Originally Posted by The All Irked Pravus Prime

I'm rather disappointed by your recent article
by Betsy Hart, (I sent an email to ScrippsNews, and to Boston Herald, with the appropriate link here),
in that's the
kind of reporting I'd expect from a
failing high school journalism student.

I was always led to believe that one did
research before writing an article, so that they'd be
armed with the facts and solid information to form an
opinion rather than anything they felt like saying,
even if it's blatantly wrong.

I will freely admit at this point, I am a
hybrid owner, so I'm somewhat balanced the other way.
I do not have, however, any problems with reporting a
negative aspect of hybrids. I just have a problem
with inaccurate reports (negative or positive) about
hybrids.

"This feel-goodism has never felt quite right
to me. It's not just that until recently the cars were
so little and lacked power _ I prefer big, heavy and
safe _ it's that it's always been the case that the
market doesn't support them."

First of all, I find it rather laughable that
she believes hybrids need help, when it was the
monster SUVs and Hummers that required government
breaks to get them onto the roads to begin with. Now
look at them.


"They may be politically correct, but hybrids would
get nowhere without government and manufacturer
subsidies. (Car companies take losses on the cars.)
Hybrids cost about $6,000 more to make than similar
gas-powered car, and consumers won't shell that out _
whatever their politics _ and so buyers require the
subsidies, Reason magazine recently reported."

Actually, this is rather false. Secondary
sales which don't have rebates or incentives move
quickly, and new cars stay on the lots 15 times
shorter than non-hybrid equivalents. In addition, I
have no idea where that six thousand add on comes
from, it's between $1500-$4000 at the most.

"In fact, hybrid manufacturers are now doing
what car manufacturers always do, according to
National Geographic magazine _ trying to add
horsepower to the vehicles _ because that is what the
buyer wants. But that will, in turn, lower their fuel
efficiency."

Sadly, this is true, but it's to regular
vehicles, not hybrid vehicles. The finding has been
that hybrid sports cars outperform conventional sports
cars, and use less fuel at the same time. This isn't
a case of the manufacturers beefing up hybrids to get
them to sell, it's the manufacturers entering into a
*GASP* secondary market, those who want power more
than fuel economy. Yes, now you can pick the kind of
hybrid focus you'd like, fuel economy or power. Not
all hybrids are the same.


"Look, some folks just like the things and
saving some money on gas, and good for them. What I
object to is the myth that persists in the popular
culture that hybrids confer some kind of special
"pure" status on the driver."

While this is her pure opinion, I wonder why
people confer some sort of great status on people who
own road and environmentally damaging Hummers. (This
is shocking true, there's actual research on this!)
Or obnoxious Tahoes and Escalades.


"I wonder if once they grow nearly as big and
heavy as an SUV, if they will keep their halos? My bet
is "yes" _ some people just want to feel good about
feeling good about themselves, no matter the facts."

This shows just how uninformed the article is.
There are currently 4 hybrid SUV's on the market RIGHT
NOW. I happen to own a Ford Escape Hybrid, yes a
hybrid SUV for over a year! Why shouldn't I feel good
about that decision, I get over 38 miles to the gallon
with an All Wheel Drive SUV, and produce a scant
amount of Carbon Dioxide. My engine doesn't run much
of the time, and I'm very quiet on the road.

So, what are the facts? Hybrids are cleaner, by
their very function. They use less gas, and have
greater range. They're quieter, and produce less
greenhouse gases. Those are the facts.

Denial is a problem, not a fact.

"Even these: The well respected auto research
firm, CNW Marketing in Brandon, Ore., recently found
after a two-year study collecting data on the "dust to
dust" energy costs of the cars, meaning the "energy
necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose" of
them, that the hybrids don't stack up well against
their gas powered counterparts. That's in part because
they require such complicated computer systems and
hard-to-make, light-weight materials, and they don't
last nearly as long as gas-powered cars (around
100,000 vs. 300,000 miles).

CNW translated all that and more into "energy costs
per miles driven" and found that hybrids use more
total energy in their lifetime than their gasoline
powered cousins. Hear this _ even a Hummer, the
ultimate bane of the environmentalist world _ uses
less total energy over its lifetime than any currently
offered hybrid (including the halo-special, the
Prius), said Car and Driver magazine in reporting on
the study."


If there had been any real research done,
the writer would've known that this article was
debunked as crap, and that the President ordered this
done to make the Chevy Aveo look good in the reports.
That article was apparently just as biased as this
one. Though the CNW report was bribed, what's Betsy's
excuse?

I'm disappointed with the article, and you
for having run it.

-Richard Krueger