In the past few years, electric vehicles (EVs) have exploded in prevalence because of their higher efficiency in comparison to traditional gas-powered cars, which require expensive fuel that contributes to global warming when combusted. Although they have dramatically grown in popularity since their introduction to the market, there are many conflicting opinions on if they’re worth the hype. Some environmentalists rally behind the EV movement while others push back because of concerns regarding their production. Others protest about how the resources needed for the manufacturing of EVs are often collected by exploiting resources and workers in foreign countries to maximize profits. Both concerns are valid, but changes need to be made to the transportation sector to decrease the absurd amount of emissions it produces. Instead of pushing against the introduction of EVs, consumers should focus on solving new problems and increasing efficiency to eliminate the downsides of this new technology. EVs have potential to make significant and lasting changes in transportation, but their success depends on cost, policy, and how they’re viewed by consumers. To maximize the benefit they can offer, individuals should support their introduction, pay attention to the problems they present, and demand necessary changes.

Section 1: Environmental Impact

The greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth’s atmosphere have been accumulating at an accelerated rate in the past few centuries, causing an appropriately-named greenhouse effect that amplifies the speed at which the temperature of the planet increases. This is mostly due to anthropogenic reasons, and time has been ticking to reduce the emissions of GHGs before the effects of global warming turn catastrophic. Fortunately, more people are aware of climate change than ever, and as a result, there is a widespread interest in decreasing the amount of emissions people produce from their diets, clothes, and transportation. Transportation made up more than 22% of worldwide emissions in 2019, as most methods of transportation involve the combustion of fuel, which releases carbon dioxide, one of the gases that traps heat within the Earth’s atmosphere (CO₂ emissions from transport). Concern about global warming has motivated people to reconsider transportation methods, and there has been a demand for vehicles that produce less GHGs, such as electric vehicles. Electric vehicles store energy in batteries and use that to propel the car forward instead of producing energy from the combustion of fuel, so they don’t contribute to global warming as much as traditional cars with an internal combustion engine.

Most electric cars are charged in garages overnight and use electricity instead of gasoline to power movement. This results in no tailpipe emissions, but the extent of its friendliness to the environment depends on how the electricity is generated, which varies by region. Electricity generated through clean sources such as solar, wind, and nuclear, will have a drastically lower carbon footprint than electricity generated by the combustion of fossil fuels. Generating one kilowatt-hour of electricity produces an estimated equivalent of 820 grams of CO2 from burning coal, while solar and nuclear only produce 41-48 and 12 grams respectively (Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Electricity). Using electricity to charge a car in an area that depends primarily on fossil fuels contributes more to global warming than charging a car with clean energy. That being said, even power plants that burn fossil fuels are more efficient than car engines, because when power is generated from combustion, energy is lost to heat, and more energy is lost as surface area increases, so a single large generator in a power plant loses less heat than multiple individual smaller car engines. The ability for energy to be used efficiently is a major factor in why electric cars are viewed as more environmentally friendly, as only 16-25% of the energy generated by car engines is used to move the wheels and move the car forward (Where the Energy Goes: Gasoline Vehicles). Meanwhile, in electric cars, 87-91% of electricity consumed is spent on moving the wheels, which is partially due to the fact that when the car brakes, energy is regenerated, whereas in normal cars, momentum lost from braking is entirely converted into heat (Where the Energy Goes: Electric Cars). One of the main reasons electric cars are supported as a solution to climate change is because of how much more efficient they are at converting energy into motion, and higher efficiency results in fewer GHG emissions.

