The Prius Bad for the Environment?
86
This may or may not come as some shock to you, but many scientists are saying that Toyota's best-selling hybrid, the Prius, is actually bad for the environment. Some are even asserting that it has a worse impact on our world than the widely-hated Hummer.
With such universal concern (whether genuine or a desire to be "hip") to live a "greener" lifestyle, it's no surprise that this argument has become quite heated, though surprisingly quiet.
After all, if Toyota says that it's created a car that gets excellent gas mileage and is therefore better for the environment than other cars are, the consumer wants to believe this. So what are these new, conflicting reports?
Is the Prius or is it not good for the environment?
|
Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that will Recharge America
Price: $7.99
List Price: $16.95 |
|
Electric and Hybrid Cars: A History
Price: $49.50
List Price: $55.00 |
|
The Essential Hybrid Car Handbook: A Buyer's Guide
Price: $3.37
List Price: $14.95 |
|
The Electric Car: Development and Future of Battery, Hybrid and Fuel-Cell Cars (IEE Power & Energy Series, 38)
Price: $36.00
List Price: $49.00 |
The Beginning
The first I heard of any of this was in March 2007. My conservative Republican father snidely directed me to an article in Central Connecticut State University's school newspaper, The Recorder, that claimed that the Prius "outdoes" the Hummer in damage to the environment (link at the bottom of the page).
What??
This is based on a CNW Marketing Research report called "Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal." But I thought the Prius was supposed to be great for the environment. It can get up to 60 miles per gallon of gas (though Toyota officials admit that most users will get more like 45 mpg on the highway).
As it turns out, burning gas is not the only (or even the major) factor in a car's impact on the environment. News to me!
The Other Factors
Apparently, when considering how "good" (or bad) a car is for the environment, gas mileage is one of the last factors to weigh. It's actually the production of the car that matters. The raw materials' sources, the manufacturing effort, and the shipping costs all have an impact on the environment. And apparently, those of the Toyota Prius are not having a positive impact.
|
CAR SEAT COVERS 2009 TOYOTA PRIUS SUPERIOR 09
Current Bid: $59.95
|
|
Toyota : Prius LOW RESERVE 2007 PRIUS HYBRID 31K MI SMART KEY BACK UP CAMERA CLEAN
Current Bid: $7101.00
|
|
2001 - 2009 Toyota Prius Hybrid Owners Owner's Manual.
Current Bid: $6.50
|
|
Toyota : Prius Touring 2008 Toyota Prius 13k Navigation Back Up Camera HID!!
Current Bid: $12700.00
|
The Numbers
The Prius' battery contains nickel, which is mined in Ontario Canada. The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution.
But the main problem that the "Dust to Dust" study has with the Prius' impact on the environment comes next.
That smelted nickel then has to travel (via container ship) to Europe to be refined, then to China to be made into "nickel foam," then to Japan for assembly, and finally to the United States. All this shipment for each tiny step in the production process costs a great deal, both in dollars and in pollution.
The study then concludes that -- all the production costs in mind -- the Prius costs about $3.25 per mile and is expected to last about 100,000 miles. The Hummer, on the other hand, with all the same factors counted, costs about $1.95 per mile and is expected to last about 300,000 miles.
Join HubPages!
You can write a "hub" like this and make money from the advertisements! Just join the HubPages community (it only takes a few seconds), and start writing about whatever moves you. It's that simple!
The Other Side
The Pacific Institute points out the holes in the argument of "Dust to Dust" quite eloquently, and to be quite honest, I'm not sure who to believe. They've written an entire article debunking the study.
They argue that the study bases its conclusions on "faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review." As I'm not a scientist, I can't particularly argue against any of these things; I can only report both sides.
Let the Market Decide
Ultimately, new technologies will always come under all types of scrutinies. Hybrid automobile technology is no different, and surely scientists and marketing executives will continue to argue about this for years.
The moral of the story, to me, seems to be to do your research instead of listening to media hype. Don't believe at face-value the hype a company gives you when selling its product. Don't read just one article and let it change your decision to buy a car.
The market will decide whether or not the Prius and other hybrid vehicles help us feel better about our impact on the environment until we can unlock Hydrogen-powered vehicles (or a similarly efficient fuel).
