I didn't mean to add to stress or complexity. I just felt led that it's something to put into the life of our community, so that it gets said. The timing of any given "thing", though, can hit individuals at a hard time. Let God nag you, not my words.
I've got my doubts about CFL's and Hybrids, but have yet to find study's to back up what I'm feeling... Many of the CFLs contain a circuit board with resistors, capacitors, and other electrical components. These are all manufactured with lead, mercury and other hazardous chemicals. The production of these chemicals and components, not to mention their disposal at EOL, does not, in my mind, offset the good they allegedly do by reducing energy production. Perhaps they do, but I'm still looking for someone/study to prove that to me.
And hybrids...are filling a niche, but again, I'm not yet convinced that they actually benefit the earth any better than highly fuel efficient vehicles. Sourcing, mining, manufacturing of the extra batteries required, and their eventual disposal at EOL ... it just doesn't sit well with me yet.
It's confusing and frustrating, trying to figure out what is Right.
Not trying to argue one way or the other, but (unless I missed something) the substance of the Car Connection article was "their word against ours" since, as they said, the methodology & data used by the CNW study wasn't made available.
This illustrates what I find so maddening about our information-based society: One can always find (or interpret) articles, studies, anecdotes, etc. to support one's personal biases. And it's absurdly easy to completely avoid having to confront contradicting data.
Toyota, of course, has a huge stake in these kinds of studies, so I take that into consideration when weighing their response. Whether CNW does or not I don't know, though it appears to be an independent organization, which implies - but certainly doesn't guarantee - impartiality.
Let me be clear...I'm not arguing your main point at all. I'm in complete agreement: it is very difficult to sort these things out, and even when we do our best, we often find out later that we would have chosen differently if we had different information.
I'm not an engineer. I also am skeptical about Toyota's motives. We did the best we could with research, and ended up buying a Prius...used...instead of a used minivan. And that comparison is important in this discussion. I already chose before that NOT to get a hybrid for my work car...that one's a regular, fuel-efficient Echo. The Prius' expense and risks of batteries, etc, don't stack up as well against a small, cheap, fuel efficient Echo.
But it did stack up quite well against a van. Half the gas used. Better emissions by a big multiple factor. And yes, there is the issue of the battery at the end of life, but that has to be weighed against the fact that a van has 2.5 times as much mass and material. We have to suffer with less space, which one of our children is quite upset about; but it was a sacrifice worth making in my mind.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is, I'm not yelling at anyone for their choices, just trying to say why we chose the way we did. All we can do is read as much as we can, weigh the variables that fit our situation, and try to make the best choice.
4 comments:
If it's any consolation, it was hard on me, too.
For what it's worth, this article has some challenges to the Bandon study you quoted. :)
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html
I didn't mean to add to stress or complexity. I just felt led that it's something to put into the life of our community, so that it gets said. The timing of any given "thing", though, can hit individuals at a hard time. Let God nag you, not my words.
I've got my doubts about CFL's and Hybrids, but have yet to find study's to back up what I'm feeling... Many of the CFLs contain a circuit board with resistors, capacitors, and other electrical components. These are all manufactured with lead, mercury and other hazardous chemicals. The production of these chemicals and components, not to mention their disposal at EOL, does not, in my mind, offset the good they allegedly do by reducing energy production. Perhaps they do, but I'm still looking for someone/study to prove that to me.
And hybrids...are filling a niche, but again, I'm not yet convinced that they actually benefit the earth any better than highly fuel efficient vehicles. Sourcing, mining, manufacturing of the extra batteries required, and their eventual disposal at EOL ... it just doesn't sit well with me yet.
It's confusing and frustrating, trying to figure out what is Right.
Not trying to argue one way or the other, but (unless I missed something) the substance of the Car Connection article was "their word against ours" since, as they said, the methodology & data used by the CNW study wasn't made available.
This illustrates what I find so maddening about our information-based society: One can always find (or interpret) articles, studies, anecdotes, etc. to support one's personal biases. And it's absurdly easy to completely avoid having to confront contradicting data.
Toyota, of course, has a huge stake in these kinds of studies, so I take that into consideration when weighing their response. Whether CNW does or not I don't know, though it appears to be an independent organization, which implies - but certainly doesn't guarantee - impartiality.
So how do you decide whose word to trust?
I'm just always right! That's how it works. :)
Let me be clear...I'm not arguing your main point at all. I'm in complete agreement: it is very difficult to sort these things out, and even when we do our best, we often find out later that we would have chosen differently if we had different information.
I'm not an engineer. I also am skeptical about Toyota's motives. We did the best we could with research, and ended up buying a Prius...used...instead of a used minivan. And that comparison is important in this discussion. I already chose before that NOT to get a hybrid for my work car...that one's a regular, fuel-efficient Echo. The Prius' expense and risks of batteries, etc, don't stack up as well against a small, cheap, fuel efficient Echo.
But it did stack up quite well against a van. Half the gas used. Better emissions by a big multiple factor. And yes, there is the issue of the battery at the end of life, but that has to be weighed against the fact that a van has 2.5 times as much mass and material. We have to suffer with less space, which one of our children is quite upset about; but it was a sacrifice worth making in my mind.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is, I'm not yelling at anyone for their choices, just trying to say why we chose the way we did. All we can do is read as much as we can, weigh the variables that fit our situation, and try to make the best choice.
And that probably goes for lots of things.
Post a Comment