Whooping cranes steer clear of wind turbines when selecting stopover sites

U.S. Clean Hydrogen Hubs aim to scale production, storage, transport, and use as DOE and the Biden administration fund regional projects under the infrastructure law, blending green and blue hydrogen, carbon capture, renewables, and pipelines.

Key Points

Federally funded regional projects to make, move, and use low-carbon hydrogen via green, blue, and pink routes.

✅ $7B DOE funding via infrastructure law

✅ Mix of green, blue, pink hydrogen pathways

✅ Targets 10M metric tons annually by 2030

New details are emerging about the Biden administration’s landmark plans to build out a U.S. clean hydrogen industry.

On Friday, the Department of Energy named the seven winners of $7 billion in federal funds to establish regional hydrogen hubs. The hubs — funded through the infrastructure law — are part of the administration’s efforts to jump-start an industry it sees as key to achieving climate goals like the goal of 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 set by the administration. The aim is to demonstrate everything from the production and storage of hydrogen to its transport and consumption.

“All across the country, from coast to coast, in the heartland, we’re building a clean energy future here in America, not somewhere else,” President Joe Biden said while announcing the hubs in Philadelphia.

From 79 initial proposals, DOE chose the following: the Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub, Appalachian Hydrogen Hub, California Hydrogen Hub, Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub, Heartland Hydrogen Hub, Midwest Hydrogen Hub and Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub.

Many of the winning proposals are backed by state government leaders and industry partners, and by Southeast cities that have ramped up clean energy purchases in recent years as well. The Midwest hub, for example, is a coalition of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan — supported by politicians like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), as well as such companies as Air Liquide, Ameren Illinois and Atlas Agro. The mid-Atlantic hub is supported by Democratic members of Congress representing the region, including Delaware Sens. Chris Coons and Tom Carper and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester.

The administration hopes the hubs will produce 10 million metric tons of “clean” hydrogen annually by 2030. But much about the projects remains unknown — including how trends like cheap batteries for solar could affect clean power supply — and dependent on negotiations with DOE.

A win for ‘blue’ hydrogen?
Nearly all hydrogen created in the U.S. today is extracted from natural gas through steam methane reformation. The emissions-intensive process produces what is known as “grey” hydrogen — or “blue” hydrogen when combined with carbon capture and storage.

Four recipients — the Appalachian, Gulf Coast, Heartland and Midwest hydrogen hubs — include blue hydrogen in their plans, though the infrastructure law only mandated one.

That has drawn the ire of environmentalists, who argue blue hydrogen is not emissions-free, partly because of the potential for methane leaks during the production process.

“This is worse than expected,” Clean Energy Group President Seth Mullendore said after the recipients were announced Friday. “The fact that more than half the hubs will be using fossil gas is outrageous.”

Critics have also pointed out that many of the industry partners backing the hub projects include oil and gas companies. The coalitions are a mix of private-sector groups — often including renewable energy developers — and government stakeholders. Proposals have also looped in universities, utilities, environmental groups, community organizations, labor unions and tribal nations, among others.

“The massive build out of hydrogen infrastructure is little more than an industry ploy to rebrand fracked gas,” said Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh in a statement Friday. “In a moment when every political decision that we make must reject fossil expansion, the Biden administration is going in the opposite direction.”

The White House has emphasized that roughly two-thirds of the $7 billion pot is “associated” with the production of “green” hydrogen, which uses electricity from renewable sources. Two of the chosen proposals — in California and the Pacific Northwest — are making green hydrogen their focus, reflecting advances such as offshore green hydrogen being pursued by industry leaders, while three other hubs plan to include green hydrogen alongside hydrogen made with natural gas (blue) or nuclear energy (pink).

