“A potent, new, 500-hp engine that uses less fuel.” While the newly refurbished Porsche Cayenne Turbo offers well-heeled buyers many delights, you wouldn't think fuel efficiency was the first amongst them. Yet Porsche’s print ads for the off-roader are touting their uber-SUV’s improved frugality, positioning the machine as a fun-to-drive grocery-getter for, gulp, environmentally conscious consumers. If Porsche were alone in this misplaced appeal to green values, it could be dismissed as aberrant lunacy. But they’re not so it can’t.
This month, Honda introduced their new Formula One car. As their F1 entry has no official sponsors, the car’s surface is free from the usual blizzard of sponsors’ decals. So Honda wrapped their hi-tech race car in an image of the Earth made from signatures of people who’ve pledged– via myearthdream.com– to limit their planetary “footprint.”
And so a vehicle that gets four miles to a gallon– for entertainment purposes– has been transformed into a rolling poster for corporate sponsored environmentalism.
“The people who work in F1 and the F1 viewers are probably the most difficult people to turn around into making a difference,” proclaimed Jenson Button to the London Times. ”So this campaign is important.” Honda’s F1 driver was clear about his “other” mission. “The idea is to raise awareness of global issues that we have and hopefully it’s going to make a difference.”
Honda’s left its supporters’ difference-making methodology suitably vague. Of course, turned around F1 fans can choose from Honda’s wide range of high[er] mpg vehicles, buy one its hybrid Accords or wait for models powered by the automaker’s clean diesel technology. It’s what marketing mavens call a “virtuous circle” or “a very clever angle.”
Honda’s inherently ludicrous “Save the Planet” F1 car proves that global warming is the new marketing hot button (so to speak). Of course, Honda’s a bit late to this morality play. Toyota’s Prius hybrid set the pace for automobile manufacturers everywhere, giving the Japanese automaker enough green cred to withstand the heat generated by its efforts to build The Mother of All Full-Size ‘Merican Pickup Trucks.
Although the high-mpg low-carbon Prius has not exactly set the sales charts on fire, the distinctively shaped vehicle success vis-à-vis its standard bodied hybrid competition (e.g. the hybrid Accord) has taught the automotive industry an important lesson: it’s not enough to do good for the planet. You have to be seen to be doing good.
That’s why nearly every major automaker at this year’s 77th International Auto Show paid homage to the environment. Honda, Lexus and Toyota brought hybrid concept cars to the Land of Milk and Chocolate. Mercedes flaunted a new C220 sedan equipped with the latest clean-running BLUETEC diesel. Ze new C will produce nine tons less CO2 over its lifetime – from assembly line to junkyard – than the old version! Even supercar maker Koenigsegg presented an E85 powered version of their bonkers CCXR.
And no wonder. Throughout Europe, global warming has replaced the Soviet Empire as the invisible– though real– enemy. It’s got to the point where the European Union has “asked” Germany to consider putting speed limits on formerly sacrosanct derestricted sections of the autobahn. A Stern magazine survey claims 60 percent of Germans now favor autobahn speed limits to cut emissions, while 38 percent oppose them.
America’s response to global warming lags well behind that of our European allies. While there’s been a lot of talk (and an Oscar-winning movie) about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, policy changes have been illusory. Despite tax credits, hybrid sales are still paltry compared to CO2 belching full-sized pickups.
While environmentalists decry federal “foot dragging,” the free market is not insensitive to the issue. As petrol powered pistonheads have pointed out, even with gas at $3 a gallon, it’s hard to justify the “hybrid premium”: the difference in purchase price between a gas and gas – electric car based on fuel savings.
And yet more and more US car buyers are willing to pay a bit extra for a bit more mileage. Why? Representative Michael Burgess of Texas put it best, when discussing his personal Prius. “It gives me a good deal of moral superiority when I drive.”
This fact has not escaped the fine folks down in marketing and product planning. GM, Ford, Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Honda and others are realizing a large proportion of their target market– both princes and paupers– are starting to watch their tailpipes. Low carbon and high mileage cars, trucks and yes, SUV’s are continuing to creep to the top of the average buyer’s wish list.
As the Cayenne Turbo ads prove, this development has created endless opportunities for deceptive and self-righteous hypocrisy. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. If green becomes the automotive industry’s new black, the resulting pretense can be seen as a case of no harm, no foul.
Michael,
I like your point that as far as trends go, Green at least does no harm, as opposed to say Hummers, maybe?
But I worry that if Green is seen as just a fad –like vinyl roofs or Corinthian leather– that it may fall by the wayside as soon as trendsetters find the next ‘in’ thing.
As in “2005 called; they want their Prius back, greenie!”
The Porsche Cayenne…? Porsche could take a 1000 pounds out of its porker and it would still be a pig. Anyone buying a 5000-pound, $75,000-plus Stupid Useless Vehicle can’t possibly be worried about the planet.
Toyota is leading in the race to be the biggest hypocrite in the business. If it was truly a “virtuous” car company it wouldn’t even try to super-size the Tundra (or the Tacoma, which has grown as well). It would stay in 7/8ths size, or as Goldilocks said once upon a time, “Just right”. Then ToMoCo could take the high road in the truck advertising business. But, no…
Anyone who tacks on a Hybrid badge to an existing car/truck/SUV is just trying to catch the wave. Real improvement comes from a wholesale reduction in vehicle size and weight along with a matching reduction in engine capacity. Does every SUV/CUV need to seat seven (I’m talking to you, Toyota RAV4)?
Oh, and getting rid of all those junkers we all see (like all those the Chryslers belching white smoke) will do more real-world good than all the Teslas in the world.
I remember pre Katrina you never heard anything in advertising about MPG, at least not with any prominence. Now that is all you see. Honda is one of the few manufacturer’s that actively tries to keep MPG up across the board and has for years.
