	Agent009 "The vanity of others offends our taste only when it offends our vanity"
	View My AgentSpace

Are Hybrid More Hazardous to The Environment Than Regular Cars?

Agent009 submitted on 06/20/2007 Official AutoSpies Timestamp: 1:48 PM
from: cnwmr.com

[63] user comments | category: Misc News

Print this Page |

Digg It |

del.icio.us

Are Hybrid More Hazardous to The Environment Than Regular Cars?

When it comes to protecting the environment, senior citizens should concentrate more the total energy consumed in building and operating a car than its fuel efficiency - no matter how impressive the statistics appear on the window sticker at the showroom.

A prime example is Toyota's Prius, a compact hybrid that's beloved by ardent environmentalists and that fetches premium prices because it gets nearly 50 miles-per gallon in combined highway/city driving.

Yet, new data have emerged that show the Prius may not be quite as eco-friendly as first assumed - if you pencil in the environmental negatives of producing it in the first place. Like most hybrids, the Prius relies on two engines - one, a conventional 76-horsepower gasoline power plant, and a second, battery-powered, that kicks in 67 more horses. Most of the gas is consumed as the car goes from 0 to 30, according to alarmed Canadian environmentalists, who say Toyota's touting of the car's green appeal leaves out a few pertinent and disturbing facts.

Read Article

Comments:

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters):
[img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent004.myautospies.com/users/150/Sample-Gallery/sample1.JPG[/img]

SupraNeverBack - 6/20/2007 1:55:32 PM

0 Boost

Come on, 009, should we repeat 1,000 times? Please release the LF-A spy video post instead.

reply to this comment

Will_ - 6/20/2007 2:05:23 PM

+4 Boost

I wrote better English papers when I was in college.

Half of this PDF also rehashes the same CNW "research" that showed a Hummer being more environmentally friendly than a Prius "over the entire lifespan" of the vehicles that has already been disproved.

reply to this comment

justbrown - 6/20/2007 2:07:25 PM

+3 Boost

Is it safe to infer that we would all be better off buying a hummer than a hybrid or can I conclude that this is another bunch of people that offer a plethora of problems with no solutions. Its still a fairly new technology when it comes to revolutionary changes. Who thinks the first 10 (or even 100 years) of the internal combustible engine didn't have its EXTREME shortcomings that undoubtedly negatively impacted the environment. There are a ton of other examples that I don't have the desire nor time to list.

Also, this news was posted several other times before and the title was clearly named to start another war on this site. Agent009, you do fairly good work and post decent and informative articles for the majority of the time but is it really necessary to start another war that only brings the uneducated and often ignorant masses to spew their opinions on things they know nothing about. This is not news and offers no alternative (except possibly that when considering saving $$ on gas mileage, turn away from hybrid technology and praise Hummer). Can we give credit where credit is due and observe the growth of hybrid technology to see what its true potential is before we throw in a doomsday report and call it a failure.

reply to this comment

Agent009 - 6/20/2007 2:25:08 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

The ultimate solution would be a total environmental footprint from vehicle inception add that to estimated running impact and then estimated disposal impact to give an overall rating.

This rating system could then be used to assess the overall environmental impact of a vehicle.

The first two figures are already there to a degree, they simply need to quantified and then tallied to gain an overall figure. Disposal cost would rated according to current technologies. The variable in theory would alway show the worse impact and as methods improve the environmental impact would only be lessened.

Only then would we know the full impact of any road going vehicles.

Any better ideas out there?

reply to this comment

justbrown - 6/20/2007 2:38:34 PM

+2 Boost

"The variable in theory would alway show the worse impact and as methods improve the environmental impact would only be lessened."

Exactly my point! Whether it be the introduction of a hybrid, hybrid diesel, hydrogen, or ethanol car (which they have already started destroying the credibility of), these methods are all in their early stages. We all know that the major leading companies are looking into and developing these new technologies and should be credited for making an effort instead of being stoned by naysayers.

TheSailor - 6/20/2007 3:15:57 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

Total environment impact doesn't sell cars... Fuel economy and emmisions do!

Agent009 - 6/20/2007 3:19:49 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Agreed, But nay sayers have their place. They keep us in line.

Remember these guys are in it for the money whether we like it or not. But the point is if it pollutes more to make the contraption than it saves there is no way of showing that to the consumers.

All too often we subcontract the parts to 3rd parties overseas and they are in no way accountable for the environmental impact they create. Don't ask, don't tell is the policy. Just get the parts on time with reasonable quality and do it cheaply is the main concern.

This is where the environmental impact may be the greatest. No one is trying to say that a hybrid doesn't help the environment in normal use, it obviously does. But the question is are the by products created and energy consumed during the creation and disposal of the vehicle so far out of line that is hurts the environment overall.

