By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The intent of government is not to be in the promotion business. Let the auto manufacturers promote their own vehicles.
Promoting the purchase of an automobile of any kind is not promoting clean air. How about a $3000 tax credit toward a bicycle?
The fact that tax credits are even relevant to this hybrid and diesel discussion to me is really disgusting. :mad: Tax credits should not be part of the equation.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-08- -03T182715Z_01_N03438084_RTRUKOC_0_US-ROBERTSON.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
no one ever accused Mr. Robertson of being a "scientist"
WEAK
it's one thing for you or I to say "Wow, it's hot. Maybe there is something to this global warming stuff"
but for a public figure to make such a proclamation on a SCIENTIFIC issue
oh, I forgot. He doesn't believe in science.
never mind
Welcome to the forum.
I can see incentives if given across the board. To give someone an incentive for buying an RX400h that gets 25 MPG and is not even PZEV in CA, is ridiculous. If it is to promote clean air fine. Give it to the guy that buys a PZEV BMW or VW or Focus. How is the guy driving an RX400h saving gas or polluting less than the fellow in a PZEV Focus? They eliminated the tax incentive on the Honda Civic GX (CNG) the car the EPA said was the CLEANEST they had ever tested. It is just so hodge podge and based on flawed EPA testing parameters. Like most things our government sticks their nose into it is screwed up.
I would say they need to do something fast. The Odyssey is getting further in the lead every month. Even I could get interested in a Ody diesel.
On the hybrid front. How has the TCH impacted Camry sales overall? It looks like they have not gained many new buyers. The Camry is flat in sales while the Corolla is making serious gains on number one Camry. Will the Corolla unseat the Camry for top selling car this year? I think it is the new Camry styling is not appealing to the Camry audience. If I was buying one it would be the older style.
That was my Prius and one of my customers. LOL, I got left on the cutting floor.
That's a shame. I hate when that happens. I'll watch for it if they play it again.
Re the styling it's a big hit with current owners.
At 40000+ units a month in sales/production how much can it grow? If it maintains that pace it will blow out the walls of the Georgetown plant. They are looking to the Subie plant in Indiana to add another 100K units of Camry production but that's next year at the earliest.
The Corolla is just ridiculous. 4-1/2 yrs old and they just removed all incentives on it and it still sets new records.
It is simple it is a lot of bang for the buck. You can get a fairly well loaded leather with moonroof LE for $10k less than a stripped Camry Hybrid. All that with a 40% bigger trunk. I think it will beat the Camry by December if gas prices stay up. I think the Camry hybrid will hold steady on sales. I just think they are stealing sales from regular Camry buyers, plus the techno-geeks account for a large number also.
The ergonomics are bizarre for a driver of normal height. It is impossible to get the seat right where you can reach the pedals, steering wheel and console controls comfortably.
The problem stems, I think, from the fact Toy uses the platform for too many other different vehicles. It allows Toy to build a lot of quality in the platform. But forces too many compromises in the driver's seat.
PS
I ran into that not being able to get comfortable driving my sister's Tiburon. My leg ached horribly after about 45 minutes driving it.
The existing Corolla is a nice car and a great bargain. It is just not a nice car to drive over extended periods of time. Unless you have short legs and real long arms.
I am in one of those hourly rent a car programs that happens to use Civic Hybrids. I understand Toyota does hybrids better than Honda. Still, if the new Civic Hybrid is Toyota's target, I would prefer Toyota concentrate on making a real light but safe ICE version and maybe a diesel.
Likely true even though they deny it but also of equal importance is that the normally scheduled launch would have hit right in the middle of the rollout of the new Tundra which is a huge effort. Even with Toyota's deep pockets they have a huge risk now with fuel being where it is and a brand spanking new truck plant to fill in TX. IMO all efforts will be concentrated on promoting the Tundra beginning in Nov and extending through April '07. This was when the new Corolla should have hit. In the meanwhile with a fully depreciated line, no incentives and booming volume the Corolla just prints money maybe even faster than the Camry.
The existing Corolla is a nice car and a great bargain. It is just not a nice car to drive over extended periods of time. Unless you have short legs and real long arms.
Agree, I feel that the steering wheel is on the other side of the moon but it has great lines of sight and it's solid as a rock.
