Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Electric cars are the future. Why is the EPA pumping the brakes?

News Feed
Monday, March 25, 2024

I am willing to believe that electric cars are the future. In fact, I think they probably are. And that future can’t come too soon: America’s vast fleet of gas-powered vehicles emits noxious combustion byproducts that not only contribute to global warming but also can be hazardous to human health. Especially in cities, it will be better when these pollution machines are replaced by cleaner, quieter electrics.Naturally, the Biden administration wants to race toward that future. And just as naturally, there are better and worse ways to make that happen. And with its new tailpipe emissions rules, which would require more than half of all new cars to be electric by 2032, the administration has chosen one of the worse ones — the kind that risks delaying the brighter, greener tomorrow officials are trying to bring about.The only way to reach that tomorrow is in EVs that are undeniably more appealing than the gas guzzlers they’re meant to replace. For one thing, most American drivers are also American voters, who can unelect any politician who foists an unwanted EV on them. More important, most of the drivers who will steer the future aren’t Americans at all: They’re the billions of people living in poorer countries who would like to adopt a more comfortable, higher-carbon lifestyle.We are fooling ourselves if we think we can stop them from doing so by cutting back our own consumption to set a good example. They want to emit more carbon not because turnabout is fair play but for the same reasons you live in a home filled with electric lights and appliances, perhaps vacation in far-flung places, and might drive to the grocery store instead of walking.We’re rich enough that we’re often willing to pay something extra to make those choices cleaner and greener. But most of us aren’t that willing, which is why even Democratic politicians are frantic to keep gas prices from rising too high, never mind that costlier gas would obviously help reduce our emissions. Poorer people in other countries are likely to be even less willing to make those sorts of sacrifices for the sake of the environment.So the best way to get everyone into electric cars is to invest in research and development for the technologies that will make them the clearly superior choice: better batteries (and renewables to power them), better materials, cheaper production methods. The second-best way is to build infrastructure, such as charging stations, that will make it easier for consumers to choose EVs — and therefore for companies to invest in designing and building them.The worst way is to just mandate that companies sell them, which is what the Environmental Protection Agency is doing with its new emissions standards. For automakers to meet them, all-electric vehicles will have to account for at least 56 percent of new cars sold in 2032, with plug-in hybrids accounting for an additional 13 percent.This won’t make foreign consumers want to adopt them; indeed, it relieves automakers of the need to make a car that can entice consumers on its own. Yet it also risks a political backlash that actually slows the pace of adoption, if consumers revolt against a technology that’s not ready for prime time. Worryingly, these regulations dropped just as dealers were warning that EV sales — which had been accelerating nicely last year — were slowing down.It turns out there’s a big difference between selling an EV to a gung-ho early adopter and getting everyone else to make the switch from gas. Early adopters tend to be affluent and thus can afford the higher sticker price and insurance costs. So affluent, in fact, that most of those early adopters also own a gas-powered vehicle, which helps allay one of the most pressing concerns people have about buying an EV: “How do I charge it?”Charging is a snap if you own a single-family home with a garage, can afford to have a fast home charger installed and rarely drive farther than an EV can go on a single charge. But if you live in an apartment or have to park on the street, you are suddenly exposed to the maddening world of public charging. A Wall Street Journal reporter recently did a tour of public chargers in the Los Angeles area, which has a relatively robust charging infrastructure, only to find that 40 percent of them had serious issues.To its credit, the Biden administration has been trying to address the charging shortage; the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included $7.5 billion to build 500,000 public chargers across the country by 2030. That said, that’s less than half of what McKinsey estimates will be needed to handle a scenario in which half of all new cars are EVs. Also, by December, we had only built … zero of them.Presumably, that pace will pick up a bit this year as kinks are ironed out. But it hardly inspires confidence that we’ll have the infrastructure necessary to entice most consumers to choose an electric car for their primary vehicle — which is what will have to happen for most cars sold to be electric-only. Mandating that change before you’ve got the infrastructure in place is putting the cart before the horse. Which is what some Americans could end up driving if they can’t figure out where to charge an EV.