1970toyotamarc - 6/20/2007 3:59:26 PM

+2 Boost

NO that's not the big question, that is the question that CNW wants you to believe, in order to validate their lies.

silent_power - 6/20/2007 2:26:25 PM

+2 Boost

Agent009, you should have asked that question, at year of grace 2003. Because, according to this report you 're four years late to the party... :)
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/pdf/pgr_e.pdf

reply to this comment

Agent009 - 6/20/2007 3:24:56 PMView My AgentSpace

-1 Boost

The link is not working for me.

kpaxx - 6/20/2007 2:48:47 PM

+1 Boost

This proves Toyota is only good at marketing a perception and not building good cars?

reply to this comment

Agent009 - 6/20/2007 3:20:49 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

Toyota excels at both excellent product and good marketing.

TheSailor - 6/20/2007 3:00:16 PMView My AgentSpace

-1 Boost

"1250 foot tall smoke stack"... That is a tall smoke stack!

reply to this comment

TheSailor - 6/20/2007 3:08:23 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

BTW: The claim that the Hummer was greener have already been proven to be wrong!

And aren't we forgetting that stainless steel contains nickel as well? And how much stainless steel is produced each year? This is silly! And it isn't like Toyota is the only manufacturer who use container ships to ship parts around the world! All major manufacturers have production facilities in other parts of the world! Most european manufacturers get the pyrotechnics for the airbags, seat belt pretentioners etc. from China...

justbrown - 6/20/2007 3:12:31 PM

+2 Boost

TheSailor, you make a very good point as to why we should get rid of airbags and seat belts as well as hybrids ;)

*Most people on this website don't actually know what sarcasm is so I've provided a link below*

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

Will_ - 6/20/2007 3:30:18 PM

+2 Boost

^lol.

I'm bookmarking your link.

TheSailor - 6/20/2007 3:54:10 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

yeah... If you read it enough times, you might even understand sarcasm...

1970toyotamarc - 6/20/2007 4:03:15 PM

+2 Boost

good points, Sailor. 65% of nickel goes to stainless steel production. Toyota buys a small fraction of Sudbury steel for batteries. And how many tankers are needed to transport oil for Hummers? Much less I presume than the container ships needed to transport a bit of nickel. And how many nickel transporting ships capsize and spill their content over thousands of square miles?

TheSailor - 6/20/2007 4:40:23 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Easy now... I don't think any nickel have been lost overboard from any containerships since the rules for transport for nickel are so incredibly strict since it is rated as a marine polutant... And I can't remember the last time a container vessel capsized at all... And you also forget that container ships are the cleanest mode of transport of such goods (emmits 1/10 the CO2 of a diesel locomotive pr ton pr mile)! I wasn't saying that the container ships contribute alot of pollution, I was saying that the transport of nickel to Toyota doesn't contribute any more than other car manufacturers parts!

But it is still a stupid paper... Doesn't make any sence and I don't see the need to post an article about a four (4!!) year old report which have been proven completely and utterly wrong!

1970toyotamarc - 6/20/2007 5:56:57 PM

+1 Boost

Hmmmmm.....

You obviously did not read my post closely, I was agreeing with you.

My point is that I also cannot think of one container ship that has capaized, while many oil tankers have. And yes, container ships are an efficient form of transport, transporting the nickel being miniscule compared to the amount of shipping that goes on daily. How did you not get that from what I said?

TheSailor - 6/20/2007 6:15:08 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Ohh well... Looks like I just misunderstood your post... My bad...

silent_power - 6/20/2007 3:01:45 PM

0 Boost

Are serious? This paper released four years ago. Where is the marketing?

reply to this comment

1970toyotamarc - 6/20/2007 3:18:36 PM

+4 Boost

There you go again, 009.

Does anyone still believe you to be unbiased. You repeat the same claims over and over, copying the right wing Fox playbook. (If you repeat something enough times, it must be true.) CNW is the only source making these preposterous claims, and you just sit back and post them every once in a while to stir things up.

I tooka mere 5 seconds to search yesterday, to find a counter argument, and just chose the first one that pops up. It's thate asy to find sources debunking the CNW b.s. But of course, you are unwilling to find one credible source to back up CNW's ridiculous claims. Instead you just post the same crap, packaged in a different story.

THESE ARE LIES!!!!!!!!!!!

The assumptions that a Prius consumes more enrgy to build than a Hummer is the first lie, based on the idea that the Prius is a stand alone model, when in fact its technology is spread among many models, with more to come.

There is also the faulty assumption that the disposal is damaging to the environment, when everyone knows that there is a recycling program in place for the batteries. Meanwhile, once the batteries are recycled, you need only dispose of half the vehicle of a Hummer.

