The best MPG of my Prius is indeed not spectacular, but there are a few things to consider.

A. It’s petrol which is cheaper, cleaner to burn, produces less CO2 and could take a lot less energy to make.

B. Mine is the MKII, the latest one is more economicak, bigger, nicer and quite a bit faster.

C. And this is the biggest difference – when you start driving round town in traffic that might only drop to 55mpg. My Passat can do 60mpg on the motorway but that can drop to 38 or so in heavy traffic. The trip to my folks went through hereford which was busy, would have trashed the average in a diesel. If you get stuck in a motorway traffic jam in my Prius less than 20 mins or so the MPG actually goes up.

I CAN get 50 in the Passat in town but only if it is open suburban stuff. I will definitely get at least 52 in the Prius even if it’s solid traffic, cold and hilly.

You will certainly suffocate if it is present in large enough quantities, but the amount needed to do that isn’t what would normally rate a substance or gas as toxic; it certainly isn’t poisonous or carcinogenic which is what one would usually associate toxic as being.

People like the OP annoy me, there is evidence for CO2 being toxic.

http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~choi/MSDS/Airgas/CARBON%20DIOXIDE.pdf

Clinical studies involving test animals exposed to high concentrations of Carbon Dioxide indicate teratogenic effects

bwaarp

Thanks for the link, very informative.

It does actually state;

REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY INFORMATION: Listed below is information concerning the effects of Carbon Dioxide on the
human reproductive system.
Mutagenicity: Carbon Dioxide is not expected to cause mutagenic effects in humans.
Embryotoxcity: Carbon Dioxide has not been reported to cause embryotoxic effects; see next paragraph for information.
Teratogenicity: Carbon Dioxide is not expected to cause teratogenic effects in humans. Clinical studies involving test
animals exposed to high concentrations of Carbon Dioxide indicate teratogenic effects (e.g., cardiac and skeletal
malformations, stillbirths).

So it’s not expected to be teratogenic to humans? Probably because the levels at which it would may have caused the mother to suffocate first? Therefore I’m not sure why my statement should annoy you.

I have seen nothing to suggest CO2 is toxic to humans in the conventional sense of the word. Just about too much of anything will kill a person but when was the last time you were warned tap water was toxic?

The thread was started more off the back of the Green Wash type of thing – people are continually told something is Environmentally Friendly when it blatantly is not; these objects are then sometimes given “eco” labels which some people then translate as meaning we can have as many or use as much of them as we please without caring about their impact. It’s marketing BS and it annoys me, especially when it get’s rammed down my throat.

Thanks to all for your replies, some have provided food for thought and prompted me to read some interesting websites such as;
StopGreenWash

With regards to Prius vs other cars, in my opinion its about picking a tool for a job. I’d much rather have my old 2.5 litre V6 MG ZT but I’m now driving 450-500 miles a week so I swapped it for a 2004 407 1.6 HDI. Due to the mileage I’m now dumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere with the 407 than I ever did in the same timespan with the ZT yet the only tax I pay which is directly linked to CO2 emissions was £260 for the MG and £135 for the Pug. Where is the logic in that? Surely a CO2 emissions based tax should be added to the fuel – if you drive more, you pay more…

So it’s not expected to be teratogenic to humans?

There’s no evidence because no ones exposed pregnant mothers to high levels of Co2 during pregnancy in a study, due to ethical reasons.

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/4019_co2fact.pdf

Serious birth defects can result from acute exposure to atmospheres containing more than 10 percent carbon dioxide. However, applicators are not likely to encounter these levels if they use the fumigant products in accordance with approved labeling

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B50Jad7552MC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=%22carbon+dioxide%22+birth+defects&source=bl&ots=27zWRqjomE&sig=lvvOPwOthC1F5ny_gPMnxf2kgSM&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22carbon%20dioxide%22%20birth%20defects&f=false

How much are CO2 levels elevated in congested cities? It would not surprise me at all that any rise could contribute to an increase in birth defects among humans.

Also I’m not really a greeny, not because of the science (I believe most of it) but a host of other ideas and reasons.

Also I apologize for saying you annoyed me. You didn’t, I was just being a smart arse cock.

Surely a CO2 emissions based tax should be added to the fuel – if you drive more, you pay more…

It is or have you not noticed the tax on fuel.

The problem is the issues are not black and white (or green).

Half the time we use reusable carrier bags but other times I dont as it can’t be worse than buying bin bags.
The problem with most cars is the fact that they are used when they don’t need to be – expecting this statement to be quoted out of context.
I don’t care if a Prius will do 50mpg, if thats 50 mpg for 1 person then thats not good. An older car with 4 people is is better. Behaviours and habits need changing. Not driving the 50miles in the first place would be even better.

