Gas-powered cars are bad because they run on dirty energy sources; Before Changing Abortion Laws, Consider the Long-Term Consequences

Gas-powered 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 power sources.

In New England, the energy source is already 50% clean. A gas-powered car must achieve 138 mpg to be as clean as an electric vehicle. The grid will become cleaner. But gas-powered cars will continue to dump 20 pounds of CO2 into our atmosphere for every gallon burned, along with asthma-causing fine particles.

Electric vehicles do not move pollution from city streets to the air around the fossil fuel power plant. The fewer cars on city streets dumping unhealthy fine particles into the air, the better.

We’re not lying about the good we’re doing for the environment by switching to electric vehicles. Electric cars are only part of the solution. But gas-powered cars are no solution. Excluding them from the equation is part of the solution.

To say that “the urge to completely electrify society and take it off fossil fuels suffers from both excessive propaganda and practical problems” implies that we shouldn’t do it. It won’t be easy, but that’s the ultimate goal. If you don’t think emissions need to be reduced, then choose another planet.

You are a libertarian lawyer. OK, so let’s agree that we shouldn’t subsidize ICEs or EVs. But let’s not discourage EVs? Gas-powered cars are bad because they run on dirty energy sources.

—Tom Amiro


Before Changing Abortion Laws, Consider the Long-Term Consequences

I was surprised and a bit disappointed that law professor Matthew B. Lawrence attributed pro-life sentiments to “religious beliefs.”

Does he mean that those who don’t believe in a “god” are automatically pro-abortion? I hope not.

While we have the myth of Sparta, a people with gods, exposing the least well-formed babies to die in the wild, can’t we have the opposite, people who do not believe in God, but reason does life begin in the womb?

I’m also surprised that the teacher doesn’t ask the “and then” question. We have a recent governor of Virginia (Ralph Northham), a doctor, who talks about giving birth to the child and then decides, with the mother, whether he should live. Is it possible that such thinking extends until a child with learning difficulties is determined to be so disabled that he should be euthanized? We have a philosophy professor at Princeton, the son of Holocaust parents, who suggested that a child is not viable until age 2 and therefore could be subject to ‘abortion’ after birth .

Ideas have consequences, and we need to think about long-term consequences when considering changes to our abortion laws.

—Cliff Krieger


Comments are closed.