Many hubs plan to use several methods for hydrogen production, and globally, projects like Brazil's green hydrogen plant highlight the scale of investment, but the exact mix may change depending on which projects make it through the DOE negotiations process. The Midwest hub, for example, told E&E News it’s pursuing an “all-of-the-above” strategy and has projects for green, blue and “pink” hydrogen. The mid-Atlantic hub in southeastern Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey will also generate hydrogen with nuclear reactors.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has described clean hydrogen as a fresh business opportunity, especially for the natural gas industry, which has supported the concept of sending hydrogen to market through its pipeline network. Lawmakers like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — who said the Appalachian hub will make West Virginia the “new epicenter of hydrogen” — have pushed for continuing to use natural gas to make hydrogen in his state.

“Natural gas utilities are committed to exploring all options for emissions reduction as demonstrated by the 39 hydrogen pilot projects already underway and are eager to participate in a number of the hubs,” said American Gas Association President and CEO Karen Harbert in a statement Friday.

Green hydrogen also has faced criticism. Some groups argue that the renewable resources needed to produce green hydrogen are limited, even with sources such as wind, solar and hydropower technology, so funding should be reserved for applications that cannot be easily electrified, mostly industrial processes. There also is uncertainty about how the Treasury Department will handle hydrogen made from grid electricity — which can include power from fossil fuel plants — in its upcoming guidance on the first-ever tax credit for clean hydrogen production.

“Even the cleanest forms of hydrogen present serious problems,” Walsh said. “As groundwater sources are drying up across the country, there is no reason to waste precious drinking water resources on hydrogen when there are cheaper, cleaner energy sources that can facilitate a real transition off fossil fuels.”

But Angelina Galiteva, CEO of the hub in drought-prone California, said hydrogen will enable the state “to increase renewable penetration to reach all corners of the economy,” noting parallel initiatives such as Dubai's solar hydrogen plans that illustrate the potential.

“Transitioning to renewable clean hydrogen will pose significantly less stress on water resources than remaining on the current fossil path,” she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Biden Impact on Canadian Energy Exports highlights shifts in trade policy, tariffs, carbon pricing, and Keystone XL, with implications for aluminum, softwood lumber, electricity trade, fracking limits, and small modular nuclear reactors.

Key Points

How Biden-era trade, climate rules, and tariffs may reshape Canadian energy and exports.

✅ Reduced tariff volatility and friendlier trade policy toward allies

✅ Climate alignment: carbon pricing, clean power, cross-border electricity

✅ Potential gains for oil, gas, aluminum, and softwood lumber exporters

There is little doubt among industry associations, the Conference Board of Canada and C.D. Howe Institute that a Joe Biden White House will be better for Canadian resource and energy exporters – even Alberta’s beleaguered oil industry, despite Biden’s promise to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.

The consensus among industry observers in the lead-up to the November 3 U.S. presidential election was that a re-elected Donald Trump would become even more pugnacious on trade and protectionism, putting electricity exports at risk for Canadian utilities, which would be bad for Canadian exporters. The Justin Trudeau government would likely come under increased pressure to lower Canadian business taxes to compete with Trump’s low-tax climate.

“A Joe Biden victory would likely lead to higher taxes for both corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay down the gigantic fiscal deficit that is currently running at plus-US$5 trillion,” the conference board concluded in a recent analysis.

On trade and tariffs, the conference board said: “Many but not all of these ongoing trade disputes would wither away under a Joe Biden administration. He would likely run a broad trade policy favouring strategic allies like Canada.

While Canadian industries like forestry and aluminum smelting benefited from strong demand and prices in the U.S. under Trump, the forced renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement failed end tariffs and duties on things like softwood lumber and aluminum ingots, even as Canadians backed tariffs on energy and minerals during the dispute.

The uncertainty over trade issues, and Trump’s tax cuts, which made Canada’s tax regime less competitive, have contributed to a period of low business investment in Canada during Trump's presidency.

“For Canada, we’ve seen a period, since this administration has been in power, where investment has eroded steadily,” conference board chief economist Pedro Antunes said. “We are not doing well at all, in terms of private capital investment in Canada.”

Alberta’s oil industry has been hit particularly hard, with a slew of divestments by big energy giants, and cancellations of major projects, like the $20 billion Frontier oilsands project, scrubbed by Teck Resources.

