I know I'm preaching to the choir here but...

The comparisons are far from apples to apples and the conclusions are extremely short sighted. For example, there is an implied assumption that the Hummer will always use it's simple engine and emissions controls. However, that is obviously wrong. As inevitable as taxes, vehicles currently exempt from stringent emission requirements will eventually need to be reengineered to comply with tighter requirements (probably as soon as next year). I predict the dust to dust energy cost of the Hummer is only destined to go up, while the cost for hybrids will decline. And if the requirement for introducing any new technology is that it has to be cheaper from the git go as the established technology it is replacing, we'd still be paddling wooden canoes. AFTER hybrids have had 100 years of equivalent development that a conventional automobile has been through, IF the costs remain higher THEN you can conclude it's not worth doing. That would be an apples to apples comparison.

In addition, some statements in the Reason article are simply wrong. The statement that most sticks out to me is: "But the biggest reason why a Hummer's energy use is so low is that it shares many components with other vehicles and therefore its design and development energy costs are spread across many cars. It is not possible to do this with a specialty product like hybrid." In fact, hybrid manufacturers are doing just that. In Toyota's case, for example, they are using the same technology across multiple vehicle models already, and learning more as they do it. The 2008 Prius is suppose to get better than 90 mpg in part because of what Toyota has learned from the first two Prius versions. That's absolutely incredible.

The “Dust to dust” paper seems to concentrate on manufacturing costs, sales costs and disposal costs. I don't know if their numbers are correct or not, but the report says nothing about costs related to empowering the operation of the vehicle. The costs I’m talking about is the cost of protecting the mid east oil fields and the ocean trade lanes with the US military, as well as the cost to the environment and the health of the population. Security expenses related to protecting oil wells costs somewhere between $2 to possibly as much as $12 per gallon. Right now, the Iraq war is directly costing us in excess of $1 for every gallon of gas you buy (last year we burned 200 billion gallons of gas and the war cost over $300 billion so far). The expense of cleaning up the environment or negating the effects of global warming are becoming unmanageable (and may in fact threaten the survivability of the human race if things get too far out of hand). I’m not going to argue that mankind is, or is not, contributing to global warming. We are, however, deciding to spend money, resources, and energy combating global warming. The cost of that battle can be, and should be, in part associated with the levels of CO2 emissions from our vehicles. How much does polution affecting our health cost us? No one knows. But I think it's safe to say that less polution costs us less in health care terms.

One graph in the report made me laugh. The graph shows the premium people are willing to pay for a hybrid is declining. The funny part was the same graph showed the premium being charged also declining at the same time. Hmmm, people are less willing to pay a premium if they don't have to? ****, someone alert the marketing department!

So, simply stated, these guys seem to have a view horizon equal to just over a few months. Personally, I think we had better start looking out a few decades.

In closing, I'd like to say "be cool and keep the faith" (). If the average consumer really felt the way the Reason article says (losing interest in hybrids), Toyota wouldn't be reporting record full-year profits. I have a couple of predictions myself: The cost of gasoline/diesel isn't going down and consumers' desire for improving fuel efficiency isn't going away.

Thank you.

Dave May