By: Lorenzo Blanco ’27
Volume XI – Issue I – Fall 2025
I. INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRIFIED MOBILITY AND ITS POLITICAL PERCEPTION
Acknowledging and mitigating the climate crisis is undoubtedly one of—if not the most—pressing issues facing global society today. Far more than an existential threat, the climate crisis represents one of the most profound trials of global collaboration, communication, and scientific innovation. Conversations about climate change on the world stage have historically focused on accountability, where countries are forced by increasingly frequent and severe climate disasters to acknowledge their roles in perpetuating environmental harm via exploitative sociocultural international relations. The forty-six countries that the United Nations classifies as Least Developed Countries (LDCs), such as Myanmar, Madagascar, and the Solomon Islands, [1] have been unduly subjected to carry the gravest burdens of the climate crisis; systemic economic inequality as a result of centuries of colonization, subjugation, and exploitation leaves these countries underfunded and underprepared to face off against disastrous climate events. Astoundingly, these countries are responsible for a mere 3.3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, [2] yet more than twothirds of global lives claimed by climate change have been citizens of these countries. [3] Evidently, however, this unmistakable inequality amidst the climate crisis has not gone unnoticed by global citizens. The 2024 Peoples’ Climate Vote survey, the world’s largest standalone public opinion survey about climate change, [4] noted that almost 86 percent of the world’s population demanded increased global unity and commitment to cast away geopolitical disagreement while mitigating the climate crisis. [5] As global concern and commitment toward mitigating climate change increases, 63 percent of the world’s population noted in the survey that they are “starting to take climate change impacts into consideration when making decisions about where to live or work and what to buy.” [6]
Evidence of increased commitment to climate change education and environmentally conscious decision-making abounds in recent years, particularly amongst concerned citizens of the world’s wealthiest and most developed countries who have the socioeconomic privilege and responsibility to do so. In the United States, one of the most highly popularized and publicized examples of “climate conscious” behavior has been the transition to electric or alternative fuel vehicles. The electric vehicle “revolution” has given rise to a manufacturer arms race from titans like Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, Ford, and General Motors to bring alternative vehicles to the market. However, companies faced one almost insurmountable obstacle in introducing their products to the mass market: the cost to consumers. Consequently, state and federal actors tirelessly crafted environmental policy to engineer economically competitive strategies for emissions reduction through the incentivization of electric vehicles. These incentivization programs directly addressed the steepest challenge of immense price gaps between electric and internal combustion engine vehicles and made the electric vehicle revolution not only a revolution in technology, but a democratization of accessibility to sustainable lifestyle choices across the country. Families barred by cost from purchasing a new internal combustion vehicle had, through programs like California’s Drive Clean Assistance Program (DCAP), direct and dynamic financial support in making environmentally beneficial choices toward reducing emissions. A United States Energy Information Administration’s study results spoke to the efficacy of such programs, finding that electric vehicle sales hit a historic record in quarter three of 2024 while internal combustion vehicle sales fell proportionately, [7] despite the average price of a new electric vehicle being 42 percent higher than its internal combustion counterpart in the same year. [8]
Unfortunately, as of September 30th of this year, the Trump Administration’s dismantling of historic environmental policy has resulted in the elimination of all federal electric vehicle purchasing incentives and the widespread discontinuation of equivalent state policies. [9] While this action may appear as a sudden reversal of environmental progress, conservative politicians have exhibited outspoken opposition to the transition to electric and alternative fuels since the rise of companies like Tesla; former presidential candidate Mitt Romney even referred to Musk’s brand as a “loser company.” [10] Along the campaign trail, the Trump Administration managed to politicize the automotive sector even more potently by capitalizing on what Republican campaign consultant Mike Murphy refers to as an ingrained “tribalism” in American politics: driving an electric vehicle seemingly became an antithesis to being a true patriot and supporter of American industry, with conservative politicians transforming the idea of alternatively fueled vehicles into “Biden Democrat proxy-mobiles” to incite division and resistance against their Democratic counterparts. [11] While prominent conservatives perpetuate a narrative of electrified mobility that cultivates an illusion of profound political division around the issue, studies including the responses of the American public paint a different picture.
