By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
A lot of folks do this. And we wonder why we have idiots in office whose only qualification is "Du-oh, I'l lower yur taxiz".
That's not true. Early on most taxes involved tariffs on imports and consumption taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco. Clearly these aren't "progressive" wealth re-distribution taxes. These type of taxes didn't come about until WWI and even then they were very limited in scope. During the depression the idea of the rich having an obligation to take care of the less fortunate became a very popular notion and in fact led to a top income tax rate of 98%, which lasted for a very short time. My point is that you have no idea what you are talking about but your point of view is very clear.
Any tax that takes money from X and benefits Y is moving money from X to Y. That's income redistribution.
The term "progressive" means money moves from the more wealthy X to the less wealthy Y as a % of income.
I had referred to income redistribution, not progressive income redistribution.
These type of taxes didn't come about until WWI and even then they were very limited in scope.
Actually, the early tariffs were quite progressive because only the wealthy imported anything, the masses on farms were self-sufficient.
My point is that you have no idea what you are talking about but your point of view is very clear.
Thanks for educating me, the amusement is a bonus
I do my best but its always nice to be appreciated.
One of my biggest complaints. My Landlord when I first moved to Alaska in 1970 lived on his 160 acre homestead. He hauled everything with an old tractor up the side of the mountain along with several other families. They cleared land built homes and raised families. Less than 25 years later in 1973 the city incorporated all that area and re-zoned it potential development. They raised the taxes to the point he could not pay them with his Civil Service wages. He just wanted to live on his homestead in peace. That was not to happen. He had to split up his land and sell it to pay the taxes. Within 2 years he died of a heart attack at 57 years of age. The Municipality of Anchorage Killed him in my opinion.
Kernick is right we do not own the land we rent from the government. That is not what the founding Fathers had in mind.
me: Certainly not. You can rent an apartment for just as long as you would "own" a house. Or you can rent furniture and TV's for an unlimited time. You could also go to Hertz and rent a car for years (they'd love that).
you: Second, it is against the law to not pay your taxes, so if you break the law, you may lose your freedom, your house, your car, your money, etc. This concept is not incompatible with ownership.
me: That's what I said. My property (house/land) is the ONLY physical thing (not a service) I own that I have to continually pay on. Everything else I own, I do not have to pay on ad infinitum. You have been deluded and indoctrinated into thinking you "own" your house/land.
you: I could as easily say that if one cannot stop a hurricane from destroying your house, then you do not "own" it.
me: But a house/land is the only thing you own that you have to continually pay for, or else it can legally be taken from you.
I own a TV, I own furniture, I own clothes, I own appliances ... because I have no future payments to anyone else and they can not legally be taken from me. You have agreed in your prior statements that a house/land does not fit this criteria.
We are a nation of idiots, then. And perhaps we should just have a national sales tax of 30% that will pay for everything. And perhaps no more reservois should ever be built.
Perhaps, mo better, we should get back to the topic.
me: yes, and it is amazing how many people still dutifully paid their phone taxes which was created to pay for the Spanish-American War of 1898. And most of us are willing to give up our rights, for some superficial increase in safety against terrorism.
Next thing you know the American public will believe "Just Say NO to Drugs" will work. Just say it enough and it becomes the truth?
I finally agree with you in that we've gotten way off topic. While I feel strongly on these other philosophical issues I realize that ground will never be given from opposing views. In other words, its a pointless dialog.
Certainly, yes. Any rental agreement must have a time period. Even "for life" is a time period.
My property (house/land) is the ONLY physical thing (not a service) I own that I have to continually pay on.
Ok. I don't see how "having to pay" is equivalent to "not owning".
You have been deluded and indoctrinated into thinking you "own" your house/land.
I think you've been deluded and indoctrinated into thinking you don't. We should probably give this a rest.
But a house/land is the only thing you own that you have to continually pay for, or else it can legally be taken from you.
But you're not paying for "it", you're paying for the services that the government provides and you utilize. You're confusing the manifestation of the penalty (for failure to pay what you are obligated to pay what you have implicitly agreed to thru citizenship) with purchase price of the property.
