Thinking Critically

As a former owner of a SUV I have heard from a few of my friends how I was hurting the environment, I should trade it in for a Hybrid, etc… And I actually do agree with them, to a point (mainly when I was filling my gas tank).

My problem is that the current research shows that hybrids are actually potentially worse for the environment (the process to create them is far and away worse than the process to create a “traditional” vehicle and it is not made up for in the typical lifespan of a car. The other reason I did not get a hybrid yet is that research also shows that the extra cost of a hybrid ($2,000-5,000 more than an equivalent car) will not be made up for by reduced gas purchasing in the 5 or so years I generally own a car before I trade it in for something else (especially when one considers the interest earned on the money that would have gone into the car purchase).

So I was kind of excited to hear this episode of Skeptoid, by Brian Dunning, on SUV’s where he debunked a few additional myths about SUVs and hybrids that were not even on my list.

The following is the transcript of that episode, reprinted courtesy of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

—–

Let’s spend some time on the trendy fad of looking for villains to blame for global warming. My flavor of the week is SUV’s, those evil gas guzzling, ozone destroying, unethical, politically incorrect, Nazi family soccer wagons. Only let’s not do it the trendy way, let’s look at the issue skeptically.

Let’s start by finding some common ground, some generalizations that most people probably agree with. First, the premise that fuel efficiency in vehicles is a good thing. There are probably very few people who disagree that efficiency should always be a goal. Second, the premise that heavier cars are generally less fuel efficient, thus lighter cars are generally good things. Excess weight burns excess fuel. Cars should not be unnecessarily heavy. Third, many heavy truck-based SUV’s are generally heavier and less fuel efficient than light passenger cars.

I’m going to continue with the assumption that you agree with all of the above. Based in part on these generalizations, many so-called environmentalist groups have been lobbying, often successfully, for laws against SUV’s. I hope to encourage you to be skeptical of such laws. The problem with making laws based on generalizations is that the exceptions are being unfairly penalized, and some guilty offenders are getting away scott free. Any law against SUV’s is a bad law, and here’s why.

The vast majority of so-called SUV’s are mechanically identical to conventional cars. They are given taller bodies and more upright styling, then sold as SUV’s. Their weight, economy, and performance are generally similar to the cars on which they are based. Toyota’s Highlander and Lexus RX series are built on Toyota Camry chassis and mechanicals. Honda CRV and Element SUV’s are based on the Honda Civic. The Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe are rebodied Toyota Corollas. The Hyundai Tucson, Santa Fe, and Kia Sportage SUV’s are based on the Hyundai Elantra and Sonata sedans. The Acura MDX and Honda Pilot SUV’s are simply Honda Accords underneath that taller sheet metal. People don’t need heavier metal or tougher mechanicals, they simply want a particular cosmetic style or a form factor that’s more convenient for carrying people and cargo. And that’s fine.

For example, a military Humvee, now also marketed to consumers by General Motors as the H1 Hummer, has portal axles and inboard brakes. Most people don’t know what either of those are, but suffice it to say that they represent dramatic structural departures from conventional SUV’s. People want to buy a big beefy military vehicle, but GM’s engineers know that it’s simply not a practical road car. Not wanting their customers to be disappointed, they took their existing conventional Yukon/Tahoe/Escalade vehicle, put a vaguely Humvee-like body on it, and they now sell it as the H2 Hummer. Most people wrongly assume, as GM hoped they would, that it’s a second generation Humvee, new & improved, but still with military vehicle roots. Wrong on all counts, but again, most consumers don’t know or really care. Not a single component is shared between the H1 and H2. Their whole design paradigms are polar opposites: one is a military truck, the other is a passenger car with a styled exterior. GM knew that people wanted to believe that they’re driving a Humvee, so GM tried to license the name Hummer from the Humvee’s manufacturer, defense contractor AM General; but AM General refused. GM had to buy the entire company, just to get access to the Hummer name so they could sell more H2′s. It was well worth it since GM sells an H2 Hummer for about twice the price of a mechanically identical Yukon or Tahoe. And consumers now blissfully believe they’re driving around in military trucks. Yet another example of why you should be skeptical of marketing labels.

People talk about cleaning up Los Angeles’ smog by penalizing or banning SUV’s. Did you know that a single container ship coming into Long Beach Harbor generates as much carbon emissions as 300,000 cars? Ships are not subject to emission laws. Why not? Are SUV’s, most of which are mechanically and economically similar to conventional cars, really the logical targets? SUV’s are hardly the cause of our carbon problems. Any road car, H2 Hummers included, is extremely environmentally friendly (as vehicles go), given all the emission laws that they comply with, especially when compared to the average car from only a decade ago.

