Should a law be put in place that required all automobiles manufacturers to build only hybrid cars?

Question

We all know that automobiles contribute to the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Would it be unrealistic to require all automobiles made after a certain year to be hybrid? This would certainly reduce green house gases. What do you all think abou the law itself, and how realistic would it be?

Answer 1

No, what part of free market do you not understand, presumably the free part.

Answer 2

h**l NO! Hybrids are HORRIBLE for the planet, just look at the areas around the plants where they produce the batteries.

Producing and driving a gasoline only car is cleaner in the long run then one of those publicity stunts known as a hybrid. Oh yeah, did I mention that they are also an unproven technology? Cars need to be around TWENTY YEARS before you can make a judgement of whether or not they are reliable.

Any REAL environmentalist can tell you that diesel engines running on cooking oil (biodiesel) is much better than a silly hybrid.

Answer 3

That is not the American way.  The American way should be, you are free to buy a Hummer or Expedition if you choose to, however, we should be paying about $5 per gallon in taxes alone, like the rest of the world is.  That will give the people the freedom to choose just how important it is to drive a living room around.

Answer 4

I think it is unrealistic because hybrid cars are a new technology and are prone to problems.  Electric cars especially, because the disposal of their batteries involves heavy metal waste, caustic materials, non-biodegradable plastics and metals that are often not recylced, and the plants that manufacture these items produce a whole lot of emissions (which includes the scary CO2).  So until they perfect these things, they violate NEPA (or are at least hypocritical to NEPA).

Answer 5

It would be more realistic to have mileage goals rather than "hybrid."  Did you know there are non-hybrid cars that get better gas mileage than many hybrid cars?  Did you know hybrids are more expensive to make and disposing of their batteries may (maybe not) contribute more to harming the environment than any emissions difference?  Why would forcing "hybrids" be good?

The US does have average fleet goals, that manufacturers fight every time, the CAFE limits.  i think we should keep raising those.

Answer 6

Cars are not the problem.  Transportation is the problem.  The number of people miles per gallon is what needs to be reduced to make any real progress.

Answer 7

OK that thing about the hybrid battery plant is a myth.  That plant cleaned up 30 years ago, the damage in photos is 30+ years old.

Yes the Prius is annoying (and a lousy hybrid).   There are lots of other hybrids out there. Escape, Yukon, Silverado.

Biodiesel is a major win.  Combine diesel and hybrid and you get a double win because the performance and mileage will both be better than a geared diesel.  Combine diesel with series plug-in hybrid and you get a triple win!  It would drive most of its miles on battery power from the wall.  It is absolutely possible to build a diesel car that can do 11.2 second quarter-miles.  Just stick a Thermo King in the back of the Maniac Mazda and done!

Yes it would be unrealistic to force automakers to make all hybrids.  They would fight it tooth and nail, and deliberately monkeywrench it just to spite the government, as they did crushing all those EVs.

The technology is plenty old enough. NiMH batteries are proven, NiFe batteries are 100 years old (and half of them still work, lol!) and GM already built a strong hybrid with an EV1 turbo.

Answer 8

Only if you are a socialist or a communist.  The idea of a Democracy is that people have freedoms.  Would you advocate taking away freedoms for the greater good?  If so then it becomes a slippery slope.  Where does it stop?

Ben Franklin wisely cautioned:  "if you take away freedom for the sake of security, then you shall have neither".  This advice applies to your concept.

Answer 9

Absolutely NOT!

Here's why: there are two types of regulations governments can use to make such changes (in this or any other industry): prescriptive and standard-setting.  What you suggest is the first--and it does NOT work well.  What this does is prescribe a particular solution to a problem--and thereby push to one side all other alternatives.  That is exactly the type of bureaucratic thinking that (legitimate) conservatives deplore--and they are 100% right.

The other approach is to set standards.  For example, the bill now in Congress that would require that automobile fuel efficiency be increased over a specific period. This approach does NOT tell the companies how to do theis--it simply sets the standard.  Companies thus are free to innovate and develop, searching out the best and most cost-effective methods of achieving the stated goal.

The prescriptive method amounts to some bureaucrat telling everyone what they will do nd how to do it, without reference to the actual value of theapproach demanded by the government. The second, by contrast, only stipulates a particular outcome--and encourages the best in science, technology, and capitalism: entrepreneurship, research, risk-taking, innovation.

With regard to this particular issue: What about hydrogen fuel cars? Electric? "Straight" gas engines that are as--or more--fuel efficient than hybrids? Plus other promising approaches--do you want to marginalize all those--and their long range potential--for the sake of a bureaucratic "quick fix" of allowing the government to decide wat kind of cars can or cannot be manufactured?

Answer 10

Mandating a specific technology isn't a good idea. That'll lock in one technology, while others that may be able to meet or surpass the same goals could be overlooked...