If you are happy with your personal definition of property ownership, that's ok with me. It's true that property ownership in the US comes with special obligations that are not able to be waived. I'll leave it at that.
I've found that rare is the occurence of an overt change of POV on these boards. But I've also found, that no matter how intractable the positions are, I almost always learn something, even if only from being forced to think. So...I wouldn't call it totally pointless.
Anyway, back to our never-ending dependance on oil.
PS
In Norway the King gets 78% of the oil revenue. Talk about a rip-off.
Ummmm, huh? You're kidding, right? They are on target to sell 100K this year! That's a historic high for Prius, and is the maximum production capacity Toyota has for this model (for U.S. export)
As far as best fuel economy bang for your buck goes, I do agree that hybrids aren't always best. People could try downsizing their cars a bit, leaving the SUV at home except when it's absolutely needed (!!), and driving like they want to save gas instead of driving it like they stole it.
Judged on fuel economy alone, though, the hybrids are tops. If you want to save gas and make a statement (not to mention, drive a comfortable car with some luxury features), the Prius is for you.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I am not seeing any change in the way people drive with this higher priced gas. Whether it is a Civic or a lifted 1 ton Crew Cab PU. It is blast off from the light and slam on the brakes for the next light.
Prius sales are down 12% from last year. If they maintain the current sales pace they will not sell 100k this year. It has surprised me as I thought they would sell like crazy at least the first part of the year. Getting the tax credit and HOV is about the only good reason to buy a Prius in CA. They are not a great highway car. Much of CA driving is highway and we get a lot of high winds going anywhere out of the metro areas. For a long urban commute they would have advantages. Though I believe that CA has reached the limit on HOV passes. That may account for the big drop in sales for May. Camry and Corolla had great sales in May, while Prius was off 15% from April sales.
Am I the only one that gets dumped to a page with lots of unreadable messages when I click on the forums icon?
Am I the only one that gets dumped to a page with lots of unreadable messages when I click on the forums icon?
It sends me to this URL...
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/ForumsLanding
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Thanks,
I envy you. I can't stand how slow drivers have gotten around here, in every lane. (Not in terms of acceleration, but in cruising speed. 35 in a 45??)
The Fit is average. Not cramped, but average. Now, this makes the Versa interesting. Because when U see a Versa from the exterior, it is easy to underestimate one, and think a Versa is just one of the small little beast.
But I have tried one overseas. U will be in for a surprise ! This " little boy " when U enter one, feels almost as spacious as a BMW 5 series. Width wise of course the BMW is wider, but legroom and headroom wise, the Versa beats the BMW. Sounds incredible ? Try it for yourself later.
So I will not call a Versa a little beast. Versa is like a big boy in tight clothing.
Safetywise I don't worry too much. In Japan people are also quite particular about safety. I have seen crash photos of a Versa agaisnt a much larger sedan, the Nissan Cima I think. The Versa did manage to take equal punishment as that big luxury Nissan sedan in that test.
If U feel safe in a Prius, then a Versa will not be a problem, as their size is not that much different.
I sound like a Nissan salesman. But trust me I am not. I will not leave a telephone number so that anyone who wants to buy a Nissan can give me a ring. I am just expressing my amazement at how a small car can become so big inside !
But I think again abt the big picture. The more I think, the more I realize hybrids really won't make any big difference so far as oil consumption and the environment are concerned. Here's why :
There are already HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of OLD and NEW non-hybrids on sale and running around the world, even if U want to consider only on US soil.
Now, even if 100,000 hybrids are sold every year, that PALES in comparison to 17 MILLION other non-hybrids sold, including gas guzzlers not just made by the big 3, but Toyota and company also continue to sell gas guzzlers.
That means hybrids made up only 0.6% of all new cars sold each year. Now, maybe someone can help me find out, currently what is the total car population in the US ? What is the total hybrid population in the US ? Compare the figures and U will realize hybrids are losing the race ! Not even close ! More like a drop in an ocean !
