digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at ecogeek.org

Prius tops 1 million sales, reduces carbon by 450 M tons

ecogeek.org — Well, the prius has definitely hit a milestone for itself, as if its success wasn't already a milestone for the industry.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • davidmesaaz, on 05/25/2008, -16/+22Isn't free trade great...
    • t0x2c, on 05/25/2008, -16/+4I'll digg anyone who replies to this comment.
    • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -5/+9yes, yes it is
    • Laminarcissus, on 05/25/2008, -3/+8I'll have one-hundred fifteen Chinese people digg anyone who replies to this comment for half of whatever t0x2c is offering.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2So long as they dont tax the GM volt coming on the Horizon, yes it is.

      Go GM and A123 !!!
    • Charlotte_Web, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4I'm willing to bet the story doesn't take into account all of the additional carbon emissions resulting from the manufacturing of the batteries for the hybrids. Wired Magazine estimates that you would have drive the hybrid for 100,000 miles just to break even on carbon emissions, versus buying a traditional economy four cylinder ICE auto.
      • yaddayaddayoda, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1"Embedded energy." CFL bulbs have this phenomena to some extent, too.
  • scamerica, on 05/25/2008, -57/+19Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

    Guess he never met these guys:

    Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
    Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
    Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
    Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
    Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."
    Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
    Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."
    Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
    Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."
    Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
    Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
    Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."
    Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
    Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."
    Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
    And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers
    • monoa, on 05/25/2008, -10/+391. Many of the people you list are taken from the discredited Heartland list - http://www.desmogblog.com/distinguished-scientist- ...
      2. Who do we believe? The handful of contrarian scientists you keep listing or the *thousands* of scientists who say catastrophic climate change is happening and is mainly due to human activity? Spend some time thinking about that one.
      3. "With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
      4. A detailed look at your list:
      * Dr. Edward Wegman, a mathematician, said "We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise."
      * Dr. David Bromwich - his research is based primarily on single site assessments at Amundsen-Scott Research Station. He does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
      * Prof. Paul Reiter has not denied the reality of global warming, he has merely questioned the relationship between it and the effects on mosquito-borne diseases. He sits on the council of an organization called the 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil.
      * Prof. Hendrik Tennekes is an aeronautical engineer. His opinion matters why?
      * Dr. Christopher Landsea has said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades ..., and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."
      * Dr. Antonino Zichichi has made a career out of controversy. He is widely ridiculed in the scientific community for his error-strewn publications.
      * Dr. Richard Lindzen is also a member of 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which receives major funding from ExxonMobil. He also works for 'Cato Institute' - again funded by ExxonMobil.
      * Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is criticised by Professor Hans Oeschger who says that some of Jaworowski claims are "drastically wrong from the physical point of view".
      * Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu - "it is in the best interests of mankind to reduce the rate of increase of our release of CO2 ... Prominent climate change is in progress in the Arctic"
      * Dr. Claude Allegre - 20 years ago in "Clés pour la géologie", he wrote "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature...". He now says "The cause of this climate change is unknown".
      * Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov - his claims that solar activity is the main contributor to climate change have been discredited - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb ...
      * Dr. Richard Tol, an economist, does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change, he has merely debated the economic impact.
      * Dr. Sami Solanki - "since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
      * Prof. Freeman Dyson - "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
      * Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change and does not suggest that the sun "could account for most of the warming" - http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html

      So, your entire list is composed of lies, misquotes and discredited claims. If you keep pasting it, it makes you dishonest. Or stupid. Or both.
      • DesignNerd, on 05/25/2008, -2/+7all these lists sure are boring.
      • MattNF, on 05/25/2008, -6/+23Holy *****, you just completely destroyed him.
      • crazyjake, on 05/25/2008, -7/+3actually you probably conveniently don't know that your list of "thousands of scientists" contain many scientists who petitioned to have their name taken off of those lists. if you watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" you will actually hear from REAL CLIMATOLOGISTS that were put on the list by the IPCC when they completely disagree with manmade global warming.

        please stop pushing your ignorance on the general population!

        p.s. i am an actual meteorologists who studies climatology as part of my job.
        • petrodollar, on 05/25/2008, -2/+8"p.s. i am an actual meteorologists who studies climatology as part of my job."

          Liar. Meteorology and climatology are two entirely different subjects that bear very little relation to each other. You might as well ask a stock trader to expound on keynesian theory.

          And if you were any kind of scientist you'd know that the scientific literature is in almost universal agreement that human activity is impacting the climate. There are like 3 peer reviewed studies that refute this assertion and about 1000 that support it. You want to roll with .3% odds, mr. science guy? What scientific theory says that, when faced with a 99.7% chance of irreversible harm, it's wise to do nothing on the off chance that you stand a .3% chance of being wrong?
        • Nitrodist88, on 05/25/2008, -3/+4Wow, so like 10 people want their names off == BIG NEWS OMFG YOU'RE TOTALLY WRONG.

          Get a life, for *****'s safe.
        • crazyjake, on 05/25/2008, -2/+2"Liar. Meteorology and climatology are two entirely different subjects that bear very little relation to each other. "

          are you serious?!?! are you freaking serious?!?! Why then do we have both meteorologists focusing more on forecasting and climatologists in the same building, and we all go through the same shift change and constantly metcon with each other. i guess we don't know how to do our job then.
          And about your .3%, would you say the same thing if you went back into the 70's to defend the global cooling scare?

          have you ever seen large term temperature graphs vs CO2 vs sunspots vs cosmic radiation? and i guess you didn't know about the 800 year average lag the atmospheric CO2 has behind temperature due to the latent release of CO2 from the oceans.
        • petrodollar, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3" would you say the same thing if you went back into the 70's to defend the global cooling scare?"

          Hey, dumbass, are you really that thick that you think there was a consensus on this point in the 1970s?

          http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2 ...

          "But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming."

          Whoops, looks like an amateur digger just pantsed a 21 year-old dufus who claims to be an authority on climate science. So we've gone from 86% odds in the 1970s to 99.7% percent in 2008. How do you like your crow?

          "have you ever seen large term temperature graphs vs CO2 vs sunspots vs cosmic radiation?"

          Yes. I also know that there are no peer reviewed studies stating that cosmic radiation or sunspots are causing global warming. For an alleged scientist, you seem awfully quick to put your faith in pop-sci pablum. What gives?

          "and i guess you didn't know about the 800 year average lag the atmospheric CO2 has behind temperature due to the latent release of CO2 from the oceans."

          And I guess you didn't know that effects can have multiple causes, and the fact that one thing caused warming in the past doesn't mean that another thing can't be causing it now.