Also, as CNW proved yesteday, they know nothing about life expectancies, again basing their research on faulty assumptions. Priuses are lasting much longer than CNW "predicted."

Then there is another issue you refuse to accept, as does CNW. Most of the environmental damage of a car is done during the DRIVING phase, where the Prius, of course, excels.

I am quickly losing all respect for you, 009. The little snide anti-Toyota headlines are no longer an amusing quirk of this site. You are showing your true colors. I hope others are seeing through you as I am.

reply to this comment

Agent009 - 6/20/2007 3:30:26 PMView My AgentSpace

0 Boost

Would it surprise you to know I own a Lexus? I thought it might.

Agent009 - 6/20/2007 3:38:22 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

All I am doing is asking you to look objectively outside the box. This is a polarizing topic and always spurs comments.

But to this date there are many articles claiming CNW's research may be suspect, but no study has disproved any of it. Basically allegations and speculation but no scientific data disproving anyone.

Remember 1000 years ago people were convinced we were the center of the universe. Proven wrong BTW.

300 years ago the world was undoubtedly flat. Again wrong.

Then it was pollution doesn't cause global warming..

Now the dust to dust analysis doesn't mean anything.

1970toyotamarc - 6/20/2007 3:48:07 PM

+3 Boost

Oh, and this article, being apparently for Canadians, highlights the Sudbury myths as well. The Sudbury site has been mining nickel for 120 years, and Toyota is getting grief for using 1000 tons (that's CNW's figures, tho no source is quoted), a small fraction of what is produced each year out of just the one town's mines. "Today, the 18 active mines in the area yield more than 55,000 tons of ore each day"
http://www.aese.org/sudbury.htm

Also from the same source,
"The Region has been cited by the United Nations for its land reclamation program, and has won several other international, national, and provincial awards."

for more info on Sudbury's environmental clean up efforts.

"http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/sudbury/sudbury.htm"
and
"http://www.sudburysoilsstudy.com/EN/faq/faq.asp"

My point is to show that this red herring of nickel production is being used by CNW to validate its ridiculous claims. Toyota getting a small amount of nickel for batteries from a town that has put out millions of tons of nickel for over a century is negligible, and certainly no worse than the degradation of our planet caused by steel production, oil exploration, transport and consumption. Tho none of that is factored into CNW's musings, I presume. In fact CNW alo tries to insinuate that transport of nickel over the Pacific is environmentally unsound. How much more oil has to be transported in Exxon Valedz type tankers from the middle east to fill up those Hummers? And how many container ships filled with nickel have capsized, vs the number of oil tankers? More unnaswered questions. CNW gave up trying to answer any of their critics. Are you, as their new mouthpiece, going to give it a shot?

1970toyotamarc - 6/20/2007 3:52:57 PM

+4 Boost

Science is sonmething not a lot of people on this site seem to care about. Science needs to be constantly proved, not disproved. No one has duplicated, proved or verified any of CNW's claims, yet you continue to post them as truths. And many sources, as I have posted are invlaidating their claims, piece by piece.

But the bigger problem with trying to invalidate a claim such as CNW's is that it is based on faulty assumptions, speculation, and outright lies. As anyone ho has been on Bill O'Reilly knows, you cant win an argument if the opposition bases all of their argument on lies. That's why Science must be based on duplicating results, it does not have to based on invalidating them.

1970toyotamarc - 6/20/2007 3:58:13 PM

+4 Boost

And it make sno differnece to me if you own a Lexus. My spouse and I currently own a BMW (okay, Mini) in addition to my Prius, and have previously owned a Benz and even a couple American cars. What one actually drives is based on numerous factors, often outside of one's control. That doesnt change your attitude towards Toy/Lex. Maybe you just do this to stir up the controversy, and I just fall for the bait each time. But my biggest fear is not the arguments with you, but that someone will read one of your posts, and not get the opposing viewpoint. And to that end, I will not stop arguing.

The truth is out there.

Agent009 - 6/20/2007 4:16:55 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

1970toyotamark- You are really doing your homework here.

I am not really sure if the nickel was the issues as much as the energy and pollution required to transport it to China and then Japan over 10,000 miles. Now that does probably consume a fair amount of resources and associated pollution. But as we can all tell this is a very complicated issue with a myriad of facets.

Not really black and white anywhere.

Agent009 - 6/20/2007 11:08:27 PMView My AgentSpace

+2 Boost

1970toyotamarc- I wouldn't want to stop the counter points. You, unlike others, care to back up your arguments. It is not only interesting but it makes me think as well, as I hope my points do for you.

Your points have actually soften my stance on several topics, but I do post counter points for the sake of discussion (argument?). And many time I may fully agree with you but I may not say it.

