I really shouldn't write nasty things about people, but that's the only explanation for what she said on CNN tonight.
Q: As far as conservation, what are the trends you are seeing?In other words, Ms. Lundberg supports
A: I'm hoping that consumers will see through the rhetoric about consuming less, demanding less, as faulty. It is not a given that consuming less will be good for our economy or for our personal freedom. It is not even established for our environment that we [should] deprive ourselves of gasoline for our personal mobility as well our commerce. And to suppose that it is good to do that, and pretend that we have consensus and put our heads together to deprive ourselves of this great product that makes the country go around, commercially and individually, I think is flawed. I'm hoping consumers and voters will see through that and be able to ignore some of the most extreme suggestions.
- continued financial support of international terrorism,
- propping up governments hostile to the United States,
- killing children through respiratory illness and highway violence,
- increasing the U.S. trade deficit,
- decreased food security through loss of valuable farmland,
- dramatically higher expenses for obesity related diseases,
- and on and on and on. Excuse me, but at $3 and up a gallon, I don't have the unlimited resources to spend to fill up my car every day; never mind the environmental and health damage done by heavy gasoline use.
Rather than spending money locally or even spending our cash on something worthwhile, she wants everybody to continue sending their dollars to overseas producers for the product that we'll just spew from our tailpipes, no matter the cost. Yes, gasoline enables tremendous mobility and has fueled worldwide economic growth. It's a tremendously valuable substance that should be managed, not destroyed and used up with wanton abandon.
Found via The Oil Drum.