The greening of the U.S. of A. still has a ways to go. We're plundering Canada's tar sands and mining the Midwest's topsoil to keep our cars on the road. We lay waste to ton after ton of Chinese coal to fuel our cheap-stuff habit. And so on.
But if our habits remain environmentally ruinous, the strategies we use to sell stuff have gone decidedly green.
From today's Wall Street Journal, a wrap-up of the year in advertising:
Green is the new black.
Madison Avenue tried to curry favor with consumers this year by coloring products and brands with an environmental tint. A long list of companies such as General Electric Co., Chevron Corp. and Home Depot Inc. all jumped on the eco-friendly bandwagon.
Then there's this bit: "One Toyota Motor Corp. ad featured a Prius being created from straw, twigs and other natural elements. The gasoline-electric hybrid car is built up and then fades back into nature."
I find that pretty cheeky. The one serious knock on the Prius is that it consumes enormous resources in production. On a life-cycle basis, as I understand it, a conventional used car with good gas mileage is a greener buy than a freshly minted Prius. The Toyota ad seeks to obliterate this inconvenient fact, peddling the fantasy that Priuses emerge pristinely from nature.
In general, the advertising industry exists to move product, to urge us to consume as much as possible; and we're at a point in time when it would be really, really smart to consume less. So my question on this last day of the year is: does the green-is-the-new-black trend augur an era of less, and smarter, consumption -- or is it the death rattle of a movement in the process of being subsumed into a culture of ravenous consumption?
Or none of the above?
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Growing up green: How to shop for a green baby
Comments
View as Threaded
odograph Posted 3:09 am
31 Dec 2007
Rather than trolling for facts, with your "I understand," why don't you do your homework?
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:26 am
31 Dec 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:32 am
31 Dec 2007
For a self-named "leafy green" blog, we spend an astounding amount of time on discussions of automobiles.
I'm coming to see that Prii are very much like agrofuels. Both are about making changes at the margins so that we can keep on keeping the auto-dominated society going -- just like the "low tar" cigarettes marketed after people were forced to confront the lethality of their addiction were about maintaining the addiction.
I would say that's a pretty serious knock on the Prius: that it has been the single best way to hide a world-killing black technology under a thin green patina, a green tint that focuses all attention on a single (relatively) shiny attribute (mpg) and thereby provides cover for all the other mortal environmental ills of "carheaded" society.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:45 am
31 Dec 2007
Get over yourselves. If you can't make America go carless in 2008, maybe you better just set your sights on making them go to a (merely) better car.
I mean geez, half the US bought SUVs as their new cars last year ... and the best you can do is to fault Priuses?
I tell you what, if you want to be constructive (and sane) sell them an efficient little car (or midsize like the Prius) and then encourage them to walk or bike when they can. If they are environmental, when they can, they will.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:53 am
31 Dec 2007
Electric commuter rail, bikes, and buses, all working together could cut that in half maybe? So maybe 7 1/2% of GHG could be curtailed with plugin hybrids?
But look at this, heating/cooling buidings produces 36% of GHG. That is a much higher priority for real savings. And it is easy to do with renewables relying on geo heat exchange.
Building heating/cooling is a huge potential renewable energy storage system distributed nation wide.
I agree, put more investment (and blog)effort on this 36%. And more on electric mass transit.
Ethanol saves how much GHG? If it saves any it would be limited to 10% of gasoline use. .75% at most. Less, much less if oil and coal power is used to grow the crops and process them into fuel.
Practically zero, reduction in GHG from ethanol. so why the 10 of billions for ethanol and none for geo heat exchange heating/cooling? And none for plugin hybrids? Why is that?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:14 am
31 Dec 2007
Which is absurd, since, like alomst all old cars, it'll be sold to a scrap dealer who'll tear it up and use the parts for other uses.
It not much more or less efficient than other vehicles in that respect.
Permalink
odograph Posted 4:32 am
31 Dec 2007
BTW, if you didn't follow my link to the LA Times story (better link?) in the other thread ... these folks are our problem. People who take out a monster loan on a monster, king-cab, pickup truck ... because they didn't believe the dealer would sell it to them if it was a bad idea.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:06 am
31 Dec 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:16 am
31 Dec 2007
From what I see of car ads, it's still your basic "you will feel like you're on heroin" sell, which is what much of advertising is; like the Prius, the green stuff doesn't add up to much.
Amazingdrx, cars/suvs might not add up to a huge part of ghgs now, but as oil gets more expensive that will change as oil sands, coal-to-liquids and biofuels ramp up. Which means we should be talking more about rail.
BioD, there is a magazine called "adbusters", although I don't know if they do anti-ads.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:10 am
01 Jan 2008
I agree. Mass electric transit Jon, electric buses with bike racks, electric commuter trains with bike racks, and lots of bike trails and lanes everywhere. And lots of electric assisted bikes, like bio-d's bike.
That is true, tar sand oil yields 5 times the GHG of regular oil, fuel farming rain forest or conservation land releases millenia of stored carbon as CO2 and methane (23 times worse than cO2 as a GHG). Plugin hybrids are increasingly important as regular oil is used up.
As plugin hybrids reduce oil use it can last longer delaying the reliance on even filthier liquid fuel sources like agrichem fuel farming, tar sands, and coal refining.
I sure like geo heat exchange cooling as a huge source of savings. Think of all the huge casinos and malls cooled with heat pumps dumping heat into hot air, for instance. Simply switching to using cool ground temperatures to do the job with a recirculated fluid would save huge amounts of GHG. Solar panels could power the circulating pumps directly, with excess power run onto the grid.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:16 am
01 Jan 2008
Higher efficiencies from advanced solar pV combined with conservation, in the form of geo heat exhange cooling alone, could produce enough surplus power to charge plugin hybrids. The plugin batteries balancing supply and demand.
This whole county could be 100% solar powered.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:06 pm
01 Jan 2008
I'm so tired of this phrase as substitute for reasoned response to critiques of various car technologies as environmental saviors. I don't expect perfection this side of the grave (the Latin origin of this word literally means "dead") and I'll certainly settle in this life for the good. But there's nothing "good" about a Prius if we're talking environmental impact - unless we debase the term to mean just very slightly less bad.
If we wish to seriously and comprehensively reduce our current highly dangerous levels of negative environmental impact, "good" would begin with the re-creation of integrated walkable relocalized communities that don't require the constant use of automobiles for every element of daily life. We've been there before - not so long ago - and we did it on a much smaller budget than we currently squander on automobiles and their infrastructure.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:03 pm
01 Jan 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:13 pm
01 Jan 2008
<<
I don't expect perfection this side of the grave (the Latin origin of this word literally means "dead") and I'll certainly settle in this life for the good.
>>
Perficio, perficere, perfeci, perfectum means quite literally, "to do or make thoroughly." So as the Roman authors use it, it is usually translated by something like "bring to an end, complete, finish; accomplish, achieve, effect."
And vita perfecta means, not "perfect life," but "a life that has been lived through to the end [and now is terminated and extinguished]." In that usage, "perfection" could be understood to mean "an arrival at death."
It is rather touching and quaint of you, to hold on to that dusty old notion, that some finer existence awaits us beyond the grave. Metaphysical fossil that I am, I warmly applaud your bright, heavenward gaze.
It is interesting to observe, though, that perfectus, -a, -um is not an ethically evaluative epithet, and should not be considered something like the superlative of, say, bonus, -a, -um, "good." In medieval Catholic theology, the divine nature could be described as containing within itself "the perfect sum of all perfections," or words to that effect -- whatever that means. If the perfection of goodness is considered the supreme perfection -- and I guess a decent argument could be made -- , then that might explain how in ordinary usages in the modern languages, including English, "perfect" suffers an ethicsward shift, and means less and less often "accomplished" or "complete," and more and more often "as good as good can get."
As for perfection beyond the grave, theologians have a problem with this kind of image, from the classic 19th-century American Protestant hymn, "In the Sweet By and By":
<<
We shall sing on that beautiful shore
The melodious songs of the blessed,
And our spirits shall sorrow no more,
Not a sigh for that blessing of rest.
>>
It is indeed derived from the New Testament's Book of Revelation, full of fascinating pageants and tableaux. But it can hardly justly describe an existence for all eternity in union with God: sure, it is lovely that the tears will be wiped from every eye, but then what? An eternity of boredom? Would that not elicit a new trickle of weeping, of a different kind?
