Back to Papers

Accelerating vehicle fleet turnover to achieve sustainable mobility goals

Sergey Naumov, David R. Keith, John D. StermanOperations服务运营UTD24
Journal of Operations Management2022-03-01Pennsylvania State University; Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyDOI
Citations58

Abstract Achieving societal climate goals requires rapid reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation. Recent efforts by policymakers have focused on increasing consumer adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). Nevertheless, EV sales remain low. Worse, even if EV market share jumped dramatically, it would take decades to replace the existing vehicle fleet, during which time vehicle GHG emissions would continue, worsening climate change. Consequently, some argue for policies to accelerate the retirement of inefficient fossil‐powered vehicles through “cash‐for‐clunkers” (C4C) programs. We examine C4C policies through a behavioral model of vehicle fleet turnover and EV market development in the United States. We find C4C policies can substantially reduce vehicle fleet emissions at reasonable cost per tonne of CO 2 . To meet emissions reductions goals, C4C policies should apply only when consumers replace their fossil‐powered vehicles with EVs. C4C policies incentivizing EVs accelerate cost reductions through scale economies, charging infrastructure deployment, model variety, and consumer awareness, boosting EV adoption beyond the direct effect of vehicle replacement. The result is a substantial synergy amplifying the impact of C4C and lowering unit cost of emissions reductions. C4C is further amplified when deployed together with complementary policies promoting renewable electricity production and a gas tax or carbon price.

Greenhouse gasBusinessRenewable energyEnvironmental economicsCarbon taxSoftware deploymentMarket shareElectric vehicleElectricityClimate change mitigationNatural resource economicsEconomics
Related Papers (8-Dimension Scoring)

Commentaries on “The Lenses of Lean”

Michael A. Cusumano, Matthias Holweg, Josh Howell, Torbjørn H. Netland, Rachna Shah, John Shook, Peter T. Ward, James P. Womack · Journal of Operations Management

Score: 55

Network orchestration in a large inter‐organizational project

Jens K. Roehrich, Tejasav Kalra, Brian Squire, Andrew Davies · Journal of Operations Management

Score: 55

Assessing customer return behaviors through data analytics

Michael Ketzenberg, James D. Abbey, Gregory R. Heim, Subodha Kumar · Journal of Operations Management

Score: 54

Customer base environmental disclosure and supplier greenhouse gas emissions: A signaling theory perspective

Sining Song, Jie Lian, Keith Skowronski, Tingting Yan · Journal of Operations Management

Score: 50

Strengthening supply chain resilience during <scp>COVID</scp>‐19: A case study of <scp>JD</scp>.com

Zuo‐Jun Max Shen, Yiqi Sun · Journal of Operations Management

Score: 45

The effect of customer and supplier concentrations on firm resilience during the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic: Resource dependence and power balancing

Shenyang Jiang, Andy C.L. Yeung, Zhaojun Han, Baofeng Huo · Journal of Operations Management

Score: 45

Task management in decentralized autonomous organization

Xi Zhao, Peilin Ai, Fujun Lai, Xin Luo, Jose Benitez · Journal of Operations Management

Score: 45

Bespoke supply‐chain resilience: The gap between theory and practice

Morris A. Cohen, Shiliang Cui, Sebastian Doetsch, Ricardo Ernst, Arnd Huchzermeier, Panos Kouvelis, Hau L. Lee, Hirofumi Matsuo, Andy A. Tsay · Journal of Operations Management

Score: 45