- Forbes: Feel Green, Feel Good
Not sure how credible this sarcastic article is (it says Ben & Jerry's is bad for the environment because they don't use bovine growth hormones), but it's worth a link. - Pacific Institue: Hummer versus Prius
This nonpartisan think-tank argues that the reports against the Prius are intentionally omitting important information.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down [flag this hub]
Comments
Great hub. Most people will never look into the total cost to the environment of producing a car. Electric hybrids have a great cost to the environment in both production and disposal of batteries. Get a corolla instead of a hummer or a hybrid.
Eye opening! I suppose most that can purchase a prius will do so because of their immediate need of saving money. But for those who really care about the environmental impacts, this information is cause for pause.
I don't know how forthcoming auto makers would be when it comes to divulging all the costs involved in producing cars and getting them to market. But, it's something I'll consider the next time I need to purchase a vehicle.
Thanks for posting this!
Unfortunately, the people who purchase a Prius do so knowing that they will save money by buying less gas in the long-run. Priuses are extremely expensive, but people who buy them think that they are doing so to be environmentally conscious and to save some cash down the road. The latter might be true, but the former is not!
Again, it's a case of advertising versus education. Hopefully education will eventually win out!
The latter might be false, too :)
There are numerous reports and calculations on the net, showing that savings on gas cost (on the current price level) do not offset the difference in car prices completely...
That's true, too, Misha. Especially considering that the engines don't last nearly as long as they do in many other cars.
I don't believe that hybrids are all they're cracked up to be because of the complexity (maintenance) and cost of the hybrid drive train, but I also wouldn't be willing to place a dime on the quality of the CNW report -- they look like an extremely secretive company (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNW_Marketing_Researc and http://www.cnwmr.com/frequentquestions/) -- industry analysts who are bought and sold for the price of a "research report" are a dime a dozen. The funding for their study (like everything else about their company and the report) was not disclosed -- the Pacific Institute's analysis pretty legitimately rips them to shreds.
I also believe that most people who buy Priuses do so for status and image of being eco-conscious, rather than reality (if they really cared that much, they would ride a motorcycle or the bus). I drive a Corolla right now, but my next car will probably be a VW CleanTDI that can run on biodiesel (which is convenient enough here in Seattle, but not many other places right now).
You're not wrong, MC7. CNW is suspect, though I find Pacific Institute suspect, as well. The point of all of this is just to call the Prius and its lofty claims into question.
And you're totally right about the status thing; if they cared that much, they'd ride their bike! ;)
I think you bring up a very good perspective - question the validity of what we are being sold.
That said, I think most people, me included, tend to make the best decision we can with way too little information and way too much emotion. Really, what do you think the average voter knows about any bill or politician they vote for?
The good of this is that at least people are getting emotionally behind the green movement and beginning to care about the world we live in. Who knows we may even be in time to keep from destroying the planet - or maybe not...
You're so right, Jason, that people make decisions with a small amount of information and a large amount of emotion, when in reality it should probably be the other way around.
I love that companies are promoting the "green" thing now; I just hope that they'll do it responsibly.
Helen,
This is a great article that covers both sides of this issue. Moreover, you point out that we can't trust others and need to research on our own to make a good decision. I will be quite disappointed if the hybrid isn't all they say it is.
Your writing is great!
Jonathan
Thanks, Jonathan! The whole do-your-own-research is something I've gotten used to having a dog; the canine food, toy, and medicine industries are all completely skewed and backwards. It's been a great life lesson; don't believe what big companies tell you!
I KNOW!!!! I'm getting more skeptical with age. I used to trust doctors and know I don't.
Unfortunately, we defer to "professionals" far too easily. And, depending on the situation, we willingly put our mental health, our child's well-being, or our LIFE in their hands after asking very few questions. There are plenty of trustworthy doctors out there, for example... but there are also plenty that aren't (as I'm sure you've noticed).
Excellent Hub....Nice thoughts..Keep it up.
Thanks, Stephen! The educated consumer is the most powerful weapon against most of the capitalist world's evils. :)
I've always wondered about anything that has a large battery content, because batteries in general have some pretty noxious chemical floating around in them, and are the devil to manufacture and dispose of properly.
Of course, no matter what you do, someone can find fault in it. It's like the envirnmentalists opposing wind generators because of the potential impact on birds. It seems like no one is happy unless we regress to the lifestyle of the colonists, but even that has a major carbon footprint (wood burning stoves, large acreage clear cut due to low yields from 200 year old farming techniques, etc.)