As I said a while back in another editorial The Prius sells not just because it’s a hybrid but because it makes a personal statement. Its the same reason people buy a Pontiac Solstice and a Hummer H2, it allows them to project a little about who they are to everyone else around them. No one buys a Prius to save money (maybe if you are in daily stop-n-go traffic). If you want to save money get a Civic, Corolla, Fit, Versa, and until recently a TDI Jetta. The Prius is an Eco statement, that’s it’s purpose and it succeeds at it.
The bad part about “frugal” SUV’s it is that it deprives the real MPG leaders (subcompacts and hybrids) of their fake image superiority.
If previously you could quench your conscience calls by buying a Prius or a Yaris, you’re now able to do it simply by trading in your older truck… For a next year’s model whose 6-liter V8 needs a bit less gallons per mile.
End result, people will keep driving their rolling living rooms, gulping gas, and sending their kids off to [insert the latest hotspot] to defend their extravagant livestyles. And they’ll feel good about it, too. Denial at its best.
C’mon, Burgess needs a car to generate moral superiority? Maybe it’s a compensatory mechanism.
In the 1960’s there was the Population Bomb—the world was going to be starving and fighting over scarce food supplies, then in the 1970’s the oil embargo and we were going to be building smaller houses, drive smaller cars and burn more wood (wood stoves were very popular then)—can’t remember a panic from the 80’s but the 90’s brought us Y2K—remember the technical world as we knew it would forever be changed and now we have the Global Warming pending crisis.
In every one of these crisis, the smart money capitalized on the fears and concerns of the public fueled by the need for ever more egotistical technocrats to get their names in the “I told you so!” Hall of Fame.
I enjoy driving my Lincoln Town Car and will for quite some time. I will never feel guilty about it either. The Car companies are smart to use the global warming scare to advertise their technology. Its almost free for them courtesy of the nightly news.
Good article! But we need more than Bush doing PR interviews with the big 2.5 bosses to get greener cars in the USA. I don’t think that today’s economy can drive the change needed for radically more efficient vehicles. The gov is going to need to step up and give some support (i.e. cash) to the automakers to help with development costs…
I’m not convinced that a gov’t handout to Detroit is the best thing. The issue in my mind is driving consumer taste, as the technology is already here.
If everyone who commutes to work alone in a Tahoe/F150/Sequoia exchanged it for a Civic/Focus/Prius, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
SherbornSean: I’m not saying that the government should just start sending money to Detroit (although now after re-reading my post, it kind of sounded that way). I’m saying that changing the CAFE laws in the US or the controversial newly proposed CO2 limits here in Europe are not necessarily helping the auto industry spend the development money in the right areas…
Some positive reinforcement from the governments would be nice every once in a while…
re: “But I worry that if Green is seen as just a fad…that it may fall by the wayside as soon as trendsetters find the next ‘in’ thing.”
i don’t seriously think escalating concerns for the global environment are going to subside anytime soon – in fact, probably not in your lifetime, nor mine.
we are all facing a bleak future where climatic chaos and its disasterous repercussions will become increasingly evident – and increasingly difficult to ignore – even by those who would prefer to drive suvs and lincoln town cars.
Gottleib: My hat is off to you sir! Well said.
“…smart money capitalized on the fears and concerns of the public…”
And *that* is exactly what’s happening.
Do F1 cars really get 4mpg?…that’s actually impressive since CART turbo v8s would get a mere 2.2mpg and are quite slower than an F1 car.
But as for the Honda advertising this on a gas guzzler that just goes like stink. They are the closest we have to a company that is doing it’s best for our environment. Clean Diesels (no urea needed), Hybrids (Insight was available in the US before the Prius – just Toyota spent 100x more on marketing the Prius and then updating it), FCX fuel cells that have passed gov’t crash testing (all others are just one off concepts) and are in hands of a very select few for evaluation, highest CAFE rating, highest ranked automaker in the “go green” Fortune rankings (these are by tree huggers too). Have to remember that Honda is usually ahead of the curve in adopting cleaner technologies before they are forced to (lev, ulev, fed bin tier II, etc.).
I’ve always wanted to see what a Prius owner’s reaction would be to learning about the environmental damage caused by NiCd battery production and disposal. Then again, acid rain and groundwater contamination aren’t as sexy to the politically fashionable as global climate change is, so the reaction would likely be appropriate cooing noises followed by more hot air emissions.
Why is it necessary to ridicule and impute perverse motives to drivers of high gas mileage cars such as the Prius? Perhaps many owners simply want to use less gas and do as little harm to the planet as possible. Is that really such a terrible thing?
My question is this,
Why is global warming being treated as a negative in the US? I’m not being a smartass about this. Ultimately, relatively small areas of the US would become unlivable. Vast tracts of formerly bitter cold plains and tundra would become commercially viable for agriculture, industry, and human occupation.
But getting back to cars, every Prius allows ToMoCo to sell another Land Cruiser. Every Saturn Green Line allows GM to sell another Suburban. Every Excape hybrid allow FoMoCo to sell another Expedition. Every Fit allows Honda to sell… another Fit. If you must “save the environment”, then driving a smaller, more fuel efficient car that ISN’T lugging around 4000 pounds of lead-acid batteries is the way to go.
and an Oscar-winning movie
…presented by the man with one of the highest electricity bills…in the world.
Apart from that, hybrids are hypocrite period. It costs way more energy to create the prius’powerplant than it will ever save on better mileage compared to a comparable stand-alone petrol engine (like the one in the prius, for instance).
@jaje:
I believe it’s a little less than that, since it’s measured by kilograms instead of liters. Also, in F1 they use almost the regular petrol we get at the gasstation instead of ethanol, so that would have to be taken into account.
Never fails! Hyperbole in all its forms and shapes. 4000 lb.lead batteries! One guzzler for every high gas mileage vehicle! As if the fault were with the purchaser of the Yaris or the Fit. What exactly is the problem here?
I enjoy driving my Lincoln Town Car and will for quite some time. I will never feel guilty about it either.
