Prius or Jetta: Which is Greener?

Hey Mr. Green,

I need to buy a new vehicle soon and am deciding between a 2010 Prius and the Volkswagen Jetta TDI Diesel Sedan, which just won Green Car Journal’s Green Car of the Year award. In your opinion, which car is better for the environment?

–Jonathan in Racine, Wisconsin

If you’re looking at the 2009 models, the Prius’s total carbon dioxide emissions are 4 tons per year, compared to 6.2 for a six-speed manual VW Jetta diesel according to the EPA. These numbers assume 15,000 miles per year, 45 percent in the city, 55 on the highway. The Prius also gets a better overall air-pollution score, because there are still some problems with diesel emissions, though the Volkswagen has made great strides in solving these. 

Regarding 2010 models, the EPA has not yet listed ratings for the Jetta but puts the Prius at a combined city/highway rate 50 miles per gallon, and only 3.7 tons of carbon emissions. I hope the Jetta will come close to that. So keep an eye on the EPA ratings at this link for the latest comparison; the site also lets you recalibrate these basic numbers to your personal auto use. For example, the Prius gets better mileage in town than on the highway, whereas the Jetta does better on the highway. So if most of your driving is on the open road, the Jetta could be a better choice. To find out more about how green any vehicle is, look at the EPA’s information at this link.

Granted, there’s been a lot of buzz about the Jetta because one guy got more 58 mpg driving a Jetta around the country, and some others have beaten the EPA rating. But unless you’re one of these “hypermilers” whose driving practices are enormously prudent, you probably won’t match this.

OK, I already hear howls of protest from people who don’t trust the EPA ratings because their cars go a lot better or worse than EPA claims they should. There are even some conspiracy theorists convinced that the EPA is plotting with some car makers to bestow favorable or unfavorable ratings.  But it’s more likely that the disparities result because the drivers of several hundred million cars in this country consist of both hyper- and hypo-milers. The hypos get rotten mileage mainly because they 1) drive too fast, 2) idle their engines excessively, and 3) neglect basic maintenance, like keeping tires properly inflated. All these can make a big difference in fuel consumption. Obviously, we should all strive to be hypermilers, and there are plenty of how-to-hyper ideas online.

My own experience suggests that bad driving explains much of the failure to match EPA ratings.  I haven't owned a car in years, but I do rent them. The various vehicles I've driven over these years have usually equaled or exceeded the EPA’s ratings (when I prorate their performance to account for disgraceful speeding, they still meet the standard). Admittedly, this is not a controlled experiment, but it does suggest that the disparity between rating and reality lies not with the EPA, but with ourselves.

Numbers to Get Others on the Bandwagon

Hey Mr. Green,

If you carpool to work, recycle and compost, ride a bike often instead of taking a car, turn off lights and electronic devices, don’t leave the water running when brushing your teeth, use reusable cups and plates instead of disposable ones, buy local organic products, and buy energy-efficient appliances, how do you tally that in trees saved or wildlife saved? I need to show the employees at my organization how much a few small actions can change the world for the better. I would like to use figures or stats to do so. Can you help?

–Ellen in Denver, Colorado

That’s a mighty tall and comprehensive order, but here goes: Regarding trees and paper, each person in the United States uses around 660 pounds of paper a year. Assuming the oft-cited 17 trees per ton of paper, this translates into about 1.2 billion trees that could be saved if everybody recycled. Of course, a lot of trees are already being saved because 57 percent of paper is already being recycled.
To be fair, I should point out that there are contrarians who claim recycling actually reduces the total number of trees because it increases paper supply, thereby reducing the economic incentive to plant more trees for pulp.

Regarding energy reduction, the average per-capita carbon dioxide emission in the United States is more than 20 tons per year. If your colleagues cut their energy use in half, which is easily doable by following your advice, they would make a huge reduction in this dreary exhalation, this sigh of a tired and clueless economy. Take the example of cars alone. We now burn about 140 billion gallons of gasoline in our cars per year. If everybody cut their automobile use in half by carpooling and biking, that’s at least 70 billion gallons saved, or 700 million carbon tons kept out of the air.

