Here's a simple
calculation: if you want to increase reader
outrage
participation, just say that popular green icons are bad for the environment. William Baldwin, writing in
Forbes, is testing the theory out with a three-pronged attack on
hybrids, Ben & Jerry's ice cream and bottled water (I'll totally agree with him on the bottled water bit right off the bat). Here's his reasoning for ditching the
Prius.
Baldwin's weakest argument is this: "The hybrid's steep price tag is a signal that, directly or indirectly, it consumes a lot of the earth's resources". This reasoning can be dismissed with any one of the following names: Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Armani. Expensive usually mean lots of money was spent on advertising, not that there is any inherent value in the product. I thought Forbes understood economics. They certainly don't get green.
Update: yesterday I was able to read the article on Forbes. Today there seems to be a free subscription required page up. Is anyone else having trouble reading the original?
[Source: Forbes via TerraPass]
- First, a Prius costs more.
- Second, there are 30 extra pounds of copper and 22 extra pounds of nickel in a Prius compared to a ... well, Baldwin doesn't say. I'm assuming he means compared to a non-hybrid vehicle.
Baldwin's weakest argument is this: "The hybrid's steep price tag is a signal that, directly or indirectly, it consumes a lot of the earth's resources". This reasoning can be dismissed with any one of the following names: Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Armani. Expensive usually mean lots of money was spent on advertising, not that there is any inherent value in the product. I thought Forbes understood economics. They certainly don't get green.
Update: yesterday I was able to read the article on Forbes. Today there seems to be a free subscription required page up. Is anyone else having trouble reading the original?
[Source: Forbes via TerraPass]