While domestic policies and global market forces are partly to blame for falling investments in Canada’s oil and gas sector, up until the pandemic hit, investment in oil and gas increased significantly in the U.S., while declining in Canada, during Trump’s first term.

Biden is also expected to level the playing field with respect to climate change policies. Canadian industries pay carbon taxes and face regulations that their counterparts in the U.S. don’t. That has disadvantaged energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries like mines and pulp mills in Canada.

“With Biden in office, Canada will once again have a partner at the federal level in the states in the transition to a decarbonized economy,” said Josha MacNab, national policy director for the Pembina Institute.

Biden’s policies might also favour importing aluminum, cross-laminated timber, fuel cells and other lower-carbon products and commodities from Canada.

At least one observer believes that Canada’s oil and gas sector might benefit more from a Biden White House, despite Biden’s pledge to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.

“I think Joe Biden could be very good for Alberta,” Christopher Sands, director of the Wilson International Center’s Canada Institute, said in a recent discussion hosted by the C.D. Howe Institute.

Sands added that the presidential permit Biden has promised to tear up on the Keystone XL pipeline project is a construction permit, not an operating permit.

“The segment of that pipeline that crosses the U.S.-Canada border, which is the only place that the presidential permit applies, has been built,” Sands said. “So I think that’s somewhat of an empty threat.”

He added that, if Biden bans fracking on federal lands, as he has promised, and implements other restrictions that make it more costly for American oil and gas producers, it might increase the demand for Canadian oil and gas in the U.S. The demand would be highest in the U.S. Midwest, which depends largely on Marcellus Shale production, notably in Pennsylvania, and Western Canada for its oil and gas.

One of the Canadian industries directly affected by the Trump administration was aluminum smelting, which is relevant for B.C. because Rio Tinto plc’s Kitimat smelter exports aluminum to the U.S.

Jean Simard, president of the Aluminum Association of Canada, said one of Trump’s legacies was the reactivation of a little-used mechanism – Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – to hit Canada and other countries, notably China, with import tariffs.

The 10 per cent tariffs on aluminum cost Canadian aluminum producers US$15 million in the month of August alone, Simard said.

The Trump administration eventually exempted Canadian aluminum exports from the tariffs, then reintroduced them, and then, one week before the election, exempted them again.

These on-again, off-again tariff threats create tremendous uncertainty, not just for Canadian producers, but also for U.S. buyers. That kind of uncertainty is likely to ease under a Biden presidency.

Simard said Biden’s track record suggests he is well-disposed towards Canada and less confrontational with allies and trade partners in general, and some in Washington have called for a stronger U.S.-Canada energy partnership as well.

Meanwhile, softwood lumber tariffs have been imposed by Democrats and Republicans alike. But there are compelling reasons for ending the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber war.

Home renovation and repair in the United States has done surprisingly well during the pandemic.

As a result of sawmill curtailments in the U.S. due to pandemic restrictions and high demand for lumber in the U.S. housing sector, North American lumbers prices broke records this summer, soaring as high as US$900 per thousand board feet.

“It shows that there’s very strong demand for our product,” said Susan Yurkovich, president of the Council of Forest Industries.

Ultimately, the duties Canadian lumber exporters pay are passed on to U.S. consumers.

Sands said Biden’s climate action pledges, including a clean electricity standard, could increase opportunities for trading electricity between Canada in the U.S., as the U.S. increasingly looks to Canada for green power, and could also be good for Canadian nuclear power technology.

Strong climate change policies necessarily result in an increased demand for low-carbon electricity, and advancing clean grids, which Canada has in abundance, thanks to both hydro and nuclear power.

“[Biden] does share the desire to act on climate change, but unlike some of his fellow party members who are more signed on to a Green New Deal, he’s open to pragmatic solutions that might get the job done quickly and efficiently,” Sands said.

“This is a huge opportunity for small, modular nuclear reactors, and Atomic Energy Canada has some great designs. There’s a real opportunity for a nuclear revival.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US electric vehicle momentum is slowing as tax credits expire, tariffs increase costs, and interest rates rise, while Europe and China accelerate EV adoption through stronger incentives, enhanced charging infrastructure, and growth in battery manufacturing.

