Ashley Nunes

An article by Ashley Nunes: It’s now or never. That’s the message climate scientists have for politicians, policy wonks and anyone (and everyone) willing to listen. Members of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say that global carbon dioxide emissions must peak within the next three years to avert the most severe impacts of climate change. Their solution? Action that delivers, “rapid, deep and immediate” emissions cuts. For IPCC leadership, this entails “having the right policies, infrastructure and technology in place.”

An article co-written by Ashley Nunes: Procurement incentives are a widely leveraged policy lever to stimulate electric vehicle (EV) sales. However, their effectiveness in reducing transportation emissions depends on the behavioural characteristics of EV adopters. When an EV is used, under what conditions and by whom dictates whether or not these vehicles can deliver emissions reductions. Here, we document that replacing gasoline powered vehicles with EVs may—depending on behavioural characteristics—increase, not decrease, emissions. We further show that counterfactual vehicle inventory—how many vehicles a household would own absent an EV purchase—is an important influencer of these effects. We conclude that achieving emissions reductions using EVs requires redesigning procurement incentive programmes in a manner that (re)distributes incentives towards the second-hand EV market. Doing so would not only facilitate emissions reductions but also address fiscal prudency and regressivity concerns associated with these programmes.

The following is a lightly edited transcript of remarks made by Ashley Nunes during a Newsweek podcast debate about EVs being the future of transportation. ... Electric vehicles seem like a good idea, because we are often told that they're cleaner to drive and cheaper to own. But when you dig a little deeper, a different truth emerges. Are EVs cleaner than existing alternatives? Not in China, or the United States — where major auto markets derive the bulk of their power from coal. Are EVs cheaper to operate? Yes, but only if you hold onto those cars for a longer period of time, because they have higher upfront costs. Proponents of EVs say that things will get better over time, because they've become cleaner, and costs have dropped. But past performance is certainly no guarantee of future return. I'm not saying that driving gas guzzlers is the way to go; I just think that we should be honest with the public about what EVs can and cannot do, particularly when public funds are used to back climate policies.

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes: Americans fretting over gas prices could soon be in for relief. OPEC+ — a cartel of countries that controls some 80 per cent of proven oil reserves — last week hiked global production by an extra 400,000 barrels a day. Over a year, that’s enough to fill a large football stadium 53 times over. The result of boosting production? A drop in oil price. And when prices drop, if gas prices follow, consumers are happy. There is an alternative to relying on Saudi Arabia’s generosity: Going electric. When compared with gas guzzlers, electric vehicles (EVs) need less energy to move, which means more miles travelled per dollar spent. Electricity is also cheaper than gas, which delivers further savings. Hence, the White House’s penchant for all things electric. In a recent interview, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg stressed that families who buy EVs would, “never have to worry about gas prices again.” Perhaps. The ebb and flow of global oil production — and the ensuing impact on gas prices — admittedly matters little to EV users. Why should it? Foregoing gasoline affords the luxury of being unfazed by gasoline prices. In this regard, the Secretary isn’t wrong to tout EVs’ savings advantage. But his laser sharp focus on one type of saving should also be called out for what it truly is: a fiscal shell game that conveniently embraces one set of truths, while downplaying others.

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes: A bumpy ride awaits Canadian travellers. On Tuesday, Ottawa unveiled new pandemic travel measures that are creating confusion for flyers. The move – spurred by the rise of the highly infectious Omicron variant – will require all incoming passengers from non-U.S. foreign destinations get another COVID-19 test when they land in Canada. The new testing requirement is in addition to the pre-departure test travellers must undergo before leaving for Canada. The move is being touted as necessary to keep Canadians safe. ... Look, I’m all for a science-based approach. Science should inform public policy and we need more scientists working in public policy. I’m also for packing an extra dose of patience. Enduring hardship well is a trait in short supply in public (and political) discourse, and society is poorer because of it. Unfortunately, Ottawa’s new pandemic travel measures aren’t particularly scientific, which has a knock-on effect on my patience. As I write this, I’m in Europe, and heading on a plane back to Canada tomorrow. Despite my best efforts to educate myself, I’m still confused about what to expect when I land.

