Acura MDX SUV Forums banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
SUV's and Terror

New TV ads link SUVs, terror
Commercials link gas-guzzling light trucks to terrorists' revenue sources



LOS ANGELES (AP) - A group hoping to lessen U.S. reliance on foreign oil debuted two television ads today that link gasoline-guzzling sport utility vehicles to terrorist funding.
The ads mimic spots that link drug money to terrorism.

One commercial features a child's voice-over and shows a man filling his gas tank and footage of terrorist training. The closing statement: "Oil money supports some terrible things. What kind of mileage does your SUV get?"

The other ad shows people talking about their SUVs. One says, "My kids think it's cool." Another says, "I helped blow up a nightclub."

The 30-second ads were created for The Detroit Project, a non-profit organization launched by syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington. They will begin airing Sunday in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington and Detroit.

"This campaign is not designed to demonize SUV owners," Huffington said. "We want to encourage customers to connect the dots and make socially responsible consumer choices."

The ads were written and directed by Scott Burns, who was part of the creative team responsible for "Got Milk." They are intended as parodies, Burns said.

The ads were turned down by several TV stations - WABC in New York, KABC and KCBS in Los Angeles and WDIV in Detroit, according to campaign publicists Fenton Communications. Huffington said the stations found them "controversial."

The ads will air on Face the Nation and Meet the Press on Sunday.

The Detroit Project was created by Americans for Fuel Efficient Cars, a group co-founded by Huffington, film producer Lawrence Bender, environmental activist Laurie David, and movie and TV agent Ari Emanuel.

The ads - which cost $50,000 US to make and $175,000 for air time - were paid for through donations.

Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, criticized the ads as "elitist nonsense." The institute is a business lobby that favours a non-government approach to regulatory issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
It's about time! Although I do not agree with the guilt trip tactic, perhaps this type of ad will begin to quill the fashionability of the SUV. In a world of finite resources, it is ridiculous for us to drive gas guzzling vehicles. We should all be driving micro-cars, or at least minivans. Of course, we can all excuse ourselves as exceptions. The MDX is, after all, a massaged over minivan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
I saw an interview with Ms. Huffington yesterday, and she was far from being an extremist. (compared to some of the websites on the internet).
Her whole purpose was to get the manufacturer's to work harder on producing more fuel efficient vehicles, such as the hybrid powered ones.
Although, I am not so sure something like a hybrid powered SUV is realistic.
I think it is up to consumers to purchase vehicles that serve their purpose as efficiently as possible.
The MDX is cetainly going in the right direction. I think it is more SUV than minivan, but it provides what is needed without taking on the tasks of a truck based vehicle, which most of us do not need.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,348 Posts
Actually I think driving a SUV will help this situation in the long run. I believe the market will dictate when more fuel efficient cars will be popular (remember all the hype in the 80's about mpg, etc.). I remember the K cars touting their fuel efficiency.

I think the more gas we use (drive up demand) will eventually cause the supply to lessen causing prices to increase. As the prices increase, people will want to use more fuel efficient machines and thus the market will repsond to this. If gas is $4 or more per gallon (having supply drive this, not taxes) people will not be buying a truck that gets less than 20 mpg IMOH.

As gas gets scarcer (i.e. more expensive), the market will demand that vehicles get better mpg or use alternative fuel sources (hydrogen, fuel cells, etc.). This is what will drive change in the market place. I think making cars more fuel efficient actually prolongs the introduction/demand of alternative fuel sources. Again, look at the late 70s/early 80's. Oil was scarce, high mpg vehicles were popular and now we're back talking about higher mpg vehicles again.

OPEC can mess with their supply, but until the actual oil supply is almost depleted, we will most likely have this problem. This is my reasoning for purchasing a "gas guzzler". I am going to drive it while I can!!

Flame away!!:9:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
"This campaign is not designed to demonize SUV owners," Huffington said. "We want to encourage customers to connect the dots and make socially responsible consumer choices."
I already saw the ad on TV when one of the authors was being interviewed. The problem is, the ad does exactly what Huffington purports its was not designed to do - it demonizes SUV owners. It also unfairly lets the rest of society completely off the hook for their use of natural resources. Why just pick on one group? Ergo, as far as I'm concerned, those behind the ad are misguided. :3:

Anyway, it's not the mpg rating of the vehicle you drive that really matters, it's how much fuel you burn each year that does. :4: That is to say, if your car has half the mpg rating of your neighbor's, who drives three times as many miles per year as you, is he more socially conscious than you? I think not! :1:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
Uh, the MDX is an SUV not a micro-car

trixie said:
It's about time! Although I do not agree with the guilt trip tactic, perhaps this type of ad will begin to quill the fashionability of the SUV. In a world of finite resources, it is ridiculous for us to drive gas guzzling vehicles. We should all be driving micro-cars, or at least minivans. Of course, we can all excuse ourselves as exceptions. The MDX is, after all, a massaged over minivan.

