High-End Hybrids That Run on Contradictions

DETROIT

I 've long contended that much of the to-do about gas-electric hybrid vehicles is little more than marketing hype masquerading as environmental concern.

My often-stated belief has made me the demon poster child for those hybrid devotees who can tolerate no criticism of their beloved technology, who view all critics of that technology, including critics of the mostly mindless way in which it has been embraced by many politicians and media representatives, as being hopelessly entrapped in the evil of an automobile industry determined to drain the world of its last drop of oil and rob it of its final breath of clean air.

I have countered, as I do so again -- right here, right now -- that I am not against and have never been against gas-electric hybrids per se. But I am greatly troubled by their hype, by their portrayal as the sure-fix to end our sickening addiction to oil, by the tendency of policymakers in all branches of government to draft legislation and regulations favoring gas-electric hybrids, and by the less-than-due-diligence way in which municipalities nationwide are spending taxpayers' money to equip their various vehicle fleets with gas-electrics.

Also, it bothers me that so many of us are willing to avoid candid discussions about the potential environmental downsides of gas-electric hybrid technology. For example, exactly how will we dispose of all of those spent nickel-metal hydride batteries in current hybrid cars and trucks? If we recycle those batteries, exactly how will we do it? Is it possible to recycle exhausted batteries without an attached energy cost? What will be that cost? And, by the way, what is the total production-distribution-end disposal energy cost of gas-electric hybrid technology versus that of anything else?

We tend to shove aside those issues, to play them down, to treat them with a "don't-worry-be-happy" mentality. All of the people selling or otherwise promoting gas-electric hybrid vehicles as the only "next-best thing" seem to like it that way.

I'll say it again: It's a bunch of baloney. Anyone doubting that has only to examine Exhibit No. 1 in defense of my argument: It's the 2008, 438-hp, nearly $112,000, 20-mpg-city, barely 22-mpg-highway, five-liter-V-8, gas-electric hybrid Lexus LS 600h L super-luxury sedan.

Lexus is billing it as the most politically correct car for the wealthy. That's "wealthy," as opposed to affluent. "Wealthy" people are rich enough to have money without having to work for it. "Affluent" people still rely on paychecks, albeit big ones.

The point is that the gas-electric technology in the LS 600h L has more to do with marketing than with oil conservation or reducing tailpipe pollution. Other cars in the Lexus group -- consider the Lexus Ls 460 L -- are just as luxurious, more fuel-efficient, quicker off the throttle, and just as clean in terms of overall tailpipe pollutants. Ditto luxury models from Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Lincoln and Mercedes-Benz.

But those cars don't, at the moment, come with gas-electric hybrid technology. As a result, they are regarded as less than "green."

How silly is this? Imagine: There goes a working-class stiff in a little Chevrolet Aveo with a traditional gasoline engine that gets 30 mpg or more and that meets the nation's toughest clean-air standards. But because she is not driving a gas-electric car, she must -- in many metropolitan areas nationwide -- use the congested regular traffic lanes commuting to and from work.

But there goes the owner of the company that employs her. The boss can afford the $112,000 price tag of a 2008 Lexus LS 600h L super-luxury sedan. Never mind that it gets substantially worse mileage than the Chevrolet Aveo. Never mind that its overall energy costs -- production, distribution, end disposal -- are measurably higher. Never mind that it is, for purposes of this argument, only carrying its driver. Because it is a gas-electric hybrid, in many urban areas, it gets to run in the High Occupancy Vehicle lane with only the driver inside.

Ah, and never mind that the electric portion -- the gasoline-saving part -- does its best work in congested city traffic and hardly works at all on the highway, meaning that allowing the hybrid luxury car to run freely in the HOV lane defeats the design intention of its own technology as that of the HOV lane, which is meant to reduce traffic congestion by encouraging carpooling.

That makes sense? That's fair? That's an intelligent energy policy?

No way.

It's downright stupid. It is what happens when we elevate one alternative-fuel, alternative-propulsion technology above all others. It is what happens when we hunt for political convenience in an attempt to avoid drafting a sensible, comprehensive, national energy policy that will require considerable sacrifice from all players -- consumers, corporations, and politicians.

It is what happens when science and technology yield to hype and marketing.

It is baloney.