I am in one of those hourly rent a car programs that happens to use Civic Hybrids. I understand Toyota does hybrids better than Honda. Still, if the new Civic Hybrid is Toyota's target, I would prefer Toyota concentrate on making a real light but safe ICE version and maybe a diesel.
I sense that Toyota may have ceded the small-vehicle hybrid market to Honda in favor of the midsized-hybrid vehicle market and vice versa. Now a diesel Corolla makes perfect sense.
Honda goes diesel on it's midsized vehicles, hybrid on it's smaller vehicles. Toyota goes diesel on it's smaller vehicles ( and trucks ) and hybrid on its midsized vehicles. It sounds like Economics 101, the theory of Competitive Advantage.
Can't argue with this at all. Getting significant sales on a fully amortized design is heaven to a manufacturer. Toyota's announced profits underscore this.
but it has great lines of sight
True enough. Very easy to see the road front back and side from the Corolla.
Honda goes diesel on it's midsized vehicles, hybrid on it's smaller vehicles. Toyota goes diesel on it's smaller vehicles ( and trucks ) and hybrid on its midsized vehicles. It sounds like Economics 101, the theory of Competitive Advantage.
Interesting point. Something others should consider. No need to win in every category. Just do well where you are.
HOV privileges should not be extended to any vehicle with less than two people.
Just a radical idea:
If penalizing or praising a consumer for his or her purchase of a gas guzzler or economy car is an effective tactic, then tax the fuel they use.
Let’s add $0.50 a gallon to all fuel and take every penny of that $0.50 to bring back the Public Health Hospital system of 40 years ago. (How many people here remember those days?)
Now we have solved two problems. Reduced fuel consumption and reduced emissions by getting into the pockets of consumers and providing health care to millions of people who can’t afford it.
Will it fly? No way because people would scream bloody murder at $0.50 more a gallon and the HMO’s would cry foul.
The fact is per mile that is already happening. Simple example: 3 per gal, 15 mpg/50 mpg. per mile, .20 cents vs .06 cents per mile. total cost is 3.33X MORE. Break out the actual tax per gal and run the math. SAME 3.33x more. So what will signal the end (of higher revenues) is better mpg, lower SUV/PU truck use, etc.
The problem which the taxing agencies do not want to say too loudly is the revenue loss will place EXTREME stresses on the tax tax and spend spend spend spend model. You heard it here first, but fuel will approach 5/6/7/ per gal as the mileage figures improve (go from 15 mpg to 50 mpg. All you need do is look at Germany that has better mpg models available and correlate what they pay per gal of gas. No good deed will go unpunished.
the hybrid incentive is just another clean air program.
More use of HOV lanes by high mpg cars means more people are driving high mpg, CLEAN EMISSION cars.
As gas prices go up, more people will be buying hybrids and other high mpg cars like Yaris and Fit.
And can you entice people to buy PZEV cars with a tax credit? Sure you could. And that would be great too.
We all know that EVERY car could be made PZEV at the factory for between $200 and $500, depending on the car.
If car makers could be forced to do THAT, then we would not need tax incentives to help clean the air.
But GM has publicly said, "We don't think out buyers would stomach the extra cost."
That's a COP OUT. Of course they would, if you marketed it properly.
I think we researched this a short while back. I only found one 6 cylinder that was PZEV. The Honda Accord Hybrid. None of the 6 cylinder Toyota hybrids are PZEV. Even most of the 4 cylinder Toyota hybrids including yours is Not PZEV. If that was so important why didn't you buy a PZEV car? The HCH is EPA rated cleaner than the Prius or TCH in your area. I don't believe it is possible to get a V8 PZEV. I could be wrong. If it was so easy more automakers would do it to take the pressure off. I know if I was offered a car that was PZEV and it cost $100 more than a non PZEV, I would not even consider the added complexity. All this added equipment does is make it more expensive to maintain in the long run. For those that keep a car 3 years and dump it no problem. For those of us concerned about the planet, we keep our cars until they die. Then they get crushed and recycled. It is less pollution overall doing it that way.
Secondly, keeping a car for longer time and mileage, makes all the sense in the world. So for those who subscribe to "a new every two" philosophy, to not longer than the USA average age of the vehicle fleet, it again makes no sense to have a guarantee that lasts longer than either the mileage or time it is ACTUALLY kept.
