Your arguments sound logical, but you're using them to pitch government-subsidized non-competitive electric vehicular schemes.
This article makes some fallacious, shortsighted, and unchristian assumptions.
Assumption #1. The only costs are the cost to the owner, and the taxpayer (society) for the vehicle and tax rebate vs. gas saved. This is entirely erroneous, and shortsighted. It completely misses our scriptural mandate as stewards of God’s creation. As seen in links below air pollution is one of the leading causes of deaths.
http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2002/update17
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2008/08/13/air-pollution-health.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/air-pollution-deaths-united-kingdom-0420.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813162438.htm
Assumption #2. Money should be the sole driving(no pun intended) factor in our decision making. This is simply unchristian. The love of money is the root of all evil. The health and lives of those around us should weigh much higher.
Further even if you only consider money, when you factor in the $10 billion that air pollution costs in Canada alone, the money scale tips in a different direction.
enslaving and impoverishing all Americans for a fractional cleaner air or 0.00001% less global warming in 50 years is STUPID and unchristian.
Government forcing people to pay for this crap is as un christian as it can get
You’re entitled to your opinion.
Ping to post #34
Your arguments sound logical, but you're using them to pitch government-subsidized non-competitive electric vehicular schemes.