Mahmoud and Hugo send you their thanks.
I’ve always wanted to see what a Prius owner’s reaction would be to learning about the environmental damage caused by NiCd battery production and disposal.
They’d probably shrug, and inform you that they’re using NiMH batteries which are both much less toxic and recyclable.
FWIW, I don’t consider myself a likely Prius purchaser. On the other hand I was, when they first appeared, seriously considering the B6 S4 and later the B7 RS4, but their pathetic mileage killed the idea of fun.
As an analogy, I consider nice cars to be like hot sex. The problem is that, in today’s geopolitical environment, virtually all nice cars on the market are like unprotected hot sex with a veteran porn star.
There are some good efforts out there, like the Corvette and the 335i’s twin turbo, but they’re not quite “there” yet. I consider mid/high 30s highway mileage as the trigger to even start shopping.
So which is more green: the Civic that’s driven 30 miles per day or the Town Car that’s driven 10 miles per day? Which is better for the environment: a couple that drives a Hummer and chooses to have no children (thereby reducing the number of vehicles that their children and grandchildren would have used when grown up) or the couple that has four children and eight grnadchildren who all drive Civics? By what formula can we determine who cares about the environment more than someone else does? The point is, we can’t. If you want to project a green image, ride a bicycle or use public transportation.
Jeff Waingrow, the reason the Prius is a bad car is because it is a hybrid, which means it is a kludge. They did not obey the Volkswagen dictum – weniger Teile, which means fewer parts. The better way to get efficient is with inherently more economical machinery: less weight, fewer engine pumping losses. That is, in few words, a diesel.
France, just for example, has something like 40% diesel cars and the number increases as people retire their old 2CVs and Renault 4s. Driving a modern diesel in that environment is quite an eye-opener: on national roads with a 110 kph speed limit a Renault Clio 1.4 diesel will return more than 50 mpg without trying hard at all.
It’s diesels, much more than hybrids, that will realize higher efficiency for more people. Hybrids are inherently costly; apart from the increased cost of engines, diesels are not.
jet_silver, you misunderstand my point. I’m perfectly willing to defer to your seemingly superior knowledge concerning hybrids. Perhaps a diesel or some other form is preferable, but the aim remains the same: use the least amount of fuel and emit the fewest polutants. How to do it is an engineering question, not a philosophical one.
dimitris: I stand corrected. Still, the production of NiMH batteries isn’t 100% environmentally friendly, especially if controls over nickel waste aren’t in place. I’ll be a bit happier when the Prius and other hybrids move to Li-ion, and much happier when the Prius owners move to humility.
jet-silver: Volkswagen never had that dictum “weniger teile”. Where did you get that?
The reason diesels are popular in Europe is because the governments have chosen to tax breaks for diesel cars/fuel, as past of their effort to reduce CO, and because fuel is just so expensive there.
But: Auto, Motor und Sport just finished 100,000 km tests of both a diesel Golf and a Prius. The Prius had a somewhat lower list price, and somewhat better fuel economy. I guarantee it, you’ll start seeing more hybrids in Europe soon.
BTW, do you know just how complicated the latest generation of clean diesels (Blue-tec, etc.) are? To claim that a diesel is less complicated may not hold up to scrutiny.
jet_silver said on or about March 26th, 2007 at 6:52 pm:
Jeff Waingrow, the reason the Prius is a bad car is because it is a hybrid, which means it is a kludge. They did not obey the Volkswagen dictum – weniger Teile, which means fewer parts. The better way to get efficient is with inherently more economical machinery: less weight, fewer engine pumping losses. That is, in few words, a diesel.
Even diesel vehicles have power doors, windows, and seats; navigation systems with a tuner and satelite radio that play DVDs, MP3, CDs, and IPODs with steering wheel controls and rear seat entertainment that also allow you to use your cell phone; air conditioning and automatic climate control systems; air bags; anti lock brakes; active control steering; etc, I could go on and on ad nausem. There isn’t a vehicle made in this country that subscribes to the fewer parts philosophy. They have gotten so complicated and can easily distract a driver. Increased complication of the vehicle is a never ending way of life for the car companies. The next big thing is always just around the corner and they will do everything they can to sell it to you.
Michael: “the Prius has not exactly set the sales charts on fire”:
Toyota has continually had to ramp up rpoduction to keep up with demand. 150k units per year is nothing to sneeze at. How many other manufacturers wouldn’t like to introduce a completely new car that grossly outsells its projections?
There have been plenty of analyses that do show a Prius pays off, especially at $3 gas. It does depend on how many miles you drive a year.
JJ – you have a point as it should be in kilometers or liters or imperial gallons (as what I’d expect them to measure it by). The article does state 4 miles to the gallon. I wouldn’t expect them to get that much as the 1.5 liter engine in my racecar gets ~9-10 mpg during events and I don’t make anywhere near the power an F1 engine is capable of.
Nice editorial. :-)
The Honda F1 car is not the best way to project a green image, however, a bit of the truth about Honda is in order.
1973: The Civic CVCC burned fuel so completely it did not need a cataytic converter to meet CA emission standards.
1989: Honda starts fuel-cell research and has been road testing fuel-cell vehicles in the United States and Japan since 1999.
1999: Insight hybrid introduced in the U.S.; gets highest EPA of any passenger cars–for 7 consecutive years.
2002: Civic hybrid introduced in the U.S.
2002: Honda leases 5 fuel-cell vehicles to the City of Los Angeles.
2004: Honda fuel-cell car leases expand to other cities and organizations in CA.
2004: American Honda Motor Co. recognized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) as the ’04 Greenest Automaker in biennial rankings of car manufacturers’ environmental performance.
(Third consecutive number one ranking of Honda in the UCS study.)
2005: Honda leases first-gen fuel cell car to an individual customer (in CA).
(EPA equiv. of 62 MPG city, 51 MPG hiway – 190 mile range; 210 miles in 2006.
