Save the Planet…Drive a Hummer
In a recent column for the Washington Post entitled Fuzzy Climate Math, George Will raises his concerns about the impact of public indoctrination concerning global warming. This indoctrination is being conducted by what he calls the “media entertainment-environmental complex”. This seems to be phrase of Will’s own creation, intended (I think) to belittle and demonize those who think global warming is a real threat.
In my opinion, the column is generally dismissive and derogatory. The message is that global warming is a crock, cooked up to make honest Americans’ lives difficult for no good reason. Despite this, Will manages to raise several important questions concerning how to address global warming. These include:
a) Will the impact of the Kyoto treaty be worth the cost to those nations participating? Will it significantly reduce global warming?
b) Will the state-level initiatives currently under consideration in places like California be effective as well? Will these significantly reduce global warming?
c) On a personal level, will doing things like driving a hybrid car vs. a big gas guzzler like a Hummer make any real difference?
Here is where I generally agree with Will completely. If we are to address global warming, let us do it in the most effective and economically feasible way possible. The various current initiatives such as Kyoto may not be the right direction. I don’t know. Let’s for once, try and get this right the first time.
Aside of the snide and dismissive nature of the column, I do, however, have a real problem with one set of points Will tosses off about the relative merits of a hybrid vehicle like the Toyota Prius vs. the gas hog Hummer H3.
He states:
“Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one and squash a Prius with it. The Prius hybrid is, of course, fuel-efficient. There are, however, environmental costs to mining and smelting (in Canada) 1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered second motor, and the shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles — trailing a cloud of carbon dioxide — to Wales for refining and then to China for turning it into the component that is then sent to a battery factory in Japan.”
He continues:
“Opinions differ as to whether acid rain from the Canadian mining and smelting operation is killing vegetation that once absorbed carbon dioxide. But a report from CNW Marketing Research (”Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal”) concludes that in “dollars per lifetime mile,” a Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25, compared with $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).”
So, if I agree with the vast majority of climate experts- most of whom I expect don’t work in Hollywood- that climate change is a serious issue, I should go out and buy one of most gas guzzling vehicles on the road rather than one of the most fuel efficient. OK, this seems nuts, so I checked out the link to CNW Market Research provided in the column.
I’ve read broad points of their actual report, as well as a response they wrote to lots of other folks questioning the per-mile cost of the Prius as they stated it. I think they are generally clear and responsive to the concerns raised. Here’s my interpretation of what I found.
Note: There are no direct links to either their actual report or the response to questions about their Prius numbers. Simply go to the CNW link above and scroll down to the downloadable documents “Dust to Dust” and “Why 100,000 miles for a Prius.doc”.
1. Their cost calculation for the Prius is based in part on the fact that Prius drivers generally drive much less than average Americans (about 7,000 miles a year vs. about 13, 000). This means that over the lifetime of the car, the cost per mile for a Prius is MUCH higher than average. CNW is not claiming that a Prius will fall apart at about 100, 000 miles. They don’t think it would. The calculation is based on their likely correct assumption that the car will have a functional life span of no more than 15 years. At roughly 7,000 miles a year this comes out to about 100,000 miles.
2. The manufacturing costs for the new technology and platform of the Prius are extremely expensive. This is true both for the Prius and for most new technology. Specific to the Prius, and adding to the cost, is the battery technology used in the hybid system. Batteries are environmentally dirty to both make and dispose of.
What Will doesn’t mention is what CNW also goes on to say about the Prius:
1. The cost per mile will certainly drop significantly over time as more people buy and drive hybrid cars. This will make the cars cheaper to produce as the technology becomes more widespread.
2. Current issues with manufacture and disposal of hybrids will be significantly mitigated as the technology develops- better batteries, more efficient manufacture, better disposal and recycling.
Will writes his column in an offhanded and flippant manner that implies the new technologies are no better and, in fact, may be worse than the old. There is a logical flaw here that I’m sure an individual as smart as George Will can see. The problems with the new technologies are largely due to their emerging nature and will likely be solved with time and further innovation. In contrast, the problems with the Hummer and other gas hogs are inherent in their intent and design and will never change. Finally, and most importantly, in my opinion, less oil intensive technologies are vital to reduce the world’s need for oil in general. This has not only potential environmental impact, but undeniable political impact as well.
Shame on you Mr. Will. Next time read your own sources before you write for the public.
