Sorry…I promise I’ll stop.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ let’s you do side by side comparisons of car emissions based on year and model. Devin’s new car is significantly more efficient than his 1994 one. He’s getting roughly 30% more miles to the gallon and his carbon emissions have decreased by over 1.5 tons/year.

I can see the argument progressing to something along the lines of “it’s an improvement, but look at it compared to the Prius.” Admittedly, the Prius swings for the fences when it comes to fuel-economy statistics, but I believe that looking at the situation economically makes a difference.

A bit of online price shopping showed that a Prius with the roughly the same options package as Devin’s Sentra would be roughly $6,500 more than the Sentra. If you go back and look at fueleconomy.gov, it gives estimates of the average fuel cost per year for each car. Comparatively, you’d be spending roughly $1600/year for gas on the Sentra and $900 for the Prius, or saving about $700/year. So if you net out fuel savings for 2 years, you are still paying over $5100 more for the Prius. In fact, it would take you over 9.5 years of fuel savings to break even on the increased cost of the car. And yes, please take number that with a grain of salt because I didn’t include fuel cost inflation…sue me, it’s a blog comment…:)

So I guess my overall conclusion is that Devin made a pretty solid decision in my book. Another conclusion I have reached as I write this is that it is perhaps a good thing I don’t have many nights of insomnia, because this is slightly ridiculous…

I considered it, ask Rachel, but I can’t drive a car like a Prius in Colorado. There’s a trade-off between power and efficiency and mountains need power.

I’m an accountant, I have a grasp on my financial decision.
The problem is the economic incentives to switch aren’t strong enough. There absolutely is a demand for environmentally friendly products… that’s why it (organic food, organic clothing, hybrid cars) costs more. Look to your government or corporations, they’re as much the culprit.

Ahem. What’s a bigger environmental impact than not owning a car? The BIGGEST thing you can do for the environment is to not own a car, or if you must, to make a responsible purchase. (The second biggest thing you can do is live in a small footprint.)

No offense, Devin. I respect and like you a lot! But you can’t say that you are concerned for the environment after you’ve just bought a 2007 model new car.

I understand that you have a long commute, but we all make choices. If you were really concerned for the environment, getting a new car wouldn’t have been a choice you made.

If you were worried about saving money, I think you wouldn’t have leased a new car. Leasing is generally a bad financial decision. Investing in a new car at all is one of the worst. You could have found a perfectly suitable, stylish and reliable car for much cheaper.

Hybrids may not save you money right away if you look at it like that, but you’re fooling yourself if you think you’re not paying for not having a hybrid in so many other ways, including, primarily, economically. The costs to our environment show up in the economic system, and by not creating demand for environmentally friendly products, you are perpetuating a damaged system.

If you’re not into the environment, no biggie. Well, it is a biggie, but I won’t argue that you should be right now. But don’t say that you are, and then make decisions that are so blatantly the opposite.

It’s such a pain.

Nicole: I envy you. Some day I hope to live where I can walk/bike to work every day. So, yes, my first job requires a commute from Broomfield to south Denver.