Prius does more environmental damage than Hummer

even if what the article says is true, the point isn't only being environmentally friendly, but getting off reliance of big oil dominated by oil wealthy terrorists supporters in the middle east. Just another jab attempt by people who continue to try to uphold the status quo

 

This has been discussed in several threads in the recent past. Here is the newest:

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Surfer @ Mar 30 2007, 06:44 PM) [snapback]415133[/snapback]</div>

The original article is an opinion piece (i.e., no fact-checking) for a college newspaper that evidently desperately needs attention. In February, The Recorder published "Rape only hurts if you fight it" and now in March, "Prius outdoes hummer." This newspaper and this article are garbage.

1. Regarding new EPA mileage estimates, Demorro claims the Chevy Aveo's mileage puts it within "spitting distance" of the Prius. The new EPA combined mileage put the Chevy Aveo at 26 mpg, the Toyota Prius at 46 mpg. So I guess 20 miles more per gallon is "spitting distance."

2. The "Dust-to-dust" study is from a marketing firm, not a science journal. It arrives at an artificially high cost for the Prius by assigning it an arbitrary lifespan of 100k miles, and a Hummer 300k miles. There's Prius being used as cabs that have 200k on them now: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8839690/

And, insofar as a car lasting, what car do you expect to repair less? A Toyota Prius or a GM Hummer? You can check Consumer Reports for the answer to that one. A good analysis of the flaws in dust-to-dust is available at:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48

3. The Sudbury info is seriously outdated, and the comment about moon buggies (like, when did Nasa test moon buggies — early 1970’s) ought to have given the author a clue. Sudbury was polluted by a century of mining (1870 on). In fact, some of Sudbury’s nickel went into making the Statue of Liberty. Currently, the mine is owned by INCO (not Toyota), and produces 100,000 tons of nickel a year, of which Toyota buys 1% (1000 tons). Blaming Toyota for the pollution at Sudbury is ludicrous. Nickel, by the way, is primarily used to make stainless steel. The Mail on Sunday newspaper, which ran the story the college article is a thin re-write of (visible here http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/a...in_page_id=1770 ), used a stock photo you can buy online taken in 1994 to illustrate the pollution (visible here http://www.photoboy.com/bin/Cklb?vmo=1173985067754 ). There were, of course, no Prius in existence or being manufactured in 1994.

Furthermore, Sudbury is no longer this polluted, as INCO and the city have planted over 8 million trees there since 1979. The best history online of the Sudbury devastation/reforestation comes from GM Canada -- that's GM, maker of the Hummer, ahem, writing about how Sudbury was polluted and how it has come back. Really, one should blame Chicago more than Toyota, as Sudbury's trees were all cut down in 1871 to help rebuild Chicago after the fire. GM provides telling photos of some of the reclamation from 1979 to present.
http://www.gmcanada.com/inm/gmcanada/engli...aily/Sep22.html

Canadian news recently broadcast a show on Sudbury's regreening:
http://www.cbc.ca/clips/rm-hi/mackinnon-sudbury070312.rm

The acid rain problem David Martin of Greenpeace is talking about is the situation pre 1972. INCO on regreening and SO2 emissions
http://www.inco.com/development/community/...ry/default.aspx

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Surfer @ Mar 30 2007, 05:39 PM) [snapback]415130[/snapback]</div>

Surfer, here are my thoughts. If you are a newbie try doing some research before you believe everything on the web. If you are a troll, I say, "Don't feed the trolls--unless you give them poisoned pet food."

 

My thoughts? It's another one for the list.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Surfer @ Mar 30 2007, 03:39 PM) [snapback]415130[/snapback]</div>

If it costs $3.25/mile to build and operate a Prius, then, in its 100,000 mile [sic] lifetime, the cost is $325,000.

Let's presume that I paid $30,000 for the Prius (I didn't). Based on the new EPA-46 mpg figures, it will take me 2,174 gallons of gas to drive those 100,000 miles. At 4.00 per gallon (it's not that high--yet--here in St. Louis), I'll spend $8,696 for gas. If I spend $150 every 5,000 miles for an oil change and maintanence, then I'll spend another $3,000 in 100,000 miles. A couple sets of tires will probably set me back another $1,500. And I think I'll buy another Prius (at $30,000) to leave at home for parts, and I'll allow another $30,000 for labor to exhange parts if and when something breaks.

