Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Prius, Hybrid, EV and Alt-Fuel News' started by massparanoia, Apr 24, 2012.
More People Are Buying Hybrid Cars. So Why Won't They Stick With Them? - Forbes
Yet another author is confused about the timing of the Japanese quake/tsunami induced hybrid shortage of 2011 vs the hybrid/EV buying binge of 2012.
Forbes right wing political musings on the 35% of hybrid owners buying a new hybrid. Not worth much unless one shares Forbes right wing views and likes to hear them repeated.
There's really no such thing as a "hybrid market". There is a high mileage vehicle market.
A more relevant question is why did people pay the premium for the high mileage car in the first place and what mileage was the vehicle they purchased after that one.
They may feel as I did in the early 80's when, after returning from Saudi, after two oil embargoes on US, I purchased a Rabbit Diesel as the highest mileage car available. But Reagan moved US to consume more oil, not less, and I saw no reason to be a human sacrifice for US stupidity and sold it for a Chevy Blazer.
That may be what happens to folks buying a hybrid today, they hear talk of US energy independence, climate change, they see the oil wars and the human and economic cost and by a high mileage car to do their part.
But then nothing changes. US oil use continues to increase. Oceans are destroyed by oil rigs. Oil wars keep going. People figure why should they pay extra if most Americans and the government they elect won't do anything to save their country on the planet.
People get discouraged because the right wingers who write and read Forbes win and the country loses, oil use goes up, oil wars go on, oil damage grows.
So they don't make the sacrifice to pay more for a high mileage car.
Yeah but neither side has done anything meaningful to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels. It comes up in campaigns on both sides of the isle, everybody hoots and hollers over "change" and "independence" and then that is where the issue dies. Congressman, Senator, President they are all the same. All talk and no action. Doesn't matter if you are left or right, they all suck.
You crack me up. Reagan's policies made you buy that blazer, and it sucked.
No one forced you to buy a sucky car It is amazing how hypermiling a geometro gets you similar mileage to a prius though.
Liberals have been pushing for European levels of energy efficiency, 50% greater than US, and the policies to support them, higher CAFE requirements, gas taxes, higher building standards, higher energy efficiency ratings for all kinds of machinery from jets to dishwashers, greater government subsidy for alternative energy development and deployment, end of government subsidy for oil industry, carbon taxes, etc.
Right wingers have fought all those policies as being "communist" and have pushed for a futile "drill baby drill" "free market" pro-oil company policy that has cost US $9T in oil trade deficit taxes and another $9T in military spending in a vain attempt to secure Middle East oil fields since 1980.
American public has had clear choices in political leadership ad made bad choices.
Yep, forbes readers like me probably voted for obama. I just couldn't see sarah pailin that close to running the country.
[sarcasm on]I guess your saying its obama's fault that people aren't buying more high mileage cars[sarcasm off]
Some are good, most are bad. I wonder if senator haircut will get convicted of using campaign contributions to cover up impregnating a staffer while his wife was dieing of cancer.
Obama's drill-baby-drill policies (he opened up US East coast to deep water drilling a week before deep water drilling destroyed the Gulf of Mexico) have continued the US problem of energy efficiency, $500B trade deficits, oil wars, greenhouse gas increases. Nothing has improved under Obama (a Reagan Democrat) so he doesn't get any credit for fixing the problem of US energy inefficiency and oil use.
why don't they stick with them??? Because they probably didn't buy a Prius, but some other lame excuse for a Prius.
Very true, but try to remember where the massive "drill baby drill" pressure originated. It was from states that wanted the revenue, and the right wingers in the country.
Obama capitulated to political pressure, against his stated stance. Within days of the gulf disaster, Obama backtracked on further drilling because the political pressure was off.
Left of the aisle are fat, too. Many are lazy. And everybody recognizes the utility that big cars may present; as well as the increased safety, all else being equal. I say this as someone who started driving at age 30, and who has never owned an SUV. Actually, I have never owned a car for my personal use that gets less than 40 mpg. The one gas guzzler in our family, bought as a snow car and protection for the kids, was a 25 mpg Subaru.
I like Forbes; but trust me, no one confuses me with a right winger.
Pushing for something, and doing it are two different things. Actions speak louder than words. I would also like to see the data that says the entire continent of europe is 50% more energy efficient than the us.
That doesn't get Obama a pass. He stated, correctly, during the campaign that we could not drill our way out of the oil problems and that dumb oil wars were bad. It's job of national leadership to look at national interest vs. regional interest.
He ended up going drill-baby-drill from deep water oil drilling to natural gas fracking to mountain top removal and doubled down on the dumb oil wars. He killed off the Graham-Kerry climate bill which would put US on path to lower greenhouse gases. His latest pas de duex with the XL pipeline to ship world's dirtiest oil from Canada to New Orleans to ship to China is another example of bad policy.
Did any policy Obama advocated and fought for increase US energy efficiency, reduce US oil imports, reduce US greenhouse gases, reduce US oil war spending? Answer is no. All have gotten worse in last four years and will continue to get worse over next four years. Romney will no doubt be even worse then Obama.
So I changed my mind, went the human sacrifice route, got an Escape hybrid and then upgraded to a Prius hybrid. Three years from now I'll get a plug in with a 50 mile EV range.
Eyup. One comes before the other.
Pointless cliches are a dime a dozen.
Per capita energy use (kg of oil equivalent)
It must be the american publics fault for voting for that right wing obama instead of the liberal McCain/Palin ticket. Sarah Palin would have reduced oil consumption and never advocated drill baby drill
Sarah Palin: 'We Need to Keep Drilling' Despite BP Oil Spill - ABC News
It never is.
Liberal polices of gas tax, carbon tax, energy efficiency standards in all aspects, all the policies that have worked in Europe to make their energy use 50% of US.
Liberals are for them. Right wing is against them.
Right wing has dominated last 30 years and the results have been energy, national security, environmental and economic disaster...in large part due the "free market" pro-oil policies of right wing GOP from Reagan onward.
In Obama' case, more his going back on the policies he campaigned on and public voted on. Obama campaigned against drill baby drill and then pursued drill baby drill policies.
Of course McCain would have been worse just as Romney would be worse but none of that excuses Obama for his bad energy and climate policies.
This contradicts your previous post. Maybe liberals when they get in office follow many of the same bad policies Certainly someone voting in the last election to not have offshore drilling could not be blamed for picking politician A or politician B. Both would have drilled even if they campaigned on something different. I certainly don't believe if the country had voted the other way bp would not have short cutted safety procedures and caused the spill.
We'll have to wait for a liberal to get into office and find out. Obama denied, correctly, that he was a liberal. He was a Reagan Democrat.
But to the point of oil and climate policy, he did campaign on efficiency over the false promise of "drill baby drill" and then pursued drill baby drill. You were saying US public was at fault but in case of 2008 election, the public did the right thing, Obama did not do what he said and did the wrong things instead.
Reagan promised balanced budgets and gave us record deficits and debt. Reagan's energy policy said energy independence but gave us increased dependence, oil trade deficits and oil wars. Are Obama's lies worse than Reagan's, order of magnitude much less but they are lies nonetheless. Failure of US leadership. It happens. Country's fail. History repeats.
Comparing the oil use of the entire us vs only 3 of the countries of europe is hardly a compelling argument. Lets see us vs the entire eu if you want to compare apples to apples.
And you are right cliches are a dime a dozen. So are empty campaign promises.