JUN 02

I'm pretty sure they're gonna keep making the new cars whether or not "you" buy them. It's not like the car on the lot you're looking at is gonna Miracle itself away. It's like thinking going vegetarian will save some cows. The cows are still gonna die, whether you eat them or not.

It has been said that the mineing of the minerals used to make the batteries for the hybrid cars creates so much toxins, that nothing can live within a 10 mile radus of the mine. Any thoughts on that?

Well, it's not entirely that silly.

If enough people don't buy, it's still tapping into market forces by lowering demand, and thus lowering production. It's just not instantaneous.
Market forces grind exceedingly slow, but exceedingly fine. Demand for the Prius took years to really take off. Lack of demand for other vehicles will take as much time to close, as well. And the Big Three manufacturers aren't well known for Moving With The Times.

Not silly, not at all. Lowering demand/consumption, even one by one, lowers production.
Eventually.

You obviously have no clue about economics and supply/demand is you believe that products will still be produced if there is a reduction in consumption.

What about those 30,000 scientists who say that the "global warming crisis" is a load of crap?
This past winter makes you people look awfully foolish.

Environmental activism, or earth worship, is the newist secular fundamentalist religion.

We all have to worship something.

With a "national average" (or the token amount?) at 12K per year, I don't think it's going to take a few years to rack up 20thousand miles. Plus, a lot of people that I hear actually mentioning buying a hybrid are those who drive a lot, whether it's city or interstate miles.
Anyway, this fortunately won't be my standard any longer, but I racked up 35 thousand miles in 1.5 years. I hate thinking about that and I hate thinking about the workload I put on my car in such a short time.

This is rather playing the numbers unfairly. If we're going to take in production costs, why aren't we also calculating in the production costs to MAKE a gallon of gasoline? It has to be mined out of the ground by an oil derrick of some kind, it has to be transported to a refinery, it has to be refined, it has to then be transported to the gas station, and then it has to be burned to be used. So, 1,000 gallons of gas may PRODUCE 113 M BTUs, but how many thousands more went into the production, shipment, and refinery there of?

A gallon of gas weighs approximately 8 lbs. Your average refinery is over 1,000 miles away from the final delivery location. Your average oilfield is at least a few dozen, if not hundreds of miles from a refinery. So, how many extra BTUs are added in? On average, another 50k/gallon. Which means it's not nearly 1,000 gallons in 113 M BTU. It's actually about 684. Which would only require about 13,000 miles of driving before it's environmentally better to get a Prius.

Which means that if you switch now, and own your Prius for a little over 3 years, while driving an average of only 10 miles/day, you'll make a net gain of energy. Own it for longer than 3 years, or drive more than just 10 miles/day, and it's even better.

And that's not even to mention the gain in energy from BTUs you didn't have to waste working extra hours to pay for the extra gasoline to go the same distance.

What exactly are you trying to say? "Environmental activism" is not anything new, and neither is the worship of the earth and nature. Is your vote for or against the global-warming-opposed scientists? Your points and stance are not well established.

Continue driving your old hopefully paid off car as long as you can. Then when you are ready to purchase new or newer vehicle evaluate your needs and driving habits. Then find the most fuel efficient vehicle that meets those needs and habits. Global warming hoax or not, fuel cost along with everything else is rising plus anything we can do to reduce demand for foreign energy supplies can be a good thing for us all except maybe those foreign suppliers... :o

I agree that auto makers need to develope economical fuel efficient cars. But there is one car, the Chevy Metro, that GM should just blow off the dust and start producing again. I bought my daughter a 2000 model three years ago. She got a lot of flack from her classmates about its small size, it was grey so they called it the "mouse car". Well at $4.01 a gallon, the mouse car takes $20 to fill up and gets 35 MPG. Driving to class and two part time jobs she can drive two weeks on that tank of gas. Well who has got the last laugh now? Now people approach her at the pump asking about her gas mileage and wishing they could get their hands on one. Mom wasn't so dumb after all

to the person (...) above, I am not sure I agree totally with your numbers, but at least you have made an attempt to figure in all the other costs, and not just gas/fuel consumed by the vehicle alone. Afterall, if you are going to look at the big picture, you really need to look at the BIG picture and get ALL the facts....thanks for pointing that out as well! I drive a truck that gets 25-28 mpg and a motorcycle that gets above 45mpg, they are both paid off so they only cost me fuel and upkeep. We cannot forget that one also needs to keep tire pressure where it should be, the air cleaner element free of debris, those two things alone can 'up' your mileage a bit too...it's the small things we forget about that can help reduce consumption.

All of you people have no lives....there are way better things to do than count BTU or calculate mileage from a refinery. Get a life! I'm sure your employer loves that you write stupid posts during work.

A little math and science is a dangerous thing, it seems. The anonymous poster above attempting to argue that the returns on a Prius are enjoyed faster than 20,000 miles makes more than a few errors. First, WATER weights 8 lbs/gallon, not gasoline. Gasoline floats on water, hence its density is less. US gasoline actually weighs 5.7 to 6.5 lbs per gallon. Also, just to set the record straight, petroleum isn't "mined" it's "drilled for" and derricks are only used to facilitate the placement of pipes into the drill shaft. After the well is drilled, the derrick is removed and a pump is placed over the well. The oilfield may be thousands of miles from the refinery, not hundreds as the poster says, but the poster makes no effort to calculate the energy used in transporting the raw petroleum to the refinery, then the gasoline to the gas station, and neither will I. He just seems to pull some total out of his backside. If we agree though, for the sake of argument, that another 50,000 BTUs are used to refine and ship the product, that should be ADDED to the already mentioned figure of 113 M BTUs, but we really don't know whether that energy cost has been computed in the lifetime BTU usage of a Prius or not. So, the post is, at best, gibberish, and a waste of a few calories in it's production. Oooo...there goes a polar bear.