Just do the best you can and move on.
"Do the best you can," that's great advice, john. There will always be someone opposed to everything so we just have to do our own research and decide for ourselves.
Thank you very much for posting this article.
Just a couple of month's ago, my parents were planning on purchasing a car, and they were leaning towards the Prius because of the fuel savings. I disuaded them by telling them the extra cost of the vehicle is probably more than what they'll save in gas (they're both retired, and won't be driving much because of my father's health). Furthermore, no one has told us yet how long the batteries will really last, and how much it will cost to replace them. Being in a southern state, where regular car batteries don't hold up very long, this gave me pause. And to think about replacing said batteries, and the impact on the environment (and their wallet) it may create, made me shudder.
Now that gas is almost $4/gallon, I was rethinking my decision in disuading them. However, your article helped comfort me in my original argument. (Mother didn't like the way the Prius looked anyways.) <grin>
I'm impressed you had the foresight to think as you did, Jim! Most people can't see past the But Think Of All The Money You'll Save On Gas argument. The truth is, you'll probably save a lot more by just buying a fuel-efficient (non-hybrid) car. Thanks for your story, and I'm glad my article was able to support your original argument. (My father is always complaining about how ugly Priuses are, too!)
The writer of this article should have followed his own advice, and after doing the necessary research, wrote an accurate and balanced account of the CNW report and its critics. I won't waste space detailing all the problems with the CNW Report. It has been thoroughly "debunked" not just by the Pacific Institute and Argonne National Laboratory but also by numerous ordinary individuals using common sense. If you want to see what I mean just do an internet search on "CNW Report".
To make a long story short, the headline and most of the article gives an air of credibility to CNW that it lost well over a year ago. There undoubtedly is a need to weigh the costs and benefits of owning a Prius or any other car. Unfortunately, the CNW Report and this article serves at best to confuse, or at worst to mislead rather than provide useful information to such consumers.
So what do you use that has to go to China and shipped here??? Get real. Using less gas and creating less polution is a real start. Unless you have something better just stop your protestations.
Plenty of stuff, chicken, but I try to buy most of my food locally, and I use public transportation. I have great alternatives to the Prius: fuel-efficient vehicles, bicycles, carpooling, mass transportation, organic food, plenty.
You think it's okay for the fat to get fatter because they've lied to the rest of us about the positive effects of their products? I guess that's why I'm the writer with my name on my work, and you're the chicken.
The Hummer lasts 300,000 miles! Now that's a laugh. I am no environmentalist and enjoy a car with a decent engine.. but I am not sure American cars outlast their Japanese counterparts. How did they arrive at that conclusion?
I think that's part of the problem people have with that report; some what it says is just obviously nonsense. I don't know much about cars in general, though, so I have no idea how long a Hummer can last. But just because the report stretches some facts doesn't mean there's no grain of truth to it... That's why I wanted to bring further attention to it. Thanks for reading, Dubai Entrepeneur!
I can't comment about anything regarding the vehicles but would like to say that I live in the nickel city "Sudbury Ontario" you called a wasted land. That may have been the case 40 years ago but today Sudbury is a beautiful forested city. It has gone through a greening upgrade and I am proud to have lived here for the past 53 years. I think before you a call a place a waste land you better check your facts. To me it leaves me questioning your facts about the prius over the hummer.
Allan
I'm very happy you stopped by, Allan.. Obviously I'm thrilled to hear that Sudbury is no longer a wasteland; the thought of that was terribly depressing. It must have been amazing to see the place you love so much go through such a remarkable change for the better.
I want to remind you, though, that I am not a scientist and haven't done ANY research into the Prius other than to read the original "Dust to Dust" article and then the Pacific Institute's article debunking it. This hub is not meant to be a presentation of findings, merely a presentation of the argument that's going on in the scientific world. I'm sorry to leave you questioning the facts, but the very problem is that they're questionable in the first place!
I hope you don't question my credibility as an author overall, though... That's the one thing I can control and try to remain as credible as possible. Thanks again for your valuable personal experience.
I think the CNW's original report did some harm by saying "hummer is better for the environment than a prius". Perhaps the subject should have been little different as "Prius .. environmentally friendly? .. NOT". Instead the comparison could be in between a prius and a diesel jetta. Jetta or any other diesel cars have much better driving experience and even the gas milage is better than a hybrid, in very recent news, toyota avgo hit 90 mpg on a testing track in UK and car is expected to hit upper 40s in average. And guess what ... no nickel is needed .. there is cost of transportation, running two engines, battery replacement etc. etc. etc. and it can drive as long, if not more than a prius. So .. I ask you why do we compare Prius with a "hummer".
