I heard her on a radio talk show and she admittted to taking a private plane to France - someone estimated this took 7000 gal of fuel to more her pretty little ass. A big hunking SUV that gets 15 mpg and is driven 15,000 miles a year uses 1000 gal of fuel.
Now assuming a trans-atlantic flight really does take 7000 gal or anywhere hear that I just have to say that these rich hyprocrits can take a flying leap.
Also I have to ask these jerks:
How big is her (and his) home(s)?, Is it heated by burning fuel?, How many cars does they own, and what types? What car do they normally get shoffered around in? Do thsy use mass transit at all? Do they even know where to get on mass transit? Is it ok for rich bitches/bastards to support terrorism but when thoses fuel guzzelig items trickledown to the middle class it’s not OK for them.
They have heaters all over the world, as well as delivery trucks and airplanes. The fact is that the United States makes up about 5% of the world’s population, and uses 25% of its oil production. The big difference between us and them? Giant SUVs.
Well, since I am supporting the grain of truth in the ads, I’ll assume I am one of those jerks and respond.
A good size house in a comfortably middle class neighborhood. Then again I have four kids. Furnace is natural gas powered and old. When it is replaced it will be by a more efficient model. I wonder if it will last long enough to get one of those Plug Power jobbers that both heat and generate electricity off of natural gas with fuel cell technology. Doubt it, though. Kids leave lights on too much for my taste. Two cars - my commutter is a Honda Civic that will eventually be replaced with a hybrid or a fuel cell if it lasts that long. The family kid-schlepper is a Toyota Seinna mini-van which gets in the twenties most of the time. Don’t get chauffered anywhere and my eldest takes the el into the city on weekends for his class at the Art Institute; my wife usually takes the el into the city for work.
BTW, the issue is not Huffington and her potential character flaws and/or hypocricy or even mine, but what is being claimed. Remember Rhetoric? That’s the ad hominem fallacy.
This is such an obvious ploy, people are unhappy with the polluting effects of SUVs so they pull out the “terrorist connection.” The same stupid half-ass “connection” that is used in anti-Marijuana ads. The oil industry is so huge and demand is so entrenched that none of these attempts at “awareness” is going to change anything about about how the money is being made. But that doesn’t matter does it? The ends justify the means, and when it comes to fuel efficiency who needs intellectual honesty when you can play off people’s hatred and fear?
If you think that every time you buy a gallon of gas you are supporting terrorism then you are an idiot. Much like thinking that 20 for weed is going directly into UBL’s back pocket. Entire economies are kept afloat by oil (weed too but I won’t
I have talked to my father, a Petroleum Exploration Geophysicist on the matters of ANWR and the like.
His first point is that the pro-ANWR people have some horribly high estimates about how much oil there is actually there. His second point is that the anti-ANWR overestimate the effect of drilling on the environment, as the portion that is wanted for drilling is quite small. His last point is that ANWR oil won’t be tagged “FOR US USE ONLY”. Not all oil is made alike is interchangable for chemical and economic reasons. Oil for ANWR could very well end up being an export from the US to other countries.
So basically, ANWR is not the magical solution to everyone’s problems and it won’t turn Alaska into sludge-land either.
That unfortunately doesn’t stop the Republican’s from talking about ANWR like it’s the solution to all of our problems. They will try making the terrorist connection every time if they think they can get away with it and scare the average citizen into supporting something that he might not usually.
Let’s put it this way…
By the same tortured logic every SUV out there is paying my way through college.
XP:His second point is that the anti-ANWR overestimate the effect of drilling on the environment, as the portion that is wanted for drilling is quite small.
Unfortunately, that small area (the coastal plain in the so-called “1002” region of the Reserve) is pretty crucial not only to the Porcupine River caribou but also to other wildlife like polar bears and muskoxen. So even if we could guarantee that there would never be a single spill or other damaging environmental accident—and spills do happen fairly frequently in the existing Trans-Alaska and Prudhoe Bay drilling sites—even the normal operation of oil drilling in ANWR could be disproportionately disruptive to wildlife.