The hydrogen-powered 2005 Honda FCX has been certified by CARB as a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) and by the EPA as a Tier-2 Bin 1 National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV), the lowest possible national emission rating. *The only emission that the FCX produces is water vapor.
2005: Civic GX (runs on natural gas) made available for retail sale.
2005: Honda leads industry with the highest Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rating of 29.2 miles per gallon. (Well above industry average of 25.3 MPG.)
2007: Honda leases a 2nd FCX fuel cell car to a retail customer. (The only fuel cell vehicle certified to meet federal crash safety standards.)
2008: The Honda FCX hydrogen-powered car will go on sale to consumers, launching a year earlier than anticipated. Range is now 270 miles.
All major Honda plants (worldwide) meet ISO 14001,
covering waste disposal, water treatment, energy use, etc.
While the F1 car is a poor example of a “green” car, all things considered, Honda does okay. :-)
HawaiiJim said “If you want to project a green image, ride a bicycle or use public transportation.”
Couldn’t agree more. If the intent is to use less fuel, nothing beats your own two feet. Of course, if you live in the great Garden State like me, you know that’s unpossible.
Point is, hybrids make you feel good without doing a damn thing for the environment that an equivalent Fit/Versa/TDI Jetta wouldn’t do. Whether the average Prius owner wants to acknowledge it or not, auto makers sell small cars, at little to no profit, with the intent of making their money on the equivalent number of big engined, overoptioned vehicles (Lexus’, Suburbans, 300HP FWD Acura’s, etc.)
Hybird car buyers are not part of the problem or the solution, they are simply making an econmoic choice based on their information at the time. In America, that means supporting the low end of a manufacturer’s CAFE rating. And yes, every Prius does help ToMoCo sell one more Land Cruiser or 4Runner. I’ll give ToMoCo credit though, they’ve managed to convince people to pay them well for managing the low end of their CAFE rating.
If you want to use ‘less fuel’, don’t drive. Otherwise, drive a vehicle which meets the bare minimum for your commute. Which for most people would be a 2-door hatchback with power-nothing, non-AC, and a 5-spd stick. Or as I remember from my college days, a 10 year old Geo Metro 3-cylinder with 55HP. Anything else (Power anything, AC, enough horsepower to ascend a hill in any gear besides first, etc.) is ‘wasteful’.
“… Honda’s a bit late to this morality play. Toyota’s Prius hybrid set the pace for automobile manufacturers everywhere …”
Not so. the Prius and the Insight were contemporaries. The Prius, which is bigger than the Insight, was a more practical design and it won out. Also, the Toyota hybrid system apparently has advantages over the Honda system.
“If you want to project a green image, ride a bicycle or use public transportation.”
Or receive an Oscar, and fly to your 10,000 sq ft mansion in a G-IV.
Have you ever wondered why the color green is one of the least popular colors for a car? As I recall the rankings are white, silver, black in the top three.
Robert:
Prius introduced in (Japan) 1997
Insight introduced in 1999
HawaiiJim gets the prize. Anyone griping about a type of car is just being bigoted. My Landcruiser is greener than most cars on the road for two reasons. One: I travel far less than half the miles of most people because I refuse to commute. Instead, I put my things in the Landcruiser and move to a closer home. Two: I am pretty sure it will last forever at this rate, and rarely even needs any new parts. What is the impact of recycling and remanufacturing a car work out to in gallons of gas?
And to the anti big pick up guy? Have you done the math on extra trips to make the load if you have a smaller truck?
It’s all fine and dandy for people to get on their high horse about other people’s behavior, but ask THEM to sacrifice something THEY VALUE, and FOHGEDABOUDIT.
Want to really solve the problem? First, figure out how to instate academic/scientific integrity. Then we will know if we have a problem, and not until then. Also, we will be able to fix public schools, but not until then. (bad schools being a cause of commuting). Second, remove friction in the housing market. Why does it need to cost thousands to pay for the transaction?
I still can’t fathom that knowledgeable gear heads haven’t come to the conclusion that the automobile is doomed. No matter how much mileage we squeeze out of every calorie of fuel or how much hydro or wind or nuclear fuel it takes to generate our locomotive energy we still have too many cars on our roadways. Millions of dollars of tax payer funds to repair and build our roadways are unable to keep up with current and rising numbers of drivers.
If we don’t insist on rapid transit, home offices, and modern rail systems to move our goods to market we are doomed to sitting in our fancy new fuel efficient vehicles mired in traffic jams 24 hours a day.
We watched a new start consortium develop a maglev transportation system to service the most congested parts of our country. 300+ MPH trains riding quietly on elevated tracks, using less fuel than a school bus, killed by big business for being a threat to their poorly designed products.
If we had a choice to drive for leisure or for fun and enjoyment, we would eliminate our dependence on fuel and possibly contribute to saving our planet.
The automotive and fossil fuels industries try to scare us into inaction by convincing us that rapid transit would take away our freedom to use and enjoy our vehicles. In fact, proper and sensible leadership would guarantee us our right to enjoy our right to transport ourselves in the style we have become accustomed.
I have to say that while hybrids are nice, they completely miss the point of the average commuter’s needs. First of, they are slow. Second, they are expensive for what you get. Third, the service costs on a unique vehicle are much higher. Frankly, I think the new civic, mazda 3, and mini cooper s are more important. Honda got rid of the unneccessary tunnel and created more rear leg room. All 3 now have navigation. The mini and mazda 3 get leather. A loaded mazda 3 with room like a versa is more than I need for my everyday commute. Now, just throw in a smaller engine with a turbo like the cooper s. I’ll be able to cruise all day in a car that could cost ~20k and produce 30+ mpg all day. Sure the prius could get marginally more mpg for much greater cost, but the reality is that except for the trendy people, many prius owners would have owned something similar anyway. In the end I agree with Michael…no harm in this trend. However, a few more european style cars available here might just be more useful.
