TRENTON, NJ – New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy wants New Jersey to believe that his gas-powered car ban will stop global warming and fix the world’s problems.
The only problem is, making an EV, creating enough electricity to power an EV, the infrastructure needed to power an EV, and disposing of an EV presents monumental environmental risks that haven’t been considered under the governor’s gas powered car ban.
Based on comments made during the recent New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Clean Cars II public hearing, it’s clear that electric vehicles (EVs) may not be the silver bullet for reducing carbon emissions as many believe. Joe DeFlora, a director of state and local outreach at the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association (AFPM), presented a compelling argument against the perception that EVs are an unequivocally green option.
One of the most potent points made by DeFlora is that New Jersey’s mandate for electric vehicles fails to account for the full lifecycle of carbon emissions associated with these cars. To assess the real environmental impact, we should consider not just the tailpipe emissions, but also the emissions produced during vehicle manufacturing, recharging, drivetrain or battery replacements, infrastructure modifications, and the end-of-life disposal or recycling of the vehicle.
DeFlora pointed out that internal combustion engines and liquid fuels have seen significant advancements in reducing emissions. According to the EPA, new cars, SUVs, pickups, and heavy-duty trucks are now approximately 99% cleaner compared to 1970 models. Biofuels and lower-carbon liquid fuels, in which AFPM members are actively investing, can achieve as much as 86% greenhouse gas emission reductions compared to traditional petroleum fuels.
While electric vehicles may seem like an ideal choice for some, DeFlora emphasized that eliminating competition in the transportation sector by mandating the use of EVs is a flawed approach. Consumer acceptance of EVs is far from a given, especially when considering factors like range anxiety, grid reliability, and costs associated with the new technology.
The issue of energy security cannot be overstated. DeFlora warned that mandating electric vehicles places the U.S. at unnecessary risk. Currently, the U.S. enjoys a position of being a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products—a level of energy security not seen since 1949. However, China controls a significant portion of the global supply chain for critical mineral extraction, processing, and battery production. By adopting the Advanced Clean Cars 2 proposal, New Jersey is effectively trading away its energy security, leaving its economy more dependent on countries that control the materials necessary for manufacturing EV batteries.
DeFlora and AFPM advocate for a balanced approach to climate policy—one that doesn’t overlook the nuances of different energy sources and their impact on the environment. They urge New Jersey to reconsider an electric vehicle mandate that not only ignores the full emission impacts but also restricts consumer choice, jeopardizes energy security, and could have negative implications for communities in New Jersey.