          What the ***** kind of logic are you employing here, crazyjake? You seem to have about as a sophisticated a grasp of science and the scientific method as a four year old. Please list the names of your supervisors at the "building" where you work as a janitor so that I can email them a link to your vapid posts on this subject and have you fired.
        • monoa, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1crazyjake: "blah, blah ... "The Great Global Warming Swindle" you will actually hear from REAL CLIMATOLOGISTS that were put on the list by the IPCC when they completely disagree with manmade global warming."

          First, that TV program is one big lie. The first release was so bad they were forced to edit a lot of the content. If you'd spent a couple of minutes investigating the claims you'd have discovered that yourself. Instead, you've demonstrated your laziness, ignorance, gullibility and credulity to the planet. The same TV channel showed a documentary that the moon landings were a hoax - do you believe that as well?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(televi ...
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warm ...

          Second, prove your claim. Name these scientists and provide links that show they disagree with every recognised scientific facility on the planet.


          crazyjake: "i am an actual meteorologists who studies climatology as part of my job."

          If you really are an 'actual' (different to normnal ones?) meteorologist, you need to spend some time reading up on 'scientific method' and 'peer review'. Then spend some time thinking why there is global scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Once all of that is in place, you'll be able to see why you're making yourself look really dumb at the moment.
    • petrodollar, on 05/25/2008, -6/+7This ***** has been debunked about a thousand times already. Stop wasting everyone's time.
    • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -5/+3and your point is?

      so even if global warming was some kind of horrible hoax to get us to be mroe responsible people so what?

      but regardless, even if not saving us from global warming, they are saving us from extra fuel consumption.

      oh and they help make my rent, so keep buying em up everyone!
    • mywhitenoise, on 05/25/2008, -0/+9Whether global warming is real or not, it's still stupid to over consume, and be wasteful. No good comes out of it.
      • Indierocka, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Thank you, whatever happened to living within our means?
    • Indierocka, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2If you're going to write an essay, write an essay and post it. Buried
  • Digitalfilm43, on 05/25/2008, -2/+29"Good for you!"
  • cappa1983, on 05/25/2008, -7/+34Say what you want about the design or the fact that America still actively participates in creating gas guzzlers in the hopes that American's will still continue to buy them, the car is a great gas saver, and for a person like me, who has to drive 50+miles each way, it's turning from a choice into a necessity.
    • DontGiveADamn, on 05/25/2008, -12/+5So you're the problem.
      • ace429k, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4think of the solution, not the problem! :D
    • mike17032, on 05/25/2008, -14/+5Of course living closer to work would save you even more gas.

      Then you could drive a car with more horse power than your average lawn mower.
      • ace429k, on 05/25/2008, -1/+8yeah but my lawn mower doesnt have cup holders.
      • mywhitenoise, on 05/25/2008, -2/+1I've driven 100MPH in my Prius (just to test it out, only pricks speed), I think I remember Gores son being pulled over for doing the same. If my Prius is comparable to a Civic, I don't see what the problem is.
        • DarkShroud, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1The problem is at higher speeds the Prius actually gets bad gas millage. The Prius works in a limited driving model that does not fit a majority of Americans. If you drive at higher speeds that do not use the limited electirc engine you get poor gas millage due to the small engine that while capable of high speeds will need to suck gas to reach & maintain them.

          The Chevy Tahoe Hybrid is a better fit for the average American. Of course electric only cars are the best over all for standard driving.
        • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1oh you mean the same chevy hybrid using old toyota tech?
      • msflower97, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Our Prius has a lot more punch than the Saturn SL1 I usually drive. The Saturn coughs if the AC is on -- which, in Florida, is most of the time. No such issue with the Prius.
    • dsmx, on 05/25/2008, -3/+4Or you could buy a VW golf and get 70 mpg. Prius is a bit thirsty.
      • charlie55, on 05/25/2008, -4/+5any small and efficient used car is better than a prius. it takes lots of carbon to build new cars. better to recycle, and buy used toyota tercels and such. but you get to feel less smug with those.
      • Hamletlere, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4Honestly, you get 70 mpg in all situations? City driving as well, or is that just the best milage seen on highway driving?
      • elTito, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3Diesel is 25% higher per gallon where I live and diesel exhaust is horrendously polluting.
        • DarkShroud, on 05/25/2008, -2/+1Then use Bio diesel. It will run in the vehicle without requiring any modifications.
        • bindermichi, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3The exausts depend of the kind of diesel they're selling at your place and the age of the engine. Modern diesel engines are pretty clean.
      • scotticus, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3Yeah, but then you're driving a golf. I like the prius because it's roomy. I just wish it came plug in... soon I guess.
      • aDJsavedmylife, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1The Golf is way smaller, thats like comparing the consumption of a radio controlled car to a tank.

        The equivelant car in the VW range in terms of size is probably a Passat which gets around 30mpg.

        Oh and the Toyota Aygo, Peugeot 107 and Citroen C1 get better MPG than a Golf BTW. :)
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/25/2008, -6/+4Okay I will say it...its ugly...
      You know how you can beat the MPG of it and drive something that looks good?
      Slow down when driving....get a scangauge and try it.
      • Alias12, on 05/25/2008, -3/+3I too used to think they were sinfully ugly, I changed my mind when I started driving. Its a fun car to drive.
      • msflower97, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I thought they were ugly till I saw one up close...it was better than I thought. Then I test-drove it. SOLD!

        p.s. The first generation Prius was truly ugly as sin.
    • Laminarcissus, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3I really want to get one, but do they come with manatee-leather seats?
    • DarknessGP, on 05/25/2008, -4/+2Is it a great gas saver? According to the EPA rating, the Prius gets roughly 46 mpg. A 50cc moped can get around 80... Seems the Prius isn't as green as a moped. My main problem with these people going on about being green is how green is green? Is a more energy efficient and safer enviromental car going to come out to where we don't consider the Prius green anymore?
      • scotticus, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Hopefully. And hopefully the Prius will continue to evolve into something even greener.
        • DarkShroud, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1There are already better hybrids out. For starters any of the stock plug-in hybrids that don't require any gas at all.
        • scotticus, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2There are better looking hybrids for sure, but the Prius gets the best fuel economy (among hybrids of course).

          And there aren't any commercial plug ins available yet, although you can buy conversion kits for about $10k.
      • aDJsavedmylife, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3are you mentally ill?

        You're comaring the consumption of a 2700lb car to a moped that weighs around 200lbs (less than 10%).

        If the moped was proportionally more efficient wouldn't it be doing around 500MPg?

