding these benefits, breastfeeding poses manifold challenges. Some mothers may grapple with physical strain and discomfort, particularly during the nascent stages. Predicaments such as nipple soreness, mastitis, and engorgement can mar the experience. Moreover, breastfeeding demands substantial time investment, which can prove especially daunting for employed mothers or those tending to other offspring. The exigency of recurrent feedings can disrupt sleep patterns and daily routines, precipitating exhaustion and tension.

Social and psychological factors also merit consideration. Nursing in public domains may instigate discomfort or trepidation among certain mothers owing to societal attitudes and privacy dearth. This might curtail a mother’s involvement in communal pursuits or resumption of professional duties. Additionally, the coercion to breastfeed, be it from healthcare practitioners, kinfolk, or social media, can engender sentiments of culpability or inadequacy if breastfeeding proves unfeasible or undesired.

Moreover, breastfeeding may not invariably be viable or advisable. Certain medical afflictions, medications, or complications can render breastfeeding unsafe or unfeasible. In such instances, formula feeding emerges as a pragmatic and indispensable recourse, ensuring the infant’s sustained nutritional intake.

Furthermore, the significance of support frameworks in breastfeeding triumph cannot be overstated. Access to lactation experts and sympathetic healthcare providers can profoundly ameliorate adversities and foster a gratifying breastfeeding voyage. Familial backing is equally pivotal, as partners and relatives can share responsibilities and furnish encouragement.

In summation, breastfeeding endows myriad benefits, encompassing optimal sustenance for the infant and health perks for the mother. Nonetheless, it is not devoid of challenges, which can span physical, emotional, and pragmatic domains. Each mother’s circumstances are unique, and the decision to breastfeed should be predicated upon a comprehensive comprehension of the pros and cons, coupled with individual contexts and predilections. Ensuring access to support and resources can empower mothers to navigate this pivotal decision and discern the optimal approach for themselves and their progeny.

Cite this page

The Pros and Cons of Breastfeeding: A Balanced Perspective. (2024, May 21). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-breastfeeding-a-balanced-perspective/

"The Pros and Cons of Breastfeeding: A Balanced Perspective." PapersOwl.com , 21 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-breastfeeding-a-balanced-perspective/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Pros and Cons of Breastfeeding: A Balanced Perspective . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-breastfeeding-a-balanced-perspective/ [Accessed: 27 May. 2024]

"The Pros and Cons of Breastfeeding: A Balanced Perspective." PapersOwl.com, May 21, 2024. Accessed May 27, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-breastfeeding-a-balanced-perspective/

"The Pros and Cons of Breastfeeding: A Balanced Perspective," PapersOwl.com , 21-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-breastfeeding-a-balanced-perspective/. [Accessed: 27-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Pros and Cons of Breastfeeding: A Balanced Perspective . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-breastfeeding-a-balanced-perspective/ [Accessed: 27-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Pros, Cons, and Ambiguities of After-Holocaust Imagery Essay

Introduction, brief description of imageries involved, advantages of after-holocaust imagery, ambiguities of after-holocaust imagery, disadvantages of after-holocaust imagery, works cited.

After-holocaust imagery is a creative expression of the genocide that continues creating conversations and making relevance in today’s society. Various artists such as Anselm Kiefer and Christian Boltanski have created images and artistic depictions of the Holocaust. Kiefer, a German, did the work Your Golden Hair, Margarete, while Boltanski did the work Monument: The Children of Dijon . After-holocaust imagery receives varied public impressions; some people have unclear views, while others think the imagery reinvigorates trauma and others suggest that after-holocaust imagery could help viewers get in touch with the past and face their trauma.

Your Golden Hair, Margarete is a 1981 artwork by Anselm Kiefer, a German. The artwork features golden and black wheat straws on a canvas, representing Margarete, a German Heroin, and Shulamit, a dark-haired woman, most likely a Jew. Monument: The Children of Dijon is a 1986 work by Christian Boltanski, a half-Jewish artist. The imagery showcases several light bulbs on rephotographed pictures of children from Dijon into “generic patterns of light and shade” (Luckhurst 154). The imageries may be interpreted as depictions of the Holocaust, a tribute to victims, or the artist’s documentation of their experiences.