Why has US Electric Vehicle Momentum Slowed as Globe Surges?

US electric vehicle momentum has slowed due to expiring subsidies, rising costs, and global competition from faster-moving markets.

✅ End of federal tax credits weakened buyer demand

✅ Tariffs and high interest rates raised EV prices

✅ Europe and China expanded incentives and infrastructure

You could be forgiven for thinking that electric cars might finally be gaining momentum in the United States. Last year, battery-powered vehicle sales topped 1.2 million—more than five times the number sold just four years earlier, amid an early-2024 EV surge in deliveries. Hybrid sales tripled over the same period, and in August, battery cars accounted for 10 percent of all new vehicle sales, a record high according to S&P Global Mobility.

Major automakers, including General Motors, Ford, and Tesla, reported record electric-vehicle deliveries this quarter, a rare bright spot in an industry still contending with high interest rates, inflation, and tariffs, and a sign the age of electric cars is arriving.

Yet analysts warn the apparent boom may be short-lived, noting a market share dip in early 2024 that could foreshadow slower growth. Much of the recent surge was driven by buyers rushing to take advantage of a federal subsidy worth up to $7,500 per vehicle—a credit that expired at the end of September. Without it, automakers expect demand to dip sharply.

"It's going to be a vibrant industry, but it's going to be smaller, way smaller than we thought," Ford CEO Jim Farley said Tuesday. General Motors’ CFO Paul Jacobson echoed that concern: "I expect that EV demand is going to drop off pretty precipitously," he told a conference last month.

Even with those gains, the US—still the world’s second-largest car market—remains a laggard compared with global peers, where global EV adoption has accelerated rapidly. Electric and hybrid vehicles accounted for nearly 30 percent of new sales in the UK last year and approximately one in five across Europe. In China, electric models accounted for almost half of all car sales in 2023 and are expected to become the majority this year, according to the International Energy Agency.

Analysts say policy differences largely explain the gap. Other regions have offered stronger incentives, stricter emissions rules, and more aggressive trade-in programs. President Joe Biden tried to close the gap, tightening emissions standards, offering loans for EV investments, and spending billions on charging networks while expanding the $7,500 credit. His goal was to have half of all US vehicle sales be electric by 2030.

Supporters argue that such measures are crucial to keeping American carmakers competitive with Chinese and European manufacturers. But former President Donald Trump, who recently dismissed climate change as a "con job," has vowed to roll back many of those initiatives, echoing arguments that the EV revolution is overstated by proponents. "We're saying ... you're not going to be forced to make all of those cars," Trump said this summer, while signing a bill to strike down California’s plan to phase out gasoline-only car sales by 2035. "You can make them, but it'll be by the market, judged by the market."

Although EVs have become cheaper, they still cost more than comparable gasoline models, and sales remain behind gas cars in most segments. The average US electric car sold for approximately $57,000 in August, which is roughly 16 percent higher than the overall average, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Chinese EV giants such as BYD have been blocked from the US market by tariffs supported by both Biden and Trump, further limiting price competition. Automakers now face the twin challenges of rising tariffs and disappearing subsidies.

"It would have been difficult enough if all you had to deal with were new tariffs, but with new tariffs and the incentive going away, there are two impacts," said Stephanie Brinley of S&P Global Mobility.

Researchers warn that the policy shift could further reduce EV investment. "It's a big hit to the EV industry—there's no tiptoeing around it," said Katherine Yusko of the American Security Project. "The subsidies were initially a way to level the playing field, and now that they're gone, the US has a lot of ground to make up."

Still, Brinley urged caution before declaring the race lost, even as some argue EVs have hit an inflection point in adoption. "Is [electric] really the right thing?" she asked. "Saying that we're behind assumes that this is the only and best solution, and I think it's a little early to say that."

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News

Canada 2035 Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandate sets EV sales targets, raising concerns over affordability, battery materials like lithium and copper, charging infrastructure, grid capacity, renewable energy mix, and policy impacts across provinces.