The MDX is absolutely not a high mileage micro-car and it is not even a high mileage minivan!! We average around 17 mpg in city driving and many of our members do worse. I do not consider myself an exception - I am excersing my right to drive what I want to drive:1:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,348 Posts
oceanMDX said:

Anyway, it's not the mpg rating of the vehicle you drive that really matters, it's how much fuel you burn each year that does.
Excellent point!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
trixie

It's about time! Although I do not agree with the guilt trip tactic, perhaps this type of ad will begin to quill the fashionability of the SUV. In a world of finite resources, it is ridiculous for us to drive gas guzzling vehicles. We should all be driving micro-cars, or at least minivans.
I replaced my "micro-car" - a Suzuki sidekick - with the MDX. The problem with the Suzuki was that I didn't have much cargo capacity with it.

I can now move all the cargo I need down to Cabo San Lucas from San Diego in a single drip (1,050 miles one way) with the MDX (18 mpg down the very hilly Baja highway). With the Suzuki (30 mpg +) it would take at least 5 trips to move the same cargo that the MDX can transport in one trip. Would I be more socially conscious if I went back to the Suzuki and burned more than twice the fuel to do the same job? :p ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
oceanMDX said:


Anyway, it's not the mpg rating of the vehicle you drive that really matters, it's how much fuel you burn each year that does. :4: That is to say, if your car has half the mpg rating of your neighbor's, who drives three times as many miles per year as you, is he more socially conscious than you? I think not! :1:
To further complicate it, it's fuel used per passenger mile. If I'm moving 6 people on a trip in my MDX at 20 MPG, that's better than taking 2 cars with 3 people in each with each car getting 25 MPG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
If we all really want to be socially conscious, we need to park our vehicles and use public transportation, and/or move to alternative fuels like hydrogen (fuel cells). That's something we in North America should get serious about. Merely improving the average MPG rating a little bit on an ever increasing number of vehicles that burn oil based fuels on our roads and highways isn't going to ameliorate the problem one iota. That ad serves to perpetuate the lie that increasing the average MPG rating will ameliorate some problem (while demonizing SUV owners in the process), and deflects from the real solutions - using public transportation and alternative fuels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
Yes Markedoc...

To further complicate it, it's fuel used per passenger mile. If I'm moving 6 people on a trip in my MDX at 20 MPG, that's better than taking 2 cars with 3 people in each with each car getting 25 MPG.
You are right on the Mark doc, and it's analogous to the point that I was making. :4: The simpletons who made that ad annoy me. :3:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
oceanMDX said:
If we all really wanted to be socially conscious, we need to park our vehicles and use public transportation, and/or move to alternative fuels like hydrogen (fuel cells). That's something we in North America should get serious about. Merely improving the average MPG rating a little bit on an ever increasing number of vehicles that burn oil based fuels on our roads and highways isn't going to ameliorate the problem one iota. That ad serves to perpetuate the lie that increasing the average MPG rating will ameliorate some problem (while demonizing SUV owners in the process), and deflects from the real solutions - using public transportation and alternative fuels.
If you had seen the interview, you would see the push of the supporters is alternative fuel, not better mileage.
The ad does not seem to be in line with
the organization's mission.
I think it is more of an attention -getter. It does not clearly propose a solution, it only demonsrates a perceived problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
and another thing ...

Car makers have forced us into fewer options. Some for good reasons, but consider this:

I have 3 kids, all under 10 years old. 2 in booster seats. Since we have airbags on the passenger side, kids in the front is a no-no. Since we now have car seats, you can't fit 3 kids across in the 2nd row (and they would kill each other even if they did fit). So if you have a 3 child family, you need 3 rows of seating. There aren't that many choices, and the MDX is a good one, getting similar mileage as many minivans. Most current wagons with a 3rd row are rear facing, which I think is unacceptable.

In the old days, cars were bigger. My Mom and Dad had 5 kids, one would sit up front between them on the bench seat, 2 in the back seat, and 2 would lie down in the back of the wagon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
Dale...

If you had seen the interview, you would see the push of the supporters is alternative fuel, not better mileage.
Which interview? I did see one interview with the guy who authored the ad, and he said nothing about alternative fuels. The ad linked SUV owners with terrorism. That is, we indirectly send money to the mideast which ends up in the hands of terrorists. This thread is about the TV ad. The ad was about MPG rating of SUVs, not about alternative fuels.

