As if comparing the lifecycle emissions of gasoline and electric vehicles were not complicated enough, there is an entirely separate economic dimension to consider. The environmental calculation tells only part of the story. Consumers must also consider what a vehicle costs to buy, operate, maintain, insure, repair, and eventually replace.
There is a strong argument for allowing consumers and the free market to play a larger role in determining which technologies succeed. Rather than governments attempting to choose a preferred technology through mandates, subsidies, or penalties, consumers can weigh purchase price, operating costs, convenience, performance, reliability, environmental concerns, and their own circumstances. Manufacturers, in turn, must compete to produce vehicles people actually want at prices they are willing to pay. If electric vehicles offer sufficient advantages, they should increasingly attract buyers without requiring permanent government support; if gasoline, hybrid, or other technologies remain competitive, consumers should remain free to choose them. Government can still establish safety and environmental standards, but market competition can determine how manufacturers meet those standards rather than prescribing a particular technological solution.
Governments may support the EVoffer subsidies, tax incentives, charging infrastructure, and other public expenditures. These costs are not always obvious because some appear on the buyer’s invoice while others are distributed among taxpayers or buried in broader government programs. A vehicle that appears environmentally preferable may not necessarily be the most economical choice in every circumstance, just as the cheapest vehicle to purchase may not be the least expensive over its lifetime. Once economics is added to lifecycle emissions, the seemingly simple question of “gas or electric?” becomes considerably harder to answer.
