From “Concept” to “Mass Production” to “Scrap Yard”…
… the Hummer is actually “Greener” than the Prius.
Who knew?!?
3 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
… the Hummer is actually “Greener” than the Prius.
Who knew?!?
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Wait, wait, wait. A hummer is going to last 379,000 miles? A Prius is only going to last 109,000? When was the last time you heard of a GM vehicle outlasting a Toyota? Junk science, not to mention that Hummer’s are now just blinged up GM truck frames with almost none of the roots of the original military vehicle aside from the name badge.
I also get a little fed up with the “What’s cheaper to drive?” question. At what point do you finally decide that, hey, maybe it’s worth it to pay a bit more to drive a vehicle if it’s better for the environment than a cheaper vehicle? What if, for whatever reason, a Prius cost more per month to drive than a Hummer? The Prius still is far more efficient and such, it just costs more to drive. Would you still do it? Or would you say screw the environment, and take the cheaper (yet more poluting) vehicle?
A recent Scientific American had a good article discussing a somewhat similar topic. In most countries, if energy gets cheap enough, the people abandon their energy saving methods and go right back to excessive consumption. The article was basically asking what the heck can be done to make people *keep* conserving even when energy costs drop low enough to make it financially viable to not conserve.
An example would be in the US when gas prices get really high. People quit driving as much, start riding bikes to work, drive more fuel efficient vehicles, etc. But when gas prices go down again, people go right back to their old ways. How can that behavior be stopped?
It all comes down to finances vs environment. What’s more important: Saving money or the environment?
Just thought I’d clarify that despite the wording of the post, the article in question actually points out the junk science used to arrive at such ridiculous conclusions:
“Enter the Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based environmental think-tank, with a counter-report alleging that the CNW report is based on “faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review.” Among its most flawed assumption: the average H1 Hummer is assumed to last 35 years, and travel 379,000 miles, while the average Prius is assumed to last only 109,000 miles over 12 years.
Change these “assumptions” and you end up with an opposite result — that the Prius and others like it consume far less “lifetime energy” than monster vehicles such as the Hummer.
The lesson here is to beware of junk science. If you want to do your part to fight global warming, it probably doesn’t make sense to trade in your Prius for a Hummer.”
Also, I think Joe brings up an interesting point about finances vs. the environment. Many times, there’s a direct correlation between “green” and “financial savings,” such as rechargeable batteries and gas-efficient cars.
But this should not lead people to the conclusion that “green” and “financial savings” are one and the same. Take, for example, reusable grocery bags, a topic already discussed on this site. From a strictly financial point of view, it’s actually cheaper to just use the free plastic or paper bags at the checkout line, then throw them away when you get home – it’s also more convenient than having to remember to bring your store-bought reusable bag every time you go grocery shopping. Ultimately, it’s like Joe asked: when saving money and saving the environment don’t go hand in hand anymore, which is the priority?