:'( :-* :- :P 8) :o :( >:( ;D :D ;) :)

I like my SUV and will drive it til it dies. Then I will probably buy another SUV. This does not mean I don't care about the environment, but I don't like small cars because they make me feel unsafe and they ride too low. Besides, are car-manufacturers really all that environmentally friendly to begin with? Forget BTUs, what about all the other pollution they create that is harmful to the environment? Green cars still have alot of the same stuff that other cars have, so its not like they are all that environmentally friendly.

:'( :-* :- :P 8) :o :( >:( ;D :D ;) :)

With all these arguments contradicting one another, what is one to do then!? I think I'm just going to stick to public transportation thank you very much.

Charles wrote:
It's like thinking going vegetarian will save some cows. The cows are still gonna die, whether you eat them or not.
==========================
The number of cows that live today is not a natural number. They are bred so that you and I can eat them, and many more are bred for human food consumption than nature would otherwise have bred. If you and I stopped eating cows, no new cows would be bred for us. If a million people went vegetarian, a million cows would not have been bred next year, if you know what I mean.

The amount of field needed to breed enough meat for one person is much more than the field needed to grow veggies and fruit for the same person, so if everyone went vegetarian, more food could be made in total.

That said, I am not a vegetarian and dont want to be one either.

I would also like to point out the overlooked fact that many older cars from the 60's 70's and earlier got well over 20 mpg while weighing over 5000 lbs. I personally had a 69 Buick Electra that got 26 mpg, a 66 Pontiac Catalina 9 passenger station wagon that got 25, and others as well. I also had an 84 Plymouth Turismo that got 54 due to proper tuning "and" higher gearing (3.05:1) with an overdrive. A friend has a 76 Lincoln Town Car that gets 25 as well and that one is HUGE weighing over 6000 lbs. If you know how to tune them they can be great. Also you have to look at what restorers and hot rodders have for many years alreeady--and that is what does it cost to recycle your old car when it goes to the salvage yard? MUCH MORE ENERGY AND POLUTION THAN MOST NEW CARS COST TO MAKE--- THATS WHAT... Most people do not take this into account. You can get an older car that got good mileage, rebuild it and still be more green than if you went and bought the best new green car out there.

Hey Ben,

Kinda like your boss appreciates you wasting your time (his money) reading the discussion forums?

Your accusing people who are trying to take steps to BETTER life of needing to get a life?

Carbon emissions from shipping account for 4.5% of the global total, and much more sulfur dioxide than anything. Think about the emissions of a trans-Pacific journey to bring your new "green" vehicle to the States. If you think about it rationally you won't be so smug driving it around.

Getting rid of a perfectly good vehicle to buy a "green" vehicle might not be worth it, unless you are junking a Hummer or F-350. The article is right, take care of your current vehicle as long as possible.

I wish domestic auto-makers would hurry up and catch up with the Prius (I know they are trying and eventually will) and the point that buying American is greener because there are less shipping emissions.

You know quite well what Ted is saying, but I'll elucidate. An increasing number of scientists are openly critical (or, more accurately, are now getting a tiny bit of press coverage) of the theology that global warming is caused by man. Man causes global warming like a moth causes a light bulb to burn out.

You're right; earth worshiping religions are not a new thing, but neither are they terribly scientific. Perhaps we should sacrifice a few children to Molech in prayer that global warming is reversed? No, I guess burning them would increase their carbon footprint.

There is precious little evidence that global warming is even occuring, none has for the last 10 years, as the temperature has not increased. If it IS occurring, there is NO evidence it is caused by mankind. I suppose you'd argue that when we killed off the wooly mammoth (another thing for which there is no evidence) we caused the ice age by eliminating their farts, thus depriving the atmosphere of the warming benefits of methane.

I agree we should husband petroleum, however. It is foolish to burn a resource faster than necessary which is used for plastics, fertilizer and medicine.

Actually I am my own boss and idiots like you work for me and waste my money. Global warming is bullshit, going green is bullshit and people like you are bullshit!

I have an old 89 Pontiac 600 that gets b/w 35-40 mpg. She already has 126,000 miles on her and is going strong. All you have to do is maintain them. I will keep her til the engine, driveshaft and front seats fall out at the rate gas is going now. P.S. She also is faster than a Prius *lol*

I am nearly 51 years old and I don't drive. I've had a learner's permit a couple times but it's never really been that important for me to actually follow through and get a license. I walk almost everywhere I go. I use public transportation when I can and catch rides, if necessary, with friends or family (which reduces greenhouse gas greation on a per person basis). I am about to fly for the first time in about 20 years. Several people I know fly multiple times a year and generate more transortation related greenhouse gasses a year than I have in my whole life. I am not trying to sound self-righteous, I just want to point out that it is possible to get along quite nicely today without being over consumers of enery. Lest anyone think I must be able to do this because I live in a city where it's easier to live this way, I live in a very small town 45 minutes or so from the nearest large city. If you want to do it you can.

I recently proposed to a friend of mine that buying a Prius could likely be the less responsible choice when one already owns a vehicle that runs fine. Of course there are several factors that go into this but without a consideration, my friend (and my girlfriend) flatly refused my notion.
I notice that you didn't get into the cost factors. Many people are buying Prius's (Priusi? hmm) to save money on gas. Considering that you have to factor in the price of the vehicle versus the savings in gas, it is doubtful that it is advantageous to buy a prius.
This discussion comes close but still steers away from the root of the problem.
1) We live in a throwaway society. The very notion that people are going to buy a new fancy prius while they have one running in their driveway is ludicrous. But never questioned.
2) I could get into the auto-dependency of our culture and uban infastructure but I can save that for another day. Part of the reason tha this never questioned is because EcoGeek is committed to technical/scientific solutions. Environmental problems are technical/scientific problems but the real problem can only be anaylzed in social disciplines.
-------
On a comical note, I notice several people describing specific cars as "environmentally friendly". Within a year ago, the highest court in Sweden slapped a fine on a British automaker for describing their vehicles as environmentally-friendly. The reason? false advertising.

