LeftieBiker wrote: If you choose to define causing moderate financial harm to diesel owners in order to save the lives of tens of thousands of people with asthma, heart disease, etc as "bad" then of course the rest makes sense.
Causing harm to diesel owners isn't the only solution!
I can appreciate the desire to stop the harmful health effects. If that is truly happening, then the governments should have no problem funding the replacements of the cars. If the problem is as bad as you say, the savings in their socialized health plans will offset the cost pretty quick. I don't believe a sub group of the population should be singled out to bear the burden.
We would all prefer the automakers who created the problem to bear the burden. Absent that political will, taxpayers. Perhaps if that isn't feasible then a gofundme can set up a non-profit that will replace the cars. Certainly if the problem is as bad and urgent, this will get well funded pretty quick. If you are so set on these being that bad, then go buy the diesels and destroy them yourself. But re-victimizing victims isn't the right solution.
Gee, world hunger is a real problem. Hey I know. Let's have the EV owners pay enough money to solve that problem. We can't wait for a fair solution, people are dying right now. And EV owners obviously have spare cash living their first world lifestyle. After all, causing moderate financial harm to EV owners in order to save people from dying of starvation makes sense. Now can you understand the concept?
There are other solutions that should be pursued. And yes, those can be fast tracked too. Singling out a sub group to punish because it is easier to do is not morally or ethically right.