AutoPacific’s 2025 EV Consumer Insights Study found that a mere “eight percent of respondents” opposed the idea of purchasing an electric vehicle “because Evs are not aligned with [their] political beliefs.” [12] Results like these suggest that, while conservative politicians still remain in vehement opposition to widespread electrification, there is nonetheless room for opportunity in a comparatively favorable public perception of electrification. Engineering resilient environmental policy for a continued energy transition in the mobility sector in the wake of tax incentive elimination will depend upon a transition away from defining “incentivization” in an exclusively financial sense. Governing bodies across the United States must recognize and appropriately structure environmental policy in the mobility sector around utilizing convenience as incentivization, known in behavioral economics as choice architecture. Choice architecture woven into future emissions policy holds untapped potential to bridge the political gaps in electric vehicle ownership by encouraging environmentally beneficial behavior in the absence of economic incentive through convenience.
II. ECONOMIC INCENTIVES IN THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE INDUSTRY OF THE PAST
Economic incentives were a vital crutch for state policymakers to catalyze the growth of an electric and alternative fuel vehicle market that would simultaneously foster accessible and clean mobility options for their constituents. Almost every state in the United States has had electric vehicle incentivization programs of varying significance and efficacy, ranging from slightly discounted energy usage rates available in Alabama with proof of electric vehicle registration [13] to California’s DCAP. [14] In California, DCAP took effect in December of 2024 and can be reasonably analyzed as the culmination of economic incentives as virtually the sole means of encouraging environmentally conscious and sustainable mobility. Depending on a customer’s annual income level, DCAP awarded up to $12,000 for the purchase of a new or used electric or alternatively fueled vehicle. [15] One of the most notable parts of DCAP was its strict cap of 8 percent loan interest rates for low-income consumers, demonstrating a clear commitment to accessible and equitable sustainable mobility for the public. [16] As the product of decades of electric vehicle market research, consumer data analysis, and statewide economic collaboration, DCAP’s monumental yet shortlived success was a testament to the power of context-specific policy that harnessed the power of market and sociocultural dynamics in the formulation and financial structuring of environmental policy. So what motivated its demise?
III. REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION TO ELECTRIC VEHICLE INCENTIVIZATION
Conservative disdain for the electric vehicle industry’s rise and support from state and federal incentivization represents the harm of using economic benefit as the backbone of environmental policy. Iowa Republican Representative Zach Nunn’s opinion on the electric vehicle market accurately distills the main conservative grievance with electric vehicle incentives motivating their cancellation: “No farmer is out there saying, I want to have an EPA mandate requiring me to drive an electric tractor when I have 10,000 acres I need to plow.” [17]
Representative Nunn’s perspective reflects a common conservative tone against Biden’s former plan to progressively limit the amount of tailpipe emissions allowed from cars. This plan would have, by 2032, made “more than half the new cars sold in the United States” likely to be zero-emission or batteryelectric. According to the EPA, Biden’s blocked action could have prevented the emission of an estimated seven billion tons of carbon dioxide, “provided nearly $100 billion in benefits to society,” contributed $13 billion in public health benefits, and most tangibly could have saved “the average American driver about $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance over the life of a vehicle.” [18]
In response to former President Joe Biden’s strict action on vehicle tailpipe emissions reduction, Republican House Representative Tim Walberg proposed H.R. 4468 as a protection against what conservatives saw as “a de facto EV mandate.” [19] Walberg’s actions against the EPA have been greatly reinforced by other conservative politicians like Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen. [20] Knudsen, along with twenty-four other attorney generals, filed suit in 2024 under 42 U.S.C § 7607(b)(1) Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15, and D.C. Circuit Rule 15(a) against the Biden Administration for this “de facto EV mandate” by framing Biden’s economic incentivization and penalties in the electric and alternative fuel vehicle industry as an abuse of power that “threatens the economy, puts jobs at risk, and undermines the reliability of the electrical grid.” [21] Walberg’s bill, which passed through the House of Representatives in 2023, directly prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from mandating the use of “any specific technology” like electric batteries and from limiting the availability of any model of motor vehicle “based on the type of new motor vehicle engine.” [22] To conservative politicians in opposition to electric vehicle incentivization, these tax rebates and need-based programs to increase mobility did not represent a shift toward a sustainable future for the common benefit like the EPA estimated. Instead, conservative politicians and prominent lobbying organizations used combative environmental policy bills to place blame on Biden and Democratic politicians for jeopardizing the fossil fuel industry. Bills like H.R 4468 and actions like the suit brought by Knudsen and his counterparts, while combative and inflammatory in nature and application as tools to delegitimize political opponents, divulge a more pressing truth about the lived experience of many conservative Americans.