The truth is I will post articles that I don't agree with because they need to heard and discussed. So, many times I seem right wing and then two days later I swing to the left. I may not agree with either, but others do and that is why I toss them out there. It keeps the pot churning so to speak. If you don't like my view point then wait a day or two and I will do an about face.

There is no hidden agenda, but it is pretty funny to see I can get negative comments from Toyota/Lexus fans, VW/Audi fans, and BMW fans as well. Some people never figure me out and that is the point. But you will never hear me call any brand "junk" because that is not true of any marque out there. They all bring something unique to the mix.

silent_power - 6/20/2007 3:20:50 PM

+2 Boost

Toyota is the "Green" company. They spend huge amounts of money for the environment.
Go check.
http://www.toyota.eu/01_Latest_News/index.aspx

reply to this comment

Agent009 - 6/20/2007 3:29:10 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

Oh yes they do...no question.

But to they demand that of all of their suppliers? Not only the 3rd party vendors in foreign countries but their suppliers as well? And if so how do they regulate that. Most do not. The question is in no way limited to Toyota. It applies to all, Toyota in my opinion was only used as an example, it would apply to Ford as well.

TheSailor - 6/20/2007 3:57:48 PMView My AgentSpace

+1 Boost

There is more to it than average fleet emmisions sport... Companies are changing their production procedures to reduce impact and they are even converting to waterbased solvents to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals used... But lots of car companies are "green" when it comes to production... Actually, one of the greenest car manufacturers (in production is Mercedes. Go figure...

Rupert - 6/20/2007 4:04:39 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

Mercedes was one of the first companies to use water based paints.

CoolCars - 6/20/2007 3:37:18 PM

+3 Boost

Are Hybrid Cars more hazardous to the environment than regular cars? The quick answer is "no". If you are worried about the battery, it can be recycled.

So what is the big deal? It all stems from a tiny marketing outfit in Oregon that tried to claim than the Hummer is better environmentally than the Prius. A BIG LIE. But Rush Limbaugh and the wannabees loved it. So, so sad.

I think you can look at at Hummer H2 and figure out for yourself that almost anything else is better for the environment.

If not, you are just unable to deal with reality.

***

reply to this comment

silent_power - 6/20/2007 4:02:58 PM

+1 Boost

Better ask which companies own their suppliers?!

reply to this comment

silent_power - 6/20/2007 4:16:02 PM

+3 Boost

Sport the link you provide shows CO2 cars emissions in Europe. Not world total LCA activities.

reply to this comment

jasaero - 6/20/2007 5:47:31 PM

-1 Boost

My answer to all these questions is to just not worry about any of it until there is better evidence our CO2 production really has a significant impact on climate! In the mean time we all buy the cars that get our heart beating and right foot twitchy, so long as we can afford them and the gas for them! I think the people who want to stop global warming know better than anyone that they can't anyhow. It's just a big boondogle of sorts. If it is more effiency for purposes of energy independence I am all for it. If it is extra cost on my car to somehow keep it from exhaling CO2 I am not. May as well make me breath through some device that makes sure none of the CO2 I exhale gets added to the atmosphere in that case! Everyone else ready to start wearing their CO2 suppression masks?

reply to this comment

1970toyotamarc - 6/20/2007 5:58:08 PM

+3 Boost

Better evidence? How's that home of yours underneath that rock?

jasaero - 6/20/2007 6:12:56 PM

-1 Boost

If you actually dig deaply into climate science and the IPCC and all the different people involved you quickly realize that no one really has a good handle on exactly what is going on. Many of the scientist that originally came up with the whole idea of Greenhouse effect and global warming and such are now starting to renig on the idea that humans are causing the warming as more and more data from all sorts of research gets compiled. There is a lot of data that contradicts the models and models that contractict models and data that contradicts data. There are just to many factors to know for sure what is causing things to warm. The only thing they know for sure is that an ice age onset would be a much bigger problem than global warming! That's the funniest part. Warming is basically just the warming of the artic and antartic zones. The tropic and subtropic tempertures won't change much at all. Their climates will change so what was desert might become rainforest and what was rain forest might become desert, but that sorta crap has always happened. If Alaska, Greenland, the Nordic areas, Siberia and such could someday become agricultural power houses that would probably help a lot more of the worlds troubles than it would hurt. You just have to do a bit of thinking and a bit of reading to understand this isn't much of a problem in the first place. If you can even call it a problem? The last period in human history that seems to suggest a climate something like where we are heading was the middle ages and that was one of the most prosperous and easiest going times in the history of the western world. Europe didn't have to worry about long hard winters and famines and such nearly as often during the middle ages as they did in most other parts of their history. But the fact is that many of the scientist that first blamed all this on humans are some of the first on that side to start second guessing their claims now that some understanding and data is starting to come together. Key word their is STARTING.

