The Problem With Hybrids
March 3, 2009
It's almost ironic that urbanists were ever concerned that Ray LaHood wouldn't be liberal enough to push a progressive agenda in the Department of Transportation, as it was the Obama Administration that nixed LaHood's proposal for a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax in February. The policy really is quite good on paper and Robin Chase, founder of ZipCar and carsharing legend, made the economic case for the VMT tax recently in the Huffington Post. The Overhead Wire lists over 25 excuses floating around the blogosphere for why the VMT tax is a bad idea; admittedly, some are more legitimate than others. The one that caught my attention right away is the argument that a VMT tax punishes hybrid drivers.
While it's true that on-balance hybrids are better for the environment that other vehicle classes, comparisons are rarely so simple. For instance, it would technically be greener for someone to drive a pickup or an SUV one mile each morning to work than for her co-worker to drive a hybrid 20 miles. When gasoline prices crossed three and four dollars over the summer, demand for hybrids exploded because, presumably, people were driving such long distances that the cost of purchasing fuel on a regular basis was becoming a financial burden. For someone who drives very little, it really wouldn't matter whether they drove a gas guzzler or a hybrid, as the monthly fuel bill wouldn't be particularly large either way.
In a lot of ways the hybrid car has become a scapegoating tool that allows environmentally conscious (but not downright green) individuals feel OK about excessive driving. Eric Morris recently wrote over at Freakonomics that increased fuel standards for cars will likely lead to increased driving, traffic and pollution, damage roads and exacerbate sprawl; none of which are particularly good for the environment. In that sense, the idea that driving a hybrid is environmentally OK because it gets good mileage is similar to the belief that buying bottled water is environmentally justified so long as you recycle the bottles. In both cases alternatives already exist. Drinking water from the tap is cheaper and greener than buying it in plastic bottles, even if the bottles are recycled. Not driving is cheaper and greener than driving, even if it's in a hybrid. But so long as we're convinced that the alternative is an unfair lifestyle sacrifice, it's hard to see much changing.
While it's true that on-balance hybrids are better for the environment that other vehicle classes, comparisons are rarely so simple. For instance, it would technically be greener for someone to drive a pickup or an SUV one mile each morning to work than for her co-worker to drive a hybrid 20 miles. When gasoline prices crossed three and four dollars over the summer, demand for hybrids exploded because, presumably, people were driving such long distances that the cost of purchasing fuel on a regular basis was becoming a financial burden. For someone who drives very little, it really wouldn't matter whether they drove a gas guzzler or a hybrid, as the monthly fuel bill wouldn't be particularly large either way.In a lot of ways the hybrid car has become a scapegoating tool that allows environmentally conscious (but not downright green) individuals feel OK about excessive driving. Eric Morris recently wrote over at Freakonomics that increased fuel standards for cars will likely lead to increased driving, traffic and pollution, damage roads and exacerbate sprawl; none of which are particularly good for the environment. In that sense, the idea that driving a hybrid is environmentally OK because it gets good mileage is similar to the belief that buying bottled water is environmentally justified so long as you recycle the bottles. In both cases alternatives already exist. Drinking water from the tap is cheaper and greener than buying it in plastic bottles, even if the bottles are recycled. Not driving is cheaper and greener than driving, even if it's in a hybrid. But so long as we're convinced that the alternative is an unfair lifestyle sacrifice, it's hard to see much changing.
Further something like 50% of a car's pollution is created during the construction of the car. So yes hybrids can help, but really aren't the completely solution.
This smacks of a logical fallacy I can't quite put my finger on. This reasoning in this post is like a false dichotomy and false composition argument with an excluded middle and a reductive fallacy… all converging into argument demanding impossible perfection.
Of course driving isn't environmentally friendly, no matter how environmentally friendly the car. Even a pure electric Tesla Roadster you charge with solar panels uses energy that could’ve gone to something else – like running your neighbor’s fridge who doesn’t have solar panels and is buying electricity from a coal burning power plant. But that's not what's at issue, here in this argument. And this argument, frankly, sucks. Just like everyone knows that driving obviously sucks for the environment.
