EVER since the first Prius rolled off the assembly line almost a decade ago at the Takaoka plant not far from Toyota City, hybrid cars have basically been a luxury item. If you owned one, you could feel good about using less gasoline and being a trendsetter, but you couldn't expect the fuel savings to make up for the thousands of extra dollars that the hybrid cost. There was no financial reward for environmental virtue. But in the last few months, something important has changed. Gas prices have settled in at close to $3 a gallon, which is enough to make a few hybrids almost worth it, if not quite. And since the start of the year, the federal government has been giving generous tax credits to hybrid buyers, pushing the Prius and a couple of other hybrids into bargain territory. Link to complete article >>>>
Yep, your tax dollars at work. ... Thus illustrating a basic flaw in thinking. Using that logic, one could consider hybrids a fad, too. Just because it's innovative doesn't mean it's a fad.
In my opinion, the article wanders around a bit: 1) You might not save money buying a hybrid 2) Let's discuss tax credits 3) Alternative fuels are being talked about and then he ends with this paragraph: What? After talking about how even with tax incentives you are prone to not save money and to talk about the end of the tax credits after 60,000 cars, he actually blames Washington for not "nudging" people towards hybrids? Wth? It would seem to me that Washington and state governments have done a pretty good job promoting hybrids with tax incentives and HOV privelages. On the other hand, newswriters who start their articles with "If you owned one, you could feel good about using less gasoline and being a trendsetter, but you couldn't expect the fuel savings to make up for the thousands of extra dollars that the hybrid cost." are the ones pushing people away from hybrids. In the end, in my opinion, it sounds like he needed to pump out an article and only had parts from three only slightly related topics.
One additional comment on top of Tony's... Why does it have to be on governments shoulder to get the american population to do something? The problems have been identified... 1) limited supply of fossil fuels 2) air quality. I didn't need the Tax Credit to persuade me to make an educated vehicle purchase that would address these issues as best as I could right now with what is on the market and available to me. (Although it sure did help ) I guess this goes in line with the Problem Solvers/Creators thread.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(unruhly @ Jun 21 2006, 01:09 PM) [snapback]274813[/snapback]</div> It should be obvious that people will continue to do things that, in the long run, are not in their own best interests or in the best interests of their children. One of the tasks of government is to, "promote the general Welfare".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mehrenst @ Jun 22 2006, 12:14 PM) [snapback]275309[/snapback]</div> This is so OT, but I read your statement wrong the first time: "One of the tasks of government is to, 'promote general Warfare.'" :lol: I re-read the statement and got it right the second time. My imagination has a sense of humor, though, I guess!
The easiest and best way to influence buying habits is to rachet up the gas tax. This could even be easily justified: we spend a lot of money to ensure the flow of imported oil that is not reflected in the cost of gasoline. But apparently too few people in government have the guts to raise the gas tax. In fact, every time the price of gas goes up a few talk about reducing or eliminating the gas tax. If the gas tax were guaranteed to go steadily up over time, manufacturers would focus more on fuel economy without any silly CAFE system that forces them to find a way to sell cars that people aren't looking to buy.
