Feed your Prius; Starve a Peasant...

[Evilmav2]

Feed your Prius, Starve a Peasant

MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist

Last week, Time magazine featured on its cover the iconic photograph of U.S. Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima. But with one difference: The flag has been replaced by a tree. The managing editor of Time, Rick Stengel, was very pleased with the lads in graphics for cooking up this cute image and was all over the TV sofas, talking up this ingenious visual shorthand for what he regards as the greatest challenge facing mankind: "How To Win The War On Global Warming."

Where to begin? For the past 10 years, we all have, in fact, been not warming but slightly cooling, which is why the ecowarriors have adopted the all-purpose bogeyman of "climate change." But let's take it that the editors of Time are referring not to the century we live in but the previous one, when there was a measurable rise of temperature of approximately 1 degree. That's the "war": 1 degree.

If the tree-raising is Iwo Jima, a 1-degree increase isn't exactly Pearl Harbor. But Gen. Stengel wants us to engage in pre-emptive war. The editors of Time would be the first to deplore such saber-rattling applied to, say, Iran's nuclear program, but it has become the habit of progressive opinion to appropriate the language of war for everything but actual war.

So let's cut to the tree. In my corner of New Hampshire, we have more trees than we did 100 or 200 years ago. My town is over 90 percent forested. Any more trees, and I'd have to hack my way through the undergrowth to get to my copy of Time magazine on the coffee table. Likewise Vermont, where not so long ago in St. Albans I found myself stuck behind a Hillary supporter driving a Granolamobile bearing the bumper sticker "TO SAVE A TREE REMOVE A BUSH." Very funny. And even funnier when you consider that on that stretch of Route 7 there's nothing to see, north, south, east or west, but maple, hemlock, birch, pine, you name it. It's on every measure other than tree cover that Vermont's kaput.

So where exactly do Time magazine's generals want to plant their tree? Presumably, as in Iwo Jima, on foreign soil. It's all these Third World types monkeying around with their rain forests who decline to share the sophisticated Euro-American reverence for the tree. In the Time iconography, the tree is Old Glory, and it's a flag of eco-colonialism.

And which obscure island has it been planted on? In Haiti, Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis was removed from office April 12. Insofar as history will recall him at all, he may have the distinction of being the first head of government to fall victim to "global warming" – or, at any rate, the "war on global warming" that Time magazine is gung-ho for. At least five people have been killed in food riots in Port-au-Prince. Prices have risen 40 percent since last summer and, as columnist Deroy Murdock reported, some citizens are now subsisting on biscuits made from salt, vegetable oil and (mmmm) dirt. Dirt cookies: Nutritious, tasty and affordable? Well, one out of three ain't bad.

Unlike "global warming," food rioting is a planetwide phenomenon, from Indonesia to Pakistan to Ivory Coast to the tortilla rampages in Mexico and even pasta protests in Italy.

So what happened?

Well, Western governments listened to the ecowarriors and introduced some of the "wartime measures" they've been urging. The EU decreed that 5.75 percent of petrol and diesel must come from "biofuels" by 2010, rising to 10 percent by 2020. The United States added to its 51 cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy by mandating a fivefold increase in "biofuels" production by 2022.

The result is that big government accomplished at a stroke what the free market could never have done: They turned the food supply into a subsidiary of the energy industry. When you divert 28 percent of U.S. grain into fuel production, and when you artificially make its value as fuel higher than its value as food, why be surprised that you've suddenly got less to eat? Or, to be more precise, it's not "you" who's got less to eat but those starving peasants in distant lands you claim to care so much about.

Heigh-ho. In the greater scheme of things, a few dead natives keeled over with distended bellies is a small price to pay for saving the planet, right? Except that turning food into fuel does nothing for the planet in the first place. That tree the U.S. Marines are raising on Iwo Jima was most-likely cut down to make way for an ethanol-producing corn field: Researchers at Princeton calculate that, to date, the "carbon debt" created by the biofuels arboricide will take 167 years to reverse.

The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell: The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be developing countries. In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good about yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places have to starve to death. On April 15, the Independent, the impeccably progressive British newspaper, editorialized:

"The production of biofuel is devastating huge swaths of the world's environment. So why on Earth is the government forcing us to use more of it?"

You want the short answer? Because the government made the mistake of listening to fellows like you. Here's the self-same Independent in November 2005:

"At last, some refreshing signs of intelligent thinking on climate change are coming out of Whitehall. The Environment minister, Elliot Morley, reveals today in an interview with this newspaper that the Government is drawing up plans to impose a 'biofuel obligation' on oil companies ... . This has the potential to be the biggest green innovation in the British petrol market since the introduction of unleaded petrol."

