It’s easy to focus exclusively on gas mileage when making an environmentally conscious car choice. But there’s more to the story.
CNW Marketing Research Inc., an Oregon-based auto research spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. They call it a dust-to-dust analysis of the environmental impact of a car.
You may be surprised if you thought hybrids were the obvious winners.
The Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the “Dust to Dust” lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version, CNW claims.
And you may do a doubletake after reading this:
For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civics at $2.42 per mile.
Basically, when considering all relevant variables such as materials, fabrication, plastics, carpets, chemicals, shipping, and transportation, gas mileage turns out to be significantly less relevant than many people assume.
What I like about this study – and of course it’s just one study – is that it looks at the total cost/impact of creation, ownership, and disposal. It’s easy for the media, the public, car dealers, and car manufactures to focus almost exclusively on miles per gallon. However, as is usually the case, reality points in a different direction than what’s convenient.
There’s nothing wrong with buying a hybrid to save on fuel costs, but maybe it’s time to put down the “I’m doing it for the environment” flag and put up the “I’m doing it to save money on gas” one. And there’s nothing wrong with that, of course.
If you’re interested in the details, check out the full 450-page report.
brad
on 16 Nov 06Very interesting…I’m looking into this in more detail, but one important thing to point out off the bat is that to be fair, you also have to consider the full fuel cycle costs of gasoline to do this comparison. DOE’s GREET model, which is used on the fueleconomy.gov website to estimate the environmental impacts of cars based on their fuel economy, does this and the emissions estimates they come up with are considerably higher than calculations based on end-of-tailpipe emissions alone. Conventional wisdom is that over the lifetime of a car, the emissions associated with burning fuel to power it are by far the car’s largest environmental impact, and I’m pretty sure those studies incorporated this sort of cradle-to-grave analysis as well. But I’ll look into this report in more detail…
Phil
on 16 Nov 06That’s a great point, and something I have told my Hybrid buying friends. Another point is that cars have been growing over the past 10 years, much like they did in the 70s. A early-mid 90’s Civic gets around the same “real world” gas mileage as a Hybrid Civic today. If you want to do more for the environment, buy a used car (that has decent emissions). Not only do you save money on depreciation, but it’s less waste, and often better gas mileage, smaller tires, and less oil.
justin
on 16 Nov 06Hype to make people feel good about driving 15-25mpg vehicles. That’s all.
Phil: Old cars have terrible emissions when compared to new ones. There are two types of people who would buy an older car vs. a new one: those interested in saving money and those interested in converting the car to run on alternative fuels (ethanol, biodiesel). Unless you are the latter, the only thing you’re helping is your bank account.
SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06I bought one of the very first HUMMER H2 available, simply because I want to drive the safest vehicle possible.
From what I’ve read, the dust-to-dust cost of the H2 is less than the Toyota Prius. And in the meantime, if some adolescent lunatic in his winged Civic “drifts” into me, I’ll walk away w/o injury.
Geekwad
on 16 Nov 06Can anyone vouch for the research company or identify who paid for the study? Their website ( http://cnwmr.com ) smells awful.
dave
on 16 Nov 06Jason: yes, yes, yes. If only more people would think about systems and net effects, rather than just trying to optimize for one metric.
Edmund Fladung
on 16 Nov 06yeah man, this study has oil prints all over it.
Energy is important, but so is the “dust-to-dust” pollution amounts. I’ll eat my shoe if a Hummer H3 puts out less pollution dust-to-dust then a Toyota Prius.
It’s as if we’re looking at 3 Dimensional chart and this study only looks at the horizontal axis. i.e. it only shows a portion of the larger story of an automobile’s life.
ML
on 16 Nov 06I bought one of the very first HUMMER H2 available, simply because I want to drive the safest vehicle possible.
Hey SafetyFreak, bigger isn’t safer. You might stand a better chance of surviving if you get hit but you’re a lot more likely to get hit in the first place. Read “Big and Bad: How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety.”
Edmund Fladung
on 16 Nov 06it’s unconscionable that people could use this study to justify their purchase of an SUV. these hybrid and alternative technologies are new and need to be worked out. they need breathing space to grow and be refined. they are the future, oil is on the way, as it should be.
bill
on 16 Nov 06SafetyFreak: sure, as long as you don’t die (though in reality, large SUVs are not really very safe, though you might feel safer), who cares about pedestrians, cyclists, and the accidents you contribute to due to the complete lack of visibility other vehicles have when you are in the way.
Fuck them, I suppose?
Steven Romej
on 16 Nov 06SafetyFreak, while I share your fear of lunatics (I bought a somewhat larger vehicle after mine was totaled in a side impact hit-and-run), size isn’t the only consideration. The Hummers, as far as I can tell, aren’t even rated by the IIHS or NHTSA. I personally hunted for 5-star side impact ratings. Most vehicles now (but amazingly, not all) achieve 5 stars for the frontal offset crashs.
Size can be a liability also. The bodies of large SUVs/trucks often receive less design attention and in some tests implode on themselves much more readily than a sturdy unit body.
Matt Haughey
on 16 Nov 06This came out several months ago and as most comments on MetaFilter pointed out, the study was done by an auto industry marketing group, so it’s not exactly impartial, peer-reviewed stuff you can trust.
They started with the conclusion first and worked backward to justify it.
Anonymous Coward
on 16 Nov 06it’s unconscionable that people could use this study to justify their purchase of an SUV . these hybrid and alternative technologies are new and need to be worked out. they need breathing space to grow and be refined. they are the future, oil is on the way, as it should be.
Why is it unconscionable? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. We’re not talking about 10 or 15 years from now. We’re talking about right now.
If the dust-to-dust environmental cost of a hybrid is more than an SUV it seems to me that the hybrid would be the unconscionable choice at this time if environmental impact is your only reason for buying a car.
brad
on 16 Nov 06Part of the issue is that they include design and development costs in the equation (not just manufacturing, which has been addressed by other cradle-to-grave studies); I’ve downloaded the report but they’re not exactly transparent in how they came up with all these data. For example, I can’t tell if their “design and development costs” for the Hummer included all the up-front development and design of the Hummer as a military vehicle or just the commercialization effort to bring the Hummer to the mass market. But anyway, using this methodology any car using new technologies is going to come out looking bad because new technologies require much more design and development work than existing ones. Assembly lines and equipment have to be adapted, etc.
In several places they make the point that hybrids just shift the pollution from the US to Japan, but that misses the point that Japan is MUCH more energy-efficient than the US.
And as I mentioned above, if you’re going to look at cradle-to-grave energy/environment costs of the vehicle, you have to compare that with cradle-to-grave energy/environmental costs of producing and transporting gasoline and diesel. It’s not fair to compare “dust to dust” energy of a vehicle with just its tailpipe emissions. You have to look at all the emissions and energy costs associated with getting crude oil out of the ground, turning it into gasoline, and getting it to your local gas station. Once that analysis was completed I think you’d probably see the gas-guzzlers looking a lot less attractive.
I haven’t seen any official analysis of this report by DOE or EPA, but that would be interesting.
brad
on 16 Nov 06In fact, in order to be consistent with this report, you’d even have to factor in the energy costs of prospecting for oil, constructing the facilities to extract it, running the companies that sell it, etc.
SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06ML, you’re looking at statistics without understanding them.
If I had a habit of driving into bridge abutments then I might be better off in an Accord than an H2*. But I’m an extremely patient, steady and extremely safe driver. If I’m ever in an accident, it will not be my fault—some careless or reckless driver will have hit me.
The H2 takes more skill to pilot safely. Care must be taken when considering how to slow and stop 6,700 lbs. However, with a skilled driver, the end result is a much safer experience than possible in a small vehicle, especially when one considers that legions of bad drivers out there on the roads today. No matter how good a driver you are, no matter how nimble your vehicle, some idiot will eventually plow into you, so it’s best to be prepared for impact.
Notice that the people standing on the bridge were safe, because they were effectively riding the much bigger vehicle.Carl Tashian
on 16 Nov 06Here’s an April interview with CNW’s president about the study, and an interesting point is made about estimated mileage used in the study: they assumed hybrids only last 100k miles, while trucks last 250k miles. CNW’s president says the future for hybrids looks very good, as they will soon have longer lifespans without increased input energy.
Also, lets not forget that buying a hybrid car is an economic vote to bring the future costs down and increase the efficiency, and it seems important not to discount that.
