Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage?

Are you that all surprised? The ratio of Mustang owners who have mullets vs. those without is MUCH higher than that of Prius owners.

 

This article goes to show that any "research company" can grab at straws and fabricate data to make the point of whomever is paying for their research.

 

I'm not understanding how is his argument standing? One of the basic assertions is that the Prius is doing environmental damage to Sudsbury, but Sudsbury and mining it has been around since the late 1800s with most of the metal taken out of it during WWI and WWII.

They cleaned up and got an environmental medal in 1990s and still years before any hybrid vehicles were even reality.

When you got this, how does not the rest unravel? It's equivalent to accusing Iraq of having WMDs and bartering for yellowcake.

 

Basically I think it boils down to sensationalist journalism (pardon the oxymoron) and confirmation biases. The story sounds good so it gets ran without really looking into the specifics. Once it hits the web it just multiplies with few people reposting it or using it for their own article look ing at it's merits (that is what everyone thinks the original author/source did).

The confirmation bias comes in too because someone (like the college student who wrote this piece) already have their mind made up that hybrids are overrated and are just looking for evidence to prove it. Walla, we have a sensationalist piece that confirms what we had already suspected! It only stands because most people don't look up the "facts" of the article or want to use the article to support their previously held beliefs.

 

I haven't taken the time to read all 4 pages of this thread, but I hope by now someone has pointed out that the data used in this article was from a nickel plant which was shutdown in the early 1970's, long before Prius was more than a concept.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Mar 30 2007, 01:38 PM) [snapback]414934[/snapback]</div>

Yep, been done. I've gotten so tired of this article (now at over 100,000 google hits) that I've crafted a stock response. Chogan and I have both corresponded a little with the author, but he had drinking, shakepeare and a night job to take care of, so it'll be interesting to see if he ever responds substantively (or if the paper does). My stock response is below:

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.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 14 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]405698[/snapback]</div>

I've decided to buy into this guys Hummer logic ... no longer will I consider him a tool of GM. In fact, tomorrow, I'm selling my Prius. First I thought I'd buy a Hummer ... maybe 2 or 3!

Heck, then it dawned on me; If Hummers are so much cheeper, I'd do best to go down to the Santa Fe Rail Road, and see if they'd sell me a locomotive. Got rid of the steel wheels & put michelins on it :lol:
Now i'm REALLY saving a lot of dough!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZR2 @ Apr 26 2007, 06:57 PM) [snapback]430848[/snapback]</div>

Think of it this way: we're saving gas, so you can waste it. Feel better about our tiny cars now?

------------

So, this guy in a Hummer drives into a gas station. He starts filling the tank, and filling...and filling...but the tank just never seems to fill up all the way. That is, until he realizes the engine is still idling.

------------

Are you familiar with the expression: big truck; little penis...? Bet you're sick and tired of being called 'pee wee' when you're showering at the gym.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZR2 @ Apr 26 2007, 04:57 PM) [snapback]430848[/snapback]</div>

Do everyone a favor and go get an education in environmental science, ethics/philosophy, chemistry, physics, biology and economics. Your post is dripping with ignorance. I know because I was once just like you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZR2 @ Apr 26 2007, 07:57 PM) [snapback]430848[/snapback]</div>

You're right, they won't really go away. All that heavy metal in junkyards will be a great source of raw materials in future. And speaking of recycling and muscle cars, "The New Fords" look amazingly like the old ones, don't they? And hey, there's no reason for those car manufacturers making what we want to be American, is there? Nobody's shoving anything down your throat, ZR2.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 26 2007, 05:10 PM) [snapback]430850[/snapback]</div>

Sorta reminds me of this cartoon...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZR2 @ Apr 26 2007, 06:57 PM) [snapback]430848[/snapback]</div>

You keep saying that, OK? That way, we'll see more headlines like this.

 

Fighting fire with fire,

Using CNW's own figures as given in the Recorder article by Chris Demorro,
a Prius uses a total of $3.25/mile x 100,000 miles = 325,000 "energy dollars";
a Hummer uses a total of $1.95/mile x 300,000 miles = 585,000 "energy dollars".

There you have it: 325 vs. 585. This proves that dust to dust, a Prius uses less total energy than a Hummer.

If you believe the CNW's numbers, then this should make perfect sense to you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZR2 @ Apr 26 2007, 06:57 PM) [snapback]430848[/snapback]</div>

He seems to be glorifying the finer things in life like The Jerry Springer Show, crack, spam, porn,.....and trolling. These are flowers of our society!