Sierra Club on Hummers vs. hybrids
The Sierra Club's Orli Cotel says:
There's been an urban legend floating around for a while (and fostered by right-wing bloggers) that Hummers are actually greener than hybrids (given the energy cost of producing a hybrid battery). Well, Sierra Club's "Mr. Green" just did all the geeky math to debunk this myth once and for all.Link
the latest
latest episodes
The math's been done for a while, it's just that if someone has a conclusion that they're trying to support rather than actually trying to figure out what's true, then all the math in the world won't help. They don't pay attention to pesky "facts" at that point.
I read a pretty thorough rebuttal on the TrueDelta.com blog.. which isn't responding right now so I can't find the post in order to provide a link.
Another unfortunate fact is that most people buying into the anti-hybrid paper will disregard any conclusions, no matter how well supported, that the Sierra Club may come up with.
DCULBERSON beat me to it.
We're dealing with folks with an Orwellian mind-malady akin to "doublethink."
Think tanks and corporate shill journalists cook up a factoid or finding; the puditocracy distributes it; the scared stupids who don't want to deal with a changing world snap it up and cling to it.
Like: "Solar panels never generate enough electricity to make up their manufacturing cost." Um, maybe, if you're talking about first-generation solar panels. They're getting sturdier and more efficient all the time.
Another: "People who buy hybrids will never make up the fuel savings; therefore they're doing it for romantic, emotional reasons."
You know, there might be a grain of truth in that, but:
a) it's a temporary thing; hybrids will get cheaper (economies of scale, economies of learning) and gas will get more expensive, and
b) it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. How many people really, honestly need an SUV or giant stretch pickup? A lot of people commute, alone, in the damn things. They bought them for emotional reasons.
I'd love to see a thriving SUV rental industry. Going on wilderness vacation? Sure, you might very well need an SUV. Rent one, and let someone else worry about hosing off the mud when the long weekend is over.
@1: Another unfortunate fact is that most people buying into the anti-hybrid paper will disregard any conclusions, no matter how well supported, that the Sierra Club may come up with.
Err... but when you said:
it's just that if someone has a conclusion that they're trying to support rather than actually trying to figure out what's true, then all the math in the world won't help
I thought you were talking about the Sierra Club, because that's a letter-perfect description of them.
Isaac Asimov said that the most important phrase in science is not "eureka" but "that's odd...", because science is all about the discovery of the unexpected. "That's odd" are words you will never hear from the Sierra Club, because they are not a scientific organization: they never change their conclusions, and every study they do confirms everything they believe.
If you take issue with this it is easy to prove me wrong: show cases where the Sierra Club has changed any substantive policy over the course of time (we can argue about what constitutes "substantive" over a beer...)
And in a vain attempt to avoid straw people, in this case I agree with the Sierra Club's conclusion. But the fact remains that the Sierra Club is a political advocacy organization, and political advocacy organizations have very low epistemological utility.
Listen. Seriously. They are both still NEW cars! Just keep driving your 10 year old Toyota which gets 30 miles to the gallon anyway instead of buying a brand new car!
Want to use less fuel to match the efficiency of a hybrid?? DRIVE LESS.
I have the feeling that the environmental impact of the production of any new car will be more so than anything gained by driving hybrid...that is until we go full on Cradle to Cradle.
the Sierra Club bumper sticker on the back of your Hybrid suv. does not make up for the 50 mile commute from your 5 acre Mc-mansion. All this on land that was used for 'local' farming 30 years ago. no wonder my 'organic' tomatoes come from Holland.
Hum...is not Al Gores home 20000+ sqft?
I'm still peeved at the Sierra Club for their opposition to light rail in the Seattle area (because the political compromise required to get it involved also expanding roads to areas outside the rail's service).
"show cases where the Sierra Club has changed any substantive policy over the course of time"
Um, there's another possibility for why the Sierra Club has not changed its policies over time (assuming that's true): perhaps they are fundamentally sound policies that have held up over the years?
I'm just sayin'.
This reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's attempt to debunk overpopulation-- to paraphrase, he said something along the lines of "if the human population was spread out evenly across the globe everyone would have a square mile to himself."
Now, the landmass of the earth is about 500 million square miles, and the population is (last I checked) about 6.6 million. Even taking into account that he first said it years ago (lets say 10 years ago), the population was NOT 500 million 10 or even 20 years ago (did he get this factoid from some 100 year old science text?). Of course it also doesn't take into account that a good amount of the landmass is (nearly) uninhabitable deserts and tundra (the entire continent of Antarctica?, the Sahara and Gobi deserts?, the Himilayas? Greenland?). Maybe he was referring to the ENTIRE surface area, including oceans (oh boy, I can't wait for my personal square mile of ocean).
My point is (similar to sentiments express by others here) that these factoids produced by think tanks are like urban myths-- people want to believe them and won't bother to check if a Hummer is more environmentally-friendly than a hybrid (or if a duck's quack produces an echo, or if Coca-Cola will make worms exit pork, etc.), it's an interesting "fact" they heard and they will remember it and repeat it and suddenly it's accepted as truth. The think tanks are like teenagers trying to write a term paper, they ignore evidence that doesn't support their thesis because "Damn it! I want to get an A+ on this paper! These other facts don't help me any!"
(oops-- I meant to say "6.6 BILLION" for population, not "million", and actually the total Earth surface area is just over 500 million, 70% of which is water, so roughly 148 million sq. miles of land).
