Washington Post Promotes Debunked Deception About Hummers vs. Priuses

Yes, letters to the editor matter. And, yes, they merit fact-checking. And, yes, that fact-checking should actually be well-done.

Having had letters to the editor published in The Washington Post, my experience with the fact-checking process left me impressed ... and exhausted. Every point was questioned and challenged, with substantive backing required from the editor before it went into print. Watching the Post editorial page's (mis)handling of George Will's Will-ful deception regarding energy and climate issues, a question emerges:

Is it only those who are operating in reality when it comes to climate and energy issues who are seriously challenged to support there assertions?

Yesterday's Post had a deceptive, half-truthful letter to the editor entitled The Not-So-Quite-Green Toyota Prius which included this statement:

CNW Marketing rates cars on the combined energy needed "to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage." A Prius costs $2.87 per lifetime mile. By comparison, an H3 Hummer costs $2.07 per lifetime mile.

What is the half-truth? That there is such a CMS discussion. (And, I guess, that there is such a thing as a Hummer and a Prius.) After that, truth is left behind.

As Joe Romm accurately described it,

I am mocking this report because it is the most contrived and mistake-filled study I have ever seen -- by far (and that's saying a lot since I worked for the federal government for five years). I am not certain there is an accurate calculation in the entire report.

This 450-page "study" was debunked by the Pacific Institute and by Rocky Mountain Institute (see, as well, Slate and this fun Sierra Club discussion). It is not hard to find the idiocies in the study (reading Romm brings them out well).

These include:

• Making an assumption that Hummers last 379,000 miles, Prius only 109,000. Thus, not just in weight, it takes three Prius to make one Hummer for CMS to arrive at their skewed results. [NOTE: Even when RMI skewed their analysis, using all of CMS's absurdities, the Prius still ended up with a lower energy life-cycle than a Hummer.]


• A Prius, which gets in the range of 45 miles per gallon, has a fuel cost of 7.5 cents per mile. The Hummer, at less than 15 mpg, has a fuel cost of 18.7 cents per mile. Do the math. Are you confused?


• Unlike every serious study of automotive life-cycle energy costs and inputs, which put 70-90 percent of the total energy energy use is in the operating life (e.g, mainly burning gasoline), this "study" places the vast majority in the construction and recycling.


• The calculations border on insanity. See that price. If we accept that Prius cost per mile, it would cost the owner (and society) $287,000 for a Prius to drive 100,000 miles. Anyone else ready to ask: WTF?

Does anyone suspect that The Washington Post editorial board has the sensibility to be embarrassed by publishing this absurd letter citing such a deceptive and deceitful marketing "study"? As Romm finished his discussion of this study back in 2007:

As for CNW, the only explanation I can come up for this absurdity piled on top of absurdity is that the marketing firm is putting on an elaborate hoax, seeing how many reputable news organizations repeat these laughable numbers without bothering to check the original study to see that they have no basis whatsoever in fact. After all, no one could believe all this. Could they?

Well, evidently Washington Post "fact checkers" are perfectly satisfied publishing this drivel. After all, George Will-full Deceit Will cited the study in his call for people to Use a Hummer to Crush a Prius.

Comments

[MajorKong]

A Hummer is nothing but a Chevy Tahoe with $20,000 taped to the hood.

[Agent420]

They also gave it the ability to attract people waving at them with one finger.

[BannedNBoston]

When the Washington Post tried to force their employees march in a parade supporting the Iraq War I knew they are controlled by the CIA.

[brendanm]

The CIA is a little more ethical than the neoconservative WaPo editorial board.

[Guitarsandmore]

When confronting these lunatics of dubious facts and figures we must always remember our goal is to become independent of foreign oil. Cars using less petro per mile help us achieve that goal and the Prius wins that battle hands down case closed.

A second goal is to stop burning fossil fuels altogether and the prius at 50 mpg gets us much closer to this goal than the hummer at 10 mpg.

