Saw a Hybrid Tahoe yesterday

What you are arguing, much like Lazybear, is beyond the scope of this particular thread. If you want to argue a persons total environmental impact then start another thread and I'd be happy to contribute.

For my part, I have stated many times my reductions and the things I am working on. I sold my Vette, Trans Am, 800HP 4x4 truck, 2500sq.ft. house and most of my other trappings. I live in a small room rented to me by friends and their 1yr old son. I run an environmental awareness club on my campus. I volunteer with numerous watershed agencies in the area as well as intern with a Land Trust (35hrs/week) where I monitor properties, produce and file annual reports and meet with local scientists, ranchers and landowners to discuss conservation methods.... On the otherhand, I still commute over 400-500miles per week, I have a small terrarium which houses carnivorous plants and uses 0.1kWh of electricity everyday, and I obviously spend time on the internet, etc..

The point is, some "fancies" will be purchased that do not fit into the "true need" category but where does one draw the line? Does that mean that if we cannot cut every single non-environmentally friendly product out of our lives then we shouldn't even try? Should we not start by cutting out the largest and most obviously (low hanging fruits) degradational things first like cars, inefficient buildings, gas-powered lawnmowers, lawns, diamonds, etc?

The Prius is not an environmental mitigation device that allows you to continue doing bad things but run around with a clear conscience nor do I see many claiming this to be the case. Do you see that? If so then I can understand where you are coming from.

 

I have driven the Silverado and the Colorado and can tell you that the driving dynamics of the Silverado are horrible. Almost to the point of being dangerous. The thing is huge and does not change direction or stop with any speed at all. As big as it was I didn't feel safe.

The Colorado was much better and more carlike. Its no sports car but it felt safer.

 

Have you seen the crash testing on the 1999-2006 Silverado? Let's just say I was not sad when I sold mine. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash testing videos.

While were bashing on SUVs and trucks lets not forget about the blind spot issues associated with them.



Every year, children are injured and killed because drivers (in some cases, parents) don't see them while backing up. According to KIDS AND CARS (www.kidsandcars.org), a nonprofit group that works to improve child safety around cars, at least 50 children are backed over every week in the U.S. Forty-eight are treated in hospital emergency rooms and at least 2 children die. There were 474 fatal backover accidents between 2001 and 2006, which represents almost half of all non-traffic fatalities that involved children.

A contributing factor is that larger vehicles (SUVs, pickups, and minivans), which have become increasingly popular, have larger blind spots than passenger cars. A blind spot is the area behind a vehicle that a person can't see from the driver's seat.

 

Exactly. It is all about where is your tolerance threshold is. Some people want more comfort that others. Most of US population considers car to be a necessity. And yet in some other places of the world car is a luxury and yet people live without it just fine (and I am not necessarily talking third world countries). So let me list some unnecessary things and you decide where is your level of comfort.

No beef or pork. Cow farts produce too much methane.
Ban individual homes. High rise with central heating is more efficient.
100 sq ft if living space per person is a norm, no one needs more (USSR)
Ban personal cars. Public transport is enough.
No airplanes except for official and military use. Train is good enough.
Ban gaming computers: too much power consumption.
100+ TV channels is too many. 5 is enough.
24hr supermarkets are evil. Running lights, heating and A/C 7/24 is a waste.
GPS is bad. It requires rocket lauches and burning kerosene+LOX produces CO2.

Should I continue, comrades?

 

From what we have seen, 2-mode can not do what HSD has done with one mode. HSD allows downsizing of the ICE due to more powerful electrical path which results in higher fuel economy. Furthermore, high torque from the MG2 synergizes with low torque Atkinson cycle ICE with higher thermal efficient cycle. Atkinson cycle increases MPG and lowers the emission. There is a great value in low emission... see what Diesel is facing and incentives from governments (congestion charges, HOV access, etc..).

If 2-mode were appiled to Prius, it would have 2.2 liter ICE, accelerate about the same as 2.0 liter non-hybrid car. On top of that emission will be higher. Fuel economy improvement will be about 30% better.

