Look, John and I do this for free. We don't whine--ok, maybe we do--we don't complain--unless you count this as complaining--we don't ask for more money, all we want is a little recognition, a little love, a little stroke for our fragile egos. What the hell am I rambling about, you ask? THIS from CNN.com:
So when an e-mail arrives urging people to buy no gas on May 15 - saying it would take nearly $3 billion away from oil companies "for just one day" and promising a 30 cent a gallon drop in gas prices "overnight" - it's awfully tempting to go along, savoring that bit of guilty pleasure knowing you're sticking it to Exxon Mobil (Charts, Fortune 500), Chevron (Charts, Fortune 500), BP (Charts) or what ever oil company sells gas on your block.
Is there a single message of ENV-ECON in the article? Of course not. Even though we obviously scooped CNN by over a year (here) and two week ago (here). Doesn't CNN research their articles? Sheesh. What could be more in CNN's interest then citing a web-site that gets over 1,000 visitors a day?
Oh, but the injustice doesn't end there...read on for more information about what you can do to right this wrong.
In the middle of the above mentioned CNN article is a link to this gem:
What are CNN's brilliant ideas?
- Pass a carbon tax (mentioned occasionally on Env-Econ)
- Increase efficiency (Env-Econ's take)
- Push alternatives (We already debunked this one)
- Require oil companies to make more gas (Really? You must produce more gas!)
- Build a gasoline reserve (How does removing gas, lower prices)?
- Drill more oil (Hmmm...wouldn't higher prices give the incentive for this?)
Gee...they forgot DRIVE LESS!
For those who don't know, I'm a glory whore. I want Env-Econ mentioned on CNN. So here's a link to CNN.com's editorial feedback site. If all of our dedicated readers send CNN.com a message noting the egregious omission of any mention of ENV-ECON from their obviously derivative story, John and I will be able to expose ourselves to the public.
I'm not sure that came out right.
