-
RSS Subscribe
-
Books
Luis Palau
The Law of Unintended Consequences
QUESTION: What do the following people have in common?
Gail Reuderman Feuer, Cameron Diaz, Leonardo Di Capro, Carole King, Billy Joel, David Duchovny, Patricia Arquette, Jackson Brown, Bill Maher, Larry David, Woody Harrelson, and Many Others
ANSWER: They are all Socially Conscience people
HOW DO I KNOW?: They have all purchased Prius Hybird Cars to complement their desire to reduce Global Warming by reducing CO2 emissions. HERE Have you ever seen these dumpy little cars? Check above left. They are not the type of vehicle these people are accustomed to driving. But the sacrifice is worth the effort, right? Actually………….wrong.
According to Chris Demorro staff writer on the “Record” of Central Connecticut State University “The 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.” The problem is that each one of these people made a major mistake and have purchased a car that while claiming to be easier on the environment is in fact worse on the environment than a Hummer………and have paid a premium in order to assert that claim.
God bless them for the sentiment so they get an A for effort but F for results. Maybe I have been too close to this subject lately, but I think I wrote one reply to a comment on a previous post that I think applies here and went something like this.
“So often good intentions in reality have unintended consequences that are worse than the problem they are trying to solve.” Such is the case here. It seems that when the Life Cycle Costs of the vehicles are evaluated (from resources, production, usage and span of service) this green car is among the worst polluters of all vehicles. When all this is taken together the Prius utilizes 50% more carbon emitting energy than the Hummer. So now all you CO2 conscience people can now line up for a Hummer knowing that you are doing more for the environment than this star studded list of celebrities. For the full story read the article titled “Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage” from the “Record” at Central Connecticut State University HERE reporting on a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust.” HERE
The best the report debunkers can say is this:
”On the face of it, the report appears to be an extensively researched study, all 450+ pages; however it quickly becomes apparent that it provides no evidence whatsoever to back up its assertions. They claim to have nearly 4,000 data points on each of more than 300 models of vehicle. However, none of this data is actually included in the report, and there are no referenced sources, making it impossible to judge the quality of the data used.”
To debunk the debunkers I would say that it would not be common to include the raw data of research as part of the final report (even if it is 450 pages). They admit it appears to be an extensive study but complain that the data points aren’t included. There is no comment as to whether they attempted to contact CNW Marketing to evaluate the raw data, but any effort to debunk something like this would require the debunking party to attempt to get the data from the authors of the report and so state in their analysis. For further evaluation of the Debunkers go the Alliance Against Urban 4X4’s blog HERE.
comments
10 Responses to “The Law of Unintended Consequences”
Leave a Reply
Always beware of the law of unintended consequences! I work that law in whenever I teach Junior Achievement classes to teens. Politicians are notorious for only thinking one step ahead and ignoring that changing one thing leads people to reconsider other decisions.
It will be interesting to see where this all settles out.
Neil…..they may get an A for effort and F for results, but I have to give them another F for trying to run their illconcieved decision down everyone elses throats as though they are the only ones with any insight into these urgent world matters. Lets see 2 F’s and 1 A = 1.3 GPA (pretty much a low D across the board)…………………steve
Neil, Also I remember some time ago now when the Democratic Congress during the early Clinton Administration decided to “tax the rich” and the way they were going to do this was to put a heavy tax on aircraft and yacht sales. They took in very little tax on this but consequently cost the industry something like 20,000 jobs and a near eradication of the small aircraft industry as well as major damage to the boating industry. This was no problem for the “rich” because they could buy aircraft and yachts built in Europe and Japan. The problem with the left is they think they can raise taxes and get a direct mathematical expansion of Federal Revenues. This is what is know as “static analysis.” It doesn’t take into consideration the “behavior” of individuals given the tax laws. In this case the behavioral change was to purchase these little toys elsewhere. Eventually this tax was overturned and the industries started a “comeback.” A proper evaluation of the situation would have told them that they need to be concerned with how the tax code incentivizes conduct. This is called “Dynamic Analysis.” When ever this is raised to the Democrats in Congress they scoff at it, never learning from the experience of the past. Probably the real reason is that it wouldn’t sell well to their primary constituency. But this is another perfect example of the “law of unintended consequences.” ………steve
I do like that these stars (who we are always critical of - me included! ) at least got an A for effort, because even though I’m not a fan of mr. dicaprio, I do think his effort is genuine as he generally leads the way on these types of things. Truthfully, it would be hard for anyone to realize on the surface that these end up being more harmful to the environment. I’m a little confused on it myself. I guess i would probably have to see it visually as I’m a very visual learner. Someone draw it out please
On the other hand- if you could care less about the environment but want to save on gas… they are still a good purchase right?
