Everyone Wants to Be Green, But How Many Actually Practice It?

One of the more interesting topics in the auto industry lately has been the "green" versus "standard" debate. The "greens" say they are taking a proactive stance -- making a stand about their "carbon footprint" and use of fossil fuels.

The "standard" crowd, on the other hand says they are actually helping out, too, as they are driving more efficient cars and making sure their cars are well tuned.

"Greens" usually brag about their hybrids, while the "standards" crow about their mileage. So who is right in this debate?

If you look closely at this debate, you might say they are both right and they are both wrong. The "green" crowd crows about all of the carbon it isn't contributing to the atmosphere, while the "standard" gang says, that this stance isn't exactly true.

So, what is the answer here? Quite frankly, if you look at the offerings from the domestic auto industry and the arguments made by each side of this debate, you are likely to come away with a huge headache because each side is right and each side is wrong for exactly the same reasons.

The "greens" boast that their hybrids run on both battery power and smaller engines, thus yielding a smaller "carbon footprint." And, to some extent they are right, until they hit the Interstate, that is. Once they get onto the Interstate a funny things happens to the "carbon footprint" - it expands as both the electric motor and the gas engine are used to keep their cars at cruising speed.

Oh, it may seem as if the electric motor is doing all the work, but, if you look closely at the gas side of the dash display, you'll see that the gas engine (small four- or six-) is busily cranking out power to keep the electric motor and battery system charged. And, the gas engine is also filling in when it is needed in passing situations.

The results has been, in the last few years anyway, that hybrid models tend to be great around town where their electric motors shine and where they can take full advantage of "regenerative" or flywheel braking (using the inertia built up by the engine to turn a flywheel to charge the intelligent battery system). It's an old concept - a flywheel - and you actually have several in your car right now, especially if you are driving a standard as the clutch plate engages a flywheel that, in turn, puts power to the wheels in various gears.

On the other side of the aisle, the "standard" crowd crows about its overall fuel economy and how it can easily match or surpass the "green" group's carbon footprint simply by using more efficient vehicles and keeping the lead out of their feet. One of the best ways to tell if these folks are serious is to watch their engine displays. If the odometer remains at its standard mileage setting (number of miles driven) and not on its fuel economy setting, many cars have this ability; you can figure that this particular member of the "standard" crowd is really blowing smoke.

This situation is further confused by automakers who advertise "multi-fuel" cars which means that their vehicles can burn up to 15 percent alcohol, thus stretching the fuel supply and cutting emissions (water is the lion's share of the combustion byproduct of burning alcohol).

And, when you combine this with the industry's touting that it can shut off two, three, or four cylinders on cruising speed and that these make wonderful hybrids (the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid comes to mind here). Then it really becomes confusing.

So, who is right in this argument? We would have to answer both groups are right for different reasons.

The "green" group is right when it says its hybrid technology cars cut carbon footprints. However, they don't mention that this is primarily around town or in city stop and go driving where the hybrid can take full advantage of regenerative braking and low speed cruising that has the same effect. At this time, the hybrid will run primarily off the battery with the engine only occasionally coming on to make sure the charge stays up.

Where the "green" group falls down is on the open highway. Hybrid technology vehicles, whether they shut down two, three or four cylinders still rely on both the gasoline and electric motors to keep up with traffic. And, in a passing situation, the hybrid suddenly becomes a "real car" as all of the cylinders cut in and you find your vehicle rocketing ahead. And, there goes the "carbon footprint" gain.

The "standard" gang makes no bones about its ability. It acknowledges the fact that it is still using primarily fossil fuels, but, at the same time, it acknowledges that their vehicles tend to get the same or better gas mileage than the hybrid in a given situation. This is a true statement, as well. Honda's Civic Hybrid, for example, is great around town but when you hit the highway, both engines are cranking for all they are worth and the mileage is actually lower than the same "standard" gas-driven Civic.

The "standard" crowd can also argue that it is reducing its carbon footprint by using "green" gasoline, or a blend of about 85 percent gas and 15 percent ethanol. The crinkle in this bag is that for a given weight of ethanol, fossil fuels still win the power output race. It takes more ethanol to reach a specific speed than it does gasoline. This is because ethanol (or methanol which is more troublesome to rubber and other auto parts) is about 15 percent less efficient that a given amount of gasoline. In this case, it is just a fuel extender.

So, what's the story here, who's right and who is "green" and who isn't? The answer is one of those "it depends" type answers. It depends on the type of driving the hybrid owner does. If it's primarily used for highway driving, then you are likely to find that the hybrid will be less fuel-efficient than a similar-sized gasoline-driven vehicle. And, since this country still likes to cruise at 75 or more you can see that this argument is getting specious.

Likewise, the fossil fuel or "standard" crowd will point out that its mileage is the same or better than the "hybrid" crowd, but that's only to a point. That point is about the same 75 mph where the mileages are about the same.

So, it seems both sides are right and both sides are wrong in this debate. The true test will come when the all-electric Chevrolet Volt appears in large numbers. If the "green" crowd dives out of their hybrids for these all-electrics in droves, then you can say, yes, they are serious about lowering their "carbon" footprint. And, if the gas-addicts and their fossil fuel cars are also tossed overboard in favor of the all-electric we'll know that they were serious, too. It's just that they believed they made a difference because their mileage was better.

So it boils down to a waiting game; one that could easily determine the future of the car in this market.