I'm frankly very disturbed by Toyota's hybrid push in the US market where an easy solution such as diesel is looking right into our eyes for over 20 years. Step by step we can move to electricity, hydrogen or others but now the diesel solution is there and it works perfectly fine.
Someone, I agree COMPLETELY that the report shouldn't've gone "so far" because the facts that they DID use spoke for themselves. By comparing the Prius to the Hummer and "stretching" the facts, they just lost all credibility. Not intelligent.
But there are downsides to diesel, too. Gas milage is certainly better, but it's not a cure-all... it's still fossil fuel! I agree that it might be a good solution for the interim while we're working on better technology. Thanks for your opinions and explanation!
Helen, my point is that as consumers, our market is being played that somehow we need some new technology and "as of now" no solution is available that we need to wait for hydrogen, electrcity or some other source. This is the very matter along with companies like Toyota putting fuel in to fire by pushing hybrid in to market instead of selling diesel cars.
Checkout VW Polo Diesel with 70+ MPG. BMW on the other hand pushes their environmetally friendly 335 bluetech diesel's in to market next year with lower 30s milage. To me, anything below 40 mpg is technology belongs to bible and jesus. Coming to diesel pollution, it is very important for readers as well you to read up on
Sorry my replied got submitted accidentally/prematurely J To continue: it is very important for everyone of us to read and understand ULSD, ultra low sulfur diesel. There are many newer technologies, mostly from Europe, to reduce emissions, particles etc. to a much lower degree “dramatically” beating gasoline engine not only by mpg but also by pollution per mile. With such regulations, engines supporting it, cheap production, available technology, energy providers available (gas stations) and many more ... we can use this stuff NOW .. there is no need to wait for big bang and Einsteinian idea to save the planet by creating energy from clipped toe nails. Another question for everyone ... why, all of a sudden, we have the Diesel prices increasing at a higher rate than normal fuel? I hear that it is higher demand .. well Diesel fuel is No. 2 distillate meaning that making Diesel is easier and cheaper than Gasoline so ... why ? This is no different than paying more money for light beer (beer with more water). Again, I fully support all investment, hard work etc. to invent newer and better energy sources such as electric, wind, volcanic on and on .. However, I sincerely refuse the thought that we have to wait for these technologies to appear so we can take an action.. we have a solution NOW and it can be used that will drop our pollution by half given that we all compromise from travelling in a gigantic SUV to pick up two bags of groceries.
Someone, all of the points you make are excellent. I'm proud to have them displayed under my hub. :) Chime in any time!
Great Hub you have here :) please read my new hub about getting free online car quotes...
I wish that I noticed this hub early, I would have tackled it sooner but anyway I'll make my 2 cent makes sense. The total cost for producing a car can have a negative effect on the environment. It will all depends on the war materials that are used and how the car is being produce. However though, in the real world, the consumer is not concern with the total cost of productivity but rather how much the car cost and is it environmental friendly. As far as the effect on the environment during production is a problem that must be dealt with through government regulation. Consumers very often don't care to know how a car is produce, they main concerns are cost, efficiency, HP, millage per gallon. I' m sure most automobile manufactures contributes their share of pollution to the air we breath, the only different here is that some contribute more than others.
Thanks for your comment, Coolbreezing! I think you are right that the government needs to take some responsibility for the overall impact that car production has on the environment. But somehow, consumers need to obtain the hunger for knowledge!
the worldsrecord for milage is owned by a chevy truck at over 1M miles and still going ....H! hummers in Iraq usuall run 24hrs a day for months on end because they are occupied in 3 shifts. an H2 or H3 lasting 300k miles is perfectly within its abilities. i personally have a 2000 Chevy Camaro with 220k miles on it, and have had other GM vehicles that hae gone way passed 300k miles.
unfortunatly the preception is that american cars do not have longevity and that has hurt the big 3. and the face that most people do not know that a great share of crude oil goes to things like lipstick, bottles for water and the other billion or so consumer items that humans think they "NEED". that is where the real waste is
Exactly, BowTieBear. So much of all this "global warming" stuff has become reduced and oversimplified. "CARS BAD, HYBRIDS GOOD." It doesn't work like that. We have to look at the whole picture of our impact on the world around us.