Paris and London are two cities that have really gone agro over SUV’s, fining them for entering downtown. The claim is that they’re not only fuel inefficient, but they’re too big to park and too dangerous. But, as we’ve established, the term SUV really only refers to cars with a certain cosmetic style. There are plenty of cars that are fuel inefficient that are not SUV’s. There are plenty of cars that are longer than many SUV’s. And there are plenty of cars that are tall or heavy and do as much crash damage as SUV’s. SUV’s probably appear frequently on all three lists, but targeting cars because of their styling is still the wrong path to a useful solution. Ban cars that are fuel inefficient, or ban cars that are too long to park, or ban cars with bad crash ratings. Even do all three. But you won’t solve those problems by attacking the irrelevant characteristic of cosmetic styling. So why do lawmakers do it? They don’t care about the facts, they care about appealing to the voters’ emotions. Ban those evil SUV’s, and you’ll satisfy the emotions of the ignorant masses. If you’re not ignorant, you shouldn’t stand for it. You should demand that lawmakers pay attention to the facts. (You might also mind your own damn business and stop trying to legislate what other peoples’ priorities should be, but that’s another subject for another time.)

Here’s another wrinkle for you. Hybrids such as the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight have really pushed the bar higher on efficiency and economy. Thus, there is now a general perception that hybrids get better mileage. Generally true, but again, there are exceptions. The Lexus RX hybrid SUV uses exactly the same V6 engine as its non-hybrid counterpart, and thus posts similar mileage numbers. I drove both vehicles prior to their release in a consumer test. The hybrid system in this case simply adds additional power for acceleration. The improved mileage that you might expect from the hybrid system is canceled out by the additional weight of the battery and motor, particularly on the highway. The Lexus GS is an example of the same philosophy applied to a high-end luxury sedan. In addition, many high-end sports car manufacturers are testing hybrid prototypes for the electric engine’s ability to add acceleration off the line. In summary, a hybrid system does not always mean improved economy or cleaner emissions. You should pay attention to the actual numbers that a vehicle posts, not to its label, be it “hybrid” or “SUV”.

Here’s the first example that pops into my head: my 2004 Audi S4, a 4 door sedan, gets 15 miles per gallon, which is worse than the 16 miles per gallon of my wife’s 2006 Toyota 4Runner with the largest V8 engine. Which do you hear so-called environmentalists protesting: common sedans, or SUV’s? They’re smart: Protesting sedans will strike no nerves, but it’s easy to terrify the public with alarmist warnings about those evil SUV’s. And I think that this perfectly summarizes the fact that anti-SUV protests and legislation are not only counterproductive, they are factually wrong. When you hear marketing buzzwords and labels instead of valid test data, be skeptical.

Continuing with my occasional motif of posting short introductions to videos I find to be humorous, interesting, though provoking, or just fun, I’m giving my readers a look at a video put out by the host of one of my favorite podcasts around. Instead of trying to explain it myself, I’ll let him explain himself (taken from http://herebedragonsmovie.com/):

What Is This?

Here Be Dragons is a free 40 minute video introduction to critical thinking. It is suitable for general audiences and is licensed for free distribution and public display.

Most people fully accept paranormal and pseudoscientific claims without critique as they are promoted by the mass media. Here Be Dragons offers a toolbox for recognizing and understanding the dangers of pseudoscience, and appreciation for the reality-based benefits offered by real science.

Here Be Dragons is written and presented by Brian Dunning, host and producer of the Skeptoid podcast and author of Skeptoid: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena, and Executive Producer of The Skeptologists.

The folks at New Rule Productions put together a quick teaser trailer for a new TV show, The Skeptologists, which is being pitched to various networks.

Do you believe? Then maybe you should watch The Skeptologists. This is the teaser trailer for the pilot., while admittedly the teaser is a bit lame, based on the people involved in this project (including Yau-Man Chan, Mark Edward, Steve Novella, Phil Plait, Kirsten Sanford, Michael Shermer, host Brian Dunning, and recently announced Pamela Gay) this has the potential to be a great show, in the same vein as Mythbusters (although I’m guessing less explosions) and Penn and Teller’s Bullshit (with less profanity and nudity).

For more information on the show, and the people involved please check out their facebook page, their website, their blog, or some background on a few of the cast members (many of them are hosts of a few podcasts I have previously mentioned on Skeptical and Scientific podcasts and Skeptical and Scientific podcasts – Part 2), and if you’re into this type of thing, you can DIGG it as well.

If you want to support the show you can send an email to skeptologists@newrule.com. You’ll get an automated reply, but they are collecting emails to show networks that there is a demand for quality shows for intelligent people who don’t buy into all the nonsense being aired right now. The goal is to get at least 50,000 emails while they are doing the post production editing.