Gottleib, just to mess with your head a little, if the man-made-CO2-causes-global-warming hoax takes off, the “Population Bomb” hoax will then come true. There is not a more stupid idea than to have Gov’t control energy. Giving atomic bombs to terrorists is actually a better idea because they wouldn’t be able to kill as many people. Gov’t control of energy is the ultimate “weapon of mass destruction”
CO2 is one of the major reasons why plants are green. The Greenies cant even get that right. A 1000 years ago the Vikings were farming in Greenland…..
whiel china and usa are the 2 biggest polluters in the world, and usa would stubbornly not sign emission reduction treaty, still there is a lot to justify china- because china is the mecca of manufacturing or mecca subsidiary of manufacturing. but usa closes factories more and more. ( sometimes I think they have closed more factories than they actually have). still the smokin chimneys don`t stop. why? because coal is used for powerstations. and usa , being primitive in technology will use coal for 400 more years. ( the official reserve).they are probably unable to build efficient ,friendly stations. ( have they been able to build modern, trains, trucks, or motorcycles for that matter?). but usa expected that greenhouse gases would dssipate in atmosphere evenly causing homogeneous pollution and consequences around the world. But God is ironical. And he sends tornadoes right to your coasts, so you would pay.and you are ironical as well, building cardboard houses in places , where it would be necessary to have silicate bricks.and toyota prius is built as an supremacy indicator of a company, it shows toyota`s care for consumers, not how would consumers translate it into fuel economy.it shows the potential of a superb giant engineering organism to build the frontiers of precision movements. this is how you get credit, and respect. you should have also noticed- people have two garages- one for superecono commuting to work, and another – fuel draining monster garage with 19 inch hrome wheels, and barritone overtaken exhaust for weekend battles on show -off sprees. by the way both cars apply to one owner.
What a wonderful and refreshing forum this is. The tension between Freedom and Justice provides us with the elements of the truth and the fact that no one has the correct solution. As our Founding Fathers so aptly realized the strength of the majority combined with the voice of the minority will provide the best possible conditions for the creative genius of our own humanity.
Thank you for the people that give us TTAC.
Our transport is but one aspect of our lives and the one we find highly important. Our planet is also of great importance and it is hopeful that we recognize that fact. Thank you for a great discussion of two very important topics.
“Although the high-mpg low-carbon Prius has not exactly set the sales charts on fire”
Are you serious? The waiting lists for the current gen Prius were a mile long for multiple years until Toyota could fully meet demand. The Prius has been an outstanding success, selling incredibly well for the past 3 years…are we talking about the same car here?
I always find it fascinating to read peoples comments on the Prius when in fact, the majority of the people writing them have never even ridden in one, never mind driven one or owned one. It’s also interesting to read how people think they can read the minds of the owners of hybrid cars and write ‘smug’ statements as if they were absolute fact, when they largely are invented out of whole cloth.
As for the senator, yeah, compensation. Kind of like my wife, when some monstrously huge pickup blats past with glass packs and the big V8 sound, whether passing us (because we’re near the speed limit – as most other drivers are) or going the opposite way. “Big engine, little willy.”
Glenn A: As for the senator, yeah, compensation. Kind of like my wife, when some monstrously huge pickup blats past with glass packs and the big V8 sound, whether passing us (because we’re near the speed limit – as most other drivers are) or going the opposite way. “Big engine, little willy.”
Smug? Perish the thought.
According to the head of Honda NA in a Newsweek interview sometime in the past year, Honda has a policy regarding mileage. That policy is: if a proposed new car (or update) will not have the highest mileage in its class, it will not be approved, period. No wonder they lead in the CAFE rankings, they make mileage an engineering priority.
The fact is that modern cars are something like 99%+ cleaner thaqn cars built in 1970. We’ve come a long way.
If someone wants a Prius, fine by me. That’s what capitalism is all about. Do I NEED my Acura TL to go back and forth to work? Probably not. I could do it in a Mazda3 or even a Hyundai Accent. But I have the financial resources to drive a comfortable car…so I do. In a market economy, people are Free To Choose, and that’s how it should be. The market is far more efficient than government controls or planning. I thought we’d have learned that by now. When gas gets expensive, people drive less or buy more efficient cars. The market will correct itself very quickly. If people don’t want 12 MPG Expeditions, they’ll sit on the lots while more efficient vehicles sell. Personally, I wouldn’t drive a pig like an Expedition, but then again I don’t need one for just two kids. But if you want one, go right ahead. Just stay out of the passing lane…
As for Global Warming, all the breathless hype about this only serves to make me ever more skeptical. The environmental groups are using this for political purposes, and the science is just not there. Anecdotal evidence is not good enough to cause me to join the bandwagen.
This all rests on computer modeling. As they say, Garbage In, Garbage Out. It falls into the category of “What result do you want, Mr. Gore?”, rather than hard scientific data. IMHO.
Anyway, great discussion thread.
Power has become intricately linked with Luxury in the car business. If an auto company is going to build an expensive vehicle, it must have more horsepower than its competition. This is a major hurdle that the “greenies” should try to overcome.
If you could somehow make fuel mileage cool, then luxury cars might be built with fuel economy in mind. What is needed is a way to show off fuel mileage as you can show off a tire squeeling race to 60.
What about placing LED displays on the backs of cars that shows fuel consumption over the last 10 minutes. Suddenly it would become cool to get the biggest number possible on the screen. Super high (and expensive) tech would be created to eek our every last yard from each drop of gasoline. Get the public behind the drive for mileage.
Change the goal of the average car driver from speed to economy, and you might take a chunk out of the nation’s fuel consumption.
Another angle on why people may “over pay” for an economical car is that you over pay upfront, then forget about it, rather than being annoyed everytime you buy fuel.
