I appreciate the outlook, but it seems that there is mismatch of what we are each addressing in terms of scale. Sure there are situations where cars are not nee

I appreciate the outlook, but it seems that there is mismatch of what we are each addressing in terms of scale. Sure there are situations where cars are not needed for most people (large cities, etc), there are options for changes to lifestyle where one organizes life around not having a car. However, those adjustments have costs which another may objectively not be able to bear, and evidence from around us suggests that is simply the reality. (If people could accomplish all they want/need within a day for personal or business purpose which they can with a car by other means which would be cheaper - they simply would, dont you agree? I most certainly would.] However, that is not invalidating or negating the undeniably true statement, that all these cars we have today, out of all other possibilities, are the most economical (and by definition of the word "economics") in fact (as counter-intuitive as it sounds) most environmental friendly choice [as of today] - providing an entire cluster of benefits in terms of personal transport. In other words, if there was a different means of personal transportation that could be substituted and be as affordable/economical for people they would have switched. [E.g. remember the unsolvable problem of horse manure 150 yrs ago in medium scale cities, let alone in mega-cities]. Cars are just too flexible, multi-purposed, heavy duty, relatively-cheap, safe, and fast personal means of getting from A to B for an average person. And yes, environmentally friendly relative to any available substitute (I would genuinely like to hear a reasoned outline of a counter-argument for a substitute that can do all thing a car can do and is more environmentally friendly. It does not mean that cars do not pollute, they just pollute less than any other substitute I have been able to study).