Rather, though it is so awkward to describe eternity in temporal imagery, it makes much better sense to describe the heavenly encounter with "perfection" as a joyous energy-filled movement, a progress in love and knowledge, an education growing ever joyously more brilliant, a loving union growing ever joyously more ardent.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:47 pm
01 Jan 2008
Jon, thanks for the link. Quite the reality check. Confirms my suspicions that in the big picture our feeble attempts at a functional energy strategy will eventually have to focus on using less rather than deploying more. Perhaps "clutching at switchgrass" will eventually replace "clutching at straws" as our metaphor to indicate the whole range of our desperate attempts to consume our way out of catastrophe.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:37 am
02 Jan 2008
I ask again, what are you going to do in 2008?
Are you going to kill the car culture, and the Prius along with it?
Or will you be lucky to get efficient-car share as high as 10%?
How many active internal combustion vehicles will we have going into 2009 and what will be their fleet MPG?
(Jon, in what year do you rationally expect 3 trillion electric cars on the road?)
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:39 am
02 Jan 2008
Make it real.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:27 am
02 Jan 2008
Anyway, it's still possible to discuss improving the car situation as much as possible while going for what in my mind is a sustainable solution -- it's possible a car-oriented society is not sustainable, in the long-run.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:43 am
02 Jan 2008
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:07 am
02 Jan 2008
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood."
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:10 am
02 Jan 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:18 am
02 Jan 2008
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:20 am
02 Jan 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:30 am
02 Jan 2008
Sure the guy who gave up his car and his job (not necessarily in that order) can pride himself on miles not driven and tons of co2 not emitted.
Prius folk can keep their jobs and only talk about tons of co2 not emitted.
Most Americans still have done neither. They have neither gone car-less nor gone hybrid.
As far as I'm concerned, extreme environmentalists play tag-team with the Hummer drivers. They reinforce the status quo as they both argue against incremental improvement.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:21 am
02 Jan 2008
If those larger ideas cannot be expressed here, then where?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:27 am
02 Jan 2008
Oh yeah, there was a foursquare statement in favor of conservation and efficiency today ... except whoops, it wasn't.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:53 am
02 Jan 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:57 am
02 Jan 2008
To paraphrase you, doesn't it worry you Odo, when you find common-cause with the auto companies and oil companies about the importance of concentrating on slight improvements and dismissing any profound changes out of hand?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:26 pm
02 Jan 2008
Oh yeah, Ford and GM and even Toyota (as they fought CAFE increases) are right on board with incremental increases.
Never mind that in this case the "incremental" is a doubling from the status-quo (fleet average -> prius or honda civic hybrid mpg) ... and of course a halving of CO2 production.
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:28 pm
02 Jan 2008
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:39 pm
02 Jan 2008
The engine got a lot more efficient from 1973 to 2007, but all the gain was converted into increased annual miles driven, increased solo occupant driving, increased commuting distances, and bigger, lower mileage cars. The Prius works on precisely one of these.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:42 pm
02 Jan 2008
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:10 pm
02 Jan 2008
Jeavons' Paradox is understood as a theory, but it is not, in reality, always the driving factor.
Germany and Japan have reduced their total, not just per-capita oil use. The Prius is comes out of that Japanese environment and effort.
What kind of person raises Jeavons as a counter to that? I don't know, but it has to be some kind of dysfunction.
Surely it is rational to take the real-world examples of what is possible as just that - what is possible.
(Sorry Jon, I read your comments as a continuation of JMG's vibe, in part because I confused the J's)
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:46 am
03 Jan 2008
What kind of person attempts to minimize the problem as a counter to that? It has to be some kind of dysfunction.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
odograph Posted 2:50 am
03 Jan 2008
How exactly do you argue that we can never do what they have done?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:58 am
03 Jan 2008
But secondly, I have to say that even what Germany and Japan are doing is not enough. If the developed world got to their level by some miracle, it would just mean that the carbon emissions would be spread out over a longer time frame, which is not good enough. That doesn't mean we shouldn't move in that direction, that's just being realistic. However, as I said before, moving to change the structure of the society is "radical reform", that is, it is moving toward a truly sustainable society.
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:14 am
03 Jan 2008
They have always been oil importing nations.
The did not have the history of being a major oil producer. Texas gushers and huge California oilfields were not part of their heritage.
It is still in our national consciousness that "we don't need high gas prices like those poor Europeans" even though, we are tipping in reality to be more and more like them.
Global warming is an added factor, but even without that we are in a transformation, from being (at one time) more like Saudi to being (soon) more like Germany.
That will force us, someday, through the market or through taxes, to have prices like they have.
It's too bad more of us can't see that coming, and it's too bad that so many want to drive the last Tahoe.
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:16 am
03 Jan 2008
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 3:34 pm
03 Jan 2008
The one serious knock on the Prius is that it consumes enormous resources in production. On a life-cycle basis, as I understand it, a conventional used car with good gas mileage is a greener buy than a freshly minted Prius.
I'm not sure why you understand that, Tom, but it doesn't jibe with what I've read. Here's what the Union of Concerned Scientists has to say on the subject of whether or not to switch to a highly-energy-efficient hybrid like the Prius or Civic Hybrid:
A variety of reputable investigators have concluded that 85-90 percent of energy use and global warming emissions attributable to an average vehicle over its entire lifecycle come from operation. Only 10-15 percent is production and disposal. This is true for both hybrids and conventional vehicles.
In order to achieve a net reduction in per-mile global warming emissions, (i.e. to offset the additional emissions from manufacturing and disposing of another vehicle) the new vehicle will have to get 10-20 percent better fuel economy than the old vehicle, assuming the vehicle will be driven in a typical way (i.e. that it will be used for its full useful life - usually around 170,000 miles).
Okay, so, taking the Prius as our example, let's do the math: Its combined city/highway fuel economy rating is 46 mpg. If we use the high-end of the UCS's range, 20%, that means, unless your used car gets better than 38 mpg combined (under the EPA's revised fuel economy testing procedure, which more accurately simulates real-world driving conditions, not the original EPA rating), you'd save energy and reduce CO2 emissions by switching to a brand-new Prius. For the Civic Hybrid, rated at 42 mpg combined, you'd need a used car that gets better than 35 mpg combined, which is easier but still not easy.
Now, how many cars sold in the last 20 years can you name that get better than 38 mpg? I can't name many myself. The HF version of the old Honda CRX did, and the Honda Civic VX hatchback sold for model years 1992-95 did, but both models are rare because most Americans bought versions of the CRX and Civic hatch that had more powerful engines than the HF and VX. Some old Geo Metros apparently got better than 40 mpg, too.
Even if you can find a used car that gets 38 mpg or higher, keep this in mind: It's probably much less safe (because it doesn't have modern passive safety features) and produces much higher emissions of smog-forming air pollutants than a Prius or Civic Hybrid.
In other words, it seems to me that, if you can afford to buy a new Prius and you expect to keep it a long time, you will save energy and reduce your CO2 and other emissions dramatically by swapping your older car for a new Prius.
Something else to keep in mind: It's entirely possible to find a used hybrid. Priuses are pretty common (though they've held their value well due to high demand, so don't expect any great bargains) and you can also find Honda Civic Hybrids and Insights. I bought a 2000 Insight a bit over 3 years ago for $7,500 that had just shy of 104,000 miles on it. I've averaged 60.3 mpg combined year-round since then.
For the record, I don't have any illusions that hybrid cars are "the solution" here, and I'm all for transforming the American way of life so it's easy to live without a car.
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:29 am
04 Jan 2008
A variety of reputable investigators have concluded that 85-90 percent of energy use and global warming emissions attributable to an average vehicle over its entire lifecycle come from operation. Only 10-15 percent is production and disposal. This is true for both hybrids and conventional vehicles.
I have a great deal of respect for the Union of Concerned Scientists, not to mention a Variety of Reputable Investigators.
However.
Unless a hybrid uses proportionately less energy in manufacture and disposal than an equivalent lower-mpg conventional vehicle, the last sentence of this statement is obviously nonsense. For example, if the conventional vehicle gets 25mpg and the hybrid 50 mpg, the hybrid would need to use half the energy in manufacture and disposal to conform with this generalization. I don't understand how that might be true, especially when the hybrid has appreciably MORE components in its manufacture.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 3:19 pm
04 Jan 2008
I think you're reading that quote from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) blog post too literally. First, they gave a range for the percentage of energy use over the lifecycle of vehicles attributable to manufacturing and disposal--10-15%--because the percentage varies from one model to another. Hybrids, diesels, and luxury vehicles are no doubt on the higher end of that range, simple econocars like the Toyota Yaris and Kia Rio on the lower end.
