Why not? Again, I spent $4,000 more for my hybrid, JUST because it was a hybrid. I could've bought a LARGER vehicle with MUCH less gas mileage. Why discourage that?
I respectfully disagree with your position, Jason. If I could've not purchased this vehicle, I would've purchased another HCH. You cannot lump everybody into a category and MAKE them adhere to it. That is why I live in the US and not Europe or Canada.

Furthermore, some of the hybrid SUVs get better mileage that non-hybrid medium sized cars.

If I take your examples literally, then hybrid drivers who don't get EPA mileage should not get their tax break, either. Yes?

 

Saw somewhere that in 1993, SUVs were 10% of new sales.

By 2003, they were 25% of all new sales. I'm sure that figure has dropped in 2005.

I would relunctly favor tax breaks for hybrid SUVs to reduce overall fuel consumption. The stats I cited confirm my suspicion that people want, not need a large vehicle. It seems that the SUVs of the early 90s were significantly smaller than today's ones.

Noticed an article on the tax break in 1997 for business vehicles. Of course, this was abused with people buying luxury SUV's.

Maybe another way this thread could have started is: "do most people need personal vehicles larger than sedans"? Hybridizing larger vehicles and performance cars will save energy, but undermine the intent of saving even more.

I drink 2-3 diet Cokes daily. It's probably better than regular Coke, but ice water would be the best choice. Kind of like driving a medium or small hybrid.

 

I like your analogy to the Diet Cokes.

I made a conscience decision to reduce the amount of gasoline my household used. I could easily justify going from an Ford F150 to an HCH on my 56 mile, one-way commute. I now register positive cash flow on that transaction, though barely. Justifying the FEH as a replacement to the Caravan was more of a stretch, by no means was there a cost savings. I did it for one reason alone, to reduce the amount of gasoline. If gas goes to $5/gallon, maybe I break even.

 

Dude, I recommend you read up on Aspartame. It breaks down in the body to methanol and formaldehyde that gets into your brain and causes real damage over time. Jet pilots are forbidden from drinking diet sodas because of the aspartame content. I highly recommend keeping that stuff out of your diet if you are at all concerned about your health.

 

Yes, I've heard that. Like a lot of other things, it's a matter of getting the will to do cold turkey.

I'm convinced it's created additional dental work for me. Diet Coke also makes weight loss more difficult.

 

Hybrids in Europe are few and far between, and yet petrol is ~ *twice* as expensive.

And NO, diesel is not the major reason (although it certainly plays a part). It is because sub-compacts are the main car on the road.

Policy in the form of subsidies for SUV's is wrong, regardless whether they are hybrid or not. America has to downsize. There are only two ways for the government to encourage this: increased taxes at the pump, or money for high MPG vehicles. Credits for any specific technology will be twisted into *increasing*, rather than decreasing the number of SUV's on the road.

The argument that gas saving technology should be applied to guzzlers first and formost (including tax breaks to get it there), because greater unit savings in gas are realized, is wrong for one simple reason: that kind of vehicles should become rare -- not MORE prevalent in a slightly improved format.

Individuals like zad are the exception; policy should not be made to accommodate the exceptions. Sorry.

 

Most policies happen because of mandates from the people, not the politicians.

Bottom line is until the general public gets serious about energy conservation, nothing happens. I'm afraid the fuel pump prices just don't hurt enough yet.

 

I agree with Delta Flyer -- not giving tax incentives to less economical SUV's only means that SUV hybrids will not be developed and even less efficient SUV's will continue to be sold. Hiding our heads in the sand and trying to force others to buy what WE think they should buy just doesn't work in America. I believe we should improve efficiency, reduce waste, and clean the environment by whatever means will work. In this country, that means providing what people want in a package that does the best it can to support efficient resource use. Like it or not, that's just reality!

 

I just realize politics is the art of getting part of what you want. It's rare you get it all.

I'd just hope in the coming years, the CAFE standards are seriously raised for both cars and light trucks. I mean a standards change more than the Bush administration supports, but not so Dracoian it shuts down GM and Ford.

This would make more vehicles trim.

 

I don't think hybrid SUVs should get zero, but I don't think they should get the same kind of level of rebate as a gas-sipper. The technology is expensive, so the rebate will help, a little... But like has been said earlier, if the full rebate is applied to SUV hybrids then there's little hope that the overall gas consumption will be reduced at all. Proportional rebates makes the most sense to me.