Etc. It's not the environmental movement's chickenfeedhawks who'll have to reap what they demand must be sown, but we should be in no doubt about where to place the blame – on the bullying activists and their media cheerleaders and weather-vane politicians who insist that the "science" is "settled" and that those who question whether there's any crisis are (in the designation of the strikingly nonemaciated Al Gore) "denialists."

All three presidential candidates have drunk the environmental kool-ethanol and are committed to Big Government solutions. But, as the Independent's whiplash-inducing U-turn confirms, the eco-scolds are under no such obligation to consistency. Finger-in-the-wind politicians shouldn't be surprised to find that gentle breeze is from the media wind turbine, and it's just sliced your finger off.

Whether there's very slight global cooling or very slight global warming, there's no need for a "war" on either, no rationale for loosing a plague of eco-locusts on the food supply. So why be surprised that totalitarian solutions to mythical problems wind up causing real devastation? As for Time's tree, by all means put it up: It helps block out the view of starving peasants on the far horizon.

©MARK STEYN

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/t...bal-government

[FINtastic]

Corn-based ethanol has pretty much been a disaster. The economics behind it don't make a whole lot of sense, and it isn't really even environmentally friendly. But hey, at least we're energy independent now!

Oh wait that's right, we're not....

Just another way to stuff the pockets of corn farmers who already get enough help from the government as it is.

[FINtastic]

Here's another read on corn-based ethanol for anyone interested:

http://www.financialsense.com/editor...2007/0202.html

[DirkFTW]

Does a Prius run on ethanol? I was looking at some sort of gas-efficient vehicle, but not one that would indirectly encourage more corn ethanol.

[dude1394]

Markets work, guvments just distort markets.

MARKETS AT WORK:

Call it the paranoid theory of petroleum. Somehow, dark forces behind the scenes keep us from doing anything about soaring oil prices. In fact, something is being done to bring down oil prices. And you're doing it. . . .

U.S. fuel demand in the first three months of 2008 was down 1.4% from a year earlier — the third straight quarterly year-over-year decline in a row.

Gasoline consumption has risen about 1.5% a year since 2000. But Energy Department data showed demand in the first quarter edging down for the first time in more than two decades.

In short, the tide has turned.

The New York Times notes that U.S. car buyers have suddenly gone ga-ga over small cars. One in five purchases is now a compact or subcompact, while SUV sales are off 28%. "It's easily the most dramatic segment shift I have witnessed in the market in my 31 years here," said George Pipas, Ford Motor's chief sales analyst.

Go figure.

[Arne]

What has corn-based ethanol to do with a Prius? Nothing.

Ofcourse markets work on this field. But all of this green-people-bashing is just stupid. One of these days we'll all have to safe energy. - Peak oil anyone?

[Arne]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Does a Prius run on ethanol? I was looking at some sort of gas-efficient vehicle, but not one that would indirectly encourage more corn ethanol.

No. It's just the stupid title of this thread...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

What has corn-based ethanol to do with a Prius? Nothing.

Ofcourse markets work on this field. But all of this green-people-bashing is just stupid. One of these days we'll all have to safe energy. - Peak oil anyone?

In general I don't have a problem with saving energy, I do have a problem not exploring for energy because we are stupid. But in general the greenies should be dancing a jig, the only way we will use something else is to make oil too expensive. But I expect the something else will be just about as polluting as oil is. Unless it's nuclear and everthings is as electric as possible, which I sorta think is the way we'll go.

Did you read the suggestion that it wasn't dinosaurs/plant life being compressed that created oil. But that the earth itself creates it and it oozes up closer to the surface. Really interesting stuff.

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6245781/...oil/index.html

Lost in the big news last week -- the race for the Democratic nomination, the reeling U.S. economy, the ongoing life/death saga that is "Dancing with the Stars" -- came word that a new deep-water exploration area off the coast of Brazil could contain as much as 33 billion barrels of oil. How much is that? If estimates are accurate, the Brazilian find would amount to the world’s third-largest oil reserve. In comparison, the U.S. has proven oil reserves of 21.8 billion barrels.

Just what the latest Brazil find (dubbed "Sugarloaf ") could mean to our oil-ravenous world isn’t yet completely clear, but the Associated Press quoted Roger Read, an energy analyst at New York-based investment bank Natixis Bleichroeder Inc., as saying, "This would lay to rest some of the peak oil pronouncements that we were out of oil, that we weren't going to find any more, and that we have to change our way of life."

