Expensive gas isn't so bad to the "CBS Evening News," as long as it promotes an agenda that caters to left-of-center sensibilities and makes Americans behave more like Europeans.
Economists from Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) (NYSE:CM) forecasted $7-a-gallon gas prices by 2010, which according to some analysts would force 10 million vehicles off U.S. roads over four years. CIBC based its prediction on $200-per-barrel oil by 2010.
"In fact, by 2012, higher prices could send an additional 10 million vehicles off the road," CBS correspondent Priya David said June 26. Although $7 gas would do the most harm to low-income Americans, David praised the effects it would have in easing congestion.
"It would certainly ease congestion. Having that many cars come off the road would be like permanently parking twice as many cars as there are in the state of New Jersey," David said. "Some look to Europe for solutions to the skyrocketing gas prices."
"They drive nice little cars, which maybe we should start doing," one woman said to CBS during the segment.
David compared the United States to Great Britain, stating that expensive gasoline has already had an effect there.
"Expensive gasoline has led Europeans to also drive less than we do," David said. "In America, over 90 percent of all households commute to work by car. Compare that to just 60 percent of British households."
The grim news was greeted with open arms by global warming alarmist and a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, Joseph Romm.
"People's entire mindset as to what kind of vehicles they drive, where they live, choices they make on holidays and vacations are going to be quite different," Romm said.
Romm once called global warming skeptics "climate delayers" in a March 11 post on the Grist environmental blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Cultural bias at work
June 27, 2008 - 14:03 ET by greenfairieAside from political and social biases, the problem is that most people in the news business live in urban areas. They have access to public transportation, can carpool, or buy a hybrid. They're only thinking of the advantages of less traffic and less "global warming."
They can't think beyond their Manhattanite bubble and realize how $7/gallon is going to seriously hurt people in small towns and rural areas who don't have the option of taking a bus and live hundreds of miles from their nearest Prius dealership. For all of their bluster about how much they care about the little guy, they don't.
Beyond the face value absurdity...
June 27, 2008 - 14:18 ET by ontheright...these non-Economics 101 brainiacs haven't stopped for a second to consider the far reaching and damaging affects higher gas prices will have on industry, across the board.
Shipping, trucking, farming, airlines, etc. etc. will all be it hard. And what happens then? Do the companies "eat" the extra cost they will be paying for fuel? Of course not, any fool knows what happens - they pass the increased cost on to the consumers.
Good call idiots!
It's amazing how after all
June 27, 2008 - 14:18 ET by motherbeltIt's amazing how after all the stories about how people are suffering, giving up food for gas, something must be done about it, etc, they can turn on a dime and talk about how this is a good thing.
But I think the concern for people was a sham, and now we are finally getting their real feelings about it. And it will be better for the planet too!
They are shameless.
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
mb, My guess it's because
June 27, 2008 - 15:36 ET by Chris Normanmb,
My guess it's because they're conflicted between their love for bad news for Bush and their love of Euro-style high gas prices.
Maybe it's because they
June 27, 2008 - 19:53 ET by mjgMaybe it's because they don't know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck or on a fixed income. I am truly amazed by them.
Will climate alarmists forbid rural living?
June 27, 2008 - 21:51 ET by Intellectual Honesty"In America, over 90 percent of all households commute to work by car. Compare that to just 60 percent of British households."
Of course CBS and this "climate expert" ignores the population density of the UK and Europe in general. The US has more rural areas and thus roadway miles than the European Union combined. Where Europe can and has a huge public transportation infrastructure that covers a vast majority of the living areas, the US simply doesn't have that option unless we forbid rural living or outlaw most private transportation and force public transportation no matter how expensive/ineffective.
This report and these "experts" once again show the real agenda of global warming alarmism - even if global warming isn't true let's ride this baby to perfect our world via socialism.
"Environmentalists" want to destroy the middle class
June 28, 2008 - 00:47 ET by PopularTechThis is what they want, they want to destroy everything th middle class has worked for, the suburbs, their SUV, their 3 bedroom home. They want you to live how they think you should, in a tiny apartment in a highrise, in the city. They don't give a damn about anyone in the country on farms ect... "To hell with all of you - You are the ones destroying the planet".
If we do not wake up and start voicing our opinion this is only going to get worse. Say no to all global warming regulation and demand drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Horse Manure for Horses' A##$#
June 27, 2008 - 14:12 ET by PSPCplI would like to make a humble suggestion. When we all go back to riding horses for transportation, we should gather up all of the resulting manure and ship it to CBS headqurters.