They’d also save a lot of money. The average car goes about 12,000 miles per year. If it gets 25 miles per gallon, that’s $1,440 at $3 per gallon. If people can get by without a car, they save much, much more, from $5,500 to $9,100 per year, since the cost of owning and operating a vehicle is 55 cents per mile for a small sedan driven 10,000 miles, and 91 cents a mile for an four-wheel-drive SUV.

The number of trees and creatures saved from this reduction is hard to determine, since we don’t yet know what effect global warming will have on populations of flora and fauna. But it sure would cut roadkill rates in half, which by some estimates nails about 1 million deer, 1 million small mammals, and probably many more birds than that (I can’t comment on reptile-and-amphibian mashing, as these are underrepresented in our mammal-centric studies.) Maybe the animal-rights guys should lay off the hunters and focus their efforts on Bambi-slamming cars instead.

As for buying organic, that will obviously reduce pollution because organic products don’t use chemical poisons or fertilizers. This is a very welcome development for wildlife, though it’s hard to get an estimate on how much of it would be saved by detoxifying our agriculture. But when you consider that hundreds of millions of pounds of pesticides are dumped on corn and soybeans alone, and that organic farming reduces this to zero, the benefits are obvious.

Generally speaking, buying local reduces the energy involved in shipping food long distances, but this is very difficult to quantify because of differences in the efficiency of local farmers’ vehicles and the amount they haul per trip. But in many cases, it probably takes less energy to move a tomato 20 miles instead of 2,000.

Should I buy a Prius?

Hey Mr. Green,

I keep hearing hype about how hybrid cars are so much better for the environment, yet I also hear that the process to make the batteries for them is very toxic. If so, the Toyota Prius isn't a very green car, so I won't be wasting the extra cash to damage the planet. Is this a wise choice?

--Jacque in Missoula, Montana

The fuss about Prius batteries is because they're made of nickel. Thirty years ago, Canada's nickel-mining industry was particularly toxic, but our northerly neighbors have since cleaned up their mining mess. Only a fraction of the world's nickel is used for batteries, and those made for Priuses (Prii?) are recyclable. For a fuller refutation of this and other myths about the Prius, go to tinyurl.com/mrgreenprius.

However, don't rush out to buy a $22,000 Prius unless you have unlimited funds. You might net greater energy savings by purchasing a cheaper but still-efficient car--like a Toyota Yaris--and investing the money you save in less-sexy energy-conservation measures like replacing your furnace, upgrading your insulation, and installing fluorescent lights, programmable thermostats, an Energy Star fridge, and so on. Sure, the furnace and insulation won't sit in your driveway and flaunt your environmental rectitude. But they could reduce more emissions and save more money in the long run. Consider your energy habits and where you live, and do a basic energy inventory using some simple math.

Say you drive 10,000 miles per year, mostly on the highway. The Prius is rated at 45 miles per gallon (highway), so it'll burn 222 gallons a year. If gas is $2 per gallon, you'll pay $444 per year for fuel. The efficient little Yaris gets 35 mpg, so it'll burn 286 gallons annually, costing you $572. The Prius, then, will save 64 gallons and $128 per year and emit 1,250 fewer pounds of carbon dioxide. But its base price is almost ten grand more than the Yaris.

By choosing the Yaris over the Prius, you'll have an extra $10,000 to spend on planet-preserving home upgrades that will save more energy than the Prius. Of course, if your home energy use is far less than average but you drive far more--or if gas prices climb back to the $5-per-gallon range--the equation changes.