If the organization behind the ad wants to promote alternative fuels, they should pull the ad and do one promoting alternative fuels.

The Detroit Project was created by Americans for Fuel Efficient Cars, a group co-founded by Huffington, film producer Lawrence Bender, environmental activist Laurie David, and movie and TV agent Ari Emanuel.
It sure seems that the organization is concerned with MPG rating rather than alternative fuels from the newspaper article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,348 Posts
So why not increase the supply instead of trying to lower demand? Why isn't their point then to increase domestic production?? Hmmmm....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
It is always amazing to me how quickly people use current events to rally folks to their pet causes. Don't get me wrong, I believe it important to be socially involved, but linking SUV owners to terrorists is over the top. If you really want to reduce US dependence on foreign oil, the effective way is to stop exempting SUV/truck from Federal Corporate Average Fuel economy standards and start raising the standards. Also since we're going to raise our level of social consciousness, let's be fair and boycott the following products for equally compelling social reasons.

1. Diamonds/Gems from Africa - Illegal diamond trade funds numerous terrorist/warlord activities.

2. Clothing/Sneakers from Central/Southeast Asia - numerous violations of child labor laws, sweat shops, human rights, safety & environmental violations. (Almost anything made in mainland China...)

3. Electricity generated in high sulfur coal burning plants - polluting the air in Canada and NE USA.

4. Fish taken from depleted, non-sustaining fisheries.

5. Water being sucked from non-sustaining watersheds.

the list is endless...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,544 Posts
dbauchat said:
It is always amazing to me how quickly people use current events to rally folks to their pet causes. Don't get me wrong, I believe it important to be socially involved, but linking SUV owners to terrorists is over the top. If you really want to reduce US dependence on foreign oil, the effective way is to stop exempting SUV/truck from Federal Corporate Average Fuel economy standards and start raising the standards. Also since we're going to raise our level of social consciousness, let's be fair and boycott the following products for equally compelling social reasons.

1. Diamonds/Gems from Africa - Illegal diamond trade funds numerous terrorist/warlord activities.

2. Clothing/Sneakers from Central/Southeast Asia - numerous violations of child labor laws, sweat shops, human rights, safety & environmental violations. (Almost anything made in mainland China...)

3. Electricity generated in high sulfur coal burning plants - polluting the air in Canada and NE USA.

4. Fish taken from depleted, non-sustaining fisheries.

5. Water being sucked from non-sustaining watersheds.

the list is endless...
Bullseye!:29:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
What get to me...


is that the ad tried to imply that SUV owners somehow responsible for the terrorist acts that committed through out the world. That is similar to because you are living in this world, somehow you are destroying earth!!!!

This argument first of all assumed that ALL oil producing countries support terrorist activities, which is VERY Incorrect. Secondly, even if the money from oil did go toward terrorism..than eliminating fossil fuel cars won't stop these terrorists either...Since many other part of the world economy stil depend on fossil fuels. By focusing on one group in the ad is very irresponsible, and I considered the ad as a TERRORIST act on SUV owners!!!!!!

I am for alternative fuel cars, but it should be accross the boards..for ALL type of Vehicle..from Cars, to Trains, to boat, to airplane..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
????? !!!!!!

OMG! Are u f***ing kidding me?! Those ads/campaigns are real?! LOL associating oil with terrorists from the get-go no questions asked. Ok regarless of your education or IQ, this is just one of the most IGNORANT, racist, and messed up things I've ever come across. Jesus!

It's times like this when I wish the USA wasn't a democracy, so that the White House SQUASHES these fools and their efforts in a mere DAY for such garbage. Don't try to convince me in any way, shape, or form otherwise, this is rediculous. :3:

Morons! I hope all those that masterminded this crap get exiled to a remote island and be forced to live like Tom Cruise in Cast Away for the rest of their lives. :mad:

Last but not least, people should quit whining about MPG (except for the hurt it does on their pockets, if they mind that). Because fact is there is an UNREAL amount of oil still left on the planet. Recently, 500+ years worth of oil was found in the Caspian sea region, which is why OPEC is scrambling to get the former Russian states on their side somehow. And secondly, there aren't enough SUVs out there to put a DENT in global warming or the ozone layer if their MPG increased by 10. There is a hell of a lot more pollution and greenhouse gas-causing machines/proceses out there.

And why is this even an MDX issue? Your 4500lb car get 23mpg for God's sake. ;)
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top