Whoops—'Cash for Clunkers' Actually Hurt the Environment

[stephkyle7]

I find the responses in this thread curious.

Not really knowing much on this subject, I did what i usually do.I researched it from a basic point of view(did CFC work?) then from a negative conotation(the truth about CFC) then from a positive assertion(how it worked.)

The overwhelming evidence supports the fact that the program was a HUGE success.
1st, the program was a economic stimulus program.
Any enviormental impact was secondary. Its primary goal was to generate NEW car sales when the industry was struggling.


every major Car manufacturer enjoyed the best sales they saw in several quarters do to the CFC program.Success #1



Now in regards to the idea that these cars went on to be junked,doesnt appear to be true. Most working high mileage cars are sold in bulk to buyers in mexico and in some cases Canada where buyers arent so discerning.
So from an exhaust perspective we simply passed the dirty cars out of country but the direct impact was a significant decrease of Co2 emissions by vehicles currently on the road here.

The purchase of electrical vehicles wasnt a necessary component of the program,in addition, any inroads into the electrical vehicle market which mant Rs seem to want to dissmiss,are done so out of an intentional twisting of the facts.
Electrical car technology is in its infancy.like every other industry, these cars are as ineffecient now as they will ever be.The only way to stimulate further R&D and produce more cost/enviormentaly successful variants is through a robust market of government subsidy.

We already no Rs do not want us picking winners and losers, so subsedies are out, right?
so the selling of the idea electric technolgy has, and always will fail to achieve abetter result is a poropganda effort, to maintain the staus quo, of Fossil fuel dependence that has made so many people rich, and continues to do so.

In addition you need to extrapolate out from the inception date to the average end date of vehicle useage and THEN compound the effect of newer and newer vehicles on the road EVERY time a purchase was accelerated from the program.(if you bought a newer car 5 years ahead of schedule, then your next car would be 5 years ahead of schedule based on averages,that is the only way to try and calculate these things, and that newer car would again have a smaller emission footprint then your previous.)

Third, as we attempt to move away from fossil fuels, there becomes more market incentive to improve renewable electricity production.

Currently THERE IS NO LIMITATION TO THE PRODUCTION OF CLEAN ELECTRICITY.

WE CAN PRODUCE ALL THE ELECTRICITY WE NEED AS A NATION THROUGH SOLAR,WIND AND NUCLEAR.
the issue is the antiquated power grid that WAS built through public monies 100 years or so ago.
Now energy is privatized( for the most part )and companies dont spend money upgarding unless their are benefits to THEM. not to the country BUT to them.

There are enough solar powered homes in AZ and CA alone that if our power grid could support cross compatible supply and demand, along with wind turbines and solar farms ,people could "sell" their production back to an exchange and become independent energy supply middlemen,at a profit.

Our antiquated electrical grid wastes through inefficiencies huge amounts of Megawatt hours a day.

I dont understand some of the attempts to destroy important advances in how we generate energy.
The 1% will never support a move away from non renewables until every last drop is gone. That seems like a foolish model for a society, but its an excellent buisness model.

[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.

[ManRam]

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....

[Steel Curtain]

There is plenty of scientific evidence against Global Warming (being man-made that is). Where has Al Gore been the last 8 years or so? I honestly haven't heard his name in quite a while.

Here's a graph of Global Temperatures, last 2000 years. http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/gr...emperature.jpg
Now what is wrong with this graph? The answer is nothing. It's cyclic.

[dbroncos78087]

In half the time we have already seen more warming and more constant fluctuation than at any point on that graph. Both of those are alarming.

Connect that to the fact that the CO2 levels are rising and this will lead to an increase in ocean temperature and more trapped sun radiation and we will see even more of this type of fluctuation and general increase.

We are seeing a metamorphosis in our climate to hotter summers and colder winters all containing their own forms of drastic weather events. This includes, but goes well beyond, temperature averages. If the summers get 10 degrees warmer and the winters get 10 degrees cooler, then you won't see that show up in the average will you? The average of 10 and 10 is 10. The average of 20 and 0 is 10. Thus no change in the average.

So we need to stop pretending we can pump all this CO2 into the atmosphere and not experience negative consequences. No scientist worth his degree will tell you this. The debate on climate change is not one on the science, its one on the PR. Those who don't believe in it are much better at PR than the scientists who know it is real.

Also...please stop bringing up Al Gore. What do you hope to achieve by using him to make your argument? He is not a scientist, he is a politician. If you want your argument to be taken seriously stop making ad hominem arguments.

[Steel Curtain]

In half the time we have already seen more warming and more constant fluctuation than at any point on that graph. Both of those are alarming.

Really? Where on the graph do you see that? It doesn't seem any different than the sudden increase at, say, 1200.

Connect that to the fact that the CO2 levels are rising and this will lead to an increase in ocean temperature and more trapped sun radiation and we will see even more of this type of fluctuation and general increase.

We are seeing a metamorphosis in our climate to hotter summers and colder winters all containing their own forms of drastic weather events. This includes, but goes well beyond, temperature averages. If the summers get 10 degrees warmer and the winters get 10 degrees cooler, then you won't see that show up in the average will you? The average of 10 and 10 is 10. The average of 20 and 0 is 10. Thus no change in the average.

So which is it? You can't have it both ways in that regard.

So we need to stop pretending we can pump all this CO2 into the atmosphere and not experience negative consequences. No scientist worth his degree will tell you this. The debate on climate change is not one on the science, its one on the PR. Those who don't believe in it are much better at PR than the scientists who know it is real.

That is just not true, and there are plenty of scientists who will say otherwise.

