The health benefits of the new EPA auto emissions rule
Fewer deaths, lung illnesses and asthma-related school absences will boost the economy, lower health care costs and reduce disparities.
Most of the news coverage of the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rule ordering auto emissions be cut in half by 2032 focused on its impact on jobs, on the economy and on the nation’s transition away from fossil fuels. Reporters covering the announcement highlighted the opposition from the oil and gas industry; the likely lawsuits; and the political ramifications in an election year. Former president Donald Trump has made opposition to the Biden administration’s support for electric vehicles (EVs) a major part of his campaign.
Yet the rule released Wednesday contained a wealth of information (with references to studies) documenting the major health benefits that will accrue from the nation’s gradual shift to EVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) over the next few decades. Those benefits deserve to be better known.
The New York Times story used just one set of health-related numbers in the 1,181-page rule: “The regulation would provide nearly $100 billion in annual net benefits to society, according to the agency, including $13 billion of annual public health benefits thanks to improved air quality.” (Actually, the EPA estimated the annual public health benefits to reach $16 billion to $36 billion by 2055. See Page 61 of the rule.)
The Associated Press account did manage to quote EPA Administrator Michael Regan, who told reporters at a briefing the final standards will reduce air pollution-caused heart attacks, respiratory illnesses and asthma. “Folks, these new standards are so important for public health, for American jobs, for our economy and for our planet,’' he said.
The health effects of cleaner air
Let’s unpack the public health part of that statement, starting with the number of saved lives. The rule estimated that cutting air pollution nearly in half by 2032 will save about 2,500 lives per year by 2055 (the Washington Post did report this aspect). That is probably a conservative estimate.
Since 1990, the gradually improving fuel efficiency of internal combustion engine-powered vehicles — driven by previously-enacted EPA standards — resulted in a more than 40% reduction in air pollution-related deaths. Yet there are still anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 deaths annually from air pollution, according to a 2019 study. That’s twice the number that die from gun violence, including suicides.
Given that cars and light trucks account for just under 30% of air emissions, it seems logical to say that light vehicle tailpipe emissions account for at least 25,000-30,000 excess deaths per year from heart attacks, cancers and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cutting emissions in half should save 15,000 lives per year by 2055, or nearly six times the EPA’s estimated number.
Not everyone who suffers from pollution-related diseases dies, of course. But those affected incur far higher health care costs than people who do not live near major highways, in car-crowded cities, or in communities that host major transportation hubs.
Those would include children and adults who suffer from asthma, which is caused in part by the small particulate matter associated with light automobiles and trucks, according to recent research. The number of individuals with asthma doubled between 1980 and 2000 to about 15 million Americans. Its growth has leveled off in recent years, due, in part, to better auto and other industry emission controls.
However, an estimated 5-6 million children still suffer from asthma, which during severe episodes can result in lost school days, hospitalizations and even death. “While researchers do not fully understand how air pollution exposure increases asthma prevalence, evidence suggests air pollutants suppress genes that regulate the immune system’s ability to differentiate an allergen from a dangerous foreign substance, such as a virus or bacteria,” the EPA reported. “The immune system then goes into action, setting up an inflammatory response whether the substance is harmful or not, which leads to asthma.”
Childhood asthma is worse in minority neighborhoods, which are disproportionately adjacent to high-trafficked corridors. In 2018-2020, about 12 percent of non-Hispanic Black; 9 percent of non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native; and 7 percent of Hispanic children were estimated to have asthma, according to the EPA. That compares to just 6 percent of non-Hispanic white children.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s most recent survey showed that close to half of all school-age children have missed at least one day a year due to asthma. This was down somewhat from previous surveys, probably because of more widespread use of inhalers. Still, children with asthma miss 2 1/2 times more school days per year compared to children without asthma.
EV adoption pace slowing?
Rather than educating the public about the positive health effects of reducing air pollution, most media accounts focused on the slowing pace of EV adoption. The year over-year-increase in EV sales fell to “only” 40% in the fourth quarter of 2023, which was below the 49% increase in Q3 and the 52% jump in Q2.
But let’s put that “slowdown” in perspective: EV’s total market share leaped to 7.9% in 2023 from 5.9% the previous year. If one includes sales of PHEVs, which can go up to 40-60 miles without using their gas-power engines, total sales for battery-powered vehicles rose 51% last year to a record 1.4 million vehicles, which was 9% of all light vehicles sold in a year where 15.6 million vehicles were sold, just a shade under the record year of 2013.
The outlook for this and future years is extremely positive. The EVs coming on line are now priced just a few thousand dollars more than comparable ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles. The public charging networks are beginning to bring on line the stations built with funds from the infrastructure and inflation control bills. Long-distance range anxiety will be less of a factor limiting EV sales in the years ahead.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration’s decision to limit EV adoption tax credits for foreign-made vehicles has spurred major investments by foreign EV auto and battery production plants. U.S.-based manufacturers are also ramping up their production. It seems inevitable that battery-powered vehicles’ share of the overall market will continue to surge in 2024 and beyond.
No doubt a handful of communities will be hurt by the transition to electricity-powered transportation. The government needs to adopt programs that will help those workers and communities, something it failed to do over the past 50 years when the industrial heartland went through a massive wave of factory closings and job losses (which had nothing to do with EVs).
What we don’t need, given the most peoples’ natural inclination to fear change, are veiled threats. In a speech last weekend in Ohio, Trump, while talking about the auto industry, claimed there will be a “bloodbath” if Biden wins. He later wrote on Truth Social that he was only referring to EV imports’ impact on the domestic auto industry. No matter, his allies in the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry lobbying group, immediately threatened to sue to stop implementation of the new rule.
U.S. automakers don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows — or what will happen to the environment, economy or the nation’s health if the EV revolution doesn’t stay on track. Stellantis, the company previously known as Chrysler, earlier this week told California officials it will meet the state’s 2035 ban on sale of gasoline-powered vehicles, no matter what the courts or a different administration does.
Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares called the agreement a “win-win.” It is, and not just for his company, but for the nation’s health.