Los Angeles is widely reviled as the city in which no one walks. But Los Angeles is not the most car dependent city according to this data:
Via Matthew Yglesias.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
This nine-minute 1938 promotion video for White Sands National Monument is a stunning example of how incredibly short our attention spans have become. Or is it just me? Or maybe they found this mindnumblingly slow in 1938 also?
The introductory title pages finally fade away so that the substantive material can begin at about 40 seconds in. 40 seconds! I was dying from boredom at about second 15! See how long you can stand to watch it:
Via Weird Universe.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Last week the New York Times featured an article and graphic (via) illustrating the way in which the increasing energy efficiency of electricity-drawing technologies correlates with an increase in overall use of energy nonetheless due to a rise in our consumption of those technologies.
But, “Americans now have about 25 consumer electronic products in every household, compared with just three in 1980”:
One culprit of the rising electricity use is video game consoles:
Noah Horowitz, at the Natural Resources Defense Council, calculated that the nation’s gaming consoles, like the Xbox 360 from Microsoft and the Sony PlayStation 3, now use about the same amount of electricity each year as San Diego, the ninth-largest city in country.
But an even bigger culprit are those giant plasma screen TVs:
The energy-efficiency of video game consoles and televisions are both unregulated, compared to the efficiency of those appliances showing increasing energy efficiency in the first figure (refrigerators, air conditioners, and clothes washers).
So, consumption, overall, is going up:
The corporations that build TVs, game consoles, and other unregulated appliances are, of course, resisting any federal laws regarding their efficiency. According to the article, there was little will under the Bush administration. We will have to wait and see what happens now.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Cross-posted at Montclair Socioblog.
Claude the brand consultant was consulting with me – i.e., he was picking up the cappuccino tab at Starbuck’s. He was about to start teaching a course called something like “Communications and Public Affairs,” and not being an academic (though he’s a really good teacher), he wanted some advice on the syllabus.
We finally got around to the idea that Messages about Issues had to be tailored for specific Audiences or Publics, particularly their Interests and Values. (Those capitalized words were possible major headings in the syllabus.)
I immediately thought of the example of Texas and litter. How could you convince Texans to be more respectful of public places and not toss all that crap out onto the roads they drove on? The Ladybird Johnson approach – “Highway Beautification”?
Wrong audience. The people who were littering obviously didn’t care about highway beauty.
The guy you were trying to reach was Bubba, the classic red stater – fiercely individualistic, anti-government, macho. A slob, and probably proud of it. You couldn’t appeal to self-interest since it’s in Bubba’s self-interest to chuck his garbage out the window. Even hefty fines (and they are hefty) would work only if you could catch litterers often enough – unlikely on the Texas highways.
The best way in was Values. But how? “Don’t be a Litterbug, Keep Your Community Clean” would be noo nice, too feminine or babyish, and, like “Pitch In” too collectivist. Instead, Roy Spence and Tim McClure at the Austin ad agency GSD&M had the Texas DOT go with chauvinism – Texas chauvinism. The idea they played on was not that littering was ugly or wrong or costly, but that it hurt Texas. And thus in 1985 was born one of the most famous and effective campaigns in the history of advertising.
With its double meaning of “mess,” it captured Bubba’s patriotism and pugnacity. The bumper stickers were soon everywhere. The TV ads featured famous proud Texans. One of the early ones (so early, I can’t find it on YouTube) featured Too-Tall Jones and Randy White, two of the toughest dudes on the Cowboys defense, picking up roadside trash.
JONES: You see the guy who threw this out the window, you tell him I got a message for him.
WHITE: (picks up a beer can): I got a message for him too.
OFF-CAMERA VOICE: What’s that?
WHITE: (Crushes the beer can with one fist). Well, I kinda need to see him to deliver it.
JONES: Don’t mess with Texas.
Litter in Texas has been reduced by 72%, the campaign is still going strong a quarter-century later, and McLure and Spence have a book about it. My source was Made to Stick by the Heath Brothers (no, jazzers, not thoseHeath brothers), Chip and Dan.
Tarte is a products sold by Sephora, which has a whole line of “naturally gorgeous” brands:
Naturally gorgeous could mean two things, I suppose:
1. You are gorgeous without make-up.
LOL… moving on:
2. Our make-up is natural.
This is what Sephora means. But if you use their “naturally gorgeous” products, will your gorgeous be natural? Not necessarily. As Audrey at Triple Pundit points out, the USDA does not regulate cosmetics, and neither does any other governmental agency. They can apply the word “natural” to any product because no entity ensures that the word actually means anything.
