Q&A: Benefits of switching to zero-emission vehicles, ways to achieve health equity

With more public health benefits and fewer deaths as a result of switching to zero-emission passenger vehicles, the American Lung Association is calling on the EPA to set stronger emission rules, according to a press release.

These findings come out of the “Driving to Clean Air” report, the latest report from the American Lung Association, which is derived from its “Zeroing in on Healthy Air” report published in 2022. According to the American Lung Association release, the present report specifically focuses on the impact zero-emission passenger vehicles could have on individual health and wellbeing if by 2035, they represent all new cars being sold.

Healio spoke with William Barrett, report author and national senior director of advocacy & clean air for the American Lung Association, to learn more about the findings of the report, what can be done at each level of government to bring about cleaner transportation and policies that help individuals of lower socioeconomic status make the switch.

Healio: What inspired the creation of the “Driving to Clean Air” report?

Barrett: The American Lung Association has had a very strong interest in the field of zero-emission technologies, for both clean energy and for the transportation sector. We have done a series of reports now on this topic. Our new report seeks to highlight what the potential health benefits are if all new passenger vehicles sold are zero-emission by 2035 and if our power system goes to zero-emission or non-combustion technologies to power the grid. This report is really an offshoot of that interest in our priority on zero-emission technologies because the transportation sector is the leading source of climate pollution and is the driving force of ozone-forming or smog-forming pollution that threatens the health of many, many millions of Americans across the country. By making this transition to zero-emission technologies, we can really improve health and really reduce air pollution burdens broadly and in communities that are most impacted today.

Healio: How harmful is traffic/transportation pollution to individuals? Are there specific groups of people who are at a greater risk for adverse outcomes with exposure to this type of pollution?

Barrett: We know that there’s a disproportionate share of pollution burden in communities nearest major roadways. These communities tend to include individuals of lower income, as well as people of color, so reducing pollution from the transportation sector is not only an important public health issue but a critical health equity issue.

There are decades and decades of peer reviewed literature that illustrate the harms posed by air pollution. For traffic pollution specifically, the Health Effects Institute issued a review of more than 350 peer reviewed research papers about traffic pollution last year. With a moderate to high level of confidence, they found that traffic pollution is linked with early deaths due to cardiovascular disease and lung cancer. It also contributes to the onset of asthma in both children and adults, as well as a whole host of other negative health consequences because of the impacts of breathing pollution from the transportation sector.

We also know that not only is ozone or smog a major outcome of tailpipe emissions, but transportation is a major contributor to particle pollution as well. In the American Lung Association State of the Air report, our annual report on air quality, we found that despite decades of progress, 120 million Americans still live in a community with unhealthy levels of ozone and/or particle pollution. We know that there are many negative health consequences to transportation pollution, and that’s why we feel it is so important that we make these transitions across the board to zero-emission transportation choices.

Healio: The report found that several benefits will occur by 2050 with the switch to zero-emission passenger vehicles. Could you share these major benefits and why this transition will spark these improvements?

Barrett: We found that the transition to zero-emission passenger vehicles — everything from passenger cars to light pickup trucks to SUVs that are increasingly powered by clean non-combustion electricity — could generate more than $975 billion in public health benefits by 2050 cumulatively, save nearly 90,000 lives, avoid more than 2 million asthma attacks and avoid more than 10 million lost workdays because the air will be that much cleaner. The importance of this really can’t be understated. The transportation sector is a dominant source of harmful air and climate pollution, and without a transition to zero-emission technologies, we simply will continue to struggle to meet our clean air standards, meet our climate commitments and address disparities in transportation pollution burdens.

Healio: What should be done at each level of government so that these benefits can be reached?

Barrett: At all levels of government, there are a wide variety of ways that we can move toward a cleaner transportation system that doesn’t harm communities, add to our pollution burdens or add to climate change. One of the key things that we’re looking at in this report is the transition to zero-emission vehicles.

At the local level, for example, local governments can work toward building out the infrastructure needed to fuel zero-emission vehicles. They can also add their own incentive programs for consumer purchases, as well as really try innovative strategies that can range from zero-emission car share programs and other alternatives to single vehicle ownership.

In California, through our local clean air agencies, there are programs that will allow a driver of an older, higher emitting vehicle that might have emissions problems, to turn that vehicle in, get a rebate for that and access additional grant funding for the purchase of a used or new zero-emission vehicle. The targeting of policies and investments to lower income and moderate-income individuals can have a huge impact in terms of replacing the oldest, dirtiest vehicles on the road with these clean technologies. This action takes away some very high polluting vehicles that are causing harm and makes the shift to zero-emission essentially happen overnight. This can have huge benefits, not only from the air quality and climate perspective, but in terms of getting a more reliable vehicle or a vehicle into the hands of somebody who might have been struggling to upkeep with the maintenance of an older, higher emitting vehicle.