As for manufacturing costs we are not too concerned about manufacturing costs and it is not a goal to reduce manufacturing costs because it is not related to becoming independent of foreign oil or the end to burning fossil fuels.

After all, many plants have already converted over to solar and wind power with more planned for the rest of 2009 and beyond. Once we are using the renewable energy to manufacture automobiles and other products then any argument related to manufacturing costs loses much of its weight.

[Agent420]

Well, as I see it, you have exaggerated the mileage on both vehicles. If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate!

[terramartom]

Published by "FOX" news? That explains everything. After all they just make up their coverage of everything anyway.

[pissedmichael]

We've all grown up hearing about the integrity of the Washington Post. What gives? Have they responded to this?

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

When it comes to energy issues, the WashPost editorial page has little to no credibility now. Click through and look at the material from the second and third links in this story.

[Agent420]

or, as they say, BS at the speed of light is still BS.

[pfrogger]

does this make sense?
how could this have been released as an actual study?
is it any wonder that America is in the trouble it is in?
they're still debating about whether it was torture. still debating about global warming. still debating regulation and the free market.

seriously, WTF???
maybe we're getting what we deserve. this is beyond ridiculous and this is baseline normal US "dialogue".

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Think of it as a 400 page public relations release masquerading as a study.

[gallimaufry03]

Okay A. I did the math and yes, I'm confused.

"A Prius, which gets in the range of 45 miles per gallon, has a fuel cost of 7.5 cents per mile. The Hummer, at less than 15 mpg, has a fuel cost of 18.7 cents per mile. Do the math. Are you confused?"

If I multiply 7.5 x 45 I get a gallon of gas that costs $3.38. If I then divide $3.38 by 15, I get 23 cents a mile, not 18.7.

I'm more smart aleck than math person so if that's not how you calculate how much each vehicle costs in terms of gas, what is? Thanks.

[joebaggadonuts]

Is it any wonder why people are not willing to pay for newspapers anymore?

[GarryK]

I saw the letter and knew it was based on bogus data. I had read about that 'analysis' before.

Wikipedia has a similar problem. Leaving aside controversial issues, even a generic topic is guided more by what 'reliable published sources' say than 'the truth'. Rather than judge 'truth', they defer to 'being published'.

I don't know that I have a better solution, really.

[KillTheMessenger]

At least Wikipedia clearly flags articles that do not match their standards as such and asks for higher quality contributions. And in many cases an article gets deleted. Try that with the Washington Post.

:-)

[lastcallmd]

Right, unlike the unquestionably, 100% accurate assumptions to "prove" co2 is the cause of climate change. Apparently truth depends on whose ox is being gored, npo?

[research]

They got the FACTS wrong. Climate change is an interpretation of the data.

[pfrogger]

elaboration? explanation?
cite some sources to back your argument?

and please let it be credible. you know verifiable statistics, peer review.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

So many levels of ignorance in that comment, a public display of anti-science syndrome.

1. Hmmm ... re Co2's role in climate change, this is not assumptions, but science -- with measurements, analysis, open to discussion and challenge.

2. "co2 is the cause of climate change ..." No one who is serious says "the cause".

3. Are you asserting that it is reasonably for a Hummer to be modeled as lasting 3x as long, in mileage, as a Prius? Or, that the vast majority of energy usage for automobiles is during manufacturing and not use? Etc ...

The marketing press release, masquerading as a study, about traditional vs hybrid cars is an absurdity ... defending it is absurd.

[RobinSeattle]

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Nice try, though. Just don't leave that strawman out too long or it becomes a fire hazard.

[leftcoastindy]

And : there is no doubt Iraq has WMD; Wilson has been discredited; Iraq is harboring terrorist; Marujana leads to harder drugs; I am not a crook; I did not have sex with that woman;...

[caphillprof]

He' s hiking the Appalachian Trail

[RobinLandseadel]

Michael Jackson's personal "Doctor" gave him intravenous injections of "vitamins."