Read more

I am willing to believe that electric cars are the future. In fact, I think they probably are. And that future can’t come too soon: America’s vast fleet of gas-powered vehicles emits noxious combustion byproducts that not only contribute to global warming but also can be hazardous to human health. Especially in cities, it will be better when these pollution machines are replaced by cleaner, quieter electrics.

Naturally, the Biden administration wants to race toward that future. And just as naturally, there are better and worse ways to make that happen. And with its new tailpipe emissions rules, which would require more than half of all new cars to be electric by 2032, the administration has chosen one of the worse ones — the kind that risks delaying the brighter, greener tomorrow officials are trying to bring about.

The only way to reach that tomorrow is in EVs that are undeniably more appealing than the gas guzzlers they’re meant to replace. For one thing, most American drivers are also American voters, who can unelect any politician who foists an unwanted EV on them. More important, most of the drivers who will steer the future aren’t Americans at all: They’re the billions of people living in poorer countries who would like to adopt a more comfortable, higher-carbon lifestyle.

We are fooling ourselves if we think we can stop them from doing so by cutting back our own consumption to set a good example. They want to emit more carbon not because turnabout is fair play but for the same reasons you live in a home filled with electric lights and appliances, perhaps vacation in far-flung places, and might drive to the grocery store instead of walking.

We’re rich enough that we’re often willing to pay something extra to make those choices cleaner and greener. But most of us aren’t that willing, which is why even Democratic politicians are frantic to keep gas prices from rising too high, never mind that costlier gas would obviously help reduce our emissions. Poorer people in other countries are likely to be even less willing to make those sorts of sacrifices for the sake of the environment.

So the best way to get everyone into electric cars is to invest in research and development for the technologies that will make them the clearly superior choice: better batteries (and renewables to power them), better materials, cheaper production methods. The second-best way is to build infrastructure, such as charging stations, that will make it easier for consumers to choose EVs — and therefore for companies to invest in designing and building them.

The worst way is to just mandate that companies sell them, which is what the Environmental Protection Agency is doing with its new emissions standards. For automakers to meet them, all-electric vehicles will have to account for at least 56 percent of new cars sold in 2032, with plug-in hybrids accounting for an additional 13 percent.

This won’t make foreign consumers want to adopt them; indeed, it relieves automakers of the need to make a car that can entice consumers on its own. Yet it also risks a political backlash that actually slows the pace of adoption, if consumers revolt against a technology that’s not ready for prime time. Worryingly, these regulations dropped just as dealers were warning that EV sales — which had been accelerating nicely last year — were slowing down.

It turns out there’s a big difference between selling an EV to a gung-ho early adopter and getting everyone else to make the switch from gas. Early adopters tend to be affluent and thus can afford the higher sticker price and insurance costs. So affluent, in fact, that most of those early adopters also own a gas-powered vehicle, which helps allay one of the most pressing concerns people have about buying an EV: “How do I charge it?”

Charging is a snap if you own a single-family home with a garage, can afford to have a fast home charger installed and rarely drive farther than an EV can go on a single charge. But if you live in an apartment or have to park on the street, you are suddenly exposed to the maddening world of public charging. A Wall Street Journal reporter recently did a tour of public chargers in the Los Angeles area, which has a relatively robust charging infrastructure, only to find that 40 percent of them had serious issues.

To its credit, the Biden administration has been trying to address the charging shortage; the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included $7.5 billion to build 500,000 public chargers across the country by 2030. That said, that’s less than half of what McKinsey estimates will be needed to handle a scenario in which half of all new cars are EVs. Also, by December, we had only built … zero of them.