Same idea with solar panels, actually—costs drop and efficiency soars in proportion to the investments of real people in the technology.
So, cheers to the early adopters!
Luigi
on 16 Nov 06I haven’t gone through the report, but wouldn’t developing a new technology always take up more resources than just sticking with the older, if dirtier, technology? Factories have to be built or retooled, research produces junked prototypes, etc.
But in the long run, if all cars move over to more efficient technology, the end result is one of less pollution.
Nicole
on 16 Nov 06I read the article, albeit quickly, but I don’t see any allowance given for the fact that hybrid cars are new technology. As they are new, surely manufacturing and disposal energy costs are higher but won’t that lower as they become more popular?
I’m curious to see what the “literally hundreds of other variables” are.
Phil
on 16 Nov 06That’s kind of a hasty generalization Justin. I’m not talking old like 1978, I’m talking used like 1999. You can get a 1999 car that is LEV or ULEV rated.
SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06bill, I have never encountered a more safety conscious, careful, and deliberate driver than myself. I give wide berth to cyclists and pedestrians. I have a much better view of the road and landscape than cars so low to the ground—I rarely get stuck in traffic since I see the patterns ahead so much sooner than the cars.
Steven Romej, it is a shame that the IIHS and NHTSA don’t bother testing the H2. They should—there’s no law preventing them from testing it, though it’s true that such heavy vehicles are exempt from some regulation. However, I’m pretty sure that I’d fare better in a side impact to the H2 than in just about any other vehicle, partly just because I sit so much higher than most cars center of gravity.
I never bought the H1 because it is very unsafe. It has no airbags, not even as an option. Its doors are thin sheets of rivited aluminum. And the occupants sit much lower than in the H2, way out towards the sides of the vehicle, to the sides of the transmission—in the H1, people are the first thing to crush on a side impact! All of this is unsurprising, though, since the H1 was designed in the late 70’s and the troop safety was not the point of the vehicle.
George Hotelling
on 16 Nov 06I’m not going to wade through 450 pages of this report, because my BS detector went up when they use US dollars as an environmental metric. Why not “lbs of atmospheric carbon per mile”?
Not all energy pollutes equally per dollar.
Jemaleddin
on 16 Nov 06Since there’s so little data behind this study, it’s hard to take it seriously, but I take issue with the statements about the H2 and H3: are we going to add in the design and development behind the cars that these are ugly versions of, the Tahoe and Trailblazer? I’m sure that GM saved a bundle by sticky blocky body panels on their Chevys and then re-badging them as Hummers, but those initial costs don’t disappear.
Oh, and SafetyFreak: I don’t care how safely you drive, accidents will happen, and when they do, you’re in the worst car possible to deal with them. And let’s not get started on how inconvenient and unsafe you’re making things for the drivers around you with your land-yacht.
Anonymous Coward
on 16 Nov 06Jameleddin, I never asked you to care.
We’ll just have to see who lives a longer, happier life.
SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06Jameleddin, I never asked you to care.
We’ll just have to see who lives a longer, happier life.
Anonish
on 16 Nov 06To the H2 guy who gets the vehicle because it’s safer… that’s awful selfish of you. It may be safer for you, but what about my wife and kids that you T-Bone who are driving a Corolla? Your 8000lbs vehicle would do a hell of a lot more damage then if you were driving a 2500lbs vehicle too.
SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06Anonish, I have never caused an auto accident, and I probably never will. I’ve been in two—I’ve been rear-ended while waiting at a traffic light, and I’ve been T-boned by a red-light runner. I am a patient, careful, and exteremely safety conscious driver. And my truck weighs 6700lbs.
And, I have a wife and kids. I would be negligent if I did not protect them as best I could from the hordes of reckless, careless Explorer drivers who are putting on makeup while yapping on the phone, and from the legions of testosterone addled WRX drivers who confuse the highway for a rally course.
We have an Odyssey which the wife drives, since she’s admittedly not skilled enough to pilot a truck safely, and it’s the safest vechicle she can manage to drive properly.
Erin
on 16 Nov 06My favorite way of reducing my carbon emissions is to walk rather than drive.
And I’m with George Hotelling—this report sounds too good for the SUV industry to be true. “Energy Cost per Mile?” What the hell does that mean?
John Topley
on 16 Nov 06What about if you hit a pedestrian? They’re far more likely to suffer serious injury or be killed if they get hit by one of those monstrosities. You didn’t mention anything about active safety either – a regular car with a lower centre of gravity and more sophisticated engineering will handle better and be more likely to avoid an accident in the first place.
Jonathan
on 16 Nov 06Great posting! I’ve always had concerns that hybrids weren’t all they were cracked up to be. Personally I’m into the diesel VW’s, their MPG is very comparable to the hybrids, yet they can run on biodiesel which is something we’re capable of producing here in the US.
I wrote a little follow up posting over here, and came to the conclusion that the most energy conserving vehicle out there is the one you’re driving today. Every time you upgrade your vehicle another vehicle gets sent to the junk yard, and another brand new vehicle is produced, both processes consume a great deal of energy.
Edmund Fladung
on 16 Nov 06This study was done by an auto industry marketing group. it’s narrow, and narrow-minded. need i really say more?
SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06John Topley, I’ve never hit a pedestrian, and it’s unlikely I ever will.
That said, hitting a pedestrian in a car or truck is likely to cause more injury than hitting a pedestrian with a motorcycle or bicycle. Does that mean everyone should ride motorcycles or bicycles? Clearly, “monstrosity” is a matter of perspective.
A good driver, staying within speed limits, accounting for weather conditions, and following the rules of the road will be able to avoid causing accidents regardless of whether he/she is driving a car or a truck.
Since I’m a good driver, my primary safety consideration is what happens when bad drivers inevitably hit me. If you think having a low center of gravity will help you when a joyriding teenager passes a minivan and they’re both coming at you on a one lane road, well, you’d be wrong.
Geekwad
on 16 Nov 06Dangerous thinking there, SafetyFreak. You’re essentially started from your conclusion and worked backwords (sounds familiar somehow…). You could use that reasoning to justify not wearing a seatbelt, for instance.
Furthermore, you are not following your reasoning to its logical conclusion. If everyone thought the way you did, all your advantages would disappear. You would no longer have a weight advantage in a collision. You would no longer be able to see traffic problems earlier than everyone else. You would have to pay even more for a tank of gas, since demand would be much greater. There would be more accidents. There would likely be more deaths.
It’s all so backwards. I’ve caused an auto accident either. In fact, I’ve never been in one, so by your thinking I have even more reason to assume I never will be. But rather than assuming that I will never be, I assume that I certainly will be. Likewise, you deny that you are increasing the risk of others because it takes skill to drive an H2. That’s absurd! You won’t cause an accident BECAUSE your vehicle is dangerous and difficult to control? Surely you can see that is backwards thinking.
(PS: Thank-you, kind and prompt admin, whoever you were!)
SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06Jonathan, one must assume that somone else will use the car you give up, perhaps even saving them from having to buy a new car themselves. Now, if you actually disposed of or recycled your current car instead of reselling it, then you’d have an argument. Just because you cease to use a car doesn’t mean its useful life is shortened.
Geekwad
on 16 Nov 06(Excuse me, I mean to say I’ve never caused an accident, of course.)
John Topley
on 16 Nov 06It’s common knowledge that most drivers would classify themselves as a good driver. Studies have also shown that most drivers over-estimate their own abilities.
Perhaps you could make it less inevitable that bad drivers are going to hit you by reducing your attack surface and riding a motorcycle or bicycle!
Jonathan
on 16 Nov 06Yeah, I’ll give you that Ed, I’m certain someone wants the H3 to look favorable compared to the hybrids.
Still, you have to admit that all those batteries eventually hit the landfills, and they are huge batteries. Perhaps one day the hybrid technology will evolve to the point where it does enjoy an overall energy savings. At the same time people have to buy the current hybrid vehicles otherwise the manufacturers won’t put more money into R&D.
