Gas cars are bad, because they run on dirty energy sources; Before changing abortion laws, consider long term consequences
Gas cars are bad because they run on dirty energy sources
On June 7, Thomas L. Knapp wrote, “Electric cars are great, but they need green energy.”
In New England, the energy source is now 50% clean. The petrol car needs to get 138 mpg to be as clean as an EV. The grille will become cleaner. But gas cars will continue to pour 20 pounds of CO2 into our atmosphere for every gallon burned, plus fine particles that cause asthma.
Electric cars do not move pollution from city streets into the air around the fossil fuel power plant. The fewer cars on the city streets spill unhealthy fine particles into the air, the better.
We are not lying about how well we do the environment by switching to electric cars. Electric cars are only part of the solution. But petrol cars are not the answer. Subtracting their multipliers from the equation is part of the solution.
Saying that “the desire to electrify society completely and disconnect from fossil fuels suffers from both propaganda oversolds and practical problems” means that we should not do so. It will not be easy, but that is the ultimate goal. If you don’t think emissions need to be reduced, then take another planet.
You are a libertarian advocate. Okay, so let’s agree that we shouldn’t subsidize either ICE or EV. But let’s not discourage electric cars? Gas cars are bad because they run on dirty energy sources.
Before changing your abortion laws, think about the long-term consequences
I was surprised and a little disappointed that Matthew B. Lawrence, a law professor, attributed the mood for life to “religious beliefs.”
Does he want to imply that those who do not believe in “god” are automatically in favor of abortion? I hope not.
While we have the myth of Sparta, a people with gods exposing less shaped babies to die in nature, can’t we have the opposite, people who don’t believe in God but still believe that life begins in the womb?
I am also surprised that the professor does not ask the question “what’s next”. We have a recent governor of Virginia (Ralph Northam), a doctor who talks about the birth of a child and then decides with the mother whether he should live. Is it possible for such thinking to spread to finding a child with learning disabilities who is determined to be so disabled that he or she needs to be euthanized? We have a professor of philosophy at Princeton, the son of Holocaust parents, who suggested that the child was not viable before the age of two and could therefore have an ‘abortion’ after birth.
Ideas have consequences, and we need to think about the long-term consequences as we consider changes to our abortion laws.