On the Other Hand, the Word "Synergy" Gives Me Goosebumps
Yesterday I was surprised to find myself annoyed by a hybrid vehicle. You see, usually when a vehicle annoys me, it's either because it's an SUV, or if it's a small car, it's because the driver is taking up an equivalent amount of space on the road as if they were an SUV. Well, not as if they, the driver, were themselves an SUV, but you get my point. My point is, an otherwise very polite driver was driving a red Toyota Prius, and it annoyed me.
Actually, what annoyed me was this: the license plate was "ECO QT".
Now don't get me wrong: I'm a big fan of hybrids. I'm in favor of any technology that gives us more out of less. Every time a friend of mine gets a hybrid car (which happens once every six months, at least), I'm excited about it, happy for them, and even a tiny bit jealous. I mean, they're cool! Fortunately I don't know anyone who's purchased a hybrid SUV, so I have yet to be tested when it comes to that inexplicable oxymoron.
But let's get something straight here: hybrids are not good for the environment.
Bear with me, my fellow eco-nuts, I'm not saying that hybrids are bad, or that the environment is unimportant, or that strict fuel economy regulations are bad for America. But hybrids, in and of themselves, in the sense of being cars that combine electric motors and regenerative breaking with an internal combustion engine, are not better for the environment than other cars as long as they're reasonably efficient. Especially not when someone has a vanity plate like "ECO QT" put on them.
What's good for the environment is less fossil fuel being burned, and the creation of less CO2. And hybrids do indeed do this, but only on a mile-per-mile basis as compared with other cars of a similar weight. But hybrids also have a tendency to make their owners feel disconnected from the problem of global warming. Unless they're really nutty, a hybrid driver is less likely to feel compelled to set up a carpool, or take public transit, or ride a bike, because they're doing their part already (they think). But to offset the fact that the production of hybrids is more polluting than that of a normal car (mostly because of the battery), it's arguable that a hybrid must be driven with eco-friendly driving habits if one is to call it a truly eco-friendly car. And that being said, just about any decently efficient car is eco-friendly if you drive it the right way. The upshot? If hybrids are good for the environment, it's not because of their hybridity.
(There's a quandary that arises with hybrids in that to get the most out of them, you need to drive them a lot. A hybrid that's driven 20,000 miles per year saves a lot more gas than one that's only driven 5,000. Sure, it uses less gas if it's driven less, but that could go for any old car. Ideally, a hybrid would be driven so little that it would no longer be worth its own battery. It's ironic really. Similarly, hybrids must be driven with good driving habits to make them worthwhile, but the whole point of hybrids is that they allow you to get great gas mileage even with horrible driving habits. The problem is that people tend to be impressed when their hybrid gets them 50mpg, when really they should be striving to make 50mpg their low point. And perhaps this takes it too far but imagine you're car shopping on craigslist, and you're going back and forth between an old clunker and a hybrid. If you're an eco-nut, you're likely to go for the hybrid. Yet you don't drive that much anyway because you've made a point of adjusting your life so that you don't need your car all that much. So you buy the hybrid. But then the hybrid is not available for the next person to shop on craigslist, and they have to buy the clunker, and it turns out that they have a long commute they can't work around. The environment would have preferred it if you'd bought the clunker, even though you're the one with all the eco-guilt. In general, the less you drive the worse of a car you should buy, because if you don't, someone else will.)
It's akin to the idea that sunscreen doesn't prevent skin cancer. In an article I posted some time ago, it is explained that, while sunscreen does prevent sunburns, melanoma rates haven't declined since sunscreen became widespread (rimshot). The explanation is basically that people who use sunscreen spend more time in the sun, because the sunscreen makes them think they're impervious to the sun's affects. But more sunscreen + more sun = just as much cancer.
It also reminds me, somewhat obliquely, of something that Roy Blount Jr. once wrote on the subject of cigarettes. I don't recall his exact phrasing, but the gist of it was, "There are many things in this world that are more carcinogenic than nicotine, and I think smugness is one of them."
That's what irritated me about that car I saw the other day. It's fairly obvious that people who drive hybrid SUVs are missing the point, but at least they're not generally in your face about it. On the other hand, driving a red hybrid with a vanity plate like "ECO QT" is equivalent, in my mind, to making snotty remarks at passing smokers while you're lying in the sun for hours at a time drenched in SPF-50 on the basis that their lifestyle isn't healthy. It's like they're saying "I saved the environment; what have you done today?"
Well, I'll tell you what I've done today: I've written a snotty little bit of prose about how my attitude towards hybrids is healthier than yours. So I suppose I'm not any better.
