At 3% of total - is there any catching up to be done? - except batteries need to become cheaper.

It is not likely that more brands of hybrids will increase the 3% by much, Honda is still trying.

Who wants to invest billions to wrest some of that 3% from Toyota ?
- GM is in the on deck circle; (with a EREV)
Good luck with that.

I feel a bit sad, but it puts real customer demand for BEV's in perspective.

We need peak oil or $2/gallon tarrif, otherwise it will be business as usual.

I can understand that much better. Sadly the main point I agree with is the unspeakable taxation issue. The most politically unpalatable but likely the most effective. Most people would go to the end of the earth to avoid unnecessary tax penalties and that is often exactly where they send the black money.

I wonder how a high tax disincentive on say fossil fuels:

A; affects the less developed economies assuming they are internally generated revenue raising devices. Presumably not at all.

B; So some emerging economies may wish to give comparative advantage through a low tax incentive.

C; If (as suggested by AlGore) taxation is combined with the internationally relevant cap and trade scheme, in various combination, then international carrots,sticks on the basis of carbon emission that sounds like it would work.

D; Of course there are those whose only interest in the whole CO2 debate is to buck the science, and ordinarily known as globalwarming sceptics.

Your points 2,3 and 6 are sensible comments however it is difficult to sell any new technology as most consumers wait and see how it will work in practice.
With the limited choice unlikely to change in auto alley in the short term, there is a circularity to the argument. Again, from a low carbon (or renewable energy) perspective, without large integration into a smarter grid, many will argue that there are no savings either economic or environmental.
I must agree to that view.
That some may be in position to supply their own resource is irrelevant to the govt's as they are looking at the realities that can meet the needs of the whole country.
That must also be realistic and achievable I don't believe the economics are the overriding issue but will play its part in prioritising .

Again we face a circular argument. That that is the present state, does not mean it is desirable or sustainable and I believe the facts and figures are substantially in. There is no palatable long term option and procrastination is not a palatable situation unless you are making lots of money doing nothing.

People are very accepting of change once the decision is made and I would again suggest that the numbers are pretty well crunched that support the viability of the economic and technological models.

These numbers are not just hot air, the technology is well past the concept stage, they are becoming a reality.

If you had asked me 5 years ago, I would have been quite (reasonably?) very doubtful.

We are now seeing the commitment from reputable business, tertiary education, many leading developed country officials etc and despite much perception amongst the public that the difficulties are larger than the return, I suggest again that people will be glad to see elected representatives acting.

In a short few tears, they will forget there ever was an issue. New ways of doing things will become the norm and hopefully humanity will be getting on with the next issues likely to be demanding action over the next decades.

I think right now the main driving force for people avoiding new cars right now beyond lack of money and fear of the future and just plain lack of understanding is the one most powerful force in human nature.

All the people we hate will suffer if we just wait and do nothing.. and watching them fall is far more rewarding then any new car or truck or diamond ring. Loathing has brought us together.

I agree arnold, we need, but apparently most people do not want high gas taxes (but I am not sure what you mean about sending black money). Yes, maybe we can phase it in.
Have the politicians tested the water on this lately?

I believe you miss the point when you say that it is difficult to sell any new technology because most consumers wait and see how it will work in practice.

I think it is unfortunate but true that the hybrids sell only 3% because they are not fiscally sound, not because people are afraid of them. Almost everyone wants to save money and are not afraid of new technology – much less a technology that is 10 years old.

Many would like to make a statement with a hybrid EV, but not a $5000 statement.

I think there is no circularity – auto makers are making EVs (but they are too expensive) and buyers want EVs badly (but they are too expensive).
The batteries are too expensive, and forcing quantities into the billions or passing some law will not change that – developments on many fronts are needed and this is happening.

"I dont think buyers want EVs badly they just want something other then gas/diesel before they have to buy a new car."

Well yes, that is more accurate.

Too bad we are so addicted to cheap oil, tax free options-bonus, zero interest rates, low sale taxes, high tax credits and very high deficits.

Can we continue to rely on more deficits to pay for general services? Can we continue to live on borrowed money? If we do, how long can the dollar stand at a reasonable value or will it continue its downward journey to 1/2 one Euro or less.

This may not be the ideal time to start collecting more taxes to reduce the mounting monster deficits, but it will have to be addressed sooner or latter.

There are 5 areas where increased taxes and reduced tax credits could have positive long term effects.

1) a progressive $0.02 to $0.04/gallon per month on fossil fuel for the following 100 months.

2) a progressive $2.00 to $4.00/tonne per month on GHG/CO2 emissions for the following 100 months.

3) a progressive transaction tax of 0.001% to 0.002% per month on all financial transactions for the following 100 months.

4) a progressive tax increase on all personal income above $200K/year.

5) a progressive decrease of all tax credits at the rate of -10%/year for the next 10 years.

Nobody should worry because politicians will never do it.

Nuts to increasing fuel taxes...

Taxes raise gas prices to the equivalent of $8-$9 per gallon in the EU. So what is the sales rate of Hybrids in the EU? Is it 25 35 or 45% Hell No. It sless than in the US.

All gas taxes do is reduce consumer's disposable income, making people keep old gas guzzlers longer and prevent the adoption and benefits of new improved designs.

The evidence is in. So offer some valid proof rather than suppositions, to counter that evidence. You simply can't.

Wow, I went away from this discussion for a long time... anyway, Stan Peterson wrote:

"Taxes raise gas prices to the equivalent of $8-$9 per gallon in the EU. So what is the sales rate of Hybrids in the EU? Is it 25 35 or 45% Hell No. It's less than in the US. All gas taxes do is reduce consumer's disposable income, making people keep old gas guzzlers longer and prevent the adoption and benefits of new improved designs."

Wait just a minute, you ignored one huge part of the picture. What is the market penetration of MASS TRANSIT in Europe? Many, many times what it is in the United States.


I have a friend in San Francisco who just retired a 1970's BMW model 2002. It was old, and of course it got miserable gas mileage. She kept that car for over 30 years!

However: for the past twenty years, she put maybe 3,000 miles per year on that car. If she wants to travel around San Francisco, she uses the extensive light rail and bus systems.

My friend lives like a European: NOT married to her car!


I think she competes favorably with me in the Green department. I have a 2004 Prius, but I live out in the suburbs and put 12,000 miles/year on my car.