Name: globe-micra-hybrid.jpg Views: 625 Size: 51.6 KB

Check this out: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle16896589/

This article starts off with a pretty grand compliment:

The most interesting car I have yet to see at the Toronto auto show is the 2015 Nissan Micra -- $9,998 to start when it goes on sale this spring.
But then the writer goes off track and uses the Micra to have a go at his favourite punching bags: hybrids & EV's.

[With a $10k car available,] now who wants an electric car, or a hybrid or a plug-in hybrid or a hydrogen fuel cell car? If fuel efficiency and a light footprint are your goals, the teeny, tiny Micra is the perfect antidote to electric vehicle (EV) madness.
I've read lots of Cato's work - his pieces on hybrids & EV's tend to be of the "rant" variety.

I think this is a dumb piece, because there's nothing new about the Micra that makes its "footprint" any lighter than the other city cars available. So this is not "news" -- it's just an excuse for another rant. Maybe it's just click bait.

And Cato surely knows his argument that tiny city cars are the solution to fossil fuel use reduction is ridiculous. People are not going to flock to Nissan dealers to trade their Malibus for Micras. He also must know that the vast majority of buyers aren't going to get the base, $9998 car -- hardly anyone knows how to drive stick any more, for one thing!

He also mixes up two separate arguments: environmental impact and cost. (And he's actually wrong that a Leaf doesn't have a smaller overall "footprint" than even a Micra.)

On financial prudence, it's just dumb to argue that the $10k car is better than a $20k hybrid. Because you can just as easily argue that a $4k used car is a better financial choice than the $10k one, and we don't see him doing that. And why stop there? Heck, a bicycle and a transit pass is a far better choice than a $4k car.