After-holocaust imagery plays a vast role in providing robust documentation of the Holocaust and depicting past events. As Boltanksi mentions, “Art is always a witness” (Garb). Kiefer’s work Your Golden Hair, Margarete depicts the relationship between Germans and Jews as interpreted in a poem titled Death Fugue by Paul Celan. The poem by the Roman-Jewish poet and survivor of the Holocaust talks of Margarete’s golden hair and Shulamit’s ashen hair to contrast German and Jewish women. Margarete was a German heroine, while Shulamit was King Solomon’s dark-haired beloved, as referenced in the Bible in the book of Song of Songs (Alteveer).

Kiefer reveals the German fascist nature in deliberate imagery (Ateveer) by showcasing the golden hair of most German women and the distinct nature it had to that of their Jewish counterparts who had dark hair. Celan’s poem tells of the atrocities that Jews went through, saying, “death is a master from Deutschland his eyes are blue, he strikes you with his lead bullets his aim is true” (Celan, para. 6, L.6-9). Therefore, as interpreted by a poet, Kiefer’s artwork gives a visual of two groups who, at one point, were separated by their appearances. The imagery recognizes the Jewish women and speaks of their suffering and torture.

Kiefer provokes an understanding of history through the artwork Your Golden Hair. He invokes memories through the excavation and restaging of events of the Holocaust to help people understand history (Kiefer slide notes). While bringing up the history of the Holocaust may get received in disgust and contempt, Kiefer’s art Your Golden Hair, Margarete enhances the understanding of history. Your Golden Hair, Margarete explores the possibility of people coming to terms with the events of the Holocaust. The artwork transgresses the taboos of the Nazi past as it evokes disgusting memories. As translated in “Death Fugue,” after-holocaust imagery elicits traumatic memories and suffering of the Jews “then as the smoke you’ll rise in the air… he sets his dogs on us he gifts us a grave in the air (Celan para.5, l.4, para. 6, l. 12-13). Kiefer helps viewers and victims of the Holocaust face their trauma rather than looking at their past as taboo. Additionally, Boltanski mentions that after-holocaust art can get used to “ask a question and to give emotion” (Salgal 12:42- 12:44). Uncovering the past through art also provides a long-lasting memory of events that are important for history.

Critics and members of the public get angry and negatively provoked by what Kiefer’s artwork embodies. The art seems to select pick aspects of the Holocaust that the viewers should remember, and Kiefer’s artwork seems apocalyptic (Wroe n.p). However, after-holocaust imagery may evoke disgusting memories but may help victims get in touch with their emotions despite the trauma. Boltanski’s work Monument: The Children of Dijon is an imagery work that represents a traumatic past, particularly for children during the Holocaust. Boltanski, who was half-Jewish, narrates some of his memories of hiding their father beneath the house to keep him from getting evicted (Luckhurst 155). His work seems to pay tribute to his horrific childhood memories growing up. Boltanski reveals how he has previously used imagery to express trauma. Therefore, after-holocaust imagery can allow victims and viewers to recover from trauma by exposing themselves to reality rather than avoiding it.

Most after-holocaust artists face numerous questions, some of which remain unanswered. One may wonder why artists should make the situation more brutal, while others think imagery depictions are robust documentation. There are various perspectives on after-holocaust imagery on whether or not a meaningful depiction of horror exists. Boltanski goes beyond the Holocaust narrative that revolves around the Jews and the Nazis and tries to put his art viewers in a similar mindset. Boltanski uses material from the Holocaust to evoke a vision of events while allowing viewers to interpret his art however they wish.