California, because of its smog, requires the biggest automakers to sell PZEVs and other low-pollution vehicles to help the state meet federal clean-air standards.
The extra cost of PZEV (pronounced PEE-zev) hardware is estimated at $500 a car by automakers and consultants, but at less than $200 by California clean-air officials. Whatever the amount, most car companies say it is enough to discourage them from offering PZEVs nationwide.
"We're fairly certain our customers would be unwilling to pay it," says Kevin Cullen, staff development engineer at General Motors' Milford, Mich., proving grounds and technical adviser for GM environmental programs. "If the sticker price reflects the difference in costs, we don't think there'll be a whole lot of PZEVs sold in the open market."
Ford and Toyota are going nationwide, nonetheless, to spread the extra cost of California PZEV hardware over more cars and to earn public relations points for showing environmental concern.
Ford's 2004 nationwide PZEV Focus starts at $14,915. That's $115 more than a similarly equipped, standard-emissions Focus. But the PZEV model comes with a more-powerful engine that normally would be more than $115 extra.
So in the case of the Focus, a buyer of the PZEV model gets MORE than their money's worth, because they get a more expensive, more powerful engine for the PZEV car.
It's a no-brainer
and gary says "For those of us concerned about the planet, we keep our cars until they die. "
WELL, Like said earlier, that's just false logic. Keeping your car "until it dies" has not ONE SINGLE EFFECT on the cleanliness of the planet.
the reason is simple logic:
You buying and keeping the car forever does not AT ALL mean that car makers build ONE LESS CAR because you are keeping your car.
Everyone who sells a car within 5 years and gets another car, there's always someone there to buy the used car.
The only way "buying a car and driving it forever" makes for a cleaner world is if the dealer or person who got the traded-in car found out that, "Hey, there's no one in the world who wants this car, so now we have to destroy it."
That's not how it happens in reality. If car makers "figured in" how many FEWER CARS TO BUILD every year because of a known number of people who decided to keep a car forever, then it WOULD matter. But we all know that does not happen that way.
Another discussion point:
Gary says, "If that was so important why didn't you buy a PZEV car? The HCH is EPA rated cleaner than the Prius or TCH in your area."
Well, first of all, I was in a rush and needed a TCH within a two week period, because I was taking a 2500 mile trip soon, and did not want to put 2500 extra miles on a car I was trading in soon.
To get a PZEV TCH (even if I could have had time) I would have had to order the car, and I did not really have time. I bought the only TCH that I could find available and unclaimed in Phoenix.
And even at SULEV II, my TCH is very clean.
Another discussion point:
Actually, Gary, check this out. The longer you keep a car, the dirtier it gets:
"Fifty percent of pollution comes from the oldest 10% of cars," he says. It's an argument often used in favor of proposals to get older models off the road.
So all those people "keeping a car forever" are not polluting LESS, but in fact are polluting MORE.
In fact, I'm not even sure my TCH scores an 8 or a 9.5, because the underhood label is the same for both ratings:
Underhood
Label ID
7TYXV02.4HC1
Score = 08
BIN 3
Score = 9.5
SULEV II
My underhood label says "This vehicle conforms to US EPA regulations applicable to gasoline-fueled 2007 model year new Tier-2 Bin-3 motor vehicles and to California regulations applicable to 2007 model year new Lev-II Sulev passenger cars."
On this page, every car which is described as "Tier 2 Bin 3" is listed as a PZEV car:
http://www.greenercars.com/byclass2.html
So, my TCH might be a PZEV, and regardless, is VERY clean....
I would agree if it does not pass the smog test and you continue to drive it. My 1990 LS400 is cleaner than many new cars, according to the fellow that tested it for licensing last year.
Your whole argument of keeping a car a short time (5 or less years)leaves out the major pollution created by any car. That is manufacturing. The main reason so many cars are rated overall better than the hybrids in a total Life Cycle Analysis. Even Toyota based their analysis on keeping the car for 10 years.
You can buy a new car every 3 years for all I care. It is good for the economy. It is NOT good for the environment.
But as is clearly demonstrated by my above post, it does not HARM the environment at all.
How long you keep a car or not has ZERO impact on how many cars are manufactured.
Regardless if 10 million people decide today: I'm not going to buy a new car until this one breaks and then costs more to fix than it is worth to me." - there are still going to be 16 to 17 million new cars sold in the USA in 2006.