Aircraft pioneers Wilbur and Orville Wright had to resort to a coin toss to decide who would attempt the first powered flight, but almost all modern aviation relies on at least two pilots in the cockpit. That could soon change, as airlines and planemakers develop new technology that would rely to a greater extent on automation and eliminate the need for a co-pilot. ... Whether passengers will be willing to use a single-pilot plane depends largely on cost, according to Ashley Nunes, a research fellow at Harvard Law School.“For the average consumer, cash is king. If the price is low enough, you’re going to catch that flight,” he said. “The saga with the Boeing 737 MAX is a great example of this; in the aftermath of that particular event, large groups of consumers said, ‘We’re not going to fly that plane.’ And guess what? They’re flying it today.” But reducing the number of pilots on board may not in fact drive down airlines' costs and allow them to offer cheaper flights, Nunes warned: “There are numerous industries where you remove the human, your costs actually increase because of the amount of safety oversight that is required for the technology."

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes: Quebec’s language quagmire has long been a sore spot for politicians. Last week, Air Canada chief executive officer Michael Rousseau got in on the action. He delivered a near 30-minute speech at the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, during which he spoke in French for some 20 seconds. When later questioned about why – after 14 years in the province – his French language skills weren’t up to par, Mr. Rousseau responded, “I’ve been able to live in Montreal without speaking French, and I think that’s a testament to the city.” The outrage has been swift. Quebec Premier François Legault denounced Mr. Rousseau’s attitude as “insulting.” The province’s Minister Responsible for the French Language, Simon Jolin-Barrette, said that Mr. Rousseau showed “contempt for our language and our culture in Quebec” and subsequently opined that the CEO was “not worthy of his duties.” And then there’s Justin Trudeau. The Prime Minister called Mr. Rousseau’s position “an unacceptable situation,” adding that the Minister of Official Languages is “following up.”

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes, Labor and Worklife Program fellow: The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of cutting-edge technologies. From contactless cashiers to welding drones to “chow bots” — machines that serve up salads on demand — automation is fundamentally transforming, rather than merely touching, every aspect of daily life. This prospect may well please consumers. Forsaking human folly for algorithmic (and mechanistic) perfection means better, cheaper, and faster service. But what should workers — who once provided these services — expect? Can they also benefit from technological progress? If so, how?

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes: Many Canadians hoping to visit the U.S. have been nervously eyeing incoming American travel regulations. Starting in November, the Biden administration will require that anyone flying into the U.S be fully vaccinated. Those who don’t comply will be refused entry. At first glance, the move, which is aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19 locally, shouldn’t irk Canadians. We have a higher vaccination rate than Americans, and the Canadian government is also set to bring in rules requiring air travellers here to be vaccinated. However, the U.S. has yet to approve the mixing of COVID-19 vaccines, meaning large numbers of Canadians who had two different shots might not be considered vaccinated south of the border.

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes, a research fellow at Harvard Law School: “We don’t have any more time” was Joe Biden’s outcry last week as he urged climate action after visiting hurricane-wracked New Jersey. The storm made landfall in Louisiana before roaring up the East Coast. Along the way, it unleashed flash floods, fast-moving tornadoes, and high speed winds that prompted the evacuation of thousands and caused over 50 deaths. Biden’s response? A public spending hike he says will better protect Americans. The president’s $1.2tn infrastructure deal and a $3.5tn spending package — which are working their way through Congress — is stuffed with green goodies like power lines that can carry more renewable energy, upgraded insulation for homes and, most notably, subsidies for electric autos. ...Luckily, when it comes to curbing emissions, there’s a solution. It doesn’t rely on electrification, automation, or any other technological knowhow, but it’s got teeth. It’s called ride-sharing. Our work shows that were the public to forego individual trips in favour of communal ones, emissions would fall and fall fast.