Where will all of those Prius batteries be disposed of? Can nickel foam be recycled? My guess is that they all end up in a land fill in some third world country we pay a quarter a pop to dump them on.
viralmusicvideos, I don't doubt that you're correct. We really need to look at things on a more holistic level if we are ever going to make any difference.
This is an interesting thread to read. However, I did not see much (or anything) from an actual Prius owner. I have owned a Prius for the last 2 1/2 years, and I am completely, 100% happy with my purchasing decision. Granted, I could have bought a car that was less expensive, probably more environmentally sound to build, but I chose a Prius... For whatever reason, I did. Maybe I liked the way it looks, or how spatious it is inside, or how just plain fun it is to drive! The MPG is just an added benefit! Several people talked about the reasons why people chose to buy a Prius... but why NOT? What is the BETTER solution?
I often find myself defending my car to antagonists. (I am sure that I defend my car more than my mother-in-law with her Porche or my uncle with his big truck that gets 9 MPG.) However, I have a Masters degree in Environmental Science, and most of their arguments fall short. None the less, what I am most happy about is pulling into a gas station, putting 10 gallons of gas in, and not having to worry about anything for at least 500 miles. That is really nice.
And for anyone that is concerned about the longevity of a Prius, they need to go to this website: http://john1701a.com/prius/owners/jesse4.htm - read about Jesse and his Prius which has over 342,000 miles on it. Seriously.
I am not concerned about the maintenance or reliability of this car. I love it, and I have never regretted my decision to buy it.
Hi Super Muffin Girl, great to hear from a Prius owner, and a Masters degree holder in Envi Sci to boot! The better solution holistically, I would argue, is to buy a highly fuel-efficient car that does not utilize hybrid technology. From the beginning of the production of your car to the years its remnants are (not) rotting in a junk yard, it's better for the environment for you to get a gas-powered car that gets 30+ mpg. You'll pay a little more for gas, but that's my argument.
Carbon emissions are a tiny part of the problem with our impact on the environment, as I'm sure you are well aware. I just think that people need to look at the whole life of all the products they use to really understand the way they are affecting the planet.
"The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution.."
The wasteland was created before the 70s! Which basically means accusing 2009 Nickel extraction guilty of the pollution caused in the 50s and 60s before the Acid Rain regulation in the 70s.
"Inco in Sudbury has made significant investments to improve its environmental performance, including close to $700 million (Cdn. $1 billion) in equipment and technology upgrades to drastically reduce sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Since the 1970s, we have reduced annual SO2 emissions by 90 per cent. In 2003, we initiated construction of a Cdn. $ 115 million fluid bed roaster, which was completed in the spring of 2006. This new facility is set to reduce SO2 emissions by an additional 90 kilotonnes by the end of 2006."
great job
Dont worry about what you drive. There is no such thing as man made global warming. Certainly don't tell me what to drive or what car I can buy or what cars the autocompanies should be producing. Let's protect our freedoms. Drive whatever you choose and get rid of the goverment control from Washington. Vote them out!
Dennis -- There may be no man-made global warming, but that doesn't mean that we don't have problems. We need to be careful with resources; the world doesn't have infinite natural resources to give. Conserving fuel is important. Conserving materials is important. So I will tell you what I think you should be doing as long as there are people who think these things don't matter.
Good post, it is has its disadvantages but I think still it is much better option than driving SUVs. Hopefully in the future we will have a sound alternative, till then this is the first right step. Once the battery technology improves and green energy is widespread, then it will be good.
Way to expose the myth. It is so funny how people think hybrids are green when in fact manufacturing them is very harsh on the environment!
"Many scientists" are saying that Toyota's best-selling hybrid, the Prius, is actually bad for the environment or CNW?
CNW Marketing Group is not exactly the same as "many scientists"...
Don't give their drivel any more attention, please...
Rev, I've actually heard questions raised by many other "professionals" in the area about the Prius' true environmental footprint. But I was unable to find any actual studies that were relevant to the subject. I stand by my claim, though, that many scientists are considering that the Prius does more harm than good. It's too bad that major industries like oil, tobacco, and car can so strongly influence the things that the "Average Joe" consumer learns. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but restricting flow of information is a very present reality that we need to address.
SORRY! Here's the comment with paragraph breaks. please delete the other one.
