Re: biodiesel vs. hybrid emmissions
I found the original article in the UK paper, "The Mail", and offered this comment:
--Begin comment--
Martin Delgado's article, "Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness" contains enough falsehoods to make one wonder if the "Daily Mail" has any fact checkers:
1) "Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness" - while Martin states, "Sudbury has spewed sulphur dioxide into the air for more than a century."
2) Photo of SO(2) ravaged plants - compare that to oil spill photos and tar balls on the beaches.
3) "The car giant buys about 1,000 tons a year" - about 0.7% of the 144,500 tons Canada mined just in 2002.
4) "environmental cost of producing that car battery" - while ignoring the nickel use in high temperature steels in ordinary cars and other nickel uses WHILE the hybrid batteries reduce oil consumption.
5) "questionable . . . more miles to the gallon than a good diesel" - while ignoring every engineering study that shows hybrids more efficient.
Perhaps someone should wake-up the fact checkers?
--End of comment--
I don't know if it will do any good but the best answer is to question their accuracy. Delgado is just a hack and what is important is to get those who 'publish' such nonsense to be shamed into do the right thing. IMHO, this article should have been tossed back in Delgado's face with at least the red-lines I've pointed out.
Bob Wilson
|