Presumably, that pace will pick up a bit this year as kinks are ironed out. But it hardly inspires confidence that we’ll have the infrastructure necessary to entice most consumers to choose an electric car for their primary vehicle — which is what will have to happen for most cars sold to be electric-only. Mandating that change before you’ve got the infrastructure in place is putting the cart before the horse. Which is what some Americans could end up driving if they can’t figure out where to charge an EV.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The Pregnancy Pill Millions Trust Faces Alarming New Questions About Child Brain Health

Scientists are warning that one of the most trusted painkillers used in pregnancy may not be as safe as once believed. A sweeping review of studies finds links between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and higher risks of autism and ADHD in children. The medication crosses the placenta and may interfere with brain development, raising urgent questions [...]

New research raises red flags about acetaminophen use in pregnancy, linking it to autism and ADHD risks in children. ShutterstockScientists are warning that one of the most trusted painkillers used in pregnancy may not be as safe as once believed. A sweeping review of studies finds links between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and higher risks of autism and ADHD in children. The medication crosses the placenta and may interfere with brain development, raising urgent questions about clinical guidelines. Acetaminophen in Pregnancy Linked to Neurodevelopmental Risks Scientists at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai report that children exposed to acetaminophen before birth may face a greater chance of developing neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Their findings, published in BMC Environmental Health, mark the first time that the Navigation Guide methodology has been applied to thoroughly assess the quality and reliability of the research on this subject. Acetaminophen (commonly sold as Tylenol® in the United States and Canada, and known as paracetamol elsewhere) is the most widely used non-prescription treatment for pain and fever during pregnancy, taken by more than half of expectant mothers worldwide. For decades, it has been viewed as the safest option for relief from headaches, fever, and general pain. However, the Mount Sinai team’s review of 46 studies, which together involved over 100,000 participants from multiple countries, challenges this long-standing belief and highlights the importance of caution and additional investigation. Gold-Standard Review Methodology Applied The research team relied on the Navigation Guide Systematic Review, a leading framework used in environmental health. This method enables scientists to systematically evaluate each study, rating potential sources of bias such as incomplete data or selective reporting, while also weighing the overall strength and consistency of the evidence. “Our findings show that higher-quality studies are more likely to show a link between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and increased risks of autism and ADHD,” said Diddier Prada, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Population Health Science and Policy, and Environmental Medicine and Climate Science, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. “Given the widespread use of this medication, even a small increase in risk could have major public health implications.” Possible Biological Mechanisms Behind the Link The paper also explores biological mechanisms that could explain the association between acetaminophen use and these disorders. Acetaminophen is known to cross the placental barrier and may trigger oxidative stress, disrupt hormones, and cause epigenetic changes that interfere with fetal brain development. While the study does not show that acetaminophen directly causes neurodevelopmental disorders, the research team’s findings strengthen the evidence for a connection and raise concerns about current clinical practices. Call for Updated Guidelines and Safer Alternatives The researchers call for cautious, time-limited use of acetaminophen during pregnancy under medical supervision; updated clinical guidelines to better balance the benefits and risks; and further research to confirm these findings and identify safer alternatives for managing pain and fever in expectant mothers. “Pregnant women should not stop taking medication without consulting their doctors,” Dr. Prada emphasized. “Untreated pain or fever can also harm the baby. Our study highlights the importance of discussing the safest approach with health care providers and considering non-drug options whenever possible.” Rising Autism and ADHD Rates Add Urgency With diagnoses of autism and ADHD increasing worldwide, these findings have significant implications for public health policy, clinical guidelines, and patient education. The study also highlights the urgent need for pharmaceutical innovation to provide safer alternatives for pregnant women. Reference: “Evaluation of the evidence on acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders using the Navigation Guide methodology” by Diddier Prada, Beate Ritz, Ann Z. Bauer and Andrea A. Baccarelli, 14 August 2025, Environmental Health.DOI: 10.1186/s12940-025-01208-0 The study was conducted in collaboration with the University of California, Los Angeles; University of Massachusetts Lowell; and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Funding for this study was provided by the National Cancer Institute (U54CA267776), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R35ES031688), and the National Institute on Aging (U01AG088684). Important: These findings indicate a correlation, not definitive proof of causation. The medical community remains divided, and further research is needed. Always seek guidance from your healthcare professional before altering or discontinuing any treatment. Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.Follow us on Google, Discover, and News.