TheSailor - 6/20/2007 6:22:51 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

Yes... Lets all sit on our hands and wait for the ice cap to collaps doing absolutely nothing instead of trying to do something!

One thing is for certain: Nothing good comes from burning all that oil! Whether the goal should be to decrease the greenhouse gasses or the dependancy on foreign "terror"-oil doesn't really matter... As long as we decrease consumption!

I don't buy that "CO2 doesn't harm the environment" bs anyways... There is a million times more evidence supporting that CO2 has an impact that it doesn't!

Decreasing CO2 outlet can't possibly harm anybody or anything... Not decreasing it might do some EXTREMELY serious damage to our dear little corner of the earth, so what is your argument for at least not trying to do something?

jasaero - 6/20/2007 6:40:19 PM

-1 Boost

The CO2 and warming thing is a theory and that is it. There is no better evidence supporting that theory than there is for the sun cycle warming theories or the ocean conveyer belt cycle theories. The biggest issue with the carbon cycle theories is that they can't even accurately predict for sure whether NATURE actually holds CO2 levels constant or whether CO2 levels are driven by temperature. Many scientists agree with what you are saying, but many of their peers aren't so sure. It's all just theory in active debate within the actual scientific community. The problem is that it has become LAW to the laymen public. I read about this stuff on average about 100 hours a month. I read info from both side and even look up the data they are basing their science on. I don't comprehend it all that well, but well enough to understand that no one really knows for sure what is going on just yet. Most ALL agree though that the world cooled and warmed SIGNIFICANLY in a cyclical pattern long before we were known to exist. The ice core samples all these scientist use to show the warming and cooling cycles of the planet also suggest that CO2 does increase and decrease in reaction to warming and cooling. They claim a period of adjustment happens and then the CO2 levels normalize. The data from the ice samples isn't of high enough resolution to show extremely quick spikes or dips in CO2 levels caused by sudden temperature movements like what might be going on now though. There is no way to know from an ice sample if CO2 levels were ever significantly higher or lower for a short period of time. The resolution just isn't there. There is also HUGE problems with trying to correlate this historic data with current data that is much more accurate and of extreme resolution. We havent even been studying climate for the equivalent of one BIT of historic data from stuff like ice core samples. You don't have to believe me. It's all going to be realized eventually anyhow. I actually venture to guess a lot better and different truth as to what is going on will be decided upon in our lifetimes. It won't be a whole lot stronger theories, but will be a bit less disputed and different. It is juvenile to think these theories aren't being debated by scientists. The IPCC has had also sorts of contributing scientist file massive complaints and even law suits for leaving their names on reports they don't agree with. The IPCC makes it seem like all thesee complaining scientists agree with them though. It's just not the case. There is a scientific debate, but the media and IPCC want the public to think everything is well understood when it really isn't at all.

TheSailor - 6/20/2007 6:43:17 PMView My AgentSpace

+3 Boost

I ask again, what harm can come from reducing our CO2 outlet? There is no reason not to reduce outlet of CO2... Except maybe for the oil companies losing money, but I really don't care about that!

1970toyotamarc - 6/20/2007 7:46:45 PM

+2 Boost

"Greenhouse effect and global warming and such are now starting to renig on the idea that humans are causing the warming as more and more data from all sorts of research gets compiled." Cite that source please.

"Warming is basically just the warming of the artic and antartic zones. The tropic and subtropic tempertures won't change much at all" Cite that source please.

"The CO2 and warming thing is a theory and that is it." MOst of science is based on theories, theories that have nee tested over and over again, modeled, studies, analyzed. Global Warming theory may still be a theory, but so is much of what we understand in this world. There are few truths and laws in science.

"They claim a period of adjustment happens and then the CO2 levels normalize" Who are they? Come on, you can do better than that.

"but the media and IPCC want the public to think everything is well understood when it really isn't at all" A vast media conspiracy that benefits the environment over corporations? What world do you live in?

reply to this comment

johnkurmann - 6/21/2007 12:39:20 AM

+3 Boost

To my knowledge, CNW Marketing Research has never released the full study including all their data and info on their methodology and assumptions. In other words, they're not interested in peer review, which is a rather unscientific way to release what purports to be a scientific study.

The CNW report is also contradicted by research from MIT, Carnegie Mellon University, and the Argonne National Laboratory according to this article http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html.

Regarding global warming and climate disruption, there is broad and deep scientific agreement on three basic points:

1. Global warming and climate disruption are happening.

2. Human activities are primarily if not entirely responsible.

3. The risks are grave enough to warrant action now to substantially reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.