In his inaugural address as the newly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump asserted that "we will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American auto workers… in other words, you'll be able to buy the car of your choice.” [23] President Trump’s words allude to far more than just consumer choice; conservative Americans across the country feel punished for using fossil fuels to meet the demands of their day-to-day lives and excluded from the sustainable future that an energy transition in the mobility sector seeks to create.
Environmental policy enacted with economic incentivization and penalty as its sole methods of efficacy and enforcement, therefore, has demonstrated itself to be the true epicenter of polarization between the country’s leading political parties. Despite AutoPacific’s finding that only 8 percent of their respondents identified electric vehicle purchasing as against their political ideology, a study conducted by the Center for Climate Change Communication found that 58 percent of conservative Republican respondents felt that policies intended to transition away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy would “reduce economic growth and cost jobs.” [24] Concerningly, the same study observes that only half of registered voters feel that energy transition policies will have any positive economic or employment impact. [25] While it is crucial not to cast away the validity of scientific findings that illustrate the quantifiable ramifications of the warming planet, it is equally imperative to not overlook the glaring reality that a majority of Republican Americans see themselves as separate and even excluded from an American mobility future characterized by a necessary energy transition. Answering political disagreement with punitive environmental policy cannot be considered the optimal strategy to build a sustainable future for the everyday American when such dysfunctional partisan divides continue to disrupt the ability of the United States government to mitigate the climate crisis. In a time when every government action makes a difference in staving off the effects of the climate crisis, both within the United States and worldwide, new environmental policy must accurately incorporate and reflect the needs and sentiments of the many. The United States must turn to swaying political morality toward environmentally conscious behavior, requiring a profound cultural shift of the American mindset.
IV. THE NECESSARY CULTURAL SHIFT IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY - WHERE TO BEGIN?
The electric vehicle market is a prime example of how harnessing choice architecture in the new absence of economic incentive creates convenient, attainable societal choices that bridge the sociocultural gaps impeding unified environmental action. Electric vehicle legislation met with comparatively retaliatory counteraction across political lines should serve as a grave warning against impending, perilous stagnation of environmental policy in the United States. The federal government’s cancellation of all electric vehicle incentivization programs exposed the key weakness of DCAP and similarly structured programs: in the absence of financial awards, what is left to encourage environmentally beneficial behavior? Environmental policy must provide for its constituents more than financial benefits, dependent on what many see as federal “whims” to survive. Instead, effective environmental policy must stretch beyond mere compliance to incite a genuine, instinctive rationality behind environmentally beneficial behavior within those living under it; the lessons of choice architecture in behavioral economics provide the necessary pathway to begin this investigation.
The scientific principle of choice architecture “revolves around designing the ways in which choices are presented to influence the decisions people make,” that, when applied to environmental action, posits the environmentally beneficial choice as the optimal one. [26] Foundational to choice architecture is the mission of maximizing convenience in the form of “nudging,” or the creation of conditions meant to generate a following of the desired action without economic incentivization or punitive measures. [27] Behavioral economics and psychological scholars have long been aware of and accepted the validity of choice architecture in understanding human decision-making tendencies; its application in the realm of policy is an emerging field, enjoying particularly high attention in the sectors of contract law, retirement savings, and even personal nutrition. [28] The potential success of a deeper application of choice architecture in environmental policy around emissions reduction becomes especially clear when understanding how this aspect of behavioral economics employs tools of defaults, information restructuring, and information feedback contingent upon the key conclusion that decision-making itself is a societally dynamic, evolving process in collective mentalities. [29] In a volatile political sphere such as the ongoing debate over energy transition in the United States, choice architecture is an incredibly valuable opportunity to remind policymakers of the necessity of elasticity in regulation influenced by environmentally-specific informational availability.