Farm Workers At Risk For Kidney Disease

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 2, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Farm workers have a higher risk for kidney disease, mainly due to...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 2, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Farm workers have a higher risk for kidney disease, mainly due to exposure to high heat and agricultural chemicals, a new small-scale study says.Workers on a grape farm near the Arizona-Sonora border had high levels of arsenic, cadmium and chromium in their urine, and those were linked to increased signs of kidney injury, according to findings published in the November issue of the journal Environmental Research.“We’re seeing an increase in kidney disease in young people who lack typical risk factors, especially in hotter regions,” said lead researcher Rietta Wagoner, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Arizona.“There is evidence that heat, pesticides and metal exposures each play a role, and especially that heat is making potentially toxic exposures worse,” she said in a news release. “Each individually has been studied, but little research has examined a combination of factors. This study is an attempt to answer questions." For the study, researchers followed 77 farm workers who traveled seasonally from southern Mexico to work the grape farm. The workers arrived in February and March, at the beginning of the grape season, and stayed until the end of summer.The team collected daily urine and blood samples from the workers, and measured their heat stress twice a day with inner ear temperatures and heart rates.The worker’s kidney function generally decreased during the season, based on estimates derived from blood and urine samples.This decline was linked to chemicals found in pesticides and fertilizers, as well as the excessive summer heat in the Sonoran Desert, where air temperatures ranged upwards of 100 degrees Fahrenheit, researchers said.“When we looked at heat in combination with metals and metalloids, we found heat especially exacerbated the effects of the metals arsenic and cadmium on the kidney,” Wagoner said. “In other words, together, the effects were worse.”This kidney damage can be prevented, she said.“We recommend mandatory periodic breaks and rest built into the workday,” Wagoner said. “Provide water, electrolyte replacement and have restrooms nearby. Also, allow the workers time to get used to the conditions.”It’s also important to get to the source of workers’ exposure to these toxic metals, she said, noting that workers drink well water in places where uranium and arsenic are found in the soil.“If we can implement prevention measures early on,” Wagoner said, “we can prevent longer term issues.”SOURCES: University of Arizona, news release, Sept. 23, 2025; Environmental Research, November 2025What This Means For YouFarm workers should make sure to take frequent rest breaks during hot days and stay hydrated.Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Giant Sinkhole in Chilean Mining Town Haunts Residents, Three Years On

TIERRA AMARILLA (Reuters) -Residents in the mining town of Tierra Amarilla in the Chilean desert are hopeful that a new court ruling will allay...

TIERRA AMARILLA (Reuters) -Residents in the mining town of Tierra Amarilla in the Chilean desert are hopeful that a new court ruling will allay their fears about a giant sinkhole that opened near their homes more than three years ago and remains unfilled.A Chilean environmental court this month ordered Minera Ojos del Salado, owned by Canada's Lundin Mining, to repair environmental damage related to activity at its Alcaparrosa copper mine, which is thought to have triggered the sinkhole that appeared in 2022.The ruling calls on the company to protect the region's water supply and refill the sinkhole. The cylindrical crater originally measured 64 meters (210 ft) deep and 32 meters (105 ft) wide at the surface.That has provided a small measure of relief to those in arid Tierra Amarilla in Chile's central Atacama region, who fear that without remediation the gaping hole could swallow up more land."Ever since the sinkhole occurred ... we've lived in fear," said Rudy Alfaro, whose home is 800 meters from the site. A health center and preschool are nearby too, she said."We were afraid it would get bigger, that it would expand, move toward the houses." The sinkhole expelled clouds of dust in a recent earthquake, provoking more anxiety, she said.     The court upheld a shutdown of the small Alcaparrosa mine ordered by Chile's environmental regulator in January, and confirmed "irreversible" damage to an aquifer, which drained water into the mine and weakened the surrounding rock."This is detrimental to an area that is already hydrologically stressed," said Rodrigo Saez, regional water director. Lundin said it will work with authorities to implement remediation measures.(Writing by Daina Beth Solomon, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Scientists Warn: Bottled Water May Pose Serious Long-Term Health Risks

Using it regularly introduces tens of thousands of microplastic and nanoplastic particles into the body each year. The tropical beauty of Thailand’s Phi Phi islands is not the kind of place where most PhD journeys begin. For Sarah Sajedi, however, it was not the beaches themselves but what lay beneath them that sparked her decision [...]