one more thing. if Hollywood is so into these it may be a good idea for the car manufacturers to glam the look up a little… or even keep it minimalist, but use silhoette/ colors that are more aesthetically pleasing! Why does designing these types of cars always include tacky style?
MZ……….I also read another report and didn’t reference it here because it wasn’t germane to my post, but it indicated that the economic utility of purchasing the Prius (in order to save gasoline cost) would only be valid if you owned the car for a period of 5-6 years. Because of the premium you pay for the car, you need 5 to 6 years of gas savings to break even with premium you pay to own the car versus other cars in its class. It is at that point you begin to realize nominal savings. I say nominal savings because that does not included the carrying cost (interest or opportunity cost) of the premium on the purchase. This factor would stretch out the holding time to break even. In the case of the celebrities I doubt they would own this or any other single car for a period of time that exceeded 6 years unless it was a vintage car (like Jay Leno collects).
They are probably the result of computerized wind tunnel tests………….dad
Hi Steve,
Don’t forget replacement cost. Really, when someone in a Hummer runs over one of those tiny hybrids, they have to buy a whole new car, while the Hummer only requires a bit of body work.
the Grit
Hi Grit, ……. It is interesting you bring replacement cost (not to mention the replacement cost of the drivers as well) but it is part of the equation here. Where the Hummer (by experience) has a life span of 10 years, the Prius is much shorter, especially when taking that gigantic Nickle battery into consideration. When this sucker is replaced it really throws the numbers down hill. They have to ship the nickle all around the world for various stages of processing and (thankfully not processing in the USA because………..) it causes major (as an added bonus) environmental damage to the terrain around one stop on that journey which has been made to look like the dark side of the moon. We’d be better off disposing of Nuclear waste, by far. Read my second comment to Neil above that discusses the Unintended Consequenses of the Tax on Airplanes and Yachts. Same old same old………..steve
Zabs,
Someone suggested that the Prius looks that way to let everyone know that it is an eco-car and that the driver gets big gold stars for being earth-friendly.
You’re right - if you’re trying to save on gas, it’s a great car. You could also get a diesel.
All ~ well, the compact fluorescent lightbulb issue in California is similar. The things have mercury - which is usually not something you want a landfill or in 37 million homes.
Bridget, In order to even merely save money on the Gas (forget the environment) you will need to keep the car for a minimum of 6 years to amortize the premium and carrying charges of acquiring the car through gasoline savings just to break even. See note to MZ above. …….steve
Thanks for the great link. I guessed as much.
John (TT)……….You know, I knew myself that this thing didn’t add up, especially when I found out that it had a massive battery in it………….steve
Our neighbors to the North on the Prius/Hummer thing.
Prius worse than Hummer for the environment?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=776b286416a57dc91e20ac86e1ec070f&t=64448
plodon, yes I went to this link. The transportation costs of shipping that nickle all over the globe for processing and I forget off hand but one of those refineries have totally trashed the surrounding environment over a very large area where they are located, but thankfully for the Prius people this is not in the USA or else non Prius environmentally sensitive people would close the operation and there would be no car batteries at all.
“Where the Hummer (by experience)”
Steve - You’ve owned a hummer?
Mike, not very artfully stated, but the answer is no I have never owned a Hummer product nor driven one. What I meant by saying (by experience) was that the life cycle costs and environmental impact are not merely theoretical but a matter of record now. That is to say that we now have experience with these cars on the road and can evaluate the record in actuality, not just on paper.
Plodon above commented with a link that gives additional information about the nature of these costs and environmental impact as related to the Prius here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=776b286416a57dc91e20ac86e1ec070f&t=64448
……….steve
Amen
M2 ….. yep…….sc
[…] the Hybrids do more environmental damage than a Hummer. For those of you that missed it, check HERE. But we should give some grace to John since most all of the Democratic contenders seem to love […]
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]