An important factor to acknowledge when discussing the pros and cons of electric vehicles is the lithium-ion batteries they have, which differ from batteries in traditional cars with gas engines because they must have a higher capacity for storing electricity. Lithium-ion batteries enable electric vehicles to store enough charge to drive relatively long distances, but in many ways, they come at a cost. Producing these batteries is incredibly resource-intensive and can have serious impacts on local and global environments. Mining and purifying lithium requires a lot of energy, much of which is generated through the combustion of fossil fuels; “ nearly 15 tonnes” of CO2 is produced “for every tonne of mined lithium” (Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment). Though many emissions are avoided by driving electric cars, which are more efficient than typical combustion engines, it is crucial to be aware of any negative impacts they may have on the environment. Additionally, lithium mining can have impacts other than just the emission of carbon dioxide, as it can adversely affect local ecosystems. Paying attention to environmental impacts outside of emissions is valuable because while measurements of GHGs are essential in monitoring global warming, other factors affect wildlife and habitats. Lithium mining can result in “water loss and contamination, ground destabilisation, and biodiversity loss,” which can have catastrophic impacts on nearby ecosystems (Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment). Both the GHGs emitted from the production of lithium batteries and changes to local ecosystems play a role in climate change, and examining all environmental factors is important when comparing gas-powered cars and electric cars. To decrease the environmental burden of electric vehicles, more attention should be paid to recycling these materials, especially as “[j]ust 5% of lithium-ion batteries are being recycled” as of 2021 (Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment). In addition, over “90% of cobalt and nickel” in these batteries “can be easily removed,” further emphasizing how problematic it is that recycling rates are so low. However, as technology has advanced, lithium mining and processing has been refined, and improvement will continue as time goes on (Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment). Though electric vehicles produce less GHGs on the road than engines that run on fossil fuels, consumers should be aware of the difference in effects they have on the environment during manufacturing as well. Being conscious of environmental impact during the entire lifespan of a vehicle is necessary to make an informed decision, and widespread attention on the negatives of lithium-ion batteries can catalyze improvements that make EVs an even better option.

EVs have their fair share of disadvantages when it comes to environmental footprint, but the amount of emissions avoided during transportation is a factor significant enough to support it as a choice superior to cars with internal combustion engines. Electric cars are vastly more efficient than gas cars because no energy is lost as heat and they have the ability to recycle energy usually lost when braking. However, the extent to how clean the electricity used by EVs is depends on how that electricity is generated, which varies from region to region. Nevertheless, electric cars’ higher efficiency beats out gas-powered cars regardless of the method used to generate the power they use. That being said, the lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles are resource-intensive to produce, which is important to consider when comparing environmental impact. Hopefully, as EVs become more prevalent, their sales will fund further research about producing these rechargeable batteries in a more efficient manner and with less waste. If GHG emissions aren’t controlled and skyrocket as they have been since the Industrial Revolution, there will be serious repercussions that devastate wildlife, agriculture, and the habitats of both humans and animals. Combating climate change is a responsibility that everyone bears, so investigating ways to decrease anthropogenic emissions is critical. Though they warrant improvement, electric vehicles are an alternative that can greatly reduce the emissions produced from transportation.

Section 2: Social Cost

When it comes to buying any product, especially new ones, environmental impact isn’t the only thing to take into consideration. Using a new set of materials can have unintended consequences, and many of them don’t directly affect consumers, especially those in the financial position to buy EVs. It is the responsibility of the consumer to research how the manufacturing process of the product they buy can affect others, because even though they aren’t directly impacting other people, people can be hurt because of their consumption. Buying a product sponsors the manner it is made in, as the money spent on the item goes toward the established process and the people who perpetuate it. Unlike watching a strike in one’s hometown or hearing about it on the news, impoverished countries often don’t get the widespread press coverage they deserve, forced to suffer as a consequence of the actions of consumers who haven’t done the research (or don’t care). The production of electric vehicles can be destructive to local regions by sucking up resources, polluting the environment, forcing people from their homes, and sending children to work for long hours with little pay. Those looking to purchase a new vehicle are in a position of financial power, and they have a moral obligation to consider who they’re giving that power to and how it affects others when they purchase a new vehicle.

As mentioned previously, lithium extraction is incredibly resource-intensive, but its burden on the environment is not the only problem. The mining and processing of lithium has a negative impact on the local community in the areas it is harvested from, which is especially problematic in developing countries, which is where resource extraction tends to occur. Lithium mining and processing uses large quantities of water, as “just a tonne of lithium requires up to 2 million litres of water” to extract, which can be devastating to local populations (“Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment”). In Chile’s Atacama Desert, mining companies have drained “65 per cent of the region’s water” as of 2018, which can hurt local farmers, especially in a desert where “some communities already have to get water driven in from elsewhere” (Gersony). It might not seem like someone buying a new Tesla means that they’re putting financial pressure on farmers in Chile, but it is only because of the demand for lithium and the tolerance of these practices that the lives of these people are being invaded by foreign companies. That being said, it’s not as simple as just using less water, as methods involving evaporation are an essential part of lithium extraction. More sustainable techniques should be investigated, but until better methods are reasonable to adopt, companies disrupting local lives by draining them of their natural resources should invest in public solutions to the problems they cause. Additionally, lithium operations cause problems other than water usage, many of which do have simple solutions. In one region in Argentina affected by lithium mining, locals expressed their distress about the projects, saying that they “have contaminated streams used by humans[, livestock, and] crop irrigation” (Katwala). Allowing chemicals used for processing to infiltrate local environments and hurt native citizens is careless and unacceptable, and it should not be normalized for a company to suck up a region’s natural resources and then proceed to poison local waters. It is not acceptable to barge into foreign nations, especially those that struggle financially, and sap them of their natural resources, offering no compensation or seeking a more sustainable alternative. 

