Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I've heard this rumor a few times (example). The argument is that it takes energy to make the car, and when you take into account how long each car will last on the road, driving Prius's over a large number of miles will end up requiring more energy than if you had driven Hummers over that many miles.

This argument sounds dubious to me. Is there any validity to this claim?

share|improve this question
Similar question… – Russell Steen Aug 15 '11 at 22:39
Similar argument is being made about energy-efficient computers. – Job Aug 15 '11 at 22:51
I think Top Gear did provide evidence for a similar claim - but for one of the Mercedes exec saloons vs the Prius. – Rory Alsop Aug 16 '11 at 20:33
Top Gear is a great show, but they get it wrong all the time when it comes to this type of information. – Moab Aug 17 '11 at 2:59
Two reports that point out the many flaws in the "Dust to Dust" report where this claim was made: Hummer versus Prius: "Dust to Dust" report misleads the media and public with bad science and Dust to Dust's assumptions about the Prius and the Hummer – THelper May 18 '15 at 10:38
up vote 13 down vote accepted

The Straight Dope reports that while the full environmental impact is hard to measure, there is not much evidence to support the "Hummers are better for the environment than the Prius" claim:

The cause of the controversy seems to be a report called "Dust to Dust" by Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research. The report claims a Prius has a higher lifetime energy cost than a Hummer, an assertion cited by George Will in 2007 in his syndicated newspaper column. But the report is ludicrous. It evidently was self-published, lists no authors, quotes no technical literature, never explains its methodology, and contains numerous unsupported and often bizarre assertions.

Slate's Green Lantern also has a go at answering this question, and comes to much the same conclusion.

share|improve this answer
of course just measuring "energy cost" isn't going to provide the whole picture. There's also chemical pollution from things like heavy metals, complex carbohydrates, etc. during all stages of manufacturing, lifecycle, and recycling/deposition of the vehicle to take into account. – jwenting Aug 16 '11 at 11:05
We will not know the full environmental impact of battery cars until they are sold by the hundreds of millions, just like fossil fuel cars. They all pollute, before, during and after they are gone from the roads. My bet is they are worse than fossil cars. – Moab Aug 17 '11 at 3:05
Also, selling any functional car to purchase a new, more environmentally friendly car, is a net harm for the environment. The environmental consequences of driving that gas-guzzler for another ten years are less then the impact of building and driving a brand new Prius. – kbelder Dec 7 '12 at 19:00
@Moab "My bet is they are worse than fossil cars." So which logical fallacy did you commit there? Personal Incredulity? Anecdotal? – BryanH Jan 29 '13 at 20:21

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.