Moreover, it seems to me that the final sentence ("This is true for both hybrids and conventional vehicles.") can reasonably be read to mean that it's true for both hybrids and conventional vehicles that energy use during manufacturing and disposal is a much smaller percentage of lifecycle energy use than energy use during operation of the vehicle. This is a blog post, after all, not a scientific paper.
To put it another way, their point seems to be that higher energy use during the manufacture and disposal of a high-efficiency hybrid vehicle (not a muscle or hollow hybrid) compared to a conventional vehicle does not outweigh the energy saved by the hybrid system during its operational lifetime, not that the breakdown of energy use during the different lifecycle phases of a hybrid vehicle and a comparable conventional vehicle are exactly the same.
I'm really curious why many people (not solely here, but in the media at large) are determined to "prove" that hybrids don't really provide the energy-saving and emission reduction benefits their proponents claim hybrids do. I understand the desire to point out that hybrids aren't anything close to the answer to our energy and global warming/climate challenges--that we need to change our way of life, not just our vehicle technology--but not the eagerness to bash hybrids.
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:00 pm
04 Jan 2008
Like a set of implants, hybrids address a very visible attribute and can produce really eye-popping results.
But as a wise man said, yes beauty is only skin-deep, but ugly goes to the bone. If the Prius Fairy came to Earth tonight and offered everyone a chance to buy a Prius at MSRP, how much would it change our situation? It might move peak oil back a month or two, and allow people to get just that much more invested in their carburban dreams and commutes. Unless we were willing to scrap all the old cars (rather than selling them abroad and to the poor here) we could actually wind up using more gas.
People who have the scratch to put into a hybrid are far better advised to skip the implants -- use the money to turn your commute into one that's doable on foot/bike/bus. We're sliding into a recession that might just be a depression and it's mainly because of the wars for oil and the trade imbalance caused by our lust for oil. Hybrids don't help with that -- they just allow the few who own them to maintain the energy-rich lifestyle a while longer (even as their overhang gets worse, causing a bigger, harder bump when the fuel runs out anyway).
A society deeply invested in a switch to hybrids is a society that is committed to maintaining the highway system, which means continuing to spend ginormous sums on bridges and widening projects designed to allow the 65 - 90 mph lifestyle to continue. Not spending that money on rail renewal; not spending that money on making bike infrastructure work; not spending that money on recreating neighborhood schools so that we can get rid of the huge fleet of yellow diesel polluters that we have built in this country -- nope, just like implants offer the false hope of prolonged youth, hybrids offer the false hope that the US can afford to keep car culture going.
As I say, I like hybrids, and I'd far rather that the small percentage of people whose drives can't be slashed radically or eliminated be driving them compared to some piece of Detroit Iron.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:06 pm
04 Jan 2008
The Audi plugin features a technology that is easy to retrofit on existing used cars. A battery electric rear axle.
Carburbia is much easier to make car free than rural areas. Enough commuters exist there, all going back and forth to working and shopping and school to make electric light rail, electric buses, and biking work economically.
And the reality is that even if it takes 20 years to replace all gas guzzling with mass transit and plugin hybrids. That will be aok. It doesn't all have to happen next week to be effective. Cloud fantsies? No need for that.
17 million cars sold every yeasr here, 300 million to replace. As gas goes up to 5, 6, 7 bucks per gallon the changeover will be rapid. To the electric equivalent, costing only 60 cents for the same miles a gallon of gas gets you.
I think 10 years is doable. Especially with a signifigant portion of conversion of used cars.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:19 am
05 Jan 2008
The hard data shows that small sensible hybrids, like the Civic and Prius, win on lifecycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions.
The cranks don't have peer-reviewed disproofs, in fact, in echoes of GW deniers they repeat indirect and weakly supported charges ... that they heard somewhere.
But hey ... when ignoring data allows you to reinforce your world view what are you going to do?
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 2:24 am
05 Jan 2008
As I say, I like hybrids, and I'd far rather that the small percentage of people whose drives can't be slashed radically or eliminated be driving them compared to some piece of Detroit Iron.
Wow. You sure pretend to know just what's feasible for the vast majority of Americans when it comes to radically slashing or eliminating driving. As someone who chose to give away his car and live car-free for more than 6 years, I think it's rather more complicated than that. I made that choice while living in the most densely-populated part of Greater Kansas City, the part of town with by far the best transit service, and I know well the tradeoffs that required: the friends and family I rarely got to see, the events I couldn't go to, the activism I couldn't engage in--the ways in which it constricted my experiences and relationships. In another part of Greater KC, the limitations would have been much more severe, and I suspect there are many other towns and cities in which folks would be worse off than I was here. Yes, there are also cities with relatively comprehensive and appealing transit, walkable and affordable neighborhoods, and the like--you may even live in one, JMG--but to act as if that's an obvious solution for all but a "small percentage of people" is absurd, IMO.
Just as our energy crisis cannot be solved by individual decisions like buying highly-efficient hybrid cars, it cannot be solved by individual decisions like living closer to where you work in a walkable neighborhood--because neither option is readily available to everyone, for financial reasons as well as the simple fact that there aren't enough walkable neighborhoods for everyone to move into. Systemic problems can only be solved by systemic solutions. In other words, if the choice is between buying a hybrid or involving yourself more in the work of transforming our social system, please, by all means do the latter. But if you can do both, and the tradeoffs of being car-free are (in my view, understandably) unacceptable to you at this time, by all means buy a hybrid car--maybe even a used one (although you're not telling automakers yes, please, make more like this when you buy used).
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 2:54 am
05 Jan 2008
Regular hybrids only save around 25% with around the same price premium as the simpler Audi plugin hybrid design.
If I understand what you're asserting here, this is incorrect. Or, to be more precise, it's oversimplified because you can't say that all hybrids save the same amount of energy during operation. Hybrid systems can be full or mild/assist, and some vehicles marketed as hybrids provide such minimal fuel economy gains that the Union of Concerned Scientists calls them
"hollow hybrids" (Saturn Vue and Aura Greenline models as well as the new Chevy Malibu "Hybrid"). Also, both full and mild/assist hybrid systems can be engineered primarily to boost acceleration rather than fuel economy.
All that noted, my understanding is that hybrids which are engineered primarily to boost fuel economy the energy savings versus comparable vehicles is in the range of 40 to more than 50%, not 25%. Of the models marketed so far, this includes the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, and the Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner Hybrids. "Muscle" hybrids (like the now-discontinued Honda Accord Hybrid and all Lexus hybrid models so far) achieve very minimal fuel economy gains. And some hybrid vehicles don't heavily emphasize one or the other, instead striking a balance between increasing fuel economy and boosting acceleration. The two models that come to mind are the Toyota Camry and Highlander Hybrids (redesigned 2008 model), which get ~36% better fuel economy than the conventional versions of those models.
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 4:54 am
05 Jan 2008
Are you seriously telling us that the best thing we may be able to do for the environment is buy a car - in fact, preferably buy a NEW car?
The only time a NEW gas-engined vehicle, hybrid or otherwise, is not ADDING to global warming is when it's sitting on the lot waiting for a buyer. As soon as you make that purchase and drive it off the lot you have just added to the sum total of gas engines punching carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The only exception to this rule is if you can be ABSOLUTELY SURE that another vehicle has been prematurely scrapped to compensate. There's no absolute cutoff to the automobile pyramid - adding new vehicles at the top doesn't automatically push the old ones off the bottom - you just get more, poorer drivers joining the party, and the only message you're sending to automakers and gas companies is, keep doin' what you're doin.
Let me repeat: unless you've ensured that another vehicle has been taken out of circulation that would have not otherwise been scrapped, you've only made matters worse by buying your new Prius. The only consolation is that you've made things LESS worse than by buying a new almost anything else.
OK, so if you absolutely hafta hafta hafta get a brand-new new mid-sized sedan, by all means walk past the Camrys and the Accords and bag yourself your Prius - there's no doubt it's better than any comparable new car out there. But if you can bear it, it's almost certainly an environmentally better choice to keep your old car going, or substitute a low mpg used one, and ...
Drive less
Drive less
Drive less
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
odograph Posted 5:18 am
05 Jan 2008
Permalink
odograph Posted 5:29 am
05 Jan 2008
What you want to watch is the aggregate VMT and the aggregate MPG.
Currently affluent families with teens log 40K+ miles per year. You can chant at them to drive less, but you can also point out the savings to them if they trade for more efficient vehicles.