      • Vet4Peace, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2Um, yeah...a moped uses less gas than a car. Thanks for taking the time to fill us in...
      • willfe, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2A Prius can hold more cargo and people than a moped. They are different classes of vehicle, and your comparison is apples-to-oranges.
  • vault, on 05/25/2008, -21/+14Ugliest car ever.
  • dognose, on 05/25/2008, -25/+14Ok, the thing still runs on gas and produces just as much carbon dioxide per gallon of gas as any other car. It only "saves" carbon by not being a bigger car.

    The fact is, you aren't saving the world by driving a Prius. You aren't even "reducing" carbon dioxide. Ride a bike instead.
    • Ortheos, on 05/25/2008, -1/+11"Ride a bike instead."

      And balance your groceries, the kids and any other knick-knacks on the top of your head as you ride.
    • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -1/+10it also saves by using less gas genius
    • sparrowkc, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4Ok, florescent lights still run on electricity and the coal burned for energy produces just as much carbon dioxide per watt as a regular bulb. It only "saves" carbon by not using as much power.

      The fact is, you aren't saving the world by using energy efficiently. I am unable to make the connection between using less energy and "reducing" carbon dioxide. Light candles instead.
      • GlassAgate, on 05/25/2008, -1/+5Hmmmm....candles are made of wax. Where does
        wax come from? Petro, right? How much energy is
        needed to make the candles?
        • tremor_tj, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1Really? REALLY? wow. You win the interweb.
        • GlassAgate, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2The interweb. Is that another name for "internet"?
          Since I won it, it becomes mine. Now, I can tell
          people how to use it. If they oppose, then they will
          be punished.

          All websites shall contain at least one link to a YouTube
          video featuring cats and/or kittens.

          The punishment for the opposition of my rule shall
          be to include 10 links to YouTube videos. At least five
          must be feline related. The other ones must be a mix
          of cute animals, rare insects, and chemistry/physics
          demonstrations!

          This I command!
  • swordedge, on 05/25/2008, -7/+18It's still done backwards. The electric motor is way way way more efficient than that gas motor. It should propel it at all times, not just below 25mph. Use a much smaller gas motor to generate electricity if you go more than 30 or 40 miles. Or are they afraid of 60 MPG's?
    • chancechat, on 05/25/2008, -12/+2WRONG!!!

      Ultimately, all the energy in any hybrid comes from the gas. It is LESS efficient to convert all that chemical energy in the gas to heat to kinetic energy to the regenerative braking to the electrical energy to the chemical energy in the battery, and back to the the kinetic energy to propel the car. There is always energy lost in regenerating to the battery.

      In fact, the MOST efficient way to drive a prius to to hardly ever use the battery at all.
      • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -1/+10you do realise regenerative braking is using normally WASTED energy right? just making sure...
        • dagnome1984, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1If people drove a car without slamming on the breaks every five seconds and took routes that let them conserve kinetic energy than it would be even more efficient. Going from kinetic to electric to chemical, then back to electric to kinetic, saps a ton of energy.
        • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1again any application of the brakes uses normally wasted energy how is that inefficiant?

          you don't need to slam on the brakes to charge the battery, I'm not quite sure where you're train of thought comes from on the energy flow though.

          when you apply the brakes to enacts the regenerative braking (also sparing the brake pads) this in turn sends that electrical charge to the battery pack and as needed the electric motors access that energy.
    • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -1/+5Umm do you know anything about the Prius? They know the electric is more efficient which is why it's utilized most of the time and actually has two electric motors. When below 25 MPH it can run electric only, they're looking to up that speed with the 2010 Prius due this Feburary or so. Also they're not afraid of 60MPG since it was rated at 60MPG just 5 months ago and it's the same car. Blame the EPA for that one.

      They also have found going with a larger engine on the next version they got closer to 80 MPG (and that's under the new EPA testing), not a smaller engine.
    • twomeyw23334, on 05/25/2008, -3/+0The electric engine has its electricity generated from the gas engine, which is just as efficient as gas engines in other cars. The car is a small underpowered car, that, along with regenerative breaking is where the added gas mileage comes. The whole idea of a hybrid is that gas engines usually run most efficient at a "sweet spot" (usually ~2-3 1000 RPM. So the engine sits at its sweet spot generating electricity for the electric engine.

      You can buy a Honda Fit, and get very similar gas mileage for less than half the price if you know how to use a stick. You can keep the RPM in the sweet spot range, granted not as well as a hybrid, but you also don't have the loss for the electric generator and electric engine that a hybrid has, as well as the extra weight associated with those parts. Plus, you don't have the added complication (greater reliability) and the rechargeable batteries, which as much as many greenies like to ignore are really harsh to the environment.
  • DesignNerd, on 05/25/2008, -11/+6Prius tops 1 Million Sales, reduces carbon by 450 M tons, still looks like top half of a space hamburger bun. Good for you Prius! Keep on...hybriding?
    • crownedgriffin, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3I personally like the way the Prius looks. It gets terrible gas mileage compared to what it should though.
  • slayerab, on 05/25/2008, -23/+106Reduces 450M tons of smog, but its all replaced by smug...
    • 1randomguyO8, on 05/25/2008, -11/+50I think hummers, sports cars, and luxury cars produce alot more smug.
      • mike17032, on 05/25/2008, -10/+7But they have a good reason to. If your car can go 200 MPH, drive up a tree, or rubs and warms your balls for you as you drive down the road you have the right to be proud.
      • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -1/+12and a lot more penis envy
    • UNCsucks, on 05/25/2008, -4/+0I see what you did there.
    • LinkGCN4, on 05/25/2008, -10/+1Now, in addition to copying stories from Reddit, people can steal jokes too!
      http://reddit.com/info/6kl4g/comments/c0442y3
      • iSeven, on 05/25/2008, -0/+14The smug joke was created by South Park writers. Not Reddit commenters. So, your comment is invalid.
      • blackhydra, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Holy *****, you're an idiot.
    • suminona, on 05/25/2008, -1/+8Will you be here all week?
    • andytandreou, on 05/25/2008, -2/+2you watch too much south park... kindly piss off
    • phatvolvo, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1Your comment gave me 32 smiles per gallon.
    • Vet4Peace, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1The only smug I've seen in this thread has been from the knee-jerk, anti-environment tards.
      You know, like you.
  • TheMachine1, on 05/25/2008, -7/+5If CO2 is a real problem then mere reduction (hybrids) is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need more walking and eating road kill. Wait if we have more walking there will be more road kill. I think I just solved the entire energy crisis.
    • bxblox, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3wrong. If there is more walking then there is less driving, resulting in less roadkill...
    • GlassAgate, on 05/25/2008, -2/+2The "roadkill" would have been people killed by drivers, not
      animals killed by drivers. But since there would be less cars
      on the road, you would reduce the likeliness of being hit, not
      eliminate it.
    • Laminarcissus, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1C'mon admit it, you're high right now aren't you?
  • sockpuppets, on 05/25/2008, -5/+31Did the airbags deploy when it hit the milestone?
    • Emachine, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4It's too slow to have an airbag deploying impact.
      • msflower97, on 05/25/2008, -0/+0Too slow compared to what? Not my Saturn, that's for sure.
  • Papajohn56, on 05/25/2008, -13/+7If people didn't buy them at all and didn't buy any car, it would have saved even more.
    • mike17032, on 05/25/2008, -2/+9Of course we can take your idiot logic a step farther and just start killing all babies, think of how much less carbon we would make if no humans were around at all!
  • thefirelane, on 05/25/2008, -10/+14just imagine if it were a diesel and actually good for the environment.
    • nitemonkey, on 05/25/2008, -2/+3exactly
    • GlassAgate, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2Please, explain your reasoning.
      • elTito, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Umm....because higher nox and particulate emissions are better for the environment?