At the state level, California, under the Clean Air Act, has the ability to set stronger standards than the federal government because of the severe air pollution challenges in California. Under the Clean Air Act, California has adopted what’s called the Advanced Clean Cars program, and just last year, California adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II program which essentially runs out into 2035 with cleaner combustion standards but also zero-emission vehicle sales standards so that by 2035, every new vehicle sold in the state of California will be zero-emission. Since 2022, six states have now joined with California using their own Clean Air Act authority to set these more health-protective standards in place. Now, we have seven states in the country with a zero-emission sales standard of 100% by 2035. More states are currently in the process of approving that policy, and some more are scheduled to do that later this year. This demonstrates a growing effort by states to bring, through these policies and standards, more and more zero-emission vehicle options to their communities and to bring public health benefits to their residents.

At the federal level, there are a couple of things that can be done, but focus on the U.S. EPA’s current proposal to set new emission standards for passenger vehicles is important. What we are hoping to see in those standards are final rules that set the pace for tighter emission standards for both the criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases. One of the key outcomes of the EPA’s initial proposal, which we think can be strengthened, was that by 2032 approximately 70% of the new vehicle market would be zero-emission. There is a key opportunity at the federal level to really use the state efforts as the baseline for setting their own emission standards, so that as we’re moving forward, we are taking advantage of the major investments that have been made in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act to really build out not only the infrastructure needed across the country, but also to accelerate consumer choices through incentive programs, tax rebates and even opportunities in the used car market.

There are a lot of ways that we have to see a standard set as stringent as possible to ensure this ongoing pathway to zero-emission technology. We must make sure that those standards are enforced so that we are not putting something down on paper that never materialized. Then also continuing at the local, state and federal levels, to continue public and private investments to build out the infrastructure and take advantage of the opportunities in front of us.

Healio: The report also addresses research that has found that people with lower socioeconomic status may not have the ability to adopt zero-emission vehicles. Are there policies that can be implemented that would assist these individuals in making the switch? If not, what do you believe should be done to help these individuals?

Barrett: Policies that are targeted toward communities with the highest levels of pollution burden with lower socioeconomic status really need to be at the forefront. We need to make sure that no community is left behind as this transition to healthier transportation occurs. This could include things like options for building healthier communities where there is more access to transit, walking and biking opportunities that are safe and practical ways of moving around.

Moving into zero-emission vehicles, we should be looking at ways that the used vehicle market becomes fuller with zero-emission vehicles; we are seeing this as some of the early vehicles are coming off leases for example, can become a strong choice in the used car market at lower costs. Additionally, the Federal Inflation Reduction Act has specifically put money into that type of program for used vehicle sales. There are also zero-emission car sharing programs and options for the replacement of older, higher emitting vehicles with a used or new zero-emission vehicle through some very strong local programs in some places.

Again, it is important to take a broader view of what is really the mobility choice that is needed in that community or family. For example, is it a one-for-one car replacement? If that is what is needed, then that can be accommodated through a used or new vehicle. If that is not what is needed, maybe there are ways to get funding around transit access or zero-emission bikes. There are other choices out there other than a simple one-to-one replacement. Ultimately, whatever the scope or the shape, equity-based programs really need to be targeted to and informed by the community if they are going to be successful in that community. Policies, investments and incentive programs have to be targeting investment in communities that have been typically left behind and have the highest pollution burdens today.

Healio: Considering all the report’s findings, what is the American Lung Association’s message for the EPA to protect public health? Further, what is the association’s message for states?

Barrett: We need to call on the EPA to set the strongest possible standards for the transportation sector and finalize these rules as quickly as possible. We know it is the most harmful sector when it comes to climate pollution and is a leading source of why 120 million Americans continue to live in communities with unhealthy air. So, we need the EPA to set a strong vehicle emission standard that accelerates the transition to cleaner vehicles/zero-emission vehicles and do so in a way that leaves no communities behind. This will require setting strong standards, enforcing those standards and continuing the robust investments that we have seen in the Inflation Reduction Act and other legislation to build out the fueling infrastructure that is needed and making sure that urban, rural and lower income communities are accommodated. Further, we need to see the health benefits that are possible through these transitions come to reality.

The EPA illustrated alternative scenarios for the final rules, and one of those scenarios takes a stronger approach with a more stringent set of greenhouse gas emission standards. We think that that is an excellent starting point for setting a stronger standard than the original proposal. We want to make sure that these standards, as they run out to 2032, are accelerating as they go, and that the EPA builds stronger and tighter standards that are more health protective over time, so that we continue to accelerate the cleanup of the combustion fleet as we are spurring along the zero-emission technology markets.

At the state level, states have the ability to bring the cleanest vehicle technology home through the adoption of the Advanced Clean Cars program. It’s one of the single most important tools that a state could add to their toolbox to protect health and air quality in their communities. As the list of states continues to grow, we urge and encourage all states to consider this policy as a key way to reduce harmful air pollution and climate pollution that is threatening the health of so many.

References:

• Driving to Clean Air: New report reveals that a move to zero-emission cars would save nearly 90,000 lives. https://www.lung.org/media/press-releases/2023-driving-to-clean-air-report. Published June 7, 2023. Accessed June 7, 2023.
• Driving to Clean Air: Health benefits of zero-emission cars and electricity. https://www.lung.org/getmedia/9e9947ea-d4a6-476c-9c78-cccf7d49ffe2/ala-driving-to-clean-air-report.pdf. Published June 7, 2023. Accessed June 7, 2023.