Why hybrid cars succeed where other green cars fail

Wissenschaftliche Arbeit zur Erlangung des Grades
Diplom-Sozialwissenschaftler der Universität Stuttgart
- Fach Soziologie -
Why hybrid cars succeed
where other green cars fail
The importance of social, cultural and political aspects in
technical regime change towards a sustainable
transport system in the USA
Erstgutachter:
Prof. Dr. Ortwin Renn
Institut für Sozialwissenschaften
Abt. für Umwelt- und Techniksoziologie
Universität Stuttgart
Zweitgutachter:
Dr. Daniel Compagnon
Institut d’Etudes Politiques
Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV
vorgelegt von:
Miriam Fischlein
Pfirsichweg 7
63741 Aschaffenburg
Tel.: 06021-88579
[email protected]
Deutsch-franz. Studiengang
Sozialwissenschaften
Matrikelnummer: 1994791
Abgabedatum: 30.11.2005
Abstract
Can hybrid electric cars make a difference with regard to the sustainability of the US transport system? Since their introduction in 2001 and
despite a purchase premium, demand for these ecological cars has grown to
unexpected levels. The combination of electric and combustion motor renders them more energy efficient and less polluting than their conventional
counterparts. They could thus contribute to make the American transport
system more sustainable. It is currently faced with huge challenges, such as
the world’s highest fuel consumption and greenhouse gas production, as well
as extreme local air pollution. Consequently, the wider diffusion of hybrid
cars is desirable. They seem to be on their way to attain mass diffusion.
But hybrids’ success, if positive, is also surprising: Historically, no ecological vehicle has ever been able to compete with conventional cars. And
economically, hybrids’ lacking price competitiveness makes their purchase irrational. Nevertheless, demand is sustained. How then can the unexpected
success of hybrid vehicles be explained? The results from a quantitative
study of hybrid owners demonstrate that the all-importance of price and
other economic aspects has to be refuted. Instead, it is necessary to include
social, cultural and political factors in order to fully explain hybrids’ appeal.
Early adopters’ attitudes towards hybrid vehicles can inform us about adequate policies to attain wider diffusion of these ecological cars. Measures in
favor of hybrids have to be attuned to social practices, cultural visions and
the political climate, and not only to economic considerations.
Contents
List of figures
vi
List of tables
viii
Notes
ix
Acknowledgements
xiii
1 Introduction
1
2 Automobile society and sustainability
4
2.1
2.2
2.3
Passenger transport as a result of growing demand
vidual mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Global effects of motorized travel on sustainability .
2.2.1 Worldwide oil supply and demand . . . . . .
for
. .
. .
. .
indi. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
4
8
8
2.2.2 Motorized transport’s global environmental impacts . . 12
The sustainability of the transport system in the United States 16
2.3.1 America’s thirst for oil and the consequences on energy
security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.2
The environmental and health impacts of automobile
traffic in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3 The case for hybrid technology
24
3.1 An ecological technical invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ii
3.2
3.1.1 How hybrid cars work: a new drive-train system . . . .
3.1.2 Hybrids’ energy and environmental performance . . . .
The economics of hybrid cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 The market for HEVs - current situation and projections
3.2.2 Overcoming the market entrance barrier . . . . . . . .
24
28
31
32
36
4 Accounting for hybrids’ success: sociological contributions 42
4.1 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.1.1 Theoretical background: Acknowledging technology’s
4.2
and consumption’s social character . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.1.2 Pivotal theoretical concepts: Socio-technical regime and
‘leitbild’ approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Propositions for an appended concept of the socio-technical
regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.2.1 Theoretical construct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.2.2 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5 Supply side: The institutional and regulatory dimension of
hybrids’ diffusion
64
5.1 The regulatory environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.1.1 Energy policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.1.2 Environmental policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.2
5.1.3 Safety policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Manufacturers’ capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6 Demand side: Empirical study on the user acceptance of
hybrid electric vehicles
6.1 Design of the study . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 Selection and composition of
6.1.2 The key variables . . . . . .
6.2 Statistical analysis . . . . . . . . .
iii
. . . . . . .
respondents
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
78
78
79
81
84
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
Testing the hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
An exploratory model of political, social and cultural
factors’ influence on hybrid technology diffusion . . . . 102
Additional results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7 Policy implications
112
7.1 A short assessment of available policy options and their efficiency112
7.2 Forcing hybrids’ commercialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.2.1 The case for Pigouvian taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.3
7.2.2 The case for a reform of existing standards and subsidies115
Exploiting hybrids’ full potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.3.1 The case for electronic fuel efficiency displays in all
vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.3.2
7.3.3
The case for a plug-in option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
The case for soft measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
8 Conclusion
122
9 Résumé: Les voitures hybrides - succès sans précédent et
effets sur le système de transport américain
124
9.1 Les voitures hybrides offrent une solution technologique face
à la crise du système de transport américain . . . . . . . . . . 125
9.1.1
9.1.2
9.2
La société automobile et son impact sur la consommation d’énergie et sur l’environnement . . . . . . . . . . 126
Une technologie écologique au succès surprenant: les
voitures hybrides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Toutefois, leur impact réel dépendra de leur acceptation par
l’opinion publique et de l’adéquation des mesures politiques
proposées . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
9.2.1 L’état de l’acceptation des voitures vertes par les producteurs et les consommateurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
iv
9.2.2
Les implications pour les politiques publiques . . . . . 147
Appendix
154
Bibliography
165
v
List of Figures
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Modal share of passenger travel in selected countries .
Depletion of oil and gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Worldwide CO2 emissions, 1989-2001 . . . . . . . . .
Real and nominal gas prices in the US, 1919-2006 . .
3.1
HEV drive-train configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Distribution of hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners
Estimated change of fuel prices . . . . . . . . . . . .
Initial model of hybrid-ownership . . . . . . . . . . .
Revised model of hybrid-ownership . . . . . . . . . .
6.5
6.6
What could increase hybrid sales in the US? . . . . . . . . . . 108
Support for policy measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
vi
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 6
. 11
. 14
. 19
.
.
.
.
80
100
103
104
List of Tables
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
GDP and cars per capita in selected countries, 1970 and 1982
7
Estimated annual losses (gains) through climate change . . . . 15
Vehicle use, fuel price and fuel intensity in selected countries . 18
US greenhouse gas emissions, GDP and greenhouse gas intensity, 2002-2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1
3.2
Potential for the reduction of CO2 emissions through regenerative braking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Currently available hybrid electric vehicles and planned introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3
3.4
3.5
Projection of hybrid-electric light duty vehicle sales, 2002-2025 34
Alternative vehicle sales in the US, 2002-2004 . . . . . . . . . 37
The costs of hybrids and comparable vehicles . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1
Hybrid Motor Vehicle Credit: Maximum deduction amounts
5.2
5.3
5.4
by vehicle weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CAFE standards, 1992-2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Federal emission standards for light duty vehicles . . .
Corporate average fuel economy by manufacturer, 2005
6.1
6.2
6.3
Distribution of HEV models owned by respondents . . . . . . 82
Interest in hybrid technology among survey respondents . . . . 83
List of attitudinal measures employed in the study . . . . . . . 84
vii
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
69
71
75
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
Influence of environmental issues’ salience on support for policy measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Influence of energy issues’ salience on support for policy measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Influence of perceived problem solving capacity on interest in
hybrid vehicle technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Influence of perceived social gratification on interest in hybrid
vehicle technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Influence of acceptance by relevant social groups on interest
in hybrid vehicle technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.9 Variance in hybrid-owners’ and non-owners’ perception of acceptance by relevant social groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.10 Expected vehicle attributes and their impact on interest in
hybrid technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.11 Aspects increasing hybrid sales in the US . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.12 Actual distance driven and comparison to the average driver . 110
6.13 Vehicle class - HEVs and the vehicles traded in for them . . . 111
viii
Notes
Abbreviations
α
Kronbach’s alpha
ANOVA
analysis of variance
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAFE
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CH4
methane
CO
carbon monoxide
CO2
carbon dioxide
cpg
cent per gallon (US)
df
degrees of freedom
DOE
Department of Energy
EIA
Energy Information Administration
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EU
European Union
F
F-ratio (between groups means square divided by within-
fig.
groups mean square)
figure
ft
foot (US)
γ
gamma (correlation measure)
ga
gallon (US)
ix
GDP
gross domestic product
GJ
gigajoule
GM
General Motors
GVW
gross vehicle weight
HOV
High Occupancy Vehicle
HEV
hybrid electric vehicle
ICE
internal combustion engine
IEA
International Energy Agency
lb
pound (US)
LDT
Light Duty Truck
LDV
Light Duty Vehicle
LEV
Low Emission Vehicle
mb
million barrel
mi
mile
mpg
miles per gallon (US)
mph
miles per hour (US)
N
number of cases
N/A
not applicable
NHTSA
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMVOCs
non-methane volatile organic compounds
NOx
nitrous oxides
OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OPEC
Organization for the Petroleum Exporting Countries
PGU
power generating unit
R
Pearson’s R
SCOT
Social Construction of Technology
SIP
State Implementation Plan
SOx
sulphur oxides
SULEV
Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle
x
SUV
sport utility vehicle
tab.
table
ULEV
Ultra Low Emission Vehicle
US
United States
VOC
volatile organic compounds
x/cap
x per capita
Currencies
Within this thesis, the currencies used are the US Dollar and, in some cases,
the European Euro. Where the symbol $ is used, it always refers to the US
currency. Fuel taxes are given in US cent per gallon (cpg).
Measures and conversion tables
The measures used in the text follow the American system. Liquid measures
are given in gallons, weights in pounds. Linear measures are given in miles
and feet, and speed in miles per hour. Fuel consumption is measured in liter
per 100 kilometers in Europe and inversely the United States, in miles per
gallon. Emissions are measured in gram per mile in the US and in gram per
kilometer in Europe. In both cases, the American measures are used. The
conversion chart can be found below:
General measures
1 ga
=
3.785 l
1 mi
= 1.6093 km
1 lb
= 453.592 g
60 mph = 96.6 km/h
xi
Fuel consumption measures
20 mpg
30 mpg
50 mpg
= 11.76 l/100 km
= 7.84 l/100 km
= 4.704 l/100 km
5 l/100 km
10 l/100 km
= 47.04 mpg
= 23.52 mpg
xii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all the interviewees for their participation in the online
survey. Their help is very much appreciated.
For fruitful discussions and valuable suggestions, I want to thank my
supervisor Professor Alfred Marcus at the Carlson School of Management,
Minneapolis. Great support was also provided by several other faculty members and students at the University of Minnesota - thank you, Professor Tim
Smith, Mary Maloney and Adam Fremeth.
I am grateful to my supervisors in Stuttgart and Bordeaux, Professor
Ortwin Renn and Professor Daniel Compagnon, for their willingness to accept
a ‘tri-national’ thesis and for their support throughout the year.
Without being granted a fellowship from the German National Academic
Foundation (Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes), I would not have been
able to undertake an overseas research project. I am very grateful for this
opportunity.
My special thanks go to my family for their loving support and to Nikolas
for making me undertake yet another adventure.
xiii
Chapter 1
Introduction
For more than one hundred years, mankind has been relying on the hydrocarbon economy and vehicles propelled by combustion engines to meet the
growing demand for individual mobility. This configuration poses serious
problems: Energy security, air pollution and climate change are issues that
are becoming more and more pressing. Finite oil resources and the effects of
automobile emissions have prompted governments and automobile manufacturers to search for alternative technologies. To date, the attempt to find a
technical solution for a more sustainable transport system has been in vain.
Even though progress has been made towards cleaner and more fuel efficient
cars through incremental innovation, the efficiency gains have been eaten up
by the greater weight and performance of today’s cars and the sheer number
of miles driven, which is steadily increasing. Alternative drive-trains such as
the electric vehicle have not been met with success.
Now, a new technology is raising hopes for a more sustainable transport
system. Hybrid-electric drive-trains were first introduced in the United States
in 2000 and demand has since gained momentum. They reduce emissions
and fuel consumption through the combination of an internal combustion
engine with an electric motor and by using regenerative braking and idleoff. If hybrids were to attain a wider diffusion they could truly make a
1
difference in terms of emissions and energy consumption. The sales figures
from the first few years show a strong upwards trend. The fact that all major
manufacturers are introducing hybrid models also points to a bright future
for the technology.
But hybrids’ success, if positive, is also surprising: They are so much more
expensive than conventional cars that the fuel cost savings cannot make up
for the price difference. According to pure cost-utility calculations, it is not
rational to buy a hybrid car. Standard economic theory would predict little
interest in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). Contrary to these expectations,
the demand is so high that in some US states, the waiting time for a new
hybrid is several months. And then there is the fact that no alternative
vehicle technology has ever caught on the way hybrids have on the market.
Even extensive subsidies and supportive regulations could not force the mass
commercialization of electrical or alternative fuel vehicles.
How can the unexpected triumph of hybrid vehicles be explained? There
have to be factors besides price that account for hybrids’ appeal. In this thesis, we turn to social practices, public discourses and cultural visions linked
to technical artifacts to explain user acceptance of green technologies. Apparently, hybrids succeed so well in these categories, that their lack of price
competitiveness is not of great weight for customers. Finding out whether
this is truly the case is the purpose of the hybrid-owner survey described
in this thesis. By examining user attitudes, we can determine different dimensions that facilitate or impede technical change. They act as switches
between technical options: The better a new technology accommodates the
requirements set by various selection environments, the more likely it is to
gain wider diffusion.
This research advances the sociological concept of selection environments
as determinants of the direction of technical change. It emphasizes the importance of social, cultural and political selection aspects and thereby closes gaps
in some other approaches of technical regime change. It is of interest to the
2
transportation, environmental, and energy policy community. The realization that non-economic factors play a role in the success of green technologies
can lead to a better understanding of the preconditions for the transformation of large socio-technical systems towards more sustainability. Having
an insight into social dynamics is a prerequisite for informed policy making. Early adopters of hybrid technology can teach us how to make other
users - who may be insensitive to energy security and environmental concerns
and plagued by more immediate troubles and constraints - take an interest
in energy-efficient and clean technologies and use them in a way effectively
spinning off energy savings and pollution reduction.
The structure of the thesis is as follows: Chapter 2 contains a discussion
of recent trends in transport growth and its consequences on the environment
and on oil consumption. An account of the functioning of hybrid electric vehicles and their environmental and energy performance follows in Chapter 3.
It also comprises an analysis of the present and future market for hybrids.
The case is put forward that economic theory cannot fully explain this new
technology’s success. Chapter 4 investigates how useful sociological theories
can be in this regard. A review of the relevant literature in sociology of
technology and consumption is followed by the introduction of an appended
theoretical model of the socio-technical regime. The focus is on selection environments as explanatory factors for the smoothness or roughness of technical
regime change towards more sustainability. In Chapter 5, the main selection
effects on the supply side are examined. Regulations and firms’ institutional
capabilities are of special importance if regime change is to succeed. Chapter
6 concentrates on selection effects on the demand side. Data from a quantitative study of hybrid owners is explored and user attitudes are discussed.
The thesis concludes with a discussion of policy implications in Chapter 7.
A French summary of the complete thesis can be found in Chapter 8.
3
Chapter 2
Automobile society and
sustainability
Modern societies are marked by an unprecedented increase in spatial mobility
(Banister et al., 2000), which has adverse effects on the environment and on
energy consumption.
2.1
Passenger transport as a result of growing demand for individual mobility
Compared to travel patterns in earlier times and compared to those of less
developed countries, citizens of industrialized nations cover much farther
distances. In a broad definition of the human activity of travel, the European
Commission (2005, pg. 3) describes passenger transport as follows:
“Passenger transport consists of all transport of people rather than
of freight. It includes all forms of public and private transport of
people by air, land or water, whether scheduled or unscheduled.
It includes unmotorised and pedestrian transport. It also includes
the transport of baggage which is traveling with a passenger. Pas4
senger transport may be urban, rural, coastal, local, long distance
or cross-border.”
Passenger transport growth is spurred by three main factors: land-use patterns, socio-economic conditions and transportation system conditions (Polzin
et al., 2003).1 We will concentrate on the first two factors, because they help
us make a point about the expected growth of travel.
The growing spatial dispersion of individual activity patterns is the most
notable driver of travel demand in Western societies. In the course of the
20th century, population density in urban settlements has dwindled. As locations of leisure, work and living became more distant and social networks
more widespread, the need for individual mobility grew. The scattered settlement patterns of today’s cities lend themselves poorly to public transport,
because they lack the population density required to render it efficient. With
distances between the sites of daily activities growing, walking or biking is
often not an option and mobility needs are saturated to a large extent by
individual motor car traffic.
According to the European Commission, in 1998, roughly 75 % of passenger miles in the European Union (EU) were traveled by car (European
Commission, 2005). In the United States, the share of car travel is even
higher: In 2001, 86.3 % of total miles were traveled by car (DOT/NHA,
2004). With the notable exception of Japan, the share of private car transport in overall transport lies over 80 % today in all selected countries shown
in Fig. 2.1. These nations are not only highly mobile in terms of distances
traveled, but they are truly automobile societies in that a large majority of
trips are taken by car.
1
Production also drives transport demand. Industrial manufacturing is ever more decentralized, with firms exploiting economies of scale and scope as well as the division of
labor on a global scale. Intrafirm trade in combination with just-in-time production leads
to increased freight traffic (Donaghy et al., 2004). Freight transport is an interesting field
of study, but we will concentrate on passenger transport.
5
Figure 2.1: Modal share of passenger travel in selected countries. Adapted
from: OECD/IEA, 2004b
Not only is there a shift from other means of transport toward motor
vehicles, but the total number of miles traveled has increased, too. While the
travel-time budget of an average person per day is approximately one hour,
irrespective of cultural differences, geographical specificities, predominant
mode of transport or per-capita income (Schafer and Victor, 2000), people
in Western societies go further in this time.2 To the extent that a better
infrastructure allows for swifter traffic and the speed of available means of
transport increases, the distances traveled grow. While the average NorthAmerican covered circa 13,700 miles per year in 1990, the typical African
traveled a mere 1,150 miles (idem).
2
African villagers spend about the same time every day travelling as the average inhabitants of Singapore, Western Europe or the United States, but they cover smaller distances.
The reason for the worldwide travel time stability remains a mystery to scientists. It has
been argued that an hour of travel time per day corresponds to human instincts, or that
other activities such as sleeping, eating and working put a time-constraint on travelling
(Schafer, 1998), but scientific proof for these assumptions is still lacking.
6
Country
GDP per capita (1985 $)
1970
1982
Canada
10.1
16.4
USA
13.0
17.9
Australia
10.8
Japan
Germany
1970
1982
av. annual
% change
2.2
0.31
0.49
2.1
1.5
0.44
0.56
1.2
14.5
1.4
0.31
0.45
1.8
7.3
15.1
3.4
0.08
0.31
6.2
9.4
14.7
2.0
0.22
0.44
3.2
France
9.2
13.9
1.9
0.24
0.42
2.5
UK
8.5
12.7
1.8
0.21
0.40
2.9
India
0.8
1.3
2.2
0.001
0.003
5.4
China
0.7
1.4a
3.3
0.0001
0.002a
16.5
OECD
7.8
12.2
2.2
0.18
0.34
4.1
a
av. annual
% change
Cars per capita
1991
Table 2.1: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and cars per capita in selected
countries, 1970 and 1982. Source: Dargay and Gately, 1999
Per capita income is the other central factor driving mobility demand.
The car ownership population ratio is a function of the income level (Tab.
2.1). It serves as an important measure of traffic because it is directly related
to per capita travel and fuel use. In Western societies, the transport sector
accounts for the biggest part of overall energy use, but percentage growth
rates of the car fleet and of transport energy demand are modest. In poor
countries, the part of transport in overall energy consumption is smaller. But
per capita energy demand shoots up as they start to develop and continues
to rise steadily during the process of economic development. If China or
India were to attain a living standard comparable to the Western world, the
number of cars and of miles traveled would explode. At the current growth
rate, the number of cars worldwide will rise from 800 million today to 3.25
billion in 2050 (Koerner, 2005). Looking at these figures, it seems as if the
growing demand for mobility is here to stay - along with an unquenchable
thirst for oil and millions of tons of toxic emissions. Thus, mobility needs
have widespread consequences on energy consumption and the environment.
7
2.2
Global effects of motorized travel on sustainability
Motorized travel is responsible for unsustainable levels of oil consumption
and environmental pollution.
2.2.1
Worldwide oil supply and demand
The transport sector depends almost totally on oil and is the single most
important determinant of oil demand. The International Energy Agency
(IEA) predicts that between 2000 and 2030, transport energy use in the
Organization for Economic Development (OECD) will increase by 50 %, in
spite of policies intended to curb travel growth (OECD/IEA, 2004a). In
addition, the expansion of transport oil consumption is practically the single
cause of the overall increase in OECD oil use over this period. This also
intensifies energy dependence throughout the OECD (OECD/IEA, 2003):
By 2030, oil imports are projected to attain 85 % of total consumption in
Europe (up from about 50 % today), 50 % in North America (up from about
35 % today), and 95 % in the Pacific region (up from about 90 % today).
The absolute as well as the relative part of transport in oil consumption
will grow in the future (Svidén, 1993). Data from the International Energy
Agency confirms the expected predominance of transport in oil consumption in industrialized countries (OECD/IEA, 2004b): While the last thirty
years have seen a decline in household and industry oil use, transport’s consumption has continued to grow. In 1998, transport represented 78 % of oil
consumption in IEA member countries, combining private travel’s 53 % and
freight’s 25 % share. Newly developing countries, most notably China and
India, are following in the footsteps of the industrialized countries and their
immense thirst for oil puts the oil market under even more pressure.
While demand for oil is growing globally at a ratio of approximately 1.6 %
per year, concerns about the longevity of and the access to the world’s oil
8
supply are increasingly being voiced. One reason for this is the insecurity
about the exact quantity of oil remaining. Colin Campbell (cited in: Vidal,
2005, pg. 1), the renowned geologist and expert for oil-reserves questions,
puts it very aptly:
“Estimating reserves is a scientific business. There is a range of
uncertainty but it is not impossible to get a good idea of what a
field contains. Reporting, however, is a political act.”
The accuracy of the numbers reported by companies and governments
is at best questionable. But the last couple of years have brought it home
that there might be less oil out there than previously expected. In 2004,
several oil companies revised their reserve estimates downwards. Shell (2004),
for instance, recategorized 20 % of its proven reserves to probable reserves
and a number of American companies, among them El Paso with a 41 %
downgrade for its North-American oilfields, also came forward with lower
numbers for their reserves than previously published (OECD/IEA, 2004a).
In addition, during the last two years, the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) repeatedly stated that its production capacity
was stretched to the limit.
In Russia, the government’s crackdown on the energy market and the nationalizations of oil-giant Yukos and Gazprom have further fueled concerns
about bottlenecks on the oil market and contributed to a bull movement on
the oil market. Undeniably, political and economic unrest in oil-producing
countries has an impact on prices. It is also important to bear in mind
that the geopolitical distribution of reserves puts a risk premium on the oil
price. While the US is today’s largest oil producer, its petroleum fields are
considered to be already past their peak. The world’s biggest remaining
hydro-carbon reserves lie hidden beneath the desert sands of the politically
instable Middle-East. The 2003 Iraq war and its aftermath have a considerable impact on oil prices. And although Iran is thought to harbor the world’s
9
fourth largest oil reserves, geopolitical tensions make access to these reserves
doubtful.
The disparity of the location of oil demand and oil supply, the political
turmoil in a number of supplier countries and the insecurity about remaining
oil reserves have jointly caused an upward trend in crude oil prices since 2002.
In April 2005, a barrel of oil was traded at prices as high as 60 US $ (Der
Spiegel, 2005a). Experts expect prices to remain at the current level or to
climb even higher. In April 2005, a study by the investment bank Goldman
Sachs (cited in: BBC, 2005) caused quite a stir: It asserts that the current
oil prices are just the beginning of a “super spike”, which could drive prices
up to 105 US $ per barrel. Another study predicts crude oil prices around
77 US $ per barrel in the short term and up to 100 US $ by 2010 (Rubin,
2005).
While the world will not run out of oil in the next few years, this most
valued of energy products will become scarcer - and therefore more expensive
- quite soon. Projections vary about how long petroleum will last and how
fast depletion will occur. According to the IEA (OECD/IEA, 2004a), the
world’s oil resources will not peak before 2030. But by its own projections,
demand is expected to grow by 64 % between 2002 and 2030. This would have
to be offset by enhanced oil recoveries. However, during the last decade, the
world has seen a slowdown in discoveries of new oilfields. The accuracy of the
IEA projection has therefore been doubted, for example by the Association
for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO). ASPO’s members - geologists
and former employees of oil companies - assert a much faster depletion rate
of oil resources and criticize the excessive optimism of the USGS World Oil
Assessment (USGS, 2000), on which the IEA’s World Energy Outlook is
based. Fig. 2.2 depicts the alternative depletion scenario developed by ASPO.
In the face of finite resources, growing mobility demand means higher oil
prices. As reserves shrink, advanced investments are required to recover the
remaining oil. Canada, for example, has extensive amounts of tar sands - but
10
Figure 2.2: Association for the Study of Peak Gas and Oil: The general
depletion picture - Oil and Gas 2004. Source: ASPO, 2005
11
extracting high quality fuel from it is much more expensive than customary
oil production and requires a huge amount of energy, which would have to
come from other sources. Transportation relying on hydro-carbon resources
will be faced with higher prices, and ultimately, with the disappearance of
its lifeline - oil. Transport’s bad energy consumption record is not the sole
concern, however. Automobile traffic also has severe consequences for the
environment.
2.2.2
Motorized transport’s global environmental impacts
Automobiles emit several substances that adversely affect air quality and
contribute to global warming. Today’s standard internal combustion engines
burn gasoline only incompletely, discharging air pollutants and particles in
the process. The global climate change theory rests upon the assumption
that anthropogenic emissions lead to global warming by trapping solar heat
instead of emitting it back into space. Melting icecaps at the poles would
then cause a rising sealevel and the submersion of much of the world’s coastal
areas. In addition, experts expect changes in weather patterns, with more
severe storms, altered rainfall patterns and droughts as possible results.
Politically, the existence of global climate change is not undisputed, and
there is even more discord when it comes to remedies. Scientifically, there
is doubt about the extent but not the existence of anthropogenic climate
change. In the last few years, enough evidence has been accumulated to make
a case for the correctness of the basic assumptions behind climate change theory. Only this year, two new studies have been published that dispel a large
part of what doubts remained. The first one (Saltzman and Young, 2005)
links the end of the ordovician period ice-age to high atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from volcanic eruptions. It presents evidence that situates the
ice-age 10 million years earlier than previously assumed. Formerly, the later
dating was used as an argument against the link between CO2 and global
12
warming: it would have meant that an ice-age would had lasted even under under high concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2 ). The second study
(Hansen et al., 2005), undertaken by NASA scientists and published in Science, finds that the Earth’s energy balance is in disequilibrium: Earth absorbs 0.85 watt per square meter more energy from the sun than it reflects
into space. This supports the global warming argument. In addition, the
study points to a delay effect in climate change:
“Earth’s climate system has considerable thermal inertia. This
point is of critical importance to policy and decision-makers who
seek to mitigate the effects of undesirable anthropogenic climate
change. The effect of the inertia is to delay Earth’s response
to climate forcings [. . . ]. This delay provides an opportunity to
reduce the magnitude of anthropogenic climate change before it is
fully realized, if appropriate action is taken. On the other hand,
if we wait for more overwhelming empirical evidence of climate
change, the inertia implies that still greater climate change will be
in store, which may be difficult or impossible to avoid.” (Hansen
et al., 2005, pg. 1)
The earth’s climate-inertia renders the need for action all the more acute
and inaction all the more damaging. Greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, but their real effects will only be felt much later.
Even if CO2 emissions were stabilized, the CO2 concentration would still
continue to rise (IPCC, 2001). Several efforts have already been made on
the international level to reign in greenhouse gas emissions, the most well
known being the Kyoto Protocol.3 The Kyoto reduction measures, combined
with voluntary steps taken by the industry, have succeeded in slowing the
3
The Kyoto Protocol seeks to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming. The
signing parties commit to reduce their CO2 production by a certain ratio, with different
ratios for developing and industrial countries. Although it was adopted already in 1999,
it only came into effect this year, after taking the hurdle of being ratified by enough
countries to account for more than 55 % of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. It has
13
Figure 2.3: Worldwide CO2 emissions, 1989-2001. Source: UNEP, 2005a
increase rate of global CO2 emissions. It is a first step, but there is still
room for improvement. Moreover, equity concerns arise from the fact that
emission rates are not equally spread across the world (Fig. 2.3): Industrial
societies pollute more both in absolute and in per capita terms. This is especially striking in the case of North America, whose per capita pollution
rate is almost 20 times that of Africa and still more than twice as high as in
Europe and Asia-Pacific.
After power generation, transport captures the largest share in carbon
dioxide emissions - between 20 % in developing countries and up to 30 % in
industrialized countries. And its share is growing due to continuing increases
in vehicle numbers and miles traveled (Ortmeyer and Pillay, 2001). While
an in-built equity mechanism, in that it applies differential reduction levels according to
the development level of a country.
14
EU
USA
Ex-USSR
China
World Coastal protection measures
0.1
0.2
0
0
1.1
Loss of coastal land
0.3
2.1
1.2
0
14
Loss of coastal wetlandsa
4.9
5.6
1.2
0.6
31.6
Other ecosystems
9.8
7.4
2.3
2.2
40.5
Agriculture
9.7
7.4
6.2
7.8
39.1
Forestry
0.2
1
0.6
0
3.4
Energy industry
7
6.9
(0.7)
0.7
23.1
Water management
14
13.7
3
1.6
46.7
Mortality
21.9
16.6
3.9
4.9
82
Air pollution
3.5
6.4
2.1
0.2
15.2
Emigration
1
0.5
0.2
0.6
4.3
Tropical cyclones
0
0.2
0
0.1
3
Total
72.4
68
20
18.7
304.2
a
World
including losses to fishing
Table 2.2: Estimated annual losses (gains) in the event that atmospheric
C02 concentrations reach twice pre-industrial levels (Billion US $). Source:
Munich Re, 2001
CO2 emissions in the industry and residential sectors are sinking globally,
pollution from transportation is showing an upwards trend. Carbon dioxide
(CO2 ) is the single most important pollutant emitted by cars. Other main
greenhouse gases given off by mobile emitters are methane (CH4 ) and nitrous
oxides (NOx ). Also contained in fuel are indirect greenhouse gases such
as carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur oxides (SOx ) and non-methane volatile
organic compounds (NMVOC).
These substances all contribute to high-level, stratospheric changes causing global warming. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are
projected to reach twice their preindustrial level by 2050 and to give rise to
enormous macroeconomic costs to remedy the effects of climate change. Tab.
2.2 shows an estimate of annual costs in selected countries. It could cost the
world as much as 300 billion US $ per year to fight climate change impacts.
Besides contributing to global warming, car exhaust gases are one of the
15
premier sources of local air pollution. They affect the health of the population, not to mention the well-being of the flora and fauna. NOx , CO
and volatile organic compounds (VOC, also-called hydrocarbons) have been
proven to have severe health impacts. CO harms the respiratory tract and
the coronary arteries. VOC and NOx cause smog, and in turn, respiratory
illnesses (Porter, 1999). Recently, another component of car exhaust fumes,
particulate matter, has made headlines: A new study by the European Union
shows that these minuscule particles are responsible for the death of up to
310,000 EU citizens every year (SZ, 2005). The World Health Organization
first drew attention to the fact that the dust suspended in the atmosphere
causes cardio-pulmonary diseases and lung cancer. It included recommendations on the restriction of particulate matter in its air quality guidelines
(see for example WHO (2000)). Since then, a large body of scientific evidence has been accumulated that documents the human death toll caused by
particulate matter.
The price humanity pays for mobility is high: today, transport already
claims lifes - not only directly in accidents, but also indirectly through its
noxious emissions. Tomorrow, the price to pay might become even higher
due to climate-related macroeconomic costs and loss of human life.
2.3
The sustainability of the transport system in the United States
Automobile traffic plays a prominent role in local air pollution and in global
warming. The automobile society par excellence, the United States, feels the
effects of motorized traffic perhaps more dearly than anybody else. Both
energy dependence and pollution give rise to concerns.
16
2.3.1
America’s thirst for oil and the consequences on
energy security
In the United States, the issue of energy security has become more acute in
the past years. With a share of 40.7 % of total energy consumption in 1999,
transport is the main energy consumer in the US; between 1990 and 2001, its
consumption rose by 19.7 % (OECD/IEA, 2002b). The US are already the
world’s largest oil importer and under the current policy mix, the imports
will continue to grow: Oil demand is projected to rise 1 % per year, from 20.2
million barrel (mb) per day in 2000 to 27.3 mb per day in 2030 (OECD/IEA,
2002a), even as the mature domestic production declines by approximately
0.2 % per year. A scissor effect is at work: sinking indigenous production is
faced with growing demand. This will result in augmented energy dependence
of the United States if no new measures are taken to either reign in demand
or to increase domestic supply. Without action, oil imports will rise to 63 %
of total oil consumption by 2020 (OECD/IEA, 2002b). The United States do
not stand alone with this problem: The OECD is projected to become more
dependent on energy imports from non-members, with the OPEC countries
capturing the lion’s share of the demand increase (OECD/IEA, 2004a). Its
oil exports to the OECD are expected to rise by 80 % between 2002 and 2030.
For the United States, the need for foreign oil is a major security concern,
considering that it makes the world’s most powerful nation dependent on
countries that are at best authoritarian, at worst dictatorial regimes.
Interestingly, at the same time that the energy supply situation of the
US worsens, Americans continue to enjoy very low gasoline prices compared
to the rest of the developed world. In 1998, Americans paid 1.24 dollars
per gallon ($/ga), compared to 3.74 $/ga in France, 3.82 $/ga in the United
Kingdom and 2.88 $/ga in Japan (Ortmeyer and Pillay, 2001). Of course, the
oil market is international and the global price of oil has a direct impact on
the cost of gasoline. But what motorists ultimately pay at the pump depends
on national and local taxes. And this is where the US differs radically from
17
Countries
Weighted real
fuel price,
including taxes
Vehicledistance per
capita x1000
Fleet average
vehicle fuel intensity
Car fuel
use per
capita
US $/ga
US $/l
mi
km
mi/ga
l/100 km
GJ/cap
USA
0.98
0.26
8.08
13
19.6
12.0
52
Canada
1.67
0.44
5.10
8.2
19.93
11.8
33
Australia
1.93
0.51
5.10
8.2
20.82
11.3
32
a
Japan
2.08
0.55
2.42
3.9
20.82
11.3
14
EUa
2.65-3.79
0.7-1.0
3.73-4.66
6.0-7.5
32.67-25.57
7.2-9.2
16-20
Minima and maxima are from Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK.