We already have manufactuers making mild-hybrids just to jump on the bandwagon (look at the GMC/Chevy Sierra/Silverado Yukon/Tahoe trucks for examples) - sure, you can't complain about a 10% increase in fuel efficiency, but that whole 2MPG difference is easily lost in the noise on a vehicle that doesn't even get 20MPG on the EPA's optimistic tests...

Why not mandate EVs (oh, yeah, that turned out well for CA...), or LPG or CNG vehicles - they all put out less greenhouse and smog-forming emissions than most ordinary gasoline or diesel vehicles?

Instead of mandating a hybrid, why not raise the CAFE standards, force light trucks to meet the same CAFE requirements as cars (since they're usually bought as such), remove the ethanol CAFE loophole... And then you'd have to make sure such vehicles at minimum meet the current emission requirements (or preferrably the stricter CA emission requirements) to keep the clean air standards...

Then you can mandate non-fossil fuels (no petroleum products - gasoline or diesel, LPG, CNG, or coal), but the fuel source would be up to the manufacturer to find the best available solution.

Then again, transportation only accounts for 69% of the US's petroleum fuel use, and a mere 3% of the US's natural gas use, so even if all vehicles in the US were switched to a non-fossil fuel, there would still be fossil fuel use in the US for other market segments (mainly industrial use, but also residential (like home heating), and for electric generation).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/energybasi...

For some notes for some of the other posters:  No, hybrid batteries are not toxic, nor is their production.  http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200711/...

Depending on the source for electricity in your area, a BEV may or may not put out more greenhouse gas emissions than a 55MPG HEV.  Mainly, if the primary source for electricity in your area is coal,

your HEV is cleaner than a BEV running on coal-powered electricity. However, if your electricity source is natural gas, the BEV is usually cleaner than the HEV (depending on the method used for natural gas->electricity conversion), and it gets even better for the BEV if you are using a hydroelectric or other renewable electric source.  In  comparisons with a generic 17MPG SUV, an average 26MPG vehicle, and a high-efficiency 38MPG vehicle, the 38MPG vehicle still will beat the coal-powered BEV, but isn't as clean as the HEV (and gas and renewables powered BEVs are much better than the 38MPG vehicle).

see: "Battery-Powered Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Projects to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions:  A Resource Guide for Project Development," July 2002

http://www.netl.doe.gov/products/ccps/pu...

http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/i...

mainly section 4.3

(and that's besides the arguements that it's easier to manage emissions from a handful of electric plants, as opposed to millions of independently-owned cars...  typically, electric charging rates are still cheaper than petroleum rates, too.  Of course, there are still emissions to worry about other than just greenhouse gas emissions, too. )

Answer 11

Do you know for certain that hybrid cars actually save energy?  Where does the electricity come from?  Why not ban cars altogether?

Answer 12

I used to drive vehicles that got good gas mileage, but decided they weren't safe.  I decided my life and my families lives were more important.  So I got my wife a Chevy HD2500 with a 400 cub. engine in it, and a Chevy HD3500 for myself with a 454 cub. engine in it.  I feel much better, and safer.

Answer 13

While most of forhirepen's comments on hybrids were untrue, I agree that it makes more sense to simply set mileage efficiency requirements.  For one thing, why force car manufacturers to make hybrids when electric cars are more environmentally friendly?

How cars achieve better mileage is not important, as long as they manage it.  Simply require higher standards of the auto makers and let them do it however they like.

Answer 14

to be fair planet is already fuked mite aswell just enjoy the ride now :P

Answer 15

With the current state of battery technology hybrid cars are neither economic not particularly environmentally friendly. This is mainly because the life span of the batteries is only about three years.

What would be much more sensible is to make all cars capable of very limited operation on batteries for use in traffic jams and similar situation where the average speed is only a few MPH for distances of two or three miles.

This would be practical and have the side benefit that it would improve automotive traction battery technology because it would then have a significant market.

Even on my small car the trip computer shows that there would be a 15% minimum improvement in fuel consumption.

Answer 16

No.  Whats next, a law requiring you to brush your teeth ?  If you don't like regular cars, don't buy one.  If you feel others should only buy hybrids, organize and get the message out.

Answer 17

I think it is unrealistic for all automobiles made with hybrid engines only in the future. Although it  reduces the green house gases, it still not a perfect set up. The more realistic is to use sugar canes or corns to produce the fuel and use engines just like the Braizilian cars. The used corns and canes can be used as fertilizer or building material or industrial use tissues. It is certainly enviromental concern fuel and far better than the gasoline and electric combined engines. We can't rebuild all used batteries. Dumping the huge amount batteries could be a problem to protect the environment.

Answer 18

May be a pretty god idea, but if we are really serious, then we would also have to make everyone live in small homes. Much more CO2 produced from residential heating and cooling than from cars. See the Graph.

Answer 19

We don't need more laws. We need to learn to deal with the laws we already have.

Answer 20

What if I as an American Citizen, Taxpayer, Voter, property owner etc... don't want one of those tiny, dangerous and slow hybrid vehicles ?  Additionally who are you or anyone in the governemtn for that matter to tell me what type of automobile I should drive ?