Quote:

The problem is that more hybrids are unlikely to reduce overall oil consumption, unless there is a concurrent increase in fuel economy standards. Today's standard for cars — 27.5 miles per gallon— is a fleetwide average. So if carmakers sold more high-mileage hybrids, they could also sell ever-bigger gas guzzlers and still meet the target.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/op...html?th&emc=th

Thoughts?
I saw this editorial in the NY Times today. On the one hand, it's correct that an incentive for hybrid cars alone is not the answer to the problem of oil dependency, and that changing fleetwide standards would be a more significant step to take right now. On the other hand, I wouldn't characterize this small step as "That's pandering, and that's just what American drivers do not need." I lean towards the 'at least he's doing one thing right' reaction.

One fallacy that so many people seem to fall into all the time is this: if someone takes a small step towards doing something you want, you fault them for not going all the way immediately. It's like the people who would insult someone who buys a hybrid and uses CF bulbs for not being a vegan. They think a little change or a gradual change is worse than no change at all, and ignore the fact that most change is achieved gradually- flowing water can move mountains.

So should we all refuse our tax credits because we're being "pandered to," and because Bush should make the standards higher (he already has that authority for most of the big gas guzzlers that are the real problem, despite what he says about asking for Congress to let him do it), or should we be glad for small favors and hope that we can push for change on the bigger issues soon?

 

Car manufactures are not going to make the gas guzzlers bigger to maintain their low MPG fleetwide average. That's absurd.

In market conditions that favour Hybrids and low MPG cars and with Gas prices rising, manufacturers will try to make all their cars more efficient, even if their fleetwide average gets better. It's not like they reduce their costs by making bigger cars, c'mon.

How far do we go to sell newspapers...

 

Hey, if pandering means giving me $2100, I don't have a problem with it, given a Republican administration. If I don't take the money, they'll just give it to some multimillionaire.

Now, if it was a Democratic administration (or even a Republican one that was actually interested in the fiscal responsibility they've been mouthing all these years), I wouldn't have a problem with them dropping the tax credit. If I thought that $2100 would be used to service the debt, or provide healthcare for the needy, or take care of veterans, or any of a dozen responsible things, they could revoke the credit tomorrow and I'd shrug and say "okay."

The tax credit was intended to kick-start hybrid sales. Once it passes a certain point, we've hit the mainstream, and it's done what it was supposed to do. Since it's a 1-time credit, it doesn't matter whether they extend it as far as we're concerned.

Bush's desire to extend it just shows that he doesn't have any ideas of his own. Let's just co-opt one that's already out there.

Isn't he asking Congress to get rid of the average and let him assign targets for each category of vehicle? If so, look for "small car standard: 45; SUV standard: 15."

Car companies will resist any change, so why not just say "we're going up 1 mpg per year, for the next 10 years." They can squeeze out 1 per year by dumping the biggest-engine options and tuning the rest. In 4-5 years, by the time they've run out of tricks, they will have had time to design new ones from scratch.

 

Pardon the tangent.

Nearly two weeks ago, I responded to someone questioning if hybrids would help. In the manner of a number of talk radio hosts, he started to ask if I'd done my twenty things (living off the grid, etc.) for the environment to prove I'm green. I'm responding at work and it's the heat of an agrument, so I admit to not going completely vegan.

A day later, argula makes a heated response that "if you are not vegan - you are not green at all". Never got a reply on my PM, so I'll say it here:

1. I was not necessarily insultive of going meatless. In fact, I've shown some interest.
2. She obviously did not read the thread and decided to attack green-leaning members and ignore the mean (environmentaly) ones. In other words, nobody at GreenHybrid is acceptable to her.
3. As leahbeatle said, drastic overnight changes in behavior is unrealistic.
4. Expecting overnight U-turns alienates people - didn't you want to gain converts?
5. This approach is unwittingly playing into the hands of the Texas Cattlemen Association.

I've said my peace on that tangent....

 

Just mentioned thoses that are very green not understanding how to get the rest of the world to follow.

Now for the mainstream: A lot of us are not very green at all. For every hybrid sold, 23 conventional SUVs are sold. In general, the typical American wants to drive their gas guzzler and complain about the gas prices he is helping to elevate.

 

1) I wasn't aware we were required to prove anything. While it's important to get out there and be seen so that people *will* see that there are viable alternatives (hence, the tax credit), being cliquish won't promote the behavior, it'll discourage it. We want people to ask questions.

2) This is GreenHybrid.com, not GreenPeople.com

3) If he were really all that green, he should be spending all his time farming, weaving, or pedalling the generator, not harrassing you.

4) If he's that green, he should be walking/bicycling everywhere and shouldn't be buying a car at all.

As for hybrids making a difference, everything makes a difference. So maybe the guy down the block won't buy a hybrid, but maybe it'll occur to him to buy something a bit more efficient. We're trying to roll a snowball here.

 

It's basically someone not very green with the assine argument: "if you are not 100% in your lifestyle - you are not green at all". Then someone that is very green does not read the thread and attacks me. In other words, getting flack from both sides. Neither party was helpful....

 

I think the author is not correctly distinguishing between two seperate issues. Tax credits are not about getting people to buy high-mileage cars that happen to by hybrids. They are there to endorse the technology so it gets a fair start in the market - encouraging more research and more incorporation.

The issue of fleet mpg standards is seperate. Those tax breaks were never intended to do anything about that. So to say that these tax breaks don't address the issue is correct, but then again they never supposed to in the first place.

I think the better tax break would be for absolute MPG, regardless of hybrid or not. Give a 1K tax credit on a Yaris and they'd fly out of the dealerships...

 

I think Tim is right: the author is conflating two things which are really distinct issues. This seems intentional- he wants to line up the ideas of fleetwide average and incentives for more efficient cars, because he seems to think it creates a similar incentive to balance the scale and sell more SUVs.

I am not sure that any of us agree that this is the case. I guess we would really have to ask some car company executives about it to be sure; however, it seems like a leap- would they really feel, after all that's happened, that selling hybrids is only a way to let them sell more SUVs? If the demand for SUVs is really dropping, they'd have to be insane to go that route. If we're right about the consumer trends, and I think we must be, then selling hybrids ought to become an end in itself, as their popularity increases and it becomes more 'mainstream.' Since the fleetwide average standards set a minimum, there would be no reverse balancing- by which I mean that if the car companies sell more hybrids, they would not have any incentive to make more SUVs to bring the fleetwide average back down. Am I making any sense?

 

Well, let's not forget that SUV's are just the most obvious offenders.

Taurus, Grand Prix, LaCrosse, Altima, Optima, Eclipse, Tiburon, 350z, Mustang, Boxster, Crossfire, Caravan, Odyssey, Quest, and many others are at or just below the average. How many people are going from SUV's to cars that are still inefficient? We need those cars to come up in economy, too.