This is one of the better written defenses of SUV's I have seen. But that's not saying much -- just that there are no ad-hominem attacks or irrational "the reason I like to waste gas is to spite those do-goody environmentalists" arguments.
But given that almost every single question he raised about the Detroit Project was already answered, verbatim, in the website's own FAQ, it would seem that not only was his article poorly researched, but the "pro SUV status quoa" camp that he represents still has a way to go.
http://www.detroitproject.com/readmore/faq.htm
Sponge> "First, only 12 percent of our total consumption—one gallon of eight—comes from the Middle East."
TDP> FAQ #7
Sponge> "Second, that four cents per gallon does not go to Bin Laden, Inc. The largest share of it ends up in Saudi Arabia, a country that's no democracy but has a government that's at least on friendly terms with us."
TDP> FAQ #8
Sponge> "This demonization of SUVs also ignores the sea change taking place as sport-utes shift from the original truck-based designs to the car-based "crossover" variety."
TDP> FAQ #9
Sponge> "Even the name Detroit Project is off the mark. Sure, Detroit was the first to mass-market SUVs and still builds the majority of them, but the imports are coming on strong across the board."
TDP> FAQ #2
Sponge> "It's also peculiar that the Detroit Project gives a pass to pickup trucks, which are almost exactly the same size and have identical fuel-consumption ranges as SUVs."
TDP> FAQ #4
Sponge> "And what about limos? What could be more wasteful than a large—sometimes grotesquely stretched..."
TDP> FAQ #3
Sponge> "Huffington claims the auto industry could easily produce hybrid SUVs that achieve 45 mpg, ignoring the fact that the industry barely achieves such efficiency with compact hybrid sedans that cost significantly more than conventional vehicles."
This point was not already answered by TDP FAQ, but there are a few good arguments to counter it:
1) Next year, Lexus will market an SUV with mileage close to what Arianna suggests is possible. So Sponge's assertion that it's impossible is false.
2) If Detroit spent a fraction of it's $1.5B annual SUV marketing budget or some of the tens of millions it spends annually to lobby for looser efficiency standards on actual R&D, they might not complain so loudly about meeting economy standards that are already on target with the rest of the world.
Sponge> "If we as Americans develop a national consensus to reduce our oil consumption for whatever reason—political, environmental, financial—we should establish a policy that provides an economic incentive to discourage all usage of oil-derived products. There are many economically sound ways of discouraging energy uses while preserving the freedom of our citizens to decide whether to allocate their energy dollars to fueling an SUV, keeping a large house comfortable, or driving—or flying—across the country."
Here, Bob seems contradicts himself. First he agrees with Arianna that we as a contry should strive to conserve oil. Then he reverses himself in the next sentence and says it is not necessary to give up any fuel-guzzling conveniences.
How does Bob reconcile these two opposite assertions? Does he say that the government needs to pick up the slack and invest taxpayer own money in R&D? Does he say that Congress should increase fuel economy standards so consumers are left to choose between more efficient products? Though he claims there are "many economically sound ways" to achieve this goal, he offers no example of how it can be done without any change in the status quoa.
Sponge> "So, as in the past, when oil production is contracted, the first wells to close would be in North America. "
Again, there are several good counter arguments:
1) First, if the cost to lift is so much more in America, then why isn't 100% of our oil coming from the middle east? If our overall demand is reduced, a market economy should be able to spread out the drop in supply proportionally to our current oil distribution sources.
2) Closing wells in N. America isn't such a bad idea. In California, drilling for oil is such a politically bad idea, that both Democrats and Republicans fall over each other to try to protect the Pacific Coast from off shore drilling. Drilling in Alaskan national wildlife reserves is equally unattractive from a political and ecological standpoint.
3) If the US experienced a drop in demand, it could legislate a reduction in middle eastern oil imports without raising prices.
-Jason