The science is clear: humans are emitting a record amount of greenhouse gasses (GHG)  into the atmosphere, where they trap heat and cause global temperatures to rise. To avoid catastrophic climate change, we must drastically reduce our GHG emissions.

Transportation accounts for 15% of global GHG emissions, and exposure to air pollution from vehicles can cause serious respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Therefore, decarbonizing our transportation is key to mitigating climate change and keeping people healthy. Switching to electric vehicles (EVs) is one way to achieve this. Unlike traditional internal combustion engine vehicles, which run on fossil fuels, EVs are battery-powered and produce no tailpipe emissions.

In 2023, almost 14 million new EVs were sold, representing a 35% increase from 2022. Yet, they still only accounted for 18% of all cars sold, suggesting that many buyers remain skeptical about choosing EVs over traditional gas-powered cars. This skepticism is further exacerbated by climate-denying organizations, who seek to sow seeds of doubt about EVs in people’s minds. However, such critiques often fail to tell the whole story. Let’s take a closer look at some of the arguments against EVs and see how they hold up against further scrutiny.

Argument 1: EVs Cost Consumers Much More Money Than Gas Cars

The Heartland Institute — a think tank known for denying human-driven climate change — is just one group arguing that EVs are simply too expensive to be viable alternatives for consumers. It is true that the average base price of an EV is higher than the average price of a gas-guzzling car. Once the cars start being driven, however, the cost-saving qualities of EVs really kick into gear.

A study from the University of Michigan found that the average fuel cost per mile for EVs is about 2.5 times less than the cost per mile for gas cars due to the higher efficiency of electric motors and the lower price of electricity relative to gasoline. The researchers also pointed out that electricity enjoys much more price stability than gasoline and has slower projected increases in price over time. 

Additionally, EVs typically require less maintenance because they have fewer moving parts than conventional combustion engines, benefit from reduced brake wear, and do not require as many fluid changes. Surveys of vehicle owners conducted by Consumer Reports found that, on average, EV owners pay half as much as gas car owners for maintenance and repairs over the lifetime of the vehicle. 

As a result of the lower energy cost per mile and lower maintenance and repair costs, the higher initial cost of purchasing an EV can be recovered in as little as 5 years, according to researchers at Argonne National Laboratory. With expected battery life spans of 12-15 years in moderate climates and 8-12 years in extreme climates, EVs will save consumers money in the long run.

Verdict: Do EVs Cost More Money Than Gas Cars? No.

Argument 2: EVs Are Not Much Cleaner Than Traditional Cars

Another climate change-denying organization, The Heritage Foundation, has made the case that EVs are not significantly better for the environment than gas-powered vehicles because they create more emissions when being produced and run off electricity generated by burning fossil fuels.

Again, parts of this argument are true. Creating EV batteries requires minerals including lithium, cobalt, and nickel to be mined and heated to high temperatures. As a result of this energy-intensive process, making an EV can produce more emissions than making a traditional car. Additionally, the emissions resulting from EV charging vary greatly depending on how local electricity is generated. When the electricity is produced from renewable energy sources, EV emissions are very low, but when the electricity is produced from fossil fuels, EV emissions increase substantially.

However, even when the emissions from battery manufacturing and electricity generation are taken into account, EVs still result in significantly lower lifetime greenhouse gas emissions. Gas cars simply produce so much more emissions when in use, that overall, EVs remain the better choice for the environment.

As more of the world’s energy is generated from renewable sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower, the emissions associated with EV charging will continue to decrease. Currently, renewables produce about 30% of the world’s electricity and are projected to surpass coal as the largest source of electricity in 2025. With this, we can expect EVs to get even cleaner.

Verdict: Are EVs The Cleaner Choice? Yes.

Argument 3: Replacing Gas Cars With EVs Will Destroy American Jobs

At an event in Michigan earlier this year, former President Donald Trump warned that a shift to EVs would result in an economic “bloodbath”, destroying the auto industry and costing many people their jobs. Pete Hoekstra, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, echoed this sentiment, saying that jobs would be lost because EV manufacturing requires 40% less labor than gas car manufacturing.

However, a Carnegie Mellon University study found that EVs actually require more manufacturing labor than traditional vehicles. Similarly, researchers at the University of Michigan showed that labor intensity and total employment at U.S. vehicle assembly plants that have fully transitioned to assembling EVs are much higher than historic labor intensity data at gas car assembly plants. This indicates that an EV transition would likely create more jobs in the auto industry.