Audrey continues:
According to their website, their natural products are “formulated with high concentrations of plant-based and naturally-derived ingredients, and fewer to no parabens, sodium lauryl sulfate, phthalates, petrochemicals, and synthetic fragrances or dyes.” And the products in their organic section contain over 70% organic ingredients.
So Sephora says they’re natural. The Environmental Working Group however, an organization with a wholly different agenda, says that products that Sephora labels natural–such as Tarte, Caudalie, Decleor, and Korres Natural Products–present a moderate to high toxin hazard.
I think this is a really nice example of how difficult it can be to figure out what’s true. First, language is tricky and it’s used to trick us. Second, we can’t trust corporations (we just can’t). They say that they have our best interests in mind, but they do not. Third, other entities also have agendas. The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit organization, but it too has an agenda. Audrey points out that if there is a make-up that doesn’t get labeled as toxic by the Environmental Working Group, she has yet to figure out what it is.
So how do we know? More problematically, how do we know when there is a question like this to be asked of every single product and service we could buy? Because even if we had time to do the real research to figure out the answer to the cosmetics question, no one has time to do the research to figure out the answers to all the questions. And while there are website designed to tell you the answers (like the Environmental Working Group or this one on eco-labels), we still have to look more closely at them in order to know whether their answers are good. So the work in finding the truth isn’t alleviated, it’s just one step removed.
See also this post on the framing of genetically-modified food by activists and this post on what “organic” looks like.
(Image via.)
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Depending on who you ask, the cash-for-clunkers program was a huge success or a huge failure, given that the demand was so enormous that it ran out of vouchers almost immediately. It’s almost as if fuel efficiency is finally starting to matter to the U.S. consumer after a decade or so of SUV-worship. However, this vintage ad for Volkswagen bus reveals that this is not the first time that U.S. car buyers have been concerned about efficiency:
Text:
The special paint job is to make it perfectly clear that our Station Wagon is only 9 inches longer than our Sedan.
Yet it carries almost 1 ton of anything you like. (Almost twice as much as you can get into wagons that are 4 feet longer.)
Or eight solid citizens, with luggage.
Or countless kids, with kid stuff.
The things you never think about are worth thinking about, too.
You never worry about freezing or boiling, the rear engine is air-cooled.
You can expect about 24 miles per gallon and about 30,000 miles on your tires.
And you can forget about going out of style next year, next year’s model will look the same.
The most expensive VW Station Wagon costs $2,655. It comes in red and white or gray and white or green and white.
And you won’t ever have to go around painting sedans on it to show how small it is.
Just Park.
Via Copyranter.
See also this ad for Volvo from 1974.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight discusses the “Cash for Clunkers” program. There has been a fair amount of criticism of the fact that the program, which is supposed to stimulate the economy partly by providing a boost to the auto industry, has been used by consumers to buy a large number of non-U.S.-made cars (which, of course, is a slippy definition–there are Toyota and Honda plants in the U.S. and Ford plants in Mexico, but by “U.S.-made,” people generally refer to Ford, GM, and I guess Chrysler).
But the other point of the Cash for Clunkers program was to increase the gas mileage of the U.S. auto fleet overall. The new car you can apply the federal aid to has to get at least 22 mpg. And because of choices the U.S. auto companies have made in the past about what kinds of cars and trucks to emphasize, a smaller proportion of the models Ford, GM, and Chrysler offer qualify for the program:
Of course, this graph doesn’t tell us how popular each of the models are–if GM only had one model that got more than 22 mpg, but that one model was incredibly popular, the company might have an average fleet fuel efficiency that was relatively good. And if Chrysler had a lot more models available than Honda, it might have more 22+ mpg models total even though they’re a lower percentage of all Chrysler cars.
Still, I found the graph shocking; 22 mpg seems like such a low benchmark, I never would have guess than less than 1 in 5 U.S. models manages to meet it. Hopefully the Cash for Clunkers will have a longer-term effect of encouraging the U.S. automakers to emphasize fuel efficiency to a much greater degree than they’ve been doing (and U.S. consumers to buy their fuel efficient models).
The graphic below is interesting to me in light of the discourse about greenhouse gas emissions. We often hear about emissions from cars and sometimes about emissions from industry. I was surprised, then, to see that electricity and heat was such a large contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. And I feel like land use change and agriculture hardly get discussed at all.
Graphic borrowed from ChartPorn, which also has an interactive graphic that breaks down emissions by country (via Simoleon Sense).
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