In an era of higher gasoline prices, and higher GW awareness, one would hope that somewhere down the line the older low-mpg vehicles would be the ones washed out of the fleet.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 6:34 am
05 Jan 2008
Are you seriously telling us that the best thing we may be able to do for the environmet is buy a car - in fact, preferably buy a NEW car?
No, I claimed nothing of the sort, and you didn't address what I did write at all. Prefer not to look at your own self-righteousness, eh?
I don't agree with your reasoning, either. While the act of a single individual buying a new, highly-efficient hybrid doesn't directly take a less-efficient vehicle off the road, that is the overall effect of people in general switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Less-efficient, more-polluting, and beat-up older vehicles are junked all the time as new cars are purchased--a sort of trickle-down effect as the cars the new hybrid-buyers trade in are bought by other folks who can't afford new vehicles, who then sell their cars to people who can only afford lower-priced used vehicles, and so on, eventually reaching the folks who trade one lousy jalopy for a bit better one. Yes, that's simplified, but it's basically the way the market works.
Barring catastrophic societal collapse (I'm by no means saying this won't happen, but I'm not counting on or hoping for it), the American car culture is not going to either end or even dramatically transform in the near future--the infrastructure of our cities and the pattern of our lives will take some time to change. Consequently, it seems quite reasonable to me to support the folks who decide their best available option for dealing with that reality is to buy a new hybrid car--as well as to support the folks who are able to go car-free. And I mean truly car-free. I got to thinking about it earlier, and it wasn't really accurate for me to describe myself as having been "car-free" for more than 6 years. I didn't own a car, but I accepted offered rides on occasion and even asked for them once in a while. I was also involved with a woman who owned a car for part of those 6 years, and I rode in and drove her car part of the time when we were both going to the same place. Obviously, then, I still relied on cars for transportation to some degree. Life would've been quite different if I'd refused to ride in a car entirely for 6 years.
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:17 am
05 Jan 2008
Actually the way the market works is that a good percentage of those bottom-rung lousy jalopies are just going on to someone's brother-in-law's nephew who couldn't afford to buy one before. Cars are lasting much longer than they used to, and more cars are coming in at the top than are coming out at the bottom. Result: runaway population growth of automobiles. More and more people are driving every year. I say, resist the siren call of shiny new car smell! Adopt, don't procreate!
PS
the Californian program to get beaters off the road had it right. Buy back the smog mills and junk'em!
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 10:49 am
05 Jan 2008
the Californian program to get beaters off the road had it right. Buy back the smog mills and junk'em!
I'm not terribly familiar with the California Beater Buyback program, but it sounds like an idea I'd provisionally support. Given that it does nothing to change either the desire to own a car among the general public nor the feasibility of living in California without owning a car, though, it seems to me we still need people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles in the near-term if we're going to reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions from our transportation system.
And, until you can show us all a workable and desirable way out of the current product economy, it strikes me as rather immature to ridicule the idea of making greener purchases in order to reduce our negative ecological impact.
The world is sacred, and I am part of it.
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:38 pm
05 Jan 2008
But that ain't here.
The US, especially with the recent credit bubble, has been pumping new cars into the system. The "nephews" you talk about have choices.
And given that entry drivers are going to be price sensitive, as prices rise I'd expect many of them to choose efficient little used cars. Some of those Hondas and Toyotas last a really long time.
As for new cars, they are inching upward in mpg, for the same economic and social reasons.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:01 am
06 Jan 2008
You personally contribute to this total global growth in absolute vehicle numbers and hence to the absolute total volume of greenhouse gas emissions every time you buy a new car - even a Prius -unless you are able to personally ensure that a usable vehicle is removed from service at the same time. It would also be appropriate to demonstrate that the environmental benefit of taking the junked vehicle off the road was sufficient to justify the environmental cost of production and ultimate disposal of the new, replacement vehicle. This is not a complicated point.
I have previously posted several times about the need for a more nuanced look at the energy balance of hybrid vehicles when making a personal purchasing decision, such as the importance of not ignoring production/disposal energy costs of the hybrid if your personal annual mileage is low. Prius taxi = no-brainer. Prius for a 5K/year or less driver? Probably far better for the planet to hang on to that '04 Accord. I have yet to see a reasonable refutation of this analysis.
With regards to the "drive less" mantra: only about a third of average personal vehicle-miles in the US are related to home/work travel and thus, arguably, critical for a household's economic well-being. I'm suggesting that for most drivers there are likely be substantial and painless reductions to be found in the remaining two-thirds, thereby reducing our carbon emissions without the necessity for bringing yet another new vehicle into the world.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:11 am
06 Jan 2008
That saves buying/building a new car and produces 90% fuel savings. Unlike the new Prius, with maybe 30% fuel savings over a regular vehicle?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:20 am
06 Jan 2008
Plugin hybrid with a 40 mile range and a 20 mile one way average commute. That will save a lot more.
The manufacturing or conversion cost of a rear wheel electric plugin eliminates the very complex, computer controlled parallel/series transmission system. The main extra cost in a hybrid.
This Audi design leaves assembley lines much the same at the auto plant, with one exception. Adding the rear wheel plugin drive. That takes far less capital investment and the savings can be passed on to consumers.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:39 am
06 Jan 2008
It is illogical to think that selling or keeping any particular car will affect fleet VMT or MPG in any particular way. That is not driven by the choice of the seller. That is driven by the choice of the buyer.
It is the cars ultimately unsold that are scrapped, and the person who determines that is the used car buyer of last resort.
We can lobby for them to reduce their VMT and/or MPG, driver interest and commitment will vary.
(On the other hand, we know that we CAN change our VMT and/or MPG with our choices.)
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:43 am
06 Jan 2008
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:58 am
06 Jan 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 1:31 pm
06 Jan 2008
But read the clip here, and then ask yourself about the gender and class dynamics. And how the corporate PR machine segments the market to promote conspicuous consumption. It does seem to verify JMG's claim that Prius owners are really the vanguard for the New Car Era (or life support?).
And a recent commercial for the Ford Escape Hybrid appears to be trying to exploit that division, some say.
In the ad, a father and daughter are walking toward their vehicle and she bemoans being driven to a certain part of town in a gas-guzzling S.U.V. People over there walk and drive hybrids and have different attitudes about the environment, the daughter says. The dad responds that their new Ford is a hybrid, too. Well, why didn't you say that, she asks.
"I never thought I needed to," the father replies.
Some marketing analysts say the commercial is just a clever swipe at Toyota, which has marketed a whole lifestyle choice around the Prius.
But Keith Brown, who is finishing a Ph.D. dissertation in economic sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, writing about ethical tradeoffs in consumer choice, said he thought Ford was really speaking for the middle-of-the-road consumer who doesn't want to be a vanguard environmentalist, and who perhaps fears and loathes all those liberal, coastal Prius buyers.
"The depressing thing to me is that the father is criticizing the people who are making the biggest change," Mr. Brown said. "The girl is talking about morals, and the father represents the great bulk of the people who don't want to talk about any such thing."
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 3:32 pm
06 Jan 2008
It seems to me that we're mixing up two separate questions here. The first I'd articulate as something like Can I reduce my own transportation energy use plus CO2 and other emissions by buying a new, highly-fuel-efficient hybrid vehicle? According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the studies that have looked into the lifecycle energy use of vehicles clearly confirm that the answer to this question is yes given that multiple researchers have found that the great majority of energy consumption occurs during the operational phase, not manufacturing and disposal. It will take more time to compensate for the energy consumed during the manufacturing process if you drive much less than the average American does (I think 15,000 miles a year is the usual estimate), but it will be compensated for eventually if the car is driven until it wears out. This does not address the question of whether or not paying the premium to buy a new hybrid car rather than a very efficient other car is the optimal use of any individual's discretionary funds, of course; each one of us has to make that decision based on our own particular circumstances, our values, and our ideas about what makes a difference in society.
Which brings me to the other question, one I think is deeper and far more important. I'll articulate it as What is the effect on cumulative societal energy use and emissions of my decision to buy a new, highly-efficient hybrid car? For you, spaceshaper, the overriding issue appears to me to be the fact that, if you buy a new hybrid (or any new car, for that matter), one car has been added to the growing global fleet of cars "unless you are able to personally ensure that a usable vehicle is removed from service at the same time." While true, this seems to me to miss the point. The psychological and social forces that are driving people to want to own their own personal vehicles began long before hybrid cars were invented and aren't likely to abate if automakers never sell another new hybrid car. If you want to stop the growth of the global car fleet and then reverse it, you have to address those psychological and social forces, and it seems to me that buying and driving a hybrid car--particularly one that is easily identified as a hybrid car by other people either because it's very distinctive (like the Prius) or carries clear signage to that effect--is one way to address those forces. How's that?