And Toyota / Honda too I think will not be interested in stopping sales of their gas guzzlers too like the Tundra and other big SUV / trucks too ! Who wants to lose sales ?
The only QUICK way to clean up the environment, as well as save mega tons of oil, is to GET as MANY as possible Millions of owners of OLD gas guzzlers to switch to a more fuel efficient and clean emissions car.
That is the fastest way. Now, with hybrid economics still not too good for many ordinary folks, the only alternative and REALISTIC way is to go for cars like the Versa, Aveo, etc. I am not anti-domestic. Any domestic car whose fuel consumption and emission is good will help. If U can get 50% of oldies to change to a more fuel efficient domestic car, that is still more helpful than a small handful of hybrids sold.
The important thing here is not hybrid vs conventional, its HOW FAST and how MUCH of the oldies switch ? Do not forget that the population of old cars is still HUGE ! People who think hybrids will make a quick effect is IGNORING the MASSIVE population of old cars still out there ! Domestics AND International, Japanese, Korean etc.
And actually diesel do make a lot of sense too. Even though their emissions are not as clean as a hybrid, but since their economics make more sense, if for instance for every 10 old gas guzzler car owner, we can get 7 to switch to a diesel as compared to say 1 for a hybrid, the diesels will obviously result is MUCH bigger effect on oil conservation than hybrids.
In a nut shell, hybrids, though they help, their population and appeal are too small to have any meaningful effect. Unless within say 5 years, hybrids make up 30% of the new car population. But I don't see that happening, not at $3 gas, not at $6 gas when people will be so hurt economically by hyper inflation that they will prefer to hunt for $5000 old cars.
Either way, hybrids, though well intentioned, are caught in a tight spot. Cheaper gas and people turn away. Sky high gas prices and people CAN'T afford one due to sky high inflation.
Thus hybrids only help owners to make a statement, but I think sad to say, the effect is at best negligible.
Unless tomorrow hundreds of millions of old cars are scrapped and only hybrids are allowed to be sold. But do U see that happening ?
My motto is : changing 50% of people is more meaningful than changing only 0.5-1% of people. Hybrids are only doing the latter. People got to go for the 50% ! And only efficient non-hybrids / diesels got a chance to do that !
Now, could someone tell me the current population of ALL cars in the US ? A rough estimate will help U see that hybrids won't make a difference.
Some time ago, someone stopped littering. Someone started recycling. Or going farther back, someone thought women should be allowed to vote. They weren't statistically significant for years after they got those crazy ideas into their heads. Doesn't mean they were pointless.
-First, hybrid technology is quite early in its developmental cycle. Costs of hybrid production should decrease as production increases (economies of scale) and as the technology evolves. As the technology becomes more commonplace and the automakers learn from their current efforts, these efficiencies and savings will eventually be passed onto the consumer in the form of lower prices. Bottom line: I'd expect hybrid prices to be on par with other cars in the market, sooner than later.
-Secondly, Toyota has followed a classic technology marketing strategy in introducing hybrids, which means that the emphasis has been on gaining early adoptors who aren't particularly price-sensitive, rather than going for the low price sale. At this stage, Toyota has focused on appealing to the "innovators" who like technology for its own sake, and who will spread the gospel as it is these adventurous buyers who lead the marketplace and become the tastemakers for the mainstream. The "late adoptors" such as yourself (and me, for that matter) who are focused on price and bang-for-the-buck are addressed later on the adoption curve, and Toyota is smart to not invest much energy in appealing to the cost-conscious pragmatists just yet -- it's too soon, and there are other segments willing to pay more who should be addressed first..
If this topic interests you, I'd suggest reading Moore's classic book on technology marketing called Crossing the Chasm, which illustrates why this staged approach to marketing technology products makes sense. I think that you'll find that if fuel prices remain high that Toyota will eventually have hybrids at every level of the product line. If fuel prices increase further, Toyota may go further and sell only hybrid versions of virtually every car in the lineup.
