Electric vehicle makers should reduce, reuse and recycle their raw materials

An increase in the use of electric vehicles is one important way to combat climate change. But to be a sustainable solution, EVs should be subject to a concept called extended producer responsibility, a program that uses incentives to make producers of goods responsible for reducing the packaging of those goods and increasing their ability to be recycled.

An effective EPR program would force EV manufacturers like Tesla to address the impacts of EV production — like making sure that obtaining the raw materials needed has less of an environmental, public health and social impact than fossil fuels. As the materials used in EVs are also nonrenewable resources, design and production methods should minimize the required amounts of these materials.

The big difference between the manufacture of EVs and traditional internal-combustion vehicles is the raw materials and methods used to produce the battery pack and electric motor — rare earth elements, heavy metals and chemicals, land and water resources. The processes to extract and produce the materials are energy-intensive, resulting in a heavy carbon footprint and significant impact to the environment and communities where raw materials are extracted.

The natural resources include lithium, cobalt, bauxite, copper and manganese. Though the United States currently relies on imports of lithium for lithium-ion batteries, there are plans to substantially expand lithium mining in the U.S. Obtaining lithium uses controversial methods of open pit mining, requires large swaths of land and a lot of groundwater, and creates significant carbon dioxide emissions. Cobalt is extracted by similar processes, potentially exposing miners and nearby residents to toxic material. There are significant “environmental justice” concerns about the impact of extraction on indigenous peoples and their lands, as well as the destruction of unique habitat. At the beginning of production, EVs can have an even greater climate impact than traditional cars.

EV batteries present another challenge: dismantling them for reuse and recycling their components rather than disposing them as hazardous waste. Reuse and recycling are energy-intensive and involve complex chemical processes that create waste byproducts. An EPR program puts the burden on EV producers to use materials and designs that make battery recycling and reuse feasible and sound, environmentally and economically.

During use, EVs offer the environmental advantage we all expect. EVs emit little to no greenhouse gases. What matters is the source of power used to charge them. EVs powered by energy from fossil fuels will not mitigate climate change; it will merely shift the location of the impact of emissions. When renewable sources are used, impacts of production and end-of-life are offset by the lack of emissions not only by the EV, but also in the generation of power used to run them. But it is putting the cart before the horse to rely on EVs charged by a nonrenewable power grid, even one moving to carbon neutrality, which is where we are today. Makers of EVs must foster the construction and operation of energy infrastructure and charging stations delivering electricity produced by renewable sources to charge EVs.

We must mitigate the impacts of the production and end-of-life of EVs, as well as run them on power generated by renewable sources. This will involve research, investment in innovation and infrastructure, the availability of renewable power, and smart environmental policy. Imposing an EPR program on producers of electric vehicles will make this happen and give us the best chance of fighting climate change.

This guest essay reflects the views of environmental attorney Michael White, an adjunct faculty member at Stony Brook University and vice chairman of the Long Island Regional Planning Council.