This is not just mere speculation. In 2023, battery electric vehicle employment increased 12.9%, adding 17,064 jobs and outpacing job growth in gas and diesel vehicles. Moreover, the Department of Energy recently announced its Battery Workforce Challenge Program to train workers for EV and battery manufacturing jobs, providing new opportunities for vocational training. At the very least, this goes to show that the risk of a “bloodbath” as predicted by Trump is incredibly small.

Verdict: Are EVs A Death Sentence For Jobs? No.

Argument 4: EVs Are Heavier, So Their Tires Wear Out Quicker

According to the tire manufacturing company, Michelin, tires on EVs can wear out up to 20% faster than those on gas cars due to their heavy batteries and higher torque. This presents risks for the environment and human health.

Tire wear during use releases microplastics into the environment, which can pollute the air, land, and water, and be ingested by humans and wildlife. Moreover, the production of tires results in deforestation for growing monocultures of rubber trees, is energy and water-intensive, and emits carcinogens and radioactive compounds. At the end of their lifetimes, millions of tons of tires end up in landfills or burned for fuel.

In response to this need for improved tires, companies are working to develop more resilient and environmentally responsible tire designs and recycling processes, providing hope that future EVs will not have these same problems.

Verdict: Do EV Tires Wear Out Faster? Yes, But Hopefully Not For Long.

Argument 5: There Are Human Rights Abuses In The EV Supply Chain

Most EV batteries contain cobalt and 70% of the world’s cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). 15 to 30% of the cobalt from the DRC involves small-scale artisanal mining operations in which workers, including children, are exposed to incredibly dangerous and inhumane working conditions.

Batteries containing cobalt are not only used to power EVs. They are also in many consumer electronics, including our phones and laptops. Therefore, the labor abuses associated with cobalt mining concern many parts of the global supply chain — not just EVs.

Additionally, many scientists, including those at the University of California Irvine, University of Tokyo, and the Catalonia Institute for Energy Research have developed cobalt-free batteries that may soon provide EV manufacturers with viable alternatives.

Verdict: Not Perfect, But Still Progress

EVs, just like nearly everything else on this planet, are not without faults. But not all criticisms thrown at them are valid, and those that are do not negate the fact that vehicle electrification has an important role to play in reducing emissions and mitigating climate change.

Continuing to use polluting gas-powered vehicles is not an option. Instead of making up excuses to prevent the inevitable EV transition, we should focus our efforts on addressing the real problems by increasing renewable electricity generation, improving tire technology, and enforcing labor standards to protect miners.

As research and technology advance, EVs will only continue to get cleaner and more efficient, driving us toward a future that is healthier and happier for all. To learn more about EVs and why EARTHDAY.ORG believes that the future is electric, read our in-depth EV Explainer and subscribe to our Substack channel for lots of great articles that will give you plenty of facts to counter any climate-denying and fossil fuel-funded misinformation that might come your way.

EARTHDAY.ORG knows that leaving fossil fuels in the past is the only way forward, which is why we have chosen Our Power, Our Planet as the theme for Earth Day 2025. Oil, coal, and natural gas have overstayed their welcome. It’s time we give fossil fuels the boot and replace them with solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and tidal energy sources.

Join us in our call for #RenewableEnergyNow by signing the Our Power, Our Planet Renewable Energy Petition calling on global leaders to phase out fossil fuels and triple renewable energy generation by 2030. Looking to take more action? Explore our Global Energy Map to see what different countries are doing to transition to renewable energy and watch our new reel, 6 Months to Earth Day 2025. Follow us on social media (IG, LinkedIn, You Tube, X and Facebook) and share our articles and posts to spread the message!

The Age of Fossil Fuels is Over, The Age of Clean Electricity is Here.

The post Electric Vehicles: Deciphering Fact from Fiction appeared first on Earth Day.

We live in a world dominated by plastic. It’s nearly impossible to avoid, so most of us just accept it as a part of our lives. But how much do you really know about this omnipresent material? Can you truly trust the plastic industry to have your best interests in mind? Spoiler alert — there’s probably a lot you’re not aware of and the plastic industry has worked hard to sell plastic to us as the perfect product!