Toyota is betting big on using hybrid technology as a way of differentiating itself from its rivals, and I expect that you will see continued moves to reach out to buyers to join the hybrid family. This is not just about trying to earn profits on a few individual dual-engine cars, this is about Toyota's goal of finding new ways to build its brand, and to pass GM and Ford so as to become the world's largest automaker. If fuel prices decline, then you can expect TMC to regroup and try a different approach.
OK. I get your idea. But pls do not forget that stopping littering, recycling, allowing women to vote, things like that are like loving our women more, having sex more often, all these things are good, BUT they cost NOTHING ! People don't do Maths on these things. Nobody loses, everybody gains.
But the hybrid case reminds me of the fate of the Concorde. It was a technological wonder, but failed because the economic case for it wasn't there. Allright, even though Concorde was a gas guzzler and hybrids aren't, still the Concorde failed NOT because of its engine. Because people, more and more people, there are just NOT enough passengers to keep the Concorde viable.
I am not saying hybrids will be like Concorde and disappear, hybrids will be around for sometime. But like I said, will there be enough of them around to make a difference ?
But since Toyota and Honda are still selling many gas guzzler models as well, can their hybrid cousins compensate, make up for their siblings high oil consumption ? Higher emissions ?
Maybe someone have data on hybrid model sales figures vs their non-hybrid, gas guzzler model sales figures ?
Furthermore, I once read an article that says Toyota and Honda, by selling a bit more hybrids, they lower their CAFE mpg figures, and THUS, they can sell MORE, much more gas guzzlers as well.
Actually I don't quite believe Toyota is serious abt making their line-up full hybrid. It just isn't realistic when more and more hybrids are suffering lower sales as more people choose more economically rational choices.
OK. U said hybrids may become affordable for many more people. Well, I hope so, but I do want to know how its going to happen. U might say continued research may make that happen, but till today, supersonic flight at an economic cost never make it, even decades after Concorde's failure.
And hybrids are going to face an even greater challenge from conventional cars whose mpg figures are ever closer to the hybrids mpgs. And not forgetting some diesels in Europe already have mpg figures that are equal, or better than hybrid figures.
I mean if conventional smaller engines costing $10k-$12k can achieve almost 40 mpg, and $20k hybrids are achieving 40+ mpg, how can hybrids ever hope to make any difference ? How can hybrids ever hope of becoming huge volumes to bring down their cost for their manufacturers ?
Not to mention diesels are also getting better and the cost, lifetime maintenance costs are lower and more predictable.
Some sources say the world's oil reserves can only last for about 50 years more or so. And that maybe less as world consumption continues to increase rapidly. Can hybrids make a difference in 50 years, considering that like I said, for every hybrid sold, Toyota / Honda, together with many other car companies are STILL selling many times more models which consume much more gas.
Since oil reserves is running out, I think more people should try to stop sales and production of those monstrous gas guzzlers instead of just focussing on small numbers of hybrids, forgetting that their gas greedy cousins from the same factory continue to be sold in huge numbers...
If say 1 hybrid sold by Toyota / Honda gives them the license to sell say 10 gas guzzlers, what good will those hybrids do ? Maybe more damage is done ! Who knows it could even be Better if there are no hybrids and CAFE automatically limits the number of gas guzzlers sold to a far less number. Right ? Wrong ?
I would imagine Los Angeles has 19 million vehicles on the road. Last I read for the whole USA there are about 230 million registered vehicles.
I think your assessment of the whole situation is pretty good. My take is current vehicles are too complex for long life. Especially hybrids. It is part of our throwaway society mentality. Keeping a car for 3 years does not make sense, unless you only lose a small amount in the exchange. Trading a fairly new vehicle in to get better mileage makes no sense to me. The loss you take would more than pay for the extra fuel.
According to "Driving Today"
“There are approximately 230 million passenger cars in the United States (140 million cars, 28 million SUVs, 38 million pick-ups, and 18 million vans and minivans.”