Alexandre Simard
on 16 Nov 06Hey, I’m a good driver too. Who here is a bad driver? Nobody, right? L’enfer, c’est les autres.
cjcurtis
on 16 Nov 06this subject has turned from a very interesting conversation to somewhat of a pissing match, don’t you think?
we all have our reasons for owning the vehicles we do. i have a v8 because i pull a boat. a v6-hybrid ford escape simply will not pull my boat. but i could argue that i don’t travel that much. so who’s the bigger “jerk”...me with my v8 SUV, or the guy who drives a toyota camry because he travels 75,000 miles a year?
i’d venture to say it’s none of your business on both accounts.
i think the vast majority of the u.s. is concerned about the environment (i’m one of them), but a bigger problem is really understanding what to do about it (this report is a perfect example). i don’t know whether i would trust it or not, but what i do know is that it’s MUCH too complicated of a subject to have such a cut-and-dry opinion.
does anyone hear think that the developers of hybrid technology don’t lobby our government as ruthlessly as the big oil companies do in the name of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS?? is it all about the environment for them?? i’d like to think so, but i don’t.
SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06Geekwad, of course I have considered “what if everyone did as I did”, but what you suggest is not a logical conclusion. Yes, if everyone bought an H2, my weight advantage when someone rams into me would disappear. But that’s about as likely to happen as everyone buys a Prius. Such a conclusion will simply not be reached anytime soon. And until such a time as we all drive vehicles that weigh the same, and until everyone drives responsibly, I’ll happily continue to pay for whatever additional gas is required for the safety of myself and my family.
I don’t understand why you refer to seat belts. I always wear my seatbelt, and I refuse to drive a vehicle unless everyone is in their seatbelt.
I’m only rational in saying driving an H2 requires more skill than driving, say, an Accord. But that doesn’t make the H2 an unsafe or irresponsible choice for everyone. Clearly, a stick-shift VW Jetta requires more skill to drive than an automatic VW Jetta, but that doesn’t make it an unsafe or irresponsible choice for everyone.
Jonathan
on 16 Nov 06Yes, I agree with you to some degree, but you have to look at it as a chain reaction. You sell a car someone else buys it, someone else buys the car they sold, and so on. Eventually somebody ends up with an extra car in their driveway or one of the oldest vehicles gets retired. Now if the cars going to the junkyards are completely worn out then we’re not really wasting energy, but I tend to suspect that often times cars get thrown away before they’re worn out completely.
SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06cjcurtis, i’m with you. if you’re within the law, it’s none of anyone’s business. I argued what I have because it falls under the same overall theme of the original article:
People tend to get all rightous, pious, and enraged about subjects which they don’t fully understand, haven’t carefully considered, and actions they have likely misjudged.
brad
on 16 Nov 06Hybrids are a bridge technology…I don’t think they’ll be around for very long, maybe a decade or two, and then there’ll be something better. So don’t worry about those batteries. There’s a lot worse stuff going into landfills every day.
And actually in terms of fuel economy, right now the Toyota Yaris, the Honda Fit, and a few other small but safe and comfortable cars get real-world gas mileage that’s pretty close to (and sometimes better than) what you’d get with a hybrid, for at least $10K less. I personally think the only reason to get a hybrid is to make an “environmental statement” or you buy it because you think it’s cool…you’re not going to save money over its lifetime unless you were considering other cars in the same price range to begin with.
Rowan
on 16 Nov 06Safetyfreak, you’re assumption about being safer because of a higher CoG is a double edged sword. Yes you’re higher than whether most impacts take place, but also you’re far more likely to be in a roll over than a normal family sedan. Sudden changes of direction (no matter how good of a driver you make yourself out to be, you can never predict what oncoming traffic will do) + high CoG = more likelyhood of rollover. Simple. A study down I saw once found exactly that, a lot of people were dying in roll over accidents in SUVs. Furthermore, the ability for someone to walk away in an accident and not suffer internal injury is all about crumple zones. The more time/distance you decelerate in, the less g-forces your internal organs withstand, the less likely they go squish. This is why you’re far safer driving a-typical Japanese family vehicles vs ‘solid’ suvs in some scenarios. When they hit something, they STOP, your internal organs (brain, spleen, whaterver..) don’t and keep going…
Short answer: Take the subway!
cmv
on 16 Nov 06just this summer i bought a ford escape hybrid strictly for the gas mileage and i couldn’t be happier. you can’t beat the benefits of an suv and 34 mpg.
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06cjcurtis is the small beacon of hope I have for our bitter, bipartisan, black/white, left/right, wrong/right, H3/Prius based society.
We’re so lazy to generalize and assert a position without taking the time to accept the many facets. We’re so unsatisfied with “well, it depends” that we give up reason in favor of “a stance”
And in conclusion, my new motto is now going to be:SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06Eddie
on 16 Nov 06...and to bring it back on topic, I like how 37signals keeps saying “our products aren’t for everyone.. they’re for people who like less” but since we can’t comprehend the “well, it depends…” attitude, we all either side with them or against them. “Everything needs to be less!” vs. “Less is for kids!” when in reality… well it depends.
Different Brad
on 16 Nov 06It’s another argument like the one of ethanol based fule v. petroleum.
new technology is always more expensive from certain perspectives.
if it were to cost 200 trillion dollars, 5 nuclear reactors, a couple hundred coal mines and all the oil sands in alberta to develop zero emissions everything, is it worth it?
SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06Rowan, I agree with you on all points. I drive with the higher center of gravity firmly in mind at all times. It’s a trade-off I’m very conscious of. I also agree with taking the subway. I have no subway available to me, but I telecommute, so my driving is minimized compared to most.
Eddie, FYI, I’m neither left nor right on the political scale. I’m as libertarian as one could possibly get. And by your comments, you might be, too.
Crazy Environmentalist
on 16 Nov 06cjcurtis: while I believe you at least have a better reason for driving an SUV, I would also argue that you owning a boat at all makes you an environmental negative. The fact that you need to tow it only compounds the problem :P
SafetyFreak: Because you can afford the extra gas doesn’t make the waste OK. There is only a finite supply of gas in our earth. If we were on a desert island, and we had a limited water supply, would you continue to drink 8 glasses a day because that is whats best for you? Think of others. The height of your bumper could mean a child’s decapitation. The size of your vehicle could mean a death versus an injury. No matter how good of a driver you are, there are always accidents, and someone can run in front of you or run a red light, it’s not very much fun being in the right if they are dead. I’m guessing you don’t have “organ doner” checked on your license either?
Richard (H1 Owner)
on 16 Nov 06This is an interesting conversation and one I have had many times over because of the vehicle I drive (H1 Hummer). Considering mileage you have all made a sad conclusion between mpg and the overall affect of your driving habits.
I have been screamed at, flipped off and called every foul thing by the prius crowd. The interesting fact about this however is that my driving habits have by far reduced the impact of my LARGE SUV on the environment. I have always lived less that 3 miles from my office and even less from my childrens schools. Always have always will. So when the math is done and compared to the rest of the prius style people in my office and any other prius person that can have a civil conversation. I personally burn about 25% of the fuel they do on an annual basis because they are communiting 10-20 mi + through traffic to the office. Imagine that.
So, try to run me over (fat chance) and don’t give me your green feelings. Change your life style to match your position. Or just say you are cheap and want to save gas money.
Geekwad
on 16 Nov 06“Geekwad, of course I have considered “what if everyone did as I did” … Such a conclusion will simply not be reached anytime soon.”
You make the baby Ghandi cry.
SafetyFreak
on 16 Nov 06Richard (H1 Owner),
Same experience here, but even further: I telecommute, and what I do for a living enables others to telecommute.
I’ve had a lady get out of her Pathfinder and scream at me at the top of her lungs in a STAPLES parking lot because, she claimed, I am destroying the Earth. Parked right next to me was a Corvette, which gets the same MPG and seats two, but she didn’t have a word for the guy driving that.
Environmentalist Realist
on 16 Nov 06Crazy Environmentalist: I once personally witnessed a Vega cut a pedestrian in half. Interesting outcome from a low bumper. Not quite decapitation but hey got the job done.
The point is if we were all truely concerned about the environment we would all wear wool, live in sod houses, and walk. But we don’t we wear acrylic clothing, live in wood or brick houses and drive. So to try and draw a line and or conclusion based upon the vehicle someone drives is impossible.
I would like to see a calculator that would calculate an environmental impact index for an individual life. This would take into account a number of factors (including vehicle, annual mileage, clothing, home size, heating method, refrigerator model, geographical location, etc). All these combined would generate a number. Then we can compare these numbers and see who comes out on top.
It would be like an earth day pissing contest.
brad
on 16 Nov 06@ “Environmental Realist”: check out http://www.myfootprint.org/
Wayne
on 16 Nov 06Where are the figures? This whole article sounds unbelievable to me. Without more information, these numbers detailing cost over the lifetime of the vehichle are dubious at best.