I understand your position of relying on the Dust to Dust report and other sources like the Pacific Institute. No author can be an expert on everything. But a journalist, or an author trying to present things truthfully, should do sufficient research. You tried to be "fair and balanced" like Fox. Which is to say you took a bunk study by a marketing firm and reported on it "equally" (actually you gave it more credit) alongside the Pacific Institute. You neglected the fact that it's not only the Pacific Instutitue but basically any scientist or newspaper that has studied the issue that lines up squarely against the CNW report. See the Rocky Mountain Instutitute, other legitimate journalists and educational instutitions, like MIT (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/03/automobiles/auto absolutely love it that you talk about how the "industries" are trying to keep people from getting good info on cars. Umm... yeah, the whole CNW report is a marketing article written on behalf of the auto industry and other interested parties. CNW didn't even release their data, so no one knows if they just made it up or what. So CNW (and judging from your comments, you too) think that touting this shoddy report is really opening our eyes? Give me a break!And who are the "many scientists" who you reference? They certaintly aren't in the D2D report. References please. They might be the only way to save some of your reputation to show that other people have the same opinion of the D2d report (other than Rush Limbaugh who seems to agree with you ... http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031307 is shoddy writing, and is misleading. What's worse, this article of yours, which popped up FIRST in google btw (search: prius bad for the environment), is misleading people all the time. The article largely accepts the conclusions of the D2D report while seemingly rejecting all the scientists who actually debunked said article.Their are NO authors who put their name on the D2D report. Though, Spinella authored some of the responses to Slate, etc. What are Spinella's credentials so that we know he understands what he's talking about? None are listed on the report or website.As for information from actual scientists who could perhaps analyze the environmental consequences of the whole supply chain here's some info you didn't include in your "article"See: http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/See: http://www.denialism.com/labels/George%20Will.html http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/who-are-we.html (for the author's credentials)And the MIT report, and the Pacific Institute's report (whose board and authors are all super phd types).I'm just concerned that this idea that everything that scientists and citizens are saying and doing to try to save the environment can be denied with one report. To me your article doesn't suggest that we need to discuss whether hybrids are the way to go, but rather that we need to think about how our society forms opinions on important matters. Being the first hit on google, you must get tons of hits on your page. So it seems that the problem is not whether people are getting access to this CNW report but, whether people are forming opinions based on one discredited unscientific report and the shoddy reporting of yourself and people like Rush Limbaugh. What's the real problem here? I appreciate your attempt to create a useful discussion, but your article dangerously misleads people instead of providing a real opportunity for learning. Let's stick to facts and reliable sources so that we can make important decisions. Why your pagerank is so high as to show your page first is a mystery. But nonetheless, you have some responsibility to help shed some light on this issue and not mislead people since so many folks are going to read your site.I think your instinct to create a discussion was a good one, you just have to be responsible when you decide what the legitimate arguments are on both sides of the debate.
Hi Robby,
Thank you for your thoughtful criticisms. I wrote this article over a year ago, and noting that I am so high on Google (thanks for telling me; I had no idea!) I do have a responsibility to be as accurate as I can. I will take your comments into consideration and go back through this hub to represent the other side of the debate.
That said, I absolutely will not change my mind. My main point is the following:
Consumers need to educate themselves -- ESPECIALLY people who think they are doing "good" by buying a particular car. They should not just trust commercials, or a top hit on Google, or any other singular source, but should do a little thoughtful research (as you have done) before coming to their own conclusions.
The problem I am trying to expose is that the environmental impact of a car is NOT limited to its MPG rating, as the producers of all hybrids (not just the posterboy Prius) would have you believe. Mining and smelting of nickel and aluminum are terrible for the environment. And that's not even considering all of the damage done by cross-global shipping that takes place in the manufacturing of the Prius specifically.
A true environmentalist learns about what goes into the products he consumes and makes decisions based on that, not on marketing and "feeling good" about having "superior" products. A true environmentalist does not care if his car stands out, only that he does the right thing by driving it. (Actually, a true environmentalist rides a bike or takes public transportation, but you get my point.)
I don't think that Rush Limbaugh and I are quite on the same page, as he seems to hate anything resembling environmental friendliness, whereas I am saying the opposite: we SHOULD be concerned about our consumption of natural resources. We should aim to preserve the environment in which we live, but we should do it for the right reasons, and not because we want to look "informed" driving a Prius.