I don’t drive much. I walk a lot, and I ride my bicycle a lot more. I go so far as to pay high rent to live close to my office so I can avoid driving as much as possible. However, there are days when I HAVE to drive. Yes, I have to put on a suit and tie and go to court. I can’t risk the bus breaking down because my clients will be screwed if I don’t show up or if I leave a file on a bus accidentally. And I’d have to leave the house at 5:00 am. I can’t ride my bicycle to court with all the stuff I typically need to bring. So I drive. And I drive a hybrid in which I get @ 45 mpg in city driving.
Do I feel good about driving my hybrid? No, I’d rather ride my fixie. But on the days I must drive WHY THE HELL WOULD I DRIVE A NON-HYBRID IF I HAD TO DRIVE? I personally wouldn’t. Driving anything that gets less gas mileage than my hybrid would be assholic. But sometimes I have to drive. I don’t think having a hybrid absolves me of my responsibility to try to do the best I can not to drive. I think it helps mitigate the damage I do when I have no other choice.
So don’t blame the hybrids – they’re not even close to the problem. Start by blaming city planning, the suburbs, or poor public transportation. Hybrids didn’t cause any of these problems.
Dave, good point. It can be easy to forget the energy required to do a lot of things when we aren't burning it first-hand.
Stephen, if you ever decide to peruse this blog's archive, you will find plenty of discussion about suburbs, zoning, development and public transit. This post is merely a small piece of a much larger puzzle. Hybrids didn't cause the structural problems you bring up, but they do give a lot of people an excuse for not fixing them, and that is exactly the point.
I have to agree somewhat. As an urban designer/planner, I worry that once clean energy is here (who knows when) and we have electric cars, that our communities will be reduced to sprawl. Maybe I underestimate the power of a shared community. Maybe there will be other compelling factors to encourage compact growth?
Though I'm one of Obama's supporters, I was willing to give LaHood's idea a chance. It was impractical and needed a few kinx-fixes, but he was onto something. In a couple of years, gas cars are gonna be gone anyway and I think LaHood was thinking forward.
Anon @ 3:12, you're always going to have to pay for energy. Driving an electric car 30 miles is always going to cost something and that cost is still going to hurt working families. The biggest thing I see is allowing families to keep more of their hard earned money by giving them choices of transit and walking and biking.
There's another problem with "hybrids". The name evokes some kind of green utopia, but all hybrid cars, suv's and trucks are not created equally. Nor are the hybrid propulsion systems.
You have the Chevy Volt touted as a full electric. But it has a "range extender" which is a 4 cylinder engine.
Most people can't afford to buy a vehicle simply for the environmental benefits.
So there has to be a trade off between the cost and the benefit, both to the environment and the owner.
Mass transit really doesn't pay, except for reducing emissions and congestion. If riders ever had to pay the full cost of this cheap, clean transit, there would be riots in the street!
The fare, is but small change, compared to the local and gas/road taxes assessed to keep this monster alive, with it's expensive machinery,infrastructure,repair and fuel costs.
But this is considered by local government as a fair trade off.
Living in a hugely expensive, high density area, is a trade off. Exchange high rent for fuel and car payments.
Exchange manual labor(walking) for convenience (taking a bus or taxi). Exchanging view for a back yard.
It would be interesting if every form of transportation was truly evaluated from square one. All costs on the table. Everyone pays his way according to the mode of transportation used.
If you use the sidewalk, you pay for a portion of it. If you use the road for your bike, you pay road taxes. If you drive a big truck.. well you pay a whole lot. You get the idea.
In the face of reality, it would be interesting to see what shakes out.
And the great thing about solar power system is that you can start small if you want and grow your solar power system as you feel the need. You probably want to get the basics of how solar works before you go all out, but when you start seeing the savings on your power bill you may reconsider and start adding on to your solar project.