Humans are social primates, and so we (the great majority of us, anyway) are always looking around us to see what our fellow humans are doing and comparing what they're doing to what we're doing. We're always measuring ourselves against what is not only socially acceptable but socially desirable--which behaviors bring status to people--and adjusting our own behavior accordingly. Consequently, those of us who want to save the world are going to have to help create the social change necessary to make it socially desirable to both care about saving the world and take actions to play one's part in saving the world.
Now, how does social change happen? As Malcolm Gladwell explains in his wonderful little book The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, social change often spreads very much like a contagious virus does. In other words, it spreads from person to person, and it can seem to be spreading very, very slowly--until it reaches what is called a tipping point, after which it spreads very rapidly. This is true of many kinds of social changes, from seatbelt-wearing to pet rocks to the desirability of SUVs to equal rights for women.
Now, the conditions have to be right for any particular social change to reach the tipping point of rapid transmission--society has to be ready--and there's no way to force society to be ready, but I think reaching a tipping point of social change is our only hope for action that that will be rapid enough to meet the immense challenge of our ecological crisis.
Back to hybrid cars: When you buy and drive an easily-identifiable hybrid car (new or used), it seems to me you're sending a clear message about your values to everyone who sees you, which I'll articulate as It's important to me to "be green" by reducing my transportation energy use. Based on my reading of the mainstream media, that is the unspoken message received by the general public from hybrid-owners (though it's not positively received by everyone, of course). Consequently, the more people who buy and drive hybrid cars, the more prevalent that message is, and the more socially acceptable it becomes to care about "being green" by reducing your transportation energy use. At some point, in combination with other many other factors, the adoption of hybrid vehicles could play a part in making it not only socially acceptable but desirable to care about being green, laying the groundwork for the more fundamental change we must have. I'm not guaranteeing it will, but it could play a part because it does send a clear message.
Is driving a hybrid car "enough" of a message in the sense I'm talking about? Of course not, but it's a step, and I think it's an important step in an extremely car-centered culture such as ours given how inconvenient and limiting it would be for most Americans to go car-free in our sprawling, poorly-planned cities and towns.
Unfortunately, though going car-free is a big step in reducing one's own ecological footprint and I completely support folks making that choice if it works for them, it only sends a clear message about one's values to the people one knows well enough to talk to about why one doesn't use a car--it's invisible to the vast majority of people. For all they know, people walking, biking, and using transit can't afford a car or had their licenses taken away for driving drunk.
To put it another way, driving an easily-identifiable hybrid car not only reduces the greenhouse gases you put into the atmospheric climate, it helps to shape the social climate--and, based on my understanding of culture change, that's the single most important thing we must do to save the world.
You wrote:
With regards to the "drive less" mantra: only about a third of average personal vehicle-miles in the US are related to home/work travel and thus, arguably, critical for a household's economic well-being. I'm suggesting that for most drivers there are likely be substantial and painless reductions to be found in the remaining two-thirds, thereby reducing our carbon emissions without the necessity for bringing yet another new vehicle into the world.
There are no doubt substantial reductions that could be made in the other two-thirds, but how painless it'd be for most Americans to make substantial reductions is highly questionable. I know, because, as I've already stated, I've done it, and I still do it to a lesser degree because I often choose to not do things I'd have to drive to do. I think we can all agree that people need much more in life to be happy than just those activities that are "critical for a household's economic well-being" (emphasis added).
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:28 pm
06 Jan 2008
Not good. Used by hanging judges to justify harsh punishment, politicians to justify stupid legislation, anyone in authority to justify riding their personal hobby-horse beyond reason, as soon as I see or hear that phrase I know that someone somewhere has run out of rational arguments.
In this case, how about the message that it's OK to drive your ass off so long as you do it in an "easily-identifiable" Prius? Kind of like in the Old South, not beating your slaves on Sunday "sent a message" that you envisioned incremental social changes toward a society that only beat their slaves on the third Thursday of the month...
See? I should stop.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:35 pm
06 Jan 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:46 pm
06 Jan 2008
So much for the "tipping point". Everyone drives a hybrid SUV and feels they've done their bit! Yahay!
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:37 pm
06 Jan 2008
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:06 pm
06 Jan 2008
The basic physics says that we can reduce CO2 emissions and energy consumption by improving (as I said above) VMT and/or MPG.
The argument that we should only take one path (VMT but never MPG) is ultimately an emotional one.
I'm disappointed that the emotional argument soldiers on, shrugging off each wave of facts, but you know ... there has always been a emotional/scientific split in environmentalism.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:09 am
07 Jan 2008
Who has a recent example of a social fad that has reduced oil consumption by about 70 million gallons annually? I'm thinking Prius. People will continue to try to one up each other. Right now, there are not a lot of options for doing that. Some people think that by purchasing a hybrid luxury car they can one up Prius drivers but then find that the rules have changed. It's all about gas mileage now, not leather interiors.
People are starting to compete to see who is greener. Part of that process is to poo poo one another's status symbol. People also begin to try to differentiate themselves. That is why everyone drives a different car. The Prius could very well lead to a tipping point. The difference between Honda hybrid sales and Prius sales is because the Prius looks so different and makes a highly visible status display as a result. Status has to be displayed or it isn't status, ask any peacock.
Hybrid electric bikes combined with electrically heated and cooled clothing might be a part of that.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 2:01 am
07 Jan 2008
As in "If even that commie pinko liberal dirty hippie environmentalist down the street thinks it's OK to buy a new car why shouldn't I get that new quad cab I've had my eye on to haul my ATV up to the Sierras to go offroading over the weekend?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:23 am
07 Jan 2008
Toyota is clearly resisting the next step after hybrids, plugin hybrids. Why? They need to sell Prii to maximize their bottomline, all that capital invested in the parallel/series hybrid manufacturing process needs to be recouped before the next step.
Prii are not easily converted to plugin. Toyota does not want to compete with itself. So they will let Audi take the next step first, upping the ante, hoping Audi folds.
Accountants and lawyers at odds with engineers. Who will win? Since lawyers run most corporate policy now, they figure they can beat engineers once again. Maybe they will.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:10 am
07 Jan 2008
The underlying specifications of the R1e include an electric motor that produces the equivalent of 54 horsepower, which is about the same as what the regular gas-powered R1 makes. Its battery pack affords the car a small-ish range of 50 miles, but the car can be recharged to 80-percent capacity in just eight minutes. A full charge takes about six hours. Despite the low range, Subaru says that the car has a lifespan of about 120,000 miles or ten years.
Sure, someone may clean Toyota's clock, and force them off the dime ... but then again, there may be some hurdles before that happens.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:33 am
07 Jan 2008
The plugin hybrid Audi runs on gasoline when it runs out of battery power. No special electric "gas" pumps needed. A plugin hybrid can take hours to recharge, no problem. Any outlet can do that, employing a lot cheaper batteries than the 8 minute recharge nano lithium ion type.
Graphite lead foam batteries for instance. A very promising alternative that should soon replace all regular lead acid batteries, a ready made mass market.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:38 am
07 Jan 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 11:02 am
07 Jan 2008
You can proceed under the assumption that people's minds work the way you think they ought to work or you can do your best to understand how they actually work and proceed on the basis of that knowledge--your choice. I think it's pretty easy to see which course of action is likely to be more fruitful, and I hope anyone else reading these comments will, too.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 11:19 am
07 Jan 2008
Actually, I read somewhere (wasn't able to Google it up just now) a quote from a Toyota executive who claimed they'd be first to market with a plug-in hybrid, and they have begun testing a plug-in version of the Prius in both Japan and the U.S.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:08 pm
07 Jan 2008
Lots of luck with that one. Me, I'll just continue to be pathetically dependent on actual information.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 12:46 pm
07 Jan 2008
If anyone wants to bash a particular hybrid, pick on the Lexus LS 600h L, which only improves fuel economy 10.5% over the conventional LS 460 L it's derived from--and it's actually rated 2 MPG lower in highway driving. Toyota chose to optimize acceleration instead of fuel economy in that model, and I hope their sales figures will teach them that was a mistake.