So no matter how many times it is pointed out that Toyota temporarily reduced production of Prius for the introduction of Camry-Hybrid, you'll continue to sight this misleading data point? That's just plain wrong.
At the end of the model year, all 100,000 allocated for sales in the United States will be sold and there will continue to be a waiting list.
Demand remains strong, despite what that clearly misleading monthly data seems to imply.
JOHN
It's your rather bizarre "big picture" references that are confusing the matter. The stated arguments heavily imply the expansion of HSD simply will not happen, despite evidence to the contrary.
In reality, the "big picture" is that the expansion of HSD is moving along well. Perhaps no where near as fast as you'd like, but the increased choices cannot be denied. Camry-Hybrid and GS-450h are brand new, both using the latest refinement in the design too.
Toyota still maintains the goal of delivering a hybrid option across their entire offering. They also talk about the next generation of Prius.
So your focus on a non-changing future for hybrids simply does not make any sense.
.
> Now, in my opinion, the fastest way to make an effect is to get more and more Americans to switch to cars like the Versa, Yaris, Fit, Aveo, etc.
When people have the choice between changing their vehicle preference (type, size, class) or just the propulsion system within, what do you honestly think they will do?
JOHN
Why not? The revenue to be generated after the warranty expires on the hybrids is astronomical. Makes the cost to maintain an out of warranty Lexus seem trite.
If as Toyota claims the demographic for the $20k Prius is a person making $85k per year. What would be the demographic for the $30k Camry hybrid and $65k GS450h?
I believe kc7 is referring to the millions of Americans that cannot really afford to get any new car, let alone a $20k, $30k or $65k car. Upgrading even slightly by getting a 1999 Corolla to replace a 1989 Corolla should be beneficial.
kc7, I like your idea of a tax incentive for buying a new car that would remove a beater off the road. Junking an old smoking Dodge Dart and replacing it with a high mileage economy car would be money better spent than giving some fat cat $3100 for trading in a 2004 Camry on a Prius.
Not my data, it is from Toyota. Last year it was what a fire in the Prius factory? Not even possible in your opinion that the Camry Hybrid would be taking sales from the Prius? I thought the Toyota goal was 250k hybrids for the US market in 2006. Are they on track to meet that goal?
A bit ironic to see a GM-supporter expressing concerns about Toyota reliability...
And it should be noted that (a) the Prius has thus far been highly reliable and (b) as these products evolve, any technological kinks should be worked out. If there is a company that can be expected to do a good job of both introducing a new technology and making it reliable, it is likely to be Toyota.
I have my concerns about the long-term prospects for the batteries, but I suspect that these things will be worked out, if they haven't been already. There's no reason to believe that this technology can't advance and improve just as other technologies have tended to do. Aren't you glad that we didn't write off powered flight back in 1904 because the Wright brothers weren't able to fly very high, or for very long?
It's not the battery that worries me. It is warranted for 10 yrs 150k for most hybrid owners. It is all the electronic gadgetry that is expensive to replace. Several posters with Prius out of warranty have had large repair bills on sensors, computer modules and display units. That to me cuts the practical longevity out of any car. No one wants to buy even a "reliable" Toyota without an extended warranty. Something I have never needed with a GM PU truck.
As far as GM I have never had a serious problem with all the PU trucks and the Suburban I owned. I would have quit buying them if I had. I have never bought a new GM car, so I have no reference point on their reliability. I have rented a lot of Chevy cars and they were better than the Ford & Chrysler offerings.
Problem Solved.....NEXT !!!!!! :P
Rocky
However, I personally couldn't drive something that old around (you know, some shred of "image" to clients), nor do I want to sit in front of Chinese restaurants begging for used cooking oil, or hefting huge vats of the stuff back to my garage for processing. It's not like the Chinese restaurants have pumps outside to fill your VW diesel at your convenience. Besides, do that to your Benz diesel and you've voided your warranty.