        Not to mention that diesel is significantly more expensive at the moment.
        • bindermichi, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Because the engine itself is more efficient than a gasoline one.

          The particles and nox are not a real problem for the new engines and the prices for diesel depend on the market and taxes.

          The only downside is that the engine is more expensive.
  • Farik, on 05/25/2008, -11/+15...and creates a dead zone surrounding the factory where the batteries are produced which is then used by NASA for rover experiments.
    • mriegger, on 05/25/2008, -4/+3Those moon buggy tests occurred in the 70s. You are referencing a college newspaper article that was debunked quite awhile ago.
      • jackelopeus, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4Actually I think its one too many episodes of Boston Legal.
  • tattertech, on 05/25/2008, -7/+20And what about the additional carbon from battery production? As wired said this month - you'd be more environmentally conscious buying a used card.
    • tattertech, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1heh.. err used car.
    • utahnkid, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2I kinda like card better..
      • tattertech, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1They are more fuel efficient...
      • elTito, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I think that's a bit of a canard. The supply of used cars is finite and if nobody ever bought a new hybrid then no new hybrids would ever be made and we'd never progress past where we are right now.
    • iainmd, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0Still, a new Prius is better than a new something else. I'm totally with you, though. Best choice: use what you've got. Next: buy used. Last: buy new. That's reduce and reuse.
  • Talic, on 05/25/2008, -6/+1Looks like a mudkip....
  • Weejay, on 05/25/2008, -9/+52The Prius is not that good, as it gets around 40 mpg when the Volkswagen Polo Diesel gets around 60mpg/70mpg.
    But of course it's not sold in the USA so it won't get any publicity.
    • LZeppelinJ0, on 05/25/2008, -4/+4That VW will actually be released to the American public sometime over the summer, I'm looking in to getting a hold of one myself
      • Weejay, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2That's a good thing, but as you know, it's not a BIG CAR and it's a diesel. Good luck marketing that in the USA.
      • geauxtig3rs, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4Nope, VW has no plans of releasing the Polo in the US as of right now.....now the jetta diesel is going to be released this july, but no polo...

        FYI I work for volkswagen.....

    • LeahPenguin, on 05/25/2008, -1/+6I currently drive a prius, and even though I don't get the 60-70 MPG you're talking about, it's still around 50 MPG in the summer.

      Admittedly it's pretty average in a northern winter... it averages out at about 35 MPG.
    • RoyHobbs, on 05/25/2008, -1/+6Except Diesel is up to $5 now.
    • blackdude, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2I'm sorry but it looks like crap, and you would get crushed like hell of super-suv-mom hit you in one of those. I'd still buy the Prius anyday over that.
      • bindermichi, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1According to ENCAP the 2002 Polo (4 stars) and the 2004 Prius (5 stars) only differ by 6 points (28:34), and the polo has been refreshed 3 times in the last 6 years, so the results should be better now.
    • elTito, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2The Prius gets 50mpg pretty easily with even the most basic application of pulse & glide techniques, being aware of traffic ahead of you and conservation of kinetic energy.

      Not to mention that even the new diesels are not as clean as the Prius in terms of nox and particulate emissions (as far as I know).
      • PixelMagic, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2People are too lazy for that....pfffffff.
        • msflower97, on 05/25/2008, -0/+0I've tried it in my (non-Prius) car, but unfortunately the gas engine insists on moving my car quite fast even when I take my foot off the gas -- takes too long to slow down on its own without me putting on the brake at least a few times. Bummer. Much easier to coast in a Prius which is basically not "running" at all when you take your foot off the gas.
        • elTito, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1In your non-Prius you need to pop the car into neutral when you want to glide. The real hardcore guys will turn it off completely, but I would strongly recommend against this, heh.
      • mrneutron, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1It's true. I've been getting 48mpg over the lifetime of my Prius, and I can get 52-53 without too much trouble.

        http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=psoqR1d-Myz ...
  • FuckXboxx, on 05/25/2008, -22/+16Global warming is BS...but gas prices aren't.
    • crazyjake, on 05/25/2008, -5/+3thank you!!!!

      not to mention that 450 M tons of carbon is nothing compared to the GIGATONS of carbon dioxide that plants and animals produce.

      bottom line, carbon dioxide is not even close to a determining factor in climate change. Carbon level increase throughout history has about an 800 year lag behind temperature due to the oceans (which are the biggest producers of carbon dioxide when warming).
      • bty2047, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2Ohh the carbon producing plants?
        • crazyjake, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1what about them?
        • GlassAgate, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3Unless I'm mistaken, plants recycle carbon dioxide,
          and give off oxygen.
        • GlassAgate, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Of course, these supposed "carbon producing plants" could
          be a sort of means of keeping the world's population in check.
          If the plants somehow determine that there are too many critters
          roaming the Earth, they all go into action.
        • crazyjake, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2most living plants convert CO2 into O2 yes, but decaying leaves among other decaying plants release CO2 directly.
        • grumpyrain, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2@crazyjake, you have things backwards.

          Plants do not generate CO2. At worst, the plant will release 100% of the carbon it absorbed over its lifetime during the decay process. How do you think coal and oil deposits originated?
        • crazyjake, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1@grumpyrain, you only listed one thing... and that wasn't even valid.

          i said "decaying plants release CO2 " i never said generate... sorry.
        • grumpyrain, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Lol

          > not to mention that 450 M tons of carbon is nothing compared to the GIGATONS of carbon
          > dioxide that plants and animals produce.

