I read an article quite a few years ago about the 'footprint' of a Prius as opposed to a Hummer, in terms of 'cost to the environment' from conception, to the scrap, to the recycler.
In the study they found that due to all of the new technology involved in the new vehicles, there was a lot of engineering that had to happen to get the new vehicle on the road. That new technology took engineers that drove vehicles back and forth to work every day to come up with all of the new designs. Then there were batteries which took more engineers to design, thus more vehicles on the road creating pollution, not to mention the human/vehicular involvement to get the minerals necessary to make the batteries. On top of that was all of the chemicals needed to make the plastics, etc involved in the design, and build of the car.
When it came to the vehicles 'end of life' the cost to recycle was high due to the batteries, as well as all of the plastics, etc that required special handling to recycle.
In the end it gave a cost to the environment of a Prius of something like $1.50.
Then it went through the same logic process for a Hummer. Given it's 'basic' design, the majority of the engineering that went into it didn't go far outside what goes into any other, conventional, modern day, car. The result was not a lot of engineering time spent 'wasted' coming up with anything new besides the shape of the vehicle. The majority of the vehicle is made of metal, which made something like 95% of it completely, and easily recyclable -vs- something like 50% of the Prius.
In the end the 'cost to the environment' of a Hummer was something like 75 cents.
The go down even further, they also threw in a VW bug. Again they went through the same, basic logic process with it. One of it's main plusses was that nearly 99% of it could be recycled because it was nearly all metal. In the end the cost to the environment for the BUG was something like 25 cents.
It's been awhile since I read that article, so the numbers aren't right, but the end result was the same. The very car that the tree huggers said was the most environmentally friendly was actually the worst, and one of the ones they said was the worst was actually the best.
This happens because of the short sighted idea that just because a vehicle gets a higher MPG that it is automatically better than one that gets a few MPG lower. Often when you factor in things such as life expectancy, ease of recycling, the cost of the original engineering, etc, etc, a much different picture develops, because the environmental costs of the vehicle in question goes far beyond the 'operating' cost of the vehicle itself.
I see this problem with heavy equipment, every day. I also see the engine mfgs bragging about getting a better percentage on their fuel usage with the newer engines, but what do they base that 'better' on? I ask because I have watched my customers and see the guys with the older equipment doing just as much, and often times more, work with their 'fuel guzzling' machines as the guys with the latest and greatest machines are doing with theirs. The funny thing is they are rarely using more fuel than the guys with the newer machines are, and often times are using less.
In fact I know of one customer who had an older machine they put out to pasture in favor of a newer machine. The operator said the old machine ran all day on 30-40 gallons of fuel and moved x amount of yardage, while the newer machine was usually taking 130-140 gallons of fuel to the same amount, but more often less. Now I ask, does that sound like the new machines is more environmentally friendly?
On the same note, what I typically see also is that the cost to operate, above and beyond the fuel, is also much greater with the new machines. Where a ball joint on a throttle cost $2 the stepper motor on the new machines throttle cost $1500. Not to mention once the machine gets a few years old and the warranty runs out, the guy with the old machine can call someone like me to work on it. On the other hand the guy with the new machine has to call the dealership, hope they have some available as he's a low priority for them (((he didn't spend several million on the newest machines last year)))) and spend twice as much for the guy to come out and plug in his computer to troubleshoot...... That's not to say I couldn't do the same thing, but when every mfg has a different, proprietary, software, there's no way an individual can spend the tens of thousands of dollars needed to keep up with every brand, and the changes every year, and still turn a profit.
I got a bit off course there, but given the topic, far too many folks never really think beyond the most basic 'cost to operate' ((((ie-cost of fuel))) which is the main thing they see. Beyond that, they just fuss when the part for their new car costs them an arm and a leg to replace (vs repair) and the shop charges them $100 an hour for a $20 an hour technician to 'work' on it, simply because they have to use a computer program that cost them $10,000 for the year.