Also, it seems to me the point of the commercial in question is not that all hybrids are created equal but that you don't have to drive a distinctive and unusual-looking vehicle to drive a hybrid; Honda has tried the same tack with their Civic Hybrid. I imagine it's a smart marketing move given both automakers have sold a lot less of the Escape and Civic Hybrids than Toyota has of the Prius. There are no doubt people out there who want the ecological and economic benefits of a hybrid but either don't want to stand out or don't like the styling of the Prius in particular. I agree with biod that we need to have many different styles of hybrids, all of which I would like to be engineered to greatly improve fuel economy over comparable conventional vehicles.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 1:04 pm
07 Jan 2008
You can dismiss what I'm saying about how social change can behave like an epidemic or you can look into it yourself. Moreover, what influence do you expect continuing to drive an older car instead of a Prius or going car-free is going to have on Greg Gasguzzler? You think he's more likely to be persuaded by either of those examples (if he notices them at all)? If not, what do you think could change his behavior?
What I'm talking about is partly derived from systems thinking, as well, which is neatly introduced by Donella Meadows in "Places to Intervene in a System." I hope everyone will take note of what leverage point #1 is.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:46 pm
07 Jan 2008
But it only goes 25 mph on plugin power because the Prius electric motor is under powered for a plugin. The conversion voids the Toyota warranty as well. Toyota's attempt to stall a plugin? That's my guess.
From the NYT article (the usual uninformed "reporting"): "The prototype plug-in hybrids will be powered by two oversize packs of nickel-metal hydride batteries"
If these are the rumored test vehicles they have an 8 mile range on batteries. The Hymotion Prius conversion has a 40 mile range and uses the latest A123 nono lithium ion batteries.
This sounds like a diversion from Toyota, similar to the GM Volt. Pie in the sky, meant only to quiet environmentalist pressure.
Check out the Audi.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2007/11/12 ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:42 am
08 Jan 2008
And the similarly dubious mindset or paradigm that I feel obliged to question is that environmentalists can outbuy the wastrels. Buying more cars to fix the problems caused by cars may indeed improve average fleet efficiency but this brings no overall beneficial environmental impact unless it also has the effect of reducing total fleet emissions. There are times when buying a new Prius may contribute to achieving this critical secondary effect and there are times when it won't. I have tried to outline some of the physical parameters which I see as affecting that ultimate outcome, but I attach no value to the idea that buying an expensive emissions device is a useful or controllable way to influence the thoughts of others one way or the other.
As far as effective paradigm shifts are concerned: that's what elections are all about. It may seem unbearably quaint, but I still believe that this is a democracy in which how you vote counts more than what kind of car you drive.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:59 am
08 Jan 2008
Since the early 90's Japan and Germany have reduced their total oil consumption, and by direct stoichiometry their CO2 emissions. They did that while growing economically.
You seem to have a theory that we might not do the same, and so we should not try.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 2:55 am
08 Jan 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:51 am
08 Jan 2008
How Does Japan Lead the World in Carbon Reductions?
It doesn't address oil and car use ... but we know where the Prius comes from, after all.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 3:51 am
08 Jan 2008
You're right that there are companies which will convert a parallel gas-electric hybrid to a serial plug-in hybrid. I was referring to a Toyota executive who claimed they'd be first to market a production plug-in hybrid, and he was probably only referring to major automakers. Fisker Automotive may be the first to market with their $80,000 production plug-in hybrid sedan, but they only plan to make 15,000 a year. As I recall, that Toyota executive's statement (which I haven't turned up again) was made in response to General Motors showing their Chevy Volt plug-in concept, so it may've been bravado. Toyota Group Vice President Irv Miller has said:
Our aim is produce the best hybrid possible, and nothing less. And when it comes to PHEVs, the race to produce a workable, practical PHEV won't necessarily go to the swift. It will go to the company that gets its homework done properly.
He's referring to Toyota's opinion that lithium-ion battery technology doesn't yet meet their standards for safety and reliability; given Toyota built its global success on reliability, and it would be a big blow to adoption of plug-in hybrids if the first one to hit the market was terribly unreliable, I can understand their position. This is why they are currently saying the next generation Prius (which will probably go on sale in 2009) will carry an improved version of the nickel metal-hydride battery techonology in the current Prius rather than a lithium-ion battery pack. They haven't committed to an introduction date for a plug-in hybrid, but you can bet they'd prefer to not be 2nd to GM's EFlex plug-ins given the 2 automakers are vying to be the biggest automaker in the world.
And plug-in hybrids aren't going to instantaneously make the current hybrid technology obsolete, preventing them from profiting handsomely on their investment in parallel hybrid technology; plug-ins will almost certainly cost considerably more, and many folks will be unwilling to pay a large premium for a new technology that's unproven in the real world.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:56 am
08 Jan 2008
The Energy and Resources Today
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:05 am
08 Jan 2008
As far as manufacturing cost, the parallel/series Prius has a very complicated system to share the load between electric power and ICE power. Add a bigger electric motor, a new computer to control it all, and a bigger battery pack and the Prius is a plugin. Compare thaty cost to simply adding a plugin rear wheel drive to a front wheel drive car.
I suspect the rear wheel plugin would be a lot cheaper to manufacture than a real plugin Prius.
The plant retooling would be minimal. Computer reworking on the Prius would most likely be expensive. It would be nice to see Toyota moving faster on a plugin. Blaming the delay on careful design is one thing, but not even testing a model years after individuals made their own Prius conversions? And voiding warantees? Doesn't seem proactive.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 4:32 am
08 Jan 2008
And the similarly dubious mindset or paradigm that I feel obliged to question is that environmentalists can outbuy the wastrels. Buying more cars to fix the problems caused by cars may indeed improve average fleet efficiency but this brings no overall beneficial environmental impact unless it also has the effect of reducing total fleet emissions.
That's a straw man criticism. No one here has suggested that buying more cars will solve the problems caused by cars, only that buying highly-energy-efficient vehicles can be an interim step to reduce energy use and CO2 emissions as well as to help create the social climate necessary to actually solve the problems caused by cars.
You also wrote:
As far as effective paradigm shifts are concerned: that's what elections are all about. It may seem unbearably quaint, but I still believe that this is a democracy in which how you vote counts more than what kind of car you drive.
Elections can be useful, to be sure, but here's the way I think about it: Until we change the paradigms of a large enough portion of the population, we cannot elect candidates who are genuinely committed to achieving the fundamental change we need to save the world. Even if you could somehow elect such candidates without first achieving that paradigm shift in the general public, they would be incapable of forcing or coercing the public to make fundamental change it was unwilling to make.
What we need (and what has actually begun, though there's no ironclad guarantee it will continue) is a reinforcing feedback loop that pushes us toward ever-more progressive candidates, ever-cleaner energy sources and forms of transportation, ever-less waste, ever-less persistent organic pollutants, and so on. None of those goals can be achieved in a single step--they have to be achieved incrementally--and that's why I support incremental steps like highly-energy-efficient hybrid vehicles.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 6:36 am
08 Jan 2008
Moreover, what influence do you expect continuing to drive an older car instead of a Prius or going car-free is going to have on Greg Gasguzzler? You think he's more likely to be persuaded by either of those examples (if he notices them at all)? If not, what do you think could change his behavior?
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:13 pm
08 Jan 2008
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that the Prius is not a "highly-energy-efficient vehicle", just a slightly-more-efficient-than average vehicle. Does the second half of this sentence amount to any more than saying that buying more cars will solve the problems caused by cars?
Until we change the paradigms of a large enough portion of the population, we cannot elect candidates who are genuinely committed to achieving the fundamental change we need to save the world. Even if you could somehow elect such candidates without first achieving that paradigm shift in the general public, they would be incapable of forcing or coercing the public to make fundamental change it was unwilling to make.
I am largely in agreement with this sentiment. I disagree only with the notion that buying a new hybrid car will significantly help achieve this sea-change. You offer no evidence to support your view, only the assertion that you know what influences human action and I don't.
Moreover, what influence do you expect continuing to drive an older car instead of a Prius or going car-free is going to have on Greg Gasguzzler? You think he's more likely to be persuaded by either of those examples (if he notices them at all)? If not, what do you think could change his behavior?
To question one:
None
To question two:
No
To question three:
I wish I knew. But however distant Greg's worldview might seem, I'd trust communication using good old-fashioned actual language over ambiguous "messages" embodied in some trendy piece of hardware.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 2:50 pm
08 Jan 2008
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that the Prius is not a "highly-energy-efficient vehicle", just a slightly-more-efficient-than average vehicle. Does the second half of this sentence amount to any more than saying that buying more cars will solve the problems caused by cars?