The find also brings up a name worth remembering: Thomas Gold. The Austrian-born astrophysicist, who died in 2004, was a renowned maverick in the science community, a brilliant rogue whose anti-establishment proclamations were often proven right. For instance, in the 1960s, as NASA began its assault on the moon, many scientists debated whether the moon's surface was comprised of hard rock or might in fact be a layer of dust so thick that, upon touchdown, the Apollo lunar modules would sink out of sight. Gold, studying evidence from microimpacts, moon cratering, electrostatic fields, and more, boldly predicted that the astronauts' boots would sink into the lunar regolith no more than three centimeters. And, give or take a centimeter or so, he was proven right.

What does Gold have to do with the recent Brazil oil find? In 1999, Gold published "The Deep Hot Biosphere," a paper that postulated that coal and oil are produced not by the decomposition of organic materials, but in fact are "abiogenic" -- the product of tectonic forces; i.e., deeply embedded hydrocarbons being brought up and through the earth's mantle and transformed into their present states by bacteria living in the earth's crust.

The majority of the world’s scientists scoff at Gold's theory, and "fossil fuel" remains the accepted descriptor of oil. Yet in recent years Russia has quietly become the world's top producer of oil, in part by drilling wells as deep as 40,000 feet -- far below the graveyards of T-Rex and his Mesozoic buddies.

Is it possible that Thomas Gold was right again, and that the earth is actually still producing oil? It's tantalizing to think so. Meantime, whether or not Brazil's recent find adds support to Gold's theory, for sure it's good news for Brazilians: Government-run Petrobras is one of the world's leaders in ultra-deep offshore oil extraction, and Sugarloaf Mountain alone could transform Brazil into another Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.

For now, stay tuned. The earth may yet prove to have a heart of Gold.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

My opinion: Never use food as an energy source!

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by Arne

What has corn-based ethanol to do with a Prius? Nothing.

Ofcourse markets work on this field. But all of this green-people-bashing is just stupid. One of these days we'll all have to safe energy. - Peak oil anyone?

Of course this whole E-85 ethanol push was a half-hearted attempts to appease the "greenies". Of course, now it's been shown that corn-based ethanol really doesn't do anything to save the environment so even the greenies are off the E-85 bandwagon.

So now you have to ask yourself, why is ethanol still there? Oh yeah, to appease the farmers who were already receiving massive handouts before we got ourselves into this ethanol mess.

As far as peak-oil, by most reliable accounts that I've heard from, we're not there yet. We still know of plenty of places that have oil, but there are plenty of things preventing us from getting that oil.

If either side of the government really cared much about providing cheaper alternative energy, we could start importing the stuff from Brazil where they actually make it efficiently. But that would take away from the profits of the corn farmers, and we simply can't have that now can we?

[FINtastic]

By the way the picture that EvilMav has up was a great South Park episode.

[EricaLubarsky]

1) opponents of global warming don't seem to understand the hypothesis that fully explains why certain regions will experience colder weather and some extreme conditions.

2) The prius is a car that reduces the demand on combustible fuel, and has less connection with ethanol than a hummer, which burns a lot more.

3) Ethanol is not the rallying cry of "greenies" who see ridiculous shortcomings in ethanol. First it takes acres of corn to fill up one SUV gas tank. Second, that same corn is fertilized with petroleum-based fertilizers. Third, it drives up the price of corn around the world.

4) Biofuels are not exclusively based on corn or even edible agriculture. Sugarcane is very efficient and much more efficient than corn, although still edible. Switchgrass is the perfect choice at this time but its also still in development.

5) finding new sources for a fuel source that is being depleted is not a partisan issue.

6) reducing fuel consumption is not a partisan issue, and even if you don't believe in global warming, its hard to look at the polution in Houston, Phoenix and Los Angeles and say that less pollution in the air is a bad idea.

The only people that are really for corn-based ethanol are a) Bush, b) politicians that want brownie points in corn-growing regions and c) corn-growers in the US.

Liberals, conservatives that do not like subsidizing pork-barrel agriculture, and peasants oppose corn-based ethanol. The article tends to use misconceptions, guilt by association and misunderstanding to try to make a larger point about those crazy liberals/Europeans and global warming but appears to utterly fail.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

1) opponents of global warming don't seem to understand the hypothesis that fully explains why certain regions will experience colder weather and some extreme conditions.

2) The prius is a car that reduces the demand on combustible fuel, and has less connection with ethanol than a hummer, which burns a lot more.