Actually... you are looking at 56,250 miles before you save 1000 gallons of fuel. That's using 25 mpg vs 45 mpg.

Now if you compare a more fuel effecient vehicle that number goes up very fast.

The introduction of newer, better, more fuel efficient cars has a "trickle down" effect in the economy whereby older, more polluting vehicles get retired from service and better more fuel efficient vehicles go into service. This new "Don't buy a Prius" argument might have some merit if it were "Don't buy a new car".

It's always wonderful to read the justifications of people who insist that global warming isn't happening. 90 years ago, these would be the people who would mock Einstein, saying that 'some scientists say he's full of shit.' Global warming doesn't mean that the city you live in gets warmer every year, idiot. It doesn't even mean that the average temperature on the earth increases every year. Do a little reading and come back. I'll concede that I don't know much about your religion, but if this is mine, it's at least based on complex mathematics that can be checked and peer-reviewed. Global warming is crap, cigarettes aren't addictive, guns don't kill, and a zygote can be called a full-fledged human being. Thanks for playing.

it's simple...

MPG in smaller car > MPG in larger car/SUV

MPG in new small car = MPG in older small car

Cost of buying new car > Cost of keeping old car

Don't be suckered...just do the math.

I don't say this to be mean, but you're a mooch. Most public transportation is paid for with gasoline taxes imposed on those from whom you occasionally cage a ride to "reduce greenhouse gas creation on a per person basis." For most people, yours is not a reasonable solution.

Many of us have jobs, and often, they are not within walking distance of our residence. Some uncaring employers place schools, hospitals, factories, fire stations, etc. inconveniently to affordable housing. Others chose not to live in a postage stamp sized home just to be close to work.

Not everyone is comfortable begging rides from their friends, and some of us have schedules which do no permit waiting on an available benefactor to take us where we want to go. I live in a reasonably large city, and to take the bus from one side to the other is a 3 hour endeavor, as I found out when I had to have my small truck serviced last. If everyone practiced life as you do, there wouldn't be air service for you to fly this year, as the demand would not be great enough for it to be economically viable, unless ticket prices were so high you would be unable to afford to fly. Unless you really save a lot by mooching rides, that is.

My, my. I seem to have nettled you. How unkind of you to call me an idiot because I don't worship at the altar of New Age.

The fact is, average global temperatures have gone up about a degree in the last 100 years. They have not increased in the last 10. Ice is thickening in some places, lessening in others. There are more polar bears now than ever. Your "mother earth" is dynamic, it seems.

Another "inconvenient truth" is that there is no evidence whatsoever that humankind has caused the aforementioned rise in temperature, anymore than we caused the Maunder Minimum which produced the mini-ice age. Have you ever heard of solar activity in your pursuit of science?

Here are some other truths:

You're right; global warming IS crap.
Cigarettes are addictive, and choosing to smoke them is up to the individual.
A zygote is the germ of a full fledged individual. Still, it's too bad your mother did't "choose."
Guns do kill. If you'd choose to attack me personally, instead of in writing, I'd be happy to prove your point.

what about the batteries you have to replace in the new cars?

RIDE A BIKE!!!

Ted, Danyelle

There is no debate that our manufacturing and consumption of fossil fuels impact the environment. It's science and the evidence is there. There may be debate on the degree to which what human actions have what effect, such as the now tempered argument that climate change means more Atlantic hurricanes, but the science clearly outlines that, yes, we can ruin our own environment. Just because the more alarming predictions have been refuted or tempered through further study, which is the way of science, the basic reality still applies.

So what do you do? I like this article even if the math is a little fuzzy. Basically this article says throwing away something useful is not a good idea even in the name of conservation.

And let's examine two points. First, public transportation is paid by gas taxes. This is true, but if everyone stopped buying gas tomorrow, the government would still tax the public for this public work. Americans pay less and bitch more about paying taxes than any place else on the planet. This sort of shell game "Tax non commuters to subsidize public transportation" is the sort of relativism that makes the tax code complex and annoying. It's a huge issue, but has nothing to do with keeping your car.

My second point is that all cars are bad for the environment. What ever math you do will not erase that fact. Producing tires is dirty, making batteries for hybrids is dirty, just making the seat foam is dirty. Let's face it, industrialization is bad for the environment. These are all baby steps. We're learning.

So the moral of this article, like many other articles is: use your brain. Don't be wasteful and try to reduce and reuse.

If you and I stopped eating cows, no new cows would be bred for us. If a million people went vegetarian, a million cows would not have been bred next year, if you know what I mean.

Actually, a widespread outbreak of vegetarianism won't stop the consumption of cows. Many people don't know than animal byproducts are a big part of manufactuing and reasearch (industrial and chemical). Cows will still be bred and consumed even if we didn't eat them. (Also, before its stated, NO, you cannot use synthetic materials for everything)

I have a 13 year old Suburban. It runs well, has 156,000 miles on it, mechanics tell me that with regular maintenance it will last to 3-400,000 miles and is paid for. It does not get the 25mpg(more like 18-20) but it also does not require the use of more natural resources. We ride our bikes most of the time and use the Burb to drive other people and ourselves places which are beyond the reach of bicycling(sanely)or when we need to haul something that just does not fit on a bike rack-I even use it to grocery shop- -besides our area is semi-rural and it not set up for riding. People give me the hairy eyeball because they wrongly assume they are eco friendly and I am this big polluter. I bet I use way less energy than they do. I have the highest rated energy efficient washer/dryer by LG, hang my clothes to dry outside even in winter, make my own cleaning products, reuse bottles and glass jars, can my own food, even grow vegetables and herbs in pots on a rooftop garden.