A scientist’s island epiphany uncovers how single-use bottles shed micro- and nanoplastics that infiltrate the body, with emerging evidence of chronic harm and measurement blind spots. Credit: ShutterstockUsing it regularly introduces tens of thousands of microplastic and nanoplastic particles into the body each year. The tropical beauty of Thailand’s Phi Phi islands is not the kind of place where most PhD journeys begin. For Sarah Sajedi, however, it was not the beaches themselves but what lay beneath them that sparked her decision to leave a career in business and pursue academic research. “I was standing there looking out at this gorgeous view of the Andaman Sea, and then I looked down and beneath my feet were all these pieces of plastic, most of them water bottles,” she says. “I’ve always had a passion for waste reduction, but I realized that this was a problem with consumption.” Sajedi, BSc ’91, decided to return to Concordia to pursue a PhD with a focus on plastic waste. As the co-founder of ERA Environmental Management Solutions, a leading provider of environmental, health, and safety software, she brought decades of experience to compliment her studies. Her latest paper, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, looks at the science around the health risks posed by single-use plastic water bottles. They are serious, she says, and seriously understudied. Sarah Sajedi with Chunjiang An: “Drinking water from plastic bottles is fine in an emergency but it is not something that should be used in daily life.” Tiny threats, little known In her analysis of more than 140 scientific papers, Sajedi reports that people ingest an estimated 39,000 to 52,000 microplastic particles each year. For those who rely on bottled water, that number climbs even higher—about 90,000 additional particles compared to individuals who primarily drink tap water. These particles are invisible to the eye. Microplastics range in size from one micron (a thousandth of a millimeter) to five millimeters, while nanoplastics are smaller than a single micron. They are released as plastic bottles are manufactured, stored, transported, and gradually degrade. Because many bottles are made from low-grade plastic, they shed particles whenever they are handled or exposed to sunlight and changes in temperature. Unlike plastics that move through the food chain before entering the human body, these are consumed directly from the container itself. Sarah Sajedi and Chunjiang An. Credit: Concordia UniversityAccording to Sajedi, the health risks are significant. Once inside the body, these small plastics can pass through biological barriers, enter the bloodstream, and reach major organs. Their presence may contribute to chronic inflammation, cellular oxidative stress, hormone disruption, reproductive issues, neurological damage, and some cancers. Still, their long-term impacts are not fully understood, largely because of limited testing and the absence of standardized ways to measure and track them. Sajedi also outlines the range of methods available to detect nano- and microplastics, each with benefits and limitations. Some approaches can locate particles at extremely small scales but cannot reveal their chemical makeup. Others identify the material composition but overlook the tiniest plastics. The most sophisticated and dependable tools are often prohibitively expensive and not widely accessible. Education is the best prevention Sajedi is encouraged by the legislative action that has been adopted by governments around the world aimed at limiting plastic waste. However, she notes that the most common targets are single-use plastic bags, straws, and packaging. Very few address the pressing issue of single-use water bottles. “Education is the most important action we can take,” she says. “Drinking water from plastic bottles is fine in an emergency but it is not something that should be used in daily life. People need to understand that the issue is not acute toxicity—it is chronic toxicity.” Reference: “Unveiling the hidden chronic health risks of nano- and microplastics in single-use plastic water bottles: A review” by Sarah Sajedi, Chunjiang An and Zhi Chen, 14 June 2025, Journal of Hazardous Materials.DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.138948 Funding: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.Follow us on Google, Discover, and News.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.