Treehugger mocks this, from the notoriously hack-a-rrific Wall Street Journal editorial page:
Petroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not "saved". It does not stay in the ground. It is consumed by someone else. Greenhouse gases are still released.
I'm all for mocking the WSJ editorial page, but this statement is quite true. Oil supply and demand are tightly coupled right now and are only going to get more so. Any dribble of oil you don't use will be snapped up by someone else -- perhaps one of the growing legion of Chinese drivers -- and so on and on until the remaining oil becomes prohibitively expensive and forces the market to provide alternatives.
It would be nice to think that environmental sentiment could free the world from oil, but it'll never happen.
If your goal is to save money or save oil, buying a Prius should be far down your list.
Buy a Prius, if you like, to express your values and make a statement to manufacturers that there's a market for these kinds of cars.
But let's not let the hybrid hype get out of hand.
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Comments
View as Threaded
lloydalter Posted 11:10 am
30 Nov 2005
Permalink
BrianM Posted 12:52 pm
30 Nov 2005
True, a few people paying extra money for Priuses won't make much of a dent, but that is a step towards affordably incorporating more efficient technology into all cars.
What magic bullet are you waiting for?
Permalink
Wells Posted 1:45 pm
30 Nov 2005
GM produces special models of Silverado and Saturn VUE and label them hybrids. They are NOT hybrids because they only offer a 'start-stop' or 'assist' features, but cannot be propelled on battery power alone.
Prius and Ford Escape hybrids have an electric motor that do propel the car, with the internal combustion engine 'assisting' by generating electricity. Add batteries to the true hybrid and you've got a practical zero-emission vehicle (zero emission where it counts that is, in inner-city neighborhoods and districts), and a long-range vehicle on those occassions it's necessary.
By discontinuing the true hybrid technology, GM is siding with private energy companies who wrongfully prevent the public from gaining an energy source that can be installed at household level - photovoltiac panels and batteries. Valuable lessons in energy conservation are gained with such power supplies. In an emergency, such power systems will be invaluable.
Chevron now holds patents to Ni-mH batteries and are withholding them from widespread use. GM crushed their marvelous EV-1 battery electric cars fearful of motorists fully realizing their potential.
GM is deceiving the public about the potential of the hydrogen fuel cell, the 'drive-by-wire' and 'in-wheel' electric motor technologies they've incorporated into their 'ass-hyped' prototypes.
Those who criticize the hybrid, like the editors of Popular Mechanics, may have their head up their ass.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:45 pm
30 Nov 2005
All that said, I went and read the column (sub.) and ... damn. That guy is far more clueless than even Lloyd made him out to be. I assumed he was making a specific point about oil (not the commons generally), but in fact he really was just being a jackass.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:11 pm
30 Nov 2005
Let's examine David's argument, since it is one that is commonly made.
First, let's take a general form of David's argument: "It is pointless to develop or purchase any energy-saving technology, since any energy saved will be used elsewhere."
From a market perspective, I don't think this is true.
Consider what would happen if US consumption of oil dropped by 50%. With less demand, prices would drop. Some oil production would no longer be profitable and would cease.
As oil prices fell, there would be an increased demand for oil (the "Rebound effect" or "Jevons Paradox"). Typically, the rebound might be something like 30-50% of the original demand; nevertheless, there would still be a net reduction in demand.
Now, let us look at the advantages that would accrue to the US if it were to reduce its use of oil.
The US would no longer be as critically dependent on the Mid-East, and would not need to spend so much money (and use so much petroleum) in a military effort to assure its oil supplies. This is the argument of the national security Republicans like Schlesinger and Woolsey.
With an economy that is able to produce the same output with half the oil, the US would be much better prepared to compete economically in a world of oil distruptions and price hikes.
The same would be true on the micro-scale. The news columns are full of stories about energy-intensive businesses suffering from the rise in gasoline and natural gas prices.
And at the household level. In an era of rising energy prices, consider the stability and peace of mind in a family that used 50% of the energy to meet its needs, compared to a neighboring family.
Is buying a new Prius the best way to achieve energy efficiency? Here, I agree with David's skepticism and prefer more cost-effective strategies like restructuring one's activities to minimize driving.
Permalink
odograph Posted 4:48 am
01 Dec 2005
No, reduced "quantity demanded" means lower prices and lower impetus for production. Duh, and I mean what is the WSJ doing of all people cheating us on basic econmoics.
Oh, I forgot, pushing their agenda.
(I fully expect that all oil will be ultimately be used, the slight of hand some people make is that it therefore should all be used as fast as possible.)
Permalink
odograph Posted 4:51 am
01 Dec 2005
Permalink