During an interview with the bomb magazine, Boltanski says, “it’s also everybody, not only a Jewish person” (Borger, n.p) about people’s varied interpretations of his art. Therefore, Boltanski gives his imagery work a universal freedom of interpretation that makes his work more meaningful. However, some critics of after-holocaust imagery do not believe there is a correct or meaningful way to express horror, as Ardono claims, speaking about creating art or poetry after Auschwitz (Ardono’s Dictum “After Auschwitz” n.p). Therefore, ambiguity surrounds after-holocaust imagery, given multiple opinions that different people hold regarding the depiction of the Holocaust and the interpretation of imageries.

Boltanski’s art revolves around childhood, memories, and death; hence, the interpretations of his work can be ambiguous. The work Monument: The Children of Dijon uses lit electric lamps to represent children’s faces. The art depicts child saints from child martyrdom, where children were murdered for secular motives. The same art links to Boltanski’s Holocaust references to children, memories, and death, where children were only viewed as innocent. However, the ambiguity is that Boltanski does not view his art as Jewish and insists that his art should relate to everybody, not just Jews (Hatt, n.p. Borger, n.p). While Boltanski’s work Monument: The Children of Dijon almost directly infers to the Holocaust because of the name Dijon, a region occupied by Nazis before being liberated by French resistance (Hatt, n.p). Viewers of these images often wonder who controls what should get commemorated about the Holocaust since artists may have differing aims. However, viewers can also use the art to commemorate their childhood, using the imagery as a universal guide to overcoming past traumas.

Boltanski speaks of death more casually, saying, “We all carry a dead child within us… I remember the little Christian that is dead inside of me” (Hatt, n.p). The ambiguity associated with that is that the Holocaust reminds viewers of death and the death of the Jews. Therefore, for Boltanski to distance his art from singly representing the Holocaust, it becomes unclear how to interpret his work. To Boltanski, “the Holocaust is symbolic of something more universal… it is an example of dying, of common and impersonal dying” (Hatt, n.p). While most viewers of his work may get the impression of natural death during the Holocaust, one can also get an inspiration of dying in their childhood. Boltanski says, “we are dead children,” referring to his childhood art (Jennings, n.p). The inspiration of a child’s life and the innocence they bear seems to give a message that adults should also die in their childhood and treat each other with innocence rather than practicing the atrocities witnessed during the Holocaust.

While Kiefer’s imagery works in Your Golden Hair, Margarete may get interpreted as a tool that helps viewers to get an understanding of the history of the Holocaust; it may also get interpreted to show the superiority that the German women had over their Jewish counterparts. The depiction of black and golden straws shows how both German and Jewish women once coexisted peacefully. Moreover, Boltanski makes multiple references to childhood. He mentions that he researches religion even though he is not spiritual. Boltanski mentions lying about his childhood memories and reveals that he does not have any childhood memories, which may make his work on Monument: The Children of Dijon a tribute to childhood and forgotten memories (Luckhurst 154). It becomes ambiguous for viewers to understand the meaning behind such after-holocaust imagery when there are more aspects of the image that relate to the events of the Holocaust that Boltanski describes. However, the ambiguous nature of Boltanski’s art

After-holocaust imagery can be retraumatizing for victims and viewers. While Kiefer and Boltanski may view their after-holocaust imagery work as a way to allow viewers to come to terms with the past and possibly reflect on their lives, some viewers do not relate to that school of thought. To some viewers, after-holocaust imagery can be traumatizing for having to look at horrifying images. Any form of imagery evokes memories or some form of relation to the imagery. Therefore, some viewers may face post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), where one gets immersed in a field of unbidden imagery or visual of an adverse event (Luckhurst 147). Boltanski could have suffered PTSD from the events of the Holocaust, and he develops ways to lie about his past and tends to draw inferences about the Holocaust from his work. At one point, Boltanski confesses having pretended to speak about his childhood, yet his real childhood has disappeared (Luckhurst 154). While Boltanski explains that his work must not only relate to the Holocaust and the Nazi regime, his work Monument: The Children of Dijon closely relates to the Holocaust.

