What's the Point of a Hybrid SUV?

A couple of weeks ago, LA Times writer Dan Neil wrote an article about the Honda Accord hybrid. In that article, one of the points Neil covered was the extra cost of hybrid technology in the Accord hybrid versus a standard Accord, roughly around $3400.

"Assuming $2.25 per gallon and 100 miles of daily commuting, it would take," Neil wrote, "about 6 1/2 years to recoup the difference."

This, according to Neil, resulted in many e-mailed questions regarding whether he considered having to replace the hybrid battery, or whether he considered the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004.

He had not. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the Accord hybrid is significantly more efficient than a standard Accord. Additionally, the Accord hybrid is actually a second faster than the standard V6 Accord to 60 mph.

The point is, the Accord hybrid is a better product than the standard Accord, and the environmental improvements are an important breakthrough.

However, some questioned why more power was needed. Why not increase fuel efficiency a bit more, some asked. Even worse, why use such technology on terribly inefficient SUVs, such as was done with the Ford Escape hybrid?

With its heavy weight, un-aerodynamic shape, isn't the technology wasted?

While there is no doubt that the Toyota Prius is terribly more efficient than SUVs, many Americans still demand SUVs; therefore, increasing their efficiency is also very important.

In fact, some would argue, hybrid SUVs are even more important than hybrid cars, because standard SUVs cause so much more pollution, and are so much more fuel-inefficient than cars.

On one hand I agree with this rationale, focus on making the most inefficient vehicles more efficient. On the other hand, these vehicles are inefficient by design, which begs the question, should an inefficient design be continually tolerated?

In many parts of America, SUVs can serve a purpose, but in many parts of America, it's hard to rationalize SUV functionality, particularly in urban areas.

Los Angeles, for example, is one of the smoggiest cities in the world. This smog was mostly created in just several decades, and a very significant percentage of that smog was created by automobile emissions. Therefore, in areas with such dangerous levels of smog and bad air quality, efficiency should be mandated.

The welfare of the people should trump a consumer choice that ultimately is not really about freedom of choice. The right to make a bad decision should never be more important than the welfare of the greater good.

To read Mr. Neil's article, click here.