Whoops—'Cash for Clunkers' Actually Hurt the Environment

[avrpatsfan]

Back in 2009, President Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” program was supposed to be a boon for the environment and the economy. During a limited time, consumers could trade in an old gas-guzzling used car for up to $4,500 cash back towards the purchase of a fuel-efficient new car. It seemed like a win for everyone: the environment, the gasping auto industry and cash-strapped consumers.

Though almost a million people poured into car dealerships eager to exchange their old jalopies for something shiny and new, recent reports indicate the entire program may have actually hurt the environment far more than it helped.
According to E Magazine, the “Clunkers” program, which is officially known as the Car Allowance Rebates System (CARS), produced tons of unnecessary waste while doing little to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Yahoo

Thoughts?

[dbroncos78087]

It sounds like the program was not in the concept of Cash for Clunkers but in the disposal of the vehicles that were turned in.

I still support Cash for Clunkers but they definitely should have had different protocols put into place for disposal. I think giving them the option to sell the used cars to individuals who didn't meet the requirements of CoC would have been good or recycle the cars or donate them to groups like the Salvation Army.

[avrpatsfan]

It sounds like the program was not in the concept of Cash for Clunkers but in the disposal of the vehicles that were turned in.

I still support Cash for Clunkers but they definitely should have had different protocols put into place for disposal. I think giving them the option to sell the used cars to individuals who didn't meet the requirements of CoC would have been good or recycle the cars or donate them to groups like the Salvation Army.

Exactly. Needy people could have benefited a lot from this program, but instead they were harmed due to used car prices going up (because of the decrease of the supply).

[dbroncos78087]

Exactly. Needy people could have benefited a lot from this program, but instead they were harmed due to used car prices going up (because of the decrease of the supply).

That part they handled very badly. If you mandate that the cars that are returned must be recycled, donated to charity, or sold to people whose vehicles have even lower gas mileage you would achieve all the goals that I would have for that program.

[corralski]

A couple of things here, number one is that the program enabled a fair amount of people to purgase new light trucks with the voucher. Indeed it may have retired an older less efficient model, this wasn't exactly a Prius taking it's place.

Number two, it did take a rather large bite out of the used car inventories, this in turn raised the retail prices and due to a weak economy and some recent weather related events the prices are still artificially high. This hurts customers that because of their peronal finances must purchase used cars. Because of the mandatory destruction of the trade on vehicles, this also cascaded down to the wrecking yards (Pick n Pull, etc.) as well in reduced inventories. I'm surprised that dbroncs didn't champion this aspect of the program.

Third, I'm a little unsure about what the article meant about the recycling being a problem unless they were referring to the increased volume of cars being scrapped. The process is pretty well documented at every step and all of the materials are recycled according to existng laws.

Other than the temporary increase in sales I can see how one could make a case for less than positive results for the program.....

[mikekhelxD]

I agree with dbroncos. It is not the program itself, it is the disposal of it. However, if you think about it, you will still have the same junk lying around whether or not you participated. That car will still be there. Reduce the gas emission from such vehicles? Yep.

[Steel Curtain]

I'm kind of curious to know how it hurt the environment. Then again, the whole idea was kind of stupid, since global warming has nothing to do with humans at all.

[dbroncos78087]

I'm kind of curious to know how it hurt the environment. Then again, the whole idea was kind of stupid, since global warming has nothing to do with humans at all.

This is wrong, plain and simple.

[Steel Curtain]

I do not believe it is caused by humans. The Earth has many natural cycles, including long term temperature changes. There was a medieval warm period from 0-1000 AD and a small Ice Age after that until about 1800. It seems logical that we should be getting out of that around now. There is no doubt that Global Warming does exist, but the idea that humans have anything to do with it is doubtful. If we do, it's very minimal and certainly nothing we can really do to stop it. Here is an article about a couple of Japanese scientists who share this idea, but has largely been ignored. http://www.thebereancall.org/content...human-activity

[dbroncos78087]

They don't really seem to base much of their article in science and appear to use 10 years of data to disprove something that runs afowl to their personal beliefs.