By the way, I don't believe in global warming, myself. I think it is all hooey. I notice that since the warming part hasn't materialized it has been changed to "climate change" so ANYTHING that happens, even in natural weather cycles, can be blamed on all of us. Climate change is being pushed because this way the powers that be (and I don't necessarily mean governments)can invent something to be sold that doesn't even exist, namely carbon credits. The rich will be able to buy extra to run their private jets, private islands (Branson-Virgin Records-look up that meeting on the net with Tony Blair & company-it will frost your cake-they are trying to figure out how to capitalize on the environment craze) and just generally make near-slaves out of the rest of us. They are already talking about installing radio-controlled interruptible thermostats in all new houses in California so that the gas/electric can be turned on or off at their discretion if they think you have your heat turned up for some reason. But it is ok for them because, they have paid for the right to be warm because they paid for carbon credits. Some pigs are more equal than others.
Granted, we must be good stewards of our planet and all of our resources-we ARE a throwaway society-but this stuff is hooey-don't be a lemming!

You know, I never have time to watch C-Span, but I actually caught the new bill being pushed yesterday in regards to Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming. If we could get more support, say internationally, as President Bush states, it might not cost the American public as much money, especially if it failed.
I wanted to note here that the way we criticize the government, "liberal media", lobbyists, etc. for provoking a bi partisan, angry, mudslinging environment, we don't exactly set an example...
*please refer to the lovely comments above

When cell phone use in cars is made illegal, I'll buy a small car. Used to own a fuel-efficient Toyota ... until some moron ran a stop sign and totaled it. I'm tired and very afraid of all the 105 lb, self-absorbed, narcissistic soccer moms cruising around talking on their cell phones, sipping lattes, and yelling at the kids while completely oblivious to the rest of the world. Until they start getting jailed for their purposeful stupidity, you can kiss my very safe, Tahoe protected butt.

It's an easy decision... if you are in the market for a new car - go with a eco-friendly car. If your current car works just fine, then run it into the ground instead of dumping more garbage somewhere. Duh.

This is a very good point, now with the idiot above who thinks mining for the minerals of batterys is dangeres, what the fuck are you smoking. unless your strip mining it wont be harmfull like that. On top of that if the mines were that bad they would be shut down do to health conserns. Whats really bad is the burning of fossel fuels to make hydrogen, or the risk of instantlly cooking a rescurer trying to get some one out of an electric car. All good ideas for the getting around clean, but they end up fucking up some where along the line.

Using Gorean logic, if we eat meat, we won't be as flatulent, and so we can reduce the impact of methane on the environment, as long as we use an existing source of animal protein. I was going to suggest we all wear "earth shoes" and walk the highways gleaning roadkill to fulfill our carnivorous urges, but if we all did there'd be no one driving to run over all those o'possums.

Here we are blaming ourselves in the US for energy usage, with many of our own people encouraging draconian government measures to limit driving and automobile ownership, and the two most populous nations on earth are supposed to be responsible for the skyrocketing gas prices by encouraging private car ownership, one of them a totalitarian society. Go figure.

Patrick, you're right. If we stopped buying gasoline, the government would just seize our property to pay for mass transit, and we'd all get to wait 30 minutes to an hour for a bus that takes us two blocks from our grocery store and drops us off 6 blocks from our home, while costing as more than driving would have.

Ok, so everyone here is an expert at everything here, from Global Warming to how much pollution it costs to refine oil, etc.

So, I drice a 2003 Pontiac Vibe which I love very much. It is paid for, and I get roughly 30-32 mpg. However, with only one income, and 4 boys to raise, when the COL (Cost of Living) has doubled and my paycheck hasn't, then there is a problem. When I purchased my car in Aug 2002, I can remember paying roughly $14 to fill her up. Just 6 years later, I'm paying roughly $40-45, and it's not going to get any better. Along with that, the price of groceries is increasing as well.

The whole point of the article is to not be in such a hurry to purchase a 'greener' car if your current car is getting reasonably good mpg.

I can't say whether Global Warming is a hoax or not, but it has been proven that the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. Whether GW is a hoax or not, we need to get into the mindset that this is our only planet, and we need to take care of it. It's not like our great-grand children can just take off and fly to Mars to live because Earth is too polluted!

My point is, do what you can to save our resourses. Just because it's affecting us directly, our children's children will be affected. If you think that purchasing a 'greener' car is the way to go, then do it. If you rather recycle newpaper, then do it. If you prefer glass over plastic, then do it. Everyone needs to do something to keep what we have.

Just a note, I just spent 3 years over at Germany where recycling is a law (no kidding, they go through your trash and bill you extra if recyclables are in your trash). Recycling glass is very eco-friendly, therefore, they still use glass for their cokes and such. If we had such laws here, people wouldn't be building houses on top of landfills (I've seen it myself in Fl) and we wouldn't need to make so much more room for new landfills.

So, do what you think is right to be resourceful.

