Here in the UK, we tend to have a very split opinion when it comes to owning and supporting electric vehicles. This split is, basically, along the lines of ‘Those that have researched them and understand them’ vs ‘those that have listened to the FUD and misinformation spouted by vested interests.’
But in the United States of America, the split is along somewhat different lines.
As a background for this, the US has some of the most EV-averse buyers on the planet. In 2022, 8% of new cars sold were electric. The global average is 14% and other regions have much higher sales figures: EU - 21%, UK - 23%, China - 29%.
But this reluctance hides several surprising aspects to it.
Polling in the US has uncovered somewhat of a partisan divide between, essentially, Republicans and Democrats, concerning electric vehicles. This divide covers various aspects such as understanding the benefits of one, thinking they are ready for mainstream adoption, the environmental aspects of EVs and whether they want to buy one.
Hannah Ritchie from Sustainability By Numbers produced a document a few weeks back1 showing the data behind some of these sentiments and it makes for quite a depressing read.
But before we go into that let’s discuss what’s behind this.
The concept of electric vehicles dates back to the early 19th century, with notable developments in the 20th century by companies such as General Motors and Ford. However, widespread adoption of EVs did not occur due to factors such as limited battery technology and the dominance of the internal combustion engine. At the time that’s probably the right decision. After all in a place such as America where travelling long distances was pretty much a foregone conclusion, having an electric car with a range in the dozens of miles vs a petrol vehicle that can cover hundreds, it was a no-brainer.
But even then people saw and understood the benefits of the technology even if it wasn’t ready for mainstream adoption. There was a distinct lack of polarisation at the time with both political parties understanding that EVs reduced the dependency on foreign oil and helped with energy security.
But in the intervening years, something changed. Partly it was a financial aspect. Partly it was an ideological one.
Financially, the oil and gas companies became dominant in the US. They had widespread coverage, made lots of money and - with that money - were very influential with politicians and the public.
After all, if you are a Governor wanting re-election you’ll need campaign funding. That funding will come from various local companies who will expect you to ‘help’ them after you get into power. But if you don’t want to take their money they’ll either give it to someone who will support them or - in extreme cases - threaten to pull out of a particular state if things don’t change. Losing a huge chunk of potential state-level tax revenue as well as local jobs, does not look good for a governor.
This influence extended to the legal system where they were able to influence judges or - in extreme cases - buy off the opposition to prevent cases from actually going to court.
Oil and Gas become an economic juggernaut with huge political and financial influence.
Then electric cars came back. This time in the form of the GM EV1 - a lovely little electric car that would have revolutionised the auto industry - especially in the US.
But - citing financial problems and lack of profitability - GM killed the car, bought all the existing models back in (bar a select few that went to museums etc) and crushed the lot. To this day there are theories that the large petroleum companies extorted influence on GM to kill the car due to the adverse impact it could have on their profits.
Which brings us to Tesla. Without a doubt, Tesla has done more to advance the acceptance and popularity of electric cars across the planet. Indeed in the United Kingdom last year the biggest selling vehicle - of any kind - was the Tesla Model 3. This is despite a widespread perception (not backed up by data) that the charging infrastructure isn’t ready for this.
Tesla has acted as a market leader and has pushed the industry worldwide to make moves into electric vehicles. For many OEMs such as Stellantis, Kia/ Hyundai, Ford and VW this has resulted in a range of electric cars being designed and released.
Sales of these vehicles worldwide are increasing every quarter - as they are in the United States.
But - as stated earlier - there seems to be a distinct lack of enthusiasm for EVs in the US. Why is that?
If we look at this lack of concern across partisan lines it becomes quite obvious what the issue is.
Republicans are, generally, against EVs because they have concerns about the subsidies being provided for them, and government intervention. They see the Biden administration’s IRA programme as being interventionist and wasting money, viewing such things as tax credits and rebates as unnecessary and a form of market distortion.