How do I know? Because the preeminent scientific organizations in the world have said so publicly. Two prime examples:

"Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change," released 2 years ago by eleven national scientific academies from around the world including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences: http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

American Association for the Advancement of Science Board Statement on Climate Change, which was approved in December: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

reply to this comment

moto - 6/21/2007 1:35:53 AM

+1 Boost

jasaero, if you pick & choose the data you believe, or limit your source of information to your few favorites, then you don't learn a damn thing -- and then you can go through life claiming EVERYTHING is a theory, a mystery, or black magic. If you objectively listen to someone with another point of view and self-question your own assumptions, you might actually have a better understanding of complex issues.

Global warming, as any well-read scientist knows, is almost certainly accelerated by human activities. it's STUPID to hope that Siberia someday will become the breadbasket of the world, because if the polar ice caps melt, then vast portions of the inhabited world - including entire countries -- will be under water. Equatorial zones, already suffering from unpredictable weather extremes, are showing little evidence of improving crop yields. The Sahara Forest was clearcut into a desert, and humans have not been able to turn it into a productive piece of land. The Brazialian rainforest is now suffering the same fate, only at a faster rate. By far the worst years for hurricane damage has occurred in the last decade. The question is not whether humans are causing climate change, but how much and if it can be reversed. All of us can change our lifestyles to reverse our negative impacts locally as much as possible. Economists and business leaders, including giant corporations like General Electric -- and even conventional fuel producers like Shell and BP -- now believe that "going green" is the only way to sustain profitability in the future, and we must support leaders who can coordinate global activities toward sustainability. The human race must stop using more resources than it regrows/regenerates/reuses/recycles.

Put your head in the sand if change scares you, but the rest of us will try to clean up our planet before we exhaust its natural resources and completely pollute it. Part of that work must involve diversification of fuel and powertrain options. Cheers to Honda and Toyota for leading the way in providing consumers alternatives.

reply to this comment

jasaero - 6/21/2007 4:26:49 AM

+1 Boost

Even if all the ice in the world melted(very very unlikely) there would still be vast expanses of land left. Not nearly as much, but fast expanses. I don't just read certain sources and it's been awhile since I have read some of these things, but if you look into the science and arguments on each side, very little is really known for sure about how our climate works and what drives changes in it. There definately isn't enough evidence to know what we should or shouldn't change about our habits to somehow make the climate react how we would wish it could. And I have nothing against cleaning up truely hazardous things that cause events such as acid rain or smog in some areas. That sorta clean up makes sense and those sorts of events are a lot better understood. My issue is with disrupting economies of the world to fix something we really don't know how to fix. If we know exactly what was causing these changes maybe try then, but we really aren't any more able to drive climate change today than we were at the inception of humanity. Climates changing have been evolving and pushing our kind to all different corners of this planet ever since we started messing around here. I have no clue why some insist we can change that and make nature and the climate do what we want it too? Or on the flip side actually believe we make a significant impact. As large as the human race has grown, we still only make up a very minor part of this planet. EVEN IF you include all the man made things we build and mess with we have really made only VERY minor changes to the globe as a whole. We probably only inhabit about 10% of the landmass and the landmass is somewhat insignificant compared to the seas and oceans. Our CO2 input is really a very minor thing in the overall carbon cycle, it is just an assumption the carbon cycle is more or less a constant in out cycle. The more studies that get done the more it is realized that many natural events aren't quite a carbon neutral as once assumed. The OCEANS being the biggest question mark in the carbon cycle. I wish I had time to dig up all the reference I get this info from, but a lot of what I read comes from both sides of the debate. The biggest commonality to between scientists on both sides of the climate debate is that very very few are confident enough in their stance to actual suggest policy ideas. Some are, but they tend to be the scientists that get funding from one side of the political climate debate or the other. Most actual scientist independent of politcal circles though don't want to make any policy suggestions cause they really don't know for sure what policy changes would do, if anything. It's actually a lot more likely that significant policy change could cause a lot more harm than good. Simply because it would definately create economic burden and hurdles that many economies of the world are probably not ready for.

jasaero - 6/21/2007 4:45:08 AM

+1 Boost

The biggest problem in the climate debate is that the economic implications of policy changes could be much worse than what might happen if policy is left alone. The human race has a very adept ability to adapt to changes anyhow. Why try and adapt to something that has yet to become a real problem and that we don't even know will ever be a real problem? The worse problem I have ever heard from climate change scare tacticians is the sea level rise. Even that would happen so slow it can't really be considered an extremely scary change. The worse theory is that it would throw us into another ice age earlier than the next one is expected. That would cause the most devistation of any sort of climate change. But we apparently really good at warming the planet so even that shouldn't last long right?

reply to this comment

huu76 - 6/21/2007 11:50:42 AM

+1 Boost

Sudbury and CNW, what else is new?

reply to this comment

mkaresh - 6/21/2007 7:06:44 PM

+1 Boost

Sorry, but so many aspects of their methods and their assumptions are sloppy, incorrect, or both. I posted two critiques a few months ago, and that was months after the report first appeared.

One critique focused on their estimates of the "dust-to-dust" cost per mile. For most cars, it comes to over $20,000 per year. Sorry, but hardly anyone pays nearly that much to operate a car, even indirectly. And no one's heavily subsidizing the costs of car ownership, either.

In the second piece, I noted a couple of very weak assumptions by CNW. Among them, they divide all development costs by the number of cars that have been produced so far, not the total number that are likely to ever be produced, both past and future. As a result, cars that rely on new technology and/or new designs--like the Prius--have wildly inflated "costs."

Why didn't I post these critiques sooner? I didn't think anyone would take such an obviously shoddy report seriously.

In that, I was wrong.

Michael Karesh
TrueDelta

reply to this comment

austintyson - 6/21/2007 10:15:48 PM

+1 Boost

Here is the deal. The earth is going to be here even if we are not. We are not trying to save the Earth from us, we are trying to save it for us. But there really is no great tell all info on what the future is. Next week they might say that having sex is releasing CO2 from our bodys at 100 times the normal rate. Then what we are all suppose to stop doing that. Then think about everything that has CO2 in it.. thats everything. Something dies it releases CO2. Huge fire, its releasing CO2. Shoot a paintball gun guess what its uses. Most CO2. Its a very comnon gas. While everyone wants cleaner cars, what is being done about HVAC systems. Every home has one. I know people that have heaters that are 20 yrs old. And as long as they work they are not replacing them. So why is it, that everything that goes wrong with our air is a cars fault. They always say we need to have cleaner cars. But yet never talk about cleaning up the factorys, electical plants or even our homes.

reply to this comment

austintyson - 6/21/2007 10:19:53 PM

+1 Boost

Oh forgot. IF you add up all the factorys shopping malls and houses they put more junk in the air than cars. So why are they only targeting cars? WHy not say, if you have a HVAC systems older than 10 yrs old it has to be replaced. Because people will complain that its to big of a cost.

reply to this comment

Georgemia - 6/22/2007 12:57:54 PM

+1 Boost

Well, here in Florida, where we call A/C "Life support," and not HVAC, FPL does exactly what you are saying: They give substantial credits for upgrading central heat and air, adding insulation, replacing window units with central systems, and the sell compact flourescent bulbs, too
Conservation is an essential part of the equation, and much of it is pretty painless. I've cut my electric bill 10-15% over the last year, and it's easy.
Toyota figures that a Prius produces 37% less CO2 than a conventional gasoline car.......... I bet I can cut my CO2 output 37% by thinking about driving, and not buying a new car.........but the next generation of plug in hybrids will make even greater fuel economy gains.

shigley - 6/21/2007 11:28:28 PM

+1 Boost

I just registered on this site, and low and behold, I read this article about the Hummer being more earth friendly than the Prius. Question: did I hit the wrong key-strokes and am now in the Twilight Zone? "Rod Stewart, Rod Stewart, come in, come in. Are you there, Rod? Over!!!

reply to this comment

Georgemia - 6/22/2007 12:51:42 PM

+1 Boost

The site mentioned is suspect. If you read the article, you will see that it focuses on some interesting but unmeasured thoughts. It is probably true that manufacture of the Prius is more energy intensive than some cars with only one motor, but the writer doesn't give numbers or comparisons. The nickel used in the chrome plating on a Hummer is produced the same way.
Also, do a search on the author. He claims he is "non-partisan" but is clearly allied with oil exploration, coal development interests. His "conservative alternative to the AARP" web page features his picture with George Bush.
I doubt he's unbiased, and there's nothing in his writing that suggests thoughtful analysis of the question.

reply to this comment

DieselRules - 6/24/2007 6:23:47 PM

+1 Boost

The nickel in the batteries is nothing compared to the rare metals in the motors.
Plus all the copper in the power feeds.

I was very pro-hybrid in the 1980s when they were research items, but the problem is HOW the hybrid is implemented, not the concept.

The PROBLEM is that Toyota went after "lowest fuel consumption" in operation, rather than targeting a "green solution", which factors in more than fuel consumption.

For example, if Chevy were to put a big motor/generator connected to each front wheel of their full-size pickups, and use old-school lead-acid batteries (which we already have the technology to recycle), then you'd save have fuel than getting a Matrix or Corolla customer to buy a Prius instead.
And when i say "big motor", i mean one with common materials, not going with the exotic materials used in the HSE drive-train, which do save weight, which saves fuel, but kills people, plants, and animals in the 3rd world countries where the rare elements are mined and smelted.

reply to this comment

DieselRules - 6/24/2007 6:31:17 PM

+1 Boost

The European equivalent of the Sierra club rated vehicles based on "full lifecycle environmental impact".
Best family sedan:
The VW Passat TDI turbo-diesel.
They took into account everything, including factors like VW's use of water-based paints, which are non-toxic.
Toyota and many other automakers won't use those because they cost more (at least not until they are mandated by law).

