https://www.pnas.org/content/e...aa-9738-b9ef2760f22e
https://www.manhattan-institut...subsidies-11241.html
If you want, you can Google and find whichever study you choose. Right now, the number of EV beats the ICE on lowering environmental impact studies outnumbers the reverse by about 20 to 1. And in my world, as strange as that may be, the mob is usually wrong. People believe what they want to believe. My experience is that I could show someone studies all day long, and they would not change their beliefs, and electric vehicle superiority is a belief not a fact.
"Also, I m sorry to whine but it puts my teeth on edge when statements are made saying that IC owners are paying for EV owners to do blah blah blah."
Why take it personally? It isn't.
"That kind of argument creates an emotional dichotomy that is false. Money is spent from budgets. You can argue that anything that is funded takes money from something that isn't funded. For example, a fallacious dichotomy might be "Vietnam vets aren't getting the health care and respect that they deserve because we're spending federal funds on fly-byes by fighter jets at sporting events."
It is not fallacious, nor is it emotional. Buyers of government subsidized EVs pay less than market price for their vehicle via ZEVs to manufacturers. Buyers of ICEs pay for those ZEVS by transfer of ZEV cost to the consumer from the manufacturers. A more accurate analogy of the ZEV budget is, "I will take Zoe's cookies and give them to Chloe, because Chloe is more popular and I want her to like me."
Disclosure: I am short Tesla.