What IS the point of hybrid vehicle critics?

Hybrid cars make up around one percent of total automobile sales, yet hybrid hype could almost make you believe that hybrids are dominating automobile sales.

So, is it the hype that makes critics sound off?

Do hybrid critics just hate change, or do they hate hybrids because most of them aren't built in America?

I just don't get most hybrid critics.

Some hybrid critics claim hybrids won't save money. In some cases this is true; however, even in these cases, hybrid vehicles still pollute far less than their conventional counterparts, but you can't put a cost on that. It means everything to some people, nothing to others.

Anyway, why are some so concerned with criticizing those that stand up and use their money to cause less pollution? Why is acting on one's beliefs a bad thing? What are critics acting on anyway?

Besides, many hybrids can save money. There is no doubt that hybrids like the Toyota Prius and the Ford Escape hybrid can save money and can achieve significantly better fuel economy than their conventional comparisons. Yes, you will have to drive differently, but if reducing your fuel consumption is important, hybrids offer the greatest and most convenient tools available for achieving this goal.

Of course, driving habits aren't the only concern. While the Honda Accord hybrid is regularly ridiculed by hybrid critics, the Accord hybrid is built for the open highway. If you are driving in urban traffic, this car will not achieve great fuel efficiency. If you regularly drive between Temecula and Fontana, California every day, then an Accord hybrid can be a great buy.

So, again, what is the point of hybrid critics?

Many educated hybrid critics claim that hybrids are just a distraction along the path to fuel cell vehicles. Interesting point except for the fact that even GM has recently admitted that fuel cell vehicles will be fuel cell hybrid vehicles, as has Toyota (more on this). Thus, purchasing a hybrid vehicle helps invest in the fuel cell future. These critics see no value in that?

Even without fuel cell hybrid vehicles, current hybrid technology offers the ability to easily achieve 100 mpg with today's technology, and experimental hybrid technology goes even further, at far less costs than fuel cells.

So what? Well, achieving 100 mpg across America's fleet would easily end foreign oil dependency.

So, these critics don't think that foreign oil dependency, in addition to pollution and global warming, are important issues? These critics don't find it interesting that the Chinese are now building hybrid vehicles as they scour the Earth for oil deals?

Besides, so what if some want to invest in the future, without necessarily profiting from it personally. Is that really a waste of time? Instead, selfish gas-guzzling greed is a better use of resources?

Does this all come down to guilt? Is that what is it about?

Perhaps hybrid vehicles don't ultimately save every consumer money, but only help reduce oil dependency, help reduce pollution and help invest in the future. How pathetic.

Is this the point these hybrid critics are making?