Table 2.3: A comparison of vehicle use, fuel price and fuel intensity in selected
countries, 1998. Source: Himanen et al., 2004
other industrialized countries: its taxes on gasoline are very moderate and
its fuel prices are what must be the worlds lowest in relation to per capita
income. The tax proportion is only 36 % in the US, compared to 80 % in
France, 76 % in the United Kingdom and 60 % in Japan (idem).
Low fuel prices encourage consumption and so it is not surprising that
Americans travel more per capita than all other OECD citizens. What is
more, the fuel intensity of the US car fleet is higher than in any other industrialized country (for selected countries, see Tab. 2.3, 18). In short, there is
tremendous unused potential for efficiency gains in the American transport
sector. Even though fuel is cheap in international comparison, the rising
price on the world market is felt in the US, too. Oil prices at the pump have
been mounting.
But in real terms, what Americans pay at the pump today is still way
below what they used to pay twenty years ago, after the oil shocks of the 70s.
While Fig. 2.4 shows an upward trend in real and nominal gasoline prices
since 2002, it also proves that fuel is nowhere near as expensive today as
it used to be in the early eighties. Still, the recent increases have captured
consumers’ attention, because the percentage change is actually quite elevated. During the summer of 2005, it was accentuated by the destruction of
18
Figure 2.4: Real and nominal average annual gas prices in the US, 1919-2006.
Source: DOE/EIA, 2005a
refineries in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Stan. In some areas, regular
unleaded cost three or more dollars per gallon.
Even by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) own testimony (DOE/EIA,
2004a,b), the higher prices are here to stay: In the short term, the US will
have to deal with a supply shortage. The country currently lacks refining
capacities and import growth is facing challenges considering the tight international oil market. In the long term, a supply shortage is also expected.
While the insufficient refining capacity can of course be remedied, it will not
completely offset the higher demand. The US will still be in competition
for oil with other countries, whose demand is also on the rise. In short, the
current transport system in the US contributes to unsustainable energy consumption. It will become harder to satisfy the current level of demand in the
future.
19
2.3.2
The environmental and health impacts of automobile traffic in the United States
In addition to the energy security concerns it raises, transport has its downside in environmental terms. Not only is the US the largest contributor
to global greenhouse gas emissions, but its urban agglomerations also suffer from local air pollution. The US has 4 % of the world’s population,
but accounted for almost a quarter (24 %) of global CO2 emissions in 1998
(UNFCCC/UNEP, 2002). Between 1990 and 1999 its emissions increased by
11 % (idem). And they are still growing, mainly driven by the transportation
sector, which makes up approximately 30 % of greenhouse gas emissions in
the US (UNFCCC, 2005).
According to the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (DOE/EIA, 2005b) transport’s CO2 emissions are projected to
increase by 1.8 % annually between 2005 and 2025 under unchanged policies.
While the EIA expects efficiency gains in the aircraft and rail sector, it also
projects that this will be offset by increasing highway travel and stagnating
vehicle fuel efficiency. If no new measures are taken, CO2 emissions will go up
from 1,872 to 2,796 million metric tons between 2003 and 2025 (DOE/EIA,
2005b).
All the while, the current administration opted out of the Kyoto Protocol
in 2001 and refuses to issue more stringent CO2 regulations on the grounds
that it could damage economic growth. To date, these emissions are not
restricted in the US. Interestingly, the Clean Air Act (CAA) from 1970 lists
carbon dioxide as an air pollutant and explicitly gives the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) authority to include the named substances in pollution prevention programs. However, the Bush administration asserts that
the CAA does not include CO2 , and that any regulation of CO2 would be too
costly. This was made clear by President Bush (2001) in a letter to a group
of senators, in which he repeated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Only
recently, the White House reaffirmed its stance, when it stated that it was
20
Substance (million metric
tons CO2 equivalent)
Projection
% change
2002
2012
2025
2002-12
2002-25
5,750
6,812
8,062
18.5
40.2
Methane
599
609
606
1.7
1.1
Nitrous oxide
323
342
382
5.7
18.3
Gases with high global warming potential
144
284
624
97.5
334.0
60
82
93
37.2
56.9
6,876
8,128
9,767
18.2
42.1
10,075
13,869
20,292
37.7
101.4
682
586
481
-14.1
-29.5
Greenhouse gas emissions
Energy related carbon dioxide
Other carbon dioxides
Total greenhouse gases
GDP (billion 2000 US $)
Greenhouse gas intensitya
a
thousand metric tons CO2 equivalent per billion 2000 US $ of GDP
Table 2.4: Projected changes in US greenhouse gas emissions, GDP and
greenhouse gas intensity, 2002-2025. Source: DOE/EIA, 2005b
not convinced of the need for action against climate change in response to
a proposed energy bill containing tighter CO2 emissions regulations (Hulse,
2005).
Rather than implementing obligatory standards, since 2002, the US government relies on a voluntary program of greenhouse gas reduction. It focuses
on improving the economy’s carbon efficiency as opposed to meeting a specific
reduction target. While this is certainly positive, current policies will still
lead to an absolute increase in emissions (Tab. 2.4). The only indirect restriction of CO2 in the US actually exists in the transport sector: the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards define the average fuel intensity
of the cars sold by an auto-manufacturer in a given year. The amount of fuel
a car burns is related to its greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, CAFE
is less stringent than the European and Japanese standards, and it has not
been tightened over the last decade, except for a tiny increase in 2003.
Regarding the financial effects of climate change in the US, losses will
mostly outweigh the gains. Munich Re, a major reinsurance company, estimates that by 2050, the US will have to spend approximately 68 billion
21
US $ per year to battle climate change effects (Munich Re, 2001). Because
of changing rainfall patterns and temperature zones, experts expect agricultural zones to shift. For example, dryer and hotter weather is forecast for
the US grain belt, which will have an adverse influence on crop productivity
(UNFCCC/UNEP, 2002). Forestry, natural habitats, bio-diversity and water
resources will be affected. Submersion of coastal areas and desertification will
result in land loss. Because of warming sea waters, extreme weather events
such as hurricanes could become more intense and more frequent, with high
macroeconomic costs accruing in their wake. Although the record hurricane
season of 2005 cannot be linked solely to climate change, a statistically significant increase in the number of hurricanes has occurred in the past 30
years.
The second environmental problem linked to transport is local air pollution. Exhaust fumes from mobile emitters cause widespread health problems.
In spite of environmental laws attempting to ameliorate air quality, most urban agglomerations - especially the coastal stretches between San Diego and
San Francisco and between Maine and Virginia as well as many major cities
between the coasts - suffer from bad air quality. Starting with the 1970 Clean
Air Act, noxious components of exhaust fumes were restricted. These measures were efficient in reducing emissions of new cars by 70 to 80 % by 1981
(Porter, 1999). But because vehicle miles driven also increased during that
period, the actual reduction was only 42 %.
In 1990, an amendment to the Clean Air Act established National Ambient Air Quality Standards and implemented more stringent regulations on
mobile sources. It included fuel quality standards and tighter pollution standards for transport emissions, reducing tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matters on a phased-in
basis which starting in 1994. California has to be mentioned specifically,
because it regulates much more strongly than any other US state. Pollution control is urgent in California: not only is it the most populous state,
22
but it also suffers from high smog levels. In general, air quality in the US
has improved since the introduction of the CAA, but it is still not satisfactory in most urban agglomerations and the toll on human well-being stays
high. In 2003, more than 60 million Americans lived in non-attainment areas
where concentrations of one or several air pollutants exceeded EPA health
standards (OECD/WEP, 2000).
In sum, the increase in individual mobility needs has led to the creation
of unsustainable transport systems, worldwide as well as in the US.
23
Chapter 3
The case for hybrid technology
What can be done to make transport more environmentally sustainable and
less energy intensive? Hybrid vehicles offer a technical solution to this problem.
3.1
An ecological technical invention
The combination of internal combustion engine and electrical engine makes
hybrid cars more fuel efficient and less polluting. They are termed an ecological technical invention for this reason.
3.1.1
How hybrid cars work: a new drive-train system
In the automobile world, the term ‘hybrid’ refers to any car that combines
two different power-generating units (PGUs). Here, it will be used only to
designate hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs) which combine an internal combustion engine (ICE) with an electric motor and a battery pack. Other basic
components of a hybrid are a transmission and an electronic control system
that decides which power unit will be used. A thorough explanation of the
mechanical components and technical functionality of HEVs can be found in
24
Figure 3.1: Illustration of HEV drive-train configurations: Parallel, series
and series/parallel-design
Kreith et al. (1999), Husain (2003) or Jefferson and Barnard (2002). Unlike
standard cars equipped with only an ICE, hybrid cars can be propelled by
the sole electric motor. And unlike electric cars, they do not need to be
plugged in, because the battery recharges itself from the onboard ICE during driving. There are two basic design options, and a third configuration
combining them (see Fig. 3.1):
• Series design: Only the electric motor provides propulsion power. The
ICE generates electricity and recharges the battery powering the elec25
tric motor, which in turn propels the wheels. It is by far the simpler
configuration, but the need for a generator and a big battery pack make
it expensive.
• Parallel design: The car can be powered by both the electric motor
and the ICE, either simultaneously or separately. The parallel design
is the configuration used in the first model that came to the market, the
Honda Insight. It has various advantages: The possibility to simultaneously use both PGUs makes it more powerful than a series drive-train;
and the direct coupling of power to the road renders it more efficient.
It dispenses with a generator and the battery pack is smaller than in a
series drive-train, which helps keep costs and weight down. But combining two power sources and regulating which one is to be used makes
it more complicated mechanically and electronically.
• Series/parallel drive-train: The most successful model on the market,
the Toyota Prius, uses yet another strategy, combining series and parallel design to maximize advantages and minimize disadvantages. Its
ICE has the ability to drive the wheels directly. But the engine can
also be disconnected from the wheels and used to power a generator
(i.e. to recharge the battery), which results in near optimum efficiency
operation. A complex algorithm controls which engine is used: At slow
speeds, the HEV relies on the electric motor for propulsion; at higher
speeds, it relies on the ICE.
The auto-industry distinguishes between hybrids according to the degree
of hybridization. Conventionally, this has been done by identifying the relation between the amount of power supplied by the electric motor and by
the combustion engine. However, once regenerative braking comes into play,
it gets more complicated, because it does not fit into the scheme devised. It
therefore seems more useful to differentiate among hybrids according to the
26
technology steps that remove them from standard ICE vehicles. Friedman
(2004) proposes five levels of hybridization:
• Idle-off: All hybrids have the capability to automatically turn the engine off when stopping. But this can also be achieved in a conventional
vehicle through a starter-generator.
• Regenerative braking: Braking energy is captured by the electric motor and stored in the battery pack. This requires a system in which at
least 10 % of the vehicles power comes from the electric motor. Otherwise, voltage and power levels are too low to capture braking energy
significant in terms of fuel efficiency.
• Scale-back of the ICE: The conventional engine is downsized and combined with an electric motor in order to boost performance at times
when operational demands peak. A vehicle that incorporates these first
three technology steps is labeled a mild hybrid.
• Electric-only drive: If, in addition to idle-off, regenerative braking and
engine downsizing, a vehicle can drive relying solely on the battery
pack and the electric motor, it qualifies as a full hybrid. The electric
drive-mode is used at low speeds, when it is most efficient.
• Lengthened battery-electric range: The last step of hybridization is to
expand the range a vehicle can travel in electric-mode only by providing the possibility of external recharging. Such vehicles only exist as
concept cars as of yet. A hybrid that could be plugged into the electricity grid could cover most of the daily distance a person drives in
electric mode. After the complete discharge of the battery, the ICE
would take over.
The concept is nothing new - the first hybrid-electric car was build by
Ferdinand Porsche in 1902. Indeed, in the early years of the automobile
27
age, electric and hybrid vehicles were no rarety. But ICE vehicles came to
dominate them eventually, and the hybrid concept has not been employed
in mass manufactured cars until recently. The dual propulsion system and
the ensuing control complexities made the model unattractive compared to
conventional vehicles. In addition, the higher costs were perceived as prohibitive for market entrance. But with the development of new controlling
algorithms and the advancements in battery technology in the last decade,
hybrids became a potentially viable alternative to conventional cars. Their
superior energy and environmental performance and the need to comply with
stronger environmental regulations prompted several manufacturers to pursue this line of production.
3.1.2
Hybrids’ energy and environmental performance
Hybrids qualify as an environmental technological innovation. According to
Huber (2004, pg. 1),
“environmental innovation includes any kind of innovation - technical, economic, legal, institutional, organizational, behavioral that leads to an improvement of ecological quality, regardless of
any additional advantage or motive.”
Gas-electric vehicles could be a step towards a more sustainable transportation system since they both provide better energy efficiency and emit fewer
pollutants than standard ICE vehicles (Friedman, 2004). Another important
consideration is that if hybrids were to enter into mass-production, prices for
batteries and electric components would decrease, ultimately benefiting the
transition towards a fuel-cell/hydrogen economy. Although hybrid vehicles
can by no means be called a technical fix in the spirit of Weinberg (1993), i.e.
a technical solution for a social problem, they are certainly more sustainable
than conventional vehicles.
28
A closer look at hybrids’ energy performance reveals considerable advantages over conventional vehicles. In part-load operational range (at slow
speeds and/or without vehicle load) the ICE has a very low thermal efficiency. Standard ICE vehicles are built to reach optimum efficiency at high
speeds or high load, when the motor is running at maximum power and at
high temperatures. However, half of the time, the distance covered is under 3
miles (Lenz and Legat, 1997, conversion from kilometers to miles by author)
and the motor does not attain a sufficient temperature to run efficiently .
At the most common speeds and loads, an ICE’s efficiency reaches on average 0.17, which means that only 17 % of the energy contained in the fuel is
transformed into propulsion (Dauensteiner, 2001). At the optimum efficiency
point the efficiency more than doubles, to 0.35. But this point is hardly ever
attained during everyday driving.
This is where the hybrids’ advantage lies: Instead of a big engine, whose
full potential is almost never needed, hybrids get by with a downsized engine - and an additional boost from the electric motor only when necessary.
At slow speeds, the electric motor powers the car on its own. During normal driving, the smaller combustion engine runs with a consistent power
output and therefore can be optimized to operate close to the optimum efficiency point. Every time additional power is needed (e.g. for accelerating or
hill climbing), the electric motor kicks in and gives the car an extra power
boost. Along with idle-off and the recapturing of energy through regenerative
braking, hybrids save a lot of fuel in comparison to conventional cars. The
Toyota Prius gets a combined mileage of 55 mpg1 (4.28 l/100 km), which is
very low considering that it is a midsize car. Hybrids have a lot of potential
for fuel and emission saving (Friedman, 2004): In the future, a full hybrid
with advanced technology could get 2.5 times better fuel economy than a
conventional vehicle. Over its lifetime, fuel savings would amount to about
1
The fuel efficiency numbers used in this thesis are EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) estimates and derived under ideal testing conditions. In real world driving, the
vehicle usually gets 5-10 % less mileage.
29
Percentage
CO2 emissions due to land transport in the US
31 %
Journeys made in urban areas in the US
75 %
Energy normally lost in braking in urban driving
40-45 %
Energy potentially recoverable by regenerative braking
50-80 %
Overall potential for CO2 reduction
4.7-8.0 %
Table 3.1: Potential for the reduction of CO2 emissions in the US by use of
regenerative braking. Source: Jefferson and Barnard, 2002
5,000 $2 and greenhouse gas savings to 47 tons. An advanced mild hybrid
would still get 100 % better mileage than a conventional car and avoid 41
tons of greenhouse gases.
Since a hybrid consumes less fuel, it also emits less harmful substances.
On the global level, HEVs contribute to the effort to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Because braking energy is lost as heat in conventional vehicles
and because this loss constitutes up to 45 % of the energy consumed by a car
in city-driving, regenerative braking has tremendous potential for increasing
fuel efficiency and cutting emissions. Jefferson and Barnard (2002) estimate
that CO2 -emissions and fuel consumption could decrease by as much as 8 %
if regenerative braking was applied to every car in the US fleet (see Tab.
3.1). At first sight, it seems highly unlikely that every car in the US will be
equipped with this feature in the near future. But it has been done before:
the catalytic converter has become widespread despite its high costs. Sound
emission policies led to its diffusion.
On the local level, gas-electric vehicles have a decent environmental record.
They emit less noxious particles than most conventional cars. Especially full
hybrids are clean in city driving, because up to a speed of 15 mph they drive
in electric mode. And urban agglomerations are the place where cleaner cars
are most urgently needed. All the hybrid models currently on the market
2
Note: Friedman (2004) assumes a fuel price of 1.40 $ per gallon. At current fuel prices
of 2.50 to 3 $, the savings would be even higher.
30
meet today’s most stringent federal emission standards, the Tier 2 standards,
and comply with the even stricter California ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) or even SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) standards.3
It is important to note that some conventional vehicles also attain these
standards, which means that hybrids are not inherently cleaner. But considering that we stand only at the beginning of the technological trajectory,
it is safe to assume that there is room for improvement. Maybe more so
than for conventional vehicle technology, which is very mature and has already exhausted a lot of methods to reduce emissions. Weiss et al. (2000,
pg. 12) state that among all the vehicle designs examined in their study on
the life-cycle effects of automobile technologies,
“vehicles with hybrid propulsion systems using either ICE or fuel
cell power plants are the most efficient and lowest-emitting technologies assessed.”
The effect of hybrids on greenhouse gas emissions, air quality and fuel
consumption depends of course on their diffusion. Analyzing the economics
of hybrid cars can shed light on their overall potential to attain a more
sustainable transport system.
3.2
The economics of hybrid cars
In terms of energy demand and ecological impact, hybrid technology seems
promising - but what about the market prospects? Will they be able to
overcome the market entrance barrier and attain wider diffusion?
3
A thorough description of the regulatory environment and an analysis of federal and
California emission standards can be found in Chapter 5.
31
3.2.1
The market for HEVs - current situation and
projections
The demand for gas-electric cars is growing fast. Although they still account
for only a minuscule portion of the US automobile market - more precisely
0.5 % - the high growth rates in hybrid sales give reason to conjecture a
more considerable market share in the next years. According to Toyota
Motor Company, global demand for the Toyota Prius rose by 71 % percent
from 2003 to 2004 (Inoue, 2004). With only five days on dealer lots, the
Prius has the fastest turnover rate of all vehicles in the US (J. D. Power and
Associates, 2004b). In another study by J. D. Power and Associates (2004c),
63 % of interviewees state they are probably interested in hybrid technology
and 5 % state they are definitely interested. Awareness of hybrid technology
is already high, which is additional evidence that hybrids are in for a fast
rise.
Suppliers seem to anticipate a sustained growth of the demand for hybrids. Otherwise they would not be scrambling to bring their own models
to the market. Currently, there are only a few HEV models being sold, but
more are soon to come. Honda and Toyota were the first-movers. The Honda
fleet contains three mild hybrids, the Civic Hybrid, the Accord Hybrid and
the first commercial hybrid ever, the 1999 Insight. In 2001, Toyota came
out with the first full hybrid, the Prius, which remains the most successful
gas-electric car to date. 2004 saw the first hybrid sport utility vehicle (SUV),
the Ford Escape. Toyota followed suit with the Highlander in spring 2005.
The American “Big Three” auto-makers are scheduled to come out with their
own models (two pickups and a SUV) by the end of this year. All in all, by
the end of 2008, there will be more than 20 hybrid vehicles on the US market
(see Tab. 3.2).
But the exact growth rates of hybrid demand remain uncertain. The
available scenarios diverge widely in their projections of future HEV market
share and the impact on fuel consumption and transport emissions. Gov32
Make
Model
Type
Year
Honda
Insight
Compact car
1999
Accord Hybrid
Midsize car
2004
Civic Hybrid
Midsize car
2003
Compact car
2001
Highlander
Midsize SUV
2005
Camry Hybrid
Midsize car
2006
RX 400 Hybrid
Luxury car
2005
GS 450h
Midsize car
2006
Escape
Compact SUV
2004
Fusion
Midsize car
2008
Tribute Hybrid
Compact SUV
2007
Honda
Toyota
Toyota
Lexus
Prius
Ford
Ford
Mazda
Mercury
Mariner Hybrid
Midsize SUV
2005
Milan Hybrid
Midsize car
2008
General Motors
GMC
Yukon Hybrid
Fullsize SUV
2007
Sierra Hybrid
Fullsize pickup
2008
Malibu
Midsize car
2007
Silverado
Fullsize pickup
2005
Tahoe
Fullsize SUV
2007
Saturn
VUE
Compact SUV
2006
Dodge
Ram Diesel HEV
Fullsize pickup
2005
Mercedes
Sprinter Hybrid
Van
2005
Nissan
Altima Hybrid
Midsize Car
2007
Chevy
Daimler-Chrysler
Nissan
Table 3.2: Currently available hybrid electric vehicles and planned introductions. Data compiled from DOE/EPA (2005) and automobile industry
websites
ernment sources remain cautious in their predictions. According to DOE’s
Annual Energy Outlook (DOE/EIA, 2005b), gasoline-electric light duty cars
33
Category
Cars
HEV
All cars
% HEV sales
Light duty trucks
HEV
All cars
% HEV sales
Total light duty vehicles
HEV
All cars
% HEV sales
Sales 2002
Sales 2020
(thousands)
(thousands)
19.60
481.20
8175.10
8144.10
0.24
5.91
0
515.80
7919.00
10635.70
0
4.85
19.60
9970
16094.10
18779.80
0.12
5.31
Table 3.3: The IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2005 - A conservative projection
of hybrid-electric light duty vehicle sales, 2002-2025. Source: DOE/EIA,
2005c
and trucks will only attain a combined market share of 5.31 % in the year
2020 (see Tab. 3.3). Industry expert J. D. Power and Associates (2005) recently published a similarly conservative prediction: Because of insufficient
model diversity, the higher purchase price and the competition by ever more
fuel efficient ICE vehicles, J. D. Power forecasts that gas-electric vehicle sales
will level out at 3 % market share by the end of the decade.
Other available scenarios converge around a considerably more positive
outlook for hybrids. Greene et al. (2004) use a quantitative model combining
announced and expected new hybrid introductions and a model of car choice
to project demand for hybrids. For 2008, they predict a market share between
4.6 % and 7.1 %. By 2012, hybrids could make up as much as 10 to 14.9 % of
the US car fleet. The scenario also includes diesel vehicles and projects the
combined effects of hybrids and diesels on fleet fuel efficiency. The average
fuel economy of light duty vehicles is projected to reach 24.6 to 24.8 mpg
by 2008, up from 24.3 mpg in 2002. By 2012, it could attain 24.9 to 25.2
mpg. These increases may seem small, but this is due to the incorporation
of a sales mix shift in the model. The authors assume that part of the
34
efficiency gains through hybrids will be offset by a trend towards heavier
and stronger cars, which could very well reflect reality. Without hybrids,
fuel efficiency could stagnate or even decline - as it has done for most of the
last decade. As in any model, some simplifications have been made. For
example, no improvements in ICE fuel efficiency are assumed over the time
period. Moreover, the scenario is based on the assumption of the political
status quo, i.e. the potential influence of tougher emission or fuel efficiency
standards is not taken into account. If adequate measures were taken, the
market share of hybrids could be even higher than projected here.
Unlike Greene et al. (2004), Gott et al. (2002) incorporate a geopolitical
and regulatory dimension. The authors develop three scenarios with diverging prospects for hybrids. The ‘baseline’ scenario computes market share
based on an unchanged economic and regulatory environment. Under these
circumstances, the authors see a combined market share of 9 % for mild and
full hybrids in 2020, and an additional, considerably higher share of 58 %
for micro-hybrids (i.e. only using idle-off). The prediction changes under
the condition of more stringent environmental standards. In the ‘easy street’
scenario, the assumption is that particulate matter will be more strictly regulated, but fuel prices will be low and the economy robust. In that case, the
authors predict a market share of 11 % by 2020 for full and mild hybrids together and of up to 57 % for micro-hybrids. The third scenario is based on the
assumption of a considerably less friendly economic environment and stricter
regulations. ‘Rough Ride’, as it is called, depicts a situation with disruptively high fuel costs, little or no economic growth and tough environmental
standards. Under these circumstances, hybrids are predicted to capture a
quite substantial market share by 2020: 46 % for mild hybrids, 11 % for full
hybrids and 37 % for micro-hybrids. However, Gott et al. (idem) ascribe only
a 10 % probability to this scenario. In contrast, “Baseline” has a 50 % and
“Easy Street” a 20 % chance to come true. Unfortunately, the authors fail to
expose the explicit computation of their scenarios, although their approach
35
seems rather comprehensive.4 Burke and Abeles (2004) project at least 30 %
of hybrid penetration by 2020 but they also fail to make their methodology
explicit.
The divergence of the available scenarios mirrors the existing uncertainty
about the long-term fate of hybrids. One thing, however, seems certain: With
the right policy measures, hybrids could capture a significant market share
and have a tangible impact on both fuel consumption and vehicle emissions.
3.2.2
Overcoming the market entrance barrier
Judging by the fast rise in demand, HEVs are about to surmount the market
entrance barrier and attain wider diffusion. This successful start is puzzling
for two reasons: Their cost structure compared to conventional cars, and the
fact that non-gasoline, non-ICE vehicles to date have not been doing overly
well. In the US, green cars have a history of being confined to niche markets.
The gasoline fueled internal combustion engine remains the state of the art
with alternative vehicles capturing only small market shares. In 2004, they
accounted for a mere 6.10 % of new car sales (Tab. 3.4). Ethanol flex fuel cars
that can use both gasoline and another fuel were doing relatively well, with
an overall market share of 4.4 % in 2004. However, demand for these cars is
growing very slowly and even by the EIA’s conservative predictions, hybrids
will have caught up with them by 2008 (DOE/EIA, 2005c). With demand
doubling every year for the last two years, they have already surpassed all
other alternative vehicles currently available in the US.
Hybrids’ promising start is especially noticeable when comparing them to
electric vehicles. Although the latter were the hope of the 90s and regulators
have tried to force their commercialization with countless measures, only
4
It includes the analysis of vehicle use patterns and trends, an assessment of current
vehicle technologies, interviews with personnel from more than 50 European, Japanese
and American companies in the component supply industry and an analysis of possible
developments of oil price and availability, of emissions and fuel efficiency regulations and
of economic growth.
36
Type of vehicle
2002
2003
2004
Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE
364.6
362.6
370.4
Ethanol ICE
0.6
0.6
0.6
Electric Vehicle
2.3
2.2
2.2
19.6
40.9
80.9
Electric-Gasoline Hybrid
Compressed Natural Gas ICE
0.2
0.2
0.2
Compressed Natural Gas Bi-fuel
11.2
10.9
10.9
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Bi-fuel
42.9
41.6
41.7
Total alternative car sales
Total new car sales
Percent alternative car sales
441.4
459.0
506.8
8175.1
8110.8
8308.0
5.40
5.66
6.10
Table 3.4: Alternative vehicle sales in the US (thousands), 2002-2004.
Source: DOE/EIA, 2005c
slightly over 2000 electric vehicles are sold per year in the US. They account
for a mere 0.03 % (see Tab. 3.4) of total new light vehicle sales. Reasons
for the failure of electric vehicles are plentiful: They have a low range, low
maximum speed, and need to be plugged in over-night. Their operating costs
top those of a comparable ICE vehicle, not to mention that their purchase
price is twice as high (Kreith et al., 1999).
Like electric cars, hybrids have elevated operating costs (Lipmann and
Delucchi, 2003). At the current price of roughly 2.20 $ per gallon, they offer
only moderate fuel cost savings. In the dealer-lot, they feature much higher
price tags than comparable vehicles. All this results in a drawn out payback period. Nevertheless, demand for hybrids was already rapidly growing
in 2002 and 2003, when gasoline was considerably less expensive and the
payback period even longer. Standard economic theory cannot account for
this success. It sees actors as rational individuals who are able to draw up a
hierarchy of needs, who will always maximize their utility and who are provided with perfect information on market conditions. Thus, it would have
predicted little initial interest in hybrids. Indeed, before the introduction of
HEVs in the US, the importance of pricing was emphasized if they were to
be successful (Santini et al., 1999). The purely economic view led to the pre-
37
diction of a very limited market for hybrids. The homo œconomicus model
cannot fully explain hybrids’ real world appeal.
Two years ago it did not seem rational at all to buy a gas-electric vehicle. Today, opinions about whether hybrids have reached cost effectiveness
diverge. The calculation depends indeed on the factors included and on the
vehicle the HEV is compared to. Tab. 3.5 shows a comparison of the three
most successful hybrid models with three similar conventional cars. For the
two Honda models, a conventional and a gas-electric version of the same
cars exist. A comparatively luxurious counterpart was chosen in contrast to
the hybrid model. HEV models all come with a large package of standard
equipment. Thus, it seemed plausible to compare the two Honda models to
a higher tier car. This renders our model slightly biased in favor of hybrids.
The payback periods calculated are conservative, because the price difference
is relatively small.
For the Toyota Prius, the comparison is more difficult than for the Honda
models. In size, power and attributes, it ranges somewhere between the
smaller Toyota Corolla and the larger Toyota Camry, which is why we chose
to compare it to both of them. For all three models, a federal tax credit
of 2000 $ was included in the calculation. A tax deduction of 560 $ was
assumed, which is equivalent to a marginal federal income tax rate of 28 %.
Fuel Type
2005
2005
2005
Accord Hybrid V6
Civic Hybrid
Prius
Regular
Regular
Regular
ft3
96 ft3
Passenger Volume
103
Luggage Volume
11 ft3
10 ft3
16 ft3
Auto (L5)
Auto (CVT)
Auto (CVT)
MPG (city)
29
48
60
MPG (hwy)
37
47
51
MPG (comb)
32
48
55
Transmission
91
ft3
38
Annual Fuel Cost ($)
2005
2005
2005
Accord Hybrid V6
Civic Hybrid
Prius
Aa
1031
688
600
Bb
825
550
480
Cc
1406
938
818
Dd
1125
750
655
30140
20900
20979
MRSPe
Compare to
Fuel Type
2005
2005
2005
2005
Accord EX-V6
Civic EX
Corolla LE
Camry LE
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
ft3
ft3
103
Luggage Volume
14 ft3
12.9 ft3
14 ft3
16.7 ft3
Auto (5 sp)
Auto (4 sp)
Auto (4 sp)
Auto (5sp)
MPG (city)
24
29
30
24
MPG (hwy)
34
38
38
34
MPG (comb)
27
33
33
28
1222
1000
1000
1179
Annual Fuel Cost ($)
Aa
89
101.8ft3
Passenger Volume
Transmission
88.1
ft3
Bb
978
800
800
943
Cc
1667
1364
1364
1607
Dd
1333
1091
1091
1286
28850
18560
15790
19025
Accord Hybrid V6
Civic Hybrid
Prius
vs.
vs.
vs.
Accord EX-V6
Civic EX
Corolla LE
Camry LE
Purchase price differential ($)
1290
2340
5189
1954
Federal tax creditf
560
560
560
560
Purchase price differential after tax
creditb ($)
730
1780
4629
1394
MRSPe
Yearly fuel cost
Aa
191
313
400
1179
savings ($)
Bb
153
250
320
943
Cc
260
426
545
1607
Dd
208
341
436
1286
39
Payback periodg
Aa
3.8
5.7
11.6
1.2
Bb
4.8
7.1
14.5
1.5
Cc
2.8
4.2
8.5
0.9
Dd
3.5
5.2
10.6
1.1
a
15,000 mi/year, 2.20 $/ga
b
12,000 mi/year, 2.20 $/ga
c
15,000 mi/year, 3.00 $/ga
d
12,000 mi/year, 3.00 $/ga
e
Manufacturer’s recommended retail price
f
Tax deduction = marginal federal income tax rate (here: 28%) x 2000 $.
g
Payback period = price differential / annual fuel cost savings
Table 3.5: Cost structure of the three most successful hybrid models and comparable conventional cars. Data compiled from automobile industry websites
and DOE/EPA (2005)
The payback period changes with the number of miles driven and the
level of fuel prices. The more fuel prices rise, the higher the fuel cost savings
and the shorter the payback period. Driving a lot also shortens the payback
period. This means that in scenario C, where 15,000 mi/year are driven and
fuel costs reach 3.00 $/ga, the hybrids are most cost-effective in comparison
to their counterparts. As the average new car buyer keeps it for five years,
the pay-back period should not exceed this timespan. Being cost-efficient
in all scenarios, the Honda Accord boasts the best record, followed by the
Civic which is at the brink of becoming cost-efficient. But remember that the
calculations are biased towards the hybrid cars. For the Prius, the results are
mixed - in comparison to a Corolla, it features a bad cost-efficiency, whereas
it seems very rational to buy a Prius if the reference is a Camry. According
to Lipmann and Delucchi (2003) the price increments cited in the literature
converge around 3,000 $, which shows that the price increments assumed by
us are rather small.
We also omitted non-fuel operating costs, which are higher for hybrids
and prolong the payback period. Lipmann and Delucchi (2003) estimate
40
that operating costs are 13 % higher for a Prius than for a comparable ICE
vehicle. Offsetting fuel savings and higher purchase price alone does not
suffice. For instance, insurance and vehicle registration tax depend on the
value of a vehicle and so will be higher for the more expensive hybrids. While
some routine non-fuel operating and maintenance costs and the warranty for
vehicle components not part of the hybrid system are roughly the same for
the compared vehicles, there is a difference in the warranty for the hybrid
components. The Prius battery, for example, is only warranted for eight
years or 100,000 miles. As of now, there is uncertainty about the long-term
reliability of the battery component and the cost of replacing it. It could
cost 5,000 US $ or more to change the battery pack. Last but not least, the
resale value of the car has to be taken into account. It will depend on the
level of fuel prices and on the perception of their future development, as well
as on expectations about non-fuel operation costs (Abrahamson, 2005). As
the expiration date of the battery pack warranty nears, the resale value of a
gas-electric vehicle is likely to take a steep drop.
Taking into account the higher price and operating costs and the remaining uncertainties, hybrid cars have not yet attained full competitiveness with
conventional cars. Mainstream economic theory would forecast little consumer interest in hybrids - contrary to the reality of fast growing demand
and high latent interest. Economic theory is insufficient to explain the triumph of hybrid cars. Thus, we have to look to other, more comprehensive
theories to find an explanation.
41
Chapter 4
Accounting for hybrids’ success:
sociological contributions
The description of the gaps of economic theories in accounting for hybrids’
success has shown that additional explanatory factors are necessary. We
attempt to prove the importance of sociological theory in this respect.
4.1
Literature review
Four bodies of literature are of importance for our analysis: First, studies
dealing with the social shaping of technology can give an insight into the
social character of technical change. Second, the sociology of consumption
should not be neglected, because unlike most sociological innovation studies,
it deals with the diffusion stage. Diffusion means the dissemination of a
product beyond a small group of original suppliers and users and ultimately,
the adoption of a technology by the majority of firms and consumers. The
third body of literature represents the technical-regime approach, which is
included for its ability to conceptualize innovation as a dynamic process.
Lastly, paying tribute to the topic of this study, a short review of sociological
literature concerning visions of the automobile is appropriate.
42
4.1.1
Theoretical background: Acknowledging technology’s and consumption’s social character
Why have hybrids experienced a comparatively successful launch, even though
they are more expensive than comparable cars and green cars were never
much of a success in the US? The explanatory power of the homo œconomicus model falls short of expectations in this regard. There has to be
something else to hybrids. Finding out what this ‘something else’ is could
teach us important lessons on how to further facilitate penetration of HEVs
and other green cars.
Social shaping of technology
In order to account for hybrids’ success, it is necessary to go beyond a onesided economic approach and conceive of the car not as a mere object, but
as a material artifact endowed with social meaning and subject to social
shaping. We need to awaken to the fact that all human artifacts are social
in essence. Only then can we lay claim to start grasping the meaning of a
technology and the nature of its interaction with the social world.
The inherent social constructivity of technology has not been acknowledged in sociology from the beginning. Rather, social scientists have focussed
on the social effects of technology. Karl Marx, the eminent 19th century
sociologist, saw technology as a self-propelled, extraneous force, outside of
political or cultural influence. In the 20th century, Jacques Ellul (1954, 1977,
1988) became famous for his trilogy about the role of technology as a factor
permeating and blindly changing society according to its own logic. The tradition of seeing technology as a force independent of the social world is also
apparent in innovation studies, where it resulted in the so-called technologypush approach. It is centered on the idea of a one-way-street from science to
technology to production, where innovations are mere derivatives of scientific
discoveries and neither market nor social forces play a role in determining
43
technical progress.
In the last decades, however, the intrinsic social character of technology
has increasingly been recognized. A significant body of literature deals with
social and cultural aspects of technological change.1 The social shaping of
technology is more and more seen as a decisive aspect of the innovative
process. Especially studies about how social processes affect the success and
failure of certain technologies abound.2
The seminal work of Pinch and Bijker (1987) is of particular importance
here, because it first theorized the social construction of artifacts. Today,
the study is recognized as the founding text of the approach known as SCOT
(Social Construction Of Technology). It is concerned with the earlier stages
of the innovation process, when interpretative flexibility of technical artifacts
is high, different definitions of an artifact are in competition and processes
of closure and stabilization are the norm. SCOT helps explain the very early
stages of innovation, when the social definition of the technology and its user
context are decisive. With regard to the diffusion stage of the innovative
process it is less useful. In general, this stage has been far less the subject
of sociological research. But a sociology of consumption does exist and it is
essential to examine in how far it illuminates the diffusion stage of innovation.
Sociology of consumption
While a lot of attention has been granted to psychological and economic motivations behind consumption patterns, the social institutions shaping them
1
A good starting point for further reading are the overviews of current research in
the field in the US (Copock, 1992) and in Germany (Rammert, 1992). A more historical
perspective can be found in Wagner (1998) and Zukin and Smith Maguire (2004). Alcorn
(1997) and Pool (1997) examine in how far technology is integrated in and shaped by social
processes. Practical implications for policy makers are described in Rip et al. (1995) and
Schot (1992).
2
Kline and Pinch (1996) recount the social construction of cars in the rural United
States. Knie (1991) describes the evolution of the typewriter and the failure of the Wankel
engine (1994). Other examples are the history of the electron microscope (Kunkle, 1995)
and an account of the Challenger accident (Vaughan, 1996)
44
have been neglected. The majority of consumption studies stems from the domain of marketing (Warde, 1996). Zukin and Smith Maguire (2004) deplore
the lack of contemporary sociological research into consumption behavior in
the US and Dant (2000) criticizes that a lot of sociological work on consumption is caught up in the field’s economic origins. The material culture, he
says, can only be understood in its social context. A central part of his argument is that consumption goes beyond the act of purchase and encompasses
the use of and interaction with artifacts, as well as the meanings attributed
to them. But in North America, the focus has been on the economic side of
consumption for a long time.3
Contrary to the US, consumption as a means of social distinction has
dominated the early discussion in Europe. The French philosopher and sociologist Jean Baudrillard (1986) emphasizes the symbolic meaning of what
we consume (and what we do not consume) in his Société de consommation.
In today’s societies, consumption is not only a means to fulfill one’s needs,
but a way to distinguish oneself from others. His compatriot Pierre Bourdieu (1979) explores the subject of consumption from a social differentiation
perspective in his well-known work La Distinction.
Contemporary social studies of consumption have been critical of an
overly narrow focus on differentiation.4 Today, the emphasis is on the role
of consumption in the construction of identities and the pursuit of life interests (Otnes, 1988). The idea is that economic behavior has a social context.
Moorhouse (1983) was one of the first to recognize the central part consumption plays in people’s life in his study about American workers and
3
This neglect of the social aspects of consumption has not always been the case - America produced one of the founding fathers of sociological consumption theory, Thorstein
Veblen. His seminal work Theory of the leisure class (1992) was first published in 1899
and has since become a classic of sociological literature. It is centered on the concepts of
conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure, which, respectively, describe the waste
of money and time in order to attain a higher social status.
4
Longhurst and Savage (1996), for instance, favor an extension of Bourdieu’s concepts
to social networks and sociation.
45
their cars. Another good example is a monograph edited by Lunt and Livingstone (1992), which is concerned with the everyday experience of mass
consumption and its influence on personal identities. The new focus on identity aspects does not foreclose a critical view of consumption - Ritzer (2001),
the author of the famous McDonaldization thesis, examines the unintended
consequences of modern consumerism. Another recent development in the
field is the study of the environmental consequences of mass consumption.
Krarup and Russell (2005) and Myers and Kent (2004) look at the effects of
consumerism on sustainability.
A common view emerges from these studies - patterns of consumption are
perceived as social patterns with social consequences. This is in contrast to
a purely economic viewpoint, which sees consumption as the mere utilization
of and the expenditure for final goods and services. Contemporary sociology
has come to take into account the social character of consumption and the
social practices behind it. Sociology of consumption, then, is concerned with
the study of the interdependence between the use of material artifacts and the
social world. While the market is the ultimate instrument of selection in the
diffusion stage, consumption remains in essence a social act and is influenced
by social rules, institutions and underlying values. It does not end with
the act of purchase, but encompasses the interaction with artifacts and the
meanings we attribute to them. What and how we consume determines our
social interactions.
What the sociology of technology can gain from the sociology of consumption is an insight into the stages after the initial market entry. The forces at
work here determine a technology’s diffusion and ultimate success or failure.
Expectations about these forces and user feedback shape the ongoing design
process. The short review of relevant literature in the previous section has
provided some insights into the development of two branches of social science
research: the constructivist studies of technology and the sociology of consumption. Based on this exploration of the social character of consumption
46
and technology, the following section will look into the pivotal theoretical
concepts employed in this study.
4.1.2
Pivotal theoretical concepts: Socio-technical regime
and ‘leitbild’ approaches
Subsequently, the focus will be on a theoretical concept that stands at the
crossroads of the aforementioned approaches: The socio-technical regime approach. In addition, the importance of the ‘leitbild’ or cultural vision for the
understanding of technical regime stability shall be discussed.
Technical change and the socio-technical regime approach
The dynamic nature of technical change, which includes both market and social forces, and stretches across the invention, production and diffusion stages
has perhaps been captured best in the socio-technical regime approach. The
notion was first developed by Nelson and Winter (1977) in their evolutionary
theory of technical change. They understand technical regimes as mindsets
of engineers, i.e. what they think is technologically feasible or at least worth
trying. In this approach, the focus lies on engineers’ perceptions and on market selection environments, which together determine the path of technical
change. While the authors admit to the existence of a non-market selection
environment, they do not attach great importance to it. In their opinion,
it consists only in political or regulatory control. The great short-coming of
this approach therefore is the complete lack of a social dimension. Price is
the only thing product users are believed to react to.
Giovanni Dosi builds on the foundation set by Nelson and Winter in his
work on the direction of technical change. He defines technology as a
“set of pieces of knowledge, both directly ’practical’ (related to
problems and devices) and ’theoretical’ (but practically applicable although not necessarily already applied), know-how, meth47
ods, procedures, experience of successes and failures and also, of
course, physical devices and equipment.” (Dosi, 1982, pg. 151f.)
This means that technology includes the perception of a limited set of possible
alternatives and future developments. Dosi captures this idea by introducing
the concept of the technical paradigm, in analogy to Kuhn’s scientific paradigm (Kuhn, 1996). It is conceptualized as a pattern of solution of technical
problems, based on certain scientific principles and certain technologies. On
the basis of such a technical paradigm, a pattern of normal problem solving
activity evolves, which Dosi terms a technical trajectory. This approach has
the merit of enlarging the concept of selection environments. In fact, Dosi
represents the institutionalist branch of evolutionary economics. He emphasizes the influence of institutions such as the military for the direction of
technical change (Dosi and Orsenigo, 1988).
In another study inspired by Nelson and Winter, Kemp et al. (1998) argue for an even further expansion of the original technical regime concept.
They seek to enlarge it to encompass not only engineering and production
practices, knowledge and perceptions, but also the selection of a technical
path by the institutions, infrastructures and social interactions surrounding
the technology in question. They describe barriers for sustainable technologies in the transport sector. Mentioning technological, political and cultural
factors on the demand and supply side, they argue:
“What we have is not a set of factors that act separately as a
containment force, but a structure of interrelated factors that feed
back upon one another, the combined influence of which gives rise
to inertia and specific patterns in the direction of technological
change.” (Kemp et al., 1998, pg. 181)
In the style of Nelson and Winter, they term such a pattern a technical
regime. Their approach can inform us about the importance of social and
cultural factors in the innovation process. But again, the focus is on the
48
earlier stages of innovation, when products are not yet ready for the mass
market and are only experimentally employed in niche markets.
With regard to the diffusion chances of sustainable technologies, it will
be necessary to integrate social and cultural factors into the analysis of a
more advanced innovative stage. A promising approach comes from Hård
and Knie (2001). Based on the concept of cultural ambiance introduced by
Staudenmaier (1985) as an atmosphere permeating both the context of a
technology and its design, they identify non-technical determinants of failure and success. To them, success depends on whether the artifact complies
with legal structures, fits into existent organizational networks and discursive structures and is attuned to fixed routines and expectations of users.
Although the label is different, this approach is clearly following the path of
the socio-technical regime approach. Its merit consists in drawing attention
to social practices, user perceptions and discursive patterns. Unfortunately,
the authors neither develop a causal model of the cultural ambience, nor
do they attempt to operationalize their concept. They content themselves
with describing examples of failed technologies in the transport sector without specifying concrete indicators for the dimensions they name; possibly
because the examples they look at never made it beyond niche markets.
Conversely, a model that is concerned with the prospects of mass diffusion
of a technology should explain drivers of consumption that propel products
beyond niche markets.
Cultural visions of technical artifacts and the orthodoxy of the
automobile ‘leitbild’
The variations of the socio-technical regime approach presented above all
give indications as to the requirements a new product has to fulfill. It is
important to remember that a new technology always has to establish itself
against what came before it. The transport system is an excellent example
for the difficulties emerging technologies have to overcome: Every alternative
49
technology is measured against the status quo of ICE technology. The failure
of new technologies to prevail over old ones can often be retraced to the
stability of established technological visions.
With regard to hybrid vehicles, the challenge is to find out what helps sustainable vehicle technologies overcome this particular barrier. What makes
hybrids different from other green cars - or more similar to conventional
cars? What are the elements a new vehicle technology has to accommodate
in order to stand up to conventional automobiles? A number of German
and Scandinavian scholars (Canzler and Knie, 1994; Canzler, 1999; Dierkes,
1994; Dierkes et al., 1996; Hård and Knie, 2001; Knie, 1994, 1997) offer some
answers to these questions. They describe the influence of an established
vision (a so-called ‘leitbild’) on the success and failure of technologies.
Dierkes (1994) first applied the concept of ‘leitbild’ to the social study of
technology.5 The term stems from the German words for ‘guiding image’. In
the English translation, Dierkes et al. (1996) use the term cultural vision as
an approximation. A ‘leitbild’ is a crystallization point around which converge conceptions, images and goals connected to a technology as well as
visions of what might be attempted or attained. It encompasses past experiences and expectations about the future direction of technical development.6
The merit of a ‘leitbild’ is that it creates a common ground between experts
and laypersons. Rammert (1992, pg. 84) emphasizes that the ‘leitbild’ concept stands for a “guiding vision” or the “key frameworks of orientation for
making decisions”. The key difference with the socio-technical regime is the
integration of cultural aspects.
Several longitudinal empirical studies have been conducted employing the
5
Originally, the term was used in urban development (‘desirable and feasible developments of urban settlements’) as well as in business management (‘a vision of future goals
of a business’).
6
A number of examples for the concept are conceivable - for instance, ‘knowledge society’ can be deemed a ‘leitbild’. Another good example is the term ‘information highway’,
which was coined by Al Gore. It evokes the image of a speedy transmission of information
while at the same time breaking down the abstract concept of remote data transfer.
50
‘leitbild’ approach.7 Of particular significance for our study is the application
of the ‘leitbild’ concept to the automobile by Canzler and Knie (1994). They
describe how the early history of the automobile shapes its design even today.
When cars first took to the streets at the end of the 19th century, they were
a plaything of the rich and an important instrument for enhancing social
status. Races were a favorite pastime of the upper class and many race
car drivers worked closely with the constructing engineers. Consequently,
early motor vehicle design sought to enhance the mechanical properties that
guaranteed racing success: good acceleration, maximum speed and a long
range. Today, these attributes continue to set the standards every new car
has to live up to. The internal combustion engine as conceived by Gottlieb
Daimler and Karl Friedrich Benz in the Mercedes race car soon became the
dominant compulsion technique for automobiles. And this despite its many
disadvantages, such as the smelly exhaust gases, the low energy efficiency
and the necessity for a transmission system and an external starter!
According to Knie (1997), another element originating from the early
days of the automobile is the size of a typical car. The complex machinery
and the high susceptibility to a break-down made it necessary to have a
mechanic on board. In addition, the cars were usually not steered by the
owners themselves, but by a driver. And the owner wanted to be able to
take along at least one additional passenger. Therefore, the typical design of
a car became very early on that of a four-wheeled four- to five-seater with
enough room for everyone’s baggage. In all probability, this design was also
influenced by the example of the carriages, although Knie does not address
this possibility.
Canzler and Knie (1994) summarize the aforementioned attributes under
the label ‘race and travel limousine’. According to them, this is the cul7
Rogers (1990) examines AT&T’s quest to realize the vision of a universal telephone
service. Knie (1991) analyzes the consolidation of the unpractical QWERTY typeset
combination due to the rigidity of a ‘leitbild’ established in the early days of the mechanical
typewriter.
51
tural vision dominating the automobile regime to this day. A look at any
contemporary automobile advertisement confirms their point of view: Speed
and power are still the dominant concepts. And the trend goes toward ever
increasing size and torque. Ironically, the average maximum speed of today’s
new cars exceeds US speed limits by far. Canzler (1999, pg. 73, translation
by author) gives a very apt summary of what the ‘race and travel limousine’
stands for:
“According to the reigning understanding of what makes a fullyfledged car, there are four essentials in the task list of an engineer,
which [...] establish the universal conception of the automobile:
Thus, a car has to offer good acceleration, an acceptable maximum speed, room for at least four passengers and their baggage
and a minimum range of 500 km [300 mi] per fuel-up. These
requirements are closely connected to the properties of the combustion engine and run like a common thread through the history
of the automobile. They do allow for a variety of vehicle types
[. . . ]. But at the same time, the development sketch of the ’race
and travel limousine’ acts as a veto as soon as one or several of
those essentials are not achieved.”
The ‘race and travel limousine’ vision consolidated quite quickly and has
since been very stable. The history of the electrical car is revealing: Although
quite common in the early days of the automobile, the ICE soon became the
standard, for all the reasons described above. Since that first lost battle,
the electrical vehicle never stood a chance. Today, ICEs are embedded in
a larger transportation system, whose infrastructure, legal rules and social
practices all contribute to deepen path dependence (Kirsch, 2000). According
to Fleischmann (1998), the automobile paradigm is one of the most stable
in the history of technology. The transportation system is a large sociotechnical system and as such, it displays considerable resistance to change.
52
In order to make such systems more sustainable, Weber (2003) suggests to
intentionally construe shared visions of emerging technologies. Through bottom up processes, especially strategic niche management, the transformation
of large socio-technical systems can be attained.
Traditionally, the explanations for the dominance of the ICE were either technology deterministic (‘the internal characteristics of ICE technology were superior to all other available technologies’) or social deterministic
(‘technological closure was attained by social processes’). The merit of the
socio-cultural ‘leitbild’ approach is that it gives room to both explanations.
Internal aspects of a technology are seen as important. But they are not
seen as objectively better or worse. Their advantages and disadvantages are
context-dependent. The ‘leitbild’ approach seeks to explain a technological
path by going back to its very beginning and taking into account the early
technical restrictions and social processes that shape the future development
of the technology. Knie’s (1997) analysis of the automobile’s history and
the consolidation of the technical path of the combustion engine is therefore
highly relevant to the study of alternative vehicle technologies: it points to
the barriers any new vehicle technology has to surmount in order to stand
up against the conventional vision of what a car should offer and of what it
should look like.
4.2
Propositions for an appended concept of
the socio-technical regime
We have discussed different sociological approaches with respect to the innovation process and its diffusion stage. None of these approaches lend themselves perfectly to the purpose of this study: explaining the success of an
alternative vehicle technology. As will be laid out in the following section,
an appended concept of the socio-technical regime comes closest to this endeavor.
53
4.2.1
Theoretical construct
The socio-technical regime approach (Dierkes, 1994; Kemp et al., 1998) allows
for a theoretically and empirically sound analysis of the process of technical
change. The reason for this is its dynamic modelling of the innovation process
and its ability to incorporate different selection environments. But it has two
major shortcomings with regard to our proposed subject of analysis:
1. a focus on supply-side aspects and the early stages of innovation
2. a negligence of non-economic aspects of user acceptance.
We therefore propose to append the socio-technical regime concept by introducing demand-side aspects and looking at the diffusion stage, both of
which have been neglected in sociological innovation studies (Zukin and
Smith Maguire, 2004).
The diffusion chances of hybrid technology can be studied by taking into
account the relevant selection environments, which act as barriers or facilitators. A new technology either has to be able to accommodate the combined
requirements of the diverse selection environments or it has to change them to
its advantage.8 When a new technology is introduced, it has to find its space
in an established socio-technical regime. If that is not possible, either the
technology fails or a disruptive change occurs, which transforms the whole
regime. In the case of hybrids, the technology is not disruptive: It neither
demands a fundamental change in production methods, nor in user habits.
Thus, we will focus on the way hybrids are making a place for themselves in
the existing automobile regime. In how far do they manage to accommodate
the different selection environments? And which selection environments are
relevant anyway?
The selective forces named in the older approaches - markets and institutions - are of course important and will be analyzed. But among others,
8
Of course, the requirements from different selection environments can also be conflictuous, which complicates the situation.
54
Hård and Knie (2001) and Kemp et al. (1998) have drawn attention to the
importance of social and cultural selection. We attempt to build on their
work by defining these dimensions more specifically, operationalizing them
and testing them empirically for the first time. Factors like the political climate and the public discourse connected to a technology completely lack in
all of the approaches discussed above. We endeavor to include them under
the label of a political dimension.
Thus, in our discussion of hybrids’ success, we concentrate on the economic, the political, the cultural, the social and the institutional dimensions
of selection. Some of them are more relevant to producers of a technology, others are more relevant to the demand side. For sustainable vehicle
technologies to be successful, it is not sufficient that price, quality and the
manufacturer’s profit are right. The political climate has to be favorable, too.
Users have to be persuaded that the new product fits into their routines. The
new vehicle has to fit common beliefs and established visions of cars. Firm’s
institutional capabilities and the legal regulations will also affect diffusion.
Subsequently, the dimensions will be set forth in more detail.
Economic dimension
The economic dimension relates to the price structure of a new technology
and its ability to compete with existing technologies. It is of course of importance for both the demand and the supply side. For manufacturers, the
most important question is: Will there be sufficient demand for the new technology so that the investments made pay off? For consumers, the question
comes down to what they get for their money in comparison to established
technologies. Quality, reliability, choice and price play a role for them.
Political dimension
The negligence of the political environment is a gap in the technical regime
approach we try to fill. By political environment we do not understand pol55
itics in the common sense, but the public discourse around a technology,
the level of attention a technology is granted and the state of the political
climate. Clean technologies may be subject to special political and public
attention depending on the level of salience of environmental, health and
energy issues. Salience is a concept employed in the fields of political bargaining theory and consumer psychology. In the latter field, it refers to the
level of awareness of certain informations about products, leading to attitude
construction (Reed II et al., 2002). Political salience describes a period of
high attention paid to an issue or a phase of high awareness for it, resulting
in mobilization of the electorate across partisan divides (Givens and Lüdtke,
2004; Baumgartner and Jones, 1993). If a new technology’s positive (negative) effects are subject to high political salience, public support for the
technology will be maximal (minimal) and the progress of the technology
will be smoothed (hindered).
With regard to green vehicles, the relevant questions are: What is the
political salience of environmental and energy issues? Does the public perceive the technology as a solution to existing problems? Are there risks or
negative effects associated with the technology? The political dimension is
relevant to the supply side in so far as the public image of a technology affects
demand both directly and indirectly, through the level of public acceptance
for supportive policy measures. Media coverage and the way political actors
seize the issue are important. Manufacturers will of course try to influence
this image positively. On the demand side, political salience can have an
influence on purchase decisions.9
Cultural dimension
By bringing in cultural and social aspects of selection, our approach draws on
the concepts of cultural ambiance (Hård and Knie, 2001; Staudenmaier, 1985)
9
For example, a person might decide to buy chicken instead of beef, because concerns
about mad cow disease are prominent in the media.
56
and cultural vision (Dierkes, 1994; Knie, 1997). The two are closely related
in that they both pertain to ‘soft’ selection factors. They are not necessarily
obvious or easily graspable. Nonetheless, their influence on the success or
failure of a technology should not be underestimated. Regarding the cultural
dimension, it is important to note that new technologies are measured against
the existing status quo. Cultural visions of what is technically desirable and
feasible determine the acceptance of innovations that aim to substitute the
standard technology. Norms, values and beliefs play a central role here (Hård
and Knie, 2001). Cultural visions are not only about the simple minimum
requirements. They are also about the dreams and desires connected to an
artifact and the image its use is thought to convey. Because the cultural
dimension is mostly captured in expectations about product attributes, it
forms some sort of product ideology.
The relevant questions are: What are the attributes expected from a
certain technology? What are the norms, values and beliefs attached to a
technical artifact? The cultural dimension is important on both sides of
the market: cultural visions of technology not only exist in the mind of the
consumer, but also in the mind of the engineer and the manager. Automanufacturers will build cars they believe will be accepted by the consumer.
In short, they have expectations about the expectations of consumers.
Social dimension
The social dimension is more about the daily routines and social interactions
that make the use of a technology seem more or less advantageous. It captures such diverse phenomenons as social practices and interactions as well
as social gratification and group dynamics. Social practices are to a certain
degree resistant to change. Here, they are understood as structured social
activities linked to the use of an artifact. A technology that accommodates
existing social practices will be more easily accepted than a technology that
demands behavior changes. In addition, questions of social gratification and
57
the acceptance of the technology by relevant social groups play a role. With
respect to the social dimension, we can ask: What are the social practices
attached to the technology? What are the needs and constraints that shape
people’s use of the technology? How large is the social gratification derived
from the use of a technology? Is the technology accepted by relevant social
groups? Again, not only the real social practices and interactions are relevant, but also what manufacturers expect about them. Both on the demand
and on the offer side, social selection of technologies occurs.
Institutional and regulatory dimension
Finally, the institutional and regulatory environment should not be neglected.
Dosi and Orsenigo (1988) already pointed out the importance of these factors
in shaping the path of a technology. We subsume regulatory and institutional
aspects in this dimension, because of their close relationship both in formation and effect. After all, legal regulations are nothing but frozen social rules
and their codification can be seen as a product of institutionalization. Both
regulations and institutions simultaneously facilitate and restrict our options
of behavior. Existing regulations tend to favor the status quo (Fleischmann,
1998). Thus, the more radical an innovation, the less likely it is to comply
with existing regulations and the more difficulties it will face to ingrain itself.
However, sometimes a policy is specifically designed to bring about new
technologies, and is therefore called a commercialization or technology forcing regulation (Wallace, 1995). These regulations, often to be found in the
environmental or energy field, set standards that are difficult to comply with
when the status quo of technology is used. Thus, they accelerate manufacturers’ search for alternatives and their commercialization. But firms are not
completely free in their choices. Technological capabilities are firm specific
and path dependent:
“What the firm can hope to do technologically in the future is
narrowly constrained by what it has been capable of doing in the
58
past.” (Dosi, 1988, pg. 1130)
Therefore, it can be assumed that the chances of a technological regime
change towards more sustainability depend on firms’ experiences with sustainable technologies. In general, firms from countries with stronger environmental regulations and fuel efficiency standards have better capabilities
in this respect. Inside the margin of action set by their capabilities, firms
are going to choose the technology that promises the most profit with the
least costs. It is possible that the technology they choose is more sustainable
than other options, but more often than not, it is not the case. This is where
technology forcing regulations are useful. Firms will opt for technologies that
help them attain compliance with regulations.
The relevant questions here are: Can the technology help manufacturers
comply with regulatory measures? Will there be need for new regulations?
What are firms’ capabilities to adopt the new technology? The institutional
and regulatory dimension are of primordial importance on the supply side.
They determine whether a firm is capable of adopting the new technology
and they set incentives for firms to move into new technological areas. On
the demand side, these factors only act indirectly, by determining the choices
available to consumers.
In sum, our supposition is that the successful launch of hybrids is due to
their ability to adjust to the selection environments described above. The
venture is succeeding to make a place for hybrid electric vehicles in the sociotechnical regime dominating the transport system. While economic viability
is certainly a precondition, the launch of a new technology is facilitated if it
accommodates the social practices, the cultural representations, the political climate and the institutional requirements connected to the artifact it is
supposed to replace.
It is our aim to remedy the negligence of non-economic aspects in studies
of technology diffusion. We propose a two stage model, in which a descrip59
tion of selection effects on the supply side is followed by an empirical analysis
of user attitudes towards hybrid electric vehicles. On the supply side, the
institutional dimension is the single most important selection environment in
the diffusion stage. Because an empirical study would go beyond the scope of
this thesis, we undertake an interpretative analysis of institutional capabilities and relevant regulations. On the demand side, a quantitative survey of
hybrid-owners will help determine the importance of cultural visions, social
practices and public discourses connected to the use of HEVs. The economics
of hybrids have been described above and shall only be briefly recapitulated.
However, where appropriate, user perceptions of hybrid’s economic aspects
shall be taken into account.
The central purpose of this thesis is to find out whether and how social,
cultural and political demand side aspects are involved in gaining user acceptance for hybrid technology and how this could ultimately be exploited to
create a cleaner automobile market. In how far can hybrid technology bring
about a transformation towards more sustainability in the socio-technical
regime of the transport system? Can early adopters teach us how to make
other users - who may be insensitive to energy security and environmental
concerns and plagued by more immediate troubles and constraints - take
an interest in energy-efficient and clean technologies and use them in a way
effectively spinning off energy savings and pollution reduction?
4.2.2
Hypotheses
To recapitulate our model, it is appropriate to divide our assumptions according to whether they concern the supply side or the demand side of the
socio-technical regime. On the supply side, producers’ endorsement of a
technology will be facilitated if the technology can
• accommodate existing regulatory measures,
• attain consistency with firms’ institutional capabilities,
60
• meet the manufacturers’ requirements for the functionality of a product
and for the profit that can be derived from it.
On the demand side, user acceptance is attained if a technology has the
basic ability to
• meet users’ requirements for functionality, pricing and choice,
• gain political support for the problem-solving strategy it proposes,
• accommodate social practices and norms linked to the technology,
• fulfill cultural visions of what is technically feasible and desirable.
Based on the theoretical insights described above, several hypotheses were
formulated.
Supply side: endorsement of hybrid technology by producers
On the supply side, cultural and social aspects are of utmost importance in
the early stages of innovation. When a technology has already attained market entry, as in the case of hybrids, economic and institutional factors gain
weight. We have decided to confine ourselves to a qualitative-interpretative
analysis of these two dimensions, because they are the most decisive dimensions in the current stage of diffusion.
Economic dimension H1. The better hybrids’ cost competitiveness compared to conventional cars and the higher the potential profits that can be
derived from them, the more likely manufacturers are to increase the production of hybrids. Every aspect that positively influences hybrids’ price
competitiveness - such as higher fuel prices or tax credits - increases diffusion.
Institutional dimension H2. Producers are more likely to increase the
number of hybrids they bring to the market a) if hybrid technology can
help them better than conventional vehicle technology to comply with fuel
61
efficiency, emission and safety standards. In addition, it is reasonable to
assume that the institutional capabilities a firm has acquired in implementing
sustainable technologies influence the speed of adoption of hybrid technology
by that particular firm.
Demand side: aspects of user acceptance
On the demand side, the most influential selection environments are the
economic, the political, the social and the cultural dimension. A quantitative
survey of HEV owners will help test the hypotheses empirically.
Political dimension H3a. The bigger the concern about fuel prices and
energy dependence and the more fuel efficient cars are identified as a possible solution to these problems, the more a person approves of measures
supportive of fuel efficient automobiles. Heightened concern about environmental pollution by automobile traffic and the identification of cleaner cars
as a solution to this problem has the same effect.
Political dimension H3b. The bigger the concern about fuel prices and
energy dependence and the more fuel efficient cars are identified as a possible solution to these problems, the higher the interest in hybrid technology.
Heightened concern about environmental pollution by automobile traffic and
the identification of cleaner cars as a solution to this problem has the same
effect.
Social dimension H4a. The interest in hybrid technology will be higher
among users who perceive hybrids as being accepted by the social groups
most relevant to them.
Social dimension H4b. The interest in hybrid technology will be higher
among users who perceive hybrids as providing social gratification.
Cultural dimension H5. The interest in hybrid technology will be higher
among users who perceive hybrids as offering the same attributes they have
come to expect from conventional cars.
Economic dimension H6. The better hybrid’s price competitiveness with
62
conventional cars and the higher diversity of available models, the more demand for hybrids will increase. Because of the price premium, higher income
classes are more likely to purchase a gas-electric vehicle.
63
Chapter 5
Supply side: The institutional
and regulatory dimension of
hybrids’ diffusion
The dissemination of hybrid technology depends to a great extent on the
willingness and capabilities of manufacturers to employ it in the cars they
produce. Economic, institutional and regulatory aspects determine producers’ ability and readiness to make use of a certain technology. The economics
of hybrid diffusion have been discussed in Chapter 3 but a short recapitulation seems appropriate: Due to the sophistication of the propulsion system,
hybrid cars will always be more expensive to manufacture than their ICE
counterparts. However, once HEVs reach mass production, costs will fall because of scope and scale effects. And as fuel prices rise, hybrids will become
more cost-effective for consumers. All major producers have announced hybrid models for the near future, or already sell them. With gas prices on
the rise, manufacturers should have even greater incentives to move into the
hybrid market segment. But financial considerations do not completely determine the development on the supply side. Regulatory and institutional
aspects are also influential.
64
5.1
The regulatory environment
With regard to the diffusion of a new technology, the regulatory environment
gains importance as far as it facilitates or impedes the adoption of a technology by a company. Sometimes, a new technology will ease compliance
with certain regulations. We would then expect manufacturers to adopt it
more readily than in the opposite case. In the case of HEVs, three bodies of
law affect diffusion: energy policy, emission standards and safety standards.
Hypothesis 2 states that producers are more likely to increase the number of
hybrids they bring to the market if the feel that now and in the future, hybrids can help them to comply better than conventional vehicles with policy
regulations. Conversely, if new standards are necessary, because a technology
exceeds the frame set for existing technologies, it can slow down market penetration. In the following sections, the current regulatory environment and
its potential influence on the diffusion of hybrids are discussed. To contrast
the situation in the US with alternative development paths, a comparison
with other industrialized countries is included where pertinent.
5.1.1
Energy policy
Hybrid vehicles are subject to the same fuel efficiency standards and taxes as
conventional vehicles. But because of HEVs’ lower fuel consumption, taxes,
subsidies and standards result in different incentives to produce these cars.
Excise taxes on fuels for transport and motor vehicle taxes
As shown in Chapter 3, fuel taxes are relevant for hybrids’ diffusion because
they affect the length of the payback period. The more expensive gasoline
becomes, the easier it is to set off the higher purchase price through fuel
cost savings. The US federal excise tax on motor vehicle fuels is very low in
international comparison (OECD/IEA, 2004b). The current rate is 18.4 cent
per gallon (cpg) for gasoline and 24.4 cpg for diesel. In addition, oil spill and
65
clean-up taxes are levied on crude oil and oil products. As of January 2005,
state excise taxes on motor vehicle fuels ranged from 8 cpg (Alaska) to 31 cpg
(Rhode Island) for petrol and from 8 cpg (Alaska) to 36.4 cpg (Pennsylvania)
for diesel (FTA, 2005).
On the state level, varying registration and license fees are applicable. A
motor vehicle tax does not exist on the federal level, with the exception of the
Gas Guzzler Tax. In an effort to discourage the sale of fuel squandering cars,
the federal administration introduced it in 1978. It is levied on individual
cars that do not meet statutory standards of fuel economy and paid by the
producer.
The combined effect of these taxes on hybrids’ chances of diffusion is
mixed. Economists argue that an increase in fuel prices is the most efficient
incentive to increase offer and demand of more economical cars (Porter, 1999).
High excise taxes in some European Union countries and resulting high fuel
prices have led to a better fleet fuel efficiency than in the United States.
The comparatively low fuel taxes and prices in the US do not offer huge
incentives for selling (and buying) fuel efficient cars. A fact in support of
this argument is that hybrid sales are concentrated in the US regions with
the highest state excise taxes, i.e. at the East Coast and in California. As
to the motor vehicle tax, it does not result in differences between hybrid
and conventional vehicles, so there is no effect on the offer of hybrids. It
is a missed opportunity, because motor vehicle taxes can be used in order
to support ecological technologies.1 The Gas Guzzler Tax was well-intended,
but it is counterproductive: Because it applies to cars only and not to trucks,
it encourages the sale of vehicles that do not fall into the car category. The
biggest gas guzzlers - for instance the Hummer - are not subject to the tax
at all. The negative effect of this tax is the same for hybrids and other fuel
efficient, lighter vehicles.
1
In some EU countries, owners of diesel cars pay a higher circulation tax to compensate
for the fact that diesel generally faces a lower excise duty than petrol. In Germany, owners
of low emission cars pay lower circulation fees.
66
Gross vehicle
Maximum deduction
weight
amount ($)
over 26,000 lb
10,000
up to 26,000 lb
6,000
10,000 to 14,000 lb
2,500
under 10,000 lb
1,000
Table 5.1: Hybrid Motor Vehicle Credit: Maximum deduction amounts by
vehicle weight. Source: United States Senate, 2003
Energy related programs, subsidies and tax exemptions
Energy related programs, subsidies and tax exemptions make up an additional set of regulations affecting hybrids. Rising oil prices and heightened
concern about energy security have led to a number of measures in favor of
fuel efficient cars. The Energy Tax Policy Act of 2003 (United States Senate,
2003) is exemplary for this development. With regard to hybrids, its most
important provision is the hybrid motor vehicle credit. Tab. 5.1 gives the
deduction amounts. This tax credit allows producers to sell their cars at a
higher price. As such, it encourages rather than discourages producers to
offer hybrids and other alternative cars.
The 2003 Energy Tax Policy Act also contained a provision for the increase of the federal fleet’s fuel economy by at least 3 mpg by 2005. Moreover, a 200 million $ grant program assists states and localities in acquiring
alternative-fuel, hybrid, fuel cell and ultra-low sulfur diesel vehicles. Hybrid vehicles are very well suited to the city driving that fleet cars are most
used for. It can be expected that this measure furthers manufacturers’ willingness to produce hybrids in so far as it provides them with a small but
secure market segment. In 2005, a new energy bill (United States House
of Representatives, 2005) was introduced, which extended the tax deduction
for hybrids. The focus of the bill, however, was to lower energy prices by
increasing production. The bill provides for subsidies towards increased oil
recovery efforts. The indirect effect of lower gasoline prices would be less in-
67
terest in hybrids, which is why the impact of the 2005 Energy Bill on HEVs
is mixed.
Efficiency standards and energy conservation standards
Efficiency standards play an important role for the diffusion of hybrids. The
stricter they are, the more urgently manufacturers need to find technologies
that help them comply. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1978
established fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars. The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards indicate the combined fuel economy
of a fleet of new cars sold by a company (Bamberger, 2003). Since 1978,
the standards have been increased periodically, but in the last decade, they
stagnated (see Tab. 5.2). Only on April 1, 2003, did the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue a rule to boost CAFE of
light-duty trucks by 1.5 mpg by 2007 (DOT/NHTSA, 2004a). It is the first
increase in CAFE since 1996. Currently, light truck fuel economy standards
do not apply to vehicles above 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW).
This leads to the same effect as described for the Gas Guzzler Tax: An incentive for the automotive industry to sell heavier, bigger cars to which the
regulation does not apply.
In August 2005, under the impression of higher fuel prices, the Bush
administration publicized plans for more changes in fuel economy regulations (Hakim and Broder, 2005). Not only are CAFE standards to rise even
higher (23.5 mpg for light trucks by 2010), but the government is also willing
to abolish the old model of overall corporate fleet economy. Its plan is to
differentiate light trucks into six groups according to their dimensions. Critics say that again, this system is subject to exploitation.2 The provisions
continue to exclude the biggest gas guzzlers in the Hummer category.
They are less stringent than the ones California proposed and which some
2
For instance, Subaru need only increase the size of their Outback model by a few
inches to fall into a higher, less strict category.
68
Year
Passenger cars
Light trucks
1992
27.5
20.2
1993
27.5
20.4
1994
27.5
20.5
1995
27.5
20.6
1996-2004
27.5
20.7
2005
27.5
21.0
2006
27.5
21.6
2007
27.5
22.2
Table 5.2: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks: model years 1992 through 2007 (mi/ga). Source:
DOT/NHTSA, 2001, 2004a
states in the Northeast and Northwest have signalled they want to adopt, too.
These states plan to introduce indirect efficiency measures by regulating emissions, as the amount of CO2 emitted is directly related to fuel consumption.
While under the federal plan, fuel savings are projected to reach 10 billion
gallons over 10 years, California proposes to save 1.7 billion gallons in California alone over a period of only five years (Hakim, 2005a). It already has
the strictest emission and efficiency standards in the whole United States.
However, the new federal proposal maintains that the California regulations
meddle with its own regulatory authority. In addition, manufacturers are already suing California about its proposed emission standards. It is therefore
not sure if the states will be able to realize their plans.
So what is the effect of efficiency standards on the offer of hybrids? It is
already apparent that manufacturers concentrate their offer of hybrid cars in
the regions with high emission (and therefore fuel efficiency) standards. We
can deduce that the regulations are technology forcing and serve as a strong
impetus to offer hybrid cars. The federal standards are weaker, but their
specific design could actually help hybrid technology: CAFE is based on the
average fuel consumption of all cars sold by a company in one year rather
than on the consumption of the different models sold. Bigger, heavier cars are
69
more profitable for the producer and at current fuel price levels, consumers
tend towards these cars. But their sales are limited by the necessity to comply
with CAFE. To balance their fleet average fuel economy, manufacturers must
persuade some consumers to buy smaller, lighter, more efficient cars (Lave
and Lave, 1999). They have done this by lowering prices. In fact, General
Motors (GM) and Ford loose money on small cars. Hybrid technology offers
a way out of this dilemma. Because it grants efficiency gains, but does
not rely on the usual method of downsizing and light weight materials, it
is especially well suited for large vehicles. It could entice manufacturers to
raise the fuel economy of their large cars instead of having to sell small cars
at a loss. It cannot come as a surprise that out of the six hybrid vehicles
GM plans to bring to the market by 2008, five are SUVs or trucks (see Tab.
3.2, pg. 33). Hybrid vehicle technology is a means to comply with existing
standards without sacrificing profits and as such is attractive to automakers.
The technology eases compliance with fuel efficiency regulations, which is
why the automotive industry should be willing to adopt it.
5.1.2
Environmental policy
Emission standards: greenhouse and global emissions
The Clean Air Act (EPA, 2002a) of 1990 established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and implemented regulatory measures on stationary and
mobile sources. It includes tighter pollution standards for emissions from
automobiles and trucks, reducing tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matters on a phased-in basis
which started in 1994, with the Tier 1 standards. It also requires onboard
diagnostic systems in vehicles. The permitted concentrations are detailed
in the National Emission Standards Act (EPA, 2002b). Tab. 5.3 gives an
overview of the most important substances. Tighter Tier 2 standards are
currently being phased in and will enter into force in 2009.
70
Vehicle Type
Tier
CO
HC
NOx
Particulates
LDV
Tier 0
3.4
0.41
1.0
0.20a
Tier 1
3.4
0.41
0.4b
0.08
-
0.4b
0.08
0.08
LDT 1
Tier 1
3.4
4.4
-
0.7c
LEV
3.4
0.075
0.2
ULEV
1.7
0.040
0.2
SULEV
1.0
0.010
0.020
LDT 2
Tier 1
a
applies to diesel vehicles only
1.0 for diesel-fueled vehicles through 2003 model year
c
does not apply to diesel-fueled vehicles
Vehicle life used for the purpose of emission regulations is 5 years or 50,000 miles
b
Table 5.3: Federal certification exhaust emission standards for light-duty
vehicles (passenger cars) and trucks (up to 6,000 lb), g/mi. Source: EPA,
2005
Under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, states are granted the possibility
to develop their own provisions for emission control (EPA, 2002a). The socalled State Implementation Plans (SIPs) can provide for emission standards
and pollution controls exceeding the federal provisions.3 Some states, led by
California, have used this opportunity. The impact of pollution standards on
the automotive industry’s willingness to build HEVS is probably similar to
the impact of efficiency standards: The stricter the regulations, the stronger
the push towards hybrids. Especially the fact that stricter standards are
coming into effect in the next years is an advantage for hybrid technology.
Fuel Quality Control
The Clean Air Act also provides for fuel quality standards (EPA, 2002a).
A lead phase down starting in 1973 was followed by a complete lead ban in
1995. Other steps taken include reductions in gasoline volatility to decrease
evaporative emissions of gasoline in the summer months, the treatment of
3
SIPs also include voluntary mobile source emission reduction programs, e.g. work
schedule changes, vehicle use limitations/restrictions, small engine and recreational vehicle
programs and special event travel demand management
71
gasoline with detergents and deposit control additives and standards for low
sulfur gasoline and low sulfur diesel. At first sight, these measures do not
have a direct effect on the offer of hybrid vehicles. But we have to keep
in mind that cleaner, low sulfur fuels are necessary for catalytic converters
to work properly. Better fuel quality is a prerequisite for cleaner vehicle
technologies.
On the state level, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) established
a very effective fuel quality program. The Clean Fuel Car Pilot Program required the phase-in of tighter emission limits for 150,000 vehicles by model
year 1996 and 300,000 by model year 1999. The quotas can be met with
any combination of technology and cleaner fuels and became stricter in 2001.
While the initial purpose was to get more electric vehicles on the road, manufacturers increasingly turn to gas-electric propulsion systems in order to
fulfil the requirements. The advantage of this technology forcing measure
is its flexibility. Only the goal is prescribed, not the means to attain it.
The automotive industry seems to recognize the potential of hybrids to help
them reach this goal: All manufacturers sell more hybrids in California than
anywhere else in the US.
5.1.3
Safety policy
Safety aspects can also play a role in the diffusion of a technology. Because
hybrid technology means a change in design and components, vehicle safety
in accidents could be altered. Two aspects of the technology affect safety
- one positively and one negatively: The electric components and the lower
center of gravity of hybrid cars. The high-voltage batteries in hybrids provide
a potential risk. New regulations were necessary under the federal motor
vehicle safety standards (DOT/NHTSA, 2004b). Standard No. 305 regulates
electrolyte spillage and electric shock protection: The electrical components
of hybrids have to be completely sealed off so that nobody can be hurt or
killed by an electrical shock in the case of an accident. This means two
72
things for manufacturers: They have to spend money on the insulation of
the electrical components, which increases the cost of the technology. And
because new regulations were necessary, uncertainty about the future of the
technology probably reigned in its early diffusion stage. The latter hurdle
has been taken, but in the case of radical innovations, the need for new
regulations can delay the process of market entry (Fleischmann, 1998).
For the second aspect named above, the lower center of gravity, the effect
on vehicle safety is positive. Because of their battery packs, hybrids are
heavier than comparable conventional vehicles. The packs can partly be
stored under the floor of the passenger area, thus lowering the HEVs’ center
of gravity. It makes them less vulnerable to roll-overs - the primary cause of
death in car accidents. According to a NHTSA study (Lombardo, 2001) the
increasing number of fatalities in light truck vehicle crashes is mainly due to
roll-overs. These vehicles have a very high center of gravity making them
prone to topple. For this reason, stricter safety regulations for SUVs and
trucks (side airbags, rollover-ratings) are in the pipeline. Hybrid technology
is a good possibility for manufacturers to lower the center of gravity and
make SUVs and light trucks safer.
In sum, the balance sheet for safety aspects is mixed. The hurdle of introducing new safety regulations has been taken. Compared to conventional
cars, hybrid manufacturers still have to make an extra production step to
ensure safe sealing of the electrical components. In contrast, hybrid technology has advantages for the stability of the vehicle. It could be a solution to
SUV’s propensity to roll over.
Overall, the regulatory environment is more positive than negative for
hybrids. The technology is similar enough to conventional ICEs to accommodate most of the existing regulations. In some cases, it can even help
manufacturers to attain environmental and efficiency standards. In the mind
of the automotive entrepreneurs, this should make hybrid propulsion systems
a viable alternative to ICEs provided that the price structure is adequate.
73
5.2
Manufacturers’ capabilities
Even if regulations steer firms towards some technology paths and away from
others, their institutional capabilities in implementing sustainable technologies determine the actual speed of adoption. The US is the world’s largest
automobile market and all the big manufacturers are present there. But their
records in the adoption of sustainable technologies vary greatly. It is likely
that firms also have different abilities to bring hybrid vehicles to the market.
Looking at the CAFE values of the different automakers (see Tab. 5.4),
it indeed stands out that domestic companies are performing worse than
their foreign counterparts. Ford, Daimler-Chrysler and GM have the lowest
average fuel economy of all manufacturers. On the other side of the spectrum
stand the Japanese groups Honda and Toyota. The top performer, Honda,
gets 28 % better fuel economy than Ford at the tail end. A study on the
effects of climate change regulations on value creation in the automobile
industry (Austin et al., 2003) comes to the conclusion that the three USbased companies are badly prepared to cope with stronger regulations. The
carbon intensity of profits4 is higher for Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler than for their Asian and European competitors.5 In the case of
stronger carbon constraints they are more vulnerable and will have to bear
the brunt of the costs.
American manufacturer’s have concentrated on developing the profitable
large car and light truck market segments. In doing this, they somewhat
neglected immediately applicable sustainable technologies. Companies with
large market shares in Europe have focussed on the economical diesel cars.
But diesels are big polluters and under the outlook of tighter particulate
matter emission standards, their prospects suddenly look bleak. Some com4
The carbon intensity of profit measures the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the
cars of a manufacturer per US $ of profit.
5
The notable exception is BMW. But the German company is oriented towards the
luxury segment and as such has a higher ability to pass on costs to consumers.
74
Manufacturer
Average fuel
economy (mpg)
Ford
22.8
Daimler-Chrysler
23.2
General Motors
24.0
Others (2 %)
24.3
Nissan
25.4
Hyundai-Kia
26.1
VW
27.3
Toyota
27.5
Honda
29.3
All
24.6
Table 5.4: Corporate fuel economy values for model year 2005. Source:
Heavenrich, 2005
panies, especially GM and Daimler-Chrysler, have focussed their research
efforts on the development of fuel cell vehicles. But these cars will only be
ready for the market a decade or more from now.
Hybrid technology was dismissed as too complicated and expensive in the
last decade. Honda’s and Toyota’s success has hit the competition as a surprise. All manufacturers are currently scrambling to develop a sound hybrid
system for their product line. For instance, General Motors started a hybrid
joint-venture with Daimler-Chrysler at the end of 2004 and BMW joined
the group in September 2005. Ford’s vice president for product creation,
Martens, recently declared his company’s commitment to hybrid technology
and announced the development of a hybrid system that could be used in
a variety of models (cited in Treece, 2005). But he also admitted to the
scarcity of qualified engineers in the field (idem, pg. 35):
“There’s a lot of headhunting going on. [...] It’s as bad as I’ve
ever seen it.”
American and European automakers are trying to catch up on hybrid technology, but the process is not without problems. At the moment, Toyota and
75
Honda definitively have a competitive edge over the rest of the automotive
industry (Austin et al., 2003). In nearly a decade of research and development in hybrids, they have accumulated theoretical knowledge and technical
know-how that other automakers will find hard to build from scratch in a
short period of time.
The prospects of hybrids in the United States are also marred by the
pervasive crisis of the American automobile industry. In May 2005, Standard
& Poor Ratings Services lowered the credit ratings for GM and Ford to junk
status. Horrendous costs for health care and pension plans were part of
the reason, but the devaluation also resulted from doubts in the companies’
product strategies (Der Spiegel, 2005b). Both firms depend on the larger
vehicle classes for their profits. Under the prospect of higher fuel prices and
global warming, analysts believe that their management strategies are illadapted to deal with the arising competitive challenges (New York Times,
2005a). And their bad financial situation will make it difficult to find the
necessary means to close the technology gap.
Domestic automakers’ bad shape also creates a problem for policy makers: If they grant subsidies or tax credits for hybrids, they help foreign manufacturers rather than GM or Ford. The same goes for raising the CAFE
standards. The domestic automakers would bear a disproportionate part of
the costs of higher fuel efficiency standards. This situation puts Congress in
a bind. The decision to grant tax credits for all hybrid cars, regardless of
their relative fuel efficiency, illustrates this. Under the new energy bill, tax
credits will apply to such models as the Mercury Mariner Hybrid, a pick-up
whose efficiency improvement is only marginal compared to the conventional
Mariner. Compared to an average car, its fuel efficiency is much worse.
With domestic automakers under pressure, the situation is potentially
dangerous for their foreign-based competitors. Toyota has identified the
threat of possible protectionist measures in order to save US manufacturers. It recently announced its willingness to cooperate with GM in the de-
76
velopment of a hybrid system. The question now is whether the technology
transfer will be successful and how fast it will come about. At the present
time, it is difficult to make a final statement about manufacturers’ capabilities with regard to hybrid technology. But it seems as if the competitive
pressure on the part of the Japanese automakers will induce US manufacturers to quicken the pulse of hybrid development - provided that they can find
the necessary human and financial capital for it.
Our exploration of supply side aspects shows that hybrids still face a lot
of difficulties. Nevertheless, HEVs have already surmounted a number of
supply side obstacles impeding diffusion. Ultimately, success will depend on
their acceptance by end users.
77
Chapter 6
Demand side: Empirical study
on the user acceptance of
hybrid electric vehicles
The demand side of HEV diffusion regards all aspects of the use of this technology. Presents users are early adopters, they differ from the mass market.
Nevertheless, examining their attitudes empirically can render valuable insights into the conditions for a further successful diffusion of hybrids. It can
also help answer the question of hybrids surprising success compared to other
green vehicle technologies. This chapter describes the research approach, the
design of the study and how the data was analyzed.
6.1
Design of the study
In order to gain data about early adopters of HEVs, an online survey was
devised. Respondents were asked to answer a number of questions concerning
their attitudes towards hybrid technology, their awareness of environmental
and energy issues and their driving behavior.
78
6.1.1
Selection and composition of respondents
The link to the study was posted in several internet forums concerned with
hybrid cars. Considering the small number of present hybrid owners, this
was the most viable path to gather data. The chances to gain access to data
of hybrid users were slim and an internet-based questionnaire promised good
response rates. Choosing an online survey over a traditional mail or telephone
survey has multiple advantages (Tuten et al., 2002). The comparative ease of
data gathering, increased response speed and the low costs of the procedure
were all benefits that were of importance in this study. But the online method
has a downside, too. Not everybody has internet access - hence an inherent
selection effect occurs. And if a survey is posted online with open access for
every internet user - as in our case - there is no control over who will fill out
the questionnaire.1 Hence, data gathered from open internet surveys is not
sufficient to obtain general statements on the internet user population or the
overall population. In contrast to this, online questionnaires can be helpful
where particular populations or well-defined topics are concerned.
Considering this, we will not presume to draw conclusions about the general population from our study. But this is not the goal anyway. Instead,
the aim of the survey is to gain information about attitudes prevalent among
early adopters. It is reasonable to assume that the large majority of the
respondents are strongly committed to hybrid technology. Examining the
group’s opinion on hybrids can help us understand why HEVs have gained
more widespread acceptance than other green vehicle technologies. And comparing hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners in the group can help us understand what triggers the final decision to commit to a green technology in
a group with a high latent interest in the technology.
1
There are other distortions of results that can occur. For example, a person might
have an interest in filling out a questionnaire multiple times. A possible motivation is
the belief that the survey is read by decisionmakers, who need to be made aware of the
‘righteous cause’. We protected against misuse by limiting the number of times a person
could gain access to the survey from the same computer to one access.
79
Figure 6.1: Distribution of hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners
Publishing the study on web-sites concerned with HEVs made it possible
to find these highly committed users: We assumed that respondents recruited
from these web-sites were likely to display a disproportionately high interest
in hybrids, and probably also an unusually positive view of the technology.
Indeed, out of 181 US American2 respondents, 60 % own a hybrid car themselves, and another 35 % say they can imagine buying a hybrid car at some
point (Fig. 6.1).
As to the demographics, the average age of respondents in the survey
is 45.5 years, with over 70 % being between 35 and 60 years of age. The
interviewees are highly educated: Only 14.9 % do not have a college degree,
and a third of the respondents hold a postgraduate degree or had completed
some postgraduate schooling. They are also relatively affluent: More than
half of them (53.4 %) have a household income of over 90,000 $ per year and
another 19.1 % earn more than 60,000 $ per year. The gender balance in the
2
11 respondents stated their country of origin as Europe, Japan or Canada and were
excluded from the analysis.
80
study is skewed, with only 30 respondents out of 181 being female. These
numbers certainly differ from a representative image of US residents. But
they are fairly typical for new car buyers, whose income is disproportionately
high and whose education is better than the average person’s. They are also
more often male than female. In so far, the composition of respondents in
our study is not atypical.
A comparison with other studies shows fairly similar demographics. Our
numbers coincide well with the picture painted by Walter McManus (cited in
HybridCars.com, 2005), automotive industry expert and director of the Office
for the Study of Automotive Transportation at the University of Michigan:
In a study of over 50,000 hybrid-owners and potential buyers, the average
HEV buyer was close to 50 years old and his level of education and income
were both well above average. In a representative survey of Toyota Prius
owners undertaken in Switzerland (de Haan and Peters, 2005), men are overrepresented, as is the age category from 45 to 69 years. In addition, income
and education levels were well above average.
The distribution of hybrid models owned by the respondents in our study
also mirrors the real world market shares (Tab. 6.1): By far the largest group
(83 %) consists of Toyota Prius owners, and this also happens to be the most
popular hybrid model. The only other significantly sized group is made up of
Honda Civic owners (9.4 %), the second most popular hybrid model. Except
for the tiny two-seater Honda Insight, all other models have come to the
market only recently and it is not surprising that few interviewees already
own one.
6.1.2
The key variables
The questionnaire contains diverse questions on attitudes toward hybrid cars.
The complete list can be found in the appendix. Some of them were included
to find out descriptive details about people interested in hybrid technology,
others were used to obtain variables employed in the statistical testing of
81
Hybrid model owned
Frequency
Percent
Toyota Prius
88
83.0
Toyota Highlander
1
0.9
Honda Insight
4
3.8
Honda Civic Hybrid
10
9.4
Ford Escape Hybrid
2
1.9
Lexus RX 400 Hybrid
Total
1
0.9
106
100
Table 6.1: Distribution of HEV models owned by respondents
the hypotheses. The following section describes the most important of these
variables.
The central independent variable is ‘interest in hybrid technology’. It is
used to measure the commitment to hybrid technology among respondents.
In the questionnaire, an answering scale ranging from 1 ‘not interested at all’
to 5 ‘extremely interested’ was provided. Tab. 6.2 presents the frequency
distribution among the respondents. There is a large group with a very
strong (64.6 %) or strong (24.9 %) interest in hybrid technology, followed
by much smaller clusters of respondents who showed moderate (7.2 %), little
(2.2 %) or no (1.1 %) interest. The data is leptokurtic and negatively skewed,
which means, respectively, that the cases are clustered tightly around the
mean and that most of the cases are positioned to the right of it. The
uneven distribution of the cases is of course connected to the selection bias
of our survey - the respondents were all recruited through internet forums on
hybrid vehicles. The low variance among respondents potentially results in
a systematic underrating of correlations. This has to be kept in mind when
examining the results from the statistical analysis.
However, because we can control for hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners,
and significant differences occur between these two groups, we are able to use
the variable in the analysis. Where appropriate, the dichotomously coded
variable ‘own hybrid/do not own hybrid’ is employed in order to examine
82
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
not interested at all 1
2
1.1
1.1
2
4
2.2
3.3
3
13
7.2
10.5
4
45
24.9
35.4
extremely interested 5
117
64.6
100.0
Total
181
100.0
100.0
Table 6.2: Frequencies: Interest in hybrid technology among survey respondents
intra-group variance. An additional independent variable is the extent of
support for policy measures favoring hybrid cars. Support was measured
by the number of items checked on a list of five policy measures designed
to facilitate hybrid diffusion. The more items a person checked, the higher
her/his overall support.
As to the key independent variables, they consist of questions about attitudes toward the technology and its use. In addition, two economic aspects
were asked for, i.e. the regional fuel price and the expectations about the
future development of fuel prices. The attitudinal measures are concerned
with social practices related to car use, the ideology surrounding the product
and the beliefs about the technology’s problem solving capacity with regard
to environmental and energy issues (see Tab. 6.3 for a list of independent
variables and their coding). The respective sections contain a more thorough
description of how the hypotheses were operationalized.
Five-point scales and three-point scales were used to measure the attitudes. Although the variables are, strictly speaking, ordinal, they are used as
ratio-scaled variables. It is common practice in the social sciences to assume
that such variables are effectively continuous, by assigning them equallyspaced integer values and by combining them into composite indices through
addition (Babbie, 1998). We chose this path in order to have access to a wider
array of statistical procedures, which cannot be applied to ordinal variables.
83
Dimension
Variable
Coding
Political
Increase/Decrease of
- Energy dependence
1 - less worried
concern about . . .
- Environmental issues
3 - more worried
Hybrid technology seen
- Energy dependence
1 - strongly disagree
as a solution to . . .
- Environmental issues
5 - strongly agree
- Rising fuel prices
Social
Cultural
Social gratification: Driving
- Helps the environment
1 - strongly disagree
a hybrid conveys a positive
- Contributes to national
5 - strongly agree
feeling because it . . .
energy conservation effort
Acceptance by relevant
- Friends
1 - strongly disagree
social groups
- Family
5 - strongly agree
Expected vehicle attributes
- Handling
1 - strongly disagree
- Performance
5 - strongly agree
- Safety
Table 6.3: List of attitudinal measures employed in the study
6.2
Statistical analysis
In the following section, the statistical analyses performed are presented. The
hypotheses are tested and an exploratory model is devised that attempts to
capture the combined influence of social, cultural and political factors on
hybrid-ownership.
6.2.1
Testing the hypotheses
In the section on the demand side of hybrids’ diffusion, several hypotheses
were formulated. They regard, in turn, political, social, cultural and economic aspects of the use of hybrid technology.
Political dimension
The first cluster of hypotheses concerns the political dimension. We expect
perceived political salience of environmental and energy issues to influence
hybrid diffusion by means of more support for political measures facilitating their diffusion. While the other hypotheses mirror the direct effect of
84
attitudes on hybrid-ownership, the political dimension has an indirect effect:
High political salience and therefore more support for policy measures favoring HEVs create a politically advantageous climate for the wider diffusion of
these cars. In this respect, it is also interesting to examine the variance of
perceived political salience between people who own hybrids and those who
do not own such a vehicle.
Firstly, the correlations between the support for policy measures and
the awareness of environmental and energy issues were calculated. Two independent variables were correlated with the ‘support’ variable: The increase/decrease of concern about environmental and energy issues and the
perception of hybrid technology as a solution to these issues. The first measure serves as indicator whether heightened concern for an issue exists. The
other one is used to find out whether hybrid technology is seen as a solution
to perceived problems. The idea is that political salience exists if there is
heightened awareness of an issue and possible solutions are defined.
Because hybrid technology is potentially relevant both to environmental
and energy issues, we look at both aspects. For each of the two independent
variables, respondents were asked about air pollution and climate change to
obtain a measure for the environmental issue. They were asked about energy
security and fuel prices to obtain a measure for energy issues. Additive
indices were used whenever the internal consistency measures allowed it.
The relationship between environmental aspects and support for policies
turned out to be relatively pronounced (see Tab. 6.4). Heightened concern
about environmental issues strongly influenced the number of policy issues
supported, with a Pearson’s R of 0.378. The perception of hybrid technology
as a solution to environmental problems (Pearson’s R = 0.262) is moderately
strongly correlated with the ‘support’ variable . Thus, among the interviewees, a person who sees hybrid technology as a solution to climate change
and air pollution is more likely to support several policy measures facilitating
hybrid diffusion. This is also the case for respondents whose concern about
85
Increase/decrease of concern about
environmental problems in the last 2 years
less
worried
unchanged
more
Total
worried
Total
Number of measures
0
0
1
0
1
promoting hybrid
1
1
5
0
6
cars supported
2
6
12
0
18
3
2
32
19
53
4
0
33
34
67
5
0
19
18
37
9
102
71
182
Total
Pearson’s R = 0.378
Standard error = 0.057
N of valid cases = 182
(a) Concern about environmental issues
HEVs as solution to environmental problems
strongly
strongly
disagree
agree
Total
Number of measures
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
promoting hybrid
1
0
0
0
3
2
5
cars supported
2
1
2
5
5
4
17
3
0
5
3
24
22
54
4
0
3
5
26
34
68
5
0
1
2
9
25
37
1
11
16
67
87
182
Total
Pearson’s R = 0.262
Standard error = 0.070
N of valid cases = 182
(b) HEVs as technical solution of environmental problems
Table 6.4: Crosstabulations: Influence of environmental issues’ salience on
support for policy measures
86
environmental problems grew during the last two years.
Contrary to the environmental aspects discussed above, energy related aspects could not be combined into an additive index.3 Energy issues’ influence
on the support of policy measures for hybrids is generally weaker than that
of environmental issues. Heightened concern about fuel prices does not have
a sizeable effect on the number of policy items supported. But a correlation
with the ‘support’ variable exists both if hybrid technology is perceived as
the key to more energy independence (see Tab. 6.5(a)) and if it is seen as
helping to cope with high fuel prices (see Tab. 6.5(b)). The relationship is
stronger for energy independence (0.269) than for fuel prices (0.196).
Finally, if a person is concerned about energy security, the number of
items supported also increases (see Tab. 6.5(c)). The correlation of 0.276 is
relatively strong. One aspect is noteworthy: Not a single person in the survey
was less concerned about energy dependence than two years ago. This is not
surprising given the current political situation (Iraq war, California energy
crisis etc.). Nevertheless it is a strong indicator that the political climate is
favorable for the introduction of fuel efficient vehicle technologies. In sum,
political salience of environmental and energy issues has a positive impact on
the support for policies favoring hybrids. This confirms Hypothesis 3a and
3b about the effect of political salience.
All the independent measures detailed above were examined for variance
between hybrid-owners and the rest of the group. For some of the measures,
the two groups did not diverge significantly. Whether a person owned a
hybrid or not did not make a difference for any of the energy related issues.
However, concern about environmental issues and the perception of hybrid
technology as a solution to environmental problems both display F-ratios that
differ from 1 at the 0.05 significance level. Attitudes towards environmental
issues not only play a larger role for the support of policy measures, but
hybrid-owners in the study also display stronger environmental attitudes than
3
The internal consistency measure Cronbach’s α lies below the advisable value of 0.8.
87
HEVs as solution to energy dependence
strongly
strongly
disagree
agree
Total
Number of measures
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
promoting hybrid
1
0
0
3
0
2
5
cars supported
2
1
2
2
7
6
18
3
3
3
7
15
20
48
4
0
5
7
16
36
64
5
0
0
3
7
24
34
4
10
23
45
88
170
Total
Pearson’s R = 0.269
Standard error = 0.065
(a) HEVs as technical solution of energy dependence
HEVs as a way to cope with high fuel prices
strongly
strongly
disagree
agree
Total
Number of measures
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
promoting hybrid
1
0
1
0
2
2
5
cars supported
2
4
2
2
4
6
18
3
4
4
6
15
19
48
4
1
6
7
22
27
63
5
1
1
5
8
19
34
10
14
21
51
73
169
Total
Pearson’s R = 0.196
Standard error = 0.075
(b) HEVs as a way to cope with high fuel prices
Increase/decrease of concern about
energy dependence in the last 2 years
less
worried
more
unchanged
worried
Total
Number of measures
0
0
1
0
1
promoting hybrid
1
0
2
3
5
cars supported
2
0
7
11
18
3
0
12
36
48
4
0
9
56
65
5
0
4
30
34
0
35
136
171
Total
Pearson’s R = 0.248
Standard error = 0.080
(c) Concern about energy dependence
Table 6.5: Crosstabulations: Influence of energy issues’ salience on support
for policy measures
88
those who drive a conventional car.
Political salience also has a direct influence on the interest in the technology. Interviewees who thought hybrids had the potential to solve these
problems displayed a higher interest in the technology than the rest of the
respondents. The influence of hybrids’ perceived problem solving capacity
with regard to environmental problems is exceptionally high: The correlation
between this measure and the interest in hybrid cars is 0.383, as shown in
Tab. 6.6.
Problem solving with regard to energy issues also influences interest. Respondents in the study who were convinced that hybrid technology is a way
to cope with high fuel prices displayed a higher interest in hybrids than others. Again, the correlation is quite high, with a Pearson’s R of 0.302. Strong
agreement with the statement ‘Hybrids will reduce US dependence on foreign
oil, because they bring down overall fuel consumption’ was correlated with
interest in hybrid technology at 0.345. It is evident that people who ascribe
a high problem solving capacity to hybrids are much more likely to take an
interest in hybrids than others. Conversely, heightened concern about energy
dependence did not lead to a significantly higher interest in hybrid technology among the respondents. Only heightened concern about environmental
problems caused by vehicle traffic had an impact, albeit not a very strong
one (Pearson’s R = 0.170).
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) is useful to see what triggers a purchase
decision among a committed group. Hybrid-owners in the study show a high
level of awareness for environmental problems and energy dependance, but
not more so than those who drive conventional cars. The two groups differ
in another aspect: HEV-owners are much more convinced that hybrid cars
have a high problem solving capacity. The ANOVA results and the fact that
‘Concern’ has less effect than ‘Problem solving capacity’ are important for
several reasons. On the one hand, they prove that heightened environmental
concern does not necessarily result in a change of consumer behavior towards
89
Hybrid technology perceived as solution
to environmental issues
Totally
Totally
disagree
agree
Total
0
1
1
0
0
2
in hybrid
0
3
0
1
0
4
vehicles
0
2
3
1
6
12
0
3
5
19
17
44
very high
1
1
8
42
63
115
Total
1
10
17
63
86
177
Interest
none at all
Pearson’s R = 0.383
Standard error = 0.086
N of valid cases = 177
Table 6.6: Crosstabulation: Influence of perceived problem solving capacity
on interest in hybrid vehicle technology
more sustainability. The weakness of the link between environmental attitudes and action, and especially between attitudes and the willingness to
pay for the environment has been demonstrated before (Engel and Pötschke,
1998). Attitudes alone cannot explain variance in behavior satisfactorily. On
the other hand, the strong influence of perceived problem solving capacity
indicates that the social definition of a technology is very important. Public
discourses play a big role in the acceptance of a technology. Hybrid cars
are portrayed as a solution to environmental and energy issues in the media
and by the manufacturers themselves. In so far as this positive definition
of hybrids is accepted by a person, it leads to a heightened interest in the
technology. Thus, the obstacle for hybrid vehicle diffusion is not so much
the lack of environmental attitudes, but the lacking conviction that hybrid
technology can really do something against environmental problems. The
same argumentation is valid for energy dependence issues.
Social dimension
The social dimension is relevant because it adds explanatory elements to
an incomplete economic view of technology use. If driving a hybrid car is
90
not rational in a purely monetary sense, a person must gain something else
from it. Social factors play an important role in this regard. As set forth in
Chapter 4, economic theories often have difficulties to explain social actions.
A good example for this is the explanation of voting: Given that a single vote
makes almost no difference among an electorate constituted of thousands of
voters, an individual does not have huge incentives to go to the trouble of
voting. Still, a majority of people vote.
Social action theory explains this phenomenon by aspects such as social
gratification that add an element of utility to the seemingly irrational act of
voting. Gratification involves an enjoyment in the use of an artefact. Contrary to personal satisfaction, social gratification is derived not from personal
pleasure in doing something but from the feeling to have fulfilled a social
obligation. It is the experience of acknowledgement and the feeling of having
done something for the community at large that makes social gratification
such a powerful motor of action. A prerequisite for experiencing social gratification is empathy with the general public. The following quote from one
of the interviewees illustrates this:
“I bought my Prius knowing it cost more than a relatively equal
non-Hybrid car, but I did so as an act of social responsibility.”
In our study, social gratification derived from the use of an HEV was measured by the fact whether a person agreed or disagreed with the following
two statements: ‘Driving a hybrid feels good because it helps the environment’ and ‘Driving a hybrid feels good because it contributes to the national
energy conservation effort.’ Respondents were asked to rate these statements
on a scale from 1 (I totally disagree) to 5 (I totally agree). Given the almost
perfect internal consistency of the measures, they were then combined into
an additive index.
The more social gratification an individual feels can be derived from a
certain action, the more likely this person is to execute it. We therefore
91
Social gratification: HEVs perceived as conveying ...
... very little
... very high
social gratification
social gratification
Total
0
1
1
0
0
2
in hybrid
1
0
2
0
1
4
vehicles
0
4
0
4
5
13
2
0
4
17
20
43
very high
6
0
9
23
78
116
Total
9
5
16
44
104
178
Interest
none at all
Pearson’s R = 0.291
Standard error = 0.087
N of valid cases = 178
Table 6.7: Crosstabulation: Influence of perceived social gratification on
interest in hybrid vehicle technology
expect a significant difference between hybrid-owners and non-owners in the
study regarding the extent of social gratification felt. We also expect interest
in the technology to be higher among respondents who feel there is a lot of
social gratification to be derived from driving a hybrid.
The crosstabulation in Tab. 6.7 shows that the higher perceived social
gratification from driving a hybrid, the higher the interest in hybrid technology. With a correlation of 0.291, the link between the two measures is
relatively strong and our initial assumption can be regarded as confirmed.
This calculation does not provide information about the differences between
hybrid owners and drivers of conventional vehicles. If they diverged regarding
the perceived extent of social gratification, we would have identified a driver
of the purchase decision. It is therefore adequate to perform an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) between the two groups.
However, the ANOVA procedure does not generate significant results.
Inside the committed group, the variance is necessarily quite small. It seems
as if in the study, the social gratification derived from driving a hybrid is not
perceived very differently by actual users and by non-users. It is possible that
a comparison of our committed group with a representative control group
would produce more significant results. Unfortunately, with the limited data
92
Acceptance by relevant social groups: HEVs perceived as having ...
... very little
... very high
acceptance
acceptance
Total
1
0
0
0
0
1
in hybrid
0
1
1
0
0
2
vehicles
0
3
2
4
2
11
1
2
8
18
10
39
very high
4
7
16
44
37
108
Total
6
13
27
66
49
161
Interest
none at all
Pearson’s R = 0.228
Standard error = 0.095
N of valid cases = 161
Table 6.8: Crosstabulation: Influence of acceptance by relevant social groups
on interest in hybrid vehicle technology
set at hand, we cannot test this.
Besides social gratification, the other important social dimension aspect
influencing interest in hybrid technology is the level of acceptance by social
groups relevant to a respondent. Because humans are, in essence, social
animals, the opinions of those they esteem are of importance to them. Family
and friends are the two most influential social groups against whose opinions
and attitudes we measure our actions. Respondents were therefore asked to
assess their families’ and their friends’ image of hybrid technology - did they
think buying and driving a hybrid was a good decision? The two measures
were combined in an additive index measuring acceptance by relevant others.
The influence of this measure is less strong than the influence of social
gratification. But with a correlation of over 0.2, it is still quite marked (see
Tab. 6.8). The ANOVA procedure also shows that there are dissimilarities
between hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners in this regard. Among the
committed group in the study, the acceptance of hybrids by friends and
family is perceived differently by users and by non-users. The F-ratio diverges
significantly from 1 (see Tab. 6.9) and a Scheffé test showed that especially for
the higher values of perceived acceptance, the two groups differ. Generally,
hybrid owners report the reactions of friends and family to be more positive.
93
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
F
Significance
2.573
0.040
2.319
4
0.580
Within Groups
34.925
155
0.225
Total
37.244
159
Table 6.9: Variance in hybrid-owners’ and non-owners’ perception of acceptance by relevant social groups
A possible reason is that they have experienced positive feedback in the
real world, while non-owners can only speculate. It would be interesting
to compare pre- and post-purchase perception of acceptance by the same
person. Does little perceived social acceptance keep some people from buying
a hybrid? Or is higher perceived acceptance a consequence of the purchase?
We cannot conclude an answer from the available data, but it is an interesting
question for further research.
The analysis of the social dimension has demonstrated that the assumed
correlations exist indeed between social gratification, social acceptance and
interest in hybrid technology. But the social dimension does not seem to
be a very strong trigger of the purchase decision. This could be the effect
of low intra-group variation in the study. In a representative study, the
social dimension would probably show more variance between owners and
non-owners of a hybrid vehicle.
Cultural visions
Cultural visions of technology are also of interest. The term refers to the
wide-spread and fixed expectations of what is desirable and feasible with
regard to a specific technology. People have come to anticipate certain attributes from cars. Can hybrids fulfill these expectations? It is the prerequisite of success for this technology. Without it, only a limited number
of people will be ready to buy a hybrid. And because HEVs are still not
quite price-competitive, it is likely that they need additional attributes to
overcome the price disadvantage. Do they have some added plus points that
94
make them attractive?
We expect interest in hybrid technology to be higher for respondents who
think that performance, safety and handling are similar in hybrids and in
conventional vehicles. Indeed, the three measures are positively correlated
with interest in the technology: Seeing hybrids as offering the same safety
as conventional cars has the strongest influence, with a correlation of 0.193
(Tab. 6.10(c)). It is followed by performance (R = 0.174, Tab. 6.10(b))
and handling (R = 0.168, Tab. 6.10(a)). Interviewees who think HEVs offer
at least as much safety, performance and ease of handling as conventional
cars show a higher interest in the technology. It is apparent that hybrids are
compared to the status quo of vehicle technology. If they are found deficient,
interest in the technology suffers. Hypotheses 5 is thus confirmed.
The three measures were also tested for mean differences between the
respondents who own a hybrid and those who do not. Although the means are
generally a bit higher for hybrid-owners than for the rest of the respondents,
none of the results from the ANOVA procedure was significant at the 0.05
level. Again, it is possible that the low intra-group variance is due to the
selection bias of our study. But it is also possible that there is little variance
in the general population, and thus also in our group. This would mean
that cultural visions linked to the automobile are very stable. Even people
who drive an alternative vehicle are not ready to give up attributes they
consider indispensable. This could in part explain the failure of electric cars:
Their performance is bad and they force users to change their behavior (lower
range, necessity to plug car in etc.).
Two additional questions concerned more subjective product attributes:
design and innovative image. They relate to the ‘desirability’ side of the
cultural dimension and the image its use is ascribed. In the media, these two
aspects have been extensively discussed (see for example Dell, 2005; Koerner,
2005) and it was interesting to see whether this is mirrored in the answers
in the study. Indeed, both the interviewees who thought hybrids had a cool
95
‘Handling a hybrid is similar to handling
a conventional car.’
totally
totally
disagree
Interest
none at all
agree
0
1
0
1
0
in hybrid
0
0
1
1
1
vehicles
3
0
0
3
5
2
4
1
16
22
6
5
5
29
69
11
10
7
50
97
very high
Total
Pearson’s R = 0.168
Standard error = 0.081
(a) Handling
‘The performance of a hybrid is as good
as that of any conventional car.’
totally
totally
disagree
Interest
none at all
agree
0
0
1
0
1
in hybrid
0
0
2
0
0
vehicles
0
3
4
1
3
2
4
9
11
18
very high
6
4
15
31
58
Total
8
11
31
43
80
Pearson’s R = 0.174
Standard error = 0.074
(b) Performance
‘A hybrid is a safe as any conventional
car on the market.’
totally
totally
disagree
Interest
none at all
agree
0
0
1
0
1
in hybrid
0
0
2
0
1
vehicles
2
0
2
2
6
2
2
6
9
24
very high
5
3
6
14
84
Total
9
5
17
25
116
Pearson’s R = 0.193
Standard error = 0.080
(c) Safety
Table 6.10: Crosstabulations: Expected vehicle attributes and their impact
on interest in hybrid technology
96
design and who thought hybrids conveyed an innovative image displayed
a higher interest in hybrid technology. With a Pearson’s R of 0.284, the
correlation with the interest in hybrids was quite strong for agreement to the
statement ‘Driving a hybrid means being open to innovations’. Affirmative
answers to the question whether hybrids had a stylish design were correlated
with the ’Interest in hybrid technology’ variable at 0.247.
Especially the Toyota Prius has a devoted fan crowd and many people
who drive it like its high-tech appeal. At the end of our survey, respondents
had the opportunity to include some additional remarks. Although they
have of course no representative value, these statements are quite revealing.
One person gave being a “technogeek” as the main reason why he bought a
hybrid, another one pointed to
“... the ‘cool’ factor of driving the smartest car on the road.
People can’t believe the car unlocks for my hand only, and that I
don’t need to fumble with a key, let alone getting twice the miles
per gallon they are getting.”
A third respondent - this time the owner of a Ford Escape - made it clear
that the innovative technology was the major reason he bought a hybrid:
“Though I own a 2006 Ford Escape Hybrid, ‘Green’ reasons were
not my primary motivation when purchasing. It was the technological innovations that made up my mind over a conventional
Escape; It was the fact that I could get all the cutting edge technologies affordably that was a motivating factor, the environmental benefits were secondary. Fuel efficiency was a major plus [...],
but concerns over greenhouse gas emissions were not among my
top tier, and barely entered into my decision; though they are a
nice bonus.”
All of this already indicates that the purchase of a hybrid is not totally
dependent on objective factors such as price and model diversity. But the
97
Count
% of cases
Lower price
135
79,9
More model diversity
115
68,0
Tax incentives
103
60,9
Other incentives
80
47,3
Better performance
56
33,1
More room for passengers
34
20,1
More room for baggage
29
17,2
(HOV lanes, free parking)
N of valid cases = 169
Table 6.11: In your opinion, which of the following aspects could increase
hybrid sales in the U.S.? (Multiple responses possible)
latter remain important drivers of the purchase decision, which is why the
economic dimension should not be left out.
Economic dimension
The last set of hypotheses concerns economic aspects. We postulated that
increased price competitiveness and model diversity will facilitate diffusion.
Economic theory holds that a lower price for the same quality (or the same
price for higher quality) increases demand (Samuelson and Nordhaus, 1995).
We also expect income to affect hybrid ownership. Measuring the price competitiveness of hybrids is beyond the scope of this study, but some measures
can give an indication as to the influence of economic aspects on hybrid diffusion. For instance, an overwhelming majority of interviewees saw model
diversity and price as the key factors for increasing hybrid sales (see Tab.
6.11).
As to the influence of income on the propensity to buy a hybrid car,
there is an impact, albeit not a strong one. The correlation measure for the
two variables treated as ordinal here is γ = 0.185. Another aspect affecting
hybrids’ price competitiveness is the regional fuel price - the higher it is, the
more it pays off to drive a hybrid. We would expect Californians to buy
more hybrids than Alaskans, because fuel prices are considerably higher in
98
California. However, no correlation exists between regional fuel prices and
hybrid-ownership. It is possible that fuel prices have not yet passed the
critical threshold.
The expectations about the development of fuel prices in the coming years
did not have a significant effect either. Almost a third of the respondents in
the study believe that fuel prices will rise between 0 and 20 cents per year
(Fig. 6.2). Close to 20 % believe that fuel prices will rise more than 61 cent
annually. An analysis of variance showed that whether a respondent owned
a hybrid or not does not make a significant difference for their expectations
about fuel price development. Apparently, among the committed group in
our study, this is not what triggers a purchase decision. But a difference
seems to exist between the committed and the uncommitted. In a study
by industry experts J. D. Power and Associates (2004a), owners of an HEV
were considerably more pessimistic than drivers of conventional cars: They
expected gas prices to rise 6 % per year, as opposed to 2 % for owners of
gasoline-powered vehicles.
How are the high purchase price and the long payback period for hybrids
perceived among a committed group? The aim of these questions was to
get an insight into the economic rationality behind the purchase of a hybrid.
Are (potential) owners conscious of the fact that buying a hybrid might not
pay off? On average, a hybrid owner assumes that it takes 5.63 years for an
HEV to pay off, the rest of the respondents are slightly less optimistic and
think it takes 5.9 years. Given that the typical time until a car is resold is 5
years, most of the respondents seem to think that hybrids are close to being
price-competitive.
However, not included in the calculation of the mean were answers like
‘don’t know’, ‘never’ or ‘depends’. The question was asked in an open form
to avoid biasing the answers by limiting the answer choices. Consequently,
the well-known problems associated with open questions appear: the difficulty to interpret and group answers and the higher propensity for missing
99
Figure 6.2: Estimated change of fuel prices
cases. Overall, a sixth of the respondents felt they could not answer the question. And it is likely that some of those who answered guessed. Kurani and
Turrentine (2004) conclude from a qualitative study that most people have
difficulties assessing the trade-off between higher purchase price and better
fuel economy. There are signs of this phenomenon in our survey, too. In
calculating fuel cost savings, the point of comparison is often the cost of fuel
for the former car. Thus, the amount of money households feel they save by
driving a hybrid really depends on what car they traded in for it. Consider
this quote from the comment box at the end of the survey:
“Our primary vehicle was an SUV. We filled up approximately
once a week, on average for $ 40 - $ 52 per tank. The hybrid
has replaced the SUV as the primary vehicle and we fill up every
other week for $ 12 - $ 15 per tank full. You do the math. The
hybrid is not the answer to energy independence but a step in the
100
right direction and I don’t mind saving money while taking that
step.”
It is evident that the interviewee in question would have come to a different
conclusion had he owned a smaller car before. The point of comparison is
indeed of importance: If potential buyers compare a hybrid’s price not to
other cars they are interested in, but to their old car, the calculation looks
quite different. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to explore this topic more
thoroughly. But we should keep in mind that findings like this cast a shadow
of doubt on the assumption that economic agents are completely rational.
The calculation of the payback-period is related to the willingness to pay
a higher price for hybrids. Among respondents who did not own a hybrid
yet, 42.1 % were ready to pay a purchase premium of more than 2000 $ for a
hybrid, i.e. the actual price premium. Among hybrid-owners, the willingness
to pay the real world price differential was of course much higher: 72 %
would pay more than 2000 $ for a hybrid. Nevertheless, when comparing
these numbers, we have to consider that it is a post-purchase measure for
the owners, while it is a pre-purchase measure for those who do not own a
hybrid. Owners are likely to be better informed about the actual price and
there might also be an element of justifying their decision included in the
measure.
The univariate, bivariate and multivariate results from the empirical
study show that what common sense tells us about hybrid owners is not
always true. They are not driven by economic rationality alone. The results
from the political dimension prove that the public discourse about a green
technology’s problem solving capacity is decisive for its acceptance. The missing link between green attitudes and green behavior (here: the use of hybrid
technology) is assigned problem solving capacity. As to social aspects, we
can see that the attribution of a positive social meaning is important. Both
political and social aspects demonstrate that early hybrid adopters do not
buy these cars because they get such good value for their money, but out of
101
conviction.
Still, cultural visions of cars are very stable and if green cars do not
bow to these expectations, they have little chance to succeed. With hybrids,
manufacturers have offered the utmost they thought costumers would accept:
An ICE vehicle with a green tinge. They have ventured from the technical
path defined a century ago, but not very far. Compared to hybrids, electrical
vehicles were already too far removed from the accepted vision of a car.
Our findings help refine the selection dimensions used to explain technical regime change. Not only have political aspects been largely neglected in
the study of technical regimes, but the impact of social and cultural matters has been underestimated. Focusing too one-sidedly on technological and
economic matters results in a skewed image of technology competition. In
contrast, examining social routines, cultural visions and the political climate
renders a more accurate picture of the dynamic selection process. Our contribution to the literature on socio-technical regimes is a stronger focus on
non-economic factors that are socially and not technically determined. By
applying this approach to the study of an innovation in competition with a
firmly established technology, we can draw conclusions on how established
socio-technical regimes can be transformed. In addition, our analysis renders
insights into the adaptive processes new technologies undergo in order to
conform to existing socio-technical regimes. Thus, we hope to create a body
of knowledge useful to policymakers.
6.2.2
An exploratory model of political, social and cultural factors’ influence on hybrid technology diffusion
The statistical calculations described above have demonstrated the role of
non-economic aspects for the interest in hybrid technology. What is their
influence in actual car purchase behavior? In the literature, car purchase
102
Figure 6.3: Initial model of hybrid-ownership
behavior is usually ascribed to effects of price and product attributes. A
good overview of current models of car ownership can be found in de Jong
et al. (2002). Vehicle type choice models usually include aspects like prize,
size, vehicle class, fuel consumption, equipment, safety and quality scores.
Rarely included are lifestyles, social practices related to car use and visions
of the car as a social and cultural object. McEwen (2004) suggests that the
way purchase behavior is commonly measured leads to the assumption that
brand relationships are determined by price and quality alone.
But in reality, purchase behavior is not only rationally driven by economic factors, but it also has psychological and social roots. The influence
of the social world on ecological consumption decisions is at the heart of
our research. In the following section, we introduce an exploratory model
of political, social and cultural factors’ influence on hybrid-ownership. To
this end, we build a regression model containing the dimensions described
above as covariates. Because our dependent variable, hybrid-ownership, is
dichotomous, we employ a binary logistic regression.
The initial model depicted in Fig. 6.3 is deduced from the theoretical
reflections described in Chapter 4. Besides economic factors, social, cultural
103
Figure 6.4: Revised model of hybrid-ownership
and political selection environments determine the decision for or against
ecological technologies. The model mirrors the assumption that the cultural
dimension is the prerequisite and the only dimension with a direct effect on
hybrid ownership. The other dimensions are mediated by it. Although it
is likely that the model has some explanatory value if used on HEV-owners
and a representative control group, a test-run showed that the intra-group
variance in our study is too low to employ it. From the ANOVA results we
know that the committed group in our survey does not show variance between
owners and non-owners with regard to all tested independent factors. Thus,
our initial model is not applicable to the data at hand. Through a variety of
simple regressions, the factors were tested and the ones with low significance
were excluded. This was done in order to obtain a model of what triggers
the decision for or against an ecological technology among a group with a
high interest in it.
The revised model can be seen in Fig. 6.4. The remaining factors with
104
explanatory value were the three variables measuring the cultural dimension (equal performance, safety and handling), the problem solving variables
from the political dimension, and income and regional fuel price as economic
factors. As none of the measures from the social dimension resulted in a
significant outcome, they were excluded. The measures from the political
and cultural dimension are internally consistent and were combined into additive indices, respectively named ‘P’4 and ‘C’5 . The economic variables were
treated separately: ‘Income’ refers to the influence the amount of money
available has on the purchase decision, ‘Fuel price’ refers to the influence of
cost. Hybrid ownership was calculated as follows:
O = αc + βI + γC + δC ∗ F + ηF ∗ P + λC ∗ F ∗ P
O = 16.789c + (−0.213)I + (−1.377)C + 0.079C ∗ F
+(−0.573)F ∗ P + 0.041C ∗ F ∗ P
O=
c=
C=
HEV-Ownership
Constant
HEVs perceived as being equal to conventional cars
I=
F=
P=
(Cultural Dimension)
Income (Economic Dimension)
Fuel Price (Economic Dimension)
Problem solving (Political Dimension)
The model provides asymptotic 95 % confidence intervals for parameters
α, γ, η and λ. The influence of income and the cultural dimension is negative
and the combined effect of fuel prices and problem solving, too. This is contrary to the assumptions deduced from the theoretical reflections. A possible
explanation is the leptokurtic and skewed distribution of the data. Only two
measures are positively correlated with hybrid-ownership: fuel prices medi4
P - Problem solving: Additive index of v15a (Solution to energy dependence), v15b
(Solution to air pollution), v15c (Solution to climate change)
5
CV - Cultural visions: Additive index of v9a (Handling), v9e (Performance), v9h
(Safety)
105
ated by the cultural dimension (C*F) and the interaction of all co-variates
(C*F*P*S). The proportion of variation in the dependent variable explained
by this model is 15.3 % (Nagelkerke R square = 0.153). The force of prediction is not very strong. In general, the model is quite instable: The addition
of other variables results in large changes of the Beta values in the regression.
The model can thus at best be called exploratory. Because of its instability, it cannot be deduced that it refutes the theoretical approach, even if
it is inconsistent with it in some points. Rather, the inconsistency between
theory and empirical data is the consequence of an inadequate data set and
probably also ill-adapted measures. The application of the regression model
to the group in our study probably results in a systematic underestimation of
R square. This effect is due to the low intra-group variance: The respondents
in our study who do not own a hybrid vehicle are still highly interested in
the technology. It is likely that the explanatory force would be stronger, if
the model was used to compare hybrid-owners with a group representative
of the general population. In addition, the measures used have to be refined
to obtain better validity and reliability of the data. The measures used here
apparently cannot capture the dynamic interaction between different dimensions of technical regime change. Further research is much needed to refine
the model.
Testing a model of social, cultural and political aspects’ influence on
hybrid-ownership for significance on a representative cross-section of the population could yield indications as to how early adopters of green technologies
diverge from the mass market. If we know which attitudes trigger the decision for a green technology, we can deduce measures to help build these
attitudes. Our empirical results are not representative, but they give indications as to the usefulness of certain measures. Before we turn to the
tentative conclusions on policy implications, some additional findings shall
be presented.
106
6.2.3
Additional results
The following section contains result not employed in the testing of the hypotheses, which are nonetheless revealing of the characteristics of hybrid
owners and people interested in the technology.
Opinions about policy measures and the future success of hybrids
One question inquired about what could help increase hybrid sales in the US.
The respondents could check multiple answers. As shown in Fig. 6.5, the
hierarchy of answers is the same for hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners:
Both groups are convinced that a lower price and more model diversity will
help most to increase hybrid sales. The following comment from one of the
respondents summarizes these attitudes quite well:
“Hybrids are a great idea but need to be made cheaper and available in more sizes, I currently drive a light car and would have
bought a hybrid if one existed in this category with 4 seats, none
currently do.”
In general, hybrid-owners are more opinionated about aspects that affect
hybrids attractiveness as a whole: price, model diversity, taxes and other
incentives. Interestingly, performance, storage and passenger space are seen
as less of a problem by hybrid owners. This might be caused by their own
good experience driving a hybrid or by their smaller disposition to attach
importance to these aspects. After all, they would probably not have bought
a gas-electric car, if they had thought it was too small and too feeble for
their needs.
The respondents’ attitudes towards policies concerning hybrids were also
examined. Interviewees were asked to indicate whether they supported or
opposed several policy measures (Fig. 6.6). The support for tax credits for
hybrid vehicles is very wide-spread, both people who already drive hybrids
and those who do not were overwhelmingly (85.7 and 79.2 %, respectively) in
107
Figure 6.5: What could increase hybrid sales in the US?
favor of financial incentives to buy hybrids. For possessors of a gas-electric
car, this category is the most strongly supported policy measure, followed
closely by tighter emission (81 %) and fuel consumption (82.9 %) control.
The role tax credits played for their own purchase decision might influence
the answer here. The rest of the people in the study favor higher emission
(83.3 % in support) and fuel efficiency standards (93.1 % in support) over tax
credits. In contrast to the widespread support for tighter standards, higher
fuel taxes are only backed by roughly half of the respondents in both groups.
Travel behavior
The travel behavior of hybrid owners is also of interest: Are hybrids chosen
by people who cover a comparatively long distance per year because they
can thus save on fuel? On average, a respondent of the study travels 15,762
miles annually by car. This is much less than the average American, who
108
Figure 6.6: Support for policy measures
drives 18.944 miles per year (FHWA, 2003). Common sense tells us that
it should be the other way around - after all, driving a hybrid only makes
economic sense for above average distances driven. Otherwise the payback
period is too long to redeem the higher purchase price. The surprising result
is circumstantial evidence that for these early adaptors, price cannot be the
one and only driver for buying a hybrid.
Hybrid-owners in the study were asked to compare their travel behavior
to that of the average driver (see Tab. 6.12). The data is evenly distributed,
39 % think they drive as much as the average person, while 33.3 % think they
drive more and 26.7 % think they drive less. Their self-assessment is quite
accurate - the distances stated are very highly correlated with the perception
of how much a person traveled in comparison to other drivers (γ = 0.860).
The even distribution means that we cannot draw the conclusion that hybrids
are bought only by people who drive a lot.
109
Miles driven per year (in thousands)
up to 10
up to 15
up to 20
up to 25
over 25
Comparison of
More
0
5
15
9
6
33.3
own travel
As much as
5
25
9
1
1
39.0
distance to the
Less
20
7
0
1
0
26.7
average person’s
Not sure
0
1
0
0
0
1.0
23.8
36.2
22.9
10.5
6.7
100
% of total
% of Total
γ = 0.860
Standard error = 0.050
N of valid cases = 105
Table 6.12: Crosstabulation: Actual distance driven and comparison to the
average driver
Another common assumption is that people buy fuel efficient cars because
they anticipate the need to drive more. We tested this assumption by asking
about the change of travel behavior after the purchase. From our data we
cannot deduce its validity: Only 14 out of 106 HEV-owners in the study say
they drive more now. We can only speculate on the reasons for this. Our
group of early adaptors probably differs from the mass market. It is possible
that the environmental sensibilisation prevalent among hybrid-owners motivates them to drive less. Again, cost does not seem to be the prime motivator
for driving a gas-electric vehicle.
Purchase behavior
Not only is it important to know what kind of travel behavior is linked to
hybrid cars, but also how their availability affects purchase behavior. Did
the respondents jump vehicle classes when they purchased a hybrid? Tab.
6.13 shows the type of car traded in for the hybrid and the hybrid vehicles
by vehicle class. The numbers printed in bold indicate the cases in which
owners purchased an HEV that was smaller than the car they previously
owned. The numbers printed in italics indicate the opposite case. They
reveal that indeed a sizeable group chose to jump vehicle classes from larger
to smaller. We assume that this is because only a limited range of HEV
110
Type of car traded in for the HEV
Subcompact
Compact
Midsize
Luxury
SUV, Pick-Up
or Mini-Van
HEV owned
Subcompact
-
1
0
0
2
by vehicle
Compact
5
27
13
6
24
class
Luxury
-
-
1
-
1
SUV,Pick-Up
1
3
1
-
5
or Mini-Van
Table 6.13: Vehicle class - HEVs and the vehicles traded in for them
models is on the market: Most of the interviewees owned a compact Toyota
Prius. Once more model diversity is given, we can expect this pattern to
change.
This supposition is sustained by the results from a question about the
potential attractiveness of hybrid SUVs. Out of the 195 respondents in the
study, 17.9 % would buy such a car in any case and 41 % would buy it, if
it got excellent gas mileage. Concerns have been voiced already that part of
HEVs’ efficiency gains will ultimately be eaten up by a move towards bigger,
heavier vehicles. Our results show that this concern can not easily be refuted.
It seems as if hybrids’ better fuel economy might induce more people to buy
a SUV.
In sum, the findings from our empirical study of hybrid users demonstrate the role non-economic factors play in the early adoption of ecological
technologies. Due to the stability of the automobile regime, ecological innovations have to fulfill a lot of preconditions in order to be accepted: The
cultural vision of the car is very much fixed. But once these prerequisites are
given, it seems as if consumers are ready to accept some restrictions (higher
price, insecurity about battery life etc.) if they see a real advantage for society as a whole in the new technology. What can these findings teach us
about the right policy options for increasing hybrid diffusion?
111
Chapter 7
Policy implications
The right policies can induce consumers and producers to make the decision
for more sustainable technologies. Our analysis of the supply and the demand
side gives some indications as to the usefulness of certain measures to promote
hybrids.
7.1
A short assessment of available policy options and their efficiency
Externalities are defined as costs not included in the cost function of those
who use or manufacture a product. Transport has various externalities, e.g.
noise, accidents, pollution and excessive energy consumption. In our study,
we have concentrated on the last two effects. How useful are different policy measures in internalizing them? From the literature, different types of
measures emerge that can facilitate diffusion of green technologies (Button,
1990; Klemmer et al., 1999).
First, command and control measures promote environmental innovations either by defining requirements or by banning polluting substances or
techniques. Second, taxation measures render the production or use of sus-
112
tainable technologies less and the use of other technologies more expensive.
Consumers and producers will modify their behavior accordingly. Pigouvian
taxes have to be mentioned at this point: They are designed to make polluters pay for the full amount of external costs they are generating. Third,
subsidies accelerate diffusion by providing positive incentives for producers
and consumers. The fourth type of policies comprises so-called soft measures,
like information and product labelling.
The effectiveness of theses measures varies. From an economic viewpoint,
Pigouvian taxes are the most efficient policy tool. They make the polluter
pay directly and give incentives for behavioral changes. From a political
viewpoint, however, they are difficult to impose. Take the example of higher
fuel taxes: Because the right to cheap individual mobility is so engrained in
peoples’ heads, proposing a sizeable increase in fuel taxes is almost synonymous with political suicide. For this reason, politicians have tended to favor
command and control measures. They are easy to put into action and understandable for transport users. The downside is their inefficiency in economic
terms. Standards usually follow the ‘one size fits them all’-doctrine and are
often ill-adapted to local specifics. They also lack incentives to improve emissions or efficiency beyond the required level (Button, 1990). Subsidies are
similarly inefficient and similarly popular with policymakers. Here, the goal
is to stimulate demand for sustainable technologies by providing a monetary
incentive to potential buyers. These often voiced assumptions (Howitt and
Altshuler, 1999; Porter, 1999) about the public acceptance of transport policy
measures are confirmed in our study. Figure 6.6 (Chapter 5, pg. 109) shows
that the respondents are much less supportive of higher fuel taxes than of tax
breaks or tighter emission and fuel efficiency standards. Thus, the dilemma
is that the most efficient policy measures encounter the fiercest opposition.
Still, it is possible to deduce some policy recommendations from our
analysis of the present situation of hybrid technology. They are desirable,
but their realization will depend on the political will to impose them. Our
113
policy proposals are twofold: Most importantly, commercialization of hybrid
technology has to be forced. The most promising policies are Pigouvian taxes
on fuel and pollution as well as reforms of standards and subsidies. The other
important field of policy action should be to exploit hybrids full potential,
for example by offering a plug-in option.
7.2
Forcing hybrids’ commercialization
Commercialization forcing consists in helping a viable technology overcome
barriers to mass diffusion. In contrast, technology forcing tries to help new
technologies enter the market at all. In the case of hybrids, the first step
towards diffusion has already been taken. Now, policies should be about
helping them to become a product of mass consumption.
7.2.1
The case for Pigouvian taxes
Several regulations are useful to force the commercialization of a new technology. One possibility is to make it more price competitive. As said above,
taxes are a powerful and efficient tool in this respect. They set clear signals
and have immediately noticeable effects on prices. Two pigouvian taxes are
conceivable with regard to hybrids: Policymakers can levy higher excise taxes
on fuel, or they can tax pollution. Economists agree that raising fuel prices
is a very effective way to simultaneously induce households to drive less and
to buy more fuel efficient cars (Porter, 1999; Fulton, 2004). As outlined in
Chapter 2, the USA currently has the lowest tax proportion in fuel prices
of all developed countries. Consequently, there is considerable leeway for
action. Notwithstanding the hopes set in higher fuel taxes, one thing is seen
critically by some authors (see for example Button, 1990): Excise taxes are
levied on the inputs into the transportation system, not the outputs. They
are related to the external effect of excessive fuel consumption, but there is
114
no direct link to pollution.1 This is why proposals for environmental taxation are increasingly being voiced. Some countries already use differential
registration taxes or vehicle use fees to put a lid on rising demand for bigger,
heavier cars. A tax that varies according to greenhouse gas and particulate
matter emissions would help hybrids and all other clean car technologies to
gain ground.
Manufacturers have argued that it is unfair to introduce such measures,
because it curtails ‘consumer sovereignty’. After all, if consumers want to buy
SUVs and Hummers, shouldn’t we let them? However, the manufacturers’
argument has a fundamental flaw: It disregards the fact that individual
choices can have unintended social consequences. All the individual wants
is a larger, more powerful, flashier car. But the aggregated choices of many
individuals lead to an overall increase in vehicle size and weight, and thus, to
an increase in overall fuel consumption and emissions. Because oil resources
are finite and climate change is impending, this development is not desirable
for society as a whole. It is the duty of the political system to correct the
unintended consequences arising from consumers’ taste for bigger and faster
cars. Because the social costs are so high (less safety, excessive pollution
and fuel consumption), society as a whole should come before individual
preferences. We should not be blind to the fact that unrestrained consumer
sovereignty is not necessarily sustainable or market efficient.
7.2.2
The case for a reform of existing standards and
subsidies
Standards and subsidies are also policy options that have to be discussed with
regard to commercialization forcing of hybrids. Standards are tailored to the
supply side. For every sales year, they set maximum emission and minimum
1
The new diesel engines, for example, are highly fuel efficient and the high European
fuel prices have led to a 50 % market share. But diesel cars are much more polluting than
gasoline cars - a circumstance that is not captured by excise taxes.
115
efficiency values that manufacturers have to attain. The CAFE standards
and the automobile pollution standards enjoy very high acceptance among
the American public. But they have been criticized for their inflexibility and
for the lack of incentives to exceed the norms (Lave and Lave, 1999; Porter,
1999). Another disadvantage are the numerous loopholes: CAFE has weaker
standards for light trucks than for cars, thereby providing incentives to shift
the sales mix towards heavier vehicles. A comparison with other industrialized countries shows that there are better ways to curb fuel consumption
and emissions. In Japan, the ‘Top Runner Program’ requires manufacturers
to reach, with a certain delay, the level attained by the best vehicle in a
weight class (Fulton, 2004). The EU has voluntary fuel economy agreements
with automakers. The merit of these two approaches is that manufacturers
are flexible in the methods they use to attain the goal and are stimulated
to do more than the absolutely necessary. If the US were to imitate the
example of Japan or Europe, it could make its system of standards more
effective. Among other efficient, clean automobile technologies, hybrid technology would profit from such an approach.
Last but not least, it is necessary to raise the question whether subsidies
will affect hybrid diffusion positively. Some comments in the open part of our
survey let us assume that tax breaks are largely welcomed. This is hardly
surprising - after all, everybody is happy to get a little financial support.
The problem with the current design of tax breaks for hybrid and other
green vehicle technologies is that they do not consider the actual increase
in efficiency or decrease in emissions. Instead, they only look to the fact
whether hybrid technology is incorporated. Thus, a buyer can get a tax
credit for the purchase of the Lexus RX400 - a luxury car which gets a
combined fuel efficiency of 31 mpg. Seeing that this is only 3.5 mpg above
the 2005 CAFE standards, the question is whether such a car really merits
a tax break for fuel efficiency.2 Subsidies should consider the actual energy
2
Flex-fuel cars are another good example: Manufacturers receive subsidies for the pro-
116
and/or environmental advantages of a car and not merely be based on the
technology a car incorporates.
Policy makers also have to prevent that hybrid technology goes the way
other efficiency increasing technologies have gone before it. It is increasingly
used to boost performance instead of fuel efficiency (New York Times, 2005b).
If policy makers want to avoid that hybrids’ efficiency gains are canceled out
in the race for more performance, they have to take measures that curb
demand for faster, more powerful cars.
This short discussion shows that only a combination of different policies
can make the US transport system more sustainable. One of the most important lessons from the shortcomings of current policies is strictness in goals,
but flexibility in means. The measures discussed are not unique to hybrids,
but they could well help them to attain wider diffusion as part of a general
transformation towards more sustainability.
7.3
Exploiting hybrids’ full potential
Not only is it important that hybrids gain wider diffusion, but also that their
full potential is realized. On the one hand, hybrids apparently make drivers
change their driving style towards more efficiency. Can we learn from this for
the design of other cars? On the other hand, HEVs would offer even better
efficiency, if they could be connected to the grid.
7.3.1
The case for electronic fuel efficiency displays in
all vehicles
Technology is important in the endeavor for a sustainable transport system.
But we cannot rely on it alone: There is no technological fix for social problems. Fuel consumption and emissions are not determined by the type of car
duction of cars that can run on ethanol as well as on gasoline. But most consumers are
not even aware that their car is a flex-fuel vehicle and simply use gasoline.
117
purchased alone - much more so, they depend on the way this car is used.
Together, the purchase and usage choices of millions of individuals add up to
overall fuel consumption and emissions. Although HEVs are a step towards
sustainability, they are only a technical solution for a problem that has to
be attacked on a behavioral level, too. The term travel behavior often refers
to the distances covered. But it also includes things like driving style. An
efficient driving style can save up to 10 % of fuel (UNEP, 2005b). The interesting thing about the Toyota Prius is that it motivates owners to change the
way they drive. There is circumstantial evidence from our survey for this.
Consider the following quotes:
“The most important thing about my hybrid vehicle is the instantaneous mileage meter built into my console - it has changed
my driving habits by keeping me always aware of my current fuel
economy. I think all vehicles, hybrid or not, could vastly benefit
from the inclusion of this feature.”
“As the Prius taught me how to maximize the mileage I could
achieve, by monitoring the consumption screen, I gradually became aware of a sense of calm associated with the NEW getting
from here to there.”
A look at any internet site committed to hybrid cars confirms that the
Prius’s big fuel consumption screen gets a lot of attention. It gives the
momentary mileage and shows whether the car is in electric or combustion
mode. It seems as if careful observation of the screen teaches drivers which
driving style is most efficient. Apparently, among hybrid owners, a high
mileage is a source of pride (Koerner, 2005). This is interesting because it
might have implications for other cars, too. The screen supplies immediately
available information about fuel economy. Thus, it raises consciousness about
the actual amount of fuel used and incites consumers to keep an eye on what
kind of driving results in high or low consumption.
118
The importance of information is noted in the literature on energy consumption behavior (for an overview of research see Krarup and Russell, 2005).
But often, information is not immediately available in a situation where it
could influence behavior. With the fuel efficiency screen, this is not the case.
If it became obligatory to equip all cars with such a screen, maybe driving
styles would become more efficient. Unfortunately, in the absence of quantitative data, this remains speculation. But it is a point worth considering
and an interesting field for further research.
7.3.2
The case for a plug-in option
Our second proposal for the exploitation of hybrids’ potential is to make
them rechargeable from the electricity grid. None of the available models
offers a plug-in option. But with a battery range of 20 miles, a third of daily
driving could be covered in electric mode. At 60 miles, most of the driving
could be done this way (Friedman, 2004). Because energy plants are more
efficient than the internal combustion engine, sizeable energy savings would
occur. The environmental impact is more of a concern, because most of the
electricity plants in the US use coal. But if HEVs were recharged from a
renewable energy grid, the benefits could be enormous.
At least among the early adopters of hybrid-technology, an extended electric range is seen as desirable. Asked whether they thought hybrids lacked
any essential attributes, 47 respondents in our study said they wanted a
‘plug-in option’, although we did not specifically ask for this aspect. Unfortunately, automakers have worked very hard to convince consumers that
hybrid-electric vehicles do not need to be plugged in. Tinkering with a hybrid to extend its electric-only range is punished with the loss of vehicle
guaranty. Evidently, the effort to differentiate hybrid from electric vehicles
is due to the failure of the latter. Electric cars’ limited range is seen as the
main reason for their inability to catch on with consumers. But an extended
electric autonomy would not result in a restriction of hybrids’ overall range.
119
They dispose of a combustion engine, which could satisfy the driving needs
exceeding the battery capacity.
By distancing themselves from any association with electric vehicles, manufacturers demonstrate the stability of the automobile technical trajectory.
The minds of engineers and marketing specialists are very much set on the
combustion engine. The general assumption is that every car that is too far
removed from the ideal of Canzler and Knie’s (1994) ‘race and travel limousine’ has no chance of succeeding on the market. In an industry sector with
such a high degree of lock-in into established technology visions, it is high
time for some unorthodox thinking. Manufacturers do not seem willing to
make a plug-in option available. But the problem here is one of commercialization forcing, not technology forcing, which makes things considerably
easier. When the California’s CARB introduced a quota for zero emission
vehicles in the 90s, it had in mind that this would force manufacturers to
build marketable electric vehicles. The approach did not work, because neither the technology nor the consumers were ready. But in plug-in hybrids’
case, the technology is already working and it is on hand, says Danny Hakim
(2005b) of the New York Times:
“[. . . ] the technology for these vehicles is available now to the
point that people are building them in garages.”
It would not make a huge difference in the manufacturing process to
provide HEVs with a plug. There is no doubt that plug-in hybrids are technologically possible. And they are worth it: Energy savings for a hybrid with
60 miles electric range could amount to 85 % (Jones, 2005). Therefore, policy
makers should find a way to make manufacturers produce them. A quota
system’s disadvantage is the lack of incentives to exceed the expected quantities. A more efficient system would reward the production of such vehicles
(e.g. with a tax break) once an obligatory quota is fulfilled or introduce a
trading system.
120
7.3.3
The case for soft measures
The policies mentioned above are influencing demand mostly via economic
(dis)incentives and command and control regulations. But our survey indicates that soft measures are also of importance: It is necessary to frame
hybrid technology in a way that makes people feel good about using them.
If the media, policymakers and manufacturers can create an image of hybrid technology that conveys social gratification, a lot could be won. The
magic formula is ‘Eat your cake and have it, too’. With regard to hybrids,
this means convincing consumers that they do not have to sacrifice performance, safety or comfort in order to consume more ecologically. Information
campaigns are necessary to this end.
The same goes for the public perception of hybrid vehicles’ problem solving capacity. Sensibility for environmental pollution or concern about energy
dependence are not enough to interest consumers in hybrid technology. They
also have to perceive HEVs as a solution to these problems to display heightened interest in them. Again, in the public opinion, hybrids have to be
defined as offering an answer to these issues.
In sum, the measures described above could make hybrids more competitive with conventional vehicle technology in the eyes of manufacturers, render
them more attractive for consumers and exploit their full potential.
121
Chapter 8
Conclusion
Hybrid cars have the technological and economic potential to alleviate the
lack of sustainability in the transport system. Momentarily, they are still
in an early diffusion stage. Our assessment of regulatory environments, automakers’ capabilities and user attitudes has shown that although some barriers remain towards mass diffusion, they are not insurmountable. Under the
given circumstances and with the right policies, it is likely that hybrids will
have a positive impact on the transport system.
One caveat has to be voiced, however: Without external correction of
the market, increased efficiency is eaten up by consumption. Jevons (1866,
excerpts from Ch. I and Ch. VII) was the first to demonstrate this by means
of the coal question in 19th century England:
“It is very commonly urged, that the failing supply of coal will be
met by new modes of using it efficiently and economically. The
amount of useful work got out of coal may be made to increase
manifold, while the amount of coal consumed is stationary or diminishing. [. . . ] It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that
the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth. [. . . ] It is the very economy
of its use which leads to its extensive consumption.”
122
The logic behind Jevon’s argument is that increased energy efficiency
results in lower production cost, which in turn increases demand. In the
end, the amount of energy consumed is equal to or higher than the original
amount. Because the correlation between increased efficiency and increased
consumption is not evident, it became known as ‘Jevon’s paradox’. If increases in energy efficiency do not result in net savings, does this mean that
hybrid cars are superfluous anyway?
The answer is no. First of all, hybrids also have environmental benefits
and they are a stepping stone towards fuel cell technology. In addition, the
situation described by Jevon changes as soon as depletion draws nearer. A
barrel of oil could soon cost as much as 200 $. Under such circumstances, the
less oil dependent the transport system, the better. But most importantly,
Jevon speaks about a situation where the market is left to its own devices. In
the absence of government intervention, efficient technologies really increase
consumption.
All of this makes sound policy measures all the more important. Hybrid
technology can do its share to render transport more sustainable, but it is
only part of the solution. Ultimately, a change of behavior has to come about.
Otherwise, motorized transport will fall victim to its own success.
123
Chapter 9
Résumé: Les voitures hybrides
- succès sans précédent et effets
sur le système de transport
américain
Les voitures hybrides connaissent un succès sans précédent sur le marché
des ‘voitures vertes’, et ceci ne reste pas sans effet sur le système de transport américain. Ces véhicules combinent moteur à combustion et moteur
électrique. Leur efficacité énergétique est supérieure à celle des voitures traditionnelles et leur incidence sur l’environnement est plus modérée. Elles
pourraient contribuer à surmonter les défis auxquels le système de transport
américain est confronté : consommation de carburant et production de gaz à
effet de serre parmi les plus élevées du monde, et extrême pollution de l’air
dans les régions urbaines. Les principes du développement durable ne sont
pas respectés dans le secteur américain du transport. De ce fait, le succès
des voitures hybrides est fortement souhaitable. Elles semblent être sur la
bonne voie pour atteindre une diffusion plus large.
Toutefois, l’essor précoce des voitures hybrides ne va pas de soi. His124
toriquement, aucune voiture alternative n’a jamais été capable de concurrencer les automobiles à moteur à combustion. En outre, le coût élevé de ces
voitures, associé au faible coût de l’essence aux Etats-Unis, a pour effet que
l’achat d’un tel véhicule ne paraı̂t pas rationnel sur le plan économique. Comment expliquer alors le succès extraordinaire de ces voitures sur le marché
américain de l’automobile? Ni l’expérience historique, ni la théorie économique
ne parviennent à fournir de réponse à cette question. Pour parvenir à une
explication satisfaisante, il faut donc faire appel à d’autres facteurs, tels
que les pratiques sociales, les habitudes culturelles et le discours public sur
l’automobile. Quels sont les effets de ces aspects sur la diffusion des voitures
écologiques et sur la viabilité du système de transport américain? Et qu’estce que cela implique pour les politiques publiques de soutien aux technologies
écologiques?
Dans un premier temps, nous analyserons dans quelle mesure les voitures hybrides offrent une solution technologique à un système de transport
américain en crise. Puis nous examinerons les conditions d’un succès permanent: l’état actuel de l’acceptation de cette technologie exige de bonnes
politiques publiques afin d’obtenir un système de transport en accord avec
les critères du développement durable.
9.1
Les voitures hybrides offrent une solution
technologique face à la crise du système
de transport américain
La mobilité à l’américaine n’est pas viable sur le long terme: non seulement
le système de transport consomme trop d’énergie, mais en plus il nuit à
l’environnement. La nouvelle technologie automobile des voitures électrohybrides pourrait représenter une alternative.
125
9.1.1
La société automobile et son impact sur la consommation d’énergie et sur l’environnement
La forte croissance de la mobilité individuelle accentue les conséquences
négatives du transport motorisé.
Le développement de la mobilité motorisée et ses effets globaux
Les sociétés modernes sont caractérisées par le développement rapide de la
mobilité. Le transport motorisé fait partie intégrante de ce processus. Sa
croissance est favorisée par trois aspects: la géographie de l’habitat humain,
les conditions socio-économiques et l’état du système de transport. C’est
principalement la dispersion spatiale des activités humaines dans les sociétés
occidentales qui fait que la demande de transport augmente. Autrefois, les
lieux de travail, d’habitation et de loisirs étaient concentrés au même endroit.
Aujourd’hui, la plupart des personnes doivent couvrir une certaine distance
afin de relier leurs différents lieux de vie. Le développement des banlieues
américaines en est le signe le plus évident. Etant donné la structure dispersée
des villes modernes, la demande de mobilité individuelle est satisfaite en
grande partie par la voiture. Ainsi, la distance totale effectuée augmente,
mais aussi le pourcentage des trajets en voiture (voir Fig. 2.1, pg. 6). En
2001, aux États-Unis, 86.3 % de la distance parcourue était effectuée en
voiture (DOT/NHA, 2004).
Le deuxième facteur important qui entre en jeu dans l’accroissement de
la mobilité est la prospérité. Plus les conditions socio-économiques sont favorables, plus le pourcentage de voitures par habitant est élevé, et plus le
nombre de kilomètres effectués en voiture, en comparaison avec les autres
moyens de transport, est important. Les sociétés occidentales sont presque
totalement motorisées. Bien sûr, il existe aussi un lien étroit entre l’état de
l’infrastructure routière d’une part, et le nombre de voitures et la distance
parcourue d’autre part.
126
Le fort accroissement de la mobilité individuelle n’est pas sans incidence
sur l’environnement et le marché de l’énergie. Le secteur du transport dépend
en totalité du pétrole, et il en constitue le principal facteur de l’accroissement
de la consommation. Alors que la demande d’énergie du système de transport ne cesse d’augmenter, la consommation d’énergie de l’industrie et des
ménages a quant à elle diminué. On estime que la demande de pétrole
provenant du transport motorisé augmentera de 50 % dans les pays de
l’OCDE entre 2000 et 2030 (OECD/IEA, 2004a). Pour les pays occidentaux, cela signifie aussi une dépendance énergétique accrue.
La conséquence la plus préoccupante reste la possibilité d’un effet-ciseaux
entre l’offre et la demande. Alors que la hausse de la demande mondiale
de pétrole est estimée à 1,6 % par an, l’incertitude concernant les réserves
pétrolières disponibles augmente, et la question de l’accès à ces réserves
est source d’inquiétude. Les pronostics sur ces réserves diffèrent largement:
l’Agence Internationale de l’Énergie (OECD/IEA, 2004a), par exemple, estime que la production de pétrole n’atteindra son point culminant qu’en 2030.
D’autres sources (ASPO, 2005; Vidal, 2005) placent au contraire ce moment
bien plus tôt, avant 2010. L’or noir ne tarira certes que lentement, mais il
deviendra plus rare, et donc plus cher.
A court terme, c’est aussi la répartition géographique du pétrole qui
inquiète. Les réserves sont concentrées dans des régions politiquement et
économiquement instables. Le trop petit nombre de raffineries dans le monde
ajoute à la pénurie de carburant. Tout cela a pour effet que le prix du baril
a fortement augmenté depuis 2002. En 2005, il a plusieurs fois dépassé la
barre des 60 $. Selon le rapport de deux banques d’investissement (BBC,
2005; Rubin, 2005), il pourrait atteindre plus de 100 $ dans les années à
venir. Le secteur du transport devra d’abord faire face à une énorme hausse
des prix, et à terme, à la disparition de cette ressource.
Le mauvais bilan énergétique du transport motorisé américain ne constitue cependant pas l’unique problème. Il existe également des effets néfastes
127
sur l’environnement. Le rejet de gaz nocifs nuit à la flore, à la faune et à la
santé publique. La pollution de l’air, par des substances comme le dioxyde
de carbone, le monoxyde de carbone et les particules de suie, est la source de
nombreuses maladies respiratoires et cardiaques. En outre, les émissions produites par les voitures contribuent au réchauffement de la planète, phénomène
dont l’existence n’est plus scientifiquement disputée (Hansen et al., 2005;
Saltzman et Young, 2005). Le débat politique continue pourtant - jusqu’à
présent, tous les efforts fournis à l’échelon international n’ont pas réussi à
faire naı̂tre une action concertée, afin de faire face au changement climatique. Le protocole de Kyoto sera voué à l’échec aussi longtemps que les
États-Unis ne l’auront pas ratifié.
Les véhicules motorisés continuent ainsi à émettre une grande quantité
de gaz à effet de serre. Après le secteur de la production électrique, c’est le
secteur du transport qui est le plus grand producteur de dioxyde de carbone,
et le seul secteur dont le taux d’émission continue à augmenter (Ortmeyer et
Pillay, 2001). Si la concentration de CO2 dans l’air doublait, le coût macroéconomique de l’effet de serre pourrait atteindre les quelques cent milliards de
dollars par an (voir Tab. 2.2, pg. 15). L’Humanité paie et continuera de payer
encore très cher le coût de la mobilité individuelle: le système de transport
actuel est incompatible avec l’objectif du développement durable. Et cela est
particulièrement vrai pour les Etats-Unis, où la mobilité individuelle est la
plus importante au monde.
Le système de transport aux Etats-Unis et ses effets environnementaux et énergétiques
Le système de transport américain est caractérisé par une forte dépendance
envers la voiture et par des très longues distances effectuées par tête. Mise à
part une mortalité routière plus élevée qu’en Europe, c’est surtout l’énorme
consommation de carburant qui est cause d’inquiétude. Entre 1990 et 2001,
cette dernière a augmenté de 19,7 % (OECD/IEA, 2002b). Les États-Unis
128
sont aujourd’hui le plus grand importateur mondial de pétrole. La hausse
prévisionnelle de la demande est estimée à 1 % par an; parallèlement, la production domestique baissera de 0,2 % chaque année (OECD/IEA, 2002a).
De ce fait, la dépendance énergétique américaine ira en s’accentuant. Aujourd’hui, les importations s’élèvent à 50 % de la demande totale; en 2020,
elles atteindront 63 % (OECD/IEA, 2002b).
Les Américains jouissent des plus bas prix du carburant parmi tous les
pays industrialisés. En 1998 par exemple, le prix de l’essence aux États-Unis
était moitié moins élevé qu’en France, qu’en Angleterre et qu’en Allemagne
(Ortmeyer et Pillay, 2001). Même si depuis, les prix nominaux ont augmenté,
en dollars réels, ils ne sont pas plus élevés qu’au début des années 1980 (voir
Fig. 2.4, pg. 19). Bien sûr, le prix du carburant aux Etats-Unis dépend du
marché mondial, et la hausse récente du prix du baril a eu un effet sur la
consommation. Mais le bas niveau des prix, comparé à celui des autres pays
industrialisés, résulte du fait que le taux d’imposition sur l’essence est faible.
Naturellement, cela favorise la consommation. C’est pourquoi il n’est
pas surprenant que les Américains soient les plus grands conducteurs au
monde, et que le nombre de véhicules par habitant soit le plus élevé sur la
planète. L’intensité énergétique des voitures américaines est également la
plus importante du monde (voir Tab. 2.3, pg. 18). La comparaison avec
d’autres pays démontre qu’il existe un énorme potentiel pour économiser
l’énergie dans le système de transport américain. Mais cette opportunité n’a
jusqu’à présent pas été saisie.
La deuxième crise affectant le système de transport américain est celle
de ses effets sur l’environnement. Alors que le pays ne compte que 4 % de
la population mondiale, il produit presque un quart des émissions totales
de CO2 (UNFCCC/UNEP, 2002). Le système de transport n’est pas seulement responsable en grande partie de ces émissions, il est aussi la principale
cause de leur hausse: si aucune nouvelle régulation n’est mise en œuvre, le
rejet de gaz nocifs pourrait s’accroı̂tre de 1872 millions de tonnes en 2005
129
à 2796 millions en 2025 (DOE/EIA, 2005b). Malgré cela, le gouvernement
américain refuse d’introduire des lois plus strictes, et le Congrès n’a pas encore ratifié le protocole de Kyoto. La raison avancée est que cela nuirait
à la croissance économique. Le gouvernement met aussi en doute l’étendue
réelle des effets financiers sur le changement climatique. Cependant, les compagnies d’assurance prédisent que les États-Unis devraient bientôt dépenser
quelques 70 milliards de dollars par an pour combattre les dommages causés
par l’effet de serre (Munich Re, 2001).
L’autre problème environnemental lié au transport est la pollution de
l’air. Les grands centres urbains de Californie et de la côte est souffrent du
smog. Un système de restriction d’émission par les voitures est en place,
mais il ne suffit pas à combattre de manière effective la pollution. Plus de 60
millions d’Américains habitent des régions dont la qualité de l’air ne satisfait
pas aux standards du ministère américain de l’environnement (OECD/WEP,
2000).
En conclusion, on peut dire que le système de transport américain est
organisé de telle sorte que ses effets externes ne sont pas internalisés. Le
développement durable n’est donc pas acquis dans ce secteur. A l’heure
actuelle, la crise n’a pas encore atteint son point culminant, mais les problèmes
s’accumulent déjà. Il est grand temps de trouver un moyen de rendre le
système de transport américain plus durable. Il faut pour cela réduire la
consommation d’énergie et les émissions de gaz nocifs. Et une des voies possibles pour atteindre cet objectif réside dans l’introduction de technologies
automobiles alternatives.
9.1.2
Une technologie écologique au succès surprenant:
les voitures hybrides
La technologie par propulsion hybride est une invention écologique, dans ce
sens qu’elle améliore le bilan énergétique et environnemental d’une voiture,
en comparaison avec un moteur à combustion. Aux États-Unis, les véhicules
130
hybrides ont rencontré un succès inattendu depuis leur introduction en 2001.
Le bilan positif des voitures hybrides dans les domaines énergétique, environnemental et économique
La technologie hybride combine un moteur à combustion avec un moteur
électrique. Un système de contrôle électronique permet d’alterner entre ces
deux modes de propulsion. Contrairement aux voitures traditionnelles, les
voitures hybrides sont capables de rouler uniquement à l’aide du moteur
électrique. Et contrairement aux voitures électriques, il n’est pas nécessaire
de les brancher à une prise de courant. On distingue plusieurs stades d’hybridation
(Friedman, 2004):
• Idle-off: Ce terme anglais signifie que le moteur s’éteint automatiquement dès que la voiture s’arrête. Quand on appuie sur l’accélérateur,
la voiture redémarre sans qu’il y ait besoin de tourner la clé. On appelle ce type de véhicule une voiture hybride ‘micro’ (en anglais: micro
hybrid).
• Régénération de l’énergie des freins: L’énergie libérée en freinant est
conservée en vue de recharger les piles.
• Réduction du moteur: Grâce au moteur électrique, le moteur à combustion peut être plus petit. Un véhicule incorporant ces trois technologies
est appelé voiture hybride ‘modérée’ (mild hybrid).
• Moteur électrique autonome: Si une voiture hybride dispose d’un moteur électrique suffisamment puissant pour propulser la voiture sans
utiliser le moteur à combustion, on l’appelle voiture hybride ‘totale’
(full hybrid). Le mode électrique est utilisé à vitesse modérée, quand
il est le plus effectif.
• Autonomie prolongée en mode électrique: Le dernier stade d’hybridation consiste à équiper la voiture d’une fiche de contact, afin de
131
la recharger par le réseau électrique. C’est ce qui est appelé voiture
hybride ‘à option de rechargement’ (plugin hybrid). Jusqu’ici, aucun
constructeur n’a lancé une telle voiture sur le marché.
Le bilan énergétique des voitures hybrides est bien supérieur à celui
des voitures traditionnelles. L’efficience thermique du moteur à combustion n’atteint que 20 %. Ce dernier est destiné à supporter les occasions
où sa capacité la plus grande est requise (lors des dépassements, en montagne, ou en cas de chargement). Mais la plupart du temps, il tourne à la
moitié de sa capacité. La voiture hybride se contente quant à elle d’un plus
petit moteur à combustion, assisté d’un moteur électrique si besoin. Une
voiture hybride consomme également moins de carburant, car d’une part elle
capture l’énergie libérée en freinant, et d’autre part elle s’éteint automatiquement quand elle reste sur place, au lieu de faire tourner le moteur à vide.
On estime que les voitures hybrides les plus sophistiquées pourront atteindre une efficience énergétique jusqu’à 2,5 fois supérieure à celle des voitures
traditionnelles (Friedman, 2004).
Parce que les voitures hybrides consomment moins de carburant, elles
produisent également moins d’émission. Toutes les voitures hybrides sur le
marché remplissent les conditions des standards d’émission les plus strictes.
Une voiture électrohybride économise plus de 40 tonnes de gaz à effet de serre
par an (Jefferson and Barnard, 2002). Elle est particulièrement avantageuse
en ville: à moins de 25 km/h, elle roule en mode électrique, sans aucun rejet
de gaz nocif.
Sur le plan économique, la demande de voitures hybrides ne cesse de
croı̂tre. Malgré une faible part actuelle de marché (0,5 %), le taux élevé de
croissance laisse présumer une évolution. A titre d’exemple, la demande de
la Toyota Prius a augmenté de 71 % entre 2003 et 2004 (Inoue, 2004). Les
autres modèles disponibles sur le marché sont la Toyota Highlander, la Honda
Insight, la Honda Civic Hybrid, la Honda Accord Hybrid et la Ford Escape.
Le fait que l’industrie automobile lancera 20 modèles hybrides sur le marché
132
d’ici 2009 démontre qu’elle compte sur l’intérêt prononcé des consommateurs
pour une telle technologie (pour une liste complète des modèles annoncés voir
Tab. 3.2, pg. 33).
Néanmoins, les opinions divergent quant au futur des voitures hybrides.
Le ministère américain de l’énergie (DOE/EIA, 2005b) n’évalue leur demande
qu’à 5,3 % du marché en 2020, tandis qu’une analyse menée par une firme de
conseil en entreprise dans le secteur automobile (Greene et al., 2004) pronostique jusqu’à 14,9 % de part de marché en 2012. Le sort des voitures hybrides
dépendra de différents facteurs, dont le prix de l’essence et la législation sur
l’environnement. Il est donc très difficile à prédire. Mais on constate déjà le
potentiel des voitures hybrides. Avec des mesures politiques adéquates, elles
seront en mesure de faire la différence.
Avant cela, leur plus grand défi à relever reste leur prix. En raison de leur
technologie complexe, les voitures hybrides sont plus chères que les voitures
traditionnelles de même standard. En revanche, elles sont très économiques.
Ainsi, le propriétaire d’une voiture hybride dépensera moins d’argent dans
l’essence. Mais le tableau 3.5 (pg. 40) démontre que le prix des voitures
hybrides n’est pas encore compétitif. En outre, l’incertitude demeure quant
à la durée de vie des piles, qui pourraient être très chères à remplacer.
On s’attendait donc à de faibles records de ventes des voitures hybrides.
Mais, comme on l’a déjà souligné, la croissance de la demande est au contraire très forte. Dès 2008, le marché des véhicules hybrides dépassera celui
de toutes les autres voitures à technologie alternative (DOE/EIA, 2005c).
D’un point de vue historique, ce démarrage prometteur des voitures hybrides
est également surprenant. Jamais une technologie alternative en matière automobile n’a rencontré un tel succès. Malgré la forte volonté politique des
années 1990, les véhicules électriques n’ont jamais atteint une diffusion de
masse.
Les perspectives ne sont pas aussi mauvaises pour les voitures hybrides,
mais leur faible compétitivité au niveau des prix fait que la théorie économique
133
standard ne pronostique qu’un faible engouement pour ces voitures. Cette
théorie est fondée sur le postulat que l’acteur économique dispose d’une information parfaite, qu’il est capable de classer ses préférences et qu’il maximise
toujours son utilité. De ce point de vue, acheter une voiture hybride ne paraı̂t
pas rationnel. Mais si l’on confronte les prédictions de la théorie économique
avec la réalité, on se rend compte qu’elles divergent l’une de l’autre. Il
semblerait donc qu’il y ait d’autres facteurs intervenant dans l’achat d’une
voiture hybride.
Les apports de la sociologie de la technologie et de la consommation
La sociologie de la technologie et de la consommation permet de comprendre
pourquoi les voitures hybrides connaissent un tel succès. Tout d’abord, il faut
prendre en compte le caractère social de tout artéfact matériel. Tout objet
est formé par les interactions sociales et est donc doté d’une signification
sociale. La construction sociale de la technologie n’ a pas été acceptée dès le
début de la sociologie. Les ouvrages de Karl Marx et de Jacques Ellul (1954,
1977, 1988) montrent une vision de la technologie comme force extérieure,
ayant sa propre logique. En sociologie contemporaine par contre, le caractère
social des objets technologiques est de plus en plus reconnu. Lors du processus d’innovation, l’influence du social sur la technologie est aujourd’hui vue
comme primordiale. Il existe un grand nombre d’analyses sur l’aspect social
du succès ou de la faillite d’une technologie.1 Le travail de Bijker (1987) et
de Pinch et Bijker (1987) doit être évoqué, car ils ont été parmi les premiers
à théoriser la construction sociale des objets.
Malheureusement, toutes ces analyses se bornent aux stades premiers du
processus d’innovation. Il faut donc se tourner vers la sociologie de la consommation pour examiner le stade de la diffusion. En Europe, cette branche
de la sociologie a traditionnellement porté son attention sur les questions
1
voir par exemple Kline et Pinch, 1996: la construction sociale des voitures; Knie, 1991:
l’évolution de la machine à écrire; Knie, 1994: la faillite du moteur de Wankel; Kunkle,
1995: le développement du microscope électronique
134
de différenciation sociale. Pierre Bourdieu (1979) en est le représentant le
plus connu. Un autre thème de prédilection de la sociologie européenne
porte sur la signification symbolique de la consommation (Baudrillard, 1986).
Aux États-Unis, l’accent s’est déplacé vers l’influence de la consommation
sur l’identité (Moorhouse, 1983; Otnes, 1988) et vers ses conséquences sur
l’environnement et les relations sociales (Krarup et Russell, 2005; Myers et
Kent, 2004; Ritzer, 2001).
Un point de vue commun à toutes ces études a émergé: la structure de la
consommation est une structure sociale, ayant des conséquences sur les interactions sociales. Cela contraste avec le point de vue purement économique,
qui ne voit dans la consommation que l’achat et l’utilisation de biens. Ainsi,
la sociologie de la consommation traite des interdépendances entre l’utilisation
d’objets matériels et le monde social. L’acte de consommation est influencé
par des règles sociales, des valeurs et des institutions. Réciproquement, il
détermine en partie nos relations sociales. La sociologie de la technologie devrait s’inspirer de la sociologie de la consommation pour expliquer de façon
plus pertinente les obstacles à l’innovation.
L’approche théorique suivante permet de combiner les concepts ci-dessus
discutés: Il s’agit de la théorie des régimes socio-techniques. Un tel régime
détermine les représentations de ce qui est faisable et désirable pour une technologie. Le concept a été inventé par Nelson et Winter (1977) et développé
par Dosi (1982). Là où les deux premiers mettent l’accent sur la sélection
par le marché, Dosi souligne l’influence des institutions, en tant que moteur de sélection entre les différentes alternatives technologiques. Il a créé la
notion de trajectoire technologique, qui décrit une voie de développement,
déterminée par une certaine façon de résoudre les problèmes technologiques.
Selon lui, la technologie comporte toujours la perception d’un nombre limité
d’alternatives technologiques.
Hard et Knie (2001) tentent d’élargir le concept de régime technologique.
Ils soutiennent la thèse que la réussite d’une technologie dépend de son adap-
135
tation à la structure juridique, aux réseaux organisationnels, ainsi qu’aux
discours publiques. Il faut aussi qu’elle soit en harmonie avec les attentes
et les habitudes comportementales des consommateurs. Le mérite de cette
approche est qu’elle introduit le concept d’environnements sélecteurs, tout en
incluant les aspects culturels et sociaux. Pour autant, les auteurs négligent
la construction d’un modèle causal, et se bornent aux stades précoces de la
diffusion.
L’approche des régimes socio-techniques omet par ailleurs la force du
statu quo dans la concurrence entre technologies. Une nouvelle technologie
doit s’établir en réaction aux précédentes. C’est particulièrement vrai pour le
système de transport: la vision technologique de ce qui constitue une voiture
est très statique. Ainsi, jamais une technologie alternative en matière automobile n’a pu s’imposer face au moteur à combustion. Différents chercheurs
scandinaves et allemands (Canzler et Knie, 1994; Canzler, 1999; Dierkes,
1994; Dierkes et al., 1996; Hård et Knie, 2001; Knie, 1994, 1997 ) ont théorisé
ce phénomène, sous le nom de ‘vision culturelle établie’ d’une technologie.
Les images, les buts et les attentes liés à une technologie convergent autour
de ce dernier. Elle comprend les expériences passées ainsi que les attentes
concernant son développement futur.
Canzler et Knie (1994) utilisent cette approche afin d’expliquer la stabilité
de la configuration de l’automobile telle qu’on la connaı̂t aujourd’hui. Très
tôt dans son histoire, les éléments indispensables d’une voiture s’établirent de
façon stable. Autrefois, la compétition automobile était la première fonction
de la voiture, et le moteur à combustion répondait alors le mieux aux propriétés mécaniques indispensables à la course: vitesse, accélération et rayon
d’action. Ainsi, ce type de moteur a pu s’établir dès le début du 20e siècle,
et sa prédominance n’a jamais été remise en question. Aujourd’hui, il est
au cœur du système de transport, et l’infrastructure, les lois ainsi que les
pratiques sociales contribuent à renforcer sa prépondérance.
L’approche des visions culturelles comprend les caractéristiques d’une
136
technologie non pas comme objectivement bonnes ou mauvaises, mais spécifie
au contraire que les avantages et inconvénients d’une technologie dépendent
toujours du contexte. Ainsi, dans le contexte des courses automobiles, le
moteur à combustion était le mieux adapté et est devenu la configuration
dominante. Aujourd’hui, ce que le public attend d’une voiture n’est pas fondamentalement différent de la configuration de la première Mercedes. C’est la
stabilité de nos attentes, qui fait que toute alternative technologique a du mal
à s’imposer. Ici, les voitures hybrides sont les premiers véhicules alternatifs
à avoir le potentiel nécessaire pour remplacer les voitures conventionnelles.
L’étude de la littérature sociologique a montré que l’approche des systèmes
socio-techniques - avec leurs environnements sélecteurs - est adéquate pour
analyser le développement des technologies alternatives en matière automobile. Il reste cependant des lacunes - certes modestes - à combler: cette approche met trop l’accent sur l’offre et le stade primaire de l’innovation. Elle
tend à négliger les attitudes des utilisateurs, les aspects non-économiques et
l’influence du statu quo technologique. De ce fait, il est nécessaire d’introduire
ces aspects. Il est probable que le démarrage rapide des voitures hybrides
s’explique par leur bonne adaptation aux différents environnements sélecteurs.
Toute nouvelle technologie doit trouver sa place dans le système socio-technique
en place. Apparemment, la technologie hybride pourrait réussir dans ce
processus. Elle cherche actuellement à s’adapter aux dimensions les plus
importantes de la sélection: les dimensions économique, politique, sociale,
culturelle et institutionnelle.
Nous avons vu que le bilan énergétique et environnemental des voitures
hybrides est positif, et que leurs perspectives économiques sont relativement
bonnes. L’espoir placé dans ces voitures, pour transformer le système de
transport, n’est donc pas vain. Toutefois, leur impact réel dépendra d’un côté
de leur acceptation par l’opinion publique et de l’autre côté de l’adéquation
des mesures politiques. Il faut donc analyser plus en détail l’adaptation aux
diverses dimensions de la sélection, afin de déceler des éléments de réponses
137
politiques appropriées.
9.2
Toutefois, leur impact réel dépendra de
leur acceptation par l’opinion publique
et de l’adéquation des mesures politiques
proposées
L’analyse de l’acceptation des voitures hybrides par les producteurs et par les
consommateurs précoces révèlera que différentes barrières persistent. Il faut
alors déterminer les politiques publiques adéquates, pour que les voitures hybrides aient des chances de diffusion de masse et qu’elles fassent la différence
en matière énergétique et environnementale.
9.2.1
L’état de l’acceptation des voitures vertes par les
producteurs et les consommateurs
La diffusion des voitures vertes dépend, côté offre, des facteurs de sélection
institutionnels, et plus spécifiquement des règles juridiques et de la capacité
des entrepreneurs. Côté demande, ce sont les attitudes des utilisateurs qui
sont décisives. Si les conditions requises pour le succès des voitures hybrides
sont présentes, il reste aussi des défis à relever.
Les facteurs de sélection côté offre : les règles juridiques et la
capacité des entrepreneurs
L’effet sélectif de la dimension institutionnelle et régulatrice agit par le biais de structures sociales codifiées et institutionnalisées. Selon le cas, elles
facilitent ou compliquent l’avancée des technologies. Les règles juridiques
favorisent souvent le statu quo, car elles sont basées sur les techniques déjà
138
existantes. Cependant, il se peut que des mesures incitent les producteurs
à introduire de nouvelles technologies. Quant aux capacités institutionnelles
des entreprises, elles déterminent ce qu’une firme est en mesure de faire. Un
producteur doté d’une riche expérience en matière de technologies vertes aura
moins de problèmes pour suivre cette voie qu’un grand pollueur, qui lui doit
entreprendre un retournement radical. Ainsi, tous les producteurs ne seront
pas capables d’introduire de façon rapide la technologie hybride.
Tout d’abord, il est important d’examiner les règles juridiques s’appliquant aux voitures hybrides. Ce sont principalement des lois sur l’énergie et
l’environnement. Si la technologie hybride facilite l’application effective de
ces règles, l’industrie sera incitée à augmenter sa production. Si au contraire,
une innovation technologique crée le besoin d’introduire de nouvelles règles,
il se peut que la diffusion soit ralentie.
Dans le domaine des lois sur l’énergie, les automobiles électro-hybrides
sont sujettes aux mêmes impôts et standards que les voitures conventionnelles. De plus, il existe certains subventions et programmes incitatifs. Tout
d’abord, la taxe sur l’essence joue un rôle important. Son faible niveau a
un effet négatif sur les voitures hybrides, puisque qu’il fait que la consommation de carburant n’est pas un facteur qui pèse lourdement dans les caractéristiques d’une voiture. La demande étant insuffisante, les producteurs
n’ont pas la motivation pour vendre des voitures économes. Il n’existe pas
d’impôt sur le véhicule lui-même, c’est-à-dire que cet outil pour avantager les
voitures écologiques n’est pas utilisé aux États-Unis. Tout cela joue contre
les voitures hybrides.
Il existe également des mesures qui favorisent ce type de véhicules, mais
leur effet reste limité. Une taxe sur les véhicules gaspillant de l’essence (‘gas
guzzler tax’) a été introduite, dans le but de décourager les consommateurs
à acheter de très grosses voitures. Les propriétaires de voitures hybrides ont
par ailleurs droit à une subvention, et un programme fédéral soutient le grand
public dans l’achat de ces véhicules alternatifs.
139
Enfin, il est nécessaire d’évoquer les standards de consommation de carburant (‘Corporate Average Fuel Economy’, CAFE). Ils existent depuis 1978
et ont été renforcés plusieurs fois, bien qu’ils aient stagné entre 1995 et 2004
(voir Tab. 5.2, p. 69). Ce n’est que sous la pression de l’augmentation du prix
de pétrole qu’ils ont été relevés. Malheureusement, ils restent faibles et trop
sélectifs: avec 9,56 litres/100 km, la consommation moyenne des nouvelles
voitures reste élevée (Heavenrich, 2005).2 Les standards sont encore moins
stricts pour les véhicules tout terrain, et les plus gros véhicules y échappent
même totalement. Ainsi, les producteurs sont poussés à vendre des voitures
toujours plus grandes, afin de contourner les standards. Les véhicules tout
terrain représentent déjà 50 % des ventes des voitures récentes.
L’effet des lois sur l’énergie est donc mitigé: les subventions et le programme pour l’achat de véhicules verts agissent certes en faveur des voitures
hybrides, mais le faible niveau de la taxe sur l’essence ainsi que les standards mal définis incitent l’industrie à produire des voitures grosses, lourdes
et peu économes. Ils y gagnent par ailleurs plus qu’avec les petites voitures.
Paradoxalement, cela pourrait jouer en faveur de la technologie hybride: les
producteurs sont contraints de façon momentanée à vendre à perte de petites voitures, afin d’atteindre le standard CAFE, qui définit une consommation moyenne pour toutes les voitures vendues par un même producteur.
C’est que l’approche conventionnelle de l’augmentation de l’efficience passe
par la réduction de la taille et du poids. Désormais, l’hybridation offre une
solution pour accroı̂tre l’efficience de la voiture, sans toucher à sa taille.
L’hybridation facilite l’observation des standards, y compris pour les grandes
voitures, garantissant ainsi un surcroı̂t de profit pour les producteurs. Si le
niveau actuel des normes ne désavantage pas les voitures hybrides, leur renforcement pourrait être plus bénéfique - et pour la technologie hybride, et
pour la consommation d’énergie.
Quant aux lois sur l’environnement elles ont aussi un effet sur la diffusion
2
En Europe, la consommation moyenne de carburant ne dépasse pas les 7 litres/100km.
140
des voitures hybrides. En 1990, la Loi sur la Pureté de l’Air (‘Clean Air Act’)
introduisait un règlement limitant le rejet de gaz nocifs par les voitures (pour
une liste des substances réglementées et des concentrations autorisées, voir
Tab. 5.3, pg. 71). En 2009, on passera d’une première phase de restrictions à
une seconde, qui sera alors plus stricte (EPA, 2002a). L’industrie automobile
doit trouver un moyen de produire des voitures moins polluantes d’ici 2009.
Il est fort probable que la technologie hybride sera utilisée à cette fin. Plus les
normes d’émission seront stricts, plus les producteurs seront incités à miser
sur les voitures hybrides.
A cet égard, il est intéressant de citer le programme californien concernant
les voitures non pollueuses. Dans les années 1990, l’état le plus peuplé des
États-Unis a introduit des standards d’émission très stricts et des quotas
pour les voitures à émission zéro. Cette dernière mesure visait à l’origine
les voitures électriques, mais les difficultés de commercialisation sont telles
que les producteurs misent de plus en plus sur les voitures hybrides pour
remplir ces quotas. Apparemment, l’industrie automobile a pris conscience
du potentiel de la technologie hybride pour observer les standards d’émission
de l’état de Californie et du gouvernement fédéral.
Ainsi, on voit que les règles juridiques existantes sont en mesure d’exercer
une pression sur les producteurs automobiles, pour proposer sur le marché des
voitures plus économes et moins pollueuses. L’hybridation constitue une voie
technologique possible pour atteindre ce but. Mais le temps qui s’écoulera
d’ici à son introduction dans la production de masse dépendra aussi des
capacités techniques des firmes. Auront-elles toutes véritablement la même
aptitude à utiliser la technologie hybride?
En effet, les bilans des producteurs automobiles diffèrent en matière de
technologies durables. Le tableau 5.4 (pg. 75) présente les consommations
moyennes de carburant pour les ventes de diverses compagnies. Les producteurs japonais tiennent le haut de la liste, avec 8 litres/100 km pour Honda et
8,5 litres/100 km pour Toyota. On trouve ensuite les producteurs européens,
141
puis en fin de liste les producteurs domestiques: Ford est la lanterne rouge
(10,3 litres/100 km), précédé de Daimler-Chrysler (10,1 litres/100 km) et
General Motors (9,8 litres/100 km). La performance des différents producteurs en matière de consommation de carburant démontre ce que Austin et al.
(2003) ont déterminé dans leur analyse de la future création de valeur dans
l’industrie automobile: les producteurs américains sont mal préparés face à
un possible renforcement des standards d’émission et de consommation de
carburant. Ils ont mis l’accent sur le développement du marché des voitures
tout terrain. Séduits par un faible coût de l’essence et des standards élargis,
ils ont négligé le développement des technologies durables.
Ainsi, les producteurs japonais, poussés par la stricte réglementation de
leur pays, ont pu acquérir une avance sur les autres firmes automobiles
(Austin et al., 2003). Pour l’instant, tout les producteurs automobiles essaient de rattraper le retard. Mais la pénurie en ingénieurs qualifiés se fait
déjà sentir (Treece, 2005) et les firmes doivent partir de zéro pour atteindre
un niveau de savoir-faire comparable à celui de Toyota ou Honda. La situation est aggravée par la crise généralisée de l’industrie automobile américaine.
En mai 2005, Standard & Poor’s Rating Services a assigné General Motors
et Ford à la plus mauvaise classe de solidité de crédit (Der Spiegel, 2005b).
En vue de la hausse du prix de pétrole et du réchauffement de la planète,
les analystes estiment que l’industrie automobile américaine n’est pas prête
à relever les défis compétitifs s’offrant à elle.
Il en résulte un dilemme pour l’intervention gouvernementale: si la technologie hybride est soutenue, c’est avant tout les producteurs étrangers qui
en profitent. L’unique facteur positif de cette situation résulte du fait que
le transfert technologique pourrait être accéléré: par peur de mesures protectionnistes, les producteurs japonais ont consenti à entrer en coopération
avec d’autres firmes et à licencier la technologie hybride. Combien de temps
s’écoulera, jusqu’à ce que tous les producteurs acquièrent des aptitudes satisfaisantes en matière de technologie hybride ? Pour l’instant, il est difficile
142
de formuler une opinion précise. Mais il est sûr que la pression compétitive
des firmes japonaises accélèrera la diffusion de la technologie parmi les autres
producteurs.
En fin de compte, les règles juridiques agissent déjà en faveur de la technologie hybride, même si elles n’exploitent pas son plein potentiel. Les insuffisances de capacités de l’industrie automobile constituent actuellement le
plus grand obstacle à sa diffusion.
Les facteurs de sélection côté demande : les attitudes des utilisateurs
Au-delà de l’acceptation par les producteurs, ce sont surtout les attitudes des
utilisateurs qui détermineront le sort des voitures hybrides. La littérature
étant très parsemée à cet égard, il convient de faire une enquête parmi les
utilisateurs précoces. L’étude empirique présentée par la suite s’appuie sur
un sondage électronique. Publiée par des sites internet sur les voitures hybrides, elle comporte des questions sur les habitudes de transport, les attitudes envers la technologie hybride, et la sensibilisation aux problèmes environnementaux et énergétiques. L’enquête n’est certes pas représentative, elle
donne néanmoins des indications sur l’acceptation de la technologie hybride.
La démographie des personnes sondées est comparable à celle de deux autres
sondages (voir HybridCars.com, 2005 et de Haan et Peters, 2005), et semble
typique des acheteurs de voitures hybrides. 181 citoyens américains ont participé à cette enquête, dont 60 % possèdent une telle voiture (voir Fig. 6.1,
pg. 80).
Les considérations théoriques exposées en première partie laissent supposer que l’intérêt pour la technologie hybride dépend non seulement de
facteurs économiques, mais aussi d’habitudes sociales, de visions culturelles
et d’aspects politiques. Nous allons démontrer que, pour les défenseurs de
la technologie hybride, ce sont surtout les trois derniers facteurs qui sont
générateurs d’intérêt. Pour atteindre une plus grande diffusion des voitures
143
hybrides, il faudrait donc retrouver les mêmes attitudes chez le grand public.
Il ne s’agit pas de nier le fait que l’économique joue un rôle dans la
décision en faveur ou non d’un véhicule alternatif. Une grande majorité
des participants à l’étude est persuadée qu’un prix plus modéré et une plus
grande diversité de modèles seraient le meilleur moyen de faire augmenter les
ventes des voitures hybrides (voir Tab. 6.11, pg. 98). Il ne s’agit pas non plus
de nier l’importance des aspects psychologiques, comme les émotions. Mais
d’autres facteurs, trop souvent délaissés dans l’analyse de la consommation,
sont à prendre en considération (McEwen, 2004).
Tout d’abord, nous examinerons l’influence du climat politique et du
débat publique. La prééminence d’un problème sur la scène politique et
dans les médias peut présenter un avantage, à condition qu’une technologie
offre une solution à ce problème. La demande réelle en dépend, mais aussi le
soutien apporté aux mesures politiques favorables à la technologie en question. La prépondérance de deux thèmes est en effet étroitement corrélée avec
l’intérêt pour la technologie hybride: plus une personne est soucieuse des
problèmes environnementaux comme la pollution de l’air et le changement
climatique, plus son intérêt est grand. Il en va de même pour l’inquiétude
concernant la dépendance énergétique des États-Unis.
En outre, si une personne estime que la technologie hybride constitue une
solution à ces problèmes, l’intérêt pour cette dernière se trouve alors influencé de façon positive. Avec une valeur de 0,383, la mesure de la corrélation
Pearson’s R est très forte pour l’item ‘solution aux problèmes environnementaux causés par le transport’ comme facteur indépendant. Pour les personnes
convaincues que les voitures hybrides aident à relever le défi du prix du carburant et de la dépendance énergétique, les corrélations avec l’intérêt pour
la technologie hybride dépassent aussi la cote de 0,3.
La prépondérance politique de la dépendance énergétique et de la pollution par le transport a par ailleurs un effet indirect: le nombre de mesures
politiques en faveur des voitures hybrides qui reçoivent le soutien des par-
144
ticipants augmente parallèlement à l’inquiétude concernant ces thèmes. Le
fait qu’une personne perçoive les voitures hybrides comme une solution à ces
problèmes a de même une influence positive (voir Tab. 6.4, pg. 86 sur les
effets de la prépondérance de la pollution et Tab. 6.5, pg. 88 sur les effets
de la prépondérance de la dépendance énergétique).
En analysant les variations de la prépondérance de certains thèmes, entre ceux qui possèdent une voiture hybride et les autres, nous sommes en
mesure de démontrer ce qui fait la différence dans la décision favorable ou
défavorable envers une telle voiture. Les propriétaires d’une voiture hybride
sont très inquiets pour l’environnement et la dépendance énergétique; mais
pas significativement plus que les autres. Les deux groupes diffèrent concernant une autre dimension: les personnes qui conduisent une voiture hybride attribuent à cette technologie une plus grande capacité à résoudre les
problèmes. L’obstacle à la diffusion des voitures hybrides consiste moins
en une sensibilisation insuffisante aux problèmes de l’environnement qu’en
une conviction insuffisante dans le fait que les voitures hybrides offrent une
solution adéquate.
Dans le processus de sélection technologique, les facteurs sociaux et culturels sont moins apparents que les facteurs politiques et économiques. Il ne
faut cependant pas sous-estimer leur importance. Les opinions déterminées
culturellement agissent souvent en faveur du statu quo, car elles conditionnent les attentes et désirs envers une technologie. Pour ce qui est de l’influence
du social, elle passe par la définition sociale de la technologie. Il est plus probable qu’une personne se décide pour une certaine technologie, si son utilisation confère beaucoup de gratification sociale, et si elle est acceptée par les
groupes sociaux qui sont importants aux yeux de cette personne (notamment
la famille et les amis).
Tout d’abord, il est nécessaire d’analyser la gratification sociale: elle
dérive non pas du plaisir personnel, mais du sentiment d’avoir rempli un
devoir social. Dans le sondage, il était demandé aux participants si conduire
145
une voiture hybride leur conférait un sentiment de bonheur, en raison de leur
soutien à l’environnement ou de leur contribution à l’effort d’indépendance
énergétique nationale. Plus une personne était en accord avec ces deux
déclarations, plus l’intérêt qu’elle montrait généralement pour la technologie
hybride était important (voir Tab. 6.7, pg. 92 pour l’analyse statistique
détaillée).
L’autre facteur social, qui est l’opinion des groupes significatifs, possède
également une influence positive sur l’intérêt porté aux voitures hybrides. Si
la famille et les amis d’une personne affichent une opinion positive envers
les voitures hybrides, cette personne sera alors intéressée par les voitures hybrides avec une plus grande probabilité (voir Tab. 6.8, pg. 93). La corrélation
est de 0,228, et donc un peu moins prononcée que celle entre la gratification
sociale et l’intérêt (0,291). La comparaison des deux groupes possédant ou
non une voiture hybride démontre qu’ils diffèrent uniquement par rapport
à l’influence des groupes sociaux importants (voir Tab. 6.9, pg. 94). Les
personnes conduisant elles-mêmes un véhicule hybride espèrent des réactions
plus positives des amis et de la famille.
Les habitudes culturelles sont intéressantes, dans la mesure où elles conditionnent certains attributs de la voiture. Aux yeux des utilisateurs, les
véhicules hybrides remplissent-ils ces conditions? Le sondage examine leurs
attentes par rapport à trois caractéristiques: maniement, performance et
sécurité. Les corrélations entre ces trois facteurs et l’intérêt pour la technologie hybride sont toutes positives: l’accord avec la déclaration faite par
les sondés que les voitures hybrides offrent un niveau de sécurité comparable
à celui des véhicules traditionnels a la plus forte influence (R = 0,193, voir
Tab. 6.10(c), pg. 96), suivi par ‘une performance semblable’ (R = 0,174, voir
Tab. 6.10(b), pg. 96) et ‘un maniement égal’ (R = 0,168, voir Tab. 6.10(a),
pg. 96).
La dimension culturelle ne montre aucune variation significative entre
les propriétaires d’une voiture hybride et d’une voiture traditionnelle. On
146
peut en déduire que les habitudes culturelles liées à l’automobile sont très
stables. Même les personnes qui conduisent un véhicule alternatif ne sont
pas prêtes à renoncer à certains attributs considérés comme indispensables.
Cela pourrait expliquer l’échec des voitures électriques: non seulement leur
performance est modeste, mais en plus elles contraignent les utilisateurs à
changer leurs habitudes.
L’analyse des facteurs non-économiques et non-psychologiques démontre que ce ne sont pas seulement les aspects les plus évidents qui jouent
un rôle dans la décision en faveur d’une voiture écologique. Le plus grand
obstacle pour tous les véhicules alternatifs est certainement la comparaison
constante avec les voitures traditionnelles et la stabilité des habitudes culturelles qui y sont liées. Les voitures hybrides ne diffèrent pas beaucoup de
ces dernières, ce qui rend leur diffusion plus facile. Mais il faudrait convaincre de cela encore d’avantage d’acheteurs. Quant à la dimension sociale et
politique, les résultats de l’analyse statistique sont clairs: tout ou presque
dépend de l’image publique, c’est-à-dire de la définition sociale de la technologie. La technologie hybride réussira à s’imposer, à condition de savoir
s’allier la gratification sociale, conférer un statut social et se définir en tant
que la solution aux problèmes prééminents. Actuellement, les voitures hybrides sont sur la bonne voie. Mais il reste encore des barrières à surmonter
avant d’atteindre une diffusion de masse. Qu’est-ce que cela implique pour
les politiques publiques?
9.2.2
Les implications pour les politiques publiques
Les politiques publiques sont d’une grande importance dans le succès permanent des voitures hybrides. Les incitations peuvent amener consommateurs
et producteurs à choisir des technologies et un comportement dans leur mobilité en accord avec les principes du développement durable.
147
Promouvoir la commercialisation des voitures hybrides
Les politiques publiques détermineront le véritable impact des voitures hybrides. Il faut promouvoir leur commercialisation et exploiter leur plein potentiel. A cette fin, il suffirait d’internaliser les effets externes du transport dans le domaine de l’environnement et de la consommation d’énergie.
Quand la consommation ou la production d’un acteur affecte l’utilité d’un
autre acteur, sans qu’il en résulte une variation des prix, on parle d’un effet
externe. Face à une telle faille du marché, l’État dispose de plusieurs outils pour restaurer l’efficacité économique et la justice sociale: les normes et
standards, la taxation, les subventions, les quotas et l’information. Actuellement, ces outils ne sont pas utilisés efficacement aux États-Unis. Que faut-il
changer dans les politiques actuelles pour atteindre une plus grande diffusion
des voitures hybrides?
Tout d’abord, il faut examiner les avantages et inconvénients des interventions gouvernementales qui nous semblent concevables. Les taxes dites
pigouviennes appliquent le principe du pollueur-payeur. Du point de vue
de l’efficacité économique, elles constituent une politique idéale, car elles
forcent les pollueurs à internaliser les coûts externes (Porter, 1999). Mais
politiquement, elles sont souvent difficiles à imposer. Ainsi, le gouvernement américain tend à favoriser les normes et les subventions. Leur coût social est certes élevé, mais elles jouissent d’une plus grande popularité parmi
l’électorat (Howitt et Altschuler, 1999). Une mesure peu appliquée jusqu’ici
est celle des quotas. Seule la Californie demande aux producteurs automobiles de vendre un certain nombre de voitures à bas taux d’émission chaque
année. L’avantage d’une telle démarche est qu’elle force la commercialisation
d’innovations sur le point d’être introduites.
Quelle est l’utilité des différentes mesures pour aider les voitures hybrides
à atteindre une diffusion plus large? Les subventions représentent l’outil
ayant le moins d’efficacité économique et le moins d’impact. Néanmoins, elles
peuvent fournir des incitations à une consommation écologique. Actuelle148
ment, une somme de 2.000 $ déductible des impôts est accordée aux acheteurs
d’une voiture hybride. Mais cette mesure s’applique à tous les véhicules hybrides, quels que soient leur taux d’émission ou leur consommation de carburant réels. On peut même recevoir une subvention sur l’achat d’une Lexus
RX400 Hybrid - une voiture de luxe qui consomme presque 8 litres d’essence
pour cent kilomètres. Une telle voiture mérite-t-elle véritablement une subvention? Si subvention il y a, elle doit en fait s’établir en fonction de la
pollution et de l’efficacité énergétique réelles.
La Lexus RX400 est illustrateur d’un développement préoccupant: l’hybridation
est de plus en plus utilisée, non pas pour améliorer l’efficience énergétique,
mais pour accroı̂tre la performance (New York Times, 2005b). Cela rend
l’action publique d’autant plus urgente. Sinon, la technologie hybride suivra
le chemin d’autres innovations efficientes: elle sera employée pour augmenter
le nombre de chevaux, la consommation de carburant restant toujours égale.
Puisque cela ne peut pas constituer un objectif, il faut pousser les producteurs à exploiter le plein potentiel des voitures hybrides.
Cela se fera principalement par le biais d’une hausse du prix du carburant.
Aux États-Unis, le taux d’imposition du pétrole est très bas. Selon Kurani
et Turrantine (2004), la prise en considération de la consommation de carburant dans l’achat d’une voiture est étroitement liée au prix réel de l’essence.
Une augmentation des taxes amènera les consommateurs à accorder plus
d’importance à l’efficience énergétique des voitures. Les producteurs emploieraient alors l’hybridation à cette fin, au lieu de l’utiliser pour augmenter
la performance. Pour internaliser les effets externes sur l’environnement, une
taxe pigouvienne sur le rejet des gaz nocifs serait aussi possible. Elle pourrait
prendre la forme d’une taxe sur les véhicules différenciée selon la quantité
d’émission des voitures. Dans les deux cas, les voitures hybrides obtiendraient
un avantage compétitif par rapport aux voitures traditionnelles.
En dehors des taxes, ce sont surtout les standards qui sont utiles pour
promouvoir la commercialisation des voitures hybrides. Il existe déjà aux
149
Etats-Unis des standards d’émission et de consommation de carburant, mais
ils ont été critiqués pour trois raisons: leur non-flexibilité, leurs lacunes et le
manque de toute incitation à dépasser les normes. En conséquence, au lieu
de normes fixes, il convient d’instaurer des normes différenciées et de ne pas
prescrire les moyens à mettre en œuvre afin d’atteindre l’objectif visé. Pour
réduire les possibilités de contourner les standards, il faut les étendre à tous
les véhicules, et renforcer les normes pour les véhicules tout terrain. Enfin,
il est nécessaire d’instaurer des récompenses pour les producteurs qui vont
au-delà des normes imposées.
Les quotas constituent également un outil à disposition de l’État. Ils
sont importants non seulement pour renforcer la diffusion de la technologie
hybride, mais aussi pour atteindre une utilisation efficace de cette technologie. L’idéal serait de forcer l’industrie automobile à proposer l’option de
rechargement au réseau électrique. Cela se traduirait par un rayon d’action
du mode électrique élargi, et donc des conséquences positives sur le rejet de gaz nocifs et la consommation de pétrole. Les centrales électriques
ont une efficience thermique supérieure à celles des moteurs à combustion.
Ainsi, l’option de rechargement résulte dans l’économie d’énergie. Quant
aux effets sur l’environnement, la pollution locale s’en trouve certainement
réduite, alors que la pollution globale dépend des sources d’énergie utilisées.
Aux États-Unis, la production d’énergie est essentiellement assurée par le
charbon, qui pollue relativement beaucoup. Mais si l’on arrivait à employer plus d’énergie renouvelable, l’option à rechargement deviendrait alors
véritablement écologique. Presque toute la distance parcourue quotidiennement pourrait être faite en mode électrique.
Malheureusement, les producteurs ont œuvré très dur pour persuader les
consommateurs du contraire. Les mauvaises expériences avec les voitures
électriques les ont amenés à souligner dans la publicité le fait qu’il n’est
pas nécessaire de brancher les voitures hybrides. Mais leurs arguments ont
une faille: l’option à rechargement reste une option. Une voiture hybride,
150
même avec prise de contact, disposerait toujours d’un moteur à combustion, assurant la propulsion après le déchargement des piles. L’avantage
d’une telle voiture est qu’on peut la recharger au réseau électrique, sans
pour autant y être obligé. Parmi les propriétaires d’une voiture hybride, une
large partie réclame cette option, et quelques-uns ont déjà réactualisé leurs
voitures (Hakim, 2005b). Etant donné que la technologie est disponible, rien
n’empêche l’État à forcer sa commercialisation. Un système de quota simple serait envisageable, il n’offre cependant pas d’incitation à surpasser les
quantités demandées. De ce fait, un système de compensation, une fois un
certain seuil passé, semble plus efficace.
La politique d’information constitue le dernier, mais non le moindre, des
outils d’intervention politique en faveur des voitures hybrides. Les résultats
du sondage exploité démontrent qu’elle pourrait être utile pour construire
une image positive d’eux. Il faut avant tout définir l’hybridation comme une
solution aux problèmes du secteur du transport.
La brève discussion des mesures politiques concevables démontre que seule
une combinaison des différents outils sera couronnée de succès. En outre, il
ne faut pas perdre de vue que les voitures hybrides n’offrent qu’une solution technologique. Pour arriver à une mobilité en accord avec les critères
du développement durable, elle doit s’inscrire dans une initiative sociale et
politique plus large.
Vers une mobilité en accord avec les critères du développement
durable
Les ressources disponibles sur la planète sont par définition limitées. A
l’inverse, les besoins sont quasiment illimités. Comment concilier les deux?
L’effort de synthèse est appelé développement durable. Le terme a été consacré en 1987, dans le Rapport Brundtland (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987):
“Le développement durable est un développement qui répond aux
151
besoins du présent, sans compromettre la capacité des générations
futures à répondre aux leurs. Deux concepts sont inhérents à cette
notion: le concept de ‘besoins’ [. . . ] et l’idée des limitations que
l’état de nos techniques et de notre organisation sociale imposent
sur la capacité de l’environnement à répondre aux besoins actuels
et futurs.”
Appliqué au système de transport, le développement durable tend à créer
une cohérence entre les besoins de mobilité et les ressources environnementales et énergétiques disponibles sur le long terme. Les voitures hybrides
contribuent à un tel effort, mais elles n’y arriveront pas seules. Elles doivent
s’inscrire dans une initiative plus large, qui prend en compte non seulement
le technologique, mais aussi le social et le politique. Certes, la consommation de carburant et le rejet de gaz nocifs dépendent des technologies
employées par les véhicules; des progrès conséquents ont été faits dans ce
domaine ces dernières décennies. Mais en même temps, le nombre total de
voitures a augmenté, de même que les distances parcourues. Cela a annulé
les gains du progrès technologique. Ce n’est donc pas seulement le type de
voiture acheté qui fait la différence, mais aussi la façon dont elle est utilisée.
Les choix d’achat et d’usage de millions d’automobilistes s’accumulent ainsi
pour produire un système de transport en désaccord avec les critères du
développement durable.
Si les voitures hybrides constituent un pas dans la bonne direction, une
solution purement technologique restera toujours utopique. Weinberg (1993)
parle de l’illusion d’une panacée technologique (‘technical fix’) face à des
problèmes non-technologiques. Rendre la mobilité plus durable est un défi
social, qui doit être affronté sur le plan social. Ainsi, le développement
durable du transport passe par l’évolution du comportement des automobilistes. Il faut changer la demande de mobilité à la source, en s’attaquant
aux habitudes de transport.
152
Le problème est qu’il existe une résistance psychologique aux changements
concernant l’usage de la voiture (Tertolen et al., 1998): l’automobiliste se
trouve confronté à un dilemme social, puisque à court terme il obtient une
grande utilité de l’usage de la voiture, même s’il sait qu’à long terme, il
en résulte des désavantages collectifs. En outre, les routines d’usage sont
parfois tellement fixes, que l’automobiliste n’est souvent même pas conscient
des alternatives (par exemple les routes ou les horaires du transport public).
Selon Krarup et Russel (2005), les campagnes d’information jouent un rôle
déterminant pour changer les habitudes de transport. En plus, des mesures
doivent être prises aux niveaus local, régional et national pour améliorer le
transport public. Circuler en vélo ou à pied doit devenir plus attractif.
Si la politique de transport est fondamentale pour changer les habitudes
de transport, la gestion de la mobilité ne relève pas de sa seule responsabilité.
L’aménagement du territoire, la politique d’énergie et la politique macroéconomique influencent également la mobilité (Stead and Banister, 2001).
Il faut par exemple déconnecter la demande en transport de la croissance
macro-économique.
Les solutions sont évidentes, mais elles sont difficiles à imposer. Aujourd’hui, le transport n’est pas durable de façon certaine. Face á cette
situation, une politique volontariste, combinant diverses mesures et technologies - dont la technologie hybride - est nécessaire. Dans le cas contraire,
le transport deviendra victime de son propre succès.
153
Appendix
Variable list and coding
The following list shows the order and the wording of the questions. In the
actual survey, a web-based survey service (www.zoomerang.com) was used
whose design cannot be depicted here.
Questions with rating scales and multiple choice questions with multiple answer possibility: The variable name is given in squared brackets [] after each
item. Answer scales with the numerical coding in parentheses () are indicated
before the list of items and, where applicable, recoding procedures are given
at the end of the list.
Multiple choice questions with single answer possibility: The variable name
is indicated in squared brackets [] before the answer choices. The numerical
value assigned to each answer is given after it in parentheses ().
1. In your opinion, which of the following aspects could increase
sales of hybrid cars in this country? (Please check applicable items;
multiple answers possible)
Answer scale: Yes (1), No (0)
• Lower price [v1a]
• More tax incentives [v1b]
• Other incentives (access to HOV-Lanes, free parking) [v1c]
• Availability of more different models, especially hybrid SUVs [v1d]
154
• Better performance [v1e]
• More room for passengers [v1f]
• More room for baggage [v1g]
• None of the above [v1h]
• Other, please specify [v1i, open question]
2. A number of political measures to further hybrid sales is conceivable. Which of the following political measures do you support
and which ones do you think would not be useful?
Answer scale: I support (1), I do not support (2), Not sure (3)
• Tax credits [v2a]
• Other incentives (access to HOV lanes, free parking) [v2b]
• Higher fuel taxes [v2c]
• Tighter emission regulations [v2d]
• Tighter fuel efficiency standards [v2e]
P
RECODING: v2a, v2b, v2c, v2d, v2e = v2overallsupport
To obtain a measure for the sum of all policies supported by a respondent,
the variables from question 2 were added up.
3. For each of the following issues, please tell us whether you are
more or less worried than you were 2 years ago.
Answer scale: More worried (1), About the same (2), Less worried (3), Not
sure (4)
• Climate change [v3a]
• Fuel prices [v3b]
• Local air quality [v3c]
• Energy dependence of the US [v3d]
RECODING: 1 = 3, 2 = 2, 3 = 1, 4 = 4
155
4. In your opinion, what part does automobile traffic have in these
problems? Please rate your answer on a scale from 1 ‘a very small
part’ to 5 ‘a very large part’.
Answer scale: A very small part (1) . . . A very large part (5), Not sure (6)
• Climate change [v4a]
• Energy security [v4b]
• Fuel prices [v4c]
• Local air pollution [v4d]
5. Briefly think about the following alternative vehicle technologies. Please rate your interest on a scale from 1 ‘not interested
whatsoever’ to 5 ‘extremely interested’.
Answer scale: Not interested whatsoever (1) . . . Extremely interested (5),
N/A (6)
• Electric vehicles [v5a]
• Hybrid vehicles [v5b]
• Alternative fuel vehicles [v5c]
• Fuel cell vehicles [v5d]
6. Do you already drive a hybrid car or not?
[v6]
• Yes, I own a hybrid myself. (1)
• I do not own a hybrid yet, but I could imagine buying one. (2)
• No, I do not drive a hybrid & am not interested in buying one. (3)
• The company/institution I work for has a fleet of hybrids and I get to
drive one from time to time. (4)
RECODING: 1 = 1, 2 = 0, 3 = 0, 4 = excluded
156
7. If yes, what kind of hybrid do you own? (If you do not own a
hybrid, please choose not applicable.)
[v7]
• Toyota Prius (1)
• Toyota Highlander (2)
• Honda Insight (3)
• Honda Accord Hybrid (4)
• Honda Civic Hybrid (5)
• Ford Escape Hybrid (6)
• Lexus RX400 Hybrid (7)
• Other (8)
• N/A (9)
8. If you own a hybrid yourself, what type of car did you trade in
for it? (If you do not own a hybrid, please choose not applicable.)
[v8]
• Subcompact (1)
• Compact (2)
• Midsize (3)
• Luxury (4)
• SUV (5)
• Mini-Van (6)
• Pick-Up (7)
• The hybrid is my first car. (8)
• N/A (9)
• Not sure (10)
157
9. For each of the following statements, please tell us whether you
agree or disagree.
Answer scale: I agree (1) . . . I totally disagree (5), Not sure (6)
• Handling a hybrid is very similar to handling a conventional car. [v9a]
• My family thinks a hybrid is a good choice of vehicle. [v9b]
• Driving a hybrid means being open to innovations. [v9c]
• Driving a hybrid is good, because it helps the environment. [v9d]
• A hybrid’s performance is as good as that of conventional vehicles.
[v9e]
• Driving a hybrid is a good thing, because it contributes to the national
energy conservation effort. [v9f]
• My friends think driving a hybrid is cool. [v9g]
• A hybrid is as safe as any other vehicle on the market. [v9h]
• A feature I like about hybrids is that they need to be refuelled less
often. [v9i]
RECODING: 1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1, 6 = 6
10. Consider the attributes of a car that are indispensable for you.
In other words, if a car does not have this features, you will not buy
it. (Please check all attributes that are a must for you; multiple
answers possible)
Answer scale: Yes (1), No (0)
• Enough room for baggage [v10a]
• A good range (the distance a car can go on one tank filling) [v10b]
• Enough seating capacity [v10c]
• Good torque and good acceleration performance [v10d]
158
• Being able to use my regular repair shop for inspections and maintenance [v10e]
• Never having to plug the car in overnight [v10f]
• Being able to use standard gasoline and to refuel at every gas station
[v10g]
• A good safety record [v10h]
11. Does a hybrid provide all the features you deem necessary in
a car?
[v11]
• Yes (1)
• No (2)
12. If no, what are the features that a hybrid lacks in your opinion?
[v12]
Open question
13. Would you consider buying a hybrid SUV?
[v13]
• Yes, now I can drive a SUV that is not such a gas guzzler. (1)
• Only if it would get really good mileage. (2)
• No, I would never buy a SUV. (3)
• Not sure (4)
159
14. Has there been an increase in media coverage of the following
issues in the last 2 years? Or have these issues not been very
prominent in the media?
Answer scale: Increased (1), Unchanged (2), Decreased (3), Not sure (4)
• Climate change [v14a]
• Energy security [v14b]
• Gas prices [v14c]
• Air pollution [v14d]
RECODING: 1 = 3, 2 = 2, 3 = 1, 4 = 4
15. If there were more hybrids, do you think they could be a solution for some of the current environmental and energy problems
in the US or not? Please rate your answer on a scale from 1 ‘I
strongly agree’ to 5 ‘I strongly disagree’.
Answer scale: I strongly agree (1) . . . I strongly disagree (5), Not sure (6)
• Hybrids will reduce US dependence on foreign oil, because they bring
down overall fuel consumption. [v15a]
• Hybrids will help improve local air quality, especially in cities. [v15b]
• Hybrids will help to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the US. [v15c]
• Because of their fuel cost savings, hybrids will ease the impact of higher
oil prices. [v15d]
RECODING: 1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1, 6 = 6
16. Approximately, how much does a gallon of gasoline cost in your
region at the moment?
[v16]
US $:
160
17. By how much do you think fuel prices will change annually
over the next five years? The price for a gallon of regular gasoline
will . . .
[v17]
• go down (1)
• stay the same (2)
• go up 1-10 cents per year (3)
• go up 11-20 cents per year (4)
• go up 21-30 cents per year (5)
• go up 31-40 cents per year (6)
• go up 41-50 cents per year (7)
• go up 51 cents to one dollar per year (8)
• go up more than a dollar per year (9)
18. How much more are you willing to pay for a hybrid than for a
comparable car?
[v18]
• 0 $ (1)
• 500 $ (2)
• Up to 1,000 $ (3)
• Up to 2,000 $ (4)
• Up to 3,000 $ (5)
• Not sure (6)
161
19. How many years do you assume it takes on average until fuel
cost savings make up for the higher purchase price of hybrids?
[v19]
Years:
20. Approximately how many miles do you drive per year?
[v20]
Miles:
21. How much do you drive compared to the average person? Do
you travel more, as much as or less than the average person?
[v21]
• More (1)
• As much as (2)
• Less (3)
• Not sure (4)
22. In case you already own a hybrid, has this changed how many
miles you drive, or has the distance remained the same?
[v22]
• I drive more now. (1)
• I drive the same distance. (2)
• I drive less. (3)
• I do not own a hybrid. (4)
• Not sure (5)
162
23. Is there anything else you wish to let us know? If you have
remarks about your experience driving a hybrid or comments about
the survey, feel free to write them down here.
[v23]
Open question
24. Please indicate your gender
[v24]
• Male (1)
• Female (2)
25. Please indicate your age in years.
[v25]
Years:
26. Which of the following is your area of residence?
[v26]
• US - Midwest (1)
• US - Southwest (2)
• US - Northwest (3)
• US - East (4)
• South (5)
• Europe (6)
• Japan (7)
• Other (8)
163
27. What is your level of education?
[v27]
• Some primary/high school (1)
• High school graduate or equivalent (2)
• Some college (3)
• College degree (4)
• Some postgraduate (5)
• Postgraduate degree (6)
• Professional degree (7)
28. So that we can group all answers, please let us know what your
total annual household income before taxes is.
[v28]
• Under 30,000 $ (1)
• 30,0000 to 60,0000 $ (2)
• 60,0000 to 90,0000 $ (3)
• 90,0000 to 120,0000 $ (4)
• More than 120,000 $ (5)
• Not sure (6)
29. Overall, what is the political party you identify most with?
[v29]
• Democrats (1)
• Republicans (2)
• Not sure (3)
• Other, please specify (4, open question)
164
Bibliography
D. Abrahamson. Purchase price, operational costs and resale value - Toyota Prius
vs. Toyota Camry. Spreadsheet (unpublished), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2005.
P. A. Alcorn. Social Issues in Technology - A Format for Investigation. PrenticeHall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
ASPO. Newsletter 49, Assocation for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, January 2005. http://www.peakoil.ie/downloads/newsletters/newsletter49
200501.pdf, last accessed 06/14/2005.
D. Austin, N. Rosinski, A. Sauer, and C. Le Duc. Changing drivers - The impact of
climate change on competitiveness and value creation in the automotive industry.
Sustainable Asset Management/World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.,
2003.
E. Babbie. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing Company,
Belmont, CA, 8th edition, 1998.
R. Bamberger.
Automobile and light truck fuel economy - the CAFE
standards.
Issue brief for Congress, Congressional Research Service,
2003.
http://environment.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=
1/XJ&sdn=environment&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncseonline.org%2FNLE%
2FCRSreports%2F03Jul%2FIB90122.pdf, last accessed 01/31/2005.
D. Banister, D. Stead, P. Steen, J. Akerman, K. Dreborg, P. Kijkamp, and
R. Schleicher-Tappeser. European transport policy and sustainable mobility.
Routledge, London, 2000.
J. Baudrillard. La société de consommation, ses mythes, ses structures. Gallimard,
Paris, 1986.
165
F. Baumgartner and B. Jones. Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1993.
BBC. Oil prices surge to new records. BBC News - online, 04/01/2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/4399537.stm, last accessed 05/19/2005.
W. E. Bijker. The social construction of bakelite: Toward a theory of invention.
In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch, editors, The social construction of
technological systems. New directions on the sociology and history of technology,
pages 159–187. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.
P. Bourdieu. La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Les Editions de Minuit,
Paris, 1979.
A. Burke and E. Abeles. Feasible CAFE standards increases using emerging diesel
and hybrid-electric technologies for light-duty vehicles in the United States.
ITS-Davis Papers, University of California, Davis/Institute of Transportation
Studies, 2004. http://repositories.cdlib.org/itsdavis/, last accessed
02/17/2005.
G. W. Bush. Letter to members of the Senate on the Kyoto Protocol on Climate
Change. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 03/13/2001. http:
//www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/text/kyoto.txt, last accessed 05/26/2005.
K. Button. Environmental externalities and transport policy. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 6(2):61–75, 1990.
W. Canzler. Zur Adoption freigegeben: Verkehrstelematik und die Zukunft des
Autoverkehrs. In Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, editor, Bewegende Moderne: Fahrzeugverkehr als soziale Praxis, pages 73–104. Edition
Sigma, Berlin, 1999.
W. Canzler and A. Knie. Das Ende des Automobils: Fakten und Trends zum
Umbau der Autogesellschaft. Müllerverlag, Heidelberg, 1994.
R. Copock. Research on technological innovation in the United States. In
M. Dierkes and U. Hoffman, editors, New technology at the outset - social forces
in the shaping of technological innovations, pages 147–157. Campus/Westview,
Frankfurt a. M., 1992.
T. Dant. Consumption caught in the ‘cash nexus’. Sociology, 34(4):655–670, 2000.
166
J. Dargay and D. Gately. Income’s effect on car and vehicle ownership, worldwide:
1960 - 2015. Transportation Research Part A, 33(2):101–138, 1999.
A. Dauensteiner.
Der Weg zum Ein-Liter-Auto:
Minimierung aller
Fahrwiderstände mit neuen Konzepten. Springer Verlag, Bonn, 2001.
J. A. Dell. Lexus hopes gasoline + electricity = glitz - guilt. Los Angeles Times,
pages 1, Business section, 02/05/2005.
Der Spiegel. Rekordhoch - Ölpreis steigt auf über 60 Dollar. Der Spiegel Online, 04/04/2005a. http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,349594,00.
html, last accessed 05/19/2005.
Der Spiegel. Rating-Agentur zweifelt an Produktstrategie von GM und Ford. Der
Spiegel Online, 05/06/2005b. http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,
354878,00.html, last accessed 05/07/2005.
M. Dierkes. Organisationskultur und Leitbilder als Einflussfaktoren der Technikgenese - Thesen zur Strukturierung eines Forschungsfeldes. In M. Dierkes, editor,
Technisierung und ihre Folgen - Zur Biographie eines Forschungsfelds., pages
263–276. Edition Sigma, Berlin, 1994.
M. Dierkes, U. Hoffmann, and L. Martz. Visions of technology: Social and institutional factors of shaping the development of new technologies. Campus Verlag,
Frankfurt a. M., 1996.
DOE/EIA.
Meeting US transportation fuel demand.
Presentation, Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration, August 2004a.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil gas/petroleum/presentations/2004/
ustrans/ustrans files/frame.html, last accessed 05/23/2005.
DOE/EIA. World petroleum market changes and impact on the US. Presentation, Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration, October
2004b. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil gas/petroleum/presentations/
2004/ustrans/ustrans files/frame.html, last accessed 05/23/2005.
DOE/EIA. Real petroleum prices. Short term energy outlook, Department of
Energy/Energy Information Administration, May 2005a. http://www.eia.
doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/PetroleumPrices files/frame.html, last
accessed 05/23/2005.
DOE/EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with projections to 2025. Report,
Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration, January 2005b.
http://eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/, last accessed 05/25/2005.
167
DOE/EIA. Light duty vehicle sales by technology type (USA 2005). Table
45. Supplemental tables to the annual energy outlook 2005 with projections
to 2025, Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration, January 2005c. http://eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/supref.html, last accessed 05/25/2005.
DOE/EPA.
Fuel economy.
06/03/2005, 2005.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov, last accessed
K. Donaghy, Rudinger G., and St. Poppelreuter. Societal trends, mobility behavior
and sustainable transport in Europe and North America. Transport Reviews, 24
(6):679–690, 2004.
G. Dosi. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories - A suggested
interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research
Policy, 11:147–162, 1982.
G. Dosi. Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of
Economic Literature, 26:1120–1171, 1988.
G. Dosi and L. Orsenigo. Coordination and transformation: An overview of structures, behaviors and change in evolutionary environments. In G. Dosi, editor,
Technical Change and Economic Theory, pages 13–37. Pinter Publishers Ltd.,
London, 1988.
DOT/NHA. Summary of travel trends - 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Technical report, US Department of Transportation/National Highway
Administration, 2004. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/html files/download
directory.shtml, last accessed 05/05/2005.
DOT/NHTSA. Automotive fuel economy program. Annual update, calendar
year 2001, US Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 2001. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/
fuelecon/index.html#TOC, last accessed 06/01/2005.
DOT/NHTSA. Light truck average fuel economy standard, model year 2004. Final rule, US Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 2004a. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/
Cafe/LightTruck/NPRM-final.htm, last accessed 06/25/2005.
DOT/NHTSA. Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Reference guide, US Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety
168
Administration, March 2004b. http://nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/standards/
FMVSS-Regs/index.htm, last accessed 08/03/2005.
J. Ellul. La technique ou l’enjeu du siècle. Armand Colin, Paris, 1954.
J. Ellul. Le système technicien. Calmann-Lévy, Paris, 1977.
J. Ellul. Le bluff technologique. Hachette, Paris, 1988.
U. Engel and M. Pötschke. Willingness to pay for the environment: social structure, value orientations and environmental behaviour in a multilevel perspective.
Innovation, 11(3):315, 1998.
EPA. Clean Air Act. Legal act, Environmental Protection Agency, 2002a. http:
//www.epa.gov/air/oaq caa.html/, last accessed 01/30/2005.
EPA. National Emission Standards Act. Legal act, Environmental Protection
Agency, 2002b. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title2.html, last accessed
01/30/2005.
EPA. Federal and California exhaust and evaporative emission standards for
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. Technical report, Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stds-ld.htm, last accessed
01/30/2005.
European Commission.
Passenger transport.
First annual thematic research summary, EU Transport Research Knowledge Center, 2005. http://
europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/web/themes analysis.cfm, last accessed 04/05/2005.
FHWA. Transportation indicators for selected countries. Compilation of transport
data, Federal Highway Administration, October 2003. http//:www.fhwa.dot.
gov/policy/ohim/hs02/pdf/in3.pdf, last accessed 06/27/2005.
G. Fleischmann. Stabilität und Wandel von Technologien - Paradigma, Leitbild, Standard. In J. Esser, G. Fleischmann, and T. Heimer, editors, Soziale
Schließung im Prozess der Technikentwicklung - Leitbild, Paradigma, Standard,
pages 10–35. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a. M., 1998.
D. Friedman. A new road - the technology and potential of hybrid vehicles. Report, Union of Concerned Scientists, January 2004. http://www.ucsusa.org/
documents/Hybrid2003 final.pdf, last accessed 02/27/2005.
169
FTA. Motor fuel excise tax rates. State tax list, Federation of Tax Administrators, Washington, D.C., January 2005. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/
motor fl.html, last accessed 09/14/2005.
L. Fulton. Reducing oil consumption in transport: Combining three approaches.
IEA/EET Working Paper 2004/01, International Energy Agency, Paris, January
2004.
T. Givens and A. Lüdtke. The politics of European Union immigration policy:
Institutions, salience and harmonization. The Policy Studies Journal, 32(1):
145–165, 2004.
P. Gott, J. R. Linna, and J. P. Mello, editors. The evolution of powertrain technology 2008 and beyond: Engines, hybrids, battery electric, fuel cells, emissions. Proceedings of the Total Vehicle Technology 2002 Conference, University
of Sussex, UK, 2002. University of Sussex, UK. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/
automotive/tvt2002/1 gott.pdf, last accessed 02/14/2005.
D. L. Greene, K. G. Duleep, and W. McManus. Future potential of hybrid and
diesel powertrains in the US light-duty vehicle market. Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2004. http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpio/0410003.
html, last accessed 01/27/2005.
P. de Haan and A. Peters. Charakteristika und Beweggründe von Käufern des
Toyota Prius 2. Forschungsbericht, ETH Zürich, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, January 2005. http://www.uns.ethz.ch/res/emdm/tramob/hybcars/
ETH ToyotaPrius Bericht 050123.pdf, last accessed 06/07/2005.
D. Hakim. Fuel economy plan bypasses California to help out Detroit. The New
York Times - Online, 08/25/2005a. Online article obtained from research service
(no fixed URL).
D. Hakim. Hybrid-car tinkerers scoff at no-plug-in rule. The New York Times
- Online, 04/02/2005b. Online article obtained from research service (no fixed
URL).
D. Hakim and J. M. Broder. Emissions regulations could stall energy bill. The
New York Times - Online, 08/24/2005. Online article obtained from research
service (no fixed URL).
J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch,
A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Tovakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt,
170
and N. Tauusnev. Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications.
Science, 05/28/2005. Published online, doi:10.1126/science.1110252.
R. M. Heavenrich.
Light-duty automotive technology and fuel economy
trends: 1975 through 2005. Report EPA420-R-05-001, Environmental Protection Agency, July 2005. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/
420r05001.pdf, last accessed 09/18/2005.
V. Himanen, M. Lee-Gosselin, and A. Perrels. Impacts of transport on sustainability: Towards an integrated transatlantic evidence base. Transport Reviews,
24(6):691–705, November 2004.
A. M. Howitt and A. Altshuler. The politics of controlling auto air pollution. In
J. A. Gomèz-Ibanez, W. B. Tye, and C. Winston, editors, Essays in transportation economics and policy, pages 223–255. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
M. Hård and A. Knie. The cultural dimension of technology management: Lessons
from the history of the automobile. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 13(1):91–103, 2001.
J. Huber. Environmental policy shift through technological innovation. In K. Jacob, M. Binder, and A. Wieczorek, editors, Governance for industrial transformation. Proceedings of the 2003 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of
Global Environmental Change, pages 438–447. Environmental Policy Research
Centre, Berlin, 2004.
C. Hulse. Emissions regulations could stall energy bill. The New York Times
- Online, 06/05/2005. Online article obtained from research service (no fixed
URL).
I. Husain. Electric and hybrid vehicles: Design fundamentals. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 2003.
HybridCars.com. Who’s buying hybrids?
http://www.hybridcars.com/
hybrid-driver-profile.html, last accessed 09/28/2005, 2005.
K. Inoue. Toyota expects Prius sales in Europe to surge 83 %. Bloomberg.com, September 2004. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000101&sid=
aXV.6EAyj.vk&refer=japan, last accessed 03/06/2005.
IPCC. Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report - Summary for policymakers. Assessment Report 3, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. http://
171
www.grida.no/climate/ipcc tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf, last accessed
05/30/2005.
J. D. Power and Associates. Will higher gas prices put more hybrids on the road?
The Power Report, May 2004a. http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/
automotive/publications/, last accessed 02/22/2005.
J. D. Power and Associates. Measuring electric hybrids - is something happening with hybrids? The Power Report, June 2004b. http://www.jdpa.com/
businessservices/automotive/publications/, last accessed 02/22/2005.
J. D. Power and Associates. High consumer interest in hybrid electric vehicles. The
Power Report, November 2004c. http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/
automotive/publications/, last accessed 02/22/2005.
J. D. Power and Associates. Hybrid vehicle market share expected to peak at 3 percent - thirty-eight hybrid vehicle models to be available by 2011. Press release,
February 2005. http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.
asp?ID=2005013, last accessed 06/12/2005.
C. M. Jefferson and R. H. Barnard.
Southampton/Boston, MA, 2002.
Hybrid vehicle propulsion.
WIT Press,
W. S. Jevons. The coal question: An inquiry concerning the progress of the nation,
and the probable exhaustion of our coal-mines. Macmillan and Co., London,
1866. Full text available at http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/
Jevons/jvnCQ.html, last accessed 10/28/2005.
W. D. Jones. Take this car and plug it in. IEEE Spectrum, pages 10–13, July
2005.
G. de Jong, J. Fox, M. Pieters, L. Vonk, and A. Daly. Audit of car ownership
models. Report 01192, RAND Europe, January 2002.
R. Kemp, J. Schot, and R. Hoogma. Regime shifts to sustainability through
processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management.
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10(2):175–195, 1998.
D. A. Kirsch. The electric vehicle and the burden of history. Rutgers University
Press, New Brunswick, NJ / London, 2000.
P. Klemmer, U. Lehr, and K. Löbbe. Environmental innovation - Incentives and
barriers. Analytica, Berlin, 1999.
172
R. Kline and T. Pinch. Users as agents of technical change. the social construction
of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture, 37(4):
763–795, 1996.
A. Knie. ‘Generierung’ und ‘Härtung’ technischen Wissens: Die Entstehung der
mechanischen Schreibmaschine. Technikgeschichte, 58(2):101–126, 1991.
A. Knie. Wankelmut in der Autoindustrie: Anfang und Ende einer Antriebsalternative. Edition Sigma, Berlin, 1994.
A. Knie. Die Interpretation des Autos als Rennreiselimousine: Genese, Bedeutungsprägung, Fixierungen und verkehrspolitische Konsequenzen. In H.L. Dienel and H. Trischler, editors, Geschichte der Zukunft des Verkehrs:
Verkehrskonzepte von der frühen Neuzeit bis zum 21. Jahrhundert, pages 243–
259. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a. M., 1997.
B. I. Koerner. Go hybrid! How Toyota is driving the new auto age. Wired, pages
96–102, April 2005.
S. Krarup and C. S. Russell. Environment, information and consumer behavior.
Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Cheltenham, 2005.
F. Kreith, D. S. Potestio, and C. Kimbell. Ground transportation for the 21st
century. National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, D.C., 1999.
Th. S. Kuhn. The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL, 3rd edition, 1996.
G. C. Kunkle. Technology in the seamless web: ‘Success’ and ‘Failure’ in the history of the electron microscope. Technology and Culture, 36(1):80–103, January
1995.
K. S. Kurani and T. S. Turrentine. Automobile buyer decisions about fuel economy
and fuel efficiency. Final report to United States Department of Energy and
Energy Foundation, University of California, Davis/Institute of Transportation
Studies, September 2004.
Ch. Lave and L. Lave. Fuel economy and auto safety regulation: Is the cure worse
than the disease? In J. A. Gomèz-Ibanez, W. B. Tye, and C. Winston, editors, Essays in transportation economics and policy, pages 257–289. Brookings
Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
173
K.-H. Lenz and W. Legat. Verkehr im nächsten Jahrtausend - Systeme der Zukunft.
In P. Kemper, editor, Am Anfang war das Rad - Eine kleine Geschichte der
menschlichen Fortbewegung, pages 301–312. Insel Verlag, Frankfurt a. M., 1997.
T. E. Lipmann and M. A. Delucchi. Hybrid electric vehicle design, retail and lifecycle cost analysis. Report UCD-ITS-RR-03-01, UC Davis/Institute of Transportation Studies, April 2003. Prepared for The Energy Foundation.
L. V. Lombardo. SUVs and safety. Crash Injury Research and Engineering
Network, 09/06/2001. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-50/ciren/
2001/0901nhtsa.pdf, last accessed 01/31/2005.
B. Longhurst and M. Savage. Social class, consumption and the influence of Bourdieu: some critical issues. In S. Edgell, K. Hetherington, and A. Wade, editors,
Consumption matters, pages 274–301. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA,
1996.
P. K. Lunt and S. M. Livingstone. Mass consumption and personal identity: Everyday economic experience. Open University Press, Buckingham/Bristol, 1992.
W. J. McEwen. Why car buyers buy - Yet another study of auto buyers ignores the
enormous impact of consumer emotions. Gallup Brain, October 2004. Online
article obtained from research service (no fixed URL).
H. Moorhouse. American automobiles and workers’ dreams. The sociological review, 31:403–426, 1983.
Munich Re. Insuring catastrophes. UNEP magazine - Our planet, 1, 2001. http:
//www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/113/berz.html, last accessed 05/31/2005.
N. Myers and J. Kent. The new consumers - The influence of affluence on the
environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2004.
R. Nelson and S. Winter. In search of a useful theory of innovation. Research
Policy, 6:36–71, 1977.
New York Times. Standard & Poor’s cuts Ford and G.M. debt rating to junk
status. New York Times Online, 05/05/2005a.
New York Times. Hybrid cars burning gas in the drive for power. New York Times
Online, 07/17/2005b. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/automobiles/
17hybrid.html, last accessed 07/19/2005.
174
OECD/IEA.
Global Energy Outlook 2002.
IEA Publications, Paris,
2002a. http://www.iea.org/Textbase/nppdf/free/2000/weo2002.pdf, last
accessed 05/06/2005.
OECD/IEA. Energy policies of IEA countries - the United States 2002 Review. Report, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/International
Energy Agency, 2002b. http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/
usa2002.pdf, last accessed 25/05/2005.
OECD/IEA. Transport technologies and policies for energy security and CO2
reductions. Energy technology policy and collaboration papers, Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development/International Energy Agency, March
2003.
OECD/IEA. Global Energy Outlook 2004. IEA Publications, Paris, 2004a.
OECD/IEA. Oil crises and climate change - 30 years of energy use in IEA countries. IEA Publications, Paris, 2004b.
OECD/WEP. Conclusions and recommendations, 32 countries (1993-2000). Environmental performance reviews (1st cycle), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Working Party for Environmental Performance,
Paris, November 2000. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/56/2432829.pdf,
last accessed 05/31/2005.
Th. H. Ortmeyer and P. Pillay. Trends in transport sector technology energy use
and greenhouse gas emissions. In Proceedings of the IEEE, volume 89, pages
1837–1847, December 2001.
P. Otnes. The sociology of consumption: Liberate our daily lives. In id., editor,
The sociology of consumption, pages 157–178. Humanities Press International,
Atlantic Highlands, 1988.
T. Pinch and W. E. Bijker. The social construction of facts and artefacts - Or how
the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other.
In W. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch, editors, The social construction of
technological systems. New directions on the sociology and history of technology,
pages 17–50. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.
S. J. Polzin, X. Chu, and L. Toole-Holt. The case for moderate growth in vehicle
miles of travel: A critical juncture in US travel behavior trends. Technical
report, US Department of Transportation/National Highway Administration,
175
2003. Available on the National Household Travel Survey website: http://
nhts.ornl.gov/2001/reports.shtml, last accessed 05/05/2005.
R. Pool. Beyond engineering - How society shapes technology. Oxford University
Press, New York/Oxford, 1997.
R. Porter. Economics at the wheel - The costs of cars and drivers. Academic Press,
San Diego, CA, 1999.
W. Rammert. Research on generation and development of technology: The state
of the art in Germany. In M. Dierkes and U. Hoffman, editors, New technology
at the outset - social forces in the shaping of technological innovations, pages
62–89. Campus/Westview, Frankfurt a. M., 1992.
A. Reed II, D. B. Wooten, and L. E. Bolton. The temporary construction of
consumer attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4):375–388, 2002.
A. Rip, T. J. Misa, and Schot J. Managing technology in society: The approach
of constructive technology assessment. Pinter Publishers, London/New York,
1995.
G. Ritzer. Explorations in the sociology of consumption - Fast food, credit cards
and casinos. SAGE Publications, London, 2001.
R. A. Rogers. Visions dancing in engineers heads: AT&T’s quest to fulfill the
‘Leitbild’ of a universal telephone service. IZB Discussion Papers, FS II, pages
90–102, 1990.
J. Rubin. Not just a spike. Occasional Report 53, CIBC World Markets,
04/13/2005. http://odac-info.org.hosting.domaindirect.com/bulletin/
documents/NotJustASpike.pdf, last accessed 05/20/2005.
M. R. Saltzman and S. A. Young. Long-lived glaciation in the Late Ordovician?
Isotopic and sequence-stratigraphic evidence from Western Laurentia. Geology,
33(2):109–112, 2005.
P. A Samuelson and W. D. Nordhaus.
d’Organisation, Paris, 14e edition, 1995.
Micro-économie.
Les Editions
D. J. Santini, P. D. Patterson, and A. D. Vyas. The importance of vehicle
costs, fuel prices, and fuel efficiency to HEV market success. In Proceedings of the 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 01/09/2000–01/13/2000. Argonne National Laboratory, IL, Au-
176
gust 1999. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?
osti id=750495,lastaccessed08/15/2005.
A. Schafer. The global demand for motorized mobility. Transportation Research
Part A, 32(6):455–477, 1998.
A. Schafer and D. G. Victor. The future mobility of the world population. Transportation Research Part A, 34(3):171–205, 2000.
J.W. Schot. Constructive technology assessment and technology dynamics: The
case of clean technologies. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(1):36–56,
1992.
Shell. Proved reserve recategorisation following internal review: No material effect
on financial statements. Press release, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, 01/09/2004.
J. M. Staudenmaier. Technology’s storytellers: Reweaving the human fabric. Society for the History of Technology and the MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.
D. Stead and D. Banister. Influencing mobility outside transport policy. Innovation, 14(4):315–330, 2001.
O. Svidén. Clean fuel/engine systems for twenty-first-century road vehicles. In
G. Giannopoulos and A. Gillespie, editors, Transport and communications innovation in Europe, pages 122–148. Belhaven Press, London, 1993.
SZ. Tödliche Gefahr durch Feinstaub - Fahrverbot und Maut in Großstädten.
Süddeutsche Zeitung Online, 02/08/2005. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/
deutschland/artikel/88/48040/, last accessed 02/24/2005.
G. Tertolen, D. van Kreveld, and B. Verstraten. Psychological resistance against
attempts to reduce private car use. Transportation Research Part A, 32(3):
171–181, 1998.
J. B. Treece. Martens: Ford is high on hybrids. Automotive News, 79(6161):35,
08/15/2005.
T. L. Tuten, D. J. Urban, and M. Bosnjak. Internet surveys and data quality:
A review. In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reis, and M. Bosnjak, editors, Online social
science, pages 7–26. Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, Wash., 2002.
UNEP. Global Environmental Outlook 2004/2005 - An overlook of our changing environment. Yearbook, United Nations Environmental Programme,
2005a. http://www.unep.org/GEO/pdfs/GEO%20YEARBOOK%202004%20(ENG)
.pdf, last accessed 05/30/2005.
177
UNEP.
Greener driving.
Website, United Nations Environmental Programme, Energy Unit, 2005b. http://www.greener-driving.net, last accessed 05/30/2005.
UNFCCC. Greenhouse gas inventory data, 2005.
default.htf, last accessed 05/31/2005.
http://ghg.unfccc.int/
UNFCCC/UNEP. Climate change information kit. Information sheets, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change/United Nations Environmental
Programme, 2002. http://unfccc.int/essential background/background
publications htmlpdf/items/2625.php, last accessed 05/30/2005.
United States House of Representatives. House passes bipartisan energy bill
275-156. Press release, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 2005.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/07282005 1613.htm, last accessed 08/03/2005.
United States Senate. Energy Tax Policy Act of 2003. Technical report, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 2003. http://energy.senate.gov/
legislation/energybill2004/full text.pdf, last accessed 01/30/2005.
USGS. US Geological Survey world petroleum assessment. Technical report, Department of the Interior/US Geological Survey, 2000. http://pubs.usgs.gov/
dds/dds-060/, last accessed 05/22/2005.
D. Vaughan. The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1996.
Th. Veblen. Theory of the leisure class. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick,
1992. Originally published by Macmillan, New York, 1899.
J. Vidal. The end of oil is closer than you think: Oil production could peak
next year. The Guardian, 04/21/2005. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/
feature/story/0,13026,1464050,00.html, last accessed 05/20/2005.
P. Wagner. Sociological reflections: The technology question during the first crisis
of modernity. In M. Hård and A. Jamison, editors, The cultural appropriation
of technology: Discourses on modernity, pages 225–252. MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, 1998.
D. Wallace. Environmental policy and industrial innovation - strategies in Europe,
the USA and Japan. Earthscan Publications, London, 1995.
178
A. Warde. The future of the sociology of consumption (Afterword). In St. Edgell,
K. Hetherington, and A. Warde, editors, Consumption Matters - The production
and experience of consumption, pages 302–312. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford,
1996.
K. M. Weber. Transforming large socio-technical systems towards sustainability:
On the role of users and future visions for the uptake of city logistics and combined heat and power generation. Innovation, 16(2):155–174, 2003.
A. Weinberg. Can technology replace social engineering? In A. H. Teich, editor,
Technology and the future, pages 30–39. St. Martins Press, New York, NY, 1993.
M. A. Weiss, J. B. Heywood, E. M. Drake, A. Schafer, and F. AuYeung. On the
road in 2020: A life-cycle analysis of new automobile technologies. Report MIT
EL 00-003, MIT Energy Lab, October 2000.
WHO. Air quality guidelines for Europe. WHO Regional Publications, European
Series 91, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen,
2000.
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, 1987.
Sh. Zukin and J. Smith Maguire. Consumers and consumption. Annual Review of
Sociology, 30:173–197, 2004.
179