Becoming increasingly clear is that the problems caused by the production of electric vehicles, and most objects of consumption in general, is not necessarily because of the materials being gathered, but how their production is monitored. This is further illustrated in the manufacturing of graphite, which is used in many lithium-ion batteries due to its efficiency as an anode. The recent growth in demand in graphite, combined with a lack of regulation, is an unfortunate combination for those unlucky enough to live in areas where graphite is produced. In 2016, a report by the Washington Post enlightened readers on how the mass production of graphite has influenced the lives of those living near graphite factories when they spoke to villagers in five towns in China. The lack of regulation on these graphite production companies led to locals reporting “sparkling night air, damaged crops, homes and belongings covered in soot, [and] polluted drinking water” (Whoriskey). It is incredibly alarming that the factories of these different towns feel comfortable in disrupting the lives of locals to such an extent that the night air glitters with the graphite embedded in it. Locals have done nothing to deserve the health risks that arise from constantly inhaling airborne graphite particles and ingesting it in their water or the financial burden of ruined harvests as a result of pollution. Increasingly worrying is the fact that this is facilitated by authorities; instead of trying to remedy the problem, local governments are more interested in defending the exploitative corporations that rake in money than the villagers being mistreated by their practices. According to the Post report, cleanup efforts have been unsuccessful because “local authorities are closely allied with company officials” and refuse to take action (Whoriskey). Even worse is that authorities not only turned a blind eye, but “plant managers and party officials sometimes sternly discouraged journalists from speaking with villagers,” and at three villages, “the taxi carrying Post journalists was followed.” The fact that aggressors felt comfortable pursuing reporters on several occasions exemplifies the blatant corruption in the way these companies are being monitored. Consumers should demand a change in how the production is regulated, because without external pressure, these corrupt systems cannot be expected to change. It is clear that the problem with graphite factories lies not with the actual product, but the policy surrounding its production. 

Factories and mines can be damaging to those living around them, but the exploitation of native people also seeps into the way employees are treated. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which is rich with cobalt, “produces at least 50 percent of the world’s cobalt,” which is a key component of many lithium-ion batteries (“This is What We Die For”). In the DRC, workers are pressured to work long hours with minimal pay for the extraction of cobalt, which even extends to children, who spend all day doing hard physical labor in unsafe conditions. In 2016, Amnesty International released a report in which they spoke directly to “children as young as seven” in the DRC that worked in the mines, who reported “work[ing] for up to 12 hours a day in the mines, carrying heavy loads,” only earning one to two dollars per day (“This is What We Die For”). This is completely avoidable, but by short-changing employees, those in power can inflate their profit margins. This demonstrates how important it is to call attention to injustice, because though companies can certainly afford to provide safe working conditions, if nobody makes them, they have no reason to pay their employees a reasonable salary instead of stuffing their pockets. Of course, people don’t realize that when they upgrade to a new phone or buy a new EV that they could be subjecting children to exhausting and dangerous working conditions with little reward. In fact, even some of those that know of the exploitation of workers in the DRC likely don’t think that their purchases contribute to exploitation, because humans tend to think that they are the exception. Surely, they believe, only shady weird companies operating in a foreign country use cobalt that was mined by small children. However, battery makers that buy this cobalt claim to have sold their batteries to many popular brands including “Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Sony, Daimler and Volkswagen” (“This is What We Die For”). The production of major electronics uses cobalt mined by these children, who go through strenuous physical labor for a measly salary that barely can sustain them. In a world where rechargeable batteries are only growing in demand, consumers must catalyze a change in the practices of the companies they buy from. At this point in society, it is not reasonable to expect people to stop buying new devices with rechargeable batteries altogether, as they are an integral part of modern life that many rely on. Instead, customers should demand a change in the practices of the companies they buy from, because sourcing their materials from mines using child labor is not something that consumers should knowingly tolerate. 

