On Monday, October 1, 2001, at 12:32 PM, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:57:18AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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