          Last time I checked "produce" and "generate" were much closer in meaning than "produce" and "release". The whole point of your original post seems to be that masses of animals and plants produce CO2.

          I correctly point out that CO2 is not generated, but because it seems I need to use the same words to avoid a semantic argument, I will rephrase.

          Plants to not produce CO2. At worst, the plant will release 100% of the carbon it absorbed over its lifetime during the decay process.

          Furthermore, land clearing releases a lot of carbon, no questions there. Decaying plants and leaf litter are replaced with new growth which absorbs carbon, so overall large groupings of plants (eg rainforests) are at the very least carbon neutral and are often carbon sinks with a net decrease on CO2.
        • crazyjake, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1correct, i should have split both plants and animals into separate statements as they do not produce the same amount of CO2. However, i forgot to mention that plant decay releases larg amounts of methane (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/Januar ... another greenhouse gas that is roughly 25 times stronger than CO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Methane_as_a_ ...

          but i digress from my first statement. CO2, or many of the greenhouse gases, do not play a large enough role in the global climate for human industry to be worried about it (for the reasonable foreseeable future). I am, however, as a nature lover very concerned with deforestation and pollution, and i believe that those should be focused on more.

          I like you. You bring up VALID points to consider without bringing a temper to the debate, hope to read your reply.
  • fahrvergnuugen, on 05/25/2008, -9/+16I wonder if it still counts as 450 M tons of carbon when you factor in the gigantic amount of Nickel that must be mined for the batteries. Check out Sudbury Canada on Google Earth if you want to see that environmental impact.
  • chakl, on 05/25/2008, -6/+11next we should do something for the real CO2 problem, Animal feces.. since after all humans and human invention only give off a tiny tiny fraction (.0002 %) of the real emissions.
  • 1randomguyO8, on 05/25/2008, -7/+4WIN/WIN situation good luck to toyota and prius owners.
  • SheilaNoya, on 05/25/2008, -4/+30So what happens when all of those batteries no longer hold a charge and they have to be replaced? I'm not bashing the Prius, I'm just curious how much you have to pay for replacements and what impact those used batteries have on the environment.
    • warlax27, on 05/25/2008, -0/+22They are covered by a 100k mile warranty and will be replaced for free....THANKSSSSSS!!! And on top of it the batteries are recycled and can be remade into new batteries.
      • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+14an 8 year 100,000k mile warranty, and in some states even longer.
      • elTito, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure my batteries are warranted for 10 years and 150k miles in California.
    • BlueSkyfish, on 05/25/2008, -0/+15The Prius uses NiMH batteries, which are easily recycled and do not have the toxicity of NiCd batteries.
    • SheilaNoya, on 05/25/2008, -0/+15Thanks to all of you who replied. I always wondered about that, so thanks for keeping me informed.
    • Laminarcissus, on 05/25/2008, -0/+17Well that was a civilized little exchange on the part of all involved.

      On behalf of the Digg community I thank you.
    • 2Deluxe, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1I'm finding it difficult to come up with a witty lolcaption for this thread :-{

      O WAIT! I'M IN UR CIVIL THREAD, MAKIN' IT INTERNETTEY.
    • Vet4Peace, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I've driven a Prius since 2001 and it has 140,000 miles on it. I haven't had to replace anything but a fuel pump yet.
  • pstroll, on 05/25/2008, -24/+2It's pronounced "Pry-Us" not "Pree-Us" you stupid American gits!
    • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+12You work for Toyota? Cause I'm fiarly certain even their own advertising refers to it as Pree Us. But good luck with that.
    • Laminarcissus, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1"a-lu-MIN-i-um" my ass...
  • socoolisme, on 05/25/2008, -4/+7Take that saudi arabia.
    • 1randomguyO8, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3lol I bet they are having a hard time atm with oil at over $130 barrel and production at 8+ million barrels a day.
    • Caliente, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4hahaha, the Prius is still 100% dependent on Oil f00l. Go back to school.
  • digitallysick, on 05/25/2008, -5/+2We can all agree its an ugly car, but its to the point that it doesn't matter anymore because of the huge gas savings. I checked the "prius gas calculator" it lets you compare your car/truck to the prius as far as gas miliage and total savings. I could save over $1,000 a year in gas. Only thing stopping me is i don't want another car payment, mine is almost paid for =(
    • mike17032, on 05/25/2008, -4/+3And how much will replacing all those batteries (that will wear out) cost you? Not to mention that it has two (pathetic and small) motors, so thats twice the stuff to break over time.
      • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -1/+5Wrong, but nice try. First the Battery, and all Hybrid components have a 8 year 100,000 mile warranty. In some states the Battery has an even longer coverage time.

        They tested the battery and it tested as lasting well past 10 years.

        If somehow you still need a battery in 8 years time by then I'd gather they're a lot more readily available with an increase in hybrid sales, therefore inexpensive.

        Also the Hybrid Synergy Drive has less moving parts than a gas engine. With the Camry as an example it has less moving parts then the 4 or 6 cyl version yet gets more horsepower and better MPGs.

        • DWalla, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1The cost/return ratio on a hybrid doesn't make fiscal sense. Hybrids cost much more than a regular gas engine. It's simple math really. I did it before I purchased my Toyota Matrix and found that unless I was saving at least $1,500 a year on gas that a Prius isn't worth the price difference. The difference for me would have been $250-350 in gas savings... hardly worth the $7k price difference I would have spent for a Prius.
        • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1You also have to look at maintnence costs, with so many more components being covered for such a long time long term care is all but taken care of.

          I should know, Toyota makes awesome products, so the Matrix was a good choice. It's not all about how much you save (although we recently had a guy buy one for less than his old trucks monthly gas bill) in gas, but long term cost as well.
        • xcheats, on 05/25/2008, -2/+1Explain to me how they are testing it and know they last past 8 years when the prius hasn't been out for even 4?
        • mywhitenoise, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1The Prius has been out since 1999 I believe. And there's Prius Taxi's that have hit 200,000 miles and only doing regular maintenance. Jack ass.
        • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1It's been sold in Amercia since 01 so 7 years on the road here and not one battery replacement at our dealership and this is Vegas where everyone goes through a battery on a nromal car once every other year at least.