While it might not be the "green" thing to do, keeping your old gas guzzler may make more sense and cents! (While my example doesn't fit everyone, it may remind you of things you need to consider before buying a small green car.) My '98 Expedition gets a mere 13 mpg on rot gut gas (the cheapest unleaded), which registers $100 per fill up. As I lock my gas cap into place, I remind myself of these reasons for keeping my big, old Expey: First, I own it (paid cash 4 yrs ago), so I don't have to pay an inflated purchase price for a new, "green" car...(the hybrid prices are insane because of the sudden demand, folks!) Unlike new car owners, I have no finance charges, no monthly payments, and much lower insurance rates because of the Expey's age and huge size (big and old = cheap to insure.) Registration on it is cheap too, just $55/yr. It has 4WD (a must in snowy Reno/Tahoe) and most importantly, it is big and safe for the football players I cart around (seats 8-9) and my 2 teen boys who will soon be driving! I would rather pay less for everything except gas to keep my boys safe in my big ole SUV (have you seen the crash ratings on the Geos and Metros?) I'll keep the gas guzzlin' gal till my boys graduate from high school (4 years) and then re-evaluate my car needs then. I should be able to pick up a used "green" car for a lot less money, and by then we'll know which ones are the most fuel efficient, have the best repair records and are safest on the road. By evaluating my current costs (or lack there of) and needs, I feel I'm using good sense to save beaucoup cents!

What a crock you people have bought into! Al Gore has made tens of millions of $$, so have the clintons and the rest of the scam artists!! 31,000 Scientists disagree that global warming manmade. Will Al Goreleone debate anyone?? NO. Why is Al Sharpton a specialist on global warming? It's all about keeping power and expanding government. So obvious. Governor of Alaska is suing the wwf. So much deception its disturbing. Open your eyes...

Have any of you geniuses considered the fact that if you get rid of a perfectly good car for a Prius, that car is not going to get destroyed and never contribute to emissions again. Someone else will buy it used and drive it and now by trying to reduce emissions you have increased them. If that Prius is still sitting on the car lot it contributes ZERO (and if it sits long enough the line will stop producing more of them hence lower production emissions). I also do not believe in the trendy politically motivated position that is global warming. I am however a conservative that believes wasteful usage of all kinds is poor stewardship of the many benefits of living in the US. Continuing to drive the car you have, as long as it is well maintained, is the best way to be a good steward of the resources we have.
....And I might also mention that if people took less vacations (driving = emissions) saved money for their next car and paid cash we would have less credit problems too. How many of you would pay cash for that Prius?

With all the statistics posted in response to this article, I have to conclude it must be true that figures don't lie but liars figure. ;D

All of you need to take a step back, and ask yourselves just how many people could afford to purchase a new car ( I for one could not afford any of these new cars if someone came up and gave me the keys and said here you go, and gave me the darn thing ). We need to stop talking about buying new cars, because most of the US can not aford them anyway without putting thier families under an undo burdon and the stress that goes with it. Yes, the gas prices are outrages and the government could do something about it, but they won't, because they know that as indiduals we are smart, but as a group with some well laid fear tactics we are stuppid. Hillary Clinton made my point perfectly in my state when someone asked her about the high prices. She said she would use billions of dollars to produce new cars for us to buy, but not one word on how to handle the fuel prices now.

;D
I have a 1950 Chevy pickup that I drive in the summer - I call it my hybrid because its a straight 6 and I have to had lead to the fuel to keep it running - it only gets about 15-18 MPG, but 1950 steel was cheep (and made in the USA) - my other vehicle is a 1996 full size pickup - it migth get 17MPG on a good day. But I also have a 5 mile commute (about 7 minutes) so I use much less gas than those prius's hour long commutes. So my question is how mand carbon credits do I get? (and where do I collect them from?)

Cigarettes are not addictive, nicotine is.

Guns do not kill, the people holding them do.

Zygotes are little humans, and his mother made
the right choice.

You are too cynical to appreciate the life and right to choose of other humans. Yes, we are human too. Not just you. You hide behind numbers and facts, and for that I pity you. You are an incomplete human.

And if you really want him to attack you, provide your address. That will solve everyone here's problems.

Communication is key, even if we all don't agree with each others points of view on here at least we have learned something by reading these comments, and having said that, I agree with melissa................

Whoo Kelly Anderson!! Keep going!!

If there is anybody out there that can tell me how to fit a REAL family into a prius, I'm all ears. Most people who buy hybrid cars are either single or a younger couple. Maybe they have a baby or a small child too. But what about those of us who have a family of more than 3 people? A prius has no real room for luggage, so with more than 3 in the car what do you take with you on a trip? I'd love to have a more eco friendly vehicle, but for now I have to be sensible and drive what works. Also, if all you singles and young couples really want to be eco friendly, dont buy a car in the first place. Use Flex-car when you need to drive. otherwise ride a bike or take the bus!

Remember the good ol' days when "REAL" farmers actually pulled the plow with their bare feet? Well, with Global warming (or cooling, take your pick), then the reshuffling of climate (because the Earth will survive whatever in spite of humanity), then the fall of civilization, then the survivors will be farming, organically by the way, without the benefit (and curse) of oil chugglin' machines. Back to basics for the lucky (or maybe unlucky) ones!!!! At least, on this day in history, I can be smug because I know I'm driving a Prius and getting 53 mpg on my commute and paying less at the pump, while almost all the others are getting much less and paying more !!!! Suckers, all of you !!!!

Great article for making idiots feel like mathematicians, but otherwise irrelevant. First of all I won't even address the staggering evidence that the whole GW/Greenhouse effect is garbage, but I will raise this question. While you are all worrying about trace levels of CO2, have you thought about where your tires go? One tire plant can build half a billion pounds of tires a year. The industry produces more mass of hydrocarbon (yes tires are 90 % hydrocarbon)than all of mankind produces in CO2. So what happens? You drive on your tires and they slowly get smaller. And where do you think they go? Into the air, and often in the form of much heavier hydrocarbons with much higher heat capacity than CO2. Plus there is carbon black, which is essentially soot (smog). On paper this is a much greater greenhouse threat. Yet all of you "students" of this idiot science pay no mention. Why? Because the agenda pushers haven't put out the talking points yet. It's just a major influencing factor on the whole theory that is pushed out of sight and out of mind, because that is how junk science works. As relevant as it is to the discussion, here we are counting calories, while this goes unnoticed. Why is nobody talking about it? Because it skews the existing data. How can a real GW debate be waged without such factors being considered? Which is why there is no real debate. Just ignorants and power mongers, driven by political motivations, spreading half truths and flat out lies under the guise of science.

