SG Gate columnist Arrol Gellner reckons as goeth San Francisco, so goeth America. Opposing the Vietnam War, spearheading ecological concerns, mandating energy-efficient buildings, banning smoking in public places, demanding equal access for the disabled and now, hybrid vehicles. Where would the United States be without "Berkeley radical thinking?" Gellner's self-congratulatory diatribe claims the large number of hybrids humming about Berkley signal "the beginning of the end for conventional internal-combustion-powered vehicles." Ignoring Ford and Chrysler entirely, Gellner says Detroit missed this boat "thanks to the monumental stupidity, shortsightedness and greed of General Motors executives, who preferred to wallow in the lucrative SUV trough while foreign competitors did their homework. Maybe those GM folks should've gotten out of the boardroom now and then, and taken a drive around Berkeley." Bong optional?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Robert – As a Bay Area resident, I like to think that there is some rationality afoot here which transcends the politically correct police state which has become Berkeley. I have a five mile commute, and ride a motorcycle not as a means to self-congratulatory righteousness, but because it seems the right thing to do in a time when we are fighting a war essentially to preserve our ability to secure oil. It is a ‘when’ and not an ‘if’ that we will reach peak oil, and there are those of us who believe we have a responsibilty to our fellow citizens to do what is necessary to reduce our footprint. I am as skeptical as you that the hybrid is the ultimate answer to the problem, but it is at least a start.
As to the “monumental stupidity, shortsightedness and greed of General Motors executives…”, you have written reams on the same subject, for many of the same reasons. Flex-fuel and “mild hybrids” are just another ridiculous response after GM, Ford and Chrysler executives all stated that the original Insight and Prius were bad business decisions. Whether they represent the technology of the future, or a simple stop-gap in the attempt to make more fuel efficient vehicles, at least Honda and Toyota were making an attempt to understand the realities of the world. From the big 2.8, we get small cars which are produced solely to meet CAFE requirements.
edgett:
In the main, I agree with Mr. Gellner’s characterization of GM’s lack of foresight (obviously). I also appreciate CA’s indisputable “early adopter” role in American culture.
However, to leap from an unscientific sample of Berkley car ownership patterns to the death of the non-hybrid gas engine is a gigantic leap of faith. Or, in this case, hubris.
Can we also blame San Francisco’s high property values for the current speculative housing market that’s currently under collapse? What good is giving them all the credit for America’s progressive trends if they don’t take all the blame for America’s regressive ones as well?
If fossil fuels are finite (most would agree), then there will be “an end” to the internal combustion engine. And since electric propulsion will almost inevitably replace the ICE engine, it seems logical and obvious that we are seeing “the beginning” in Berkely and elsewhere. Leap of faith? Hubris?
Not really hubris or a leap of faith. Just the webmaster and his writers continuing their non-stop assault on one car by generalizing their owners. Seriously, how many more times can you guys call it the Pious before it stops being funny to you?
Does the Prius make economic sense?
If yes, great. There’s a chance for widespread adoption of the technology. (But what will the San Pelosians and Silicon Valley intellectual powerhouse snobs do when all the proles have Prii?)
If not, then it’s just a fashion statement.
But I’m glad to see alternatives reaching out in all directions. Meanwhile, it makes more sense for me to drive my 1994 Q45 with 165,000 miles for a while longer.
Seriously, how many more times can you guys call it the Pious before it stops being funny to you?
I’ll let you know when it happens
/Lives in Boulder, CO (SF Lite)
CarShark: take it easy.
I hope you all have seen the Simpsons episode where Homer eats the poison blowfish and believes he’ll die. He went through the stages of grief very, very quickly. A similar thing happened to me in regard to the whole “if you aren’t a liberal in your 20s, you haven’t got a heart; if you aren’t a conservative in your 40s, you haven’t got a brain.”
From a purely economic (conservative) standpoint, I don’t think today’s Hybrid buyers are making a sound purchase. A small, less expensive car (civic, corolla, fit, etc) will be far cheaper to operate in the long run. The pretty much leaves those that believe they’ll make a difference or that believe they’re funding a future generation of cars. Well, OK. And maybe those that just dig the tech–I can respect that.
I suppose my problem is vocal environmentalists (Berkeley) heating and cooling their McMansions and mixing drinks in their Chinese Waring Pro blenders. Those cargo ships carrying stuff from China sure aren’t Plug-In Hybrids. I don’t need some self-righteous chucklehead telling me a Diesel Jetta can’t have a 2007 model year designation while they let cargo ships dock and idle.
There was a time when I commuted by bicycle and felt superior to those in SUVs. Then I realized that I wasn’t making a difference and it just didn’t matter. (My Homer epiphany) Proper use of windows and window blinds saved way more energy than the use of my bicycle.
They want to be able to use the HOV lanes when alone in the car. Of course they’ll never admit to it.
Where there are no HOV lanes there aren’t so many Prii (sp??) or fake hybrids.
Does the Prius make economic sense? If not, then it’s just a fashion statement.
Please. Economics is way down on the list of criteria that people use to buy cars. If it’s all about economics, who would ever buy a BMW, Porsche, Acura, etc, etc? Are those just fashion statements as well? Every car is a fashion statement to some extent. Why heap so much scorn on one particular car?
So many factors other than economics play a role. Some people want to make a statement – that’s no better or worse than those who buy just about any other car that makes a statement. Some people want to support and encourage the technology and are voting with their wallets.
But there’s one other thing: please name another car that can seat 5 fairly comfortably, is very reliable, and has the practicality of a hatchback? The prius is much roomier than a Mazda 3. Malibu maxx? Yeah, right.
The prius does all of this for the low $20k range. The fact that it also gets great mileage and has low emissions is just icing on the cake.
Before anybody goes jumping to assumptions – I DON’T own a Prius. But I understand that there are many reasons why someone might – and many of them are not related to rabid environmentalism.
Arrol Gellner: What’s so different about hybrids? While conventional cars have huge gasoline engines…
My conventional ULEV Civic has a “huge gasoline engine” does it? News to me.
Arrol Gellner: Opposing the Vietnam War, spearheading ecological concerns, mandating energy-efficient buildings, banning smoking in public places, demanding equal access for the disabled – these causes were all dismissed as “Berkeley radical thinking” in their time.
A clear case of selective memory. I’m aware how many “fads” (if you will) do indeed begin on the west coast. Years ago, I asked a family friend who lives in CA (worked for Oracle) and was back east for the holidays: “What’s the big new thing out on the west coast?”
His reply: “Based on what I’m seeing on the roads out there, in a few years you will all be driving huge SUVs.”
Thanks for that.
So yes, some west-coasters can be sanctimonious trend-setters.
Although I love the Prius concept and execution (and look forward to the expansion of the line), I still have grave reservations that the ultimate environmental impact is less than a small ICE. The production of the batteries in itself is an environmental concern, so the ultimate “world savings” end up being….just in the owner’s pocket I suspect.
When Hollywood and the Berkley intelligentsia restrict themselves to living quarters at 500 sf per household member, lose the ever-present bottled-water-of-the-minute (with it’s environmentally unfriendly plastic bottles), and ditch the Porsche, BMW 7, Range Rover ‘other car’, call me. Then I’ll care about what they have to say.
“If fossil fuels are finite (most would agree)”
They are not fossil fuel they are hydrocarbons created from water and carbonates under pressure and temperature. Seems like a lot of people think petroleum oil came from rotting dinosaurs and plants (where do they get this idea? From the broadcast media lying brigade!) Did all earths dinasours mosey on over to the middle east to die? Like older humans go to Florida. Try to explain the HUGE pockets of oil and gas deep beneath the ocean floor. How did it get there?
Man can synthesize hydocarbons but there is sooo much naturally occuring hydrocarbons that it does not make economic sense to produce them (Even if there was nuclear power available). The Peak Oil scare has been going on almost as long as the oil-is-from-rotting-dinosaur myth. There has NEVER – In a 150 years – been a year that humans used more petroleum oil than was discovered. In total, man has burned about a trillion barrels of petroleum and there are more than 3 trillion barrels in known reserves…Go Figure.
Oxidizing hydrocarbons for energy is kinda primative but there is no other *VIABLE* option right now…Not without nuclear power which ya don’t get better than that…Einstein – E=MC^2
Seems like the “well-to-do” are the early adopters of hybrids, as they’re certainly not bargain-basement vehciles… but they’re using their money to fund cheaper, better (plug-in) hybrids/EV’s. This can only be good, as the technology cannot advance without funding — along with other alternative tech, the future is being written to gradually free us from the past.
Well, it’s not the first time that the self proclaimed “enlightened” have displayed a lack of common sense. Won’t be the last.
The self-proclaimed “Enlightened” never seem to study Physics and Chemistry.
Chemical-Electric storage has alway been-And always will be-Terribly inefficient…Non-Viable. Thermodynamics is a god that must be obeyed…One can choose to disregard reality but one cannot escape the consequences of disregarding reality.