We can argue about whether the Prius deserves to be called "highly energy-efficient"; I meant in comparison to the best current conventional cars available in the U.S., but I didn't say so explicitly. Still, I think the numbers make clear that the Prius is much more than a "slightly-more-efficient-than average vehicle." There's no conventional version of the Prius, but the most comparable other Toyota is the Matrix; it's a hatch like the Prius with similar passenger and cargo capacity. The current Prius is rated to achieve 58% higher fuel economy than a 2008 Matrix with a manual transmission and 70% higher fuel economy than a Matrix with an automatic transmission. You may consider that only "slightly-more-efficient," but I think most folks would consider it substantially more efficient.
Regarding your question, I referred to buying vehicles like the Prius as an interim step to solving the problems caused by cars, not a complete and final solution to the problems caused by cars.
You also wrote:
But however distant Greg's worldview might seem, I'd trust communication using good old-fashioned actual language over ambiguous "messages" embodied in some trendy piece of hardware.
Based on how the Prius phenomenon is reported about in the mainstream media, I don't think there's anything ambiguous in the message the general public is receiving from the proliferation of Priuses. As I've articulated before, the message they seem to me to be getting is exactly the message the Prius owners I know want to send: It's important to me to "be green" by reducing my transportation energy use. That's a simplified version of their messages, of course, which also typically include a desire to reduce dependence on foreign oil, undermine the American empire, reduce air and water pollution, cut their CO2 emissions, and so on.
I'm not claiming that the message sent by driving a Prius is sufficient by itself to create fundamental change--we need to be doing many things to bring about change, including having respectful, one-on-one conversations with people like Greg Gasguzzler--only that it could be one factor in creating that fundamental change. I don't claim with certainty that the message a Prius sends will influence even one single individual to want to "be green" and reduce their own transportation energy use. I do claim that driving a Prius will almost certainly reduce one's own energy use plus CO2 and other air pollutant emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle and has the potential to play a beneficial role in influencing the social climate regarding these issues. I make this claim based on my understanding of the psychological research into how people's minds work and the role of status-seeking in human societies. I could certainly be mistaken in the specific case of the Prius phenomenon, though. You haven't provided any evidence to falsify or undermine my hypothesis, however, nor have you made any substantive argument against it. All you've done is dismissed it out of hand. Why are you so sure it won't have the effect I've posited?
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:43 pm
08 Jan 2008
JFK, your ambitious and so-far unsupported assertion that the social paradigm-changing effect of a new Prius is sufficient to justify its environmental and economic cost is for you to demonstrate, not for me to disprove. In the absence of that supporting evidence I'll consider it as no more than wishful thinking and continue to look at the balance of actual environmental benefit and disbenefit of purchasing a new car.
I do claim that driving a Prius will almost certainly reduce one's own energy use plus CO2 and other air pollutant emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle
Here's the nub. One more time. While purchasing a Prius will indeed decrease the PERSONAL energy use of many buyers (though for those who drive less than the average mileage each year this effect is less certain) it will not reduce GLOBAL energy use and emissions unless it is guaranteed to be a replacement vehicle in the global fleet, not merely an additional one.
Let's be clear. I do not challenge the actual merits of the Prius such as they are. It's a resoundingly successful proof of concept and a definite improvement in energy and emissions performance in use over comparable vehicles of our age. But it's still a car, with an ICE that generates pollution, and it demands roads and parking spaces and all the other resource-hungry doodads that contribute to the mess we're making of our environment, and buying one is not going to save the world.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 12:24 pm
09 Jan 2008
JFK, your ambitious and so-far unsupported assertion that the social paradigm-changing effect of a new Prius is sufficient to justify its environmental and economic cost is for you to demonstrate, not for me to disprove. In the absence of that supporting evidence I'll consider it as no more than wishful thinking and continue to look at the balance of actual environmental benefit and disbenefit of purchasing a new car.
It's impossible, of course, to demonstrate or prove a hypothesis of this sort in advance, but to refer to it as "unsupported" is simply false. A growing body of psychological research supports what I'm saying about the way human minds work, though no one I know of has tested the effects of Prius-buying specifically. At least I'm pointing to research, though, while you have nothing but your personal opinion to stand on. Have you even deigned to look into what I'm saying? If you're willing, I'll try to find a good online overview. My view of this is drawn from multiple books, essays, and articles I've read over the years.
Ultimately, none of us has direct control over anything but our own behavior, and even that agency is constrained by the social framework within which we live and our own "elephant," to borrow a metaphor from psychologist Jonathan Haidt. The "elephant" in this sense represents our automatic mind--including our "gut feelings, visceral reactions, emotions, and intuitions"--distinct from our rational, focused mind, the "rider" part of us which imagines it's directing things.
You also wrote:
But it's still a car, with an ICE that generates pollution, and it demands roads and parking spaces and all the other resource-hungry doodads that contribute to the mess we're making of our environment, and buying one is not going to save the world.
Never claimed it would all by itself, only that the spread of identifiable greener cars could play a role along with many other verbal and nonverbal messages in changing the social climate and helping us reach a tipping point of cultural change.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:05 pm
09 Jan 2008
We can (and apparently intend to) talk ourselves into extinction about things like how Prius's and other groovy cool things mean that people in the "creative class" can set social expectations for the sheeple by making greener choices and hoping that the sheeple follow.
Alternatively, we can recognize that we need a radical leap away from car culture entirely and that our choice isn't "good" (better mpg) vs. "best" (escape from carburbia); our choice is survival vs. eco-suicide. Eco-suicide is the planetary equivalent of running your engine in your garage to kill yourself with its exhaust -- only we don't plan to just kill ourselves, we're absolutely on track to take billions of people with us, because we have become so mentally crippled by our motorheadedness that we think that we get to negotiate with nature about what we have to do.
When the first great ocean liners sank it was a scandal because they didn't have enough lifeboats; today it'd be no scandal because the richest, most well-fed and "educated" people on the ship are so conditioned to think of technology as a solution that they don't recognize a lifeboat in the first place.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:32 pm
09 Jan 2008
And then again, it may not. Coulda woulda shoulda.
"What did you do about global warming, Grandpappy, back when it mattered?
I did what I could, Tootsie. I bought a car!"
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:19 pm
09 Jan 2008
It is not enough to find "green" means of fulfilling our desires. We need a new paradigm, the adoption of a new set of values, we have to create a new society. All of us, all 6 billion people on Earth, must experience a universal epiphany, must become super aware of how we affect the planet. And we have to do it really really soon. It is our only hope.
As someone typed above...
"If we wish to seriously and comprehensively reduce our current highly dangerous levels of negative environmental impact, "good" would begin with the re-creation of integrated walkable re-localized communities that don't require the constant use of automobiles for every element of daily life."
Okay. I recognize that our automobile culture is a bit of a problem. It is an addiction of sorts. But it is also something that can't simply be discarded without further consideration. It has extended its tendrils into unexpected places. Even those who look down upon cars benefit from their existence.
Furthermore, criticizing efforts to make "greener" automobiles and hoping, instead, for dramatic restructuring of society seems like a death sentence. We evolved into a car culture. It is going to take some time to evolve out of it.
So, I agree cars are a problem. I agree change is required. How do you intend to bring about that change?
Perhaps we need a few "pioneers" willing to get together and establish a new community, somewhere in North America, that does not depend on cars or trucks. Not just when it is convenient, but actually build a community that has no place for cars at anytime. Demonstrate to the world a life without the automobile. It is easy to talk about the need for change. Now it is time for the rubber to NOT hit the road. Be the change.
I'll be watching... from my car.
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:20 pm
09 Jan 2008
There are simply those who will oppose incremental improvement because it does not solve everything.
To me that's insane, because the world does not leap instantly to new configurations. There are always incremental changes and improvements along the way
JMG, you can "need" a "radical leap away from car culture entirely"
... but to prove you aren't a complete nutter:
tell me how you are going to do it! Tell me how you can get America off their cars faster than we could switch them to better cars. Tell me how no period of transition is necessary.
Tell me your plan isn't just to snipe at Prius drivers in the back pages of gristmill.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:25 pm
09 Jan 2008
As I've said before, I already have a house slightly beyond suburbia. I'm dependent on my car. I like my home, but suppose I decide to kick the car habit? What am I supposed to do? Who do I sell that house to? How do I find the means to purchase a more-expensive home in lovely urban setting?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:08 am
10 Jan 2008
Cars amount to around 15%. They are great ad platforms for greening up human consciousness. Cut car miles in half with GHG free renewable electric mass transit and bike lanes and trails.