After-holocaust imagery has several advantages, such as robust documentation of the genocide. The imagery also has various disadvantages; for instance, the memories evoked among viewers can get traumatic. In other instances, the post-holocaust imagery can be seen as promoting the war events rather than advocating for the victims. Finally, after-holocaust imagery attracts mixed reactions from the public, making it ambiguous to understand their thoughts on the imagery. Viewers may have unclear perspectives or interpretations of the imagery, while some may misinterpret the work. With more research into the aim behind an artist’s post-holocaust imagery, viewers can better understand the matter and probably change their mindsets.

Ardono, W. Theodor. “After Auschwitz.” (1949).

Alteveer, Ian. Anselm, Kiefer (born 1945) . In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000. (2008). Web.

Borger, Irene. “ Christian Boltanski .” Bomb magazine . Web.

Boltanski, Christian. Monument: The Children of Dijon . (1986).

Celan, Paul. “ Death Fugue .” Translated by Joris, Pierre. (1952). Web.

Garb, Tamar. “Christian Boltanski”. London and New York: Phaidon Press . (2008)

Hatt, Twyla. “Christian Boltanski’s Reliquary: A work on mourning.” Family works: A multiplicity of meanings and contexts . Web.

Jennings, Rose. “ Christian Boltanski .” Frieze . (1990). Web.

Kiefer, Anselm. Your Golden Hair, Margarete . (1981).

Kiefer. Slide notes 3-22. (n.d).

Luckhurst, Roger. The Intrusive Image Photography and Trauma. In The Trauma question. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. (2008).

Salgal, Calrie. Christian Boltanski: Talking Art. (n.d). Web.

Wroe, Nicholas. “ A life in art: Anselm Kiefer .” The Guardian . (2011). Web.

• Faulkner's A Rose for Emily and Wright's The Man Who Was Almost a Man
• Hawthorne’s “Young Goodman Brown”: Facing the Darkness
• How to Identify a Scholarly Work
• Cave Art: The Earliest Human Artistic Endeavors
• Researching of Roman Empire Art
• Women’s Influence on Landscape Architecture
• Cultural Works and the Contribution to Modernism
• John Trumball's Artwork: Analysis
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, May 27). Pros, Cons, and Ambiguities of After-Holocaust Imagery. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-cons-and-ambiguities-of-after-holocaust-imagery/

"Pros, Cons, and Ambiguities of After-Holocaust Imagery." IvyPanda , 27 May 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/pros-cons-and-ambiguities-of-after-holocaust-imagery/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Pros, Cons, and Ambiguities of After-Holocaust Imagery'. 27 May.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Pros, Cons, and Ambiguities of After-Holocaust Imagery." May 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-cons-and-ambiguities-of-after-holocaust-imagery/.

1. IvyPanda . "Pros, Cons, and Ambiguities of After-Holocaust Imagery." May 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-cons-and-ambiguities-of-after-holocaust-imagery/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Pros, Cons, and Ambiguities of After-Holocaust Imagery." May 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-cons-and-ambiguities-of-after-holocaust-imagery/.

• Car Photography
• Car Projects
• Experiences
• New Car Releases
• Car Reviews
• Accessories
• In The Media

Voted "Most Insightful Automotive Guide" By The Business Concept - 2023

Car Financing: What Are The Pros And Cons Of PCP Finance?

Recent research shows that 92% of UK car owners use car financing to buy their vehicles. As of 2023, Brits owed car financing companies a staggering £39.6 billion.

In the past, the majority used a traditional hire purchase (HP) agreement. But in the past decade, Personal Contract Purchases (PCP) have gradually grown in popularity and become the norm. However, not everyone likes the idea of using a PCP deal instead of an HP agreement. In part, because they do not fully understand the pros and cons of this relatively new form of vehicle finance.

The potential benefits of PCP financing

More affordable monthly payments – in the vast majority of cases your monthly payments will be lower than they would be if you used other forms of financing. This is because you are not paying for the full value of the car, only the cost of depreciation over the term of the contract. This is a good thing, but be careful, because the balloon payment can catch you out.