So, it get very PRACTICAL and REAL WORLD about it (that is my subjective view of "real world"), something like a brand new Scion xA or similar subcompact gives you oustanding mileage, a warranty, reasonable safety features (front and side air bags), all for $12,000 less than a Prius or VW TDI....and $12K is a LOTTA gas.
So I think the new line of subcompacts are the "bang for the buck" champs. You might say that a $3,000 used Sentra is better, but that's only true as long as it runs. If something big breaks, a 15 year old Sentra is worthless, so that's $3K down the drain. At least with a new subcompact, you have equity after 5 years of paying it off.
I guess it doesn't matter if your in one of the new economy cars or a old one when it comes to safety. If you take a direct blow by let's say a Hummer at 45 mph is it going to matter if your in a Yaris or GEO ? The Hummer driver is going to say "oops a speed bump"
Rocky
C'mon where is your environmental concern?
I'm not much on buying other people's problem cars. I would like to think I could buy a new car and it would last 15 years as my 1990 Mazda 626 and 1990 LS400. I have spent money on these two. Nothing ever major or they are history. I am not confident that any new car today will last 15 years with low mileage and normal service. Too much cheap electronics and added crappola.
You bring up a good point I was thinking about a few months back. If the "free market" works the way I see it we will end up with the cheapest supplier giving us all the electronics. That means 15 years down the road that car will have more short circuits then a 1980's DeLorean.
Rocky
And really, if everyone rushed to find used cooking oil (demand) and starting using it all up (supply), then suddenly the used cooking oil will start costing more than most items on the restaurant menu!
So cooking oil fuel doesn't make the cut in my idea of "bang for the buck" because the cost of one's labor is not included and that isn't fair.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
And the 230 million figure makes sense, like I suspected. Now assume there are currently say how many ? 500k hybrids on US soil. Use yr maths, how many % is that ? That works out to a paltry 0.2% !
PLUS like I said many times, yet still some people don't get it, example, Toyota sells about 2 million cars to US consumers every year. How many of those 2 million cars are hybrids ? How many are STILL gas guzzlers ? See my point ?
Thus hybrids are losing the race if Toyota refuse to stop selling gas guzzlers as well. The race lost by hybrids is like the tortoise and the hare, and this time the tortoise WILL LOSE ! How can a tiny volume of hybrids even hope to make a tiny dent to the effects caused by their MUCH more numerous cousins, those big Toyota trucks and SUVs ?
OK. One might say without Toyota's hybrids, where will we be today. My answer again will be, pretty much the SAME ! Because hybrids make almost no effect at all (only 0.2% of car population).
In addition, the big SUV hybrids and big car hybrids are even more useless. OK. The standard version consumes say 17 mpg. The hybrid version achieves say 20-22 mpg. SO WHAT ? That is still a far cry from an Aveo / Versa etc.'s 33+ mpg !
Its just an excuse for big gas guzzler owners to lighten their guilt. " I reduced my oil consumption from 17 to 22 mpg cause I am a hybrid.
Then if he meets say a Versa driver, do U think this hybrid truck driver has the right to shout to the Versa 33+ mpg driver " Hey, U stupid Nissan, U are a non-hybrid, get one now ! For oil and our kid's future ! " The big truck hybrid is 20-22 mpg, the Versa is 33 mpg. Who is the guilty one ?
I will only thank Toyota if they STOP sales of all gas guzzlers. Otherwise, I will continue to feel that Toyota is just using hybrids as a ticket to sell EVEN more gas guzzlers. If Toyota wants to research hybrids and sell them, go ahead. Its fine with me (well, not really because the tax incentives aren't fair). But if they continue to sell EVER increasing numbers of gas guzzlers, they don't have the right to say " we care for the environment, oil ". Its just hypocrisy ! Just say I am a profit making corporation. Now that's honesty !
Can I say to my wife " Darling I love U, I still do, BECAUSE I spend 25 days a month with U, and ONLY 5 days with another woman ! "
If U really love yr wife, then spend ZERO days with another woman, and 30 days a month with your wife ! FULL TIME !
And if this guy continues with this 5 / 25 ratio, after 3 more years, will the wife feel better, or worse ?
