Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mkaresh
|
I loved the statement, "Compared to the Prius, a hyper-pricey, gas-swilling Porsche Cayenne is allegedly less wasteful."
So because someone has the money to purchase a more expensive vehicle, they are hurting the environment. I fail to see the connection between vehicle cost and environmental impact. Based on that logic, purchasing a 20-year old Lada for $100 is more environmentally friendly than purchasing a hybrid.
Couple that with the statement, "Let?s assume these cars will be driven 12,000 miles per year. Then that Malibu costs $23,544 per year. Own two similarly mid-level cars? Then apparently you?re paying about $46,000 each year to buy them and keep them going. How can CNW issue a report with these numbers, and keep a straight face?" it becomes clear that you are confusing the environmental costs that this report produced with the cost to own these vehicles. This is a "dust to dust" comparison and is a measure of environmental impact, not what it costs to own and operate said vehicle. It takes into account the energy cost and environmental impact and combines them to create a lifetime cost and then divides it by the expected life expectancy of the vehicle. It is the cost of the vehicle on the environment, not of the owners' pocketbooks.
I am not claiming that the report is 100% accurate, but I think that your understanding of it is incorrect and is leading you to believe it is claiming something that it is not.
I will consider all factors when purchasing a vehicle, including environmental impact. That is why I am looking at "daily drivers" ranging from a VW Jetta to a Honda Civic to a Toyota Prius. Unfortunately, most environmentalists tend to take a hardline stance with blinders on and will not even consider something contrary to their beliefs. This is a shame, because they do bring many good points to the table, but when it nears a religious fervor, most people become uncomfortable and try to distance themselves from this.