I have seen other articles where they try to prove statements like these by estimating that a Hummer is more likely to drive more miles in it’s lifetime than a Civic. This is probably not the case. I would bet good money that your average Civic has more miles on it before heading to the scrapper than your average hummer.
Another important point is that new technology costs money and energy to develop. If you believe that fuel costs are going to go up in the long term, it makes sense to invest time and energy into developing technology and processes while these fule costs are relatively cheap. If gasoline prices hit $10 per gallon in the next 5 years, you can be sure that these numbers are going to be a lot different.
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06SafetyFreak-
Actually, I figured as such. I not knocking your stance at all. My comments weren’t really directed at you, I knew that when I put the “Hummer/Prius” line in my post I thought you’d think it was against you…. that’s not the case. I’m not advocating your position mind you :) I just think it’s sad that people who our society says labels “liberal” are only liberal until you disagree with them.
(yes- I’m a libertarian)
Rowan
on 16 Nov 06It’s the things that don’t think about that gets ya, like getting on an airplane off to that tropical vacaction that’s about the worst thing you can do.
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06Rowan-
That reminds me of the movie stars you see driving around in a Prius/hybrid something or other to the grocery store, then hop on the private jet to fly them from LA to NY.
lol
Mark
on 16 Nov 06In a market economy, consumers drive the market.
If you buy a hybrid, hybrid sales go up, more hybrids are built, the industry sees profit incentive and adapts to handle the demand, supply grows, demand grows on suppliers, backend supply grows, this process gets cheaper and cheaper.
It’s not about your own gas mileage. It’s not about a cheaper car. It may exact a toll in the short-term.
It’s about change. One driver at a time.
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06follow up article for my last post
ML
on 16 Nov 06ML, you’re looking at statistics without understanding them.
If I had a habit of driving into bridge abutments then I might be better off in an Accord than an H2*. But I’m an extremely patient, steady and extremely safe driver. If I’m ever in an accident, it will not be my fault—some careless or reckless driver will have hit me.
SafetyFreak, did you actually read the article I posted? Again: “Big and Bad: How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety.”.
I admire your desire to keep your family safe but, as the article explains, I’m afraid you’re confusing feeling safe with actually being safe. This has nothing to do with whether or not you’re a good or bad driver. It’s about being in a vehicle that can react quickly when something out of your control happens. Your Hummer may make you feel safe but in truth you’re actually placing you and your family in more danger by driving that car.
And the argument that “if it’s legal, it’s none of your business” is a pretty weak one. What car you drive affects other people on the road and the environment and the price of oil and geopolitics and yadda yadda yadda. Your actions and choices here are not merely self-regarding, they affect others too.
Environmental Realists
on 16 Nov 06Brad: This is interesting. Great resource.
OK. Heres the deal… I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
18
Which is below the average of 24.
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06agreed… a big part of the liberatarian mantra (as speedfreak admitted to being a part of) is the ”...as long as it doesn’t infringe on other’s rights.” -which is debatable to a greater extent than: ‘we’re all in this together’, but those good points you brought up.
Dan Boland
on 16 Nov 06I love car owner stereotypes. I think they’re funny. For instance:
Hummer—Loves Limp Bizkit. Frequently drives drunk. Has a short temper. Small penis.
Prius—Has NPR saved on every preset. Small penis.
brad
on 16 Nov 06OK. Heres the deal… I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. 18
My score’s only 6.4! But that’s because I live in a city in a small apartment, work at home, don’t drive much, use compact fluorescent lights everywhere and have an Energy Star fridge and washing machine, don’t eat a lot of meat, don’t fly often, etc. I’m not fanatical about reducing my environmental impact but just do what I can.
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06Dan Boland-
Right- I also like how it only applies to what people drive, and sometimes how they dress. But when you drive down the street and see a big house you don’t think “oh, they’re overcompensating for a lack of…”
Crazy Environmentalist
on 16 Nov 06I do. ;)
Dan Boland
on 16 Nov 06It’s a joke.
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06Dan- I know.
Crazy Environmentalist- At least you’re consistent. That’s better than most :)
brad Hurley
on 16 Nov 06@Dan Boland: you’ll appreciate this ditty from the great Bill Morrissey, a song he wrote back in 1989…a little dated but hey, some things never change:
Car and Driver
I’ve got a Mercedes Benz with M.D. plates, I have no trouble finding dates. I’ve got a 1980 Subaru, one more semester, then I’m through. A slant-six Dodge is no big thrill, but it’s a car no atom bomb can kill. I make a lot of dough in a high-tech job, yah sure, you bet, I drive a turbo Saab.
Chorus: I’ll be you a ten, even a fiver, you find a car, I’ll find the driver It really ain’t-a no big deal to know who’s inside that automobile.
Well I’ve just airbrushed my Econoline, “a friend of the devil is a friend of mine.” I’ve got a 1962 Biscayne, it won’t start if it looks like rain. A four-wheel drive with extra chrome, I keep it on the paved roads close to home. A Cadillac the size of an Amtrak Train, when I drive I take two lanes.
Now my Honda Civic is a real go-getter, I look great in it in my crewneck sweater. And my BMW draws applause, I am not bound by traffic laws. I got a Ranger truck, I’m for import quotas; I won’t park next to no Toyotas. And my Volvo wagon will seat six, it can run on diesel or trail mix.
Peter Hentges
on 16 Nov 06Why not take public transportation to and from your office? Or bike? Or walk?
And I can see the need to pick up children from school and the like, but since their school is even closer, what better way to instill good habits than to walk them home from school every day?
Chris Carter
on 16 Nov 06This discussion reminds me of the South Park episode about the Hybrids.
As for the study – I agree with those who say that it is suspect. However, there is a lot of misdirection from both sides of the debate (oil favoring and green leaning), and unfortunately it’s very difficult to tell exactly how much hybrids and small cars save with all the mud in the water. For once I’d like to see the extremists shut the hell up and let some of the silent majority speak up with real numbers. I have a feeling though, that that would take as much effort as getting the Left and Right to quit yelling at each other and actually work things out reasonably.
Oh well.
SafetyFirst
on 16 Nov 06ML, I read the article (actually, again, since I also read it in 2004). It doesn’t refute my argument that in a collision of a big vehicle and a small vehicle, the occupants of the big vehicle have an advantage. That’s a physical reality. It’s why you didn’t suffer a scratch when those planes hit the Trade Center - because the Earth you are riding is much bigger than a 767 - even though the chair you were sitting in didn’t have NHTSA-tested crumple zones.
I’ll repeat my example from a post above: If you think “being in a vehicle that can react quickly when something out of your control happens” will help you when a joyriding teenager passes a minivan and they’re both coming at you on a one lane road, well, you’d be wrong. In my own anecdotal automotive accident experiences - being hit from behind at a red light and being t-boned by a red-light runner - there is no vehicle that could have helped me avoid the accidents.
You are concerned about the geopolitical effects of which vechicle I drive? That’s a silly stretch. If you voted for any of the nitwits who authorized the use of force in Iraq, you’re the one causing a geopolitical mess, not me. We libertarians don’t play that game.
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06Chris Carter-
Welcome to the club! We made t-shirts (...we’re not sure exactly what the carbon footprint of making the t-shirts are)
Richard
on 16 Nov 06Peter Hentges : Very Good Questions
I do ride a bike to work someday. When it isn’t raining (about 5 months a year)
My children do walk when it is safe. Sometimes it’s not and their school is on the way to the office.
The point isn’t that I feel proud about anything. I don’t bring the subject up. It is normally in response to slams about my gas mileage that therefor implies that they are proud of their prius and the 10-20 miles they commute.
Another one of those stereo-types I guess. Hummer – Too Proud.
No just a cool rig. Period.
A prius is a cool machine it’s just the snobbery that I have encountered that isn’t.
Oh, and also. How much have they contributed to conservation efforts, cleaned streams, establish spawning beds, planted trees, not use chemicals on the yard? Not sure, we don’t get past the MPG thing. We actually have a lot in common they are just snobs. =)
Erik
on 16 Nov 06There’s a lot more to environmental impact than just how much energy a vehicle uses. Emissions are also an important factor, and this study (from what I read in this blog, I have not looked at the study itself) doesn’t address that. Air quality, smog, ozone depletion, etc. are all affected by emissions, and that, in the long run, is what I feel is really important about using a greener vehicle, and why the hybrids beat big SUVs hands down.