I found the following quote here:
http://www.forbesautos.com/advice/toptens/best-luxury-suvs-off-road/01-untapped-resources.html
“Substantially less than 10 percent [of luxury SUV owners] indicate that they actually go off-roading,” says AutoPacific’s Peterson. “We actually think that the percentage that actually
off-roads is less than 5 percent, but we have to go with what the owners report.”
Of the less than 10 percent of owners who actually go off road, I wonder what percentage of their annual driving would be considered off road.
This is not a black and white issue. What people think of the Sierra Club or the opinions of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk seems beside the point to me. We could argue back and forth about that forever. With our current manufacturing technology, there is no such thing as a completely environmentally benign car, but we need to consider how appropriate our design solutions are long term. A giant SUV that is designed to handle rough terrain but is used primarily for freeway driving is an inappropriate and inefficient use of technology and energy resources. The Prius is a much more appropriate choice for commuting. Hybrid technology as it stands is not a total solution, but at least it is moving in the direction of efficiency. Technologies like regenerative braking and engine shut-off at stop lights are smart, practical engineering solutions. We should be looking for more ways to reclaim wasted energy or even better, avoiding wasting it in the first place.
Good luck convincing SUV owners that:
By buying SUVs they are removing the incentive for auto makers to make better, more ecologically sound cars.
And removing the incentive for the Congress to pass regulations requiring better mileage.
Or that they are contributing to our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
Or that they are driving up the price of oil in general by needlessly increasing demand.
Yes, I know, let he who is without carbon footprint cast the first stone. But, really, can you SUV owners dispute the above?
I'm going out to buy an SUV today just to piss off all of you smug greenies. My new Toyota FJ will cancel out at least one prius (maybe more?).
BTW, Rush was right about overpopulation, there is no such thing.
Thanks, Kentivity. That's so mature. And insightful, too.
Kevitivity's post highlights how emotional this issue is. SUV supporters see the hybrid trend as an affront to their freedom to drive the vehicles they want and hate feeling judged by people who act holier than thou. "Greenies" see SUVs as wasteful, aggressive and selfish in a world of dwindling resources.
I have a degree in automotive design. Trust me; EVERYONE buys cars for emotional reasons! Car companies work really hard to make sure that they understand the emotional desires of their customers. Designers create cars that tap into those desires. The 16 mpg FJ is for one market segment and the 47 mpg Prius is aimed at another.
SUV's became popular in the wake of mini-vans losing popularity because as more and more people bought them, they were being seen as dumpy "family" vehicles. Mini-vans had replaced station wagons for the same reason. Most people buy SUV's not because they are rugged, outdoorsy, adventurer types, but because they want people to SEE them that way. If hybrid owners walked or rode their bikes, they would diminish their carbon footprint far more than simply buying a more efficient car would.
To grossly oversimplify the point:
SUV owners want to be seen as having more freedom and being more daring than they really are, thus feeling good about themselves.
Hybrid owners want to assuage their guilt and feel like they are getting a good deal with fuel economy, thus feeling good about themselves.
Toyota makes the Prius AND the FJ cruiser. If Kevitivity runs off to his Toyota dealership to rebelliously buy an FJ, while someone else buys a Prius, Toyota will gladly take money from both of you.
Muse:
Surely you aren't asserting that reason has NO part in decisionmaking? That would be a gross oversimplification in itself, don't you think?
What you've posted only indicates that the consumers in the US are not in agreement re: what type of auto we should drive. But we knew that already.
The question is: which type of car should we want to buy, which should we buy, and which should we as consumers in a consumer-driven economy demand
[my comment got cut off]
The question is: which type of car should we want to buy, which should we buy, and which should we as consumers in a consumer-driven economy demand by voting with our wallets.
These are questions that can be debated objectively, if people could only be bothered to do it.
Nick D:
Of course I am not saying that reason has no part of the decision making process. I am saying that emotion plays a much larger part in it than most of us consciously realize. I was just trying to put some of the emotional issues out there for all to see.
This discussion is going nowhere if we don't agree what we are arguing about. This goes WAY deeper than is the Prius better than the Hummer and does buying one or the other make me a better person.
I think one of the larger issues is if our purchasing choices are appropriate for our needs. In order to objectively determine our needs, we have to at least acknowledge our emotional wants.
Muse @#16:
I agree that the argument is not conducted on the right footing.
Saying that "greens" want to assuage their liberal guilt is as offensive as saying that SUV drivers are selfish. Statements like that just don't help matters because they overemphasize the emotional aspect of our arguments, some of which you described so well.
IMO, the issue is debated on those terms not just because of the emotional baggage we bring to our purchasing decisions, but because it is often (unconciously perhaps) a battle in microcosm between the opposing mindsets of current American political thought.
We absolutely do need to "objectively determine our needs" and "acknowledge our emotional wants." I'm with you all the way on that.
Oops. I meant Muse @#17.
The FJ actually easily does 20 mpg if you know how to drive it. Plus, if I drive my two co-workers to work (which I already do now) thats 3x20 (= 60 pmpg "people miles to the gallon). Yup, that means that my FJ is actually more "green" than a prius. Plus, it isn't full of batteries that may not be so great for landfills AND I can drive it to Big Bear and Mammoth in the winter and not worry about spinning off the road. Pure mpg is really a short sighted (and emotional) way to view these issues.
My other auto is a diesel and that a WHOLE other story.