3) Ethanol is not the rallying cry of "greenies" who see ridiculous shortcomings in ethanol. First it takes acres of corn to fill up one SUV gas tank. Second, that same corn is fertilized with petroleum-based fertilizers. Third, it drives up the price of corn around the world.

4) Biofuels are not exclusively based on corn or even edible agriculture. Sugarcane is very efficient and much more efficient than corn, although still edible. Switchgrass is the perfect choice at this time but its also still in development.

5) finding new sources for a fuel source that is being depleted is not a partisan issue.

6) reducing fuel consumption is not a partisan issue, and even if you don't believe in global warming, its hard to look at the polution in Houston, Phoenix and Los Angeles and say that less pollution in the air is a bad idea.

The only people that are really for corn-based ethanol are a) Bush, b) politicians that want brownie points in corn-growing regions and c) corn-growers in the US.

Liberals, conservatives that do not like subsidizing pork-barrel agriculture, and peasants oppose corn-based ethanol. The article tends to use misconceptions, guilt by association and misunderstanding to try to make a larger point about those crazy liberals/Europeans and global warming but appears to utterly fail.

come on erica...if your list is right, why is europe also on the ethanol craze. In some respects it does make sense to try and take away petro-dollars from wacko islamic terrorists, but doing it with food is insanity. Do it with almost anything else if you want but also drill where you can, build nuclear plants where you can.

The greenies run around without caring either about the poor folks who need food OR the poor folks who need a job. They are more than willing to shut down economic growth for their religion, instead of working with groups to make decent policy.

They are very much like the gun-lobby and the abortion lobby, unable to compromise because they are afraid someone will knock down their argument.

[Ninkobei]

Not long ago the world was complaining that crops were "over abundant" - thus driving small, poor farmers in 3rd world countries out of business because they couldn't compete with the "mass production" (World Bank) prices. Now all of a sudden we're using too much? I'm a bit skeptical on this and it just seems like another media attention-whore. As if the Eldorado thing isnt enough, jeesh.

[mcsluggo]

the UNITED STATES ethanol program has very little to do with greenies, and very much to do with the ag lobby (although I think it is inaccurate to paint THIS particular failure as Bush's --- not to say he doesn't have plenty of failure piled on his plate)

the Chuck Grassleys of the world (the senator from Iowa) are the primary architects of the US ethanol program, and somehow people seem to miss that the only reason that it is nearly completely corn-based is because there are astronomical tarifs placed on both non-US ethanol, and products that could be used to generate non-corn ethanol.

How big (and cost-effective) a dent overall ethanol production could put in the global oil market is certainly up for debate... there is really no debate about how idiotic it is to push corn based ethanol (an incredibly inefficient variety).

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by dude1394

come on erica...if your list is right, why is europe also on the ethanol craze. In some respects it does make sense to try and take away petro-dollars from wacko islamic terrorists, but doing it with food is insanity. Do it with almost anything else if you want but also drill where you can, build nuclear plants where you can.

1) There are other ethanols than food ethanols, and Europe is on the vanguard of that research
2) Europe has more nuclear than all other continents combined.

so....

whats your point?

[DirkFTW]

Feed a stranger, Starve your Defenders of the Universe

CYBERTRON—Autobots, the last remaining Defenders of the Universe, have clogged the Earth's highways during daily rush hours to protest biofuel shortages which are being consumed in record rates by billions of unknown earthlings. Crowds of counter-protesters have also gathered, shouting slogans of "Silly robots, food is for dudes!"

These robots in disguise are actually illegal aliens, however a mutually beneficial situation of don't-inspect-don't-tell has developed over the years between the world's governments and these gigantic mechanized mercenaries: free intergalactic military protection in exchange for safe harbor. This symbiotic relationship is now threatened to the very core. While the Autobots would gladly face an invading Decepticon army to save the Earth, they say the situation changes when they are asked to slowly starve themselves towards the great big the junk yard beyond.

And the situation may not be so simple. Some believe more sinister forces may even be at work behind the exponential rise in consumption rates.

"We believe Megatron may have instigated a hunger wave to weaken the Earth's defensive network of sleeper Autobots," said Bumblebee, a member of Optimus Prime's heroic Autobots force. "But, we cannot let our guard down. The Decepticons excel at deception."

However, not everyone shares in the concerns of these powerful and benevolent machines. Some have questioned the existence of Megatron, claiming that no one has even seen him and no evidence has ever been shown to prove his existence.