Mercedes was the first automaker to mark every plastic part with information needed for sorting for recycling.
This did not help them sell cars.
But its an indication of a corporation looking beyond the bottom-line.

reply to this comment

norak - 6/25/2007 8:16:39 AM

+1 Boost

According to the study, the Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles while the Hummer costs $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles.
"Toyota claims that not one has required a battery replacement due to malfunction or 'wearing out.' The only replacement batteries sold--at the retail price of $3000--have been for cars that were involved in accidents. Toyota further claims that the nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery packs used in all Prius models are expected to last the life of the car with very little to no degradation in power capability.

"According to Toyota, the life of the Prius battery pack is determined more by mileage than by time, and it has been tested to 180,000 miles. Supporting this are first- and second-generation Prius taxis in Canada that have reportedly traveled more than 200,000 miles without suffering any battery problems."

Source: http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-batteries-none-the-worse-for-wear-cga.htm

"Toyota have lab data showing the Prius battery can do 290,000km of normal driving with absolutely no degradation of the battery’s performance. To give some real life examples, there is a Taxi driver from British Columbia, Jatinder Parhar, who has done over 410,000km in his Prius Taxi and has had to do nothing to his Prius other than standard servicing."

Source: http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/faq-prius

The study that claims Hummers were greener than Priuses was done by CNW Marketing Research. The study did not have any peer review and had no support from mainstream scientific papers. The results of the CNW Marketing Research firm contradict data from MIT and the Argonne National Laboratory (see the Pacific Institute paper).

According to Gleick from the Pacific Institute, "A quick re-analysis with peer-reviewed data leads to completely opposite conclusions: the life-cycle energy requirements of hybrids and smaller cars are far lower than Hummers and other large SUVs."

See http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

The Prius taxi in Canada clocked 410,000km, but I don't know anyone who drives a car until 410,000km. When the RACV does analysis on car operating costs they use 15,000km per year as the number of kilometers done by the average driver. So if we assume that the Prius taxi in Canada is representative of all Priuses then a Prius should last you over 27 years (=410000/15000).

Also see

http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html?pg=1

reply to this comment

DieselRules - 6/26/2007 1:12:48 AM

+1 Boost

There are lots of Prius taxis in Vancouver.
That one was lucky to have "standard servicing" ... most of Vancouver's taxis look like the last service was the yellow paint applied over a worn-out police car :)

BTW: 410,000 kms is not unusual for diesel vehicles, although it is for gas-engines. Both VWs and Toyota LandCruiser diesels often go over 500,000 kms before needing a rebuild.
My VW TDI has 211,000 kms and runs like new.
Will have no problem hitting 410,000 but will probably need a change of clutch and exhaust to get there (still on originals)

Good post though, except for calculation of longevity:
Average mileage driven in Canada is 24,000 kms/year, not 15,000 so your equation equates to 17 years.

To post a comment for this story, you must first Login.

If you do not have an account, you will need to Register (It's Free!).

Most Recent Stories

Hyundai Compares Themselves To Competitors After Genesis Scores 5 Star Crash Results If The Keys For Both Of These Cars Were On The Table, Which Would You Pick Up?Lexus IS Convertible coming next year, lightweight IS-F in the works Spy Shots of new Mercedes taken by yours truly!Teach An New Dog Old Tricks? Lexus Debuts The quattro Inspired LS460 AWD In Moscow Forget A Sub-Compact If Want To Save Real Money Just Buy a Gas Hog!Chrysler Considers Selling The Viper As A Brand!Audi Offers Race Ready R8's To The Public BMW's M6 Gets Put On Notice- Audi's 570 HP RS5 Caught On US Soil McLaren working on family of supercars for 2009 Revealed: Splinter wooden supercar GM releases GTR-style multi-function display Fiat Portofino concept re-creates 1960s beach cars Next-generation Mazda MX-5 will be more dramatic If Lexus Isn't NERVOUS, It Should BE!Why Is BMW Backing Away From Performance? The M3 CSL Bites The Dust!Is It On Your Short List? Hyundai Counts On Fallout From Lexus, BMW, And Others For Genesis Sales Detroits Three Muscle Cars Hang Out: Camaro, Challenger and Mustang Production Buick Riviera cancelled Cadillac version of the Volt hybrid in the works Automakers Expect Yet Another Dismal Sales Month For August Been Waiting For Your First Look At The Official 2009 BMW Order Guides? We Got Em!