Biden-Harris Administration announcement of a national goal to establish a zero-emissions freight sector, along with a massive allocation of nearly $1.5 billion to transition to zero-emissions heavy-duty vehicles , presents a classic example of policy driven more by ideological ambition than by practical realities. This plan not only assumes a smooth technological transition but also aims to address environmental justice concerns, all under the guise of goals that can be achieved in the near future . However, a deeper analysis reveals a series of fundamentally flawed assumptions and misdirected priorities that deserve serious consideration.
The strategy to overhaul the entire freight sector to reach net-zero emissions rests on the precarious assumption that the necessary technology is just around the corner. However, the reality is that zero-emissions technology in heavy freight transportation—trucks, trains, and ships—is far from ready for widespread deployment. For example, electric trucks are still struggling with severe limitations in range and load capacity, not to mention the enormous infrastructure challenges associated with charging stations across the country, by somehow certain to proliferate across the vast United States within a few decades.
Building on this momentum, the Biden-Harris Administration today announced the first national goal to transition to zero-emission freight for trucks, rail, air and maritime, along with a commitment develop a national zero-emissions freight strategy. This whole-of-government strategy includes the new federal investments announced today, continued engagement with stakeholders on zero-emissions freight infrastructure, and upcoming action plans. to each freight transport segment. The strategy will prioritize actions to address air pollution hotspots and tackle the climate crisis, mobilize a range of government resources and reflect public engagement and meaningful engagement. sense of community, furthering the President’s commitment to environmental justice for all. This new commitment to zero-emissions shipping aligns with and supports President Biden’s current goals of a carbon-neutral energy sector by 2035 and achieving net-zero emissions from the sector. transportation sector by 2050. This commitment is also consistent with the Administration’s commitment to cooperate with other countries to identify roadmaps and implementation actions to help medium- and heavy-duty vehicles achieve zero emissions. 30% of new sales by 2030 and 100% of new sales by 2040.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-sets-first-ever-national-goal-of-zero-emissions- freight industry-announces-nearly-1-5-billion-to-support-the-shift-to-zero-emission-heavy-duty-vehicles/#:~:text=This%20new%20commitment%20to %20zero,the%20transportation%20industry%20by%202050
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-sets-first-ever-national-goal-of-zero-emissions- freight industry-announces-nearly-1-5-billion-to-support-the-shift-to-zero-emission-heavy-duty-vehicles/#:~:text=This%20new%20commitment%20to %20zero,the%20transportation%20industry%20by%202050
The idea of converting shipping to zero emissions in 26 years is so absurd as to be beyond parody. Nuclear-powered ships could do that, but I doubt that’s their thinking.
Economically, the costs of such a transition have not yet been fully discussed. Switching to zero-emission vehicles is more than simply swapping out old trucks for new ones; it involves a complete restructuring of supply chains, logistics and energy consumption patterns. The financial burden placed on the freight industry would inevitably fall on consumers through increased commodity prices, contrary to any economic benefits expected from such a policy.
Today’s announcement builds on the Administration’s ongoing work across federal agencies to address emissions from the U.S. freight transportation system.
- Blueprint for decarbonization of transportation: In January 2023, DOE, EPA, DOT, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) jointly issued US National Plan to Decarbonize Transportation. Building on this work, the Biden-Haris Administration is working with each of these agencies to draft a series of decarbonization strategies for each segment of the freight transportation system.
- Zero Emission Transportation Corridor Strategy: Last month, the Joint Office, in coordination with DOE, DOT and EPA, released the report National Zero Emissions Transportation Corridor Strategyvision to develop hydrogen charging and refueling infrastructure along highways and mass freight hubs by 2040. To complement this multi-phase strategy, The DOT-designated National Electric Vehicle Transportation Corridor along the National Highway Transportation Network and other important routes.
- Regulations on heavy vehicles: In December 2022, EPA finalized standards to reduce smog and soot-forming emissions from 2027 and newer heavy-duty engines, and in March 2024, the agency finalized standards new standard greenhouse gas emission standards from heavy duty vehicles for Models 2027-2032. These standards will avoid 1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions and deliver $13 billion in annual net benefits to society related to public health, climate, and savings for owners and operators. truck operator. The final standards will also reduce dangerous air pollution, especially for the 72 million people in the United States who live near trucking routes that bear the brunt of high levels of pollution. and more likely to be people of color or from low-income areas. households with income.
Wrapped in the noble imaginary cloak of “environmental justice,” the strategy claims to aim to reduce pollution in overburdened communities, promising cleaner air and healthier lives. However, one must question the veracity of these claims in light of the economic consequences that may follow. The high costs of switching to and maintaining zero-emission fleets could exacerbate the economic disparities they seek to reduce, placing a disproportionate burden on the very communities the policy is intended to help. . This aspect of the policy seems more like a measure designed to appease progressive voters than an actually achievable goal.
Throughout the process of developing a strategy to implement this new goal of transitioning to a zero-emissions freight ecosystem, the Biden-Harris Administration will create opportunities for meaningful engagement from stakeholders stakeholders, including communities with environmental justice concerns, Tribal Nations, states, and localities. governments, vehicle and heavy equipment manufacturers, fleets and freight operators, and climate and environmental justice organizations. Such engagement will ensure the federal government’s emissions reduction actions are better targeted, more effective, and reflect the priorities of community groups with frontline experience on air pollution from the freight transport sector.
Furthermore, the strategy’s environmental statements do not fully account for the upstream and downstream impacts associated with the production and disposal of high-capacity batteries and primarily fossil fuel-based power. needed to power these new fleets. Therefore, although in some isolated exceptions local air quality may improve, the global environmental impact may remain unchanged or worsen.
The Administration’s plan is said to include engaging stakeholders from across the spectrum to ensure smooth implementation of the zero emissions strategy. However, this seems to be just talk and not a practical approach. The freight industry’s complex network of operators, manufacturers and end-users has not shown any support for such drastic changes, especially when driven by top-down government mandates instead of market-driven solutions.
Conclusion
The Biden-Harris zero-emissions freight initiative, with its lofty ambitions and far-reaching promises, is emblematic of a broader trend in contemporary environmental policymaking: prioritizing goals that are grander than grounded feasibility studies and economic realism. This plan, rather than being a realistic roadmap for any form of environmental improvement, is a political statement intended to signal virtue rather than fulfill its stated goals.
In short, this “strategy” is nothing more than a modern-day environmental maxim, tilting at the windmills of pollution with the spear of impracticality and the shield of buzzwords like “environmental justice.” school”.
Related
