"Have You Hugged a Hummer Today? Hybrid vehicles' overall energy costs exceed those of comparable non-hybrids."
That's the scandalous headline from a recent Reason article that discusses something called the "dust to dust" energy usage of cars. An analyst looked at data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive, and dispose of a car from the initial conception to scrappage. He even included in the study such minutiae as plant-to-dealer fuel costs of each vehicle, employee driving distances, and electricity usage per pound of material. All this data was then boiled down to an "energy cost per mile" figure for each car.
According to this analysis, the dust to dust cost of a Honda Civic hybrid is $3.238 per mile. For a Ford Escape hybrid, $3.2 per mile. And for a Hummer, $1.949 per mile.
The reason for this cost difference, the analysis says, is that the dust to dust cost is correlated to the "fanciness" of the car. A car like the Hummer has a very simple engine, simple frame, unsophisticated design, and components made of cheap steel. A hybrid has a complicated propulsion system and is composed of expensive, sometimes exotic materials. In fact, the energy costs of disposing a Hummer are 60 percent less than an average hybrid's and its design and development costs are 80 percent less.
And it only gets worse. According to Reason, "One of the most perverse things about U.S. consumers buying hybrids is that while this might reduce air pollution in their own cities, they increase pollution– and energy consumption -- in Japan and other Asian countries where these cars are predominantly manufactured. 'In effect, they are exporting pollution and energy consumption,' the analyst says."
Voila. Environmentalists are once again exposed as the hypocrites they are. I mean, isn't that the purpose of these types of articles?
First let me say that I am glad someone did a life cycle cost and energy audit of cars. It gives us valuable data with which to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, I currently can't access the original report, because I would love to see the methodology. As with any study like this, when the author includes things like "plant to dealer fuel costs" or "employee driving distances," well, you need to take the results with a grain of salt. There would have to be so many assumptions made in calculations like those that they become open to criticism.
But, I'm sure those costs are small compared to the development, construction, and disposal costs. And this is where my real problem with this analysis is. I think that it is disingenuous to essentially compare a ten-year old technology to a 100-year old one and conclude that the 100-year old one is cheaper. Isn't that what is really going on here?
Of course the design and development costs for a hybrid are higher. Even though the idea for a hybrid car has been been around for a while, it's only been in mass production since 1997. There are currently, what, five hybrids on the market now. If you are looking to amortize your design and development costs, five models over ten years is not a large baseline. Meanwhile, cars with internal combustion engines have been in continuous mass production for over one hundred years, with literally thousands of models. (We'll also ignore the fact that the Hummer was designed and developed by the military, so GM's costs in that regard were very small). The design and development challenges for the most part are resolved. Further, as the article notes, parts are widely interchangeable with such an ample product line. The marginal cost to produce today's internal combustion car is very low. I doubt that anyone would countenance a similar comparison between the simple carbureted engine of a 1940 Ford and the computer-controlled, fuel-injected engine of a 2007 Ford, a comparison that would yield similar results.
I also have a problem with the "exporting pollution" argument. I don't disagree that it's true. But can you think of a single product for which it is not true? Environmentalists are exporting pollution when they compose air quality legislation on their computers. They are exporting water consumption when they buy low-flow toilets. They are exporting energy consumption when they buy solar panels. Of course, environmentalists aren't the only ones who consume things, so we are all guilty.
And that leads me to my overall beef with this article. The whole thing can be factually and contextually correct (which I'm not sure is completely true). But the conclusion it draws is all wrong. I'm convinced that a major reason that so many people oppose eco-conscious initiatives is that in accepting the correctness of the initiative, they are acknowledging that their current actions are wrong. For instance, if I accept that my current 3.5 gallon-per-flush toilet wastes water, then every time I flush it, I know I'm being wasteful. I can either replace it with a low-flow toilet, which takes time and effort, or I can buy into the myth that low-flow toilets don't actually save water because they require more flushes to do the same job and so I can feel good about my current habits. (The multiple-flush myth, by the way, was exploded by the American Waterworks Association's Residential End Uses of Water survey).
The same goes true for auto fuel consumption. I'm sure that a Hummer offers a very nice driving experience, certainly much different than a Prius or Civic. I'd sure hate to give it up just because it is fuel-inefficient. I feel vaguely guilty about driving it. But wait! A Hummer is actually better for the environment than a Prius. Now I can have my cake AND eat it, too.
At any rate, that's what people want to hear. What I want to hear is an acknowledgement that as hybrids or electrics or whatever alternative to gas guzzlers become more established in the market, costs will come down. (In fact, the dust to dust cost analysis was based on the fact that the Prius has a life of 100,000 miles versus a Hummer's 300,000. As the Prius matures, which it undoubtedly will if it is kept in production, we should see that lifespan improve. If it doubles to 200,000--not unreasonable and still 30% less than the Hummer's--the energy per mile cost drops to $1.6). What I want to hear is acknowledgement that perhaps our current lifestyle choices are not always sustainable or in our overall best interest. This article represents the easy way out.