In addition to mistreating their workers, cobalt mines in the DRC have disrupted the lives of local citizens by forcing them out of their homes. In 2016, a copper and cobalt mine reopened in Kolwezi without the consultation of the nearby community, forcibly removing people from their homes. Donat Kambola, the president of IBGDH, an organization dedicated to protecting human rights, reported in an article by Amnesty International that “[p]eople are being forcibly evicted, or threatened or intimidated into leaving their homes, or misled into consenting to derisory settlements,” with little reasoning and no equitable alternative. The affected area consists of a developed neighborhood where about 39,000 people live, but in the eyes of the project operators, which include a mining company owned by the DRC, the value of the precious minerals that are embedded in the ground is greater than the value of the lives of the residents (“Forced Evictions at Industrial Cobalt and Copper Mines in the DRC”). Citizens were offered compensation to move, but it made up only a fraction of the value of their existing homes. One victim told reporters that they “‘had a large house, with electricity, water’” before the mine reopened, but after agreeing to relocate, could only afford “‘a small house […] with the compensation,’” with “‘almost no electricity,’” and having no option but to “‘drink water from wells’” (“Forced Evictions at Industrial Cobalt and Copper Mines in the DRC”). A different former resident explained that she had no choice but to move, as explosions from the mine “caused cracks so large she feared her home would collapse” (“Forced Evictions at Industrial Cobalt and Copper Mines in the DRC”). It is concerning that the DRC would allow, let alone contribute, to the abuse of these citizens, who have had their lives destroyed by these mines. These residents have worked hard to build their homes, and through no fault of their own, they were pressured into uprooting their lives and relocating under worse conditions. The treatment of local citizens is appalling, and allowing it to go unchecked only encourages similar practices. As it is clear that corporations will exploit as much as they can and governments are complicit in that exploitation, it is up to consumers to call for change.

The manufacturing of electric vehicles relies on materials that are not being produced in an equitable manner, and unless action is taken, that will never change. Though it is arguable that regulating these factories and mines is the responsibility of local governments, it is clear that they are not doing enough to protect their citizens. As a result, it falls on the consumer to ensure that they are not supporting companies that screw over innocent people, because it is a consequence of their consumption. Continuing to support companies that take advantage of local resources in a way that harms the native communities will perpetuate their practices, so they must be held accountable for their actions if they’re expected to change. Holding these corporations accountable can mean avoiding their products, but there aren’t always a range of sustainable and ethical options for every product. These problems are not unique to electric vehicles, and cars are a necessity for billions of people, so most people don’t have the option of not buying one. What customers can do, then, is speak out on injustice, which grows attention towards their cause. With their reputation on the line, companies are more likely to make changes to satisfy their target audience, because isolating their customers means they won’t get paid. The social cost of EVs is significant, but the same can be said for almost any purchase made in everyday life. Consumers have a responsibility with each purchase to do the research and call out inequality wherever necessary.

Section 3: Current State

Electric vehicles may be better for the environment than their traditional alternatives, but they won’t make a dent in transportation emissions if nobody wants to drive them. Resistance to EVs is contributed to by many factors, including finances, politics, and faith that the US will properly adapt to their introduction. The US is obligated to make decisions that decrease their environmental burden, as they are the second largest contributor of CO2 emissions globally (Ritchie). Since the transportation sector makes up a substantial portion of GHG emissions, the US should promote the adoption of EVs as people buy new vehicles, which means providing subsidies, introducing policy to phase out gas-powered cars, and implementing sufficient infrastructure for EVs, such as charging ports. This encourages individuals that might otherwise choose a gas-powered engine for their next new vehicle to choose an EV instead, which has the potential to greatly decrease national emissions on a large scale.