Advice About Auto Care

Hey Mr. Green,
Is synthetic oil greener than conventional motor oil? --Gentry in Sacramento, California

"Synthetic" is a dirty word to some nature lovers, but it's actually a better choice than "real" oil. While synthetic oils take twice as much energy to produce than do ordinary lubricants, they need changing less often, so there's a net savings in total energy and oil consumption, typically 4.5 gallons per year. This is why the EPA favors synthetics.

But energy for motor oil is probably less of a problem than do-it-yourself mechanics who dump drained oil instead of recycling it. More than 345 million gallons of lubricants are improperly disposed of each year--enough to pollute trillions of gallons of water. To find out where to recycle oil, call (800) CLEANUP or go to earth911.org. 

Is Traveling Bad for the Environment?

Hey Mr. Green,
If global warming is so catastrophic, and so manmade, then why does the Sierra Club engage in such monumental hypocrisy, such as:
1. SIERRA magazine ads for travels. I mean, if we're ordered by the Green Police to "cut back emissions 80% by 2050," even as the world population grows about 40 percent, all discretionary travel is out of the question. 
2.   Giving patches for climbing 25 peaks and 100 peaks, all of which have to be driven to.
Please stop the AlGorian hypocrisy. --Alan in Irvine, California

I certainly share your concerns about air travel, which now accounts for more than 3 percent of global-warming gas emissions. I also share your skepticism about the woes of senseless driving. May have to hit the Dramamine to combat motion sickness from just thinking about it. Ideally, we might all follow the example of Sierra Club founder John Muir, who hoofed it 1,000 miles from Louisville, Kentucky, to the Gulf Coast, and logged 300 or so on a tramp from San Francisco to Yosemite. But Muir was young then, and had a lot more time on his hands than today's average traveler. And even he had resort to railroads and ships in his efforts to study and protect the natural world.

If you look at the big picture, you might find that travel is not as irresponsible as you think. The Sierra Club has always encouraged people to experience the natural world. This remains an important goal, as expressed in the Club's mission statement: "To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth..." More than 100 years' experience has shown that when people actually get to a place and "explore and enjoy" it, they are more likely to help protect it than if they hadn't encountered it firsthand. Therefore, emissions generated by trips may be a relatively small price to pay for environmental-protection efforts that such excursions can inspire. Moreover, some types of travel, like eco-tourism, can actually protect the natural world.

If you book a trip with Sierra Club Outings, you can calculate the approximate amount of carbon emitted by your travels, and contribute a corresponding sum toward an innovative wind-energy project to offset your emissions.

The Club’s overall efforts—including successfully supporting new fuel-economy standards, opposing coal-fired power plants, and supporting alternative energy—are reducing emissions by thousands of times the amount generated by the travels it promotes.

Regarding air travel in particular, the Club's support for transit developments like California's high-speed rail will result fast, efficient alternatives.

At the local level, Sierra Club chapters have opposed regional airport development for a variety of reasons (short flights consume more energy per passenger mile than long ones). Here are just two examples of successful local Club opposition to airport development.

Unsafe at Any Speed

Hey Mr. Green,

Regarding your comment that safety features in cars add "only" 125 pounds to car weight, I remind you that an additional 100 pounds of car weight can reduce the mileage by up to 2 percent.

 –Sally in Newport News, Virginia

Hey Sally,

I'm well aware that 100 pounds can reduce mileage by 1 to 2 percent and have said so before.

But what's up with all you guys leaping to defend automakers from the menacing Mr. Green? My point was that 100 or so extra pounds is trivial compared to an additional 1,000-plus pounds. The auto barons piled that tonnage onto huge new petrol-guzzlers named for natural disasters and military raids, aggressively marketing aggressive vehicles to consumers unlikely to buy efficient cars.