Public transport and rail need sorting out.

Cheers Molgrips, good break down!

Blimey.. a thread about greenwash even including Priuses , and it ends in cordial thanks and apologies fir any offence. What is STW coming to?

Blimey.. a thread about greenwash even including Priuses , and it ends in cordial thanks and apologies fir any offence. What is STW coming to?

Oh **** off you… 😉

BAN HIM!

It wasn’t of course, it was about helping the car industry. However, given that in normal economic conditions people would have been buying new cars at the usual rate, all it really did in terms of energy spent on new cars was reduce the DROP in emissions* that a recession would normally see.

Which was (is?) still a huge wasted opportunity to change people’s attitudes and actually do something real to benefit the environment by encouraging people out of their cars. Particularly given there is another driver in the (perceived) high fuel prices, which is certainly sufficient to make people drive slower.

Which was (is?) still a huge wasted opportunity to change people’s attitudes and actually do something real to benefit the environment by encouraging people out of their cars.

Well ideally, yeah, but the recession was a sudden thing, and integrated transport policies take many years or even decades, and carefully planned well thought out long term planning. And motivation, which we don’t seem to have around here 🙁

Diesel may be better for the environment, but there’s growing evidence to suggest its screwing up our health…

File on 4 – Aug 7th

Just to throw a cat into the works…

I couldn’t agree more on the need for a proper combined transport solution. I commute into London and I have two options to use public transport (two different rail networks). I rarely use either because one route is substantially more expensive than running a car and renting a parking space next to the office, and the other is so much slower.

Whilst there are visible signs (in the SE at least) that public transport is improving the annual above inflation price hikes really don’t help. I’m not sure I can offer any possible solutions but one thing is clear; the government and local councils need to look past the short term and NIMBY issues that bog them down to try and insure they get re-elected.

Diesel may be better for the environment

It’s a tough one, overall. Generally results in less CO2 and less fuel used, but it’s bad for the local environment (as you say) and also it can involve splitting heavy oils to make, which takes a lot of energy. So it may not be better on CO2 anyway.

the government and local councils need to look past the short term and NIMBY issues that bog them down to try and insure they get re-elected

Yep. Transport policy desperately needs a long term non-political body to oversee it in the best interests of the economy and the people.

Wow! Top thread – educational, informative and polite! 😯
Feeling a whole lot more self congratulatory now, having walked into work.

Sadly, before we beat ourselves with the big green hammer there is the problem of the larger global issues to take a peek at – China is a nightmare of epic proportions against which most of what we can achieve by reducing car usage pales into insignificance.

Our industry has been getting itself into a real tizz about being green and the fact that ‘sustainable’ is a better word, is more inclusive and covers some of the points of environment in conjunction with economics and social.

If there is a Govt dep with a long term view, it should have a wider remit than just transport.

China is a nightmare of epic proportions against which most of what we can achieve by reducing car usage pales into insignificance

Well, not necessarily. Why is so much energy being used in China? To make the shite we buy from them, of course. And in any case, saying that someone else is worse is no excuse for being bad yourself.

There’s also the innovation aspect to consider. If we figure out how to make stuff with lower environmental impact or invent clean coal power stations, then the Chinese can buy or license it from us, where they might not have the incentive to develop it themselves.

Feeling a whole lot more self congratulatory now, having walked into work

I’d love to walk to work. It’d take about four days though.

EDIT: 40 hours according to Google, so maybe two and a half would do it.

Well, not necessarily. Why is so much energy being used in China? To make the shite we buy from them, of course. And in any case, saying that someone else is worse is no excuse for being bad yourself.

Bit of a sweeping generalisation re China’s output. It may have been true a decade ago, but as China’s infrastructure and domestic economy increases much of the energy consumption is now being used to satisfy that need.

Agree we do need to improve but we do need to look clearly at the relative situation and try to help emerging economies mitigate the effects of their own passage through an “industrial revolution”.

I have a kettle that was marked as environmentally friendly. It even had instructions to explain that I could boil only the water I need not fill it each time 🙄

I also feel better about walking to work, I would ride but the bars wont fit down the stairs to the office in the basement 🙂 and stopping to open the door doubles the commute time.

On the down side I fly everywhere else I have to go for work

try to help emerging economies mitigate the effects of their own passage through an “industrial revolution”

I think we are, aren’t we? And China do seem to care a bit, whilst still wanting development.

Obviously that’s not to say nothing further needs to be done, of course it does.