But I think the take home point here, or what would be the take home point if it weren't for the fact that most people who are reading this are in their homes already, and if you're not, then I apologize, and bear with me, is that you don't need to drive a hybrid to make a difference. You can drive more slowly, you can carpool, you can keep your tires properly inflated, your oil and air filters clean, and most of all you can drive less. The only real problem with walking, bicycling, or taking the bus, is that it's hard to be smug about it in a way that bugs whoever's walking behind you.
Actually, what annoyed me was this: the license plate was "ECO QT".
Now don't get me wrong: I'm a big fan of hybrids. I'm in favor of any technology that gives us more out of less. Every time a friend of mine gets a hybrid car (which happens once every six months, at least), I'm excited about it, happy for them, and even a tiny bit jealous. I mean, they're cool! Fortunately I don't know anyone who's purchased a hybrid SUV, so I have yet to be tested when it comes to that inexplicable oxymoron.
But let's get something straight here: hybrids are not good for the environment.
Bear with me, my fellow eco-nuts, I'm not saying that hybrids are bad, or that the environment is unimportant, or that strict fuel economy regulations are bad for America. But hybrids, in and of themselves, in the sense of being cars that combine electric motors and regenerative breaking with an internal combustion engine, are not better for the environment than other cars as long as they're reasonably efficient. Especially not when someone has a vanity plate like "ECO QT" put on them.
What's good for the environment is less fossil fuel being burned, and the creation of less CO2. And hybrids do indeed do this, but only on a mile-per-mile basis as compared with other cars of a similar weight. But hybrids also have a tendency to make their owners feel disconnected from the problem of global warming. Unless they're really nutty, a hybrid driver is less likely to feel compelled to set up a carpool, or take public transit, or ride a bike, because they're doing their part already (they think). But to offset the fact that the production of hybrids is more polluting than that of a normal car (mostly because of the battery), it's arguable that a hybrid must be driven with eco-friendly driving habits if one is to call it a truly eco-friendly car. And that being said, just about any decently efficient car is eco-friendly if you drive it the right way. The upshot? If hybrids are good for the environment, it's not because of their hybridity.
(There's a quandary that arises with hybrids in that to get the most out of them, you need to drive them a lot. A hybrid that's driven 20,000 miles per year saves a lot more gas than one that's only driven 5,000. Sure, it uses less gas if it's driven less, but that could go for any old car. Ideally, a hybrid would be driven so little that it would no longer be worth its own battery. It's ironic really. Similarly, hybrids must be driven with good driving habits to make them worthwhile, but the whole point of hybrids is that they allow you to get great gas mileage even with horrible driving habits. The problem is that people tend to be impressed when their hybrid gets them 50mpg, when really they should be striving to make 50mpg their low point. And perhaps this takes it too far but imagine you're car shopping on craigslist, and you're going back and forth between an old clunker and a hybrid. If you're an eco-nut, you're likely to go for the hybrid. Yet you don't drive that much anyway because you've made a point of adjusting your life so that you don't need your car all that much. So you buy the hybrid. But then the hybrid is not available for the next person to shop on craigslist, and they have to buy the clunker, and it turns out that they have a long commute they can't work around. The environment would have preferred it if you'd bought the clunker, even though you're the one with all the eco-guilt. In general, the less you drive the worse of a car you should buy, because if you don't, someone else will.)
It's akin to the idea that sunscreen doesn't prevent skin cancer. In an article I posted some time ago, it is explained that, while sunscreen does prevent sunburns, melanoma rates haven't declined since sunscreen became widespread (rimshot). The explanation is basically that people who use sunscreen spend more time in the sun, because the sunscreen makes them think they're impervious to the sun's affects. But more sunscreen + more sun = just as much cancer.
It also reminds me, somewhat obliquely, of something that Roy Blount Jr. once wrote on the subject of cigarettes. I don't recall his exact phrasing, but the gist of it was, "There are many things in this world that are more carcinogenic than nicotine, and I think smugness is one of them."
That's what irritated me about that car I saw the other day. It's fairly obvious that people who drive hybrid SUVs are missing the point, but at least they're not generally in your face about it. On the other hand, driving a red hybrid with a vanity plate like "ECO QT" is equivalent, in my mind, to making snotty remarks at passing smokers while you're lying in the sun for hours at a time drenched in SPF-50 on the basis that their lifestyle isn't healthy. It's like they're saying "I saved the environment; what have you done today?"
Well, I'll tell you what I've done today: I've written a snotty little bit of prose about how my attitude towards hybrids is healthier than yours. So I suppose I'm not any better.
But I think the take home point here, or what would be the take home point if it weren't for the fact that most people who are reading this are in their homes already, and if you're not, then I apologize, and bear with me, is that you don't need to drive a hybrid to make a difference. You can drive more slowly, you can carpool, you can keep your tires properly inflated, your oil and air filters clean, and most of all you can drive less. The only real problem with walking, bicycling, or taking the bus, is that it's hard to be smug about it in a way that bugs whoever's walking behind you.