Fresh Greens

Michael Pollan's Prius-Hummer Blunder

By Maura Judkis

Posted: October 29, 2009

What a soundbite it was, for all of two days: Michael Pollan, sustainable food guru and author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," told the crowd at the 2009 Poptech conference, "Our meat eating is one of the most important contributors we make to climate change. A vegan in a Hummer has a lighter carbon footprint than a beef eater in a Prius.”

That line was blogged and tweeted countless times over the next few days. The only problem? It isn't true.

Reuters' Adam Pacisk refuted the claim shortly after, and here's his math:

Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin of the University of Chicago published a 2005 paper in the journal Earth Interactions that looked at the relative carbon footprints of plant-based and red-meat diets. They found that the difference between an heavy meat-eating diet and a vegan diet was about 2 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person per year. The difference between a Prius and an SUV (they used a Suburban, which gets about the same mileage as a Hummer) was 4.76 tons per year. Pollan’s claim, said Eshel, “is emphatically wrong. If you’re looking at the mean American driving habits and eating habits, it’s not even close.”

For environmentalists, as well as writers and reporters, the Hummer is the standard metaphor. How many times have you heard that a product is "the Hummer of [fill in the blank]?" Or that an action is equivalent to the footprint of a certain number of Hummers? It is a catchy and convenient way to quantify actions and values, but when it's used improperly, it can certainly backfire. Eshel seemed to regret having to debunk Pollan's statement, saying that he was on his side in his heart, but that he did not like to play fast and loose with numbers.  Pollan has since retracted his statement, telling Reuters:

“After digging in to it further, and consulting Gidon Eschel, I don’t feel comfortable defending it. It’s much more important to keep the focus on the central thrust of the environmental case against eating industrial meat, which is not in dispute and certainly does not stand or fall on the case of the vegan Hummer driver.”

“Thanks for your doggedness on this matter, which we can hope will stop this meme before it hurts somebody,” he added.

As for those Hummer drivers, for whom the chances that any are vegans is slim to none—there's a reason they've chosen this vehicle, and it generally has nothing to do with off-roading. According to a small study done by the Journal of Consumer Research, Hummer drivers chose their cars precisely because, through the metaphors of Pollan and other green writers and thinkers, the brand has become a symbol of something much more: Our American right to excess. Said the authors of the study, "For Hummer owners it is possible to claim the moral high ground... The moralistic critique of their consumption choices readily inspired Hummer owners to adopt the role of the moral protagonist who defends American national ideals."

Hummer owning considerate consumer

This really offends me "The moralistic critique of their consumption choices readily inspired Hummer owners to adopt the role of the moral protagonist who defends American national ideals".

I drive a Hummer H2. Its gets the same gas mileage as any of the main stream SUVs and cross overs out there, Ford Edge, Mazda CX7, Jeep, Dodge Nitro etc., etc. I know because I've been looking for something with 4x4 and decent mileage is there really isn't much. I bought my Hummer because I liked the looks of it, the price was right, and its built very solid. And yes, I like that it is (was) American made.

But I also care about the environment. I use reusable bags at stores, I compost, grow my own garden, buy organic food from local farmers as much as possible, recycle, shop at thrift stores and I really HATE when people by crap just to have crap. I'm very conscious about what I buy and only buy things I need or will truly value for the long term.

I've read Michael Pollan's stuff and firmly agree with his teachings. I've learned a lot about our food supply and I've reduced the amount of meat and industrial farmed products that I eat.

So don't peg me as a moral protagonist who doesn't give a crap about the environment. You don't know me.

Stacy of CT @ Jan 22, 2010 21:33:31 PM

Do you mean rhetoric?

Again, this study is not a survey based method. Two, this study did not address the actual environmental impact of the Hummer. Rather, it sought to explain the very puzzle you mention - why is the Hummer, which is just one of many low gas mileage SUVs, such a lightning rod for criticism and conversely a rallying point for defenders of "freedom" and the "American way-of-life."

I am just not getting the proverbial ax you are grinding here.

madtownpopulist of WI @ Oct 31, 2009 01:33:11 AM

Stop typing

Look, you want to do any sort of defensible comparison based on survey it has to be statistically significant, end of story. This is recycled BS. I could invent hours of rederic on demand.

I can provide data on demand showing Hummer's impact on the environment to be so insignificant as to invalidate the coverage it receives.

How about doing the world a service and weigh the fuel consumption vs. vehicle's sold vs. odds the vehicle will be used as intended. That would actually be interesting and informative.

Knarf of IL @ Oct 31, 2009 00:14:28 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Fresh Greens

Fresh Greens

Maura Judkis is a producer at U.S. News. She writes about the green movement and looks for ways to be an ecofriendly consumer without breaking the bank. Send her your green tips.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!