On Monday, October 1, 2001, at 12:32 PM, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:57:18AM -0700, georgemw@speakeasy.net (georgemw@speakeasy.net) wrote:
On 1 Oct 2001, at 11:05, Eric Murray wrote:
Not to mention things like "travel delays due to road congestion ($46.5 to $174.6 billion)," which not only would still exist with electric cars, but is a cost ALREADY paid by automobile users. To call something like that a "hidden subsidy of the oil industry" should be enough to get this "study" rejected by a reesponsible reviewer.
Electric vehicles are far more efficient idlers than ICE vehicles.
Idling is essentially paying the oil companies for the privilege of sitting still. It's not an inconsequential cost.
Other congestion costs are not as attributable to oil, but direct combustion is.
If people don't want to pay this "cost" of idling then they won't. But it's not in any sense of the word a "hidden subsidy." Calling various costs "hidden subsidies" does a disservice to the language. --Tim May