It's a good question: should the environmental impact of a car measured solely by its fuel efficiency?! I would say no.
I recently read an article that compared the impact of a Toyota Prius --the ultimate green car according to many environmentalists-- to a Hummer H2, the enviro arch nemesis.
Surprisingly enough the article stated that when considering more than just the fuel efficiency but taking into account things such as waste produced during manufacturing, fuel efficiency, length of drivability, end waste, etc., that the Hummer is approx. 40% MORE efficient than the Prius.
At the end of the day simple, single-engine internal combustion vehicles such as a Smart car or Toyota Yaris are among the most enviro-friendly cars one could own... or a Hummer.
Article Link.
12 comments:
So are you saying that we should all drive toyota yaris' or hummers?
Where do audis fit into the equation.
Someone should tell the green-loving california-ites that the prius isn't cracked up to what it's supposed to be...
Everyone should drive Hummers or Audis.
Okay, okay... if limiting environmental impact is your ultimate goal then everyone should be driving Toyota Yaris or Smart Cars.
Don't believe every press release you read.
That figure comes in part because they use a lifespan of 100,000 miles for the Prius and 300,000 miles for the Hummer. It's hard to tell where the other figures come from since they haven't released their data, but look at the conclusion: the Prius costs $3.25/mile.
Think about that for a sec. If you drive only 10,000 miles/year then you'll be paying $32.5k/yr! That's a new car every year for ten years! You'd need a decent job just to pay for the after-tax costs of owning your car. Do you really imagine that the Prius actually costs $325,000 to own and operate over a 10 year life?
Incidentally, this study concluded that the Porche Cayenne SUV costs $2.539/mile, making it roughly the same price as the Prius despite being a turbo-charged V8 SUV with a $93k USD price tag.
I don't buy it for an instant.
-adrian.
Oops, I messed up my figures.
According to this report (remember, we can't see their data), The Prius is actually 28% more expensive than the Porsche Cayenne.
The MSRP for the Cayenne is $93k USD and the Prius is $22k USD. The Porsched is rated at 15 mpg and Prius is rated at 55 mpg combined. And yet the Prius costs $3.25/mile and the Cayenne costs only $2.6/mile?
My BS meter is screaming...
-adrian.
I don't think the article is saying we should drive SUVs, but the point is more that the Prius and other battery-based hybrids aren't exactly all that they're cracked up to be when their entire environmental impact is taken into consideration.
So go get a Toyota Yaris, a Smart ForTwo, or a VW Rabbit TDI.
But if you do get an SUV, like a Land Rover Discovery or something, don't feel so bad... those Prius' aren't any better for the environment. ;)
I dunno Nathan, with figures this whacked, I wouldn't believe anything that article says and certainly wouldn't accept its conclusions. How can a 2,900 lbs Prius that is far more fuel efficient be more expensive and damaging than a 8,600 lbs Hummer? The batteries are a factor, but nothing close to what this article says.
Just look at the figures. I know what it's "saying", I just think it's total BS.
Yes, once you start comparing the Prius hybrid to other ultra-compact cars, then the question of lead and mercury content becomes significant, but that's not what it's saying. It seems like a thinly-disguised anti-environmental piece of corporate propaganda, not just because of it's outlandish conclusions but because they haven't disclosed how they arrive at their figures.
Pardon the ranting, this just got my goat :) Saw your Germany pictures. Are you back in the country? Hope everything else is going well. ttyl...
-a.
Nate,
The study that is cited in this article is "CNW Marketing's 'Dust to Dust'". If you do a little searching on Google it appears that CNW Marketing is a crank outfit funded by GM. Their website looks like the ones floating around Geocities in the late 90's... not very professional.
The article brings up the important point of full financial and environmental cost of a vehicle. This is something that is very difficult to compare but simply, lighter is better. I think that before buying a car people need to evaluate IF they need a car and then what they'll be using it for. If you need a commuter pick up a Yaris and RENT a SUV when you go on the annual ski trip. You can rent cars for like $200 per week and SUVs for around $300-350 a week.
Reputable sites like the David Suzuki Foundation are a good source for scientific information. This page http://www.davidsuzuki.org/_pvw370829/_email_archive/email03270301.asp provides a good starting point for determining which car you should buy.
In Japan annual car taxes are based on vehicle weight, not emissions. The tax on my car was about $70 while a teacher I worked with paid around $700 for his SUV. If you keep your car for 10 years, the price difference is substantial. As trucks cause more damage to the roads, it wouldn't be a bad idea to charge heavier vehicles a tax for road maintenance.
-Josh
New media report on the study my post is based on: KATU.
UK ad watchdog has pulled a Prius commercial off the air for claiming that the Prius creates 1 tonne less C02 per year. Cars used in comparison are not justified or something like that.
Link Here.
A new study has shown that so called "bio-fuels" such as corn-based ethanol can produce up to 70% more NO2 emissions than their conventional fossil fuel counterparts and as such may be much more harmful for the ozone.
Article Link.
A new study has come out helping expose the fallicy of agriculture based ethanol.
When the greenhouse emissions of both the fuel AND the growing of corn, for example, is much worse than typical gasoline!
Post a Comment