Whoops—'Cash for Clunkers' Actually Hurt the Environment

RockX

Banned
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.


The program's first mistake seems to have been its focus on car shredding, instead of car recycling. With 690,000 vehicles traded in, that's a pretty big mistake.


According to the Automotive Recyclers Association
(ARA), automobiles are almost completely recyclable, down to their engine oil and brake fluid. But many of the “Cash for Clunkers” cars were never sent to recycling facilities. The agency reports that the cars’ engines were instead destroyed by federal mandate, in order to prevent dealers from illicitly reselling the vehicles later.


The remaining parts of each car could then be put up for auction, but program guidelines also required that after 180 days, no matter how much of the car was left, the parts woud be sent to a junkyard and shredded.

Shredding vehicles results in its own environmental nightmare. For each ton of metal produced by a shredding facility, roughly 500 pounds of “shredding residue” is also produced, which includes polyurethane foams, metal oxides, glass and dirt. All totaled, about 4.5 million tons of that residue is already produced on average every year. Where does it go? Right into a landfill.


E Magazine states recycling just the plastic and metal alone from the CARS scraps would have saved 24 million barrels of oil. While some of the “Clunkers” were truly old, many of the almost 700,000 cars were still in perfectly good condition. In fact, many that qualified for the program were relatively “young,” with fuel efficiencies that rivaled newer cars.


And though the point was to get less fuel efficient cars off the roads, with only 690,000 traded in, and over 250 million registered in the U.S., the difference in pollutant levels seems pretty negligible.


But all that vehicular destruction did more than create unnecessary waste for the environment. It also had some far-reaching economic effects.


According to a recent TriCities op-ed from Mike Smith of Ralph Smith Motors in Virginia, CARS created a dearth of used cars, artificially driving up prices. For those who needed an affordable car, but didn’t qualify for the program, this increase in price meant affordable transportation was well out of reach. It also meant used-car dealers, most of whom are independently owned, small-business owners, had little to no stock. According to Smith, 122 Virginia dealers chose not to renew their licenses after that year.



http://news.yahoo.com/why-cash-clunkers-hurt-environment-more-helped-024848694.html

:rofl2:

Obama fails again.....
 
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.


There's that little word that automatically points out an opinion piece totally lacking in any factual basis.

The fact?

Cash for Clunkers saved (pdf)2.8 BILLION dollars in fuel savings based on the early retirement of less efficient vehicles not counting the added stimulus to the economy.
 
it was designed to keep the engine parts from being resold to keep other gas guzzlers from staying on the road.


When you cant find the parts to keep a car running or they are so expensive due to rarity then you replace the vehicle.


That in turn gets more of these things off the road.
 
it was designed to keep the engine parts from being resold to keep other gas guzzlers from staying on the road.


When you cant find the parts to keep a car running or they are so expensive due to rarity then you replace the vehicle.


That in turn gets more of these things off the road.

Holy shit. Did lightning strike? For once you are correct about something. This had nothing to do with the environment.

This had everything to do with propping up the car industry with tax payer dollars and making sure there weren't any leftover parts so that eventually people would be forced into one of the "approved" vