But I think this comment on the story is a good summation of my thoughts:
“In the report [bcaa.com], the Civic hybrid didn’t quite break even during their arbitrary 5 year cutoff, but it was very close (-$290), and that was with no tax incentives. That car would have shown a positive return if they had even extended the time window to 6 years, or assume it was driven slightly more miles per year. (They also placed the value of a 37% reduction in CO2 emissions at $0.) So, the case for the Civic is very easy to build.
In fact, the case for all the hybrids near the top (Civic, Prius, Insight) is very close, and several assumptions in the study are fairly arbitrary. It seems clear we are within a year or two of a new headline, “non-hybrids fail to provide savings.” At that moment will everybody not driving a hybrid be accused of wasting money just to project an image of wanton wastefulness and pollution? I find the argument rather silly. People spend $1500 on leather upholstery and another $1200 on a fancy stereo system, and nobody complains. But spend an extra $290 to avoid emitting thousands of pounds of CO2, and suddenly you’re some kind of leftist rebel.”
