• Ian says:

    hopefully nationally….there are staions in metro LA and New York that are refusing to run the ads, claiming it’s “too big a leap to make.” of course these same stations run PSAs that claim that little Lucy buying a sack of chronic supports terrorism, so go figure.
    there was one interesting counterpoint to the detroit project tho (which is spearheaded by the formerly archconservative and still completely insane arainna huffington) — on marketplace last night (listen here), an auto-industry lobbyist talked about our other, less conspicuous consumption of energy — big houses with empty rooms that need to get cooled and heated, etc.
    something tells me ms. huffington isn’t living in a studio apartment, knawmean? it all adds up.

  • gene says:

    Hmm… not exactly scientific. I agree that the example that guy from the car club gives about big houses is valid, however, it’s kinda hard to say, “Don’t attack SUV owners, because people have big houses” The only context in which that flies is when you can say “In a year, the additional fuel / energy that a person uses due to the ownership of an SUV instead of a normal, more efficient car is 50 barrels of oil. In a year the additional fuel / energy that a person uses due to the ownership of a huge ass house that needs to be heated and cooled instead of a reasonable sized house with space for the people and the stuff is 100 barrels of oil.” I dunno, I wish people used numbers more. I’d rather have the evidence presented to me alongside the analysis, instead of just the analysis.

  • michele says:

    hmmm…. i wonder how much oil they used in XXX blowing things up and racing cars?
    but i’m still going to enjoy that movie this weekend when i watch it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *