Those hybrids are a lie. The CO2 put out generating the power for it is in most cases from coal which is worse than burning gasoline.
Worse in what way? In terms of fuel price? Or in terms of emission value? Given that the topic here is fuel, I'd say that an emissions issue might not be exactly at hand. Unless that's why you brought this up...
it's not something the greens want known, it would ruin their agenda...
The electricity to charge those batteries is produced in coal fired powerstations in most areas.
Those aren't exactly clean. Then there are all the line losses before it gets to your house where you charge your car. Those line losses amount to over 30%, up to 70% in some areas.
In total only 5-10% at most of the caloric value of the fuel used to generate that electricity is actually used for propulsion of you "green" electric car.
With a petrol engine that's something like 50-60% (even taking into account the losses during transportation of the fuel to the gas station, something not taken into account with the calculation for electricity).
Take into account that petrol burns cleaner than does coal, and that it's easier to tune a car engine for optimum efficiency than a powerstation, and the effect becomes clear.
Of course if the car is powered using electricity from a nuclear powerstation (or hydro) the equation changes.
But hydro has its own drawbacks, many of which are only now becoming recognised.
The lakes behind hydro dams cause massive destruction of pristine wilderness, destruction of habitat on a massive scale and regularly cause species to go extinct.
The dams can also prevent species like salmon from reaching their spawning grounds.
Wind, tidal, als solar also have major drawbacks that aren't often mentioned in the non-scientific press (in part those drawbacks are only now becoming apparent now that they're being employed on more than miniscule scale, to be fair, drawbacks like changes in air and sea currents causing climate change and destruction of habitat).