Criticism claiming that hybrids are worse for the environment than a Hummer has some valid points, but also doesn't include all of the environmental damage done.
Recent opinion pieces in the Philadelphia Inquirer and theRecorder lambaste the use of nickel in hybrid batteries, specifically the Toyota Prius. The articles (which are suspiciously consi
stent in the facts and arguments made) claim that the Sudbury, Ontario plant where the nickel is mined and smelted is an environmental disaster.
If this is true, then Toyota should be encouraged to buy its nickel elsewhere, and the mine should clean up its act. But what percentage of the nickel produced in the mine goes to produce hybrids? It's unfair to blame all of the damage on a few hundred thousand hybrids. Why not attack every other industry/product that uses nickel?
Also, aside from the energy cost of building a vehicle, there's the environmental damage done in acquiring the petroleum and the added emissions. Based on 150,000 miles driven, a Hummer will burn more than 8,000 additional gallons of gasoline. How much environmental damage was done in digging new wells and extracting and transporting the millions of a gallons needed to fuel all of the SUVs?
And then there is the political and human cost of acquiring the additional oil for low mileage vehicles....