John
I’ve said this a bunch of times. Putting all this money into hybrids and so forth is great and all but you could realize a hundred fold more conservation by improving the telecommunications systems. Fiber to the home everywhere along with high-bandwidth webcams, VOIP and secure server connections. Then half the people clogging up 495, 95, 295 and every other metro artery would not have to commute at all. Many of which commute 30 miles each way in rush hour traffic just to work on an inferior computer.
Then sink billions into developing high efficiency solar sells for the home and car so you are generating your own energy and not using coal or transmitting it over big grids.
re: “As for Global Warming, all the breathless hype about this only serves to make me ever more skeptical. The environmental groups are using this for political purposes, and the science is just not there.”
so where is the science, zarba? please cite your source[s] and/or share your credentials. are you even aware of the recently released ipcc report and what it actually represents?
The more of this blather I read, the more I come to realize that many here reach their conclusions first, then marshal evidence selectively in an attempt to bolster the case. This is not the way of science nor is it an honest attempt to search for the truth. Comments surrounding the issue of global warming and the internal combustion engine’s contribution to it are particularly woeful and ill-informed. The defensiveness is palpable. You’d think someone was trying to take away baby’s toy!
Thinking outside the box here, I think a REAL solution–especially in light of ever-increasing and ever-cheapening technology–is to offer incentives for employers to allow more telecommuting. Easily half of the people in my office do not need to physically be here more than 2-3 days a week.
Problem solved and we all get to keep our cars (while reducing miles driven by half or more).
Jeff Waingrow: Well said. I’ve been reading these comments and could not agree more…
philipwitak:
Science? How about that the climatologists are working with a sample size of ONE: the chaotic and still uncertain history of this Earth. If you’ve done any real experiments you should realize how ridiculous a sample size of one is. I’ve performed experiments with sample sizes of 1,000,000 or more and sometimes the results still are not what your calculations say they should be. The system is far too complicated to make many of the “conclusions” that some of the scientists are making, especially considering these kinds have difficulty telling me how much it is going to snow tomorrow.
And how are they testing their theories? Computer simulations is what I hear. I’ve written my own scientific computer simulations before, and what’s great about them is that the computer will run whatever code is written with astounding precision and accuracy. The problem then is what is contained in the code? It is VERY easy to tweak a few minor parameters to achieve (notice I didn’t say obtain) the desired “results.”
What they should say is: “We have SOME reason to BELIEVE …. that human action MIGHT contribute….and a result COULD be…” Especially given the near impossibility of independently confirmed results in a non-biased experiment, such language should be pervasive in any discussion of this “global climate change”. Or they could simply say “We don’t know enough to make a conclusive statement.”
But no, what you read in the headlines is: “Oceans to rise 3 ft by 2040. Droughts and hurricanes to destroy mankind.” Kind of like in the 70s when they were proclaiming the coming ice age and natural resource shortages. Have you ever heard of that children’s tale “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”? I personally don’t say that global warming will or will not happen. I simply do not know. And I don’t believe anyone knows what will happen any more than their ability to predict Saturday’s lotto drawing.
And the IPCC? Part of the UN, right? Which is of course just a self-righteous political machine anyway. And I should give this credibility… why?
Oh, and my sources are the 6 years I spent getting my BS and MS in Physics.
Thank you Speedy. I rest my case.
I’m no scientist… but there have been quite a few hurricanes lately. do you know the pollution’s so bad in hong kong that there are days when people are told not to go outside? 2002 | 2007 while this isn’t really car related, it’s pretty safe to say we can have a really bad effect on the environment if we don’t put some checks into place. I’m not totally believing that New York and LA will be under water by next century… but that would be a pretty high price to pay just cause we want our little toys. Ah screw it… live for today!
Morbo: Why is global warming being treated as a negative in the US? I’m not being a smartass about this. Ultimately, relatively small areas of the US would become unlivable. Vast tracts of formerly bitter cold plains and tundra would become commercially viable for agriculture, industry, and human occupation.
In fact, most of the US will become very dry. As for agriculture moving, imagine that you’re a farmer who knows how to farm, say, corn, which is different from farming, say lettuce. Over ten years, due to global warming, farming becomes impossible in your corner of Iowa. Even if it’s now feasible to farm corn in northern Manitoba or southern Northwest Territories, how difficult is it going to be to up and move your farm there, especially when land up there is now costing a premium, while your land in Iowa is no longer valuable?
In reality though, the thing global warming is going to do is to make all weather more extreme. John Holdren of Harvard, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who is one of the leading thinkers on this issue, says that 3 degrees’ warming will send world agriculture into a tailspin.
Speedy4500: But no, what you read in the headlines is: “Oceans to rise 3 ft by 2040. Droughts and hurricanes to destroy mankind.” Kind of like in the 70s when they were proclaiming the coming ice age and natural resource shortages.
The difference between now and the ’70s is that we know much more and computers are much more powerful.
HawaiiJim gets the prize. Anyone griping about a type of car is just being bigoted. My Landcruiser is greener than most cars on the road for two reasons. One: I travel far less than half the miles of most people because I refuse to commute. Instead, I put my things in the Landcruiser and move to a closer home. Two: I am pretty sure it will last forever at this rate, and rarely even needs any new parts. What is the impact of recycling and remanufacturing a car work out to in gallons of gas?
Manufacturing a car is about one tenth it’s lifetime envirionmental impact.
ma bagnole: No matter how much mileage we squeeze out of every calorie of fuel or how much hydro or wind or nuclear fuel it takes to generate our locomotive energy we still have too many cars on our roadways. Millions of dollars of tax payer funds to repair and build our roadways are unable to keep up with current and rising numbers of drivers.
How about stabilizing the population instead? The population has about doubled since JFK. The US is growing by the equivalent of more than four New Jerseys a decade. About 80% is due to mass immigration. Much of the rest is unwanted births. Cap immigration at 100k a year, clamp down on employers of illegal immigrants, make sure birth control is widely available, and we can keep driving at least as freely as we are now. In our sprawling society, mass transit is always going to be inconvenient, unless you live in Manhattan.