So now, counting all my costs, I'll only have expended $103,196. I guess Toyota is subsidizing the remainder of the $325,000, just to get me to drive the Prius. Thanks, Toyota!!

 

My Thoughts: Can we please require new members to pass a "Search Tool Competancy" test?

 

The fact that they claim the Hummer lasts 300,000 and the Prius lasts 100,000 miles is laughable.

It's unfortunately, however, that these types of articles will get coverage in the conservative press. The American public, by and large, does not possess superior critical thinking skills. If we lived in Europe, I'd be comfortable saying that nobody would believe this article, but here in the US I think too many people will take it as fact. Americans like to be spoon fed, and look for magic pill answers to everything. I'm not speaking about people on this forum -- owning a Prius shows that you are a notch above the rest intellectually -- but when it comes to widespread adoption of efficient vehicles, articles like this hurt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MrK @ Apr 13 2007, 11:10 AM) [snapback]422835[/snapback]</div>

At those rates I must have spent nearly $150,000 out of pocket and debit card, without even noticing it. I must have been a lot wealthier than I thought. I've driven about 46,000 miles since I got the Prius. I wonder what I've been living on, since that's more than the total of my income for the past 1 and 2/3 years.

Dave M.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dmckinstry @ Apr 14 2007, 06:33 AM) [snapback]423196[/snapback]</div>

You were subsidized by Toyota.... Or, the article's assumptions were incorrect and you were living on phantom wealth.... Wonder which circumstance is closer to the truth???? :lol:

 

Syndicated columnist George Will and medical advice radio talk show Dr. Dean Edell both have recently cited the CNW piece as fact. Unfortunately. ---the public believes that stuff, you know---if they have an existing negative mindset towards cars that look different

and how much skin is it off anyone's nose if different PriusChat start different threads about it?

the important thing would be to inform those two individuals and see if they will be as public with facts as with fudges.

but I'm lousy at the computer so I guess one of the computer experts on this thread will do that informing, right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(demoteXon @ Apr 14 2007, 10:21 AM) [snapback]423267[/snapback]</div>

It's just SUPER annoying to see new threads posted by new users about the same crap over and over for the last month or two. Perhaps some of them came from slashdot.

The source of the "information" is the same: the idiot/moron/shill Art Spinella/CNW. The CCSU article full of misinformation was written by a college student in 30 minutes w/no real research. It's the latest iteration of this and seems to be the one cited over and over. The previous iteration was the claim that Tahoes consume less energy in their lifetime than Priuses from May 06. Source? Shill CNW again.

The scary part is that it likely has already influenced a not too small percentage of people who don't take a few minutes to read the details and run the #s they claim. I wouldn't be surprised if some folks out there have "justified" their behemoth gas-guzzling SUV, esp. an H2 over such misinformation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(demoteXon @ Apr 14 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]423267[/snapback]</div>

That would fall under the general heading of "Netiquette", but I fear those days are passing us by.

 

An idea for the PC Staff:

The email newbies get could have a link to a thead about the Sudbury/Dust to Dust propaganda to direct them there if they wish to discuss it.

 

OK...now let's say my 04 is to last only 100,000 miles. eyoughzers! I only have a couple thousand left and it's dead. C'mon. Those folks can claim whatever they want to. They're wrong about most of it. And the amount of nickle is tiny compared to all that comes out the mine. I've been there, too. I will continue to enjoy the car. Since we live in the middle of GM territory I know a bunch of Hummer owners. They don't really like 'em that much and the costs are extreme (After the purchase price which is comparitively low - they all use the GM employee discounts). But they satisfy their egos. When GM comes out with another ego raiser they'll move on to that, too. By the way my 90,000+ mileage has been close to 50 mpg - low 40's in the winter and the mid 50 range in the summer.

 

being a newbe to this forum but not to forums in general i can say that the rehashing of these types of posts does have some benefit. i hadnt seen or heard of this until recently when a newbe brought it up again. i think someone called for a sticky on this subject or maybe it can be added to the sticky title that deals with myths about prii.... just a thought.

NEVERMIND. its in there already.....

 

Finally, a mainstream point by point refutation:

Prius Versus HUMMER: Exploding the Myth

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MrK @ Apr 13 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]422835[/snapback]</div>

I just want to point out that this scales up for the US as a whole. If you take a typical "energy cost per mile" figure out of the CNW report, multply by total US annual vehicle miles, the resulting dollar figure is about 20x as large as all US spending on all energy sources. It's total nonsense.