Some Republicans argue that consumers should choose their own vehicles based on market demand, without government interference. But one key driver is the Republicans’ traditional support for the fossil fuel industry, which has led to scepticism towards alternative fuel vehicles like EVs. As mentioned earlier the oil and gas lobby has also had a significant influence on Republican politicians, shaping their views on EVs. Many big oil companies are located in Republican strongholds such as Texas and exert a lot of influence on that part of the country.
On the other hand, the Democrats tend to look at EVs from an environmental point of view. They prioritize environmental protection and combating climate change, which aligns with the emissions-reducing benefits of EVs. They also see EVs as a key part of transitioning towards a greener and more sustainable transportation system. Linked into this is the democratic advocacy for renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, which can be integrated with EV charging infrastructure. Taken together these two factors provide an holistic approach to energy and transportation policy that supports the promotion of EVs.
Overall, the partisan divide on EV ownership in the United States is rooted in differing political ideologies regarding government intervention, environmental protection, and energy sources. To address this divide and promote wider acceptance of EVs, it may be necessary to find common ground and emphasise the shared benefits of sustainable transportation options for all Americans.
So what is causing this partisan divide?
Unsurprisingly enough the media plays a significant role in shaping public perception and attitudes towards electric vehicles. Conservative-leaning media outlets (such as Fox News and Newsmax) may portray EVs as costly, unreliable, and a threat to traditional industries, influencing Republican views on the technology. Liberal-leaning media (CNN, MSNBC), on the other hand, may highlight the environmental benefits of EVs and promote their adoption, shaping Democratic support for the technology.
Our good friends, Big Oil, are also trying to muddy the waters. The fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in maintaining its dominance in the transportation sector and may actively lobby against EV adoption. These lobbying efforts can influence politicians, especially those aligned with the Republican party, to oppose policies that support electric vehicles. President Biden’s support for the IRA bill was almost derailed by Republican senators who rallied to vote against it. Ironically enough many of those same politicians have benefitted from the money from this Act in their respective states.
There’s also a cultural aspect to this.
Some individuals, particularly those in conservative circles, may be sceptical of new technologies and prefer traditional, tried-and-true methods. “This country was built on oil and gas and I see no reason why we should stop using it”. Democrats, on the other hand, may be more open to embracing new technologies and innovations, including electric vehicles, as a means of addressing challenges to society and the environment. The link between public health and air pollution has long been established. Electric vehicles reduce air pollution and increase public health. This has a knock-on effect on the countri’s financial situation - especially in countries with socialised healthcare.
Overall, a combination of media influence, lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry, and cultural attitudes towards technology and innovation contribute to the partisan divide on EV ownership in the United States. Understanding these factors can help policymakers and advocates navigate the complexities of promoting sustainable transportation options for all Americans.
So what does this mean for EV ownership in the US?
Well, the data I referred to earlier from Hannah Richie at Sustainability By The Numbers indicate that about 16% of Republicans believe that the cost of running an EV is more predictable than a fossil-fuelled car, compared with over 40% of Democrats. Similarly, only 40% of Republicans believe EVs lead to cleaner air and protect people’s health compared with around 70% of Democrats.
When asked “When do you expect to buy an Electric car?” 46% of Democrats said ‘within the next 5 years’ but 39% of Republicans said ‘Never’. Altogether 85% of Democrats think they’ll buy an EV sometime within the next 15 years whereas only 51% of Republicans think they’ll purchase one within the same time frame.
While it’s easy to put the blame for this on partisan politics and the influence of Big Oil (And those are both valid sources of resistance). I think a lot of this comes down to whether you think that being ‘forced’ to buy an EV is good or bad. I think that for a lot of Democrats, they frame this as ‘The government is putting the people first by mandating the better solution, in the same way as they did with seat belts and smoking bans”. Whereas the Republicans are looking at this from the point of view of ‘The government is restricting my freedom to buy whatever I want and I can’t have the government restricting my freedom. This is America, after all. ’Land of the free’”
This is a debate which will continue for a long, long time.