[ QUOTE ]
I've heard it mentioned elsewhere and
this link supports the idea. Basically, the reason the carbon footprint is larger is because the specialized parts of hybrids often have to travel much further than conventional car parts.
[/ QUOTE ]Isn't this an argument for MORE people buying hybrids?
To assume that the cars and parts would continue to travel such huge distances or the "specially designed" hybrid car parts would continue to suck up huge amounts of energy in production if the cars were more widely purchased is ridiculous. Scale efficiency will bring down this figure.
I don't understand the "cost per mile" figure, either. It must make assumptions about traveling distances, and people generally drive more efficient cars longer distances (ie for commuting). Thus if a grand average mileage were used to make the fixed costs and marginal per mile costs apples-to-apples, cars with lower marginal per mile costs would be at a huge disadvantage.
Apparently the 50,000 miles I've driven my hybrid have cost well over $150,000. That's news to me, considering the total spent on gas and purchasing the car is still only a miniscule fraction of that.