Case Studies

Driving vs. Walking: Cows, Climate Change, and Choice

May 2008

Despite recent, high-profile media claims that walking is worse for the planet than driving, a Pacific Institute analysis shows that when it comes to your carbon footprint, results vary significantly based on the factors assumed. The environmental impacts of our choices require a discerning look.

Read the Pacific Institute's Driving vs. Walking: Cows, Climate Change, and Choice.

Hummer vs. Prius 2008 Redux

March 2008

A year after a faulty marketing report fueled an automotive face-off, the Pacific Institute, armed with newly released Consumer Reports’ data, returns to the Hummer versus Prius debate and finds the Prius is (still) more energy efficient over its lifetime than the Hummer.

Read the Pacific Institute's Hummer vs. Prius 2008 Redux.

Bottled Water and Energy: Getting to 17 Million Barrels

December 2007

Numerous high-profile articles and editorials cited that an estimated 1.5 million barrels of oil equivalent were needed to produce the bottles for annual U.S. bottled water consumption.

A recent assessment by the Pacific Institute concludes the actual number is more than 10 times the incorrect figure.

Download Bottled Water and Energy: Getting to 17 Million Barrels (PDF)

Hummer versus Prius:
“Dust to Dust” Report Misleads the Media and Public with Bad Science

by Peter H. Gleick, May, 2007

The CNW Marketing Research, Inc.’s 2007 “Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal” caught the interest of the media and the public with its claim that a Hummer H3 SUV has a lower life-cycle energy cost than a Toyota Prius hybrid. Closer inspection suggests that the report’s conclusions rely on faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review.

Read the Pacific Institute's seven page re-analysis of “Dust to Dust”

The Political and Selective Use of Data:
Cherry-Picking Climate Data in the White House

by Peter H. Gleick, March 12, 2007
UPDATED JUNE 1, 2007

The White House's claim that the United States is doing better than Europe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions relies on the misuse of science and data, as the Pacific Institute points out in The Political and Selective Use of Data.

Read The Political and Selective Use of Data:
Cherry-Picking Climate Data in the White House

Washington’s Attacks on Science “Pervasive”

Testimony submitted February 7, 2007.

Political distortions of the scientific process have undergone a dramatic rise in Washington over the past six years, according to the Senate testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute. Gleick’s testimony was provided to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on Climate Change Research and Science Integrity Wednesday. Misuse of science and attacks on scientists, Gleick finds, have been pervasive and categorical.

Download testimony (PDF)