Key Points

Mandate makes all new light-duty vehicles zero-emission by 2035, affecting costs, charging, and electric grid planning.

✅ 100% ZEV sales target for cars, SUVs, light trucks by 2035

✅ Cost pressures from lithium, copper, nickel; EVs remain pricey

✅ Grid, charging build-out needed; impacts vary by provincial mix

Whether or not you want one, can afford one or think they will do essentially nothing to stop global warming, electric vehicles are coming to Canada en masse. This week, the Canadian government set 2035 as the “mandatory target” for the sale of zero-emission SUVs and light-duty trucks as part of ambitious EV goals announced by Ottawa.

That means the sale of gasoline and diesel cars has to stop by then. Transport Minister Omar Alghabra called the target “a must.” The previous target was 2040.

It is a highly aspirational plan that verges on the delusional according to skeptics of an EV revolution who argue its scale is overstated, even if it earns Canada – a perennial laggard on the emission-reduction front – a few points at climate conferences. Herewith, a few reasons why the plan may be unworkable, unfair or less green than advertised.

Liberals say by 2035 all new cars, light-duty trucks sold in Canada will be electric, as Ottawa develops EV sales regulations to implement the mandate.

Parkland to roll out electric-vehicle charging network in B.C. and Alberta

Sticker shock: There is a reason why EVs remain niche products in almost every market in the world (the notable exception is in wealthy Norway): They are bloody expensive and often in short supply in many markets. Unless EV prices drop dramatically in the next decade, Ottawa’s announcement will price the poor out of the car market. Transportation costs are a big issue with the unrich. The 2018 gilets jaunes mass protests in France were triggered by rising fuel costs.

While some EVs are getting cheaper, even the least expensive ones are about double the price of a comparable product with an internal combustion engine. Most EVs are luxury items. The market leader in Canada and the United States is Tesla. In Canada the cheapest Tesla, the Model 3 (“standard range plus” version), costs $49,000 before adding options and subtracting any government purchase incentives. A high-end Model S can set you back $170,000.

To be sure, prices will come down as production volumes increase. But the price decline might be slow for the simple reason that the cost of all the materials needed to make an EV – copper, cobalt, lithium, nickel among them – is climbing sharply and may keep climbing as production increases, straining supply lines.

Lithium prices have doubled since November. Copper has almost doubled in the past year. An EV contains five times more copper than a regular car. Glencore, one of the biggest mining companies, estimated that copper production needs to increase by a million tonnes a year until 2050 to meet the rising demand for EVs and wind turbines, a daunting task given the dearth of new mining projects.

Will EVs be as cheap as gas cars in a decade or so? Impossible to say, but given the recent price trends for raw materials, probably not.

Not so green: There is no such thing as a zero-emission vehicle, even if that’s the label used by governments to describe battery-powered cars. So think twice if you are buying an EV purely to paint yourself green, as research finds they are not a silver bullet for climate change.

In regions in Canada and elsewhere in the world that produce a lot of electricity from fossil-fuel plants, driving an EV merely shifts the output of greenhouse gases and pollutants from the vehicle itself to the generating plant (according to recent estimates, about 18% of Canada’s electricity comes from coal, natural gas and oil; in the United States, 60 per cent).

An EV might make sense in Quebec, where almost all the electricity comes from renewable sources and policymakers push EV dominance across the market. An EV makes little sense in Saskatchewan, where only 17 per cent comes from renewables – the rest from fossil fuels. In Alberta, only 8 per cent comes from renewables.

The EV supply chain is also energy-intensive. And speaking of the environment, recycling or disposing of millions of toxic car batteries is bound to be a grubby process.

Where’s the juice?: Since the roofs of most homes in Canada and other parts of the world are not covered in solar panels, plugging in an EV to recharge the battery means plugging into the electrical grid. What if millions of cars get plugged in at once on a hot day, when everyone is running air conditioners?