It has no impact at all on the number of cars built.
But on a flip side, the frontiers are MASSIVELY expanding. Further China/India's etc markets for cars are almost a lock for massive growth. So for example what would be the effect of the addition of 253.4 M passenger cars (shorter term) with emissions standards that do not even meet the min European standards, let alone the USA standards? I think that even you would agree there is an impact.
It's hardly on topic for this forum..
Doing what Gary does - buy a car, maintain it well, and keep it for several years longer that fleet average - is the single most important thing a consumer can do to limit how many cars are manufactured.
I'm willing to bet what he does is less wasteful of resources that buying a brand new hybrid every 2 years.
You might take a look at the inventory on the dealers lots, both new and used. Chrysler is in dire straits with over supply of cars. Even Toyota has an abundance of cars. I drove past my closest dealer yesterday. The supposedly hot selling FJ Cruiser is in abundance. Five sitting on the front row. Not the case a month ago. You got a car that was supposedly hard to come by in a short time.
I applaud anyone that keeps their car for at least 10 years. That IS conservation of resources and cutting manufacturing pollution.
Keep your old clunker or buy a new car?
Let's divide the car-buying universe into two camps: those who keep a car until it drops, and those who think a new car will change their lives.
To the first, a round of applause. There's nothing short of the bus that's cheaper than keeping a car until it crumbles into a pile of rust. Almost any car can be nursed to 200,000 miles without endangering your life, and even a new engine is cheaper than all but the cheapest used cars.
Keep it running
Once again, let me try to say this as simply as I can say it:
Honda, Toyota, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, or any other car company could not give ONE HOOT about Gary or Me or annyone else keeping a car ten years.
There are enough people who are NOT GOING TO DO THAT to make sure that manufacturing levels ARE NOT AFFECTED.
Once again:
Manufacturing levels ARE NOT AFFECTED by one person keeping a car ten years.
They do not take a survey and determine: "OK, 5700 car owners have decided to keep their car for 10 years, so let's build 5700 fewer cars this year !!"
That Does Not Happen. They Do Not Care.
I as an individual keeping a car 17 years will not affect what the auto makers do. If 10% or 20% were to stop buying into their 3 year scam it would make a difference. The same can be said for buying hybrids or diesels or Playstations. Manufacturers build what people want to buy. And we are the biggest suckers in the World far and away.
PS
When they asked if I wanted an extended warranty on my GMC. I asked if they expected the truck to break after 3 years? If so I don't want it. I doubt I keep it that long. It is not as well built as my older Chevy PU trucks and Suburban. New vehicles are just too tinny for me.
For sure, as examples, the car companies (i.e., Toyota, Honda, VW) got it right for the hybrids i.e., Prius and HCH) and the diesels (Jetta, NB, Golf). Hybrids (seem to) sell for between a little off MSRP to MSRP. In some cases, local dealers can sell for MSRP PLUS. Diesels of course have tended to solidify to the same level. ((seem) to sell for a little off MSRP to MSRP) As a comparison the goal is to buy any vehicle from between below invoice to invoice plus. Both benefit from lower to lowest supply and higher demand. I do not get a feeling for the Hybrid USED vehicle market. The USED diesel market is very very solid.
Keeping a car maintained and on the road for a long time may be good for YOUR pocket, but it does not do anything good for the environment?
Want your car-buying practice to be good for the environment. Buy a solid, high MPG, low emissions vehicle. Drive it for two years, sell it, and buy another. Repeat.
What this will do is drive the junky old cars off the streets. Who wants to drive a 10-year old car when there are so many two- and frour-year old cars on the used market?
oh, and it's good for the economy - and if the economy is strong, more people care about the environment. More land is covered by conservation easements, and the like.
Buy more new cars, and sell them soon.
The biggest scam is for "normal" cars with new body styles or new cars like Soltice or even the PT Cruiser when new; the dealers gouged the first buyers and then they are burned on used valued in two years when the new ones are sold at a discount. Perhaps if the hybrids don't ever get discounted then buying at MSRP is simply the same as buying at the going market price and it's all relative. Even paying $1000 over list is not a bad thing as long as the car NEVER is sold at a discount.
I consider Fords and GM vehicles like Craftsman tools. NEVER buy one unless there is a huge sale going on. If you do then within three to four months you're going to feel like you were ripped.