EARTHDAY.ORG is dedicated to exposing the truth about plastics and spreading awareness of the dangers they pose to the environment and ourselves. Through our countless articles and in-depth research reports, we shed light on the sinister side of plastics. 

Here are five of the most disturbing facts about plastic that we believe everyone has the right to know.

1. Plastics are fossil fuels in disguise

Over 99% of plastic is made from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels, like oil and so-called ‘natural’ gas. Producing one billion plastic bottles requires 24 million gallons of oil. Coca-Cola alone produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute, for a total of 100 billion bottles per year. Clearly, our addiction to the convenience of disposable plastic is directly tied to skyrocketing fossil fuel use and catastrophic climate change.

Moreover, while plastic manufacturing accounts for only 12% of global oil consumption, as the world moves towards a clean energy transition, like solar and wind, and the fossil fuel industry loses its grip on electricity generation and transportation, it will likely cling desperately to plastic production as a way to maintain relevance and profits.

The devastating health effects of pollution from plastic production can be seen in Cancer Alley — an 85-mile region along the Mississippi River in Southeastern Louisiana. Due to the area’s numerous plastics manufacturing facilities and petrochemical plants, the predominantly Black residents are constantly exposed to hazardous chemicals including polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), vinyl chloride, and polychloroprene, which contaminate the air, water, and soil. 

As a result, the risk of cancer in the region is 700 times greater than the national average, and residents suffer from respiratory problems and other illnesses.

2. Plastics are linked to infertility

With plastics as prevalent as they are, we all inevitably ingest tiny bits of plastic. These tiny pieces, called micro and nano plastics, may be a hidden culprit behind the infertility crisis. Once in the body, plastics leach out hormone-disrupting chemicals such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA). 

Studies on mice show that microplastic exposure decreases the survival rate of oocytes, the precursors to eggs. Researchers have also detected microplastics in human penises and linked microplastic exposure to decreased survival and DNA integrity in sperm, impeding egg fertilization.

Even after conception, the threats from plastic persist. One study found that pregnant women with the highest concentrations of phthalates in their urine were 60% more likely to miscarry in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Another found that women with the highest levels of BPA in their blood were 83% more likely to miscarry in the first trimester. Microplastics can even be detected in placentas, having permeated the protective membranes

3. Babies are especially vulnerable to ingesting microplastics

Last year, EARTHDAY.ORG released its Babies vs. Plastics Report. Among the report’s most concerning findings was that babies and infants have over 10 times higher rates of microplastics in their feces than adults. 

Babies are exposed to microplastics in feeding bottles, formula, breast milk, clothing, and toys. Tiny particles can enter their bodies through inhalation, breastfeeding, dermal exposure, and oral intake, commonly called teething!  Studies have found that infants can ingest up to 4.5 million plastic particles per day when fed from polypropylene baby bottles and that disposable storage bags release microplastics into breast milk.

Moreover, the most widely-used fabric in clothing, polyester, contains plastic. With young childrens’ habit of chewing and sucking on their clothes, this puts them at a greater risk of exposure to microplastics in textiles.

4. Our pets also face threats from plastic

Earlier this year, we published our second report, Pets vs. Plastics, which demonstrated that harm from plastic is not limited to the human members of our families. In addition to the fact that ingesting plastic chunks can cause broken teeth and lacerations or punctures to the digestive tract, plastic from chew toys, food bowls, and food packaging can leach out phthalates and BPAs that can enter your pet. Similarly, polyester bedding and collars release microplastics that they may ingest or inhale.

A major reason why pets are so exposed to plastic is that the pet product industry is inadequately regulated. There are no laws specifically regulating pet toys in the U.S. The FDA does not regulate non-food pet products, and the Consumer Protection Safety Commission claims to lack the authority to protect pets from unsafe plastic toys, bedding, and clothes. Globally, the pet food industry is largely left to regulate itself and microplastics are often processed directly into the food.

Unfortunately, this means we must take things into our own hands. See our top 6 tips for keeping your beloved pets safe from plastics.

5. Plastic recycling is a lie

Less than 10% of all plastic ever produced has been recycled. Just 5% of U.S. plastic waste and 9% of global plastic waste is properly recycled. If this comes as a surprise to you, you’re not alone. Beginning in the 1980s, the petrochemical industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a decades-long disinformation campaign to convince the public that plastic could be recycled. 

