I see no reason to keep hybrid technology only for small cars like my Prius, either. My take on the the simple beauty of the hybrid solution: being the only power plant, the ICE really only needs to provide the average power required by the vehicle, and the average requirement is _way_ less than the max.

The electric system provides the difference between max load and average, allowing a the designer smaller and more efficient ICE, and as a bonus, regenerative braking, stealth mode for stop & go, and (this next one really matters for Texas where I live) more efficient electric-powered air conditioners.

xcel: I'm with you in that we can't tell people what to drive, but it's worth it for people to be educated about the costs of their choices, and to have accurate information about the alternatives, something I have rarely seen with hybrid articles in the media. If my good friend who recently bought a non-hybrid Ford Escape had known more about my Prius (which has comparable acceleration and more room!), he might have bought it and saved a ton of gas; he never tows anything, so the Prius was a viable option.

Shining Arcanine: I'm right with you, except for the oft-referred-to "coming ice age" misquote of the 1974 National Science Board, which was actually:
Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .
The Washington Post left off the final sentence about human interference, so every story that quoted _them_ left it off, leading to decades of misunderstanding that continue today. Am I the only one reminded of early "studies" of hybrids in the media that used flat-out incorrect numbers and misleading comparisons, which continue to be quoted today?