By the way my standard Civic gets 38 miles per gallon and cost 30% less than a Prius while the gas mileage difference is only 15%. Both have tires, the Prius is heavier. So the fuel economy is offset by tire wear. Hence driving a Prius is nothing but a self serving exercisefor smug pricks.

Know what you're talking about b4 you post bull shit. Mining for the battery components IS dangerous, DOES cost more $ than they're worth and DOES screw up the livability of an area around the site.

Why does every issue have to be turned into a football game, with people only rooting for team? It's just ridiculous how people fail to see both sides of an argument.

If you think global warming isn't happening, you're brain dead. If you think man does not have an impact on this, you are also brain dead. Man obviously has an effect on earth, the environment, and climate. The real question is how much is man and how much is natural? I'm guessing most of it is natural, but man should play the part of being a good steward of what we're given.

This article is so common sense that it should not even be written. Obviously it's a dumb idea to immediately ditch your car and buy a hybrid. However, if you are in the market for a new car, hybrids are the way to go (unless, like Kelly, you could give a f*** about the environment).

By the way, why is anyone taking Ben Dover seriously? It's a fake name, and everything he writes is most likely fake as well. Get a life, kid.

The average temperature rise on Earth tracks with a rise in the average temperature on Mars. That would indicate the cause is probably related to solar activity.

When Al Gore shows the chart showing corresponding rises of CO2 and average temperature he fails to mention that the increase in CO2 FOLLOWS the temperature increase, sometimes by hundreds of years. It is difficult to believe he is unaware of this fact, but he presents it in a way that makes you think the CO2 came first.

30 years ago the US consumed about 18 million barrels of oil per day. Since then the economy and energy needs have more than doubled. Today the US consumes about 18 million barrels of oil per day. Remember that the next time someone says we need to wean ourselves off of oil. We ARE reducing our demand for oil. The problem is that we import a greater percentage of it. That puts us at the mercy of our suppliers. Suppliers such as Iran and Venezuela who are less than friendly. Market speculators are driving up the price of oil futures becuase China and India are importing more and more oil every year. Supply is stagnant, demand increases: Does the price go up or down?

In 1995 Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWR http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/where.htm. One argument used was that it would take 10 years before any oil would come out of the ground. That would mean 2005. We could have been getting oil out of ANWR for the past three years.

Corporations are not inherently evil. Don't scream about taxing oil company "EXCESS" profits unless you are also willing to make up the difference in the years they lose money. But then that wouldn't be much of an incentive to be efficient, would it?

Which is the better model for the environment in which businesses should operate? Which one is more likely to make investors willing to risk their money? Which one is more likely to produce efficient businesses?
#1
Make money - Do whatever you like with all of the profits no matter how much.
Lose money - Go out of business
#2
Make money - Government caps maximum profit
Lose money - Government gives you enough to break even.

If we're paying $130 a barrell for oil which is the chief export to the US from the Middle East and we need it (and of course we do)and OUR chief export to the Middle East is grain (barley, oats, wheat, etc.) for $7 a bushel and THEY need it (which they truly do) maybe we should tack on an export tax of $127 a bushel to level the playing field. Let them EAT their oil!!

Frodo, I merely point out that all industries have problems, mining included. While I wouldn't doubt that making batteries involves a lot of nasty stuff, I really have no idea. I do know that leaving the stuff in the ground is harmless, but that is not compatible with our progress and evolving standard of living. And believe me, if I was smoking something, my post would have been a lot more lively.

Now, Diogenes. Taxation is not equatable to government seizure. Pay your tax bill and your public services and infrastructure will improve.

Currently Between Careers
written by Gary , June 03, 2008
If we're paying $130 a barrell for oil which is the chief export to the US from the Middle East and we need it (and of course we do)and OUR chief export to the Middle East is grain (barley, oats, wheat, etc.) for $7 a bushel and THEY need it (which they truly do) maybe we should tack on an export tax of $127 a bushel to level the playing field. Let them EAT their oil!!

The history of tariffs wars is not a pretty one.

Is real, but we don't cause it. It's almost completely related to solar activity. In 2006 we came out of a cycle of heightened solar activity which happened to coincide with a 11-year cycle of heightened sunspot activity, which is within a 100 year cycle of similar (but differently named) solar activity. The years 2002 - 2006 were pretty much a perfect storm of solar peaks, and now all these cycles have come to a halt.

As many scientists suspected, 2007 was the coldest year (globally) we've had since the early 1900's. The planet actually cooled .75 Degrees C. That's Huge! And it's going to keep up until the next sunspot flare cycle from 2012 - 2017.

2007 Undid almost all the "global warming" of the 20th / early 21st centurty in terms of immediate temperature drop. 2008 to 2011 should see continual drops in overall global temperature to a point that hasn't been around since the 1800's.

So far the trend is holding true to this account as 2008 has been markedly cooler. January continued the cooling trend as did Febraury of 2008. January was among the 10 coolest globally since 1900, and Febraury was among the 20 coolest. I haven't yet seen published data beyond that for 2008.

Anyhow - the idea that we have such a severe impact on the temperature of this planet is just another example of our inflated self-importance as a species. The reality is that _we're_ the blip in the planet's temperature.

Your forgetting to factor in one specific clause to owning an old car. Maintenance. It costs how much to maintain that old car, and the older it gets, the more inefficient that piece of machinery gets. So also lets factor in the costs of repairs, and that simple fact that a well oiled machine in warranty turns out to burn more gas over time. EPA 27/32 for a toyota corolla, 4 years from now its more like 22/27, which is what the new chevy suburbans get now days.