OK. If Toyota one day have a line-up of FULL hybrids, but of that, majority are still 20-22 mpg hybrid trucks / SUVs / big sedans, what good will that do ? Its just like prolonging a cancer patient's remaining life from 6 months to 7 months !
The only QUICK way is to get the 100 million + old cars OFF the road by say giving them incentives to buy cheaper but 30+ mpg cars, instead of $20k+ hybrids which many people still can't afford, or even if they can, the break even period is too long and they refused.
The hybrid people might say one day hybrids will cost $10k. But we don't have the TIME ! Oil can only last for a few decades more ! Rather 100+ millions of old cars should be removed as fast as possible. Less than 1% hybrids on the road can't do that ! Takes too long !
Look. Majority of hybrid buyers, even the cheapest hybrids, are relatively well off people. On the other hand buyers of non-hybrids like Versa are going to come from mostly middle working class. The bulk of the population.
The last thing one sensible minded person needs is to see more and more higher upper class fat cats able to save even more money on new car purchase !
Just imagine this : Leonardo Di Caprio and company, rich businessmen, actors, doctors, lawyers, investment bankers buying hybrids, saving tons of money, and with smugness in their eyes, they say " We DID our part for the environment ". Even though for many of them, those incentives don't really feel a lot anyway.
Now, on the other hand, many of the middle class people due to economic reasons, find it more difficult to buy new cars, let alone hybrids. Thus they are forced to continue to use their older, lower mpg / higher emissions cars. They know their cars aren't too good for oil etc, but they have no choice !
Now, imagine the minority of these hybrid drivers accusing the majority of non-hybrids of pollution, of burning oil.
The best way out I say is, remove all hybrid incentives. Let the richer guys do their part for the environment, they can easily afford one anyway.
Instead give incentives for the middle class people so that they find it easier to change their old cars for newer, but still affordable cars like the Versa for example. For each old car that runs 15-20 mpg, they can upgrade to a 33+ mpg new car, yet they don't have to pay a lot more.
I especially feel the Versa is interesting, cause Versa means people who want to upgrade to a new 33 mpg car don't have to compromise on space and safety, compared to if they have to buy the small and cramped Yaris. No other car can do this. Cheap and big on size ! 30+ mpg. I think if the Versa did well, she should have a bigger effect on oil and the environment than the Prius, if Versa outsells Prius more than say 5 is to 1.
OK. There are a lot of yr average folks out there. Easy. For each say $5k incentive for a hybrid removed, the government can now allocate and split them so that each $5k hybrid incentive removed can help say 5 folks, each receiving $1k. Or 10 folks, each receiving $0.5k.
That means each hybrid incentive removed can encourage 5 or more old 17 mpg car to become a new 33 mpg car ! The rich folks don't feel much anyway about $5k incentive, but $1k incentive means a lot more to the average folk !
And the chance of an old $5k 17 mpg car becoming a new $12k 33 mpg car is say 50%, or even 80% if we are talking abt changing to another USED $7-9k 33 mpg car, compared to probably only 5-10% becoming a $20k+ hybrid. Maybe less !
Multiply this scenario by tens of millions of other middle class folks, and U WILL SEE US oil consumption plunge so much that the Arab Oil barons start pissing in their pants ! Instead of only 100k hybrids a year running at 40+ mpg, vs the HUGE contribution 30+ mpg cars can make if they are available to the tens of millions of people !
Plus, this scenario is fair. It makes Robin Hood the good guy he is again. The less well-off gets to upgrade, do his part for the environment, and save gas money. The rich will still be able to buy his hybrids anyway.
Everybody wins. Nobody losses. Its a win-win solution, and a FAIR one. So remove hybrid incentives today and channel them instead to people who want to buy 30+ mpg cars ! New or USED.
The most beautiful image I can think of is millions of factory people, your typical man in the street folk making his living the honest way, able to sell his old 17 mpg car, buying a new 33 mpg car, spends only $1000-$6000 extra depending on how old his previous car is, gets some help from the government, and feel GOOD abt his car !