Again, though, I'll edit my hub to make sure I'm getting my points across well. Thank you again for your comment, and if you happen to see my response, I would love to hear your ideas on what I've said!
wow! great hub helena. now i have to convince myself i really dont want a prius. womp.
So if you read CNW's own rebuttal to all the criticism, they admit that they are basing the 109,000 mile lifetime on the 'average yearly mileage" of the early Prius models (about 6700 miles) times 15 years (basically they are limiting the lifetime to 15 years due to possible obsolescence from newer models.
Recently they used new data to increease the mileage lifetime of the Prius to 127,000 miles, which makes the Prius quite a bit more economical than the H3.
It is not logical to restrict the average yearly mileage to the early model usage (being highly conservative) yet at the same time figure the value down because of competitive models that MAY come out in the future. In fact they cite the Volt, an electric car which will probably never get on the market.
If you use the 13,000 mile year american average for the Prius, which is the use the car would get if it became fairly mainstream, then the Prius would actually be more attracitve than many of the cars above it on their list, including the Volkswagen diesel models and probably even the Toyota Corolla, thought without their exact formula, it is not possible to exactly calculate this.
In a final note, they state tha the Volkswagen diesels have a smaller footprint, but are not taking into account fairly recent data indicating the the particulate emissions from diesels are a signficant contributor to global warming, in fact.
Diesels only appear less polluting if you use the long outdated carbon monoxide standards that were applied to reduce smog during the 1970s. From a carbon output, view, they are not much better, and probably worse, than gasoline powered cars.
Thank you so much for your well-thought-out comment, Gpaul. First of all, I want to say that you are DEFINITELY correct that diesel cars output a much worse exhaust than regular cars, and the fact that they are considered "green" on any planet is clearly one huge misconception.
But even factoring in the extended life of the Prius, it is still more environmentally harmful to produce the Prius in the first place than it is to produce many other cars. Between the smelting and the cross-global shipping that has to happen several times, it would be better just to buy a small, fuel-efficient car that is made entirely in the country where you plan to drive it.
Interesting stuff, Helena. For those mentioning fuel consumption, remember that the Prius' greatest advantage is around town. For people travelling long distances a lot, the fuel savings won't be nearly as much.
StacyPerry, great point! I hadn't even thought of that, but the hybrid technology is really only useful for city driving (which is why I love the idea of hybrid cabs in New York!) and doesn't help much for highways. Just another point to factor in that shows that hybrids, for the most part, might just not be worth it.
While I don't think the Prius is quite as green as it's made out to be, I still think it beats the Hummer hands down.
Why? First, the only real production difference is the batteries, as for the rest it's pretty much the same, just smaller, a lot smaller. So based on that (and yes, without getting the exact numbers, go look them up) I'll say the prius is about 1/3 the mass of the Hummer. So, just a wild guess, it's using about 1/3 the resources to produce the steel, glass, etc., and costs about 1/3 the pollution.
When you consider the actual weight of the nickel in the battery (32 pounds) of each car it's clear that it's not going to generate THAT much pollution to ship it around the world a few times. (do the math, shipping 32 pounds on a cargo ship that carries 100K tons produces how much pollution?) And besides, the battery is 100% recycleable and Toyota pays a cash bounty ($150) to get people to return them for recycling. (oh, and that mine in Canada has cleaned up it's act considerably in the last few years & even won a green award)(plus the prius uses less than 1% of the nickel produced there anyway)
Then there's the fuel economy thing... OK so let's say a real world 45mpg for the prius & 12mpg for the Hummer. According to the EPA burning gasoline produces 19.4 pounds of carbon per gallon. So lets do the math... To travel 100K miles the Hummer will use 8,333 gallons and the Prius will use 2,222 gallons. So at 19.4 pounds per gallon the Hummer produces 161K pounds of carbon emissions while the prius prouduces 43K pounds. Hmmm.... That's a HECK of a lot more for the Hummer.... and you really expect me to belive that shipping 32 pounds of nickel around the world on a cargo ship will produce more than the difference of 118K pounds of carbon emissions?
Nope, don't think so!
Misha says:
18 months ago
Great hub, Helena!
While results of the study are probably skued, any car's damage to environment is definitely not limited to direct pollution from gas burning. It's all not that easy as it seems at the first glance, and people do need to think for themselves - this is a geat conclusion :)