good article, but I think without a complete global picture on the environmental impact of conventional vs electric, the skeptics will always continue to argue against conventional methods of propulsion.
But as we are all responsible for the environment, one thing is for sure - the right foot is greatly responsible for the smog in LA. When one factors driving ability, emotions, driving conditions, vehicle conditions, road conditions, weather, the electric vehicle will always emit 0 (while driving), whereas the conventional one will continue to pollute.
The technology is not there to maintain Air/Fuel at stoich for exact clean combustion regardless of the behavior of the right foot. overall MPG doesn't tell the whole story when part of it is raw gas (HC) and CO while trying to pass that big rig, or inching forward in traffic, or beating the Prius climbing up the hill. The electric car will just consume more of its stored electricity in achieving the same thing, but its emissions output will be 0. And when one drives goes downhill, electric will recharge itself, whereas conventional vehicles will pollute with their brake dust and emitted gasses as that energy is lost, not recaptured.
Perhaps what conventional engines need is a lever for emissions control, and not cruise control which will maintain vehicle speed at the cost of emissions.
Or just use the gas engine to drive a generator at it's most efficient speed. Then store (key word) this energy into a battery so that if the right foot wants to behave badly, it will just deplete the battery faster and will just have to wait for the clean burning constant RPM running gas engine to recharge the whole system again. Then maybe the skeptics will win.