Choice architecture already plays a role in nudging electric vehicle ownership; owners of electric vehicles are given priority access to high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, [30] parking access unavailable to equivalent internal combustion vehicles, and charging infrastructure development. [31] Research suggests that the ability of policymakers to sway consumer choice, or even constituent choice, lies in their ability to craft and implement context-specific problem-solving mechanisms—a parameter missing from blanket federal electric vehicle incentivization programs and a signal for the potential of choice architecture to facilitate a bipartisan energy transition in transportation. [32] Many Republicans feel excluded and consequently hostile toward an energy transition toward electric mobility because the advantageous infrastructure that electric vehicle owners gain access to is simply underdeveloped or almost nonexistent. What can unify the American public to willingly depoliticize the energy transition in mobility? A sound investigation into this question lies in the exploration of human draw to convenience.
V. CHOICE ARCHITECTURE: THE TIME IS NOW
Choice architecture’s unique potential for success in facilitating energy transition lies in its implementation of the human evolutionary selection for convenience as the primary incentive behind environmentally beneficial behavior that ensures its success in direct exclusion of economic reward. University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein note in their book Nudge that choice architecture must function without significantly changing economic incentives. The success of choice architecture hinges on addressing the very problem conservative Americans and politicians consistently cite with incentivization in environmental policy both around electric vehicles and as a whole; as Thaler and Sunstein write, “to count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid…nudges are not mandates.” [33] Harvard Law School alum and legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein observes in his research that “while people tend to have serious objection to mandates,” opposition to nudging across political lines is incredibly scarce. [34] Additionally, Sunstein finds that nudging designed to prompt “conscious, deliberate thinking” on average garners higher support than nudging that targets subconscious behaviors. [35] With the aforementioned 63 percent of the world’s population listing climate change as a priority in their decision making processes, and a heightened willingness specifically amongst the American public to critically evaluate societal choices presented to them, the uncertainty around the future of the electric vehicle market amidst an unprecedented era of political division in the United States is a prime opportunity to test the efficacy of choice architecture. Intrinsic to the efficacy of choice architecture is the ability to promote and highlight convenience in an environment, requiring a deeper evaluation of human evolution to understand its power to the fullest extent.
VI. CHOICE ARCHITECTURE: THE OPTIMIZATION OF CONTEXT-SPECIFIC CONVENIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
Human evolutionary biology supports convenience as a metric of choice architecture’s efficacy. Despite dramatic changes in human environments, evolutionary instinct, in contrast with these everchanging globalized settings, results in what scientists refer to as “evolutionary mismatch.” [36] For humanity, then, evolutionary mismatch lies in the application of evolved instincts from hunter-gatherer life around personal resource and energy maximization in new, anthropocentric environments that seldom present the same challenges these responses were required for. [37] The idea of resource and energy conservation clearly presents itself as what humanity understands as “convenience.” While “convenience” as a fierce motivator for rationalizing decisions in humans is by no means a revolutionary discovery, a more nuanced application of the principle reveals itself as a unifier in environmental action. In a country like the United States, where individual freedoms and liberties are foundational moralities in governmental processes, choice architecture provides policymakers with the opportunity to embrace an individualized American mindset not as the epicenter of discord, but as a launchpoint in drafting climate policy. [38] Whereas mandates and incentives trigger such polarized responses by functioning to penalize one decision, nudging does not serve to explicitly harm or punish one individual choice over another. Nudging efforts predicated on convenience inherently maximize the framework of a political system that prioritizes the principle of individualism by utilizing individual instinct for a result of environmentally beneficial behavior. In the interest of maintaining the United States’s progress in a clean energy transition through alternative-fueled and battery-electric vehicles,
