"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun - the Dark Remover\" wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:
While I'm all for using more renewable resources, and especially
ones that are environmentally friendly, it doesn't make sense to
cause yourself financial pain doing so. It makes sense to buy the
must fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs but not to
overspend
simply because it's a little better on the gas mileage.

It's not a "little" better, it more than double - 50+ MPG compared
to 25!

The definition of "little" can vary.
Would you consider 5 MPG a "little" ?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml
Shows the Prius at 60/51 mpg with a couple of VW's in the 38/46 range.
This is only 1.6/1.1 times and not double, especially when considering
highway driving instead of city driving. This means you can purchase
a vehicle with good fuel efficiency without buying a Prius or even
a hybrid.

Most people have a passenger car typical of a Toyota Camry, typically a
6Cyl auto trans that gets mileage in the mid 20s. (you can select yours
here http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm)

But the percentage of people driving passenger cars is dwindling, more
and more are driving SUVs and trucks. Those get even worse mileage.
One of my coworkers bought a new Toyota Highlander 4WD which is based on
the Camry and it gets even less (she says less than 20) than her 2 year
old 2WD highlander. Another coworker gets less than 20 MPG on a Chevy
Tahoe SUV.

So the Prius gets even _better_ than double the average vehicle MPG.
The Honda hybrids do even better.

Looking at the difference between the hybrids and SUVs, it's more like 3
to 1 better mileage, and that's mothing to sneeze at!

[snip]

You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and dairy.
I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you could
[snip]

The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food products
that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat substitutes.
It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these things,
so the prices are higher.

[snip]

Anthony

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and dairy.
I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you could

[snip]

The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food products
that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat substitutes.
It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these things,
so the prices are higher.

The price penalty is only on items that try to replace or substitute
for meat (and often failing miserably). If you simply purchase items
such as beans, rice, grains, nuts and so forth, as they exist in
nature (or at least, supermarket shelves) then their prices become very
low.

You can always find the most expensive or least energy efficient way
of doing something but that doesn't mean that is the only, or even the
most common, method in use.

Anthony

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and
dairy.
I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you
could

[snip]

The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food
products
that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat
substitutes.
It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these
things,
so the prices are higher.

The price penalty is only on items that try to replace or substitute
for meat (and often failing miserably). If you simply purchase items
such as beans, rice, grains, nuts and so forth, as they exist in
nature (or at least, supermarket shelves) then their prices become
very
low.

Last I checked, nuts were more expensive than some meats. And most
people haven't got a clue as to how to eat a meat-free diet and get
proper nutrition. That's the problem.

[snip]
Anthony

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message

The price penalty is only on items that try to replace or substitute
for meat (and often failing miserably). If you simply purchase items
such as beans, rice, grains, nuts and so forth, as they exist in
nature (or at least, supermarket shelves) then their prices become
very
low.

Last I checked, nuts were more expensive than some meats. And most
people haven't got a clue as to how to eat a meat-free diet and get
proper nutrition. That's the problem.

Well, then don't buy more expensive products and educate yourself
about proper nutrition. It's not like this is especially complex or
the information particularly difficult to find.

Anthony

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message

The price penalty is only on items that try to replace or substitute
for meat (and often failing miserably). If you simply purchase items
such as beans, rice, grains, nuts and so forth, as they exist in
nature (or at least, supermarket shelves) then their prices become
very
low.

Last I checked, nuts were more expensive than some meats. And most
people haven't got a clue as to how to eat a meat-free diet and get
proper nutrition. That's the problem.

Well, then don't buy more expensive products and educate yourself
about proper nutrition. It's not like this is especially complex or
the information particularly difficult to find.

Anthony

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and
dairy.
I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you
could

[snip]

The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food
products
that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat
substitutes.
It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these
things,
so the prices are higher.

The price penalty is only on items that try to replace or substitute
for meat (and often failing miserably). If you simply purchase items
such as beans, rice, grains, nuts and so forth, as they exist in
nature (or at least, supermarket shelves) then their prices become
very
low.

Last I checked, nuts were more expensive than some meats. And most
people haven't got a clue as to how to eat a meat-free diet and get
proper nutrition. That's the problem.

[snip]
Anthony

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
You could chose to eliminate chicken as well as beef, eggs and dairy.
I'm no expert in either nutrition or food prices but I think you could

[snip]

The price penalty becomes even greater when you purchase food products
that eliminate meat such as silk and soy bean and tofu meat substitutes.
It's a matter of supply and demand; most people don't buy these things,
so the prices are higher.

The price penalty is only on items that try to replace or substitute
for meat (and often failing miserably). If you simply purchase items
such as beans, rice, grains, nuts and so forth, as they exist in
nature (or at least, supermarket shelves) then their prices become very
low.

You can always find the most expensive or least energy efficient way
of doing something but that doesn't mean that is the only, or even the
most common, method in use.

Anthony