Well, we can certainly post this, but it needs to either be in the environmental forum or the international forum. I'm going to put it in the international in hopes of saving you a little pain as this is/would be torn to shreds in the environmental..... Good luck with the wind mill tilting!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 18 2007, 09:28 AM) [snapback]425281[/snapback]</div> It should go in the environmental section - only UK residents can add their names to the petition.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dubsky @ Apr 18 2007, 09:41 AM) [snapback]425292[/snapback]</div> Yeah, good luck getting people here to sign a petition described as: Electric/hybrid cars are not as friendly to the environment as some politicians/green activists would like us to believe and should be taxed at higher rate than diesel cars. Maybe you should include a link to the CNW study as well.
Even if he did, I wouldn't. The goverment taxes fuel by about 80%, about £32 (64$) per tank. If I thought the differential is unfair then I would sign a petion abolishing car tax!
dude, Follow the link. The info you posted from Chris Demorro has been debunked so many times on this board it's painful. I mean Demorro can't even get the list price of a car right.
Since you're too lazy to follow a link, here: The original article is an opinion piece (i.e., no fact-checking) for a college newspaper that publishes wild claims in a pathetic attempt to draw attention to itself. In February, The Recorder published "Rape only hurts if you fight it" ( http://www.nbc30.com/news/10992118/detail.html )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...ews.html?in_article_id=417227&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/english/about/MissionGreen/Daily/Sep22.html Canadian news recently broadcast a show on Sudbury's regreening (the acid rain problem David Martin of Greenpeace is talking about is the situation pre 1972): http://www.cbc.ca/clips/rm-hi/mackinnon-sudbury070312.rm The author of this article, Demorro, is so fact-challenged that in his follow-up piece, wherein he admits CNW's Dust-to-Dust is suspect, he continues his Prius-bashing by recommending people buy a Tesla Roadster instead for a mere $30,000. ( http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=203 ). The Tesla Roadster actually costs $92,000. The guy can't even get the list price of a car right; I seriously wouldn't trust his opinion on hybrids. For further info, see Prius Versus HUMMER: Exploding the Myth at http://www.thecarconnection.com/Aut...us_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html
Y'know, Scott, there's something I think you need to hear ... You have a very bad habit of challenging peoples preconceived notions with actual facts. This confuses them. I just thought you should know.
We don't do anything with them. http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/environment/recycle/battery/index.html Toyota offers financial incentive to ensure that this program is utilized.
It's not so much a matter of maturity as it is exhaustion at repeatedly dealing with lies, inaccurate information, and bad math over and over evertime someone comes here stating "facts" about the Prius that they assume are true because it tells them what they want to believe. It's sort of like if someone were to show up declaring that the earth is flat quoting some ancient and obviously inaccurate writing, and then accuse people of being immature when they all laugh at him. As for my batttery, I'm not sure I fully understand the question. I mean, I keep it in the car where it belongs. The car works better that way. I fully expect the battery to last 10 years and probably longer than that. After that, considering it is a relatively clean NiMH battery, there isn't any reason the components couldn't be recycled.
One can only assume the scar of scarface's face is where the thinking part of his brain was extracted. That crap from a marketing company CNW was discredited long ago and they have even retracted it. Where do they breed these ignorant people?
Wait...you mean a compact car...with a combined MPG of 28 MPG can have low emissions? I'm shocked. I'll take my mid-sized Prius that's roomier and averages another 18 miles per gallon while maintaining low emissions.