Flexibility – buying a car using PCP offers you more flexibility. For example, at the end of the contract term, you do not have to purchase the car. Instead, you can simply return it, which means you have effectively been renting it long-term. Or you can trade it in for a different model and make a new PCP agreement. Not being tied to just one outcome gives you the flexibility to use the option that suits your circumstances at the time.

PCP can be used for second-hand as well as new car purchases – the fact that you can use PCP to buy an older car as well as a new car is a big plus. It means that you can get your hands on a decent vehicle even when you are working with a tight budget.

Buy without putting down a deposit – increasingly dealers are offering people the chance to drive their car away without having to pay a lump sum upfront. Of course, this greatly increases the monthly repayment and the total amount of interest paid, so in the long term, it can be expensive. But for some people, the zero-deposit option turns out to be a lifeline.

The potential disadvantages of PCP financing

The final balloon payment can be high – if you do want to own the vehicle at the end of the contract, finding the money to cover the balloon payment can be tricky. For this reason, if you think you are going to struggle to save up enough money to make the payment and definitely want to become the full owner a PCP might not be for you. However, don´t forget that in some cases you will be able to refinance the balloon payment.

Mileage allowances can be a problem – there is usually a restriction on how many miles you can travel during the contract period. If you exceed that limit, you will be charged for every extra mile. That cost can soon add up to a substantial amount.

The car needs to be kept in exceptionally good condition – because you may be handing the car back at the end of the contract the vehicle must be exceptionally well looked after. If you do not do this, you will be charged for damage that is not classed as fair wear and tear. Keeping the car to this standard can be difficult, especially if you have kids or pets.

Is PCP financing Right for you?

Ultimately, only you can decide whether buying a vehicle using Personal Contract Purchase is right for you or not. It is particularly important to fully understand the terms and conditions of any agreement you are considering. So, be sure to do some further research, read the terms and conditions, shop around, and compare deals side by side.

Never allow yourself to be rushed into a decision. Only sign on the dotted line when you are 100% sure that the PCP deal you are being offered is right for you.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Money Talks News

The Pros and Cons of Leasing Vs. Buying a Car

Posted: May 22, 2024 | Last updated: May 25, 2024

Explores the advantages and disadvantages between leasing and buying a car.

More for You

Americans are finally catching on to Costco's tricks — here are 15 to watch out for so you don't get fleeced on your next trip

The 18 Best High-Waisted Bikinis To Make You Feel Confident and Chic

Hawaiian Volcano Blew Like a Kid's 'Stomp-Rocket' Toy

Childhood Classics or Cringe-Worthy? 18 Movies You Adored as a Kid but Now Find Utterly Ridiculous as an Adult!

Pregnant Mom Jumps from Two-Story Window to Flee Fire at 36 Weeks: Her Family's Incredible Story of Survival (Exclusive)

You only need 8 moves to strengthen your core, build strength all over and boost your metabolism without weights

Golfer Harry Higgs delivers powerful speech about Grayson Murray: 'Everybody here could be the difference'

Carnival Cruise Line warns passengers about a dangerous mistake

Billy Price retires from the NFL following dramatic health crisis

Is It Better To Shower In The Morning Or At Night? Well, It Depends.

What Vegetables Can Dogs Eat?

National Hamburger Day 2024: Free food at Burger King, deals at Wendy's, Arby's and more

“They could have been better”: Steven Spielberg’s 6-Time Oscar Nominated Movie Starring Two Marvel Stars Did Not Impress Original Author

Packing for a cruise? These items aren’t allowed on board

My Children Won't Forgive Me—What Should I Do?

We may have found a new telltale sign of alien life

The 3 Dirtiest Body Parts People Forget To Wash Properly

Wolves Watch Me Planting a 100 Acre Food Forest for Wildlife and People - Bear, Moose, Deer, Turkey

Is Costco open on Memorial Day 2024? Details on store holiday hours

21 states where recession bells are ringing after unemployment jumps