Considering planes add to the problem, we should try to give back.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

>Did you give up your cars, you question dodging hypocrite you!

Nope! I am still a Prius-driving, alcohol-burning, 100% hypocrite. At least on the weekends.

-- bill von
hypocrite extraordinaire

PRIUS Outdoes HUMMER In Environmental Damage

Nice try. You omitted the follow up by the writer (Chris Demorro) of the article you cite:

"Along those lines, in the interest of fair and balanced journalism, it should be noted that the CNW Marketing research “Dust to Dust,” which I cited in my article, is dubious at best. Much of the debate has centered on the lifetime mileage of the Prius versus the Hummer. The average expected lifespan for a Prius, according to the report, was 100,000 miles when, in reality, the Prius is offered in several states with a warranty up to 150,000 miles alone.

There was also a great deal of debate regarding just which Hummer was used in the CNW report. It was the original Hummer, not the H2 or H3, which may clear up the 300,000 mile lifespan expected from a Hummer. However, there are enough holes as large as this throughout the CNW report to question its objectivity."

Or, to translate, the article you cited is just BS.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,118]

>PRIUS Outdoes HUMMER In Environmental Damage

Turns out there's a bunch of misinformation in there, and the Hummer actually does a lot more damage! Who'd a thunk it? And just when you thought you'd put those hypocritical holier-than-thou environmentalists in their place . . .

[speedy 0]

Quote

Nice try. You omitted the follow up by the writer (Chris Demorro)

I did not omit anything

As for the article, I did not even bother to read it. It was obvious that it would be a bit lop sided.

However, I do not belieive that the Prius is the best option when you want to buy a car that is friendly to the environment. There are diesel engines that use less fuel than the prius and use diesel made from rape seed.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,118]

>There are diesel engines that use less fuel than the prius and use diesel made from rape seed.

And there are Priuses that run on ethanol.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

However, I do not belieive that the Prius is the best option when you want to buy a car that is friendly to the environment. There are diesel engines that use less fuel than the prius and use diesel made from rape seed.

Ah yes, the "there-are-better-options-than-the-Prius-so-I-might-as-well-drive-a-Hummer" logic.....

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

When will you be incorporating all of these recommendations into your personal transportation lifestlye?

I only drive to work twice a week in the car. I ride the motrocycle (45mpg) once or twice, and a bicycle (80 cal p m) once or twice a week. We only have 1 car in our household. It gets 34 mpg.

Good for you.

Do you want to force everyone else to do the same?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>6 billion of us will have to commit suicide to implement this plan and stop
>mankind's impact on this planet.

Having fewer kids is generally preferable to suicide - and has the same effect in the long run.

Sorry, we have to continue the ponzi scheme to pay for the ever-growing social programs for the ever-more people. If we stop increasing the population, someone would have to quit getting a government check. And we can't have that!

[Remster 30]

You are a riot, John....



First, you say its about giving up your car. Plainly a lie. You've been called on it, but wont admit it.

Now, its about forcing people. Where does it say on that website that people will be forced to ride their bikes? Where?

Remster

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Now, its about forcing people. Where does it say on that website that people will be forced to ride their bikes? Where?

You have a reading comprehension issue.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

Now, its about forcing people. Where does it say on that website that people will be forced to ride their bikes? Where?

You have a reading comprehension issue.

Maybe.

But one thing is for sure, you have a finding-a-quote-from-the-website-to-support-your-argument issue.

Remster

[billvon 3,118]

>Do you want to force everyone else to do the same?

Nope! Provide them with options and incentives and hope they do the right thing. Most will, in my experience.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

>Do you want to force everyone else to do the same?

Nope! Provide them with options and incentives and hope they do the right thing. Most will, in my experience.

Or ensure that the cost of running trains, planes and automobiles includes the cost of addressing sustainability and environmental issues.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[squarecanopy 0]

Quote

Quote

>Did you give up your cars, you question dodging hypocrite you!

Nope! I am still a Prius-driving, alcohol-burning, 100% hypocrite. At least on the weekends.