The next few decades could emerge as an epic energy battle between power-hungry air conditioners, whose demand is rising as summer temperatures rise, and EVs. The strain of millions of AC units running at once in the summer of 2020 during California’s run of record-high temperatures pushed the state into rolling blackouts. A few days ago, Alberta’s electricity system operator asked Albertans not to plug in their EVs because air conditioner use was straining the electricity supply.

According to the MIT Technology Review, rising incomes, populations and temperatures will triple the number of air conditioners used worldwide, to six billion, by mid-century. How will any warm country have enough power to recharge EVs and run air conditioners at the same time? The Canadian government didn’t say in its news release on the 2035 EV mandate. Will it fund the construction of new fleets of power stations?

The wrong government policy: The government’s announcement made it clear that widespread EV use – more cars – is central to its climate policy. Why not fewer cars and more public transportation? Cities don’t need more cars, no matter the propulsion system. They need electrified buses, subways and trains powered by renewable energy. But the idea of making cities more livable while reducing emissions is apparently an alien concept to this government.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

BC Strata EV Charging Reforms streamline approvals under the Strata Property Act, lowering the voting threshold and requiring an electrical planning report to expand EV charging stations in multi-unit strata buildings across British Columbia.

Key Points

BC reforms ease EV charger installs in stratas by lowering votes, requiring plans, and fast-tracking compliant requests.

✅ Vote threshold drops to 50% for EV infrastructure

✅ Electrical planning report required for stratas

✅ Stratas must approve compliant owner charging requests

Owning an electric vehicle (EV) will be a little easier for strata property owners, the province says, after announcing changes to legislation to facilitate the installation of charging stations in strata buildings.

On Thursday, the province said it would be making amendments to the Strata Property Act, the legal framework all strata corporations are required to follow, and align with practical steps for retrofitting condos with chargers in older buildings.

Three areas will improve access to EV charging stations in strata complexes, the province says, including lowering the voting threshold from 75 per cent to 50 per cent for approval of the costs, supported by EV charger rebates that can offset expenses, and changes to the property that are needed to install them, as well as requiring strata corporations to have an electrical planning report to make installation of these stations easier.

The amendments would mean stratas would have to approve owners' requests for such charging stations, even amid high-rise EV charging challenges reported across Canada, as long as "reasonable criteria are met."

Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation Josie Osborne said people are more likely to buy an electric vehicle if they have the ability to charge it — something that's lacking for many British Columbians living in multi-unit residences, where Vancouver's EV-ready policy is setting a local example for multi-family buildings. 

"B.C. has one of the largest public electric vehicle charging networks in Canada, and leads the country in going electric, but we need to make it easier for more people to charge their EVs at home," Osborne said in a statement.

Tony Gioventu, the executive director of the Condominium Home Owners Association of B.C., said the new legislation strikes a balance between allowing people access to EV charging stations, as examples from Calgary apartments and condos demonstrate, while also ensuring stratas still have control over their properties. 

This is just the latest step in the B.C. government's move to get more EVs on the road: alongside rebates for home and workplace charging, the province passed the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, which aims for 10 per cent of all new light-duty cars and trucks sold in B.C. to be zero emission by 2025. By 2040, they'll all need to be emission-free.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

UK Transport Policy Overhaul signals bans on petrol and diesel cars, rail franchising reform, 15-minute cities, and active travel, tackling congestion, emissions, microplastics, urban sprawl, and public health with systemic, multimodal planning.

Key Points

A shift toward EVs, rail reform, and 15-minute cities to reduce emissions, congestion, and health risks.

✅ Phase-out of petrol and diesel car sales by 2030

✅ National rail franchising replaced with integrated operations

✅ Urban design: 15-minute cities, cycling, and active travel

Could it be true? That this government will bring all sales of petrol and diesel cars to an end by 2030, even as a 2035 EV mandate in Canada is derided by critics? That it will cancel all rail franchises and replace them with a system that might actually work? Could the UK, for the first time since the internal combustion engine was invented, really be contemplating a rational transport policy? Hold your horses.

Before deconstructing it, let’s mark this moment. Both announcements might be a decade or two overdue, but we should bank them as they’re essential steps towards a habitable nation.