The current situation is people like Leonardo Di Caprio, high income people buying hybrids, get government help in saving even more money, and shouting to the masses " Hey U ! Get a hybrid today ! I did my part. What about U ? "
Which will U rather see ? Which will the Arab Oil Sheiks rather NOT SEE ?
Fair enough. The thing is hybrids are complex, and its almost certain that down the line, the cost of maintaining hybrids are going to a a LOT more than conventionals. Yes, technology will improve, but how many less well to do folks are willing to gamble on a new technology when the old internal combustion engine have been tried and tested. And whose track record of cheap maintenance are well known to all ?
Even if ordinary folks are now given $1k incentive to buy a USED high mpg car, which will he probably go for considering he is not a rich guy ? A car like besmith's 38 mpg used Mazda, or a 40+ mpg USED Prius which will very likely scare him off because he does not want to pay for expensive batteries and repair etc. after the warranty runs out.
I say it again. We don't have the time to give hybrids a chance to make sense economically. Get hundreds of millions of people to buy / upgrade to ordinary 30+-40 mpgs will do the trick !
When will hybrids prove to be as durable and cheap as internal combustion engines ? 10 years ? 20 ? Oil is running out fast ! No time for that ! Unless within 5 years hybrids become so cheap that they make up 30% of all new car sales ! It took the Airplane from early 1900s to 1970s when the jet age arrives. And the research on cure for cancer is still not there yet. Sometimes certain costly researches took too long ! It does not mean that those researches should be abandoned, but just that pls do not be so obsessed by one as if its the ONLY way out !
I just feel that too many hybrid proponents think more hybrids sold will SOON solve our problems. I say it again. It does not even come close if nothing is done to the hundreds of millions of old cars and Toyota / Honda refuse to stop selling gas guzzlers in huge numbers as well. Pls do not indulge in wishful hybrid dreams. Or start to think that only Toyota / Honda is our saviour.
Pls look at the BIG PICTURE ! If U look too close to a painting, U can only see 5% of the picture. U got to ZOOM OUT !
I am worried that by the time hybrids mature, the remaining oil in the ground is only good for 5 more years, because the hundreds of millions of old cars around the world is still not being taken off the roads.
See my urgency, and why I think that cars like the Versa may ironically help more than a Prius in the end because Versa is likely to outsell the Prius by a big ratio.
Of course other good mpg non-hybrids also help, but cars like Versa are of special interest to me, because what we need for quick oil consumption reduction is BOTH GOOD mpg AND CHEAP ! Only then WILL MORE people buy !
Also, not to mention the Accord hybrids, big SUV / truck hybrids which cost a bomb and the improvement in mpgs are pitiful. Considering that hybrids use up more energy and rare resources from the Earth to manufacture, I even suspect that big SUV / truck hybrids may in fact cost us more in energy and resources in the end ! They don't make any sense at all !
Maybe it might never end given that oil is also needed for purposes other than transportation.
Conservation and efficiency should be key elements in reducing imported oil. There are so many opportunities to do both, such as in housing, personal and mass transportation, appliances, lighting, insulation, etc.
Citizens need to be aware of and ask a multitude of questions when making decisions:
Do we really need a 3000-4000 ft house when 2000 ft or less would be adequate.
Will a 3200-4000 lb vehicle serve our needs rather than one weighing 5000-7000 lbs.
What are the most energy efficient appliances.
When contemplating having a new house built, what types of construction will lower energy costs such as thicker walls, more insulation, energy saving windows, wider eaves, etc. What are the best lighting options for reducing amount of electricity consumption.
Are affordable housing choices available that will lessen my commutes.
Can I get by with little or no use of air conditioning for personal comfort. Folks in north could probably endure, while those in desert cities or FL would be severely challenged. Somehow, our grandparents, great grandparents, and previous survived without air.
Govt needs to study possibilities for enhancing rail lines to reduce amount of cargo shipped via road and to offer alternatives to personal transportation.