A major factor for prospective EV owners is cost, as new technology has high costs, and electric vehicles are not the most affordable option on the market. For some, eliminating the costs of gas is enough to warrant the purchase of an EV, but the higher initial investment turns many away. To promote the adoption of EVs, which would dramatically decrease national transport emissions, the US government is granting subsidies for buyers of new electric vehicles. These credits start at $2500 and can reach up to $7500 as battery capacity increases, which can be extremely helpful for those on the fence about purchasing a new EV (“Credits for new clean vehicles purchased in 2023 or after”). These tax credits are dependent on a few factors, including the income of the recipient, cost of the vehicle, battery capacity, and if the vehicle fulfills designated mineral and battery requirements (“Credits for new clean vehicles purchased in 2023 or after”). It is responsible to include mineral and battery requirements to the list of qualifications, as they have the tendency to do the most harm when it comes to EV production. Including other qualifications is also wise, as they maximize the budget allocated to supporting the national implementation of EVs. Restrictions on buyers’ incomes prevent government funds from going to individuals that can already afford an EV and from being spent on needlessly expensive luxury cars. 

To further support those that are hesitant on purchasing a new EV due to financial status, the Biden-Harris administration is providing additional tax credits for installing EV chargers. The Biden-Harris Administration reported that its plan to increase accessibility to EV charging ports uses “[p]ublic dollars [to] supplement private investment by filling gaps, serving rural and hard to reach locations” (“Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration”). Using federal funds as a secondary means for installing chargers is an efficient use of resources because it just helps the regions that need it most. Outside of major cities, a greater quantity of EV chargers are desired, so the government is granting “a credit of up to 30 percent of the cost of installation” for individuals and businesses installing “charging equipment […] for public or private use” (Ngo). This not only rewards EV owners, but can also encourage others to purchase an EV because of the increased access to charging stations. Additionally, charging ports are a one-time purchase that won’t need to be replaced between electric vehicles, making them a long-term investment that many people will benefit from. The effort of implementing enough chargers in public spaces included convincing Tesla to modify some of their chargers in a way that allows all EVs to use them (“Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration”). Eliminating brand exclusivity early on is a big deal, because if every brand made chargers that were only compatible with their own models, more chargers would have to be built and finding the right one would be frustrating for EV owners. It is impressive that the US government is making the implementation of EVs a priority, and working towards proper infrastructure and giving financial incentives is an effective way to encourage their adoption. However, these benefits only work if people actually want an EV to begin with. 

Whether or not someone is interested in owning an EV at all depends on a multitude of factors, and different demographics tend to hold different positions. Pew Research Center surveyed 10,329 US adults in late Spring last year to compare the opinions of several demographics, including age, political affiliation, and population concentration. Overall, the likelihood of someone considering purchasing an EV increases as age decreases and as consumers lean politically left (Spencer et al.). This is likely due to the heightened concern for the environment in young people and leftists in comparison to the general population. This trend continues when comparing responses from Republicans and Democrats regarding belief that the US will incorporate sufficient infrastructure, such as charging stations. Overall, 18% more Democrats than Republicans reported feeling extremely/very confident that adequate infrastructure will be put in place, though US citizens as a whole are generally dubious, with 53% of adults reporting that they are not too/not at all confident that proper infrastructure will be built (Spencer et al.). This uncertainty is likely a source of apprehension for those who might otherwise consider purchasing an EV of their own, but choose not to because they don’t believe they will have adequate support. This is reflected when contrasting the reported likelihood to consider purchasing an EV between the average US adult and those that have faith in the implementation of sufficient infrastructure. While only 38% of US citizens reported feeling very/somewhat likely to consider buying an EV, 68% of those that reported feeling extremely/very confident in the US government’s initiative were somewhat/very likely to seriously consider purchasing an EV (Spencer et al.). Since people’s inclination to buy their own EV is correlated with their faith in the development of proper infrastructure, it would be wise for the government to consistently deliver on their commitments in a timely fashion, which will not only provide resources for EV owners, but also reinforce their credibility when it comes to future projects.

Phasing out gas-powered cars in favor of electric vehicles will take time, but the process will be accelerated with financial incentives and favorable opinions from potential consumers. The perspectives of US citizens and promotions by the government are crucial when considering how quickly EVs will be adapted in the country, because individuals won’t change their patterns of consumption without reason. Encouraging the purchase of EVs is crucial for a market that is relatively new, as it shows car manufacturers that there is demand for electric vehicles. This will promote further development of EV technology, which means driving down production costs, improving efficiency, and investigating alternatives to harmful components such as lithium in batteries.

