At 5:37 PM -0500 4/19/06, Schimpff, Jeff A wrote: > >Wait a mini, folks. > >We need to recognize that the impacts of hybrids depend on the >characteristics of the people who own them, and where they are used. > >In urban areas, everything I have read leads me to conclude that, >assuming not all of us and are neighbors are going to ride our bikes >everywhere we go, it is better to use a non-bike vehicle (NBV) that >pollutes as little as possible and uses substantially less fuel than >most NBV's, than to use a standard gasoline one. All the non-truck >hybrids do that. If all vehicles were hybrids now, we'd have cleaner >air and feel less need to bully other nations into selling us oil.
Jeff, The concern here is on government incentives for these vehicles. A hybrid is only marginally an improvement over a straight internal combustion engine. It might save you a few bucks on gas, but its not going to substantially improve air quality or reduce the risk of global warming. As you point out, its the usage that is far more relevant. So if we want to subsidize behavior that is beneficial to the community, that money would be far better spent promoting livable cities and sustainable transportation. FWIW 36 mpg for a new hybrid is not very impressive - my 15 year-old Honda can get that (on a good day, anyway). -d _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
