Assignment: Analysis Of US Automakers' Role In Climate Chang

Assignment: Analysis of US Automakers' Role in Climate Change and EV Strategy

As an analyst at a Policy Think Tank (choose one between – Brookings Institute, Center for American Progress, Rand Corporation, or Heritage Foundation), you must write a research article on whether US automobile makers should tackle climate change issues. For the article you must conduct analysis about the impact to Global Warning and Greenhouse gases that the Big Three US automobile manufacturers contribute and whether they should seek to mitigate. Your analysis must consider the pros and cons of Electrical Vehicle (EV) manufacturing and make recommendations about whether your assigned company should reduce, continue or expand production of EVs in place of fossil-fuel powered vehicles.

The impetus for this article is to summarize how EV production by US automobile manufacturers impacts climate change and to publish an article on whether the EV production by US manufacturers should be continued at same levels, expanded, or reduced. The period of study is from 2010 to present. ARTICLE MUST INCLUDE (narrative of your analysis with supporting tables, charts and graphs, as appropriate). The article must be no more than 3 pages. The Excel spreadsheet of your computations, stock price analysis, and other work must be submitted as a separate file.

There should be only two files submitted (article and Excel worksheet). (1) The Problem: Provide a brief overview about global warming, climate change, and the Paris Climate Agreement. Discuss how the US compares to other countries in addressing this issue. Outline why your selected Think Tank’s knowledge/experience relates to addressing social problems like Climate Change policy. (2) Impact to Stakeholders. Before and After the Paris Agreement (2010 – present) for the Big Three Detroit Auto Manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Stellantis), conduct analysis of how the following stakeholders may benefit or be harmed from the production of EV vehicles (Answer Q1 from the source case). a. Employees, b. Communities (environment), c. Consumers, and d. Stockholders. (3) Future Focus of US Automakers. After the Paris Agreement (2015), discuss whether US production of EVs has changed and what impact the US makes to the global climate change issue, especially focusing on US light truck production (Answer Q2 from the source case). (4) Evaluation. Based on your analysis that considers the pros and cons of Electrical Vehicle (EV) manufacturing and its advantages and disadvantages to stakeholders, make recommendations about whether your assigned company should reduce, continue or expand production of EVs in place of fossil-fuel powered vehicles.

Article Format. Submit one Microsoft Word file or Adobe (*.pdf) file with all tables, graphs, figures embedded: ï¶ Title page with your name, selected Think Tank, and article title. ï¶ All the sections must be properly labelled using the sections listed above. ï¶ All required sections must be included. ï¶ The article must be written for the target audience and be free of typographical and grammatical errors. ï¶ Include page numbers. ï¶ Consistent font size and type. At least 12 font for text and 11 font for graphs and charts. ï¶ Title page and references are not included in the page count. ï¶ Include references, as appropriate. ï¶ Submit article and Excel file via Canvas before 11:50pm on the due date.

Paper For Above instruction

Title: Analysis of US Automakers' Role in Climate Change and Electric Vehicle Strategies

Introduction

The escalating crisis of climate change has garnered unprecedented global attention, emphasizing the urgent need for industries to adapt sustainable practices. The Paris Climate Agreement, adopted in 2015, exemplifies international efforts to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, primarily through the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. United States' automotive sector, particularly the Big Three automakers—Ford, General Motors (GM), and Stellantis—play significant roles in contributing to national GHG emissions via their reliance on fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. This article examines the impact of these manufacturers’ strategies on climate change, assesses the pros and cons of shifting towards Electric Vehicles (EVs), and provides recommendations for future actions based on analysis from 2010 to the present.

Global Warming, Greenhouse Gases, and International Policies

Global warming results from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from burning fossil fuels. Over the last century, Earth's average temperature has risen by over 1 degree Celsius, leading to severe environmental consequences, including rising sea levels, intensified storms, droughts, and flooding. The Paris Agreement represents a collective global effort; 196 countries committed to reducing GHG emissions with the goal of limiting temperature rise to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to keep it under 1.5°C (UNFCCC, 2015). The United States, historically a substantial emitter, rejoined the agreement under the Biden administration, emphasizing renewable energy and emission reductions.

The US, however, lags behind countries like the European Union and China in implementing robust climate policies. While the US has set targets to achieve net-zero emissions in the auto industry by 2050, actual progress is mixed, hindered by economic, political, and technological challenges (EPA, 2020).

The Auto Industry’s Contribution to Emissions

The transportation sector is the largest contributor to US GHG emissions, with passenger vehicles responsible for approximately 17% of total emissions (EPA, 2019). Internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, powered by gasoline or diesel, emit significant CO2 and other pollutants. Automakers, especially GM and Ford, have historically produced large volumes of trucks and SUVs, which are notable for their high emissions profiles (U.S. DOT, 2018). This reliance underscores the imperative to transition to cleaner alternatives.

