Hybrid Cars: Not Always the Right Answer
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 04.17.06
Are hybrid cars really that much better for the earth and our dependence on foreign oil than conventional cars? Jamie Lincoln Kitman, the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine and a columnist for Top Gear, says not necessarily, and he's right. As with anything, there isn't an unequivocal blanket statement that can be made about purchasing and owning hybrid cars (i.e. they're always the better choice, they always get better mileage), at least from a purely quantitative standpoint. His argument? That (starting next year, at least) someone can buy a Dodge Durango hybrid (pictured), for example, qualify for tax breaks, "feel good" about saving the planet, and still get 14 miles/gallon (instead of 12), while a conventional Honda Civic driver doesn't get kick-backs from the government, doesn't have a status-symbol car with the words "hybrid" on it, but gets 40 miles/gallon.
This comparison is apples to oranges (you can't put a drumkit or a dozen two-by-fours in a Civic; nor can you squeeze a Durango into a tight parallel parking space downtown), but it raises some interesting questions about what it means to own a hybrid, and the misconceptions that can come with a car that runs on batteries sometimes; think something along the lines of "Now that I have a hybrid, I don't have to worry about my fuel consumption anymore, because my car does the worrying for me. So who wants to go bass fishing? Let's hook up the trailer...."
At the end of the day, the point is a familiar one here at TreeHugger: please think about what you spend your money on. Hybrid cars are overwhelmingly positive and a tremendous innovation in the automotive industry, and, yes, hybrid cars are generally more fuel-efficient than their conventional counterparts (when similar or identical models are compared). However, there is no get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to internal combustion engines, and there are pitfalls with hybrids, just as there are with any other cars. They make sense for a lot of people, in a lot of ways; we just need to be careful not to let carmakers woo us to sleep with the magical "h-word" and promises that it will make everything okay. via ::NY Times
I feel that tax breaks and emission waivers should go one step further.
Sure it's nice that people own a hybrid car, but unless they're driving it efficiently you're not helping the environment.
e.g. If you own a Prius, but you're getting 46 LMPG, then you shouldn't qualify for tax breaks and emission waivers that you're only supposed to receive on 50+MPG automobiles.
It's time people aren't only conscience over the vehicles they buy, but how they drive them. We need to balance driver responsibility and purchase responsibility.
This is why I bought a used car. My 1987 camry gets around 33mpg and only cost me $500, leaving me lots of money to spend on other green things (like an electric lawn mower). I can also feel good that I didn't contribute to the polution created during the car manufacturing process since someone did that for me way back in 1987. I plan to drive this car into the ground (should be another 100k miles) and hopefully by then there will be some nice e85 hybrid or fuel cell cars available.
fyi, the "remember personal info" checkbox still doesn't work.
I've got co-workers who commute a great distance and complain about the price of gas, but they don't want to get rid of their $30,000 land yacht, carpool with anybody, or switch to a 40 mpg Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic.
It's the same sort of screwed up logic with offering tax breaks on 14 mpg hybrid Durangos. Chrysler would be better off putting a bio-fuelled common-rail diesel in the Durango than a fancy electric motor.
I've got co-workers who commute a great distance and complain about the price of gas, but they don't want to get rid of their $30,000 land yacht, carpool with anybody, or switch to a 40 mpg Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic.
It's the same sort of screwed up logic with offering tax breaks on 14 mpg hybrid Durangos. Chrysler would be better off putting a bio-fuelled common-rail diesel in the Durango than a fancy electric motor.
Chris, just make sure that the emission control system still works on the car. The catalytic converter gets less efficient with time. You probably should get it checked, and maybe replaced, because there's a chance you're driving a smog-machine.
Honda Insights get 66mpg, but Honda is considering taking them off the market because not enough people are buying them. I find this very unfortunate.
It may not be an SUV or the biggest truck on the lot, but 66mpg people! That's nearly double what new cars are getting these days.
