I’m always curious to read discussions of hybrid cars in the mainstream press.  The following story came from Yahoo! News, and it was one of the featured stories for Yahoo! email users today.  Part of the fixation with the anti-fuel efficiency perspective is on cost, especially relatively short term cost like what you’ll pay in a year or over 5 years.  This article is no exception.   What’s more aggravating is that when the environmental reasons are mentioned, they are done so with such tokenism in a way that’s really insulting or patronizing to the reader.  In this article, the writer dedicates all of two and a half sentences to the really important reasons to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, only to ultimately leave the reader with the importance of a “bottom-line” analysis.

What’s most demeaning about this article and others like it is that it states the obvious as if it’s some grand discovery worthy of our attention: new hybrid cars cost a lot of money. Of course, so do new conventional fuel cars.  In an analysis of a new hybrid versus a new conventional car of the same type or class, the financial benefits of the hybrid would likely shine.  But instead of focusing on this comparison, idiot writers, like Terry Jackson from Bankrate.com, focus on ridiculous menial mental exercises that perpetuate our snail’s pace in the world of automotive fuel efficiency.
Click here to read “Trading in Gas Guzzler May Cost You.”