Choice architecture’s emphasis on engineering convenient choice is uniquely advantageous when considering the existing infrastructure for electrified transport across the country. The State of California currently has 200,000 publicly available electric vehicle charging stations, a number that excludes the 800,000 chargers installed on the premises of privately owned properties within the state. [39] Despite the end of incentivized funding for this infrastructure on the federal level, the economic benefits of existing infrastructure continue to be stronger than ever. California Energy Council (CEC) Commissioner Nancy Skinner noted that even in the absence of incentivized electric vehicle purchasing, the CEC’s “goal is to make driving an EV a no-brainer choice for Californians.” [40] Publicly available electric vehicle chargers have been found to increase foot traffic to local businesses and drastically increase consumer spending, contributing to economic revitalization for underserved communities; in a study conducted on businesses within Downtown Los Angeles and Downtown San Francisco, electric vehicle charging stations were found to have increased local business revenue by $19.5 million from 2021-2023. [41] California’s expansive network of electric vehicle charging stations is an example of the state’s clear incorporation of choice architecture for the sake of nudging its citizens toward not only cleaner mobility, but simultaneously toward increased economic participation in its most densely populated cities. Even more promising is the success these measures of increased convenience have had on depoliticizing electric vehicle ownership and unifying action toward energy transition across political lines in California. California Republican State Assemblymember Diane Dixon proudly noted that she does “not know a single member” of her Newport Beach constituency, a city known for its comparatively high Republican population, [42] “who is opposed to electric vehicles.” [43] Indeed, California Republican representatives like Dixon and Republicans living in California agree that the state’s status as “the most mature” electric vehicle market and its largely unparalleled infrastructure network for alternative-fueled transportation makes the choice easier to diverge from national Republican trends around hostility and resistance against emissions reduction regulations. [44] With state governments like California committed to utilizing existing electric vehicle infrastructure to create choices for their citizens that promote their own convenience and accessibility along with economic enrichment for the majority. Incorporation of future electric vehicle infrastructure can be framed as beneficial to the collective public rather than a subsect of auto buyers.
Moreover, additional benefits of electric vehicle ownership without direct economic incentive do still exist for consumers to take advantage of. Priority access to designated freeway lanes and parking in busy shopping or city centers means that those in urban environments are incentivized to purchase or retain their electric vehicle. Acknowledgements of infrastructure’s importance and a desire for continued dedication to its incorporation in the energy transition are found in bills like Assembly Bill No. 2678, brought by Republican Assemblymember Greg Wallis. [45] Assemblymember Wallis himself brought the bill forward as a direct show of support for extending the benefits of electric vehicle high-occupancy lane access, citing its importance and success in encouraging bipartisan electric vehicle ownership through convenience. [46]
VII. CONCLUSION
The benefits of choice architecture, coupled with existing infrastructure in the United States built during the era of electrification incentivization, provide a revolutionary opportunity to frame the purchase and continued ownership of an electric vehicle as a means of contributing beneficially to the social and economic environments of cities across the United States. Without an outright penalty, customers in the market for electric vehicles could still remain competitively incentivized to purchase electric vehicles if states across the United States follow the example of California in building infrastructure and conducting research around the mutual benefits of electric vehicle ownership on a large scale. The benefits exist for those past the driver, and choice architecture proves itself a powerful tool in unifying divided opinions around electric vehicles under common recognition of increased economic opportunity and convenience across society. Therefore, the choice to drive an electric vehicle may, for the first time in the United States, not result in an immediate issue of identity politics. Continued incorporation and bolstering of choice architecture practices can simultaneously keep the electric and alternatively fueled vehicle market alive in an era without federal or large-scale statewide support, in addition to depoliticizing the choice to drive electric vehicles. Choice architecture clearly reflects a pivotal moment in the trajectory of United States environmental policy, with the power to unify lawmakers and the public alike.
Endnotes
[1] “Conferences | Least Developed Countries,” United Nations, accessed December 4, 2025, https://www.un.org/en/conferences/least-developedcountries#:~:text=The%2046%20countries%20currently%20on,%2C%20Kiribati%2C%20Lao%20People’s%20De m.