We don’t yet know exactly what they mean, as the government has delayed its full transport announcement until later this autumn. But so far, nothing that surrounds these positive proposals makes any sense, and the so-called EV revolution often proves illusory in practice.

If the government has a vision for transport, it appears to be plug and play. We’ll keep our existing transport system, but change the kinds of vehicles and train companies that use it. But when you have a system in which structural failure is embedded, nothing short of structural change will significantly improve it.

A switch to electric cars will reduce pollution, though the benefits depend on the power mix; in Canada, Canada’s grid was 18% fossil-fuelled in 2019, for example. It won’t eliminate it, as a high proportion of the microscopic particles thrown into the air by cars, which are highly damaging to our health, arise from tyres grating on the surface of the road. Tyre wear is also by far the biggest source of microplastics pouring into our rivers and the sea. And when tyres, regardless of the engine that moves them, come to the end of their lives, we still have no means of properly recycling them.

Cars are an environmental hazard long before they leave the showroom. One estimate suggests that the carbon emissions produced in building each one equate to driving it for 150,000km. The rise in electric vehicle sales has created a rush for minerals such as lithium and copper, with devastating impacts on beautiful places. If the aim is greatly to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, and replace those that remain with battery-operated models, alongside EV battery recycling efforts, then they will be part of the solution. But if, as a forecast by the National Grid proposes, the current fleet is replaced by 35m electric cars, a University of Toronto study warns they are not a silver bullet, and we’ll simply create another environmental disaster.

Switching power sources does nothing to address the vast amount of space the car demands, which could otherwise be used for greens, parks, playgrounds and homes. It doesn’t stop cars from carving up community and turning streets into thoroughfares and outdoor life into a mortal hazard. Electric vehicles don’t solve congestion, or the extreme lack of physical activity that contributes to our poor health.

So far, the government seems to have no interest in systemic change. It still plans to spend £27bn on building even more roads, presumably to accommodate all those new electric cars. An analysis by Transport for Quality of Life suggests that this road-building will cancel out 80% of the carbon savings from a switch to electric over the next 12 years. But everywhere, even in the government’s feted garden villages and garden towns, new developments are being built around the car.

Rail policy is just as irrational, even though lessons from large electric bus fleets offer cleaner mass transit options. The construction of HS2, now projected to cost £106bn, has accelerated in the past few months, destroying precious wild places along the way, though its weak business case has almost certainly been destroyed by coronavirus.

If one thing changes permanently as a result of the pandemic, it is likely to be travel. Many people will never return to the office. The great potential of remote technologies, so long untapped, is at last being realised. Having experienced quieter cities with cleaner air, few people wish to return to the filthy past.

Like several of the world’s major cities, our capital is being remodelled in response, though why electric buses haven’t taken over remains a live question. The London mayor – recognising that, while fewer passengers can use public transport, a switch to cars would cause gridlock and lethal pollution – has set aside road space for cycling and walking. Greater Manchester hopes to build 1,800 miles of protected pedestrian and bicycle routes.

Cycling to work is described by some doctors as “the miracle pill”, massively reducing the chances of early death: if you want to save the NHS, get on your bike. But support from central government is weak and contradictory, and involves a fraction of the money it is spending on new roads. The major impediment to a cycling revolution is the danger of being hit by a car.

Even a switch to bicycles (including electric bikes and scooters) is only part of the answer. Fundamentally, this is not a vehicle problem but an urban design problem. Or rather, it is an urban design problem created by our favoured vehicle. Cars have made everything bigger and further away. Paris, under its mayor Anne Hidalgo, is seeking to reverse this trend, by creating a “15-minute city”, in which districts that have been treated by transport planners as mere portals to somewhere else become self-sufficient communities – each with their own shops, parks, schools and workplaces, within a 15-minute walk of everyone’s home.

This, I believe, is the radical shift that all towns and cities need. It would transform our sense of belonging, our community life, our health and our prospects of local employment, while greatly reducing pollution, noise and danger. Transport has always been about much more than transport. The way we travel helps to determine the way we live. And at the moment, locked in our metal boxes, we do not live well.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News