Even Resin Identification Codes — the little numbers in the triangles on plastic products that are supposed to tell us something is recyclable — are an invention of the plastic industry. While 30% of numbers 1 and 2 plastic are recycled, numbers 3-5 are much more difficult, and numbers 6 and 7 are virtually impossible to recycle. 

The plastics industry has also worked hard to shift the blame for plastic pollution off themselves and onto consumers with efforts such as the infamous anti-littering campaign from the 1970s, “The Crying Indian.”

Some have proposed chemical recycling as a solution to our plastic recycling problem. This process converts plastic waste back into oil, keeping it out of landfills and reducing our need to extract more fossil fuels. However, chemical recycling produces byproducts containing toxic chemicals such as benzene, lead, cadmium, and chromium. As processing facilities and disposal sites for hazardous waste are often located in low-income and minority communities, this presents a serious environmental justice issue.

Plastics have got to go

Clearly, we cannot rely on the oil and plastic industries to tell us the truth.  The only way to ensure we are all safe from plastic is to cap plastic production.

That is why EARTHDAY.ORG is working to end plastic production. We invite you to join our fight by signing the Global Plastics Treaty petition to call on the United Nations and governments around the world to commit to a 60% reduction in all fossil fuel-based plastic production by 2040. Want to get outside and make an immediate impact? Use our Global Cleanup Map to find a cleanup near you!

Read the statement by the President of EARTHDAY.ORG, Kathleen Rogers, on the US government’s changing position on plastic production caps, HERE.

It’s time we take our health and futures into our own hands. Are you in?

The post Enough Is Enough: Why Plastics Have Got to Go appeared first on Earth Day.

Texas leads the nation in wind-powered electricity generation, producing a staggering 28% of wind energy in the U.S. in 2023. With its ideal wind conditions and ample open space, the Lone Star state hosts over 15,300 wind turbines — the most in the country. This wind energy boom has greatly benefited communities in Texas, such as Throckmorton County, where tax revenue and investments generated by a wind farm have allowed the school district to establish a new STEM program and build new facilities.

Yet, Texas also remains the nation’s top oil and natural gas producer too, so perhaps it is not surprising that opponents of renewable energy constantly push the narrative that wind and solar are unreliable.  After the devastating Winter Storm Uri in 2021, many Conservative politicians and media outlets blamed failures in renewable energy for the blackouts that left 69% of Texans to face freezing temperatures without power. Although coal, natural gas, and nuclear-powered plants were responsible for nearly twice as much power loss as renewable energy sources, this claim has unfairly continued to fan the flames of anti-renewable sentiment in the state.

Texas Politicians Are Wary of Wind

Following Storm Uri, Governor Greg Abbott wrote a letter directing the Public Utility Commission of Texas to increase energy production from coal, natural gas, and nuclear sources, and to penalize renewable energy producers for the variability of their energy generation. He argued that these steps were necessary to ensure energy reliability and an even playing field for renewables and non-renewables.

In line with that letter, Abbott signed Senate Bill 13 into law. S.B. 13 prohibits certain state agencies from investing in companies that boycott the fossil fuel industry. Proponents of the law argue that such companies’ embrace of the environment, social, and governance framework (ESG) — in which they consider environmental impacts when choosing their investments —  has given renewable energy an undue advantage.  Of course, if we really want to discuss unfair advantages in the Texas energy industry, it is important to note that oil and gas producers enjoy generous tax breaks that excused them from paying just over $1.4 billion in 2023 alone.

At the end of August this year, the American Sustainable Business Council sued the state over this law, arguing that it is unconstitutional. The outcome of this suit — and thus the fate of Senate Bill 13 — remains to be seen.

Continuing to ride the wave of doubt about the reliability of renewable energy, legislators passed Senate Bill 2627 in 2023. This establishes a program to provide low-interest loans and grants to facilities that produce energy from nonrenewable sources such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. Renewable sources like wind are ineligible to receive funding from this program, which seems to be shamelessly giving nonrenewables a leg up.

These crackdowns on renewable energy come as wind electricity generation employs over 27,000 Texans and has the potential to generate $20.3 million in tax revenue for Texas counties.

Why then, are these politicians so vehemently opposed to wind energy? Unsurprisingly, the answer lies in the power of the fossil fuel industry.

Blowing Hot Air: Fossil Fuel Interests Lead The Opposition

The state’s growing hostility toward renewables is due in large part to the efforts of organizations that heavily promote fossil fuels. One of the most notable of these is the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a non-profit organization based in Austin.