Be Brave. Be Human. Drive Small.
April 25th, 2007 11:37
Hi Grant-
Well, maybe George Will DID read the source but just decided to report selectively. To me, this is an example of the complaint that I have heard about research from a lot of people, “You can make data say anything you want them to.” This is often said in a dismissive tone, as if it’s worthless to listen to any research. (I understand the frustration with seemingly contradictory data….I used to say the same thing before I went back to grad school and actually did some research.)
Research isn’t valueless, but it DOES matter what questions are asked, the data collection and sampling methods, interpretation, and reporting procedures, etc. To really judge research we need to understand the entire process (and few of us can do that all fields)… or we need a trustworthy source reporting to us. Leaving out significant parts of the findings, as G. Will did….not so trustworthy.
By the way, does anyone remember when hand-held calculators were new technology and relatively expensive? I remember needing one for school and having to be so careful with it. (That doesn’t make me ancient! It’s just that technology has been advancing so rapidly lately…)
Susan
April 25th, 2007 12:19
George Will is not alone in his concern about the environmental impact of hybrids. As a columnist, he is commenting and doesnt’ have room for ifs, ands, or buts, with footnotes. I will say that there is a great deal more to the concerns raised than you credit. CNW’s response is a little too breezy, for my taste. I am particularly skeptical of #2. An awful lot has to happen before the damage can be mitigated.
April 25th, 2007 15:50
Hi Lily,
I can’t let him off that easy. He’s a professional. I do this in my spare time. He undoubtedly has a secretary (or three). I do not. He is a respected journalist and political thinker with the resources of the New York Post behind him. I am not. I checked this and got it right, based on HIS source. He didn’t. Or he did, and ignored it. This was not “if ands or buts with footnotes”. This was simple accuracy. If he wants to write poorly researched and supported diatribes with an attitude, he should get himself a morning radio show.
My point is not about the economic and environmental viability of the Prius. It may well NOT work. My point is Will’s apparent willingness to pass off crap as legitimate professional journalism.
April 25th, 2007 17:37
“in “dollars per lifetime mile,” Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25, compared with $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).”
Does this mean that when I reach the 207,000 mark in my Prius, the $ per lifetime mile will be roughly $1.62? Less than the Hummer?
Sounds like I (and everyone) should be using Prius — and using them more!
I agree that he’s doing very sloppy journalism. I wonder whether to call it deceptive practice? He is misrepresenting the evidence to give the impression that it supports his view point.
April 25th, 2007 19:31
Hi Gillian,
I’m not at all sure I’d go that far. There are problems associated with the manufacture of the batteries for the Prus. See the following link for a discussion of this.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417227&in_page_id=1770
My main point here was more to address what I believe to be poor quality journalism on Will’s part than to necessarily push the Prius. Honestly, right now, I think a better choice would be a high MPH gas powered car like Toyota’s own Yaris, or even the 40 MPH 2-seater Smart car coming to the U.S. in 2008.
April 26th, 2007 00:47
Grant,
Yes, it’s best to keep the discussion on the topic of ethics in journalism. I’ve been browsing and I find that the ‘facts’ of the Prius vs Hummer case have been well and truly discussed in other places — as Wills or his researchers probably know and chose to ignore.
DUNK!! … Wills goes into the ‘ignore with confidence’ basket!
Just for your interest, I came across this refute of the Mail on Sunday article…
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 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.
…………….
Confession: I bought a second-hand Prius yesterday. So your post REALLY caught my interest! Perhaps I should give up my stainless steel kitchen sink to keep my nickel consumption on an even keel.
April 26th, 2007 10:38
One of the biggest problems is that op-eds noting the pros and cons of current hybrid technology doesn’t gain you much readership. But “Honda Prius kills kittens faster than a Hummer”, now that sells papers.
As long as the goal of the media is to sell their product any way possible, we will be reduced to sensationalism at the cost of the facts.
April 26th, 2007 11:57
Gillian,
Thanks for the update on that link. I’m not at all sure that a Prius is the BEST choice, but it dammed sure beats a Hummer for several reasons. Happy driving.
Brian, the thing that bugs me is that George Will has SERIOUS credentials. I have ususally not agreed with his writing, but I have read it because it was generally thoughtful and worth the time. This wasn’t. I agree that information is a market and we get what we pay for, but I’m running out of folks to listen to and support.