          They also do stress tests on the batteries and components simulating years of useage brainiac and the test was "accurate" up to ten years and it far exceeded that limit.
      • chrispi, on 05/25/2008, -0/+0you're a ***** idiot. Enough Said.
    • executorzz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2I can buy a decent corolla for half the price of a prius and then invest the extra money in oil futures. I think that would beat the $1000 a year in gas savings.
      • msflower97, on 05/25/2008, -0/+0Way to support the governments that want to kill us...
      • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1not quite half, maybe 75% and even then you're comparing a difference in city mileage of 15 MPG
    • Loonatickle, on 05/25/2008, -0/+0People tend to drive more when they get better gas mileage. It's almost never cost-effective to switch vehicles simply to improve gas mileage. (Unless of course you're going from a 5,000 lb. Hummer to a scooter!)
  • mike17032, on 05/25/2008, -11/+12But the smug levels are off the charts.
    • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -5/+4someone beat ya to it, still not all that funny but continue driving trucks with nuts wishing your enzyte pills actually worked...
      • Badandy127, on 05/25/2008, -1/+0What a narrowly ignorant view of those who choose not to drive Prius's.
        • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1no just an acurate view of those who feel the need to make ***** up about those choosing to get twice the mileage of most consumer cars.
        • Badandy127, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0What are you talking about? You make some lame joke/generalization that's been used forever and think you're creative? Give me a break.

          Even with twice the mileage of most consumer cars, if the person replaced a perfectly functioning car for a Prius in order to conserve energy, they are doing a disservice to the environment.
    • Laminarcissus, on 05/25/2008, -1/+4As are the "EVERYTHING MUST BE WRONG WITH IT!!!" anti-brain brigades.
    • Vet4Peace, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1The only smug I've seen in this thread has been from the knee-jerk, anti-environment tards.
      You know, like you.
  • cadmiumpaint, on 05/25/2008, -5/+14Toyota proved what every other automaker said was impossible. That it is possible to build and that there is a demand for alternative energy cars, and the customers will pay a premium for something that helps the environment.

    The Prius will be looked back on as one of the biggest successes and innovations in automotive history. mark my words.
    • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3hell in California they're getting $8,000 over msrp for these right now. In Vegas we're getting $2,200 over.
      • Badandy127, on 05/25/2008, -0/+0Sorry, but you must SUCK at negotiating, because Prius's here (CA) can easily be obtained for sticker.
      • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1really? please go try and buy one period, much less for sticker since I have Californians ringing my phone off the hook trying to get a Prius from us to avoid the 5-8k markup.
  • matdevdug, on 05/25/2008, -9/+31WTF? These comments are mostly garbage. Global warming is real, its not a disputed fact in the scientific community at this point. You can argue about what the cause is but not the reality of the situation. The comments about how it would be better not to drive? Sure, but people can't bike 50 miles so its a moot point until we build more trains or come up with some magical way of transporting people from point A to point B. How about we recognize the Prius as a small step in the right direction?

    (.002 %) Please shut the ***** up with fake science. I agree with jentrax though, we need cars that don't run on gas.
    • UnWeave, on 05/25/2008, -5/+5It's not all *****, while I agree with everything you said, the Prius really isn't good for the environment due to its batteries and the nasty way they have to be produced.
    • DWalla, on 05/25/2008, -5/+7Actually... it IS a disputed subject by thousand of credible scientists. It's disputed on many levels. Some believe that the warming is only a natural cycle, others believe it's man-made, others don't believe it's happening at all and claim there hasn't been any warming on a global scale for 7 years.

      http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000006737 ...
      http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm
      http://petitionproject.org/
    • utahnkid, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4Whether you agree with man-made global warming or not, saying that either side is "undisputed" is pretty ignorant.
    • iainmd, on 05/26/2008, -0/+050 years ago (not that long ago, we had most modern inventions except the PC), most working-class people didn't own a car. It's still doable for many (I'm certainly not saying all) people.
  • goodinohio, on 05/25/2008, -13/+10The US economy will crash and is in the process of crashing, "green fascism" and congress did us in.
    • PandarenLord, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1what the hell?
      • bindermichi, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I think he' onto something. The US financial and house market is pretty much done for, consumer markets are going down...

        The only thing that's holding the Dollar currently is global trade, and Europeans and Asian companies are switching to Euro to save money on trade relations... doesn't look too good.
    • Vet4Peace, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah, it's the damned, dirty hippies who are crashing the environment.
      Spending nine-hundred bazillion dollars on a stupid-ass war had nothing to do with it.
  • Ortheos, on 05/25/2008, -8/+2It's all capitalist economics really. Cars still run on internal combustion engines because companies selling the fuel source are still making money.

    Capitalism is greater than logic. If you're going to hang yourself, you might as well try selling the rope afterwards. Profit is greater than all.

    Profit < there is your problem. Destroy the capitalists, revolution is at hand. etc etc.... ideological babble...FREEDOM!

    • PussInBoots, on 05/25/2008, -3/+1It's not capitalist economy, it's good job of lobbying:

      Group of scientists create a kick-ass electric battery that lasts for 200 miles of driving. They need support/loans/subsidies from banks and gov'. Big oil company comes over, crushes/destroys/buys out the business.

      That's it
      • DWalla, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3Source please.
      • GlassAgate, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Citation!
        Anywho, I smell a conspiracy theory.
      • disappointment, on 05/25/2008, -0/+0Why ask for sources when you can continue paying homage to the Big Business conspiracy?
    • utahnkid, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Capitalists are you and I, they aren't some company or thing. You expect a greedy, imperfect, self centered animal like a human to just do things because it's "right"? You're not just talking about how our economy works, you're talking about how the human mind works. Capitalism IS greater then logic because thats how people think. Capitalism wasn't invented by any one person, it's been created by mankind as our civilizations have advanced. It's what we the people have chosen it to be. If you ever want to learn about humans and their behaviors then take any marketing class.
      • Badandy127, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1But..but...isn't socialism better?

        I mean, what good has economic competition ever accomplished?

        /being a ***** idiot
        • Ortheos, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1"what good has economic competition ever accomplished?"

          Monopolies?

          Eventually there is a victor who gobbles up all the rest and starts to influence the very government that governs how you live your life. Is that a good thing?