The Shift to Electric Vehicles

Recent strategies by automakers aim to mitigate their environmental impact by investing heavily in EV technology. GM’s announcement to pivot towards an all-electric future, with plans to eliminate tailpipe emissions from new light-duty vehicles by 2035 and achieve carbon neutrality in operations by 2040, exemplifies this shift (GM, 2021). A $27 billion investment over five years underscores their commitment to EV development, including battery manufacturing and charging infrastructure.

Pros of EV Adoption

  • Environmental Benefits: EVs emit no tailpipe GHGs, reducing transportation-related emissions (Wang et al., 2020). When charged with renewable energy, their carbon footprint diminishes substantially (Zhou & Tol, 2019).
  • Technological Innovation and Economic Growth: Investments in EV and battery technology can promote innovation, job creation, and global competitiveness (Boudette, 2021).
  • Regulatory Compliance: Automakers can meet increasingly strict emissions standards globally, avoiding penalties and boosting brand image (ICCT, 2021).

Cons of EV Adoption

  • Charging Infrastructure and Consumer Cost: High upfront costs of EVs, averaging around $45,000, limit affordability (U.S. News, 2022). Insufficient charging stations present adoption barriers (Cai et al., 2021).
  • Environmental and Social Concerns: Extraction of key materials like cobalt and lithium for batteries raises ethical, environmental, and social issues (Amnesty International, 2016). Mining practices, especially in the DRC, are linked to human rights violations and ecological damage (Tse et al., 2021).
  • Electricity Generation Source: The environmental benefits of EVs depend heavily on the electricity grid mix. Regions reliant on coal-fired power produce higher emissions during charging (Hansen et al., 2020).

Impact of Automakers’ EV Strategies Post-2015

Following the Paris Agreement, US automakers accelerated EV initiatives. GM’s $27 billion investment aims to produce millions of EVs and battery packs, with plans for new manufacturing plants (GM, 2021). However, the proportion of EVs in the overall fleet remains low compared to traditional vehicles, which still dominate sales. Efforts are more prominent in California and other states with strict regulations; elsewhere, adoption remains sluggish due to cost and infrastructure challenges (NHTSA, 2022).

Stakeholder Analysis

Employees: The shift to EVs promises new opportunities in battery technology and charging infrastructure but risks job losses in traditional engine manufacturing and auto parts related to ICE vehicles (Cao et al., 2020).

Communities: Regions with mining operations for battery materials face environmental degradation and social issues like child labor and pollution, raising ethical concerns (Amnesty International, 2016).

Consumers: While EVs offer lower operating costs and potential environmental benefits, high purchase prices and charging challenges may reduce adoption rates (U.S. News, 2022).

Stockholders: Investing in EV technology can position automakers competitively, but the high costs and uncertain market response pose financial risks (Boudette, 2021).

Future Outlook and Recommendations

Since 2015, US production of EVs has increased gradually, especially in luxury and commercial segments. However, overall EV market penetration remains limited. Governments’ policies, consumer acceptance, and infrastructure development are crucial for mass adoption. Automakers should aim to expand investments in battery technology and charging networks while addressing ethical concerns related to raw material extraction. A balanced approach, emphasizing both technological advancement and social responsibility, is advisable.

Given the environmental benefits and increasing market trends, automakers should continue and expand EV production but implement strategies to mitigate supply chain issues and social impacts. Policymakers and industry stakeholders must collaborate to build sustainable infrastructure and regulate responsible sourcing of critical minerals. This strategic expansion aligns with global climate commitments and fosters long-term business resilience.

References

  • Amnesty International. (2016). "Cobalt: The Hidden Cost of the Electric Car." Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/cobalt-the-hidden-cost-of-the-electric-car/
  • Boudette, N. E. (2021). "GM's Electric Dreams." The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/business/gm-electric-vehicles.html
  • Cai, H., Zhao, J., & Li, B. (2021). "Charging Infrastructure and Consumer Adoption of Electric Vehicles." Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 15(3), 245-259.
  • EPA. (2019). "Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector Emissions." Environmental Protection Agency.
  • EPA. (2020). "U.S. Climate Action Progress Report." Environmental Protection Agency.
  • GM. (2021). "Fighting Climate Change with Electric Vehicles." General Motors Press Release. https://www.gm.com/commitments/electric-vehicles
  • ICCT. (2021). "Global Automotive Emissions Standards." International Council on Clean Transportation.
  • NHTSA. (2022). "Automotive Trends and Policy Impacts." National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
  • Tse, H. B., et al. (2021). "Environmental and Social Impacts of Battery Material Mining." Environmental Science & Policy, 123, 74-83.
  • Wang, Y., et al. (2020). "The Environmental Benefits of Electric Vehicles." Energy Policy, 137, 111145.
  • Zhou, D., & Tol, R. S. J. (2019). "Electric Vehicles and Emissions Reduction." Environmental Research Letters, 14(3), 034011.

Related Assignments