Eamon
on 16 Nov 06Uh, no. It’s everybody’s business when you’re talking about shared, finite resources.
ML
on 16 Nov 06SafetyFreak/First: “It doesn’t refute my argument that in a collision of a big vehicle and a small vehicle, the occupants of the big vehicle have an advantage.” Fair enough. But the article does refute the argument that the car you drive is safer.
Despite your anecdotal evidence, you’re a lot more likely to get into a collision in the first place when you drive your Hummer. Here’s a different analogy: Let’s say you’re sailing and you see an iceberg coming up ahead, would you rather be steering the Titanic or a speedboat?
I know you think that you’ll never be at fault in an accident. But that’s why they’re called “accidents.” Otherwise, they’d be called “intentionals.” Sometimes shit happens.
And as a fellow libertarian, I’m sure you’re aware of the difference between self-regarding and other-regarding actions. Your choice to drive a Hummer affects other people so let’s not pretend it’s happening in some sort of vacuum where only you should have a say over the matter.
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06But, as has been posted, why do large SUV owners get flipped off and cussed at when 350HP Corvettes get a free pass? What about a 69 Camaro? What about an RV? Just stay in a hotel or tent!
No one slams them with the verocity (except Crazy Environmentalist I’m guessing:) )
brad
on 16 Nov 06Erik: yes emissions are important, but what CNW is claiming is that the energy-related emissions from developing, manufacturing, distributing, and ultimately disposing of cars are a significant issue. And that’s true, but I still don’t believe they’re larger than the emissions associated with extracting, refining, transporting, and burning gasoline in your car over its lifetime. And I don’t buy CNW’s argument that hybrids simply shift the pollution to Japan because, as I said above, Japan is one of the most energy-efficient countries in the world so in fact the emissions associated with development and manufacturing there are likely to be considerably lower than those of developing and manufacturing a Hummer in the US.
street
on 16 Nov 06I am with you 100% SafetyFreak. A few years ago I decided I wanted the safest body I could possibly have. I now weigh 435 pounds and even though I am only 5 foot 6 inches tall, my safe body can prevent pretty much anyone from knocking me down.
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06I am with you 100% street. A few years ago I decided I wanted the warmest jacket I could possibly have. It weighs 10 pounds and even though I am only 5 foot 6 inches tall, my warm jacket can prevent pretty much anything from making me cold.
... what were we talking about? Oh yeah- cars. They have nothing to do with jackets or body types.
street
on 16 Nov 06You have got to to tell me where to get that jacket! Does it come in a XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXL?
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06lol. Nice :)
Street- you should look beyond body weight when making a safe body choice.
street
on 16 Nov 06The weekly dialysis treatments are worth it – safety is important!
Prophetess
on 16 Nov 06Hm… I’m suspicious. It’s logic like this that allows the big pharmaceutical companies to justify charging an arm and a leg for the latest cures.
I am skeptical of a 450 page report that boils down to a sound bite. Life is rarely that simple.
Some thoughts:
To get the total environmental cost, not only do you have to consider the car itself, but the environmental cost of every material that is used in the making and running of the car. So the calculations necessary to do the cost estimate have just gotten much harder and more complex.
I would also claim that everything up to the point of purchase is on the environmental shoulders of the manufacturer. Their choices might allow them to make a car with very little economical cost that has huge environmental impact after it leaves their factories by the millions. Everything after the purchase is on the shoulders of the buyer. If the buyer wants to have little environmental impact, hybrids are clearly the way to go.
Thoughts?
Prophetess
on 16 Nov 06See also, criticisms of the study over at AutoblogGreen: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hummer-is-not-greener-a-prius/
Eddie
on 16 Nov 06Personally, I like your thoughts prophetess… of course, you’re going to get your “the ends don’t justify the means..” crowd weighing in. They’ll say it’s not good enough to simply refuse to buy a high environmental production cost vehicle (thereby letting the market weed them out).
I will say that you’ve given me another expression to add to my arsenal:brad
on 16 Nov 06Everything after the purchase is on the shoulders of the buyer. If the buyer wants to have little environmental impact, hybrids are clearly the way to go.
Yes, but the buyer has a choice, and therefore plays a role in those things that you say are “on the environmental shoulders of the manufacturer.” When you buy solar panels, you’re producing electricity with no emissions, but if you really want to make a smart environmental choice, you’ll also look at the energy/environmental performance of the company that made the panels. Solar panels have to be manufactured, and that consumes energy, and they have to be transported. If you want to minimize your impact, you want to be a smart shopper as well.
Kira
on 16 Nov 06Yahoo! Autos partnered with Environmental Defense to launch a comprehensive Green Rating this month. If you look close, you can see it on all their car listings. Or you can visit the special green car section: http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
The 1-100 rating is a total rating—it considers global warming pollution, other air pollution, and the materials that go into the car. It’s based on standard government data about each car.
Biggest surprise for me—diesel cars don’t do very well, in spite of their good MPG. Turns out they spew a lot of stuff out their tailpipes.
Here’s more on the tech details of the rating: http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-article_144/;_ylt=AvMsWsR87olSKn.aHpokz1BqJNIF
different brad
on 16 Nov 06@Prophetess: Everything after the purchase is on the shoulders of the buyer.
Can anyone say sweatshops, blood diamonds?
No, conscientious buyers must make decisions based on the actions of the producers of the goods they buy. Sure, all oil-money-funded studies aside, a Hummer might have less of a dust-to-dust impact because it’s a hybrid of existing parts, from existing vehicles using old technology; that doesn’t make it a more conscientious choice.
Organic chicken will continue to cost more than regular chicken until the mass market of people demand their chicken be organic. The same for fucking everything else that is good for you or good for the environment. The cost of innovation is high, especially when you’re up against the same people who killed the electric car :)
Anonymous Coward
on 16 Nov 06It’s logic like this that allows the big pharmaceutical companies to justify charging an arm and a leg for the latest cures.
Right. Never mind the 12 years of R&D that had to go into producing the cure. Never mind the 12 years of R&D that didn’t lead to 100 other cures.
pat
on 16 Nov 06I drive a 1985 Mercedes 300 S series Turbo Diesel with over quarter million miles and it gets over 25mpg on the freeway…I doubt if the hybrids will ever last over 20 years the road, have plenty of room and still get decent mileage after all those years. Long live turbo diesel mercedes!
John
on 16 Nov 06I call BS. I remember hearing about this study when it was referenced in an article about another study that argued bicycling is worse on society than driving a car.
Come on people. Both studies were debunked long ago. Why give this shoddy research new life now? And here of all places!
It’s a piece of feel good propaganda for the H2 crowd. God knows they need some good press. They may have been overcompensating for a few things when they bought their Hummers but it wasn’t out of concern for safety or the environment.
Jim
on 17 Nov 06There are 4 different arguments here because there are about 4 different issues that are in many ways completely unrelated:
1) Waste – Miles per gallon of gas…more usage = more places like ANWR being opened up. Also why use more of the road then you need? Why have an engine outputing enough power to tow 10,000 pounds haul only one person to work?
2) Emissions – Hummers, because of their always on nature and larger displacement put out more emissions then a Prius, a lot more. Not necessarily the old fashioned smog causing ones, but definitely CO2.
3) Materials Afterlife – Prius has yucky batteries, but batteries can be recycled. Hummer has much larger tires and brakes, uses more motor oil. Lets say they break even here.
4) Safety – This completely depends on the accident and situation. For some things you are just as safe or more safe in a Prius, for others you are more safe in the H2. Depends what type of accident you get in, but I think any benefits one provides over the other is marginal.
Killian
on 17 Nov 06Dollars is a notoriously unethical way to balance the ‘environmental’ cost.
I understand the original post admired the ‘total cost’ aspect but this analysis is fatally flawed due to it’s measuring stick and is simply giving a useless statistical weapon to H1 driving morons.
Off topic
on 17 Nov 06That would be a compelling argument if - as I thought everyone was aware by now - they didn’t spend more money marketing to the end-user than they did in R&D. It’s pretty galling to think that the majority of what you pay for medication goes directly into advertising. It would also be more compelling if they weren’t able to sell the same product in non-US markets for significantly less and still make an insane profit. Could be related to the fact that many of these other countries have strict laws about marketing pharmaceuticals.