        • Badandy127, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0Because when I defend something, I'm defending every aspect of it. *roll eyes*

          Monopolies are sometimes very good for us, such as the monopolies that are created when patents are granted or when there are government sponsored monopolies. Sure, things can go wrong in both those instances, but you must have no economics background if you think monopolies are solely a bad thing and competition doesn't do much for economies.
      • Ortheos, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Yes, capitalism is borne out of primal instinct. The urge to compete (in this case economically) is strong in us all. That is why we should alter our thinking, either through education or direct genetic alteration, because it is starting to become a destructive force in the world. We are like a virus that has spread out of control.
        Sure it has led to our success as a species, however, it may destroy us in the most basic way possible, we may literally compete ourselves to death.
        When a virus kills a person, and there is no other host around, that virus dies too. That person is earth. It is all we have.
        I'm okay with unbridled capitalism if we can get our arse to mars or something. Until then, while we are stuck on this world, consuming it's resources at an alarming rate, it is time to reconsider our way of thinking. To control our primal urges. To reach a higher plane of civilization, where every individual considers the greater whole, not just the immediate environment around them. Granted to do that first we need to get the 3 billion people currently mired in poverty to live as we do. Sadly thats not possible. Not enough resoucres for 7 billion people to live as those in western europe do for example. We are heading toward self destruction. We must focus on alternate lifestyles, alternate worlds, or perpetual cycling conflict.

        Choose your destiny. Sadly, it seems we are heading towards perpetual conflict, whether you chose it or not.

        • Vesper73, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Do you think that your line of reasoning hasn't been around for a long time? It tends to lead to totalitarianism. There will always be those who will exploit other people that are looking for the 'greater common good'.
        • utahnkid, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah exactly! We just have to change the very nature of human beings, great idea.
        • Ortheos, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Well, unchecked corporatism can lead to totalitarianism of the worst kind. Fascism. Corporate entities lobbying politicians for economic gains? Check. Entire political Campaigns funded by various corporate entities? Check. It's not looking good.
          Whats saving you from totalitarianism is the little bit of government regulation you Americans for example still have. There need to be checks and balances on economic activity, otherwise wealth breeds power and power breeds corruption.

          Also I was never for pure socialism, I'm for a mixed economic style, but a truly mixed style, not just on paper.
    • willaggs, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I really hate capitalism haters. First of all, much of the market is regulated by the government so we don't have abuses. Second, show me a socialist/communist country that has worked please.
      • Ortheos, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1China? Socialism with chinese characteristics :P I don't hate communism haters.
  • PussInBoots, on 05/25/2008, -2/+10"...vehicles in the same class and similar size and driving performance..." did they just say driving performance? Prius has no driving performance...
    • mike17032, on 05/25/2008, -0/+6I think he is comparing it to a moped, or maybe a kid on a huffy. It might be able to run with a Geo Metro, but thats not really a car either.
      • peterjmag, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2The Geo Metro is the only real man's car.
    • elTito, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3And you know this from first hand experience, no doubt, yes?

      I'll take my Prius over many other cars in the "driving performance" category any day.
    • legendxx, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1Not everyone can be as cool as you and peel out of every red light.
  • feliphe, on 05/25/2008, -3/+2It will be even better if they don't sale those 1 million cars!
    • KingPsyz, on 05/25/2008, -1/+2yeah a million H3s would have been much better! with plastic nuts on em!
      • bindermichi, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1I think it was more like not selling any 1mio cars
  • Hangly, on 05/25/2008, -5/+2You mean carbon emissions did not increase by a projected potential 450 M tons. Carbon emissions have not decreased.
  • shadowmoose, on 05/25/2008, -8/+11They still look ugly.
  • fredmv, on 05/25/2008, -18/+12But liberal-hippie douchebaggery is up 200%. Fix one thing, break another.
  • MasterTroll, on 05/25/2008, -10/+21Yeah, but it's ***** ugly.
  • WordsnCollision, on 05/25/2008, -13/+7One more step in what George Carlin calls "the pussification of America".
  • ptheroux, on 05/25/2008, -3/+13450 million tons sounds like a lot til you realize the mass of the atmosphere is 5.6 x 10^15 tons.
    • Typhoon2009, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1That's no atmosphere, that's my wife!
    • frelk, on 05/25/2008, -0/+3The entire atmosphere doesn't have to become CO2 to increase global warming. Trace amounts are enough. 450 million tons is a lot of CO2.
      • Badandy127, on 05/25/2008, -2/+0No, it isn't.

        That's the brilliance of trying to involve people in the give up your freedoms/ecological/global warming movement. You just say things like tons of CO2, millions of litres, but no one knows how much that is. "Oh, a couple million?! That sounds like a lot of CO2!".

        As you did state, however, the whole atmosphere becoming CO2 is not needed, as it only makes up .036% of the atmosphere if I'm not mistaken. Still, volcanic eruptions release far more CO2 than any human combustion, but you don't see that explained in your global warming...excuse me....climate change literature.
    • rugabug, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2You do realize that that 450 million tons in only 8x10^-5% of the total atmosphere right? While not HUGE an increase in CO2 is still an increase you don't want.
  • sofa0ne, on 05/25/2008, -1/+6So I have a couple questions and I really don't know where to find a solid answer, or sources that provide a good idea on what is actually worse for the environment. Google isn't really helping much either.

    On one hand you have nickel mining, battery production, Sulfur dioxide, on the other you have Carbon Dioxide and what goes along with a oil driven combustion engine. I don't totally buy into global warming but I will say that smog is smog and something needs to be done about pollution regardless of global warming and if we are causing it or not.
    • Laminarcissus, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Well, one thing I'll add is that carbon dioxide emissions continue as long as the cars are on the road.

      Over the long term, however, batteries will be recycled, and their production impact will decrease.
  • LinkGCN4, on 05/25/2008, -7/+2I already redd this yesterday. :(
  • FrankTheTank17, on 05/25/2008, -9/+2Yes, reduces carbon by 450M tons, also reduces the economy since everybody's buying foreign made goods...
    • hammerpants, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5...sold in America to commute Americans to their American jobs in American cities, taxed in America, serviced in America by American mechanics, resold in America.
      • FrankTheTank17, on 05/25/2008, -2/+1Yeah and guess where all of Toyota's money goes when they sell cars or parts, probably to their headquarters in Japan. Buying used Toyota's only raise Toyota's demand. You can't say being serviced by Americans because that has absolutely nothing with the model, it's going to be serviced by Americans regardless. And everything is taxed, welcome to America. Fact of the matter is, I hardly see why people complain about a weak dollar when they're over here sending all of their money outside of America, that's why I refuse to drive a non-US car.
        • jmpeagle, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1there are more American parts in a toyota than in a ford...and withing a couple of decades, Toyota will probably employ more people in the U.S. than they do already as they build almost all the cars in America (with the exception being the hybrids).