The size factor was just another symptom of Detroit’s indefensible rapacity and stupidity, which got us into deep trouble during the mid-1970 fuel shortages because it wasn't making efficient cars. But the auto bosses learned nothing, repeated the same mistake, and went for a quick profit, with the result that they now face a 16-lane economic crash and are holding out their hubcaps begging for a bailout. I certainly hope the industry can be saved somehow, because I don’t want to see a couple million workers lose their jobs because of their bosses' incompetence. But we should all contact our senators and representatives demanding that they implement and enforce strict energy-efficiency requirements on the auto industry as a condition for financial help that comes from taxpayers. Otherwise, the same mistakes will be made again 30 years or so down the road.

Myth of the Little SUV Debunked

Hey Mr. Green,
I was very disappointed in your answer to the recent question about whether cars get lower gas mileage because of safety or antipollution devices. Your answer was these devices do not add weight to cars or reduce mileage. What are you talking about? At least admit that pollution-control devices like the catalytic converter impair good mileage.

I had a '90s Subaru Loyale that got more than 35 miles to the gallon, even after it was eight years old! My new Honda CRV, which I admit is a little bigger, can hardly get 22 miles per gallon, and I consider myself a good driver! –Carl in Bannockburn, United Kingdom

Hey Carl,
Your comparison actually proves my point about auto companies' stupid, inefficient giantism. Your Honda is more than a "little bigger" than the Subaru: It's a whopping one-third bigger. The Honda CRV weighs a half ton more and has at least 50 more horsepower. The CRV has a curb weight of about 3,500 pounds and a horsepower of 166, whereas the old Loyale wagon had a curb weight of around 2,400 and a horsepower of 90 or 115, depending on the type of engine. The difference in gas mileage is a result of that extra heft and oomph.

(Note: I call giantism "stupid" because Detroit is now in the same mess it was in 35 years ago. That's when car sales plunged because it had no efficient vehicles to offer during the gas crunch. You'd think that the old boys who run GM and Ford would have some recollection of this disastrous event.)

Why Even Small Carbon Footprints Matter

Hey Mr. Green,
I've heard that humans account for only 3 percent of global carbon emissions, with the rest coming from volcanoes, forest fires, and plant decay. Is this true, and if so, how can reducing our carbon footprint make an appreciable difference to the global situation? –Cary in Atlanta, Georgia

Hey Cary,
Three percent may not sound like much, but if that small percent isn't reabsorbed each year, it keeps accumulating until you have a much bigger percent and a real problem. Think of it this way: If you only gain 3 percent in weight a year, it's not much. But if you never shed that weight, you'll balloon from a 135-pound lightweight-boxer to a full-size heavyweight (albeit a rather flabby one) in 20 years.

The natural world is estimated to emit a grand total of 770.3 billion tons of CO₂ annually. Millions of life forms on land, from bacteria to elephants, pump out 440 billion tons of CO₂, while the oceans release another 330 billion tons, and volcanoes add 300 million each year. Human activity, primarily from burning fossil fuel, but also from agriculture and forest burning and clearing, accounts for "only" 32.3 billion tons, New Scientist reports.

Podcast: Electric Cars

"Hey Mr. Green: Is there a practical electric car a person of moderate means can buy and operate?"

Click here to listen to the answer! You can also subscribe to Mr. Green's podcast.

Yikes! He Wants to Chain Us All to Bikes

My comments on electric vehicles, or EVs, and why we should drive less provoked some deliciously combative and insulting responses. Mike said, "Gee, what a great idea. Everybody ride bicycles. I wonder what an 18-wheel semitruck bicycle looks like? The Sierra Club at its best."

Kerry commented, "I have to laugh listening to the nonsensical claim that automobiles are destroying the environment. I suggest that Mr. Green, who obviously objects to the only clean energy source we have (nuclear), is instead responsible for global warming by blocking nuclear power development, leading to coal fired plants that have placed our planet in such peril. The solution is to provide clean energy, not to simply use less of the dirty variety. There is no possible way that enforced conservation can provide any kind of a solution--doing without is neither acceptable nor necessary nor logical. Mr. Sierra is simply an authoritarian-minded fellow with very muddled ideas that seem more at home in a more technologically primitive era."