The Biden-Harris Zero-Emissions Freight Strategy: Tilting at Windmills

The Biden-Harris Administration’s announcement of a national goal to establish a zero-emissions freight sector, alongside a hefty allocation of nearly $1.5 billion for the transition to zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles, presents a textbook case of policy driven more by ideological ambition than by practical realities. This plan not only assumes a smooth technological transition but also purports to address environmental justice concerns, all under the guise of achievable, near-future targets. A deeper analysis, however, reveals a series of fundamentally flawed assumptions and misdirected priorities that merit a critical examination.

The strategy to overhaul the entire freight sector to zero emissions rests on a precarious assumption that the requisite technology is just around the corner. However, the reality of zero-emissions technology in heavy-duty freight—spanning trucks, trains, and ships—is far from ready for widespread deployment. Electric trucks, for example, are still grappling with severe limitations in range and load capacity, not to mention the monumental infrastructure challenges associated with nationwide charging stations, which must somehow proliferate across the vast American landscape within a couple of decades.

Building on this momentum, the Biden-Harris Administration is today announcing a first-ever national goal to transition to a zero-emissions freight sector for truck, rail, aviation and marine, along with a commitment to develop a national zero-emissions freight strategy. This whole-of-government strategy includes new federal investments announced today, continued engagement with stakeholders on zero-emissions freight infrastructure, and forthcoming action plans on each of the freight segments. The strategy will prioritize actions to address air pollution hot spots and tackle the climate crisis, mobilizing a broad range of government resources, and reflect public participation and meaningful community engagement, furthering the President’s commitment to environmental justice for all. This new commitment to zero-emissions freight aligns with and supports President Biden’s existing goals for a carbon pollution-free energy sector by 2035 and for achieving net-zero emissions from the transportation sector by 2050. It also aligns with the Administration’s commitment to work with other countries to identify pathways and implementation actions that enable zero-emissions medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to reach 30 percent of new sales in 2030 and 100 percent of new sales by 2040.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-sets-first-ever-national-goal-of-zero-emissions-freight-sector-announces-nearly-1-5-billion-to-support-transition-to-zero-emission-heavy-duty-vehicles/#:~:text=This%20new%20commitment%20to%20zero,the%20transportation%20sector%20by%202050
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-sets-first-ever-national-goal-of-zero-emissions-freight-sector-announces-nearly-1-5-billion-to-support-transition-to-zero-emission-heavy-duty-vehicles/#:~:text=This%20new%20commitment%20to%20zero,the%20transportation%20sector%20by%202050

The idea of converting maritime shipping to zero-emissions in 26 years is so absurd that it cannot be parodied. Nuclear powered ships might do the trick, but I doubt that’s what their thinking.

Economically, the costs of such a transformation are staggeringly under-discussed. Transitioning to zero-emission vehicles isn’t merely a matter of swapping out old trucks for new ones; it involves a complete restructuring of the supply chain, logistics, and energy consumption models. The financial burden placed on the freight industry will undoubtedly trickle down to consumers through increased costs of goods, contradicting any purported economic benefits of such a policy.

Today’s announcements build on the Administration’s ongoing work across federal agencies to tackle emissions from America’s freight system. 

• Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization: In January 2023, DOE, EPA, DOT, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) jointly released the U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization. Building on this work, the Biden-Haris Administration is coordinating with each of these agencies to draft a series of decarbonization strategies for each segment of the freight system.
• Zero-Emissions Freight Corridor Strategy: Last month, the Joint Office, in collaboration with DOE, DOT, and EPA, released the National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy, a vision for the development of charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure along high-volume freight highways and hubs by 2040. To complement this multi-phase strategy, DOT designated National Electric Vehicle Freight Corridors along the National Highway Freight Network and other key roadways.
• Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: In December 2022, EPA finalized standards to reduce emissions that form smog and soot from Model Year 2027 and later heavy-duty engines and in March 2024, the agency finalized new greenhouse gas emission standards from heavy-duty vehicles for Model Years 2027-2032. The standards will avoid 1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions and provide $13 billion in annualized net benefits to society related to public health, the climate, and savings for truck owners and operators. The final standards will also reduce dangerous air pollution, especially for the 72 million people in the United States who live near truck freight routes, bear the burden of higher levels of pollution, and are more likely to be people of color or come from low-income households.

Wrapped in the noble fantasy cloak of “environmental justice”, this strategy claims to target the reduction of pollution in overburdened communities, promising cleaner air and healthier lives. Yet, one must question the authenticity of these claims against the backdrop of economic repercussions that might follow. The high costs of transitioning to and maintaining zero-emission fleets could exacerbate the economic disparities they aim to mitigate, placing a disproportionate burden on the very communities the policy intends to help. This aspect of the policy seems more like an afterthought designed to appease progressive constituents rather than a genuinely achievable goal.

Throughout the process of building a strategy to implement this new goal to transition to a zero-emissions freight ecosystem, the Biden-Harris Administration will provide opportunities for meaningful engagement from relevant stakeholders, including communities with environmental justice concerns, Tribal Nations, state and local governments, manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles and equipment, fleets and freight operators, and climate and environmental justice organizations. Such engagement will ensure the federal government’s actions to reduce emissions are better targeted, more effective, and reflect the priorities of community groups that have frontline experience with air pollution from the freight sector.

Moreover, the strategy’s environmental claims do not fully account for the upstream and downstream impacts associated with the production and disposal of high-capacity batteries and the still predominantly fossil-fuel-based energy needed to power these new fleets. Thus, while in a few isolated exceptions, local air quality may improve, the global environmental impact could remain unchanged—or worsen.

The Administration’s plan supposedly includes engaging stakeholders from across the spectrum to ensure the smooth implementation of its zero-emissions strategy. However, this appears to be merely mouthing of platitudes rather than a practical approach. The freight industry’s complex web of operators, manufacturers, and end-users has not shown any support for such drastic shifts, especially when driven by top-down government mandates rather than market-driven solutions.

Conclusion

The Biden-Harris zero-emissions freight initiative, with its lofty ambitions and sweeping promises, is emblematic of a broader trend in contemporary environmental policymaking: prioritizing grandiose goals over grounded feasibility studies and economic realism. This plan, rather than being a practical roadmap for any type of environmental improvement, is a political statement intended to signal virtue rather than effectuate its stated goals.

In summary, this “strategy” is nothing more than a modern-day environmental quixote, tilting at windmills of pollution with a lance of impracticality and a shield of buzzwords like “environmental justice.”