Remember back in the late 1970s and early 1980s how the media coverage of the day stated we were more than likely headed for the next "ice age"? In fact, scientists had "figures and facts" pointing to the Earth's cooling. It was even in my school's Weekly Reader (for those who don't remember - it was a children's news magazine passed out at school).

So now, it is "global warming". Maybe the Earth has increased a couple of degrees over the past century - it that any reason to scream "the sky is falling".

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe "global warming" is being over-blown. Look, it is a HUGE marketing play for today's products. EVERYTHING, is either "green" or "good for the environment". These are the latest teasers promted by the marketeers.

Young people fall into this trap of marketing.

Now that I am "older" I would never, never, in good conscience, put my babies into a "speck" (aka Prius) or other tiny car. Why buy the best car seat and then put the car seat in a virtual "death trap"?

Yes, eco-geeks, the laws of physics are still alive and well. If we were ever in an accident I would want my children to be protected that best way possible. If someone slams into my SUV (gasp, an SUV owner!!!), we will have a much better chance of avoiding injures than in the eco-speck vehicle that is "green."

Anyway, my observations as a parent and realist. BTW, it is China that is fouling up the atmosphere, America has actually become cleaner. The next time you see the smog over Yosemite, be aware that is blew over from China.

I will pay a little more for gas for better protection on the road. Do what you will...

I have a 1971 Ford 3/4 ton pickup that can not be described as environmentally friendly. However, since I installed an electronic ignition conversion kit 12 years ago, it no longer uses points which blew out routinely. As a result, I now average 16 mpg in the truck. New trucks of the same configuration (3/4 ton, two wheel drive, 390 cc engine, single bench seat, not supercab) get approximately this same mileage 37 years later. Some improvement. I have owned this truck for 18 years. On average, most people would have owned three different vehicles in this length of time. How much does that change its impact?

So, Really Please, to save myself the lifelong phsychological trauma of killing someone in a speck with an SUV, if I had one and ever made a driving mistake that took someone's life, I'd rather be in a speck and kill myself and let your kid survive in your SUV. So, please thank me for being so courteous by having bought a Prius (with front, back, side, and top airbag - oh my gosh, I MAY SURVIVE - better sell the thing and buy a '68 Pinto)! Really, Please!

You have to add in the lot higher cost of repairing the new cars too.

And also, Really Please, why don't we just all buy used 18-wheelers and have a demolition derby and see who survives. Oh, that's what you are all about, survival of the fittest. Wonder if you are a Republican Conservative Fundamentalist Christian who thinks Darwinism is from Satin? yet, you are practicing Survival of the Fittest with your SUV!!!!
See how your SUV plays against the coming Ice Age !!!!

ooppss, meant SATAN. Tho Satan in Satin would be a nice touch!
Maybe Really Please is also a Limbaughist ???

Disturbing thing about these people who justify larger cars becase it's "safer" for their kids. Here's a novel idea, TEACH THEM TO DRIVE!!! Being able to get a car from point A to point B is not the same as being a competent driver! Plus, that extra safety comes at the expense of the poor innocent person they ram running a red light or doing some other foolish or inattentive thing.

Hi Farmer!

Not sure what Republicans, God, Darwin, "Limbaughist" (is that an adjective for a pronoun?), Satan, or Darwin have to do with driving a nice, big family car live an SUV.

I take comfort in knowing that my babies are safer in the backseat than they would be in the back seat of your "speck".

When you lose control of your speck while convulsing during the Rush Limbaugh, please be sure to give me a waive before you smash your speck into my SUV!!!

My family will be safe and maybe I can do something for the environment like scrap your speck of my car and have it recycled with by soda cans.

It's a simple matter of physics...

It's mass x velocity, stupid!

It's funny how some try to push their views on others (ie if you don't drive a Prius you must hate the planet)

Rather than be dictated to like people such as Farmer, it is best to be given a consumer choice. Through technology producing more fuel efficient cars that the people really want (ie can fit into their lifestyles of families, trips to Home Depot, Costco, trips to the mountains, beach and games for the kids)the market forces will fill this need.

Currently, the Prius is best suited for the single commuter - it is not family friendly. Down the road we will have SUV hybrids, thanks to innovation, and NOT nuts like Farmer.

I drive cars from the sixties that get less than 10 miles per gallon. Anybody else ever thought of the what the "environmental impact" of keeping a 40-year old car on the road is? I think a "normal" person would go through about ten cars in that period of time. What are your thought on that?

Ryan,

My thought is if you are driving any GTOs, Malibus, Shelbys, or any of those breeds of cars.......cool man!

I guess becuase of my 71 Ford Pickup, I tend to think of my two other vehicles as new. But, one is a 2000 Dodge 12 passenger van, although it won't hold 12 because of the wheelchair lift for one of my kids. The other is a 1999 Ford Crown Victoria, which holds my family of six with the wheelchair in the trunk. No lift on the Crown Victoria. These are not high mileage vehicles, but I have owned them for 7 and 6 years, respectively, and have no plans to replace either anytime soon. They are now 8 and 9 years old respectively. Still, they run well and are paid for. My family will not fit in a Prius. I still would like to see an objective evaluation of keeping the same vehicle for what most would consider several vehicle lifetimes (my truck for 18 years) and how that would affect carbon footprint impact vs replacing with a new vehicle or vehicles. Anyone know a good objective website?

Diogenes - is an idiot- just getting that out of the way. global warming is real, dont know what monkey told you otherwise. before people started using industrial machines the CO2 in the atmosphere was at a normal .... level...after that point we dumped CO2 into the atmosphere at a ridiculous rate. and the CO2 level increase PRECEEDS the temperature increase. the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would have eventually reached this level but tousands of years from now.

to who ever said ice is thining and thickening in some places. yes it gets thicker because winter happens but when it melts again more of it melts then it did previously.

