Dear EarthTalk:

I read that hybrid cars are actually less green-friendly than even Hummers, because they have two motors and very environmentally damaging batteries. Is this true? — Renee Sweany, Indianapolis, IN

The claim you read about was from "Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal," a controversial study by researcher Art Spinella of Oregon-based CNW Marketing. It ranks more than 300 vehicles for their energy use over their entire lifecycles—from raw materials extraction and manufacturing, to driving and burning fuel, to the recycling and disposal of parts. What surprised even Spinella was how the Toyota Prius, the world’s most successful gasoline-electric hybrid car, stacked up against General Motors’ behemoth Hummer, the modern poster child for unsustainable transportation.

"The Hummer over the lifetime of the vehicle ends up being less of a drain of energy on society in general than does the Prius," wrote Spinella in his report. A key-determining factor was the hybrid battery’s use of nickel extracted from a Sudbury, Ontario mine that has emitted so much sulfur dioxide that acid rain has turned a once healthy nearby forest into a bleak landscape. That mine, however, which supplies nickel for many industrial purposes and not just hybrid batteries, has cut pollution 90 percent since the 1970s.

Another common criticism of hybrids is that their batteries will be a pollution threat once they land in the junkyard. But hybrid advocates insist that the nickel-metal hydride batteries found in the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight and other hybrids contain far fewer pollutants than the lead-acid varieties used in traditional cars. And initial worries that hybrid batteries would need replacement every few years have not borne out; Toyota says the batteries should go for 150,000 miles, which they predict to be the car’s life expectancy.

Spinella pegs the life of the typical Prius bought new today at only 100,000 miles, and contrasts that against a predicted 300,000 for Hummers—meaning that, though Hummers burn more gas and emit more pollutants, they will last much longer. Additionally, Spinella factors in the added production costs of including two separate engines in the Prius—one that runs on gas and the other on electricity.

Most environmentalists challenge Spinella’s conclusions. Jim Kliesch, research analyst with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), which publishes a yearly rating of the "Greenest and Meanest" cars, says the CNW study contradicts many other studies, including those conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Carnegie Mellon, Argonne National Labs, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others that place the green-friendliness of the Prius and other hybrids head and shoulders above many other vehicles and certainly the Hummer.

Spinella is "way off the mark," says Kliesch, and scolds CNW for not having "Dust to Dust" peer-reviewed for accuracy. "If you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on their claims," he says, "you’ll find that it takes about $286,500 in energy to produce and assemble a Prius, [which is] absurd."

Toyota itself also disputes CNW’s findings. In a short rebuttal published in The Washington Post, Toyota vice-president Irv Miller said that the increased energy requirement to build a hybrid with two engines under the hood "is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage."

A controversial study claims that the gas-guzzling Hummer is kinder to the environment than the fuel-sipping hybrid Prius. But its conclusions are overwhelmingly contradicted by many other studies that place the green-friendliness of the Prius head and shoulders above many other vehicles including the Hummer.

Contacts: "Dust to Dust," cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/; ACEEE, aceee.org.

Got an Environmental Question? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: EarthTalk@Emagazine.com. Read past columns at: emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Dear EarthTalk:

How can ordinary people convince corporations to behave more responsibly toward the environment? — James B., Bridgeport, CT

Beyond the simple exercising of one’s own purchasing power, there are many actions consumers can take—and organizations and resources available to help—to pressure companies to green up their ways.

A good first step is to research the environmental records of companies involved in the industries that matter to you. The websites BuyBlue.org and alonovo.com evaluate companies according to various "green" criteria. And Co-Op America makes available online its Guide to Researching Corporations, which points to information on everything from corporate product safety records to animal testing policies to activities that impact everything from rainforests to the air quality in minority neighborhoods.

Co-Op America also works at the cutting edge of consumer activism, pushing companies into "doing well by doing good." Its "Adopt-A-Supermarket" campaign uses the power of individuals to pressure grocery stores into carrying more "Fair Trade" items, products including coffee and chocolate made by companies that commit to sustainable environmental practices and guarantee workers fair wages. At Co-Op America’s website you can download a campaign guide that provides background on the issue and tips on how to form an "adoption team" of concerned citizens that makes regular visits to educate store managers.

Another effort, "Be Safe PVC", conducted in partnership with the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, encourages major companies to phase out their use of the highly toxic plastic, polyvinyl chloride (PVC). They’ve already convinced Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Victoria’s Secret, and Bath & Body Works to phase out PVC in their packaging. Other Co-Op America successes include persuading Sempra Energy, the parent company of Southern California Gas and San Diego Gas & Electric, to abandon plans to build coal-fired power plants in Nevada and Idaho, and convincing the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw a proposal to deliver all residential mail in blue plastic bags, similar to those used for newspapers.

Another group, Ecopledge, recruits consumers to sign "pledges," which demand specific improvements to companies’ environmental behavior and promise to cease doing business with the firms in question if they do not make efforts to green their practices. Armed with such pledges, Ecopledge has succeeded in convincing Dell and Apple to reduce the amount of e-waste they generate, getting ConocoPhilips and BP to drop out of Arctic Power (a lobbying entity pushing to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling), and working with Staples and Office Depot to craft green-friendly paper sourcing policies.

Ecopledge is currently working on a campaign to pressure major rental car companies, including Enterprise, Hertz, Cendant and Vanguard, to buy and rent cleaner cars, an effort, they say, that would save 500 million gallons of gasoline, reduce CO2 emissions by 14 billions of pounds, and save American drivers some two billion dollars in gasoline expenses every year. They are also pressuring major meat producers, including Premium Standard Farms, Smithfield and Tyson, to clean up hog and other animal waste that is causing widespread damage to the environment and human health in their areas of operation.

"Consumer pressure persuaded ConocoPhilips and BP to drop out of a lobbying group that was pushing to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil
drilling."

Contacts: Buy Blue, buyblue.org; Alonovo, alonovo.com; Co-Op America, coopamerica.org; Be Safe PVC, besafenet.com/pvc; EcoPledge, ecopledge.com.

Got an Environmental Question? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: EarthTalk@Emagazine.com. Read past columns at: emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

[Click here, for more resources]

Back To The Top