Ah, the IPCC document, which had large parts of the science section deleted where findings did not support man-made climate change. Then, when Drs. Reiter, Seitz, and others complained, they were ignored. When they wanted no part of the changed document, they had to threaten legal action to get their names removed from the report.
Source: The scientists themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U
Ah, the IPCC document, which had large parts of the science section deleted where findings did not support man-made climate change. Then, when Drs. Reiter, Seitz, and others complained, they were ignored. When they wanted no part of the changed document, they had to threaten legal action to get their names removed from the report.
If you read the March 10 issue of New Scientist Magazine, you’ll see that in fact the various governments forced the watering down of the document. Since you can’t get in without a username and password, I’m posting it here:
Climate report ‘was watered down’
08 March 2007
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues
Fred Pearce
Advertisement
British researchers who have seen drafts of last month’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claim it was significantly watered down when governments became involved in writing it.
David Wasdell, an independent analyst of climate change who acted as an accredited reviewer of the report, says the preliminary version produced by scientists in April 2006 contained many references to the potential for climate to change faster than expected because of “positive feedbacks” in the climate system. Most of these references were absent from the final version.
His assertion is based on a line-by-line analysis of the scientists’ report and the final version, which was agreed last month at a week-long meeting of representatives of more than 100 governments. Wasdell told New Scientist: “I was astounded at the alterations that were imposed by government agents during the final stage of review. The evidence of collusional suppression of well-established and world-leading scientific material is overwhelming.”
He has prepared a critique, “Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?”, which claims: “Political and economic interests have influenced the presented scientific material.” He plans to publish the document online this week at http://www.meridian.org.uk/whats.htm.
Wasdell is not a climatologist, but his analysis was supported this week by two leading UK climate scientists and policy analysts. Ocean physicist Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge, who made the discovery that Arctic ice has thinned by 40 per cent over the past 25 years and also acted as a referee on the IPCC report, told New Scientist: “The public needs to know that the policy-makers’ summary, presented as the united words of the IPCC, has actually been watered down in subtle but vital ways by governmental agents before the public was allowed to see it.”
Crispin Tickell, a long-standing UK government adviser on climate and a former ambassador to the UN, says: “I think David Wasdell’s analysis is very useful, and unique of its kind. Others have made comparable points but not in such analytic detail.”
Wasdell’s central charge is that “reference to possible acceleration of climate change [was] consistently removed” from the final report. This happened both in its treatment of potential positive feedbacks from global warming in the future and in its discussion of recent observations of collapsing ice sheets and an accelerating rise in sea levels.
For instance, the scientists’ draft report warned that natural systems such as rainforests, soils and the oceans would in future be less able to absorb greenhouse gas emissions. It said: “This positive feedback could lead to as much as 1.2 °C of added warming by 2100.” The final version does not include this figure. It acknowledges that the feedback could exist but says: “The magnitude of this feedback is uncertain.”
Similarly, the draft warned that warming will increase atmospheric levels of water vapour, which acts as a greenhouse gas. “Water vapour increases lead to a strong positive feedback,” it said. “New evidence estimates a 40 to 50 per cent amplification of global mean warming.” This was absent from the published version, replaced elsewhere with the much milder observation “Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback.”
The final edit also removed references to growing fears that global warming is accelerating the discharge of ice from major ice sheets such as the Greenland sheet. This would dramatically speed up rises in sea levels and may already be doing so. The 2006 draft said: “Recent observations show rapid changes in ice sheet flows,” and referred to an “accelerating trend” in sea-level rise. Neither detail made the final version, which observed that “ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica… could increase or decrease in future”. Wasdell points out recent findings which show that the rate of loss from ice sheets is doubling every six years, making the suggestion of a future decrease “highly unlikely”.
Some of the changes were made at the meeting of government invigilators that finalised the report last month in Paris. But others were made earlier, after the draft report was first distributed to governments in mid-2006.
Senior IPCC scientists contacted by New Scientist have not been willing to discuss how any changes took place but they deny any political interference. However, “if it is true, it’s disappointing”, says Mike Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University in University Park and a past lead author for the IPCC. “Allowing governmental delegations to ride into town at the last minute and water down conclusions after they were painstakingly arrived at in an objective scientific assessment does not serve society well.”
From issue 2594 of New Scientist magazine, 08 March 2007, page 10
From Mediamatters.org on Patrick Michaels, one of the scientists featured in the global warming program provided by Harbinger, on youtube:
… Journalist Ross Gelbspan has also documented Michaels’s more direct ties to the energy industry; in the December 1995 Harper’s Magazine, Gelbspan wrote: “Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by [the coal producer and electricity co-op] Western Fuels”. . .
The Pacific Institute article also quoted Harvard University professor John Holdren, who told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, “Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians, but lacks [MIT professor and fellow contrarian] Richard Lindzen’s scientific stature. He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.”
Honda withdrew from F1 for a brief time to concentrate its effort on lower emissions and higher mileage production cars, in the mid-Nineties, as I recall. Now, they want to use F1 as a rolling billboard for those efforts.
It gives new meaning to the old saw about “win on Sunday and sell on Monday.”
Back in the Seventies, when there were the first concerns about the supply of petrol running out, it would have been a good idea to keep rolling on new technology. Much time has been lost.
Now this movie is for real. All automakers are going to get with the program, because it is really more than a trend. It’s what we have to do.
Some people, including the articles’ author, have accused Honda of hypocrisy over their planet motif F1 car; I just want to point out that F1 has been carbon neutral for over a decade. This article has more details: http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/03/01/7272
Major carmakers are stuck with irrelevant product and are trying to make the best of it.
The new Cayenne is as inapppropriate today as an open fly at the Queen’s Reception – so Porsche has to pretend the added ventilation is a feature. The weight of the market against the wishes of clueless management. Of course, the carmakers are realizing the problem, but it takes time to retool and reengineer. Just consider reactions in London to the new Congestion Charge. When it was first proposed, reactions were mixed and the $40 per entry charge for large SUVs was considered excessive. Now you’ll get a lot more “serves the bastards right” than you will get people opposing the measure.