And mass produce electrically assisted, safe, comfortable bikes that more people could use, recumbant version of bio-d's bike with a nice bubble/crash top maybe? That seems possible. That might have tremendous green status.
Maybe actual plugin hybrid numbers needed to replace current cars might be cut in half with mass transit and bikes?
But of course there are billions of people who don't have cars yet. What if they start driving? If mass production of better, greener transportation takes off, most of the actual manufacturing will take place in China.
The mass market integrated with the mass production, how can China resist going green? The US still has a chance to lead the way and stay at the front of this wave. Most of the money will be made by Chinese manufacturers, but a piece of the action now might turn our economy around and the global climate disaster around.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:11 am
10 Jan 2008
We don't need to create a whole new community, there are bits and pieces all over the place, they need to spread. For instance, here in beautiful downtown Evanston, Illinois, our family of four is surviving nicely without a car, even though there are cars all over. There are lots of towns that have little, or sometimes longer, "main" streets with lots of stores, they just need to be extended; in fact, I think it would be a great idea to do an inventory, sort of a super walkscore.com, that showed where walkable, even pieces of communities existed. Then we could extend the 'carfreeness' of the areas.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:36 am
10 Jan 2008
True. And it would be great to conduct an inventory of such places. This could be combined with some sort of happiness or quality of life index to show that it is clearly possible to live without a car and enjoy life.
Here is my concern about the bits and pieces...
I recall a fellow who was on the radio -- I probably mentioned this before since it sort of annoys me now and then -- who bragged about living in a tiny house. He said we could all live happily in tiny houses... and then you find out he goes to the neighbor's house when he wants to take a shower, occasionally runs an extension cord from the neighbor's house to his tiny house so he can use appliances, and otherwise lives as a parasite on people who do not have such tiny houses. Sort of undermines his case, no?
I wonder if the same thing is going on when people mention places where no one needs a car.
I would like to see an example of a fully functional community of happy healthy people -- a community an average American wouldn't mind joining, not a villiage in some remote area -- living free of automobiles, directly and indirectly. Perhaps there would be a few community vehicles. It's probably out there. No car sitting in the driveway in case you need it. No friends you can call for a ride to work if you are running behind, you need to get to a doctor's appointment, or want to go to a grocery store. No resentment by some folks because others are allowed to have a vehicle for their job... really, no one should require a car or truck for their job. Perhaps no cabs. Afterall, we don't want to have to build roads.
If it is not out there, would anyone really be willing to leave behind their current life and join such a community?
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:38 am
10 Jan 2008
I'm with you Jon, on incremental improvement, but these "are bits and pieces all over the place" which "need to spread" don't support the idea of a huge leap which eliminates the need for transition.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:07 am
10 Jan 2008
First off, there is such a place, and it's called Manhattan, no ands, ifs, or buts. Now, speaking of "leaps", we could do a 'reverse pol pot' and make everybody live in big, NYC-style cities -- which would actually solve most of our problems, but ok, that's a huge leap.
Second, we almost never use anybody's car, and even the couple of times we have we haven't had to. On the other hand, to be honest, my wife is always saying we should get a car, and lord knows it would be much easier, particularly in the winter, but since we lived in NYC for decades, our driver's licenses expired and we've been too lazy to get new ones. More than you wanted to know, but it definitely is possible -- and it helps that there is excellent rail service too. But as the "carless in seattle" series showed (can't remember link), part of the problem now with being carless is that you don't participate in the social phenomenon called "car pools".
Odo -- If everybody had a consensus for a leap, then we could have a "WWII" type situation of devoting the whole economy to making that leap. Obviously we're not there, so spreading out from walkable "bits and pieces" sounds like a good way to be incremental.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 4:14 am
10 Jan 2008
And then again, it may not. Coulda woulda shoulda.
"What did you do about global warming, Grandpappy, back when it mattered?
I did what I could, Tootsie. I bought a car!"
You have no intention of addressing the question of how we achieve the necessary social change to save the world, do you? No, you'd much rather pretend I've argued something I have not (that buying a car is what we should do about global warming, and all that we should do) and mock that argument. Real helpful.
To clarify for everyone else, what I've argued is this: If you see no acceptable alternative to continue driving, and you have the discretionary funds to buy a new (or used) highly-fuel-efficient hybrid vehicle, and you decide that's the best use for your discretionary funds, you almost certainly will reduce your own energy use plus greenhouse gas and other air pollutant emissions by doing so--and driving an easily-identifiable hybrid vehicle might help change the social climate over time so that we can achieve a real solution to the problems caused by our current transportation system and meet our mobility needs sustainably.
Though spaceshaper has demonstrated he's not interested in considering s/he might not be right about absolutely everything, here's some additional background info for anyone who is:
This blogpost titled "Giving 'Hybrids' Traction:
'Veblen' Status for Buying Green Cars" makes one of the arguments I've been making but it's written by UCLA Professor of Economics Matthew E. Kahn; maybe some will consider it more credible from a credentialed source.
Wikipedia gives a basic overview of Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point and the idea of social epidemics itself here. You can preview the book itself here courtesy of Google Book Search.
Here's an excerpt from Jonathan Haidt's Happiness Hypothesis in which he explains why so many people continue to practice conspicuous consumption even though it's not bringing them the happiness they expect it to.
I've already recommended "Places to Intervene in a System" by Donella Meadows as an introduction to systems thinking, but some may've missed it.
WorldChanging's Alex Steffen makes an argument for "sustainable consumption" here.
Please keep in mind that pointing out these works is not meant as an endorsement of every single word therein. I provide them as substantiation for what I've been arguing.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:20 am
10 Jan 2008
http://curbed.com/archives/2006/08/07/traffic_its_good_fo ...
Those must be tourists in rental cars mixed in with the buses and delivery vehicles.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 4:22 am
10 Jan 2008
Though spaceshaper has demonstrated s/he's not interested in considering s/he might not be right about absolutely everything, here's some additional background info for anyone who is:
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 4:34 am
10 Jan 2008
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:34 am
10 Jan 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:36 am
10 Jan 2008
Now I'm impressed!
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 4:41 am
10 Jan 2008
The little buggers are being particularly quick to get upset when they don't get their ways today.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:55 am
10 Jan 2008
"When do green ads translate to green action?"
Perhaps when there is some sort of official green label. Sort of like Underwriters Laboratories or the WWF seal of approval. As long as the public is swayed by literally green packaging, as in the color green, green ads are not going to translate into green action.
So what sorts of green seals of approval are out there, who sets the standard, and how do we make the public more aware of them? Perhaps there should be a Grist seal of approval... then again, no.
Reagrding the Prius ad, if the car is not really made from biodegradable material synthesized from twigs, straw, and clay, then it is false advertising and should not be legal. Technology IS available for manufacturing respectable and durable materials from twigs, straw, and clay... so Toyata better be telling the truth.
You can now return to your discussion of automania.
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 6:44 am
10 Jan 2008
Though spaceshaper has demonstrated [s/]he's not interested in considering s/he might not be right about absolutely everything...
...and I wish I hadn't. spaceshaper, I was peeved with you and I reacted by overgeneralizing. For all I know, I'm just special and, most of the time, you're tremendously open-minded and compassionate when you disagree with people. I'm sorry for reacting the way I did.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 6:46 am
10 Jan 2008
Consumer Reports has a Greener Choices service which evaluates green claims, though I wish they'd invest more resources in it. I know of nothing better in this area, though.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 6:51 am
10 Jan 2008
Reagrding the Prius ad, if the car is not really made from biodegradable material synthesized from twigs, straw, and clay, then it is false advertising and should not be legal.
If every ad that didn't stick straight to the facts was ruled illegal and banned, there wouldn't be much advertising left (would that be a bad thing?)! Not to defend the Prius ad in question (which I haven't seen) or others Toyota has run to promote their hybrids. Their Lexus hybrid ads have annoyed me even more than I imagine that one would. I support people buying Priuses under the conditions I've described above on the merits of the car, not because I think Toyota is a paragon of corporate responsibility.
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 1:24 pm
10 Jan 2008
"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith
Permalink
cigarettes Posted 10:13 pm
04 Sep 2008
signature: One thousand Americans stop smoking cigarettes every day - by dying.
"I like to drink coffee and smoking cigarettes before bed. I dream faster." (c) Steven Wright: Coffee and cigarettes
Permalink