06 Escalades are now going for over $15,000 off list. I'd hate to have bought one early last year. Well in 1 year they will be trying to push these new Escalades and tahoes off the lot and they will be discounted.
In 2000 I needed an "extra" car and I figured with no trade I could get my best cash deal. I went to the Mercedes dealership and they had a "new" policy in pricing that year. They lowered the dealer profit and the cars were to be sold at MSRP. I don't think that philosophy lasted them long but it lost them one sale and I don't ever plan to go back.
DON'T Play their game
There is a large segment of the population (15-18 M yearly new car buyers) that would agree with you. Hence, there is a large segment of the population that really think there are no problems or no real problems. So I guess if I was a auto or auto related oem, I would probably agree with you and thank you all for your patronage.
Interesting another poster says we need to trade every two years to keep high mpg clean vehicles coming out and loading up the used car market with 2 year old cars so that the older (>10 year old) dirty cars will be replaced.
It may be good for the economy as I already stated. It is not good for the environment. Most pollution from a car is in the manufacturing. Hybrids are even more polluting than conventional ICE vehicles. The choice is yours. For me I think I will keep my money invested in oil stocks. You can throw your money down the toilet every 2 years.
If my new truck was a diesel I would keep it till it is 20 years old. Being a hybrid I doubt it lasts 10 years.
If you feel that you have to add a personal shot at someone you disagree with, please do not make that post. Likewise, just because someone posts something that you disagree with, that doesn't make that post a personal attack that requires a response.
That's a fair argument, and I used to make it myself, but I was convinced otherwise (on an Edmunds forum, even).
Please produce the relevant data supporting that thesis.
The only analysis you have on your side is the Dust to Dust report, and you have not laid out why you agree with the many assumptions in it.
Not all old cars run as well as that 1990 Lexus we keep hearing about.
I wonder if the Dust to Dust report analyzed probabilities of system failures. For example, a car that has had no tranny issues at 10,000 miles is more or less likely to have a tranny issue than a car at 100,000 miles that is already on its third tranny? Those trannies cost money and resources, don't they? And the car that is eating trannies is pretty likely to eat another one, no?
Old cars are way more likely to leak fluids. Or are we ignoring the impact all that oil has on our rivers and streams?
Again, this ISN'T about your or anyone’s pocketbook. Please don’t mix apples and oranges. We are talking impact to the environment, period. I never said this approach was a good investment. I agree that your approach is (most likely)better for an individual’s personal finances. (even better if they START with a used car, instead of new)
Getting new cars into the marketplace, pushing old cars out of the marketplace, is better.
And if people didn't try to horde their good vehicles, the used market would be filled with good vehicles, further decreasing the cost of having a car, and rapidly pushing the old clunkers off our roads.
In the past 31 years I have purchased 1 new pick-up and 2 new cars and a 2 year old pick-up in 1996. I kept and drove my first pick-up for 23 years. I still have the second pick-up. The first car we kept for 13 years. We are still driving the second car (1993 Explore purchased new) and may not get a new one until the 08 or 09’s come out. Both are well maintained and burn no oil.
Do they pollute more than a new car? I’m sure they do, but until the government is willing subsidize my auto purchases, I’m stuck with it.
Even if I could afford to buy a new car every year or 2 years, I would not, it is just not good economics.
For sure based on the smog only results, the government would in the worst case take it off the road if it truly did.
However in CA, if I am not incorrect if you wait till the 25th year, it becomes exempt and you can drive it regardless of whether it passes smog or not. Got to love the wrinkles in the LAW.
And I'm not even arguing that people should care about the environment.
But people who DO care about the environment should know when they are making a decision that is bad for the environment.
Remember the old, clunker Volvos with the Save the Whales and Love Your Mother bumperstickers, that you could barely see through the blue exhaust? The critics were right - those people were hypocrites. Get the junkers off the roads. No matter how much those people recycle, driving that Volvo was bad for the environment.
OK, I guess if they only drove a few miles/day, the rest of the time they were planting trees and organizing ride-sharing programs - MAYBE their environmental balance was in the positive. Maybe.
You pose a very good argument and I agree with the fact that modern advancements reduce pollution. But at what point in a cars life span related to the advancements in pollution control does that car become a liability?
