Even for a daily driver with ~12000 miles/year, you’re really only saving ~$1000/year. That’s a <=6.7% ROI on your incremental cost - not negligible, but definitely not a compelling argument.

For Xebra, worried about carbon footprint, there may be another solution. Without doing any real research (nothing more than 2 clicks away from google), I see that Carbonfund.org offers to offset the average annual carbon footprint of an individual (50,000 lbs) for just $240 (see http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/individuals/). Buying a handful of these offsets should even out your eco-karma.

[PSM] It cancels out either way: you either drive the thing frequently, in which case owning is cheaper than renting. Or you don’t drive it very much, in which case efficiency matters little. The scenarios for where renting makes sense are fewer, but a notable one is if you’re doing something like one intense 2-week road trip every now and then - e.g. a low frequency but a high number of miles.

[PSM] When I do the math, I conclude that no, EV is not cheaper. Wired also did the math and concluded that EV is economical at around $120 (e.g. $3.80 per gallon), and that’s still with the limited-range assumption (e.g. a hybrid, not an EV, an EV is even less economical). That’s why EVs have not taken off among consumers; it’s not because consumers are stupid or Detroit is Evil. I’ve made that argument before. What I’m adding in this posting is that oil will not be consistently priced above $3, simply because so many alternatives become economical around that price point. Notably, both biodiesel and fuel cell becomes economical before EV. Add to that the fact that over half of our electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, and you have the situation that, EV is a dangerous distraction.