As one framed it effectively: “that’s what you have to pay in order to use my lungs for a day.”
Carmakers everywhere are worrying as to whether they will be able to catch up with the public mood in time.
@jolo
>Even diesel vehicles have power doors, windows, and seats; navigation systems with a tuner and satelite radio that play DVDs, MP3, CDs, and IPODs with steering wheel controls and rear seat entertainment that also allow you to use your cell phone; air conditioning and automatic climate control systems; air bags; anti lock brakes; active control steering; etc, I could go on and on ad nausem. There isn’t a vehicle made in this country that subscribes to the fewer parts philosophy.
@jolo
Something happened. My comment to jolo was cut off. (Where’s the Edit function when you need it, right?)
Just wanted to point out a new “trend” in Europe. Carmakers are offering pared down versions of their vehicles for several of the previous “behind the wall” markets in Europe. Cars with “wind your own window” technology, but that meet emissions standards.
These cars are a lot less expensive than the electronics churches the carmakers want to sell to feature hungry customers in what Rumsfeld called “old Europe”. (The cars are not only scaled to the local economy, but also at the level of mechanic know-how in these markets).
And consumers in Old Europe are buying the pared down cars, bringing them home and apparently not missing the ESP electronics.
Stein X,
Good Point. In my mind, the 2 most important vehicles of the last decade are the Prius and the Renault Logan. The Logan is a low cost sedan initially targeted at Eastern Europe. Now Renault is expanding production globally, apparently with the objective of a million sales a year.
The Logan is 90% of the car for 50% the cost, and I think could be the vehicle that puts entire countries on wheels. I’ve read Toyota is preparing a competitor. Too bad the 2.5 aren’t in this market — DCX could reengineer the old Cherokee design for cost and it would be the next beetle.
m.apfelbeck:
Some people, including the articles’ author, have accused Honda of hypocrisy over their planet motif F1 car; I just want to point out that F1 has been carbon neutral for over a decade. This article has more details: http://arstechnica.com/journals/
science.ars/2007/03/01/7272
I am extremely skeptical of these carbon sequestration schemes for a variety of reasons. Part of what you have to ask is would the forests grow even if people diddn’t pay the carbon neutralization companies? But the bottom line for me is that experts see reducing CO2 far enough to mitigate climate change as an extremely difficult problem. I find the relatively low cost of neutralization credits in conflict with this. I’d rather put my money into more insulation for my house, where I know it would reduce co2 emissions (and I’m about to drop 5k to insulate the roof to R-40).
On the other topic, I very much like the concept of pared down cars, which I just learned about from Stein X. Thanks.
Ma-Bagnole:
“…We watched a new start consortium develop a maglev transportation system to service the most congested parts of our country. 300+ MPH trains riding quietly on elevated tracks, using less fuel than a school bus, killed by big business for being a threat to their poorly designed products….”
Links please!!!
Nothing proves the Jeckyll-Hyde duality of my own soul like cars. I hate SUVs, even this damn Cayenne. But the mere sight of a 911 of any kind — 901/964/993/996/997/RS/RSR/Turbo/GT3/GT2 — and all pretense of being a supporter of the environment drowns in a pool of appreciative slobber. In one breath, I can damn to eternal peril all who drive (in my own words) “a heavier car than they need,” and then pour praise upon some gas-guzzling, 5.0 liter 0-60 lightning bolt in the next lane. I look forward to the day — long after I’m dead (probably wrapped around a pole on crashedexotics.com) — when manufacturers like Porsche and Ferrari (and, uh, Bugatti anyone?) will be find a reason and a way to use eco-friendly fuel and still get 450+ bhp, so I can finally resolve my soul-torturing dilemma: I like breathing real air, but I also like driving really fast.
“I remember pre Katrina you never heard anything in advertising about MPG, at least not with any prominence. Now that is all you see. Honda is one of the few manufacturer’s that actively tries to keep MPG up across the board and has for years.”
I think that is the definition of observer bias. Ads have touted mileage since gas cost money.
dolo54:
“I’m no scientist… but there have been quite a few hurricanes lately.”
A scientist has to consider the entire systems, not just the data he has from the system. I’m sure you think there’ve been many hurricanes lately, but in reference to what? People have been here for ~250K years, while life on earth extends back to >3.5billion years (eukaryotes 2billion!) It doesn’t seem like we’ve been here observing the earth for very long. Western hurricanes have only been observable since we’ve begun to observe them (~50-70 years). Data for water temperature has only been around since we’ve decided to probe it (~30 years). Where on that time scale to you put the statement “there sure seems like more hurricanes”. This bring us back to observers bias. Have you ever thought about buying a car then suddenly seen more of them on the road or seen gas prices hit $6/gallon in atlanta then suddenly become aware of mpg ratings on cars? It is because we are aware of them. For example, the hole in the ozone layer was discovered when we had the technology to scan the ozone layer. was it there before? Yes! Did we cause it? probably/maybe/maybe not. Have we done a lot to fix it? sure! is it gone? nope. We do not have an increasing number of hurricanes/year on average. we have an increasing number of KNOWN hurricanes/year on average. In the 1890’s how much weather equipment did we have set up in the gulf of mexico? We only knew about hurricances that made landfall.
Sometimes things are out of out control. Did you know the average temperature for the earth is 47 centigrade? Did you know we had a mini iceage in the 1500s! Climate is some pretty badass shit. some real surprises looking at the weather map this February… you know how often it snows in alabama and mississippi? I’ll give you a hint – way back when it was cold, before global warming happened, Atticus Finch said that he’d never seen it snow before in his life.
It’s called CLIMATE. And, like all science -from stem cells to breat cancer- sometimes its political.
PS when its not political anymore it’ll be a fad… like the ozone layer, aids, and homeless people.