EVs are not perfect, but they offer more positives than negatives and have the potential to dramatically reduce the environmental burden of transportation, which comprises much of global emissions. Governments have an obligation to promote the integration of EVs, and providing subsidies, installing infrastructure, and implementing proper policy are wise methods to foster a brand new market. Problems regarding the production and implementation of EVs can and should be solved by holding manufacturers and governments responsible instead of dismissing them entirely, because they are better than the alternative. Individuals should use their power as voters and consumers to pressure these powerful groups into making responsible decisions instead of the choices that are easiest or most profitable.

Here is my full English essay, which includes the first two sections that I’ve posted here, along with the final section and the intro and conclusion. It’s baffling to me that this is technically longer than my tuberculosis essay (by about a page; more if you don’t count the abstract), as I feel like I spent way longer and put way more effort into that one. Completing this paper in three different sections is likely a huge factor to its length, though, as I had to do an introduction and conclusion for each part.

I learned a lot writing this paper, and I’m happy I chose this topic! I was afraid that I would have to write my research paper on a completely different topic, as my professor wanted us to write it on what a “good job” looks like to us, and how to incorporate rest and play into our lives. Fortunately, though, she let me choose a different topic, so here we are! I hope you’ve learned a lot, and stay tuned to learn with me!

“Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Electricity.” World Nuclear Association, Oct. 2022, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity.aspx. 

Climate Watch (2023) – with major processing by Our World in Data. “CO₂ emissions from transport” [dataset]. Climate Watch, “Greenhouse gas emissions by sector” [original data]. Retrieved April 3, 2024 from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-transport

“Credits for New Clean Vehicles Purchased in 2023 or After.” http://Www.irs.gov, IRS, 22 June 2023, http://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after.

“Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Standards and Major Progress for a Made-in-America National Network of Electric Vehicle Chargers.” The White House, The United States Government, 15 Feb. 2023, http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/15/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-standards-and-major-progress-for-a-made-in-america-national-network-of-electric-vehicle-chargers/. 

“Forced Evictions at Industrial Cobalt and Copper Mines in the DRC.” Amnesty International, 31 Oct. 2023, http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/09/drc-cobalt-and-copper-mining-for-batteries-leading-to-human-rights-abuses/. 

Gersony, Laura. “Hotspots H2O: In Chile’s Lithium Mines, Climate and Environment Are Dueling Priorities.” Circle of Blue, 9 Dec. 2022, http://www.circleofblue.org/2022/hotspots/hotspots-h2o-in-chiles-lithium-mines-climate-and-environment-are-dueling-priorities/. 

Igini, Martina. “Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment.” Earth.Org, 5 Mar. 2024, earth.org/electric-cars-environment/. 

Katwala, Amit. “The Spiralling Environmental Cost of Our Lithium Battery Addiction.” Wired, Conde Nast, 5 Aug. 2018, http://www.wired.com/story/lithium-batteries-environment-impact/. 

“Major Electronics Brands, Including Apple, Samsung and Sony, Are Failing to Do Basic Checks to Ensure That Cobalt Mined by Child Laborers Has Not Been Used in Their Products, Said Amnesty International and Afrewatch in a Report Published Today.” Amnesty International USA, 15 Jan. 2016, http://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/this-is-what-we-die-for-human-rights-abuses-in-the-democratic-republic-of-the-congo-power-the-global-trade-in-cobalt/. 

Ngo, Madeleine. “E.V. Charging Tax Credits Will Extend Across the U.S.” New York Times, 01/22 2024. ProQuest; SIRS Issues Researcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2919606850?accountid=163174.

Ritchie, Hannah. “Who Emits the Most CO2 Today?” Our World in Data, 3 Oct. 2019, ourworldindata.org/annual-co2-emissions.

Spencer, Alison, et al. “How Americans View Electric Vehicles.” Pew Research Center, 13 July 2023, http://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/13/how-americans-view-electric-vehicles/.

“Where the Energy Goes: Electric Cars.” http://Www.Fueleconomy.Gov – the Official Government Source for Fuel Economy Information, US Department of Energy, https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml. 

“Where the Energy Goes: Gasoline Vehicles.” http://Www.Fueleconomy.Gov – the Official Government Source for Fuel Economy Information, US Department of Energy, http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml. 

Whoriskey, Peter. “In Your Phone, in Their Air.” Washington Post, 10/02 2016. ProQuest; SIRS Issues Researcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2262759360?accountid=163174.