-- bill von
hypocrite extraordinaire

PRIUS Outdoes HUMMER In Environmental Damage

Holy Batshit, Batman! What a revolting development. Total impact is something to think about. On the other hand, is it better to completely trash one small area of the planet if it substantially lowers our impact on the rest of it?

Just burning a hole in the sky.....

[billvon 3,118]

>Total impact is something to think about.

I agree! Unfortunately that article isn't very accurate.

"The nickel contained in the Prius' battery is mined and smelted at a plant in Ontario that has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers."

That happened in 1979. Note that no Priuses were around then. Today Sudbury is an example touted by environmentalists to show how well an area can recover from abuse. Attached is a Google Earth satellite picture from just outside Sudbury (it's to the left of the picture.) Is that the "moon-like dead zone?" they're talking about? I just see a lot of trees.

Also see attached 1979 vs 2001 picture.

"Dubbed the Superstack, the factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist's nightmare."

Again, true in 1979. Nowadays it puts out 90% less sulfur dioxide - less than most US coal plants. There's still some cleanup to be done, but they are on their way to solving their problem.

But all of that is beside the point. The Hummer uses twice as much nickel in its construction than the Prius uses in its battery. Steel itself generally contains nickel, and stainless steel always does.

"The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -- the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles."

Priuses are not 'expected to last' 100,000 miles. They have in fact lasted well over 300,000 miles in taxi service in NYC (which is somewhat demanding service) without so much as a battery replacement. They've done so well that mayor Bloomberg is pushing for an all-hybrid taxi fleet by 2012.

Sure, you can throw em out before then if you want a nicer car. You have exactly the same issue with the Hummer.

So do the math and you're at $1.08 per mile for the Prius, even using their numbers. Using more concrete numbers (purchase plus gas price at current prices for both) you're at 15 cents a mile with the Prius and 40 cents a mile with the Hummer. A Prius weighs about 1/3 of what a Hummer weighs - and most of that in both cases is metal, that has to be mined, refined, cast, extruded, shipped etc. Indeed, a Prius has a lot less lead and chrome (both of which are environmentally nasty) than a Hummer H2.

So the statement "the total combined energy to produce a Prius (consisting of electrical, fuel, transportation, materials and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime), is greater than what it takes to produce a Hummer" isn't really supportable.

This article got traction because it was a way to poke fun at all those smug stuck-up Prius owners. "See? My Hummer is better than your Prius for the environment!" But the numbers just plain don't work out that way.

[squarecanopy 0]

Oh, more hand ringing here! Bill, your post is just riddled with logic, facts and irritatingly thought out support such as photos and research. I don't think you should be allowed to post on SC for at least 1 week. Shame on you for ruining the article's inference about you bunny lovin' tree huggin' PRIUS DRIVING freaks actually being the ones ruining the planet for the rest of us. You may lose your magic decoder ring for this one, sir.

Just burning a hole in the sky.....

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Nope! Provide them with options and incentives and hope they do the right thing. Most will, in my experience.

that's a nice quote until you look at it deeper

the "right thing" for one person isn't always the "right thing" according to another

where did "incentives" come from - isn't that attempting to influence 'your' decision on someone else?

provide them with options and information (that should include the prof's comment that the complete cost of ownership should be known as well), and trust people will make the right decisions for themselves - and then leave them alone

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,118]

>the "right thing" for one person isn't always the "right thing" according to another

Of course. At one time no one thought sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide etc were any problem. Several manufacturing giants referred to heavy pollution as "the smell of progress." Then Donora happened here in the US, and the killer fogs happened in the UK, and people started to change their thinking. Nowadays I doubt you'd find many people who think that increasing concentrations of sulfur dioxide in our cities is a good thing.

As we learn more, our perception of "the right thing" changes, and there's never 100% agreement. But most people agree on the right thing to do most of the time, in my experience, however you define the term.

>where did "incentives" come from - isn't that attempting to influence
>'your' decision on someone else?

Yes. Just as tax breaks for charitable contributions attempt to influence people to conform to "someone else's" moral decision (that charity is a good thing and should be encouraged.) But I think that's a good approach to the issue. In general, it is better to provide incentives for people to do things voluntarily than to 'force' them to donate (i.e. tax them and then give the proceeds to that charity.)