Jason Russell reports for the Washington Examiner on new research that questions the environmental benefits of electric cars.
Electric cars are worse for the environment per mile than comparable gasoline-powered cars, according to a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This contradicts the common assumption that electric cars are cleaner. In spite of this, the federal government still pays $7,500 for every electric car purchased — a subsidy the nation would be better off without, say the authors.
The study was authored by four economics and business professors: Stephen Holland (University of North Carolina, Greensboro), Erin Mansur (Dartmouth College), Nicholas Muller (Middlebury College) and Andrew Yates (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).
In monetary terms, electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile for the environment than gas-powered cars, on average. This means that if a government wants to tax a car based on how much it pollutes, electric cars should be taxed half of one cent more per mile driven than gasoline cars.
Much depends on where the car is driven. Gas-powered cars do worse in congested urban areas. For example, in Los Angeles, electric cars are 3.3 cents per mile better for the environment than gas-powered cars. Outside of metropolitan areas, electric cars are 1.5 cents per mile worse than gas-powered. In Grand Forks, N.D., for example, electric cars are 3 cents per mile worse.
Despite this variation, the federal government maintains a one-size-fits-all electric car subsidy. There may be ways to improve the current policy without eliminating it altogether, but the authors argue that elimination would be better than the current policy. “Because electric vehicles, on average, generate greater environmental externalities than gasoline vehicles, the current federal policy has greater deadweight loss than the no-subsidy policy,” the authors write.