[2] “Least Developed Countries Set Expectations Ahead of Key Climate Negotiations - LDC Climate Change,” LDC Climate Change -, May 30, 2024, https://www.ldc-climate.org/press_release/least-developed-countries-setexpectations-ahead-of-key-climate-negotiations/.
[3] 2020 in review: Climate impacts in the least developed countries | International Institute for Environment and Development, accessed December 4, 2025, https://www.iied.org/2020-review-climate-impacts-least-developedcountries.
[4] “The World’s Largest Survey on Climate Change Is out – Here’s What the Results Show,” UNDP Climate Promise, June 20, 2024, https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/worlds-largest-survey-climate-change-out-hereswhat-results-show.
[5] “The World’s Largest Survey on Climate Change is Out - Here’s What the Results Show.”
[6] “The World’s Largest Survey on Climate Change is Out - Here’s What the Results Show.”
[7] Monica Abboud, “Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA),” Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), December 4, 2024, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/.
[8] John O’Dell, “Big Gap Remains in Average Price of Electric Car vs. Gas Car | Edmunds,” Edmunds, May 8, 2024, https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/average-price-electric-car-vs-gas-car.html.
[9] Eric Stafford, “Ford and GM Will Still Offer EV Discounts after NIXING Plans to Extend Federal Tax Credit,” Car and Driver, October 14, 2025, https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a68132986/ford-gm-extend-federal-ev-taxcredit-report/.
[10] Stephen Edelstein and Bengt Halvorson, “When Did Republicans Turn Against EVS, and Will the Tide Turn?,” Green Car Reports, February 14, 2024, https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1142268_when-did-republicans-turnagainst-evs-and-will-the-tide-turn.
[11] “When Did Republicans Turn Against EVS, and Will the Tide Turn?”
[12] “2025 Poll: Americans’ Views on Electric Vehicles,” Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC), October 23, 2025, https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/2025-poll-americans-views-on-electric-vehicles/.
[13] Chris Hardesty, “Electric Car Rebates and Incentives: What to Know by State,” Kelley Blue Book, August 26, 2025, https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/electric-vehicle-rebates-by-state/.
[14] Dave Clegern, “California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Program Will Transition to Helping Low-Income Residents,” California Air Resources Board, August 21, 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/californias-clean-vehicle-rebateprogram-will-transition-helping-low-incomeresidents#:~:text=In%20late%202023%2C%20a%20new,car%20buyers%20not%20scrapping%20an.
[15] “California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Program Will Transition to Helping Low-Income Residents.”
[16] Clegern, “California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Program Will Transition to Helping Low-Income Residents.”
[17] Rebekah Alvey and Kelsey Brugger, “What’s Behind the Republican Hatred of EVs?,” Environment & Energy News, February 15, 2024, https://www.eenews.net/articles/whats-behind-the-republican-hatred-of-evs/.
[18] Coral Davenport, “Biden Administration Announces Rule Aimed at Expanding Electric Vehicles,” The New York Times, March 22, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/climate/biden-phase-out-gas-cars.html.
[19] Alvey and Brugger, “What’s Behind the Republican Hatred of EVs?”
[20] “Attorney General Knudsen Files Lawsuit Against Biden’s EV Mandate,” Montana Department of Justice, October 29, 2024, https://dojmt.gov/attorney-general-knudsen-files-lawsuit-against-bidens-ev-mandate/.
[21] “Attorney General Knudsen Files Lawsuit Against Biden’s EV Mandate.”
[22] H.R.4468 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act of 2023 | congress.gov | library of Congress, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4468.
[23] Camila Domonoske, “Trump’s Pulling a U-Turn on EVs, but Not Much Has Changed - Yet,” NPR, January 30, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5272749/donald-trump-ev-electric-vehicles-subsidies-auto-industry.
[24] Anthony Leiserowitz et al., “Climate Change in the American Mind: Politics and Policy, Spring 2025,” Center for Climate Change Communication, June 17, 2025, https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/all/climate-change-in-theamerican-mind-politics-and-policy-spring2025/#:~:text=By%20contrast%2C%20more%20liberal%2Fmoderate,think%20they%20will%20have%20a.
