Zero-Emission Buses, Human Health, and Environmental Justice

Written by: Maria Düster, Climate Policy Manager

This blog post examines the long-term climate justice impacts of zero-emission buses, ahead of the Charlottesville City Council’s vote on alternative fuels. 

The Charlottesville City Council will be voting on an alternate fuel source for the area transit system (CAT) in the upcoming months. The vote will be a crucial moment for the city’s long-term environmental planning and infrastructure, potentially impacting human and non-human health for decades. C3 recently analyzed three of the potential bus fuels Charlottesville could switch to – certified natural gas, (battery-powered) electricity, and hydrogen – and found that battery electric buses (BEBs) provide not only the most cost-effective option, but also the most environmentally just. Investing in and electrifying our transit system means fewer cars on the road and fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This lowers transportation costs, reduces the human health impacts of pollution, and moves us further towards equitable access to transport.

Centering Transport Justice 

When we think about issues such as energy and transportation, we should always consider the ways in which they intersect with and reproduce various social, environmental, and economic inequalities. C3’s Transit Equity report highlighted that low-income households can spend up to 30% of their income on transportation costs [1]. Energy and transportation equity is inextricably intertwined with housing affordability and cost of living, issues that cities such as Charlottesville and Richmond have and continue to struggle with. 

Right now, the City of Charlottesville is grappling with the fact that many folks in our community do not have adequate access to care and housing. This is symptomatic of decades-long policies that have pushed Black and Brown folks out, prioritized “redevelopment” over community preservation, and depleted an already low affordable housing stock [2]. Many people cannot afford to own a car or pay for gas, insurance, and other related costs. By investing in transit, we make cars less of a necessity and lower a person’s monthly bills in the process. In Richmond, the (CNG-powered!) GRTC bus system is fare-free; considering low-income folks are more likely to rely on public transit to go to work and run errands [3], this is one of the many ways in which policymakers can simultaneously increase access while prioritizing those who need it most. With the upcoming alternate fuels vote, Charlottesville has the opportunity to make living costs more affordable and transportation more accessible, lowering its environmental impact in the process.   

CNG buses and Climate Justice

There is often a sense of urgency regarding climate issues; every day, a new report tells us how the climate is changing, the atmosphere is warming, that we’re running out of time. However, we should aim for climate solutions that are impactful and long-term, not just a temporary band-aid. Certified Natural Gas (CNG) buses provide a speedy climate solution due to their cheaper upfront costs and longer fuel range (as compared to BEB and HCEB buses) [4]. While optimistic estimations show that CNG buses can reduce GHG emissions anywhere from 4-18%, they lead to a 1050%+ increase in carbon monoxide emissions [5]. Natural gas is a fossil fuel; even if these buses immediately reduce emissions vis a vis their diesel counterparts, their fuel is not sustainable and will eventually run out. There are justice considerations as well; the emissions impact of CNG is not distributed fairly, with people who frequently ride the bus bearing the brunt.

In that same vein, the City of Charlottesville purchases carbon offsets from BP as a core way to reduce its carbon footprint. Incorporated into its Climate Action Plan, as well as the ongoing decarbonization study, carbon offsets make up nearly 25% of the City’s emission reductions [5]. While purchasing carbon offsets can [6] reduce GHG emissions on a global scale, they do not address emissions within the city itself. 25% holds a lot of potential; while the City does not necessarily need to stop purchasing offsets, where we spend our money matters. Investing in green technologies that positively impact our community and environment is a win for all.

Conclusion 

Zero-emission buses are not a fix-all to the social and environmental issues in Charlottesville (or elsewhere) but they do represent an actionable step the City can take towards reducing emissions in the local area. They can reduce pollution in the city proper, positively impact human health, and move our city towards more affordable living options. By taking this step, Charlottesville can be a leader in sustainable transportation and climate justice. 

For more info about C3’s Zero-Emissions Buses campaign, click here.

Endnotes:

[1] See page 8.

[2] This is not an exhaustive list. For more information, see the pages linked above, as well as https://mappingcville.com/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/01/us/charlottesville-va-zoning-affordable-housing.html.

[3] See page 19. 

[4] See pages 15-18; Community Climate Collaborative (2023). “Alternative Fuel Buses: What’s the Best Option For Your Transit Agency?” Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a0c67f5f09ca475c85d7686/t/6516dd9513522c6c64036769/1695997350359/C3+-Alternative+Fuel+Buses+-+final.pdf. 

[5] O’Connel et. al. (2023). “A Comparison Of The Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Of European Heavy-Duty Vehicles And Fuels.” Available at: https://theicct.org/publication/lca-ghg-emissions-hdv-fuels-europefeb23/#:~:text=For%20the%202021%20scenario%2C%20we. 

[6] See Climate Action Plan (2023), pp. 75-76. 

[7]  BP, as well as other large corporations, have histories of exploiting the carbon market system; for a recent example, see https://carbonherald.com/bp-cheated-mexican-farmers-on-purchases-of-carbon-credits/. 

Figures (in order of appearance):

Figure 1. Estimated Annual Costs of Travel Modes (Litman, 2021).

Full Source: Litman, T. (2021). “Evaluating Transportation Equity: Guidance for Incorporating Distributional Impacts in Transportation Planning.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VPTI).

Figure 2. Comparison of GHG and Methane Emissions, CNG vs Diesel buses (O’Connell et al, 2023).

Full source: O’Connell, A. et al. (2023). “A Comparison Of The Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Of European Heavy-Duty Vehicles And Fuels.” International Council on Clean Transportation, available at: https://theicct.org/publication/lca-ghg-emissions-hdv-fuels-europefeb23/#:~:text=For%20the%202021%20scenario%2C%20we