More Prius Humor from the Wall Street Journal
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 12.14.05
Not content with the response he received from his last article, WSJ Humorist Holman Jenkins Jr. is at it again with his wild and crazy economic analyses:
"Doesn't saving oil have benefits beyond the dollars save- for instance, postponing the doom of civilization?
No: If Prius owners consume less, there's less demand, prices will be lower and somebody else will step up to consume more than they would at the otherwise higher price."
and our favourite zinger:
But wouldn't using less oil make us less dependent on Mideast imports?
Just the opposite: In the nature of things, the cheapest oil is consumed first, and Mideast oil is the cheapest. Drive a Hummer if you want to reduce America's reliance on Arab oil. Indeed, if we all pull together and drive gasoline prices high enough, we'd be able to satisfy all our fuel needs next door from Canadian oil sands."
And, rehearsing his host-on-SNL money shot: "Prius fans might do the planet more good by convincing the American Public of the merits of nuclear energy, the closest thing to a genuinely "green solution" to energy challenges in the real world."
The hall was quiet as one joke fell too close to the truth: "There are 89 vehicles made by major auto makers that rate 40 miles to the gallon or better [that you cannot buy here]....Such fuel scrimpers sell in Europe because gas retails $ 5 a gallon .... Americans are equally sensible when they skip over efficiency in favor of features that are important to them, such as size, comfort and horsepower"
We apologise to Junior. In his last article we thought he was being serious. Now we realize his real intent and ambition- a life as a comic.
Toyota fell for it as well- here is their response to the last article:
In response to Holman W. Jenkins Jr.'s Nov. 30 Business World column "Dear Valued Hybrid Customer . . ." criticizing Toyota's hybrids: I'd like to set the record straight.
Toyota is committed to hybrid technology because it makes sense for our customers, for our dealers, for society and, yes, for our business. The Prius has captured minds and market share because it provides a sensible alternative for people looking for a mid-sized passenger sedan that offers twice the fuel economy and tremendous environmental benefits. Our Highlander Hybrid and Lexus RX 400h SUVs offer significant fuel savings compared to the V8 SUVs people are trading in, not to mention being 80% cleaner for smog-forming emissions.
Mr. Jenkins used some inventive math to try to make the case against hybrids, including saying a comparable car to the Prius costs $9,500 less. I'd like to provide some different numbers that speak to the real heart of this matter -- customer acceptance. This year, a Consumer Reports survey of more than 250,000 car owners ranked the Prius as the most satisfying vehicle, with 94% saying they'd buy one again.
Another significant number is 100 million -- that's the gallons of gas we estimate our U.S. hybrids have saved since the Prius debuted in 2000. That's enough to fuel a fleet of 200,000 delivery vehicles for a year. As much as I'd like to take credit by saying we are brilliant marketers and have painted a green picture to sell our products, the people who purchase our vehicles know the truth -- our cars tell the story for us. And we believe they will continue to do so, which is why we're introducing a hybrid version of the Lexus GS next year, as well as putting a hybrid powertrain in America's most popular car, the Camry.
We understand that Mr. Jenkins and other naysayers will continue to target Toyota as the leader in hybrid technology because innovation and technological progress can be intimidating for some people. That's what the free market and free speech are about. Ultimately, consumers know what's best for them and they will make the choice with their pocketbooks.
Jim Press
President and Chief Operating Officer
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.
Managing Officer
Toyota Motor Corp.
Torrance, Calif.
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- 5 Ways to Stretch Christmas Cash and Still Hit Everyone on Your List
- This Month in Mother Jones: Rescuing the Economy and Saving the Planet
- Thanksgiving Travel Expected to the Lowest for Six Years
- Save Money with a Programmable Thermostat and Ceiling Fan Duo
He probably said that, hoping GM would give him a free Hummer, like Letterman, when he said "Heineken" about fifty times during a show, hoping to receive a case of it.
Someone should find out what corporate payroll this schmo is on....
Funny. He makes a great case and so you fall back and say he's joking. Where's the intellect required to engage?
I agree with this guy. Dig it all up, burn it all up, get rid of it. ONLY then will industry be forced to find real alternatives and hopefully these won’t be nuclear power. Hell even then we only have another 30 years of that and if we’re lucky maybe we’ll be forced to burn up all those bombs that are still around from the cold war. Let’s not kid ourselves; we’ll never kick the addiction to oil or cheap energy. Almost everything in our world is composed of it and reducing dependence is only an attempt to avoid the inevitable. So yes America, drive those Hummers through the streets of New York City, because pretty soon neither one will be there.
Holy crap. That guy's totally insane.
Very nice response from Toyota, by the way.