[25] “Climate Change in the American Mind: Politics and Policy, Spring 2025.”
[26] IDL Editorial Team. “Nudging Towards a Greener Planet: The Role of Choice Architecture in Climate Action.” Infinitivity Design Labs, August 27, 2023. https://infinitivitydesignlabs.com/nudging-towards-a-greener-planet-therole-of-choice-architecture-in-climateaction/#:~:text=A%20Greener%20Future%20Through%20Informed,environments%20can%20encourage%20sustai nable%20living.
[27] “Nudging Towards a Greener Planet: The Role of Choice Architecture in Climate Action.”
[28] Daniel E. Rauch, “School Choice Architecture,” Yale Law & Policy Review 33, no. 2 (Spring 2015).
[29] Robert A. Scott, Stephen Michael Kosslyn, and Marlis Buchmann, “Choice Architecture,” essay, in Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource (Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2015).
[30] Tara Campbell, “CA Ending Clean Air Vehicle Incentives Starting Next Month: Here’s What It Means for Drivers,” ABC7 San Francisco, September 28, 2025, https://abc7news.com/post/californias-clean-air-vehicleincentives-ending-starting-october-heres-what-means-drivers-ev-market/17896691/.
[31] Scott Hardman, “Understanding the Impact of Reoccurring and Non-Financial Incentives on Plug-In Electric Vehicle Adoption – A Review,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 119 (January 2019): 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.11.002.
[32] “Understanding the Impact of Recurring and Non-Financial Incentives on Plug-In Electric Vehicle Adoption – A Review.”
[33] “What Is a Nudge?,” NudgeU, accessed December 4, 2025, https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/nudge/what-is-anudge/.
[34] Cass R. Sunstein, “Do People Like Nudges?” (February 17, 2016). Administrative Law Review, Forthcoming, Harvard Public Law Working Paper Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2604084 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2604084
[35] “Do People Like Nudges?”
[36] Elliot Sober et al., “Evolutionary Mismatch and How to Evaluate It: A Basic Tutorial,” ProSocial World, October 22, 2024, https://www.prosocial.world/posts/evolutionary-mismatch-and-how-to-evaluate-it-a-basictutorial#:~:text=Evolutionary%20mismatch%20is%20a%20state%20of%20disequilibrium%20between%20an%20o rganism,have%20in%20the%20earlier%20one.
[37] Alex Curmi, “The Big Idea: Is Convenience Making Our Lives More Difficult?,” The Guardian, November 4, 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/nov/04/the-big-idea-is-convenience-making-our-lives-moredifficult.
[38] Felix Mormann, “Climate Choice Architecture,” Boston College Law Review 64, no. 1 (2023).
[39] “California Exceeds 200,000 Electric Vehicle Chargers,” California Energy Commission, September 24, 2025, https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2025-09/california-exceeds-200000-electric-vehiclechargers#:~:text=California%20has%20reached%20a%20significant,last%20update%20in%20March%202025.
[40] “California Exceeds 200,000 Electric Vehicle Chargers.”
[41] Yunhan Zheng et al., “Effects of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations on the Economic makeVitality of Local Businesses,” Nature Communications 15, no. 1 (September 4, 2024), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51554-9.
[42] Newport Beach, CA political map – democrat & Republican areas in Newport Beach | bestneighborhood.org, accessed December 5, 2025, https://bestneighborhood.org/conservative-vs-liberal-map-newport-beach-ca/.
[43] Alex Nieves, “Trump Who? California Republicans Love Electric Vehicles,” E&E News, May 15, 2024, https://www.eenews.net/articles/how-california-republicans-learned-to-buck-trump-and-love-electric-vehicles/.
[44] “Trump Who? California Republicans Love Electric Vehicles.,”
[45] “Bill Text,” Bill Text - AB-2678 Vehicles: high-occupancy vehicle lanes., accessed December 4, 2025, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2678.
[46] “Bill Text,” Vehicles: high-occupancy vehicle lanes.