With HSD in Prius, we see 1.5 liter ICE with 2.0 liter performance and 1.0 liter MPG. Quite a contrast...

 

I feel pity for you but I will not join your pity party. Rather than focusing on what "most" do, focus on what is right.

I do believe that caring is a learned behavior.

 

F8L:

I'm not trying to argue for total environmental impact, etc. Far from it. My point is to show the problem with the "needs" argument - "you shouldn't buy a Tahoe because you don't need it". The "needs" argument is problematic, as it opens the door to the line of reasoning I outlined.

Focusing on "needs" creates the (incorrect) impression that if you "really" need it (whatever "it" is) then "it" is OK. If you really need towing, then a Tahoe is fine.

As I see it then, there are two problems with the "needs" argument:
(a) If taken seriously, it opens up a lot of questions regarding YOUR needs, and why you (we) do things that are harmful, and yet serve no apparent need.
(b) It makes it seem as if everything has a price, and that a "justified" need somehow offsets the environmental impact of the behavior.

Example:
Smoking ban (in public places) - is not based on "needs" argument. We don't ban smoking because smokers don't have a real need to smoke. We ban it because it is harmful, irrespective of the smokers' need. We couldn't care less about the smokers' need. Whether the need is real or not would not matter, as it does not make smoking any less harmful to others.
On the other hand, if we were to use the "need" argument, then we would be exposed to the (logically correct) response of: well, why do you pick on smokers? Why not ban alcohol consumption (which is harmful to society in its aggregate health/productivity impact, and which serves no "need")? Cosmetics? etc.

I'm all for banning SUVs altogether, or for making them prohibitively expensive (my favorite alternative). But I'm honest enough to justify this based on the argument that SUVs cause disproportionate damage, independent of any "needs" argument.
Otherwise I'd be a hypocrite - I just flew from Vancouver to South Africa (+27 hours journey), at an immense environmental cost (two 10-hour flights) in order to conduct some business. How can I tell someone not to get an SUV, _because he doesn't need one_, while at the same time I'm doing just as much environmental damage to further my own personal agenda? Who am I to decide whether someone has a real need for something?

I think that making things expensive - pricing the environmental impact into our products - SUVs, flights, etc. - would allow "the market" to sort out the _real_ needs, whatever they may be. If I simply MUST have an SUV, I'll pay the price. If I MUST go overseas (whether it's on business or for fun) I'll pay the price.

 

I see where you are going now. I agree in most respects but it seems like we are arguing semantics more than anything and trying to play the "PC" game. The solutions or opinions you express in your last two paragraphs are not different from my own views. It is not an easy situation to articulate without sounding like a nutcase dictator by stating people should not drive SUVs period! So instead I suggest, like I normally do, that we make degradational behavior cost prohibitive for the majority of people and if they still choose to behave in such a way then they must pay the true costs of such behavior (and those extra funds are applied to directly correct the problems associated with that behavior) unless of course the behavior is just too damaging at which point it should be outlawed and not regulated.

That is kind of the whole idea behind True Cost Pricing.

 

Great Britain already charges taxes based upon fuel economy/vehicle size, don't they? That seems like a pretty good solution to both encourage people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles and to pump some money into government initiatives to "go green" in other areas.

 

Truth?

Since when is Camry-Hybrid an econobox? There's a lot of support for it here. And what about the positive talk for the Highlander and Escape hybrids?

Try to be realistic. Very few need a giant hybrid. Focus should be placed on what more consumers actually find practical with $4 gas. The market for guzzling is rapidly coming to an end.

.

 

Duh...this is the PriusChat Forum. No one held a gun to your head to come to this forum and read anything on here. I don't think you'll be missed.

 

I guess that's another symptom of $4/gal gas . . . it's bringing the trolls out from under the bridge :der:

 

Saw 4 of them at the RNC site in St. Paul today. 2 Black. 2 White. All with Michigan plates.

Makes you wonder how political this will get, eh?

.

 

This is the single worst thread I have read on Priuschat since I started reading in early 2007.