Perhaps because making fun is the only way I can deal with it. What is the logic in saying that the best way to end dependence on middle east oil is to use it all up? what is there to engage when the same specious argument is made as in his last, that why should I save any fuel if someone else will just go and use it, instead I should just grab everything that I can afford for myself? Who has such a sense of entitlement?
"Perhaps because making fun is the only way I can deal with it. What is the logic in saying that the best way to end dependence on middle east oil is to use it all up?"
The logic is as he laid out. The Middle East countries are the low-cost producers. Therefore, if prices fall (as the conservation of fuel would cause--you correctly point out), they will be the last producers willing to sell at the prevailing price. One way around that is stiff import duties. But that wouldn't fly, I think.
"what is there to engage when the same specious argument is made as in his last, that why should I save any fuel if someone else will just go and use it, instead I should just grab everything that I can afford for myself?"
He is right in that at the margin, this won't affect fuel use. However, you are right in that it's a stupid argument. He is arguing that oil is perfectly inelastic (I think). This doesn't make sense as the recent declines in fuel use (and increase in hybrid purchases) indicate.
I don't mean to say that everything you say is wrong, just that you can't dismiss people as jokers when clearly they are not, and don't intend to be.
Keep up the (generally) good work.
"If Prius owners consume less, there's less demand, prices will be lower and somebody else will step up to consume more than they would at the otherwise higher price."
Sadly this is true, if demand goes down the price will follow it. That gives people less incentive to buy fuel efficent vehicles or not drive as much. It seems the majority of Americans need a hit to the wallet to change their buying habits. Not to worry with the latest predictions in world oil demand for the next 25 years there will be plenty of incentive for R&D in to fuel savings and oil alternatives.
As to a comment on Nuclear power, bring it on, no carbon emmissions, we can store the waste safely (IMHO). Many people don't realize that we have over 100 reactors in the US producing power right now. When was the last time you heard of a major accident in the US, right 3 Mile Island. These reactors were all designed 30 years ago. Compaired to the carbon, mercury and other polution spewed by coal fired plants I'll take the nuke plant. (Too bad we are coal rich in the US so we'll keep using it) Read about pebble bed reactors etc and other new Nuclear tech. France gets 80% of it's power from Nuke plants. This knee jerk, NIMBY attude toward Nuclear power is a bad thing for clean air.
The argument presented in this article is totally dependant on the theory that Americans, every one of us, are driven only by greed and sloth. I, as an American, take offense to that. I wouldn't care if they were giving away gasoline for free, the true cost is not felt in my wallet its felt when I see a brown haze over once beautiful locales like Denver and LA.
The argument presented in this article is totally dependant on the theory that Americans, every one of us, are driven only by greed and sloth.
Actually, not each and every one of us. Just enough to generate that "brown haze".
You know, I'd give your comments more credence if you actually used a TRUTHful name. Or is your name Jenkins?
What difference does it make who I am? If I make a valid point, I make a valid point. If I don't, I don't.
That's odd, I wasn't aware that nuclear-powered cars were available. Where can I get one?
Whenever I hear someone putting down oil conservationists for not supporting nuclear power, I laugh, knowing that they probably would be the first to start bashing electric cars. What do they think nuclear power plants produce? Nuclear gasoline? If electricity were an equal substitute for oil, people would be snapping up EVs the way they are Priuses.
At the point where more than a quarter of the cumulative operating fleet (not just 25% of instantaneous sales) is hybrid, price of fuel will be high enough and engineering hurdles satisfied enough that the market will tip rapidly, reducing the fleet average mileage, thus (potentially) reducing demand and lowering price IF AND ONLY IF the booming economies of China and India also reduce their consumption, which is highly unlikely. The second variable of course is average miles driven per capita. This has been increased for the last two decades and will change ever so slowly in response to much broader cultural changes. Recapping: supply and demand are global, but this guy is only looking at the US in his analysis. Moreover, he fails to look at the distance traveled. As for nuclear, there is only enough plroven high grade uranium reserves in the world to satisfy EXISTING uranium demand for another 30 years. Add the growth planned in nuclear capacity by Asian and Middle Eastern nations and, even if this is a 100% underestimate of reserves, it points to the shallowness of the analysis.
For how long will nuclear power be available? Present reactors that use only the U-235 in natural uranium are very likely good for some hundreds of years. Bernard Cohen has shown that with breeder reactors, we can have plenty of energy for some billions of year.
Its not when was the last time we heard about a problem with a nuclear plant, its when is the NEXT time there is a problem at a nuclear plant.
And BTW - last time was something at Indian Point in NY. Besides their security issues, there was some kind of steam leak or something, that was supposed to be (and I don't have any reason to doubt it) harmless. And it wasn't that long ago.
And how much do we really every hear anyway?
Amen to John Laumer's comments! Thank you for the info.