Finally a show is coming on to debunk some of the most outrageous claims made by people. Right now the show has finished shooting the pilot episode and is looking to get support from the television industry. Drop them an email as support to show that television shows like this do have a market and people are getting tired of ghost story, UFO, and Bigfoot shows of drivel.

We all would love to believe that aliens have visited us, that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll, that certain gifted people can move objects with their mind. But belief is not enough.

Like any accepted science, these theories must stand up to experimentation. Belief alone is not proof and theories are not fact. That is where we come in.

We are The Skeptologists.

We’re not willing to just accept stories of the paranormal or supernatural. We want proof.

Each week, we’ll take on a handful of wild claims — from the Bermuda Triangle to Bigfoot sightings to haunted houses — and apply accepted scientific practices and experiments to see if these theories hold up.

Whether in the field in the lab, we’ll literally put these theories to the test in the hopes that one day we find real proof that something can’t be explained and there is more to life than we have experienced.

As well, I’d like to include the bios of the participants:

Dr. Phil Plait, affectionately referred to as The Bad Astronomer is an internationally renowned astronomer, author, lecturer, and blogger. He uses mega intelligence, critical thinking and a hefty dash of humor to dismantle pseudoscience and wild claims of the paranormal. His career as an astronomer has brought him in contact with NASA as a contractor for Goddard Space Flight Center for Hubble. He is in high demand for speaking engagements on radio, television and podcasts. He is also the creator of the popular website and blog Bad Astronomy.com

Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the monthly “Skeptic” columnist for Scientific American, and author of Why people Believe Weird Things, an exploration into a variety of strange ideas, groups and cults. A psychologist, professor and historian of science,Dr. Shermer was also the co-producer and co-host of the Fox Family television series, Exploring theUnknown. Dr. Shermer has made countless appearances on television including, Oprah, Larry KingLive, The Colbert Report, Dateline, 20/20, The History Channel, A & E, The Discovery Channel, andPBS as a skeptic of weird and extraordinary claims.

Yau-Man Chan received his Bachelor of Science degree in physics from MIT, Master of Sciencedegree from UCSB and currently is the Chief Technology Officer at the College of Chemistry fromUC Berkeley where he manages and runs the information systems for administrative, research and teaching units of the college. He gained instant popularity when he became a contestant onSurvivor: Fiji (finishing 4th) and was voted favorite Survivor. He is also a cast member on the new season of Survivor: Micronesia.

Dr. Kirsten Sanford holds a PhD in Physiology from UC Davis and would rather be known for herintelligence than her Sexy Geek nomination from Wired magazine’s 2007 contest; one glance at her and its hard not to notice her, um, intelligence. Dr. Sanford has a fanatical drive to popularize
science, which lead her to produce and host This Week in Science a radio program turned lively podcast that educates the layman in recent scientific endeavors. Dr. Sanford, brainy and bright also holds a black belt in Tae-Kwon-Do, hula hoops with fire and is fascinated by birds and their brains.

Mark Edward is a professional mentalist specializing in magic of the mind. His amazing mind reading techniques make a statement about our limited powers of observation and our refusal to believe manipulation can easily happen to the best of us. He has performed as a psychic entertainer at the Hollywood hot spot Magic Castle as well as world-class venues, nightclubs and corporate events. His television appearances include A & E’s Houdini the Great Escape, NBC’s The other Side, two episodes of the Learning Channel’s Exploring the Unknown, Emmy nominated, Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Talking to the Dead, and most recently he was the guest Medium on the season finale of Last Comic Standing.

Dr. Steven Novella is an academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine. He is the president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting science and reason. He is also the host and producer of The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe a popular weekly science podcast that deals with myths, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and the paranormal from a scientific point of view. Dr. Novella is a well-known lecturer, author, and commentator advocating the skeptical point of view.

As far as supporting the show, as Ryan Johnson, the director, wrote:

Raise your voice! Let it be known that it’s time for a TV series that focuses on the real, the intelligent and important advances in science, critical thinking and skepticism. The Skeptologists will be pitched to major networks soon, and we want to give the programming executives a sense of what kind of support they can received if they invest in a TV series of this kind.

We have started an email campaign to have fans of the show write-in in support of this show idea and let us know why you would watch a show about critical thinking, science and skepticism! We will compile the emails and present to the executives along with our all-star cast, entertaining pilot program and solid production background to seal a great TV deal to give the Skeptics of the world a show they can stand behind, and be proud of!

Take a moment, and send a brief email to skeptologists@newrule.com. You email will be collected and will help support the show.

Thank you very much,

-Ryan C. Johnson,
Director

[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwD8Ay78diA]