I have a chart from NASA that shows a pretty strong correlation between the increase in temperature (climate) and the increase in CO2 (created by man):

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...-1880-2009.gif

Not too long ago the debate was whether climate change was real. Now the science has proven to only the most ardent fools that it is.

Now we are having the slightly more evolved debate about whether it is caused by man. But this too is an argument that will eventually be lost. Look around you at all that we have built and try to envision a world where man created all this but somehow isn't having an abnormal effect on the planet. Its really just common sense, of course we are having a (drastic) effect on the planet. Species are going extinct or becoming endangered like never before. Corral reef is losing its habitat like never before. Ice is melting in the poles and around the globe like never before. We are seeing more dangerous storms caused by overheated seawater and they are causing damage like never before. We are seeing that the term "global warming" is a misnomer because actually winters are becoming more extreme like never before.

We create about 20% of the CO2 that the earth does, which sounds like very little. But consider that if you have balance (the CO2 the earth creates and absorbs is at balance) and then you put an extra 20% on the scale and there is no balance only chaos. This is what we are doing and increasing that % each year.

[Steel Curtain]

They don't really seem to base much of their article in science and appear to use 10 years of data to disprove something that runs afowl to their personal beliefs.

I have a chart from NASA that shows a pretty strong correlation between the increase in temperature (climate) and the increase in CO2 (created by man):

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...-1880-2009.gif

Not too long ago the debate was whether climate change was real. Now the science has proven to only the most ardent fools that it is.

Now we are having the slightly more evolved debate about whether it is caused by man. But this too is an argument that will eventually be lost. Look around you at all that we have built and try to envision a world where man created all this but somehow isn't having an abnormal effect on the planet. Its really just common sense, of course we are having a (drastic) effect on the planet. Species are going extinct or becoming endangered like never before. Corral reef is losing its habitat like never before. Ice is melting in the poles and around the globe like never before. We are seeing more dangerous storms caused by overheated seawater and they are causing damage like never before. We are seeing that the term "global warming" is a misnomer because actually winters are becoming more extreme like never before.

We create about 20% of the CO2 that the earth does, which sounds like very little. But consider that if you have balance (the CO2 the earth creates and absorbs is at balance) and then you put an extra 20% on the scale and there is no balance only chaos. This is what we are doing and increasing that % each year.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. There was definitely a small Ice Age in 1000's and it seems logical that that would have to end at some point. There are plenty of scientists who have started to shy away from the Gore-ian theory and I have to ask myself why they now seem to call it "climate-change" now instead of "Global Warming."

[dbroncos78087]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. There was definitely a small Ice Age in 1000's and it seems logical that that would have to end at some point. There are plenty of scientists who have started to shy away from the Gore-ian theory and I have to ask myself why they now seem to call it "climate-change" now instead of "Global Warming."

Agreement and disagreement are for opinions not facts. So I can't agree to that.

The reason that people have stopped calling it Global Warming because its not an accurate term any more to describe the phenomena that is happening. We have seen winters that are much colder and summers that are much warmer. Which is part of what is reducing the average temperature that we have seen. These "superstorms" like Sandy are going to become part of the norm along with less storms, so we will see a fewer number of storms that have a much greater impact.

[Steel Curtain]

Agreement and disagreement are for opinions not facts. So I can't agree to that.

The reason that people have stopped calling it Global Warming because its not an accurate term any more to describe the phenomena that is happening. We have seen winters that are much colder and summers that are much warmer. Which is part of what is reducing the average temperature that we have seen. These "superstorms" like Sandy are going to become part of the norm along with less storms, so we will see a fewer number of storms that have a much greater impact.

I think you've watched "The Day After Tomorrow" one too many times.

[dbroncos78087]

I think you've watched "The Day After Tomorrow" one too many times.

Nope, just read up on the science behind it.

[ManRamForPrez24]

I think you've watched "The Day After Tomorrow" one too many times.

Or actually looked at the overwhelming evidence with a non-biased eye. But yeah, one of the two....