Electric Vehicles Key to Healthier Future, But Only If Grid Goes Green
A new investigation led by the University of Toronto’s Department of Civil & Mineral Engineering reveals that the widespread use of electric vehicles (EVs) could bring substantial public health advantages. Utilizing computer simulations, the research team demonstrated that an accelerated shift toward EVs in the U.S., paired with expanded renewable energy use, could yield health benefits valued between $84 billion and $188 billion by 2050.
In even the most conservative scenarios—those with slower decarbonization of the grid—the study predicts that the health benefits would still amount to tens of billions of dollars. As co-author Professor Marianne Hatzopoulou notes, "When researchers examine the impacts of EVs, they typically focus on climate change in the form of mitigating CO2 emissions. But CO2 is not the only thing that comes out of the tailpipe of an internal combustion vehicle." She emphasizes the significant health impacts of air pollutants from these vehicles, particularly on low-income and marginalized communities.
The study, published in PNAS, involved an international collaboration, including scientists from the U.S., the Netherlands, and Saudi Aramco. Prior research by the team indicated that while EVs are beneficial for climate change, their adoption alone won’t achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Their latest effort adapts these models to focus on pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which are directly linked to human health outcomes.
Professor Daniel Posen, another co-author, highlights the localized nature of air pollution: "It matters not only how much we are emitting, but also where we emit them." While EVs have zero tailpipe emissions, they can still cause pollution indirectly if powered by fossil fuel-based electricity. This shift can move pollution from congested urban areas to communities near power plants.
The study underscores that neither power grid emissions nor vehicle emissions will remain static. Jean Schmitt, the study’s lead author, explains, "Today’s gasoline-powered cars produce a lot less pollution than those built 20 years ago. So, if we want to fairly compare EVs to internal combustion vehicles, we have to account for these changes over time."
The team modeled two future scenarios up to 2050. In the first, no new EVs are produced, while old vehicles are replaced by newer combustion models. The second scenario, deemed "aggressive," assumes all new vehicles sold by 2035 are electric. This aligns with the goals of nations like Norway and Canada. Both scenarios were further analyzed under different rates of power grid decarbonization, highlighting how pivotal clean energy is in realizing the full health benefits of EV adoption.
"Our simulation shows that the cumulative public health benefits of large-scale EV adoption between now and 2050 could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars," says Posen. But he adds a crucial caveat: these benefits are contingent on continuing the shift toward renewable energy. Without this, the study shows that sticking with newer internal combustion vehicles could actually be more beneficial, though this is a highly unlikely scenario.
This brings forth the question of which should come first—decarbonizing transportation through EVs or decarbonizing the power grid. Hatzopoulou argues, "If we buy more internal combustion vehicles now, however efficient they may be, we will be locking ourselves into those tailpipe emissions for years to come." She insists that both efforts must occur in parallel, urging that we "start on the path to a healthier future today."