For years, we’ve been told that electric autonomous taxis can help fight climate change by reducing air pollution. But new research from Harvard Law School suggests these supposedly “zero emissions” vehicles could actually exacerbate many of the problems we are facing today. A new study led by Ashley Nunes, a fellow at the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School, concluded that fleets of electric autonomous taxis could “dramatically increase energy consumption and emissions that contribute to climate change — not reduce them.” “While electric vehicles themselves have lower emissions than traditional gasoline-powered ones, our work shows that deploying electric robocabs en masse on America’s streets could actually increase the number of trips, miles driven, and overall emissions,” Nunes said in a release.

An article by Ashley Nunes: Earlier Sunday, a commercial jet — scheduled to fly from Greece to Lithuania — made an emergency landing in Belarus. The intended destination of the Ryanair flight was Vilnius. Passengers and crew members ended up in Minsk instead. Radar data shows the plane flying through Belarusian airspace headed toward Lithuania. As the plane approaches the Lithuanian border, however, it makes a sharp right turn and heads toward the Belarusian capital. Belarusian state media outlets say the diversion was prompted by a bomb scare, which caused local authorities to scramble a military jet to escort the plane to Minsk. After the plane landed, passengers and crew members underwent additional security screening and were subject to “verification activities.” Luggage and personal items were also subject to additional security checks. Among the passengers was Roman Protasevich. The Belarusian journalist is the former editor of NEXTA, the opposition Telegram network, and has long been critical of the Belarusian political establishment.

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes: It pays to own a car. Earnings rise when an auto sits in the driveway. But car ownership comes at a price. Transportation is a leading cause of greenhouse gases and the bulk of these emissions come from personal autos; coupes, vans and wagons that ferry consumers everywhere from work to the grocery store to weekend soccer practice. Electrification would help. So-called EVs, are less reliant on fossil fuel for power and less fossil fuel reliance means fewer greenhouse gas emissions. This makes EVs a greener alternative to the status quo. But EVs pose a thorny challenge. The technology remains pricier than gasoline powered autos. And few things influence car sales like sticker price. The solution is purportedly subsidies. Nothing – we are told - tempers sticker shock like government handouts. Joe Biden certainly thinks so. America’s 46th President recently announced $174 billion in federal funding to realize an EV nirvana. The move – Biden argues – will, “unify and mobilize the country” to address climate change, and “reduce the impacts of climate change for our kids.”

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes: America is going green. Recently, President Joe Biden unveiled plans to accelerate the transition toward electric cars. The move — neatly packaged as the American Jobs Plan — is being sold as a way to “unify and mobilize the country to meet the great challenges of our time: the climate crisis and the ambitions of an autocratic China.” In recent years, Beijing has fared well in the race to build, and sell, green technology. No more. Instead, expect the American Jobs Plan to help us “out-compete China" and, more important, “reduce the impacts of climate change for our kids.” Victory won’t come cheap of course. The White House pegs the total cost of the plan at $2 trillion. Then again, with more than $28 trillion in national debt, $2 trillion seems like a bargain. The White House wants $174 billion of that directed toward boosting electric car sales. Fossil fuel use in transportation is significant, and gas-guzzling autos are one reason why. Electric cars — admittedly cleaner by almost every metric — offer relief. Well, they would if people could actually afford them. Forgoing gas is pricy, preserving the status quo less so. Which explains why only 2% of autos soldannually are powered by electricity.

From ridesharing to electric cars to self-driving vehicles the line between application, potential and promise is often very blurry. In this episode we take a reality check on the future direction of the automotive industry. Guests: Dr. Wulf Stolle – partner with Kearney (Europe); Dr. Ashley Nunes – senior Research Associate, Harvard Law School; Professor Shirley Meng – Director of Sustainable Power and Energy centre, University of California, San Diego; Nick Kilvert – ABC science reporter.