Expensive gas isn't so
June 27, 2008 - 14:26 ET by Jack BauerI'm sure it isn't.
Heck, let's make it $20 a gallon. Who cares, peasants!
Let them ride bikes -- and eat my dust.
Our Friends
June 27, 2008 - 14:35 ET by JDWIs the news media media speculating?
JDW
Remember the Countrywide Six?
Who forgot to write about the advances in Iraq?
If bin Laden is presumed innocent, why not just shoot him there?
Hey, Jack, that was Katie
June 27, 2008 - 15:46 ET by motherbeltHey, Jack, that was Katie Couric, still on her morning show (I forget which, I don't watch them) complaining that "I had to take out a loan to fill up my minivan!!"
Hahaha....you know Katie, she's just a regular Mom, clippin' coupons, reusin' those produce bags and cottage cheese containers.....LOL
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
Well if Katie Couric can
June 27, 2008 - 14:22 ET by rbosqueWell if Katie Couric can afford a house in The Hamptons, I'm sure it doesn't affect that elitist sow very much. But it hurts the guys hauling rigs and the subsequent rising food prices on the poor.
Is this what they call "compassion" from the left???
Taxed if you do, taxed if you don't!
June 27, 2008 - 14:24 ET by AvusOh, sure, the libs are all for getting cars off the roads, until they realize how much less in gas taxes and tolls they'll collect. Then they'll have to punish us with higher taxes to make up the losses.
Why did God create liberals, anyway? Even mosquitos serve a more useful function on Earth.
I see dumb people, on TV!
June 27, 2008 - 14:32 ET by CobraMan"In America, over 90 percent of all households commute to work by car. Compare that to just 60 percent of British households."
Hay dummy, ever see a MAP of England? They don’t have a lot of landmass available to them in which to live and travel, especially when compared to America. This means that they are FORCED to live a lot closer to their jobs, which naturally lowers the need to commute. They also have an extensive public transportation network BECAUSE of the restricted amount of landmass available to them. Less available landmass means less available land in which to build roads which, in turn, means an increase in the necessity of building more and more public transportation networks to handle the ever increasing traffic flows. Do you believe that England, for example, built the London Underground public transportation system because they thought it would be cool? No, they built it because they HAD TO! There wasn’t enough room to build any more roads to handle the increasing number of people moving around the city.
The same is true of most of Europe. When you’re restricted as to the available landmass, you concentrate your population to a greater extent. This naturally lowers the amount of miles traveled every day. Since they don’t drive as much or as often as we do, they are naturally going to own fewer numbers of cars. How hard is that to figure out?
demoRATS mantra ; No drilling EVER Now this: free up the roads
June 27, 2008 - 14:35 ET by upcountrywaterCRAP!
Ain't it great how the progressive BS fits together like recycled sewage.
So city dwellers where does your food come from?
How about a $70.00 tofu sandwich.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
David compared the United
June 27, 2008 - 14:36 ET by MidAmericaDavid compared the United States to Great Britain, stating that expensive gasoline has already had an effect there.
England is just slightly smaller than Oregon so they can drive their little poor excuses for a car over there. They don't have very far to drive.
Are they
June 27, 2008 - 14:37 ET by oregon_jiimAre they saying that the "price gouging" by the eeeeevil ExxonMobile is a good thing?
an endorsement of communism is an endorsement of slavery"
But will Obama say that 7$ gas is good????????
June 27, 2008 - 14:39 ET by jazboYou just know he believes it is.
Those who believe in nothing will believe anything.
First
June 27, 2008 - 14:53 ET by oregon_jiimFirst the NIMBY philosophy of liberals has resulted in most industry being relocated 20-30 miles away from most urban areas. This has forced tens of millions of Americans to commute to work (me being one of them).
Now they are talking about how great it is going to be to get all of these cars off of the roads. I guess high unemployment rates are good for the same reasons huh.
"an endorsement of communism is an endorsement of slavery"
EXCELLENT ALASKAN PIPELINE POST
June 27, 2008 - 15:05 ET by reelman46Nice post off BassBoatCentral.com from Arkansas
guy...
=====
Environmental studies for the Alaskan pipeline were started and
applications for permits were submitted in 1968. Environmental groups
and others filed suits to block pipeline construction in 1970. Several
Native villages filed a lawsuit claiming the pipeline would cross their
land. The land ownership question was settled with congressional
passage of the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act in December
1971. The 48-inch special cold-weather steel was ordered from Japan in
April 1969. The building permit for the pipeline was issued in 1974.