This is what I've been trying to tell my friends for years!! We don't need to fill up landfills with old cars (I know parts of them can be recycled, but not everything) when we can just replace a part or two and keep on driving. Besides recycling takes alot of energy. By the way...yay for old Sentras!

This is an interesting take, however the approach you'd take for people I think would be different as most people aren't going to make a decision based on the amount of pollution they emit. Rather, they'll make a decision on 'value' which includes that but also other things. Here's another take on the subject that I found..

http://vlane.com/blogs_article/80/ditch-your-guzzler-for-compact-car

This was a great post, I never thought about the issue in this light. I will definitely be thinking about these issues before I go out and buy a new hybrid. I actually expounded upon this topic in my blog, as seen here:
http://friendshipunit.blogspot.com/
Check it out--Thanks!

All other points and arguments aside, I want to mention something which crosses my mind often. Take it as you will.
It seems to me, our environment is a system which is designed to balance itself when changes occur. IMHO, the effect man has on our planet is causing changes to occur more rapidly. In response, the earth has to compensate more rapidly (or more suddenly and extremely) to the changes we have made, hence some of the more extreme weather conditions and weather systems.
I don't remember seeing high and low pressure systems extending from the Arctic Circle all the way down to Florida, when I was a child. That may be why we now see New York at 100 degrees one day and Florida at 85 degrees the same day and then New York at 70 degrees the next day with Florida at 90, along with other more extreme forces of nature as time goes on. Just something to consider.
Another point to consider. I have been a moderator of discussion websites in the past and there is a phenomenon I have observed which I cannot understand. If we are one of the most advanced and most civilized nations (and supposedly the most advanced and intelligent species) on the planet, why can't each of us express our opinions for others to consider without someone feeling the compulsion to negate each point, insult the person making the point and have the last word no matter what is said. I think we all have taken a point someone has made, even if we disagreed with most of what he/she said and how he/she presented their point of view and altered our opinion which ultimately changes our knowledge base for the future.
I respect those who are objective and can, point by point consider what someone says and decide what they agree with and what they don't and not just dismiss someone because they don't agree with one point the other person has made. In addition, insulting someone has never taught anyone anything. It only makes people tense and defensive - not the best state of mind for absorbing knowledge.
I would imagine each of us has valid points to make. If only we could work together to produce a comprehensive and factual picture of the problem at hand, we might actually uncover the truth and therefore be able to develop a true solution with which most people would agree.
Yes, I realize how difficult or even impossible that is, but in a perfect world that would be very productive and produce benefits for each of us. It is the ultimate test of a person or group's leadership abilities to make that happen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci...327393.stm

is just not feasible

CHINA AND INDIA ARE BUILDING 2600 COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS AS WE SPEAK. They will be adding hundreds of millions of cars, less regulated than ours, hundreds of millions of pounds of meat to feed newly rich consumers moving way from Agrarian diets, not to mention the untold numbers or new products, infrastructure, housing, etc... for all of these people. Last time I checked they are Sovereign nuclear armed nation states who have 1/3 of humanity within their borders aka mouths to feed. If global warming is really true, than you worrying about buying a Prius vs. your old suburban is the proverbial needle in the haystack. Except this haystack is 100 miles long. Lets talk about ACTUAL solutions to our problems such as new energy technologies, clean nuclear reactor designs, Solar/wind/tidal and efficiency gains... and GASP not buying something new, you dont need a new car, just drive where you need and air up your tires, dont glare at the suburban and turn people off by looking down your nose like a lear jet liberal.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY CAR. The amount of hypocrisy in saying eco friendly car is just ridiculous when even owning a car puts you in the ELITE of this world.

I do think we should all ride bikes more and maybe that will solve the weight problem we have in this country too and lower the food prices. AKA less food being stuffed in newly biking/walking/running people equals less demand equals lower prices. ;)

I know this is off-topic, but some of you may find it interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

Anthropogenic Global Warming = propaganda fed to weak minds deluded by "white guilt", and perpetuated by those seeking political control of the world on multiple levels. Period.

Lenin had it pegged - "Useful Idiots"

Let's see. I have 2 cars; car 1 gets 25 mpg and car 2 gets 45 mpg. I want to know at what mileage point does car 1(25 mpg) use 1000 moregallons than car 2(45 mpg). Assume I drive 15000 miles per year. Sorta high for national average but it will work.
The amount of gas that car 1(25 mpg) requires for this yearly mileage is 15000/25 which works out to be 600 gallons. The amount of gas that car 2(45 mpg) requires is 15000/45 which comes to 333 gallons of gas. Car 1 uses a total of 267 more gallons of gas(600-333) per year than car 2. At this rate it would take approximately 4 years or close to 60000 miles to use 1000 gallons more than car 2 (Prius et al).
At this mileage point the batteries within the Prius are probably close to 60-70% spent. Figure in the energy, say greenhouse gases, needed to make the new battery and to replace and recycle the old battery and you might can stretch it out another half a year or more. I can see the point that it might be wiser to hang onto your old car.
Also for a car to use 1000 more gallons than the Prius(45mpg)within the span of 20000 miles then it would have to average 13.8 mpg.

:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) :P :- :-*
gosh, peoples CHINA isnt that bad. they r trying to be more eco-friendly. yea u people all weird, discussing about things that u dont even make a move about. HAHA for u all. I bet im more eco-fiendly than u all. i dont have a car and dont plan on it for a few years. i was reading this for project but 1 piticular caomment annoyed me sooooooooooooo much. so fuck up already.