"We keep hearing about this Megatron guy," said an Autobot who would only speak on condition of anonymity. "But has anyone even seen him before? No one I have ever worked with has ever seen him. I sometimes wonder if this is all just an Optimus Prime scheme to freeload off of a naive planet." The Autobot refused to comment further as he lifted a gigantic rail gun onto his shoulders and moved back into the shadows of a construction yard.

The bottom line is that, whether a Megatron scheme or not, the multitudes of humans do not seem to be slowing down in their consumption rate.

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

the UNITED STATES ethanol program has very little to do with greenies, and very much to do with the ag lobby (although I think it is inaccurate to paint THIS particular failure as Bush's --- not to say he doesn't have plenty of failure piled on his plate)

the Chuck Grassleys of the world (the senator from Iowa) are the primary architects of the US ethanol program, and somehow people seem to miss that the only reason that it is nearly completely corn-based is because there are astronomical tarifs placed on both non-US ethanol, and products that could be used to generate non-corn ethanol.

How big (and cost-effective) a dent overall ethanol production could put in the global oil market is certainly up for debate... there is really no debate about how idiotic it is to push corn based ethanol (an incredibly inefficient variety).

This is a pretty good summary of the whole thing. The ag lobby has such a powerful influence on congress these days it's not even funny. Sadly, neither party can really claim the high road on this as both have had plently of chances over the last several decades to lessen the grip agriculture has had over domestic policy as well as international trade policy. The most questionable thing is the tariff on sugar based ethanol as well as sugar itself you alluded to. I guess the argument is that we want to be "energy independent" from all countries, but it still seems like a poor one.

I could have sworn the green people were part of the original push for ethanol a few years ago that ended in the ethanol mandates we have. That could be all government screw-up though, as it certainly wouldn't be the first time. I do know that they definitely aren't on the bandwagon anymore as soon as it was discovered that it was possibly worse for the environment. But I'm just going of a vague memory on that one.

[bernardos70]

This is not ideal to put here, but I've read this a long time ago and I really wanted to share it. It's semi-related, but not worth its own thread. Hope ya don't mind it, EvilMav:

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.

Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it. So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/edito...asp?NewsID=188

[EricaLubarsky]

I've got a Metro, baby! And when I graduate my parents are putting the downpayment on a Toyota Yaris. THAT is a sexy car.

Anyway, I researched the environmental impact of mining and refining nickel, zinc and copper, I'm thinking more and more about getting rid of the penny and even the nickel.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

This is not ideal to put here, but I've read this a long time ago and I really wanted to share it. It's semi-related, but not worth its own thread. Hope ya don't mind it, EvilMav:


http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/edito...asp?NewsID=188

Everybody who knows anything about business, knows that those stats have been messed with.

I don't want to argue about the fact that producing the Prius needs more energy, but after they've produced the car you can't just go out and compare the money they cost per mile if you're comparing to different car-lifes. Because if the production is the most expensive part of the car, then a longer presumed car-life would clearly help the Prius' $ per mile ratio.

I'm not arguing in favor of the Prius, but these stats have been messed with. They sound like the governments CPI...

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by Arne

Everybody who knows anything about business, knows that those stats have been messed with.

I'm not arguing in favor of the Prius, but these stats have been messed with. They sound like the governments CPI...

I'd be interested to know just how, "those stats have been messed with", arne. Do you have anything specific or more cogent to post on the subject, or do you just ideologically discount and/or disbelieve the information relayed by the article that Bernardos was kind enough to post on this 'stupid' thread?

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Evilmav2

I'd be interested to know just how, "those stats have been messed with", arne. Do you have anything specific or more cogent to post on the subject, or do you just ideologically discount and/or disbelieve the information relayed by the article that Bernardos was kind enough to post on this 'stupid' thread?

Well if you take a fixed cost (the production) and add it to the costs like consumption, etc. and then compare to products over with different life-spans (i.e. 100000 miles, 300000 miles) than naturally fixed costs divided into a lot of miles will be cheaper than the fixed costs divided into a lot less miles.

Let's just hypothetically say that two cars cost both $5000 to produce and consume 20 cents of gas per mile. The $/mile ratio of both cars over a mile-length of 100000 miles will be (5000+(0.2*100000))/100000 = $25000/100000= 25 cents per mile

If you take a 300000 miles-life for the one car and a 100000 miles life for the other you will get different results.

Car with 100000: still 25 cents per mile
Car with 300000: (5000*(0,2*300000))/300000 = 21,6 cents per mile

And that is with pretty low production costs involved...