          Also, free trade makes everyone better off. America needs to shed hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs if we wish to have a growing economy in the future. Industrialization and huge productivity allowed us to eliminate millions and millions of agricultural jobs and the economy boomed because of it. Specialization increases productivity which increases living standrds. Believe it or not, hue structural shifts on the labor force help the economy.
        • FrankTheTank17, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1You know what, fine, if the majority of Digg disagrees with me I'm going to stop after I finish this post. First off, General Motors treats their employees much better then any other motor vehicle company. General Motors actually allows unions unlike Toyota. Workers in Toyota have been fired for simply organizing, want proof? http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103 ...

          Also I fail to understand how free trade helps us. All Americans have been doing lately is sending all their money overseas, just try and find American made clothes for example in a store. How is that supposed to help our economy. The reason our dollar's so weak is because we keep sending them out of our country. Funny how this is the worst our economy has been in decades and your over here saying "free trade makes everyone better off." Fine, go ahead, buy foreign made products, just stop posting articles on Digg about how high gas prices are and how bad our economy is when you're driving your foreign made cars wearing your foreign made clothes and using just about everything else that is made outside of America.
        • hammerpants, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1I have owned 4 US-made cars. After about 80,000 miles, they've each crapped out in some very expensive way or another. This time around, I did my research (Consumer Reports, Edmunds, car forums) and found that a foreign-made car was my best bet. Toyota is just making more reliable cars than the American cars in my price range. I'm not going to reward poor craftmanship just because the maker operates in the US. That's nationalism and not capitalism.
  • StingingNettle, on 05/25/2008, -4/+13How does buying a car reduce carbon emissions???
  • katorga, on 05/25/2008, -6/+16The nickel in Prius batteries is mined in Canada, shipped to China for the really polluting part of the manufacturing process, shipped all the way back to Germany for the high-tech part of the manufacturing process, then shipped all the way back, again, to Japan for final production of the car. The car is shipped back across the globe yet again for sale. That is FOUR trips around the world, per battery set per car. What a sham...my diesel rabbit in the early '80s got better mileage.
    • BlueSkyfish, on 05/25/2008, -0/+12As opposed to oil, which is extracted from Saudi Arabia, shipped to America, refined into gasoline, and driven to your hometown. Only one trip around the world.

      ...But the entire process is repeated every few weeks when you run out of gas. The Prius's battery is guaranteed to last for 8 years.
      • disappointment, on 05/25/2008, -1/+0Which also consumes the same oil, just at about half the rate.
      • willaggs, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1And why does everyone forget that hybrids still rely 100% on gas?
      • bubbadigg, on 05/27/2008, -0/+0do you have a laptop, a cordless drill, or any other "cordless" item using a battery? Do batteries ever last as long as they "guarantee"?????

        No of course not, but that's all part of the marketing hype... if they don't last, its because you didn't use them properly.... oh, BTW.... how much is that set of replacement batteries ??

        My gasoline corola gets 38 miles to the gallon on the highway... not how much better is that Prius -- really ????
    • peterjmag, on 05/25/2008, -1/+8You make it sound like they only ship one Prius at a time...
      • utahnkid, on 05/25/2008, -2/+2And you act like weight doesn't effect anything.. Because yeah man! PERFECT logic! You can ship 100 for the weight and price of one right? Getting 100 tons across the ocean is just as easy as 10 right?? Wow you're smart..
        • rugabug, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Sigh. The more items you ship at a time the less each individual item costs to ship.
        • Badandy127, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1Sigh all you want, but it seems you're ignorant the giant hypocrisy/ignorance of Prius owners thinking they are helping the environment. You'll see people with perfectly good 30 mpg cars go out and buy an entirely new car that gets 50 mpg, thinking their doing something good for the environment. That's ridiculous. You're not doing any good for the environment, because the amount of CO2 you'd save from just keeping your current car VASTLY outranks the CO2 savings you'd see from getting 50mpg as opposed to 30.
        • utahnkid, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Wow... we're not talking about monetary cost we're talking about environmental impact/cost. You must need some sleep with all that sighing and asinine logic.
    • scax330, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1Firstly, don't pretend that the Prius battery is the only auto part which is subject to globalized manufacture. Secondly, the path from Canada to China to Germany to Japan to the US is only about 2/3 of a circumnavigation around the world, at best. That honestly doesn't work much worse than the export Buick that wound up in China after export through Cali, assembly in the midwestern U.S. from sub assemblies in other states & mexico out of Steel refined in state X and mined in state Y.

      -scax330
      • utahnkid, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1Thanks for the signature man, I wasn't totally sure who wrote that..
      • willaggs, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1The point that you are missing is that hybrids need to do these things as well, but in addition also need batteries.
  • Labyrinth336, on 05/25/2008, -9/+2Sweet! and it only took a kajillion barrels to make!
    • Zanzabar33, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1dugg for the use of the word Kajillion
  • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/25/2008, -11/+6Ugly car....
  • gamerzfuse, on 05/25/2008, -12/+6Iiiiiiii'm Gay.
  • qaziop, on 05/25/2008, -7/+35My old science teacher once said:
    "I just got a Prius. I love it! Sometimes I just sit in my Prius and smile - because I'm saving the enviorment!"
    My god. I nearly broke out laughing right then and there.
    • vrich187, on 05/25/2008, -1/+3What a naive concept to think an ugly ***** car can "save" anything.
  • HotDogBun, on 05/25/2008, -15/+9Carbon reduced by 450 million tons, average penis length worldwide reduced 5 centimeters.
    • hammerpants, on 05/25/2008, -3/+12That's funny, when I see middle-aged men in giant gas guzzlers, I'm thinking it's overcompensation for something a little "lacking."
      • TheMachine1, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5Yeah the guy with the balls to drive a Prius is likely
        able to work in adult film industry.
      • Badandy127, on 05/25/2008, -1/+0Have there actually been studies on whether there is any compensating done? This seems to get perpetuated all the time, but it seems rather ignorant to assume just because someone told you. Personally, I think you bringing up the topic and displaying yourself as more socially acceptable and more...endowed...you are probably the one overcompensating.
    • kellyd42, on 05/25/2008, -2/+0My Prius performs beautifully. It flys up and down mountains at 80mph. Yes, there are many solutions being ignored currently due to corporate and political greed; however, it is too obvious to anyone paying attention that this is one of the best solutions out there currently. It gets about the same gas mileage as the European Smart Car (much better than the Americanized version), but the Prius has the interior space of a sedan. I do concede that it is ugly.
  • mastersquirrel3, on 05/25/2008, -1/+1http://youtube.com/watch?v=LmG05AtNVtM
  • Air420, on 05/25/2008, -8/+7Each one comes with a years supply of tampons.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.