Actual construction began in April 1974 and was completed in June 1977
at a cost of approximately $8 billion.
So… it took from 1968 to 1974 to begin construction of a massive
pipeline effort that was completed in just 3 years. That equates to 6
years of bureaucratic and environmental bull chit… twice as much time
as it took 70,000 men and women to build the pipeline.
It won’t take 10 years to develop new oil fields unless they are
including over 7 years of congressional and environmental agency
roadblocks in their time estimates. If that’s the case, we know exactly
where the problem lies… don’t we?
=====
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
You can also remove 10
June 27, 2008 - 15:14 ET by Darth DutchYou can also remove 10 million cars off the road by getting rid of the 10-20 million illegal aliens. Not only will it free up the highways, we would spend less in gas, have fewer hospital closures & emergency rooms jammed packed, classroom sizes smaller, etc.
So, less cars, less congestion, less money spent on illegal alien services...anyone see any problem with this?
Darth Dutch
Jeff - what will the next crop of illegal's drive?
June 27, 2008 - 15:16 ET by Gary HallJeff - I've always wondered what vehicles the next crop of illegal immigrants drive?
"..would force 10 million vehicles off U.S. roads over four years."
They can drive the abandoned cars of US Citizens. This is great!
So basically, the roads will
June 27, 2008 - 16:18 ET by BennySo basically, the roads will be open to the rich who can afford to pay for gas and of course buy "carbon credits" to off set those limos and sport cars hauling ass up and down the "open freeways". Where as, us common folk, will be regulated to working a side job at the gas station for "$7 an hour" just to pay for trips to work and home.
DRILL HERE, DRILL THERE, DRILL ANYWHERE!
And all the folks
June 27, 2008 - 19:39 ET by Delsanot driving will be living UNDER the OVER PASSES !!!!!
PERFECT WORLD
Too Much OIL in the Ground for This propaganda to work..
June 27, 2008 - 21:30 ET by JayTeeMSM is fighting a Losing Battle on this one.
They can't Prop up Pelosi and Company by pushin this Baloney. The Approval Ratings of Congress......MSM take a Look...do some Measurement....Graduate from 5th Grade....you ain't Selling this 7.00 a Gallon Stuff.
At approximately $5.59 a gallon, Americans fill their Tank for the Last time, and Dive to DC to DRILL their Congress Person.
Tryanotherplanstan
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
SEE-BS
June 27, 2008 - 22:45 ET by danybhoyOk, lets see, CBS has a morning news show that nobody watches, & it's host, Harry Smith, proves on a regular basis how out of touch he is with Americans that don't live in Manhatten.
The CBS evening news has been a ratings disaster for years, now they are paying Couric $15million a year to be in the basement. I wish I could be paid so well to suck that bad.
Then we go to a different form of sucking, I'm sure a few of you here at NB have heard the buzz that CBSnews bigshot Lara Logan, has been involved with people she is not married to...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23934625-15084,00.html
...Micheal Ware & his very crooked nose? Plus another guy whose wife calls her a homewrecker. This is just the sort of thing a network news operation with ZERO ratings needs, reports that it's "biggest" reporter banging everthing that moves in a warzone.
All of this almost makes me miss Dan Rather, but not quite.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
Is the writer of this piece high?
June 28, 2008 - 02:27 ET by crutnackerDo you seriously think the whole point of this piece was the correspondent's tongue in cheek comment about reduction in congestion? Did you miss the "20% of a low income person's money going to gas?" part of the story?
Gotta love the right. Spent years making fun of people who said we needed to cut back on our gas guzzling cars, and now you get upset if people joke about the price of gas.
If these liberals are so in
June 28, 2008 - 03:40 ET by NonanonIf these liberals are so in love with Europe's way of life, why aren't they flocking over there to live under those conditions? I'm sure we'd be willing to buy one-way tickets for them to get rid of them.
Not drilling for oil has brought us these high energy prices (that for decades liberals have wanted), so how can drilling for oil not get us out of this situation?
Liberal lies are so easily debunked, but why do so many people cling to them? This wacky environmentalism seems to be picking up speed.
Translation: "Who cares
June 28, 2008 - 11:14 ET by GameGridTranslation:
"Who cares if it harms poor people and the economy, there will be less cars getting in my way when I drive to the country club, buwahahahaha!"
If they think that Europe is so great then they should move there, they'd fit right in.