Paul
on 17 Nov 06First off: Who paid for this study? You can see it comes not from a non-biased agency, or a non-profit. According to their website they’re a “marketing research” company. This could be like the Linux TCO reports funded by Microsoft.
They also ignore all the other options for personal transportation. There’s public transportation, taxis, car rentals, car sharing programs, motorcycles or scooters, bicycles, or, the world’s favorite option, walking.
I’m suprised that folks who like to “think outside the box” as much as 37 Signals fail to see all the alternatives to automobiles.
My solution was two fold. First, I moved to a great neighborhood within a mile of my job. Then I sold my car and bought a 125cc scooter. Granted, this won’t work for everyone. However, it’s right for me.
Fished
on 17 Nov 06DIESEL Lovers: WHAT ABOUT our Health and the Environment? Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM @2.5 microns) is a mixture of fine liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist fumes or smog that pollutes the air and causes serious health problems. Sources include all of your smokey diesel cars, then trucks, buses and power plants. Fine particulate matter air pollution is composed of particles of two types: primary particles that are typically emitted directly from nearby air pollution sources, such as diesel cars and trucks; and secondary particles that are formed in the atmosphere from gaseous air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide from power plants that forms sulfates. Sulfur dioxide reacts with other gases and particles in the air to form sulfates that are harmful to peoples lungs and to the environment. Sulfate particles are the major cause of reduced visibility in the eastern United States. SO2 can also react with other substances in the air to form acids, which fall to the earth in rain and snow. PM 2.5 and acid rain damages forests and crops, can make lakes and streams too acidic for fish, and speeds up the decay of building materials and paints. Chemicals that bind on these particulates can also be toxic. Some of these affect our health; others affect our ecosystems, causing acid rain, global warming and other problems on a regional and international scale. I want a Big safe 4×4 Prius…
justin
on 17 Nov 06Fished: I own 4 diesels currently. They all run 100% biodiesel and two of them get 50mpg. Biodiesel is an typically in the range of 80% in CO emissions, which is the #1 contributor to air pollution/global warming. Yes, diesels emit more particulate matter (sulfur dioxide) than a gas engine, but sulfur dioxide is not a major contributor to air pollution and has not been proven to reduce visibility as you claim (I’m open to see real facts to back up your claim to the contrary).
Considering the fact that any diesel engine can run on biodiesel with no conversion, and biodiesel is a huge reduction in pollution, not to mention all the inherit advantages a diesel engine offers of a typical combustion engine (gas or ethanol), for me it’s a no brainer decision to buy diesels and support alternative fuels.
justin
on 17 Nov 06I meant to say biodiesel offers reductions in CO in the range of 80% over conventional petrodiesel.
Fished
on 17 Nov 06justin, What you said was; “Yes, diesels emit more particulate matter (sulfur dioxide) than a gas engine, but sulfur dioxide is not a major contributor to air pollution and has not been proven to reduce visibility as you claim (I’m open to see real facts…”
What I said was; “Sulfur dioxide REACTS with other gases and particles in the air to form sulfates that are harmful to peoples lungs and to the environment. Sulfate particles are the major cause of reduced visibility in the eastern United States. SO2 can also react with other substances in the air to form acids, which fall to the earth in rain and snow.”
SO, It’s the SULFATE PARTICLES which are formed in the atmosphere from the emissions. And all particulate matter scatters light and thereby reduces visibility. But, the visibility issue is secondary to your lungs! Small particulate matter gets sucked into them and gets stuck. And those small particles may have other toxic stuff bound to them, and now that toxic crap is stuck in your lung. And then there is the acid rain problem which pollutes the lakes and contaminates or kills off the fish…
Biodiesel is most often just blended with petrodiesel anyway, like B20. If someone were to tank up a their diesel with the 100% that you are using, it would plug up the filters in no time. Plus, the price for it will be soaring in no time, as ethanol production, and the demand for corn and beans increases.
I still want a Big safe 4×4 Prius (ok, if I move out there to corn country I’ll want the diesel option – screw the east coast.)
jtwilkins
on 17 Nov 06Did you guys even look at this company’s web site or open the actual report? This is a joke! This is funded research that uses terrible metrics for measurement. 37S should be ashamed of posting this crap. Go join a right wing wacko blog network. This has nothing to do with design, heck its anti-design.
And all you people who buy huge azz hummers because they are safe gave me a good laugh.
brad
on 17 Nov 06The marketing research firm that did the study says it was “self-funded” but it does come off as an amateur effort; it shouldn’t be mistaken for a rigorous technical analysis. That said, their basic premise that, from a cradle-to-grave perspective, it currently takes more energy to produce a Prius than a Hummer may not be too far off the mark. But it’s an incomplete study because it doesn’t look at the cradle-to-grave energy it takes to keep these things on the road for 100K or 250K miles, and when that’s added into the equation I think you’d see the tables turning and the Prius coming out on top.
Justin, CO (carbon monoxide) is not a significant contributor to global warming. CO2 (carbon dioxide) is, and I think that’s what you meant here, because biodiesel does have much lower CO2 emissions from a lifetime perspective than does conventional diesel. As for particulates, I think you and Fished are both confusing particulate matter with sulfur dioxide and sulfate particles; they are not the same thing, although it’s true that particulate matter can include sulfates. EPA has a good easy-to-read explanation of these pollutants and how they affect health.
Biodiesel is mostly cleaner than conventional diesel, although can result in higher hydrocarbon and NOx emissions. The Union of Concerned Scientists has a good online fact sheet on biodiesel.
Research and Development
on 17 Nov 06The study includes the cost of Research and Development. Given the R&D that goes into hybrids and the number of hybrids on the road it is not surprising to see these numbers. Check back in 5-10 years and people will be ashamed they ever owned Hummers.
Not that hybrids are the final answer. Anyone shortsighted enough to think there is a final answer shouldn’t be commenting on this study. However, it is truely laughable to think of Hummers as more environmentally friendly. Imagine a world in which everyone drove a Hummer, getting 7-12 mpg. This would double or possibly triple world wide oil consumption and with it worldwide CO2 emmissions.
Final thought: There are many other equations that are not part of this study, such as the true cost of oil or the true cost of polution. How many wars are fought over stategic military positioning around oil? How much is spent in health care for polution related illness? Should we not factor in these costs as well?
cjcurtis
on 17 Nov 06“cjcurtis: while I believe you at least have a better reason for driving an SUV , I would also argue that you owning a boat at all makes you an environmental negative. The fact that you need to tow it only compounds the problem :P”
crazy environmentalist: not only does your comment make me laugh out loud, but the very name you give yourself speaks volumes…”crazy environmentalist.” keyword “crazy” aka “fanatic” aka “pathetic” as far as i’m concerned.
so i bet you’ve never been on a boat (cause they’re evil), and i bet you don’t eat meat (cause it’s murder), etc..
get this…my boat is a v8 too…talk about bad gas mileage…wow. i also ride a dirtbike (‘04 kx250). although it’s extremely fuel-efficient, but i’m still evil because i use gas in the name of fun.
call me SATAN.
what do you do for fun? do you travel? or do you walk everywhere you go?
i say again…mind your business. look at yourself before you look at others in contempt.
and stop saying really stupid shit like “owning a boat makes you an environmental negative.”
:)
Scott Althoff
on 17 Nov 06Here are two glaring issues with the report (as pointed out by stomv in the comments to http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/11/us_sales_of_hyb.html) : Here was the studies expected lifetime driving distances and cost per mile: Hummer H1: 379,000 miles—$3.505 / mile Hummer H2: 197,000 miles—$3.027 / mile Hummer H3: 207,000 miles—$1.949 / mile Escalade ESV: 234,000 miles—$3.197 / mile Accord Hybrid: 117,000 miles—$3.295 / mile Civic Hybrid: 113,000 miles—$3.238 / mile Prius: 109,000 miles—$3.249 / mile
They fudged their numbers by claiming that the H3 would last twice as long as the Prius, which is a very dubious claim.
Also CNW Marketing Research is a market research firm. This was not a peer reviewed study done by economists and engineers, it is a marketing report.
Scott
Tee
on 17 Nov 06Hello all,
I expected that people posting on hip blogs would be more sound on environmental impact…
Instead, they overhype meta-skepticism
Your children will teach you later what you don’t want to understand now.
T
JP
on 17 Nov 06The problem with hybrids is that they include additional batteries and electric motors compared to a conventional car. These components will obviously have a negative environmental impact.
