Economic analysis released by the California Air Resources Board in 2016 shows that achieving their 2030 carbon reduction target with market-based policies costs $1.7 billion, while a regulation-based approach costs $9.7 billion.
The analysis shows that market-based policies can achieve the same carbon reduction target as regulatory policies, but at an 80% cheaper cost.
A 2015 study says that if global greenhouse gas emissions are reduced significantly, parts of Southern California (such as Los Angeles and Riverside) can avoid over a month of additional extremely hot (95-degree) days by the end of the century.
Los Angeles, which currently averages 6 extremely hot days per year, will face either 54 (if global emissions continue) or 15 extremely hot days (if global emissions are cut) by 2100.
Takeaway: while it may be the case that hybrids are better for the climate than electric cars in some places today, electric cars have more potential than hybrids to reduce emissions from oil in the long run.
A 2015 report measured that two-thirds of Americans live in regions (including California, Texas, Florida, New York, New England, and the entire Northwest) where driving an electric vehicle (EV) produces fewer greenhouse gases (GHGs) than the most efficient gas-powered vehicle.
Even in regions where electricity used to charge EVs is the dirtiest, an EV pollutes 21% less than the average new gasoline-powered vehicle.
If the U.S. moved to a grid supplied by 80% renewable energy, an EV would emit roughly 90% less GHG pollution than the current average new gasoline-powered vehicle.
A 2015 NASA study finds that unabated global greenhouse gas emissions will increase the risk of a 30-year long "megadrought" in the Southwestern U.S.
Megadrought likelihood is on pace to increase from the current 12% to 80% by 2100.
Reducing global emissions can lower this risk to 60% or less.