I think it all depends on:
A. What advancements have been made since that car was built?
B. Is that cars pollution control system still as effective as when it was new?
If no great strides in pollution control have taken place in 6 to 8 years since that car was built, then maybe ten years is acceptable time to keep a car.
We should all be good stewards to our planet and I do what I can to reach that end, but the reality of it is that economics play a big part as what we can do.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of people would love to trade in every 2 years.
The reality is that there is a huge segment of the population that will never be able to afford a new care and in fact my never own a car less than 5 years old.
While I agree for the most part with your idea, it’s an idea that is out of the reach of most people.
if a person can not afford to buy a new car every three years, then he should buy a used car
under my approach, there will be plenty of good used cars for him to buy
I cannot see where it would be good for the environment to buy a new car more than you absolutely had to. If it is one of the old Volvos with save the rain forest stickers that is spewing clouds of blue smoke. Hey I agree they should be ticketed and not permitted on the road. Ruking has already addressed that where California is concerned. It gets to a certain age and is no longer even tested. And if you cannot afford to fix a smog producing car you have ways to circumvent the laws.
car operation produces more CO pollution than car production
car operation produces more NOx pollution than car production
but you are right, wrt SOx (not a significant pollutant from non-diesel autos); Particulate matter (same comment), and hydrocarbons (also not a particular problem from car operation, and likely dwarfed by the manufacturing processes that have no corrolary in driving cars - where does all that HC pollution come from in Material Production and Vehicle Production, and why is it so much more than in Prius Production? That's an interesting one.
It's funny, given how important scientists seem to think CO is, that you use that table to support your position.
I wonder how bad your diesels would look if they were put on that table. I bet we'd need a new scale!! ;-)
To make this issue more complicated, there is no environmental problem generating high levels of NOx and many other pollutants, if that pollution heads to see and is removed from the atmosphere and "disposed of" in the ocean. Not all air pollution causes environmental or public health problems. The historic, big midwest plants caused acid rain (SOX and Nox) in the northeast. Had those plants been on the east coast, that Acid Rain would have fallen on the ocean, and caused NO environmental impacts. But that type of analysis is way too complicated for our discussion, and evaluating plant location is just too much detail for a consumer.
As for diesels and the chart. I would like to see a study conducted showing the current diesel cars using the same criteria. NoX is the only contaminant that is significantly higher. Another emission left out by Toyota on the chart is CO (carbon monoxide) the killer gas. All gas cars including the Prius put out a lot more than any diesel. I think SoX should be minimal in current diesels using ULSD. Currently in most of the country the gas has more sulfur than ULSD. That is the reason for lower scores on the EPA rating schedule in most of the USA.
My understanding is that the BluTec diesel engine has been accepted by the EPA for 2007 and beyond. I do not know where CARB stands.
You have noticed an important point in the hybrid manufacturing. None of the high pollution components are built in the USA. I would imagine they are all built in China or countries with low standards for pollution. What will happen to the hybrid cars when all these countries come into the 21st century emissions wise?
Manufacturing and recycling.
Saw an article online today about mercury levels in the US. Appears even though mercury containing items (and much of the hybrid electronics and NiMH batteries contain mercury) are sent abroad for recycling, the mercury still finds its way back to the US.
Mercury is one of the most toxic elements in the environment, with siginficant health reprocussions even in very small amounts.
1. Diesels emit no unburned HC and far less CO than do gassers including the Prius. The reason a Prius or Prius like hybrid appears so clean is that the engine only runs part of the time. So the more you run the engine, the dirtier, environmentally, a Prius/hybrid becomes.
2. Blue Tec is 50 state certified. It may be good through either 2009 or 2010.
3. PM will decrease significantly with the use of S15 diesel fuel. Add a PM filter and so much for PM being an issue. Add some biodiesel and it drops even further. Add an additive to a biodiesel blend and NOx emissions will remain unchanged or improved.
4. Your take on carbon dioxide as a media buzz word is on the mark. Toyota is playing the word game quite skillfully. The EPA testing in present form does not give a true picture of what emissions are like from a Prius or even any other vehicle.
Tons of toxic mercury from U.S. recycling programs are funneled each year to loosely regulated industries in developing countries, where much of the hazardous metal is released into the atmosphere.
Scientists say some of that air pollution can drift back to this country and contaminate lakes and rivers, undercutting aggressive efforts to keep mercury out of the environment.
Mercury pollution