Several members of TPPF’s board of directors hold top leadership positions within the fossil fuel industry, such as Chairman Kyle Stallings, the founder and CEO of the oil and gas investment company, Desert Royalty Company, and Tim Dunn, the CEO of CrownQuest Operating, a natural gas and oil company. Moreover, some members of its board are among the largest political donors in the state, including Dunn, who has contributed over $18 million to conservative candidates and political action committees. 

With TPPF’s close ties to the fossil fuel industry and conservative politicians, it enjoys substantial influence over the state’s energy policies, even, as reported in The Guardian, directly crafting and editing anti-renewable legislation.

In addition to targeting politicians, TPPF also tries to sway public opinion against renewables. For instance, they published a paper furthering the false claim that unreliable renewables were responsible for the blackouts during Storm Uri, asserted that decarbonization is unnecessary and economically harmful, and even went so far as to publish an AI-generated picture of a dead whale in front of wind turbines, despite there being no evidence of offshore wind farms killing whales. This kind of misinformation and fear-mongering is detrimental to public support for wind energy.

But Wait, There’s More!

Even if a wind project overcomes these formidable challenges and its turbines are ready to start spinning, the battle is not over yet. The electricity generated from these turbines still needs a way to reach consumers — something that is not as simple as it may sound.

Wind farms are typically located in rural areas with a lower population density and lots of available land, while most of the electricity demand is in densely populated and industry-heavy areas. Transmission lines are needed to bridge this gap. 

In 2013, Texas completed its construction of a network of over 3,500 miles of high-voltage transmission lines to carry wind power to population centers. However, the state’s transmission capacity remains far behind its renewable energy generation and wind turbines produce more electricity than the grid can accommodate.

Yes, you heard that right. Wind — the so-called “unreliable” energy source — is producing a surplus of electricity.

The grid is designed to transmit electricity at a frequency of 60 hertz (Hz), which means the current alternates 60 times per second. This frequency is crucial for maintaining the stability of the grid. When electricity generation exceeds demand, the grid can become overloaded. This excess can cause the frequency to rise above 60 Hz. If the frequency rises too much, it can destabilize the grid and potentially lead to blackouts.

To prevent this, electricity producers (like power plants) might need to reduce their output, a process known as “curtailment.” By cutting back on how much electricity they generate, they help keep the frequency stable and ensure that supply matches demand, preventing potential disruptions to the grid. In short, maintaining that 60 Hz is key to a reliable electricity supply, and curtailment is one tool used to manage it effectively.

In 2022, Texas had to reduce its wind energy production by 5% because the transmission lines — essentially the pathways that carry electricity — couldn’t handle all the electricity being generated. As a result, some of that clean, renewable energy wasn’t used and by 2035, curtailment is expected to more than double. Each time wind energy is curtailed and producers are forced to operate below their full capacity, it is a lost opportunity to utilize clean energy in the nation’s largest energy-consuming state.

Wind curtailment can be significantly reduced by transmission expansion. According to the Department of Energy, Texas will need to increase its transmission capacity by 140% by 2035 to accommodate clean energy growth. This presents a great challenge, as building new transmission infrastructure can take 3-6 years. Without immediate action to address this issue, transmission lines will remain a critical barrier to the full deployment of the state’s wind energy resources.

The other solution is investing in energy storage systems to store excess electricity for later use, and enhancing demand response programs that incentivize consumers to shift their usage during peak times. Additionally, diversifying energy sources by incorporating solar and other renewables, modernizing the grid for better flexibility, and enacting supportive policies and regulations would facilitate the effective integration of renewable energy. Together, these strategies can help Texas fully utilize its abundant wind resources.

Renewable Energy Needs Your Support

The problems facing wind energy in Texas are not unique. Across the United States, renewable energy is under attack from fossil fuel-backed legislators and interest groups, and insufficient transmission infrastructure prevents wind energy from being used at its full potential. These delays to the clean energy transition threaten our health, environment, and future.

What can you do about it? Make your voice heard! If you live in the U.S., write your state lawmakers and tell them to invest in renewable energy projects. 

The theme for Earth Day 2025 is Our Power, Our Planet. Find out how you can get involved in the global movement for clean energy.

Together, we can fight for a renewable-powered future.

The post The War on Wind Rages in Texas appeared first on Earth Day.