Also...please stop bringing up Al Gore. What do you hope to achieve by using him to make your argument? He is not a scientist, he is a politician. If you want your argument to be taken seriously stop making ad hominem arguments.

Gore is highly relevant, it was mainly him and maybe a few others who started this. Why hasn't he been beating this drum lately?

[stephkyle7]

@ steel
I would tend to side with a consensus of "experts' then the faux professionals Oriely produces, but here s more relevant point.

If alarmists are wrong, and weve followed their co2 killing path...whats the consequence?

eliminating some revenue streams.
a slowing of certain ecenomic sectors, which always has a coressponding increase in a competing sector.
so in short, some people who are heavily invested in Co2 emitting processes, will lose money.

That doesnt break my heart.

Now what if they are right, and through the effort of people like yourself (and the few rouge scientists who make a lot of money going against the grain because their "professional" oppinion is heavily sought by those Co2 lovers) we carry on without concern?

end of the world type catastrophe.
40% of the worlds population lives along the coastal areas of the landmasses.
thats 2.4 billion people being killed or displaced.

that is what you call risk management my friend.
who is right is completely irrelevant in the face of the possible consequence for supporting one view over the other.

[hoosiercubsfan]

I find the responses in this thread curious.

Not really knowing much on this subject, I did what i usually do.I researched it from a basic point of view(did CFC work?) then from a negative conotation(the truth about CFC) then from a positive assertion(how it worked.)

The overwhelming evidence supports the fact that the program was a HUGE success.
1st, the program was a economic stimulus program.
Any enviormental impact was secondary. Its primary goal was to generate NEW car sales when the industry was struggling.


every major Car manufacturer enjoyed the best sales they saw in several quarters do to the CFC program.Success #1



Now in regards to the idea that these cars went on to be junked,doesnt appear to be true. Most working high mileage cars are sold in bulk to buyers in mexico and in some cases Canada where buyers arent so discerning.
So from an exhaust perspective we simply passed the dirty cars out of country but the direct impact was a significant decrease of Co2 emissions by vehicles currently on the road here.

Everything I can find thus far states what I believe to be true. That every car that was turned in had to be destroyed by having the engine seized up. This may have been a win for the automakers and the line of people involved in the parts for the cars sold during this program. Though there are also plenty of losers that have been forgotten.

The biggest losers in this are the poor and lower middle class. When you artificially deplete the supply of used cars it drives the price up for the remaining stock. I actually saw this first hand when I was in the market to buy a new used car during the following Spring. The prices I found where mostly 1500-2000 more per vehicle I was looking at when I bought the same style vehicle the year before (was looking at cars in the 6-9,000 range). Also have to look at the salvage yards that took in these cars to scrap. When destroying the motor you are taking away a large chunk of the value of the car.

So CFC may have been a success for some it definitely was not for all. Harming most those who can handle the harm the least the most. I think you are wrong about the cars being sold to Canada and Mexico. Though if you have proof otherwise i'd be happy to look at it.

[stephkyle7]

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://i...neCiJ3GFUu5TvQ

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...oBW_DMvFmsdf3w


in this study, the authors through scientific method(which is a big issue regarding RT leaning media sourcing) determined that sales by q1 2009 had balanced out, implying that the net effect of the operation was 0, but ignoring that WHEN spending occurs isnt entirely unrelated to economic effect.

they further explain that the cost of the reduction in the co2 footprint wound up being rather expensive,and ineffecient, but do not deny the actual reduction.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...znA5pYOTIWCLrQ

heres a great site that will explain things in better context.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://m...ogXsllWIpPaWCw

Im looking for the exact site I had pulled the bulk sales to foreign countries indication, but even under the guidelines of "pulling" the engine, many MANY frames utilize highly available crate engines of the same variety.
The 350 short block chevy,the ford 302 or the toyota 22-r are examples of blocks that were used across huge swaths of production lines.
in addition the partnership of several manufacturers made a whole other cross compatibility with the 3.8 v6, or audi/volkswagon 1.8t, the point is, the value to the dealer is such that in many cases accounting for a specific engine may not always "work-out" and at the very minimum, a vehicle that is in relatively usable condition would still be of reasonable value in the mexican market.

[Steel Curtain]

@ steel
I would tend to side with a consensus of "experts' then the faux professionals Oriely produces, but here s more relevant point.

Not sure what you mean by this, since there are experts who argue both sides.

[Pacerlive]

There is plenty of scientific evidence against Global Warming (being man-made that is). Where has Al Gore been the last 8 years or so? I honestly haven't heard his name in quite a while.

Here's a graph of Global Temperatures, last 2000 years. http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/gr...emperature.jpg
Now what is wrong with this graph? The answer is nothing. It's cyclic.

Well this is sort of easy..

He used 18 measuring sites for the entire globe and most of them were in the NH but even if you compare his measurments to the ones that have tried to reconstruct the past 2000 years its still warmer than it was in the medieval time period and thats with a sun that hasn't increased it solar output since the 1960's.

Your not going to find a scientist that doesn't believe climate change isn't cyclic but you will find the vast majority of scientist who study climatology that humans can and have influenced the Heat content of the ocean and overall global temperature of the earth.

We are approaching an extreme and not the norm so don't get confused by cute graphs.

[Pacerlive]

Not sure what you mean by this, since there are experts who argue both sides.

I will direct you to this publication.

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html

ACC is what they call Global Warming caused by humans btw and expert is sort of a funny word. Take the publication pic you posted. Craig Loehle has about 138 publications. Does that make him an expert in ACC when he has just a handful published on Global Warming in obscure peer reviewed journals?