America has a one track mind: go big. Big cars, big portions, big money, big bellies.
similar conversation about what drivers would want out their next car - rebuilding an eco-auto from the ground up at Groovy Green.
similar conversation about what drivers would want out their next car - rebuilding an eco-auto from the ground up at Groovy Green.
I drive a Prius and I have long thought that SUV and pickup hybrids little deserve tax breaks and HOV privileges. I think such conservation incentives should be given to any vehicle that meets a certain mileage minimum, regardless of powerplant.
Additionally, I think driving a so-called "clean fuel" vehicle shouldn't necessarily give you a free ride in the HOV lanes. Two people driving two Priuses use more fuel than two people carpooling in a new non-hybrid sedan. Perhaps a hybrid vehicle ought to give you a one passenger bonus, meaning if you want to drive in HOV-3, you'd need at least 2 people in your car. The original purpose of HOV lanes was to reduce traffic and reduce fuel consumption.
Start comparing the lifecycle energy intensity of hybrids and they look even worse that non-hybrids. You can't be green and drive at the same time...simple as that.
Why should a Prius get a tax break and not my bicycle? I don't see why any motor vehicle purchases should be subsidized.
Don't hybrids simply shift the the problem of energy consumption? They don't get use less energy to run, they just burn less fuel in built up areas. Surely what they are good for is improving air quality in towns, not for increasing energy efficiency?
I recently purchased a new car. Need one with seating for 3 cats and storage for groceries/scuba equipment. My first choice was the Honda Insight, but too small so I chose the Civic, specifically for the mileage. I considered one of the new small hybrid SUVs, but mileage too low. I agree with Scott that tax incentives should go with minimum mileage not type of engine.
The real answer is that without government intervention, people will make the best descsion for them. Kick backs and tax breaks for Durangos? Come on!. The real answer is to raise the price of gas. Do the tax increase as a 10 year slide in of $2 taxes/gal. You will see high mileage cars, electric cars, and more - even car pooling. People who drive Durangos can pay for the Iraq war debt with the $2 tax.
I guess Smug Pollution goes both ways.
Clair, you are thinking of plug in hybrids (which can actualy also be topped up with solar/wind power etc).
I agree with several of the other posts here that we should be incentivizing mpg, not just hybrid technology. According the EPA, there are only four vehicles that get at least 40mpg (and two of them aren't hybrids -- the VW diesel Golf and Beetle).
Furthermore, I would favor a tiered set of incentives. As I understand it, the average mpg for a new vehicle in this country is around 25mpg. How about a tiered approach? Cars that get greater than 40mpg get a $1000 rebate. Cars that get over 50mpg get $2000. Cars that get over 60mpg get $3000, etc.
How about tiering the gas guzzler tax? Cars that get less than 30mpg get a $1000 surcharge added on. Cars that get less than 20 mpg get $2000 added on, and cars that get less than 10mpg get $3000 added on.
And my final idea (the one I really like), is that the money being paid as a gas guzzler tax is earmarked for paying the rebates on high mpg vehicles.
Yes. All standards should be higher, and folks making SUV hybrids, that still get less mileage than your average sedan should be laughed back into their caves. It's like the car industry thinks that just because driving a hybrid is hip, folks are stupid enough to think it really makes a difference, and maybe the car guys are right.
Also to correct Poonanny above, yesterday there were several articles saying that Honda is considering pulling the Accord Hybrid, but not the Insight, as Insight sales rose 15% last year.
Thanks for pointing out that Insight sales rose. I was really concerned that I wasn't going to be able to get one in time.
Dump the tax credit, increase the federal sales tax on gasoline by $0.01 per year, every year, increase the gas guzzler tax yearly, raise the level of what constitutes a gas guzzler yearly.
And the Accord Hybrid. I can see why few are being sold. People who want a hybrid want an efficient car, not a freaking hotrod which the accord hybrid is. It only gets 1 or 2 mpg more so why bother? Come on honda, quit putting bigger engines in just for the USA market, we would rather get higher mpg. My last civic had a 1275 cc engine and was a blast to drive. I don't need to do 120 mph.