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes: Big oil is in the hot seat. Again. Two weeks ago, the US Supreme Court heard arguments on whether a lawsuit brought by Baltimore city officials against oil companies belongs in state courts, which favours the plaintiffs, or in federal courts, where oil companies stand a better chance of winning. A ruling on the case — expected later this year — could cost (or save) the industry billions. The impetus for this and many other fossil-fuel related lawsuits is climate change. Plaintiffs want oil companies to pony up cash because company executives knew — and didn’t tell us — that fossil fuels harm the environment. Court filings by some plaintiffs describe, “cascading social and economic impacts,” like rising sea levels and deadly heat waves, all of which are tied to the burning of fossil fuels. Had oil execs admitted the truth sooner, so the reasoning goes, we’d all be saved.  To be sure, the link between fossil fuel use and climate change is irrefutable and the oil companies have long known about it. In 1954, geochemists from the California Institute of Technology warned industry leaders that burning fossil fuels was responsible for rising global temperatures. Noted physicist Edward Teller voiced similar sentiments in 1959, as did researchers from Stanford in 1968. By 1988, even the oil industry’s own scientists were concerned that burning fossil fuels could produce “significant changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather”.

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes: Canadian airlines are set for a windfall. Sort of. Ottawa is teeing up a bailout package – one that could see carriers receive millions in taxpayer cash. They could certainly use it. The coronavirus pandemic has hit airline revenues hard with some carriers edging close to bankruptcy. Lawmakers need these companies to thrive, not fail. Air travel is after all, to our generation what horses and buggies were to previous ones. But taxpayers want something too: refunds. As the pandemic cripples economies worldwide, thousands of Canadians remain stuck with tickets in hand and no place to go. I’m one of them. Air Canada promptly cancelled my flight last April citing coronavirus concerns. But rather than refunding my money, the carrier offered a travel voucher – one that could be used towards future travel. The move doesn’t irk me. Airlines are cash-intensive businesses where expenses often exceed earnings. I would know. I spent years in the industry looking over balance sheets. I concur with the industrywide sentiment that “running an airline is like having a baby: fun to conceive, but hell to deliver.” That explains why I’m probably more willing than most to give airlines some leeway. A travel voucher is – I would argue - a reasonable alternative to a full refund. That sentiment has since fizzled. Anticipating travel later this fall, I tried redeeming my voucher on Air Canada’s website. The airline’s response? “Please allow up to six weeks for processing.”

An article by Ashley Nunes:  The longest grounding of a commercial jet is set to end. Sometime this week, the Federal Aviation Administration is expected to certify the Boeing 737 MAX fit to fly. The aeroplane was grounded in 2019 following two crashes. The first involved a Lion Air jet which killed all 189 people on board. Months later, a second MAX jet, operated by Ethiopian Airlines, crashed. It also left no survivors. The crashes triggered lawsuits and government investigations. The purported culprit in both crashes was technology — more specifically, a new flight-control feature dubbed MCAS (short for Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System). The feature was designed to prevent the aeroplane’s nose from getting dangerously high by automatically lowering it. However, under certain conditions, the MCAS lowered the nose so strongly that pilots struggled to maintain control. In the aftermath, Boeing drew fire on several fronts. Firstly for charging extra for certain safety features. Where the MAX is concerned, the company wanted airlines to pony up more cash — at least $80,000 by one estimate — for add-ons that would alert pilots if the aircraft’s systems were malfunctioning. But Boeing was more broadly criticised for not properly vetting its technology before selling it. That was then, this is now. Moving forward, not only is the company making all safety features free, Boeing has also dedicated tens of thousands of staff hours towards fixing the MAX.

An article by Ashley Nunes:  Without the heavy footedness and over-exuberant steering of human motorists, self-driving cars might seem to be the answer to all of our woes on the road. Algorithms can’t get drunk, drowsy, or distracted, which are the leading causes of road fatalities and are largely responsible for killing 1.3 million people in traffic accidents every year. They are not prone to road rage, eating while driving, or fiddling with the entertainment system. And they can move faster, yet more safely, through traffic, which decreases congestion. Computerised systems are also better than their human counterparts at choosing the most fuel-efficient route. They accelerate and brake more smoothly. These eco-friendly driving practices collectively save fuel, which ultimately reduces exhaust pipe emissions. This all sounds great. After all, cars, trucks and buses currently account for nearly 30% of the US’s global warming pollution. Motor vehicles are also a major source of air pollution in cities around the world. It is easy to see why some see the precision and predictability that comes from handing control of vehicles to algorithms as a solution to not only the safety issues, but environmental problems that road transport faces. But realising this reality means overcoming numerous challenges. Here are three of them.