As electric cars become less costly and able to cover greater distances per single charge, consumers more and more tend to view them as a potentially preferable alternative to the traditional gasoline-powered automobiles. Electric vehicles seem to perform better on several crucial indicators, such as maintenance costs, environmental impact, and their effect on public health. However, it is also necessary to take other aspects into account to draw meaningful comparisons between the electric and gasoline-powered automobiles. While electric cars have several positive societal impacts, some of these will likely be tempered by the planned obsolescence, and the limited distance per one charge is likely to limit their use in rural areas. Electric vehicles are expected to have a positive impact on society in several aspects simultaneously. To begin with, they do not need to burn fossil fuels to operate, and, as a result, leave a smaller carbon footprint than their gasoline-powered counterparts (Malmgren 989). Apart from the environmental impact, one may also expect electric cars to be more beneficial to public health. Fine particle pollution inherent in the exhaust of internal combustion engines has numerous adverse health effects, such as cardiovascular and respiratory harm, cancer, and even early death (Malmgren 989-990). Additionally, electric cars should also have a positive effect on national security in terms of gasoline consumption. According to Malmgren, choosing an electric car over a gasoline-powered one saves up to 344 gallons of fuel per year, leaving it available for other uses (990). By doing so, electric cars reduce the country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Finally, maintenance costs for electric cars are lower than those for the gasoline-powered ones, suggesting that society will also benefit economically from using them (Malmgren 988). Considering these estimations, electric cars seem to have many positive societal impacts. However, the positive impact of the electric automobiles on the economy in terms of the maintenance costs is likely overstated. The logic of the assumption is fairly straightforward: the less money people spend on maintenance, the more they have for other productive uses, thus benefitting society as a whole. However, Malmgren’s account of this societal impact is solely based on the cars’ technical features and does not take into account the business component of the situation. As noted by Hanke et al., the management of the firms producing cars is under pressure to create “payable sustainable mobility,” and “payable” is at least as important as “sustainable” in this scheme (17). Even though electric cars do not need oil changes or spark plugs and wires, producing goods that have a long life cycle and next to no maintenance requirements is unprofitable. With this in mind, one may expect that the producers will compensate for reduced maintenance via planned obsolescence, such as contrived durability and repair prevention. Thus, the positive impact of electric cars on the consumer’s spending is likely overstated. There is one more downside to Malmgren’s economic analysis comparing the costs of operating and maintaining an electric or gasoline-powered car. The author accounts for fuel consumption and maintenance alike, successfully demonstrating that electric cars are advantageous in both aspects and yield thousands of dollars’ wor