And since, as your dad mentioned, all of ANWR’s oil resources would only be enough to supply gas for the US vehicle fleet (which accounts for two-thirds of our total oil consumption) for a mere six months, it’s not going to make any significant long-term difference in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Improved fuel efficiency and conservation, on the other hand, will continue to have major beneficial effects in the long term as well as the short term, and they don’t damage the environment in the process.
You seem to be missing the basic point. Of course we cannot entirely stop using gasoline. What we can do is make a choice. Many people choose to buy a new car every few years. The problem is when one chooses to buy a gas guzzling SUV over any other more fuel efficient model. The key is CHOICE. Don’t even mention furnaces. Most people don’t replace them until they break, simply because they cannot afford to. When they are replaced, they are replaced with newer more efficient models. If folks were buying a new furnace every few years, and chose the largest, most-inefficient model, then yes, we can complain.
As far a government fuel efficiency standards, nuclear power generation, coal power, etc - these are unrelated to the topic. Yhey are beyond the direct control of the individual. There is no individual choice that can be changed.
Hopefully these ads will make people re-evaluate the choice that they do have - whether or not to buy a gas guzzling SUV.
“Everybody makes SUVs now.”
“I got this vehicle because it’s a safe vehicle for me.”
They’re saying nearly exactly the things the commercial said in the first place. Ironic. Gotta wonder if the reporter even showed the people at the gas station these commercials
(well, if she did, she’d be using electronics at the gas station anyway!, which is verboten according to the pictogram).
Light trucks crashing into cars accounts for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions
2,000 people would still be alive if their vehicles had been hit by a heavy car instead of an SUV
80 percent of car and SUV owners strongly [agree] that automakers should make safety changes to SUVs that would make the roads safer for car occupants.
I didn’t know you sponsered the commercial. As for it not being the OP. The OP originated from these commercials sponsered by these people. I think it is fair to ask if they actually life the way they are telling us to or do they feel superior.
To more directly address the OP I have to say what ‘big oil’ does with it’s money is it’s responsibility, what the oil producers do with it’s money is it’s responsibility. I should not be held responsibile to where my money goes several hands down if I made a legal and moral transaction with it.
No, actually- it is NOT a “safe vehicle for you”. SUV’s rank behind “luxury imports”, Minivans (both of these are about twice as safe), and midsized/large sedans in terms of deaths per million vehicles sold. They just barely beat out “compact” cars. They do possess a significant edge over subcompacts, pickups & sportscars, however. In other words, they rank about in the middle. Several nice midsized sedans get something like double the gas mileage your average SUV gets.
If Ms Soccer Mom was really buying for “safety”, she’d buy a Volvo rather than a Suburban.
I think the point is that all of these sorts of ads are making simplistic claims. There is a grain of truth to each of them, to be sure, but the marketing campaigns take this truth and stretch it well beyond the breaking point. Whether it’s about drugs, SUV’s, diamonds, or candy bars, the argument becomes meaningless when it is applied universally.
I’m still waiting for the diamonds ad, though… i’m sure it’ll be along.
k2dave:I should not be held responsibile to where my money goes several hands down if I made a legal and moral transaction with it.
By that logic, there’d be nothing wrong with buying African conflict diamonds either. I think there’s a desirable middle ground between saying “YOU are DIRECTLY responsible for the eventual evil consequences of that purchase, you horrible thing you!!!” and saying “Hey, as long as you’re not actually the one paying off criminals and terrorists, you don’t need to bother your pretty little head about where your money goes.”
good point Kimstu but these commercials basically state that SUV owners (somehow excluding the sponsers of the commercial) are supporting terrorism. They are not realizing the middle ground either.
I’ve been thinking about equipping my Corolla with a bumper sticker that says “I fight terrorism with great gas mileage”. Much better than a jingoistic little flag.