Why isn’t 37signals advocating a “less is more” car design. A small, simple car, with a modern efficient engine, is going to have less of an environmental impact than a large luxury model. A simple car without electric windows, mirrors, central locking etc. is the way to go.
Always right
on 17 Nov 06JP, I Agree with you! I also feel 37S’s dropped the ball on this one and think they should stick with web based application vs making comments on subjects they know nothing about.
Dave
on 17 Nov 06What’s interesting about this article is that it highlights exactly how much control an individual has over the environmental impact of their vehicle: very little. A lot of the decision-making that went into creating the vehicle is out of the eventual owner’s hands. What they (the eventual owners) do with the vehicle is more important, IMO. In fact, the majority of the systems we interact with are out of our control, and the little control we do have should be emphasized. Maybe hybrids aren’t the cleanest, bestest cars out there after all. But the laws of supply and demand indicate, at least to me, that there is significant demand for these types of vehicles and the systems which create them will have to clean up their act to win and retain our business.
I think it’s funny how Jason is “calling out” the environmentalists on their motivations: save the environment or save on gas. Um, last time I checked, saving gas (which, you know, comes from oil and ) qualifies as saving the environment. And of course now that the wool has been pulled from our eyes we have a choice to make: do we drive the obviously un-environmentally friendly Prius, or step into a nice comfy Hummer (which clearly is saving the environment)? Well, until there’s a hybrid Hummer, there’s not much on the market with which an environmentally-conscious person can make his or her values known. Because, you know, the car you drive does say a lot about your values. And I’d like to think that once people realize that these hybrids aren’t so great, and once the car manufacturers come out with something else for us to buy, those that care will pick up a new car. It’ll be a win-win for everyone concerned. Until then, if I choose to advertise my values through my car purchase, I don’t have much choice.
Chris Carter
on 17 Nov 06It occurred to me as I was killing some seals and painting my house with lead based paint this morning – why are there any environmentalists even POSTING on this blog? Aren’t computers one of the most environmentally unfriendly products to produce? How can you even stand to type on that plastic and silicon keyboard, tied to the internal circuitry by copper and other precious metals? Doesn’t it just make you want to puke your guts out after every “click” of the key?
Oh that’s right, saving the environment is only valuable when its CONVENIENT.
I’m not trying to be snarky, even if it comes off that way. I’m making a point – make it VERY convenient to help the environment and people will. Humans as a whole will follow the path of least resistance. Make that path the environmentally friendly one and your problem is solved.
Crazy Environmentalist
on 17 Nov 06Chris, no realistic people are suggesting we live in mud huts and eat grass, but there is a difference between bare necessity and waste. In our spread out country (USA), it is necessary to own car in most parts. Yes, a car is bad, but it’s the most realistic option often. If you have to use a car, you should get what you need, not something that wastes. People with horse farms need a suburban to tow their trailer, single moms don’t.
Yes, we need to live in houses, but if we are a single person, we don’t need to own a 5 bedroom 3,000 square foot open floor plan.
A computer saves the environment in other ways, no dead trees for letters, no gas used to work with real files at work. But I have my computer hibernate when I’m not using it, and monitors turn off after 30 min of no use.
Yes, we need electricity, but do we need it from coal fired plants or are their better alternatives? The point isn’t to completely inconvenience and take the fun out of life, it is to not waste and to think of other people.
Yes, Chris riding a boat is fun, but when it’s killing manatees and polluting the water, and making a pristine lake filled with noise, it effects others. There are ways to have fun that are less destructive to nature. If we all just conserve a little more it makes a big difference in the world at large.
CB
on 17 Nov 06Note, those of you that are passionate or are developing a passion for topics like this and the role that design can and should play in it’s influence should check out a book called ‘In the Bubble’ by John Thackara.
And we should all take note that computers, data centers and the new cell phone you get every year have an enormously high environmental cost, the average laptop these days requires about 10,000 pounds of raw materials to create (Read the book).
I suspect the world will (or perhaps is) coming to its sense about this topic out of economic necessity. Countries like China and India pay attention to this kind of stuff because they have to if they want to grow.
Brad Gignac
on 17 Nov 06I didn’t read all of the comments because there were quite a few of them, but I want to make this point:
Part of the reason for the move to hybrids is not just the MPG and emissions. It also assumes that gasoline is not a renewable resource and that it will run out at some point. Alternative fuels such as hydrogen and E85 have potential to significantly reduce well-to-wheels emissions, the total emissions as a result of manufacturing, transportation, and consumption. More importantly, they use renewable resources that will not run out in the future.
I have to be fare and say that many new vehicles support E85 already, but their ECUs are not optimized for this type of fuel resulting in less efficiency. Once E85 becomes more readily available this will change.justin
on 17 Nov 06As for the comments regarding CO vs. CO2 and sulfates and such, I obviously do not know much on the subject and appreciate the help :)
I do know that biodiesel pollutes less than petrodiesel and according to fueleconomy.gov (not a definitive source, I know) all of my biodiesel powered vehicles pollute fewer greenhouse gasses than a modern hybrid.
Carl Youngblood
on 17 Nov 06Although hybrids aren’t all they cracked up to be, they are good for one thing, and that is to change the public mood and to get people thinking more about the environment. But if you’re focusing on environmental impact, I think the tried and true diesel technology is much better—it’s much simpler, has a more proven track record, has mileage that is about as good as a hybrid, but with a much lower environmental impact.
GeeIWonder
on 17 Nov 06This story makes a good point, as do some of the comments (e.g. Carl) but you’re missing a big one: the difference between point and non-point sources of emissions.
The later are much more difficult to even assess, never mind control. The health and environmental impacts are widely distribute and site remediation is generally impossible.
Also, nuclear reactors and other relatively environmental clean sources of power can be used to power production plants, but not cars that burn fossil fuels.
justin
on 17 Nov 06Did somebody forget to tell you about this funny little thing called nuclear waste? We kinda don’t know what to do with it, and it sticks around forever. Oh yeah, and it kills people.
GeeIwonder
on 17 Nov 06Anyone who understands anaything about the environment or about risk would disagree with you.
It’s about tradeoffs. If you want power, you have to get it somewhere. Radiation kills people, but you’re more exposed to the radiation from your bricks or your basement or your plane flights than from that at a decomissioned power plant.
Smog, smoke, particulates, UV rays and holes in the ozone also kill people. In fact, everything kills people. You’re fixated, ironically enough, on the extreme unlikely events that kill few and infrequently (e.g. nuclear power, airplane crashes) versus the extremely high occurence events that kill many (e.g. asthma, lung cancer or car crashes).
If you’re going to be condescending, it helps to have some idea what you’re talking about. “Nuclear waste kills people” is a nice punchline or a movie plot, but that’s about it.
justin
on 17 Nov 06I’m not being condescending and I wasn’t talking about a nuclear meltdown.
I’m talking about the toxic waste that is put in 50 gallon steel barrels and dumped into the Ocean or wherever they put that stuff nowadays. It’s nasty and it’s a problem. Burying, sinking or putting it on the moon doesn’t make the problem go away.
Not really trying to sound like a crazy environmentalist, just thinking about more than my little bubble of life.
GeeIWonder
on 17 Nov 06I just wish you were thinking a little harder, or had some idea what you were talking about.
These are real issues and there’s real work to be done. One of the most frustrating to those of us who make a career out of deaing with these issues is communicating concepts like relative risk and enviromental impact to decision makers and the general public.
If you want to think about more than your little bubble, try thinking about how uninformed comments like yours (which Ocean do they dump it in these days, pray tell?) make it more difficult to do so.
Talk about signal vs. noise.
justin
on 18 Nov 06GeelWonder… You’re really misconstruing my words. I guess I’m just not very good at expressing myself.
I think that nuclear waste is a problem without a solution, therefore I do not think it is a good solution to our energy needs. Telling me how uninformed I am or how stupid I am because I’m not “thinking” isn’t going to change my opinion, so please just try to be so inflammatory.
I didn’t want to get all specific about “which ocean”, because the world is a big place. The place I am most familiar with is off the coast of San Francisco, there is a set of islands called the Farrallon Islands. My dad used to live in Half Moon Bay and we could see the Farrallons from his deck on a clear day with ease. There was much nuclear waste dumping there for many decades (thankfully that has stopped, but where does it go now?). It bothers me that there was nuclear dumping going on just a mere 20 miles from San Francisco, but that’s only one site. There are thousands more, all equally dangerous and typically within proximity to large cities. That’s not good.
I originally chose not to be specific in naming locations because I didn’t want to mention some obscure set of islands that many people probably haven’t heard of. The point was not to be specific, but to state the obvious problem the nuclear waste presents. I guess it’s not an obvious problem to everyone.
GeeIWonder
on 18 Nov 06The ‘questions’ you’re presenting are cliches.
There are answers to these questions. Answers that involve the toxicity and transport mechanisms of heavy metals, dose conversion factors, exposure pathways, alpha, beta and gamma radiation, decay rates and daughter products. and many other factors.
And there are other factors like the whole NOX/VOC/UV thing that won’t be immediately obvious to people that think sulfur dioxide is a particulate. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s great that you’re concerned about the environment. So am I—enough to have pursued a doctorate in the field.
There are also real questions. Questions like the increased transport corridor risk associated with consolidating decommisioned materials in a Nevada site. And safety factor. And management.
The more time managers and politicians and media spend answering concerns like “Nuclear waste kills people” the less time and political will there is to answer these real questions. The point IS to be specific, and address issues based on the best available science and facts rather than “truthyness” and emotion.
Chris Carter
on 18 Nov 06From what I understand – many of the nuclear treaties have expired and reprocessing of the waste is now legal. The reason nuclear waste is still “dangerous” is because there’s still energy in it. When we reprocess it, we get more energy out of it, and that energy is no longer in the waste, thus it becomes safer to dispose of.
The number I heard was that 95% of the waste from the past 50 years can be reprocessed, and modern power plants work with reprocessing in mind, and thus generate only 5% of the waste of their predecessors. Because this waste has been leached of nearly all the energy in it, it’s half-life is far far less than the existing waste in Yucca mountain, somewhere on the order of a decade or two, rather than 80 or 90 years.
Perhaps one of the local nuclear engineers (are there any of those in the room?) could elaborate more on how this works. Suffice it today, there are many environmental groups who for whatever reason are still toting the old mantras of 20 years ago and steadfastly refuse to actually look at the facts of modern day power generation, instead choosing to run after the utopian (but ultimately unrealistic) methods of wind and solar power.
GeeIWonder
on 18 Nov 06Wind and solar power are far from utopian.
Wind power has a history of wiping out populations of bats and birds, which can constitue important ecological tier. Essentially, you’re taking kinetic energy from the wind, so there’s speculation large scale farms may affect winds and current patterns locally.
Conventional production of solar panels involves much energy and toxic materials. Perhaps more so than can be justified by their lifespan-return in certain climates.
Nuclear “energy” is matter. Canning the waste up is one tactic to contain fission gases until they decay into forms that do not mobilize so easily. The waste can then be handled with far lower risk rates. There are further problems associated with e.g. breeder reactors and MOX fuel.
Stan
on 18 Nov 06I have read the beginning of the article, trying to imagine why an H3 (4940 lbs) would require less energy than an Accord weighing 1485 lbs less. For the sake of argument, and disregarding potential conspiracies, et cetera, consider some of it’s findings as written in good faith, and see if there is an explanation to account for these.
The fidelity of the article would be easier to ascertain with more data, but as the authors acknowledge, that minutia and volume of that data would reasonalby confuse rather than enlighten a typical reader without a technical background.
Emissions aren’t covered directly, but presuming emissions are at least nominally related to energy requirements, lower total energy consumption implies lower emissions the same way better fuel economy does. Therefore a lower cost per mile implies, but is not the same as, lower emissions.
Utilities, even those which burn fossil fuels, generally are much more efficient, better maintained, and produce lower emissions, per unit of energy, than autmotive engines. This points in a direction opposed to the previous fact, but one does not necessarily discount the other: again, as in the report, the emprirical data must be accounted for to arrive at a conclusion.
The materials a car is made from have a bigger influence than I intially expected, but the rational is logical. As an example, Aluminum structures, when properly designed, can produce a lighter vehicle, with all the advantages and handling improvements associated. This is why it is so prevalent in aviation, where weight is the dominant factor above all others save aerodynamics. Aluminum is notorious for the amount of energy required to extract it from bauxite ore. Steel does not have this reputation. Either can be recycled, but that does not mean the energy is equivalent there either. This may partially explain why the Audi offerings were near the top of their respective groupings in the chart on pages 27 -34.
Vehicles that are driven farther reduce the influence of the energy used to make and dispose of them per each mile. That’s fairly straightforward. The Wrangler and F150 are well known for the years the remain in use, and each was near the bottom of the groupings in the chart on pp 27-34.
Before the fad kicked into gear in the early 90’s, SUV’s (or “4 by 4s” as they were called, along with 4wd pickups) tended to be driven by people who used more of their capability. Despite all the current owners who don’t use or need the full capacity frequently, buyers who do need them are still buying them. It is reasonable to consider that the latter are unjustly targeted as contributing to the problem.
That said, most people who drive economy cars are themselves willing to trade a little on emissions, when much of their travel could be accomplished with bicycling, motorcycling, or mass transit. In fact, a glance through the book, “Bikes of Burden” demonstrates that resourceful individuals in a temporate climate manage many tasks beyond simple commuting without a four wheel vehicle that would otherwise be very easy to justify. When I bring this idea up in conversations, the typical reply is that two-wheeled vehicles are not an acceptable alternative. Various reasons are cited, often safety, without any further justification. If one uses the vehicle appropriate for the purpose, it could easily be argued there is nothing inherently wrong with possessing an SUV, if it is not used for long commutes on a smooth highway with no cargo in fair weather.
The article also notes one reason why hybrids are driven less is that they are typically a second vehicle. It is reasonable to consider the other vehicle often has greater utility for household chores or family road trips. The fuel savings in that instance is captured by the first owner of the hybrid, but the “total cost to society” may still be large.
The arguments I’ve read thus far can not be reasonably dismissed at face value, unless one is impatient, unable to make judgements unimpaired by cynicism, or threatened by the possible change to their world view. The same is true of the quaint if frustrating resistance to the data supporting the theory of global warming, and of the human contribution to it. We may be tempted to make blanket assertions based on simple truths, but that does not mean the conclusions remain true when all factors are appropriately accounted for.
Robert C.
on 20 Nov 06Many comments. This is a volatile issue.
The research you’ve cited is not accurate. Here’s one link that you might check out. (I know I’m linking to a biased source—but they’re quoting Toyota, and Toyota cites substantial evidence).
This is an attractive news story, because it feels counterintuitive. It would be nice to think that buying SUVs has actually been helpful to the environment. It has not.
You might also keep in mind that most people who buy hybrids consider lower-emissions to be a great benefit. And reducing our dependency on gasoline is definitely worth doing—but, again, the data you mention is skewed.
This doesn’t even pass the laugh test—there is no concievable way that the Hummer H3 could use less energy over its lifetime than the Honda Accord. More materials. Unless you are using seriously screwed up methodology.
pHfactor
on 21 Nov 06Regardless of the validity of this particular study, when I was looking into getting either a high mileage gas car, or a lower emissions hybrid, I realized that the best way to improve the environment (with the lowest dust-to-dust cost), was to wake up from the auto-industry hype and figure out a way to get rid of a car and not replace it.
Jeff
on 21 Nov 06Late to the party, but the thing that this neglects to mention is that higher energy cost does not equal more energy. Duh.
Sam
on 25 Nov 06Hmm. Non-fuel energy is calculated by taking the energy costs of building the vehicle, and dividing by the number of miles that vehicle is expected to roll. It does seem interesting that the expected life of the H3 is estimated at 207,000 miles, where the expected life of the Prius is only 109,000 miles. Giving the Prius a life only half as long, effectively doubles its mfg energy cost. Sure, vehicle life needs to be taken into account. But, does anyone seriously believe that the Toyota will drop dead at only 109k, where the Hummer will last nearly twice as long?
There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics.
Steve
on 28 Nov 06The massive energy and natural resources used to produce all automobiles is (according to Paul Hawken in “Natural Capitalism”) greater than the total sum of energy it uses during it’s lifetime. Simply put, if you want to do the environment a favour, don’t buy one in the first place.
Further, if one takes into account the collosal damage resulting from the suburbanization of the entire planet, (a direct result from personal automobile transportation supremacy) the energy and environmental impact is on a global scale and perhaps not even measurable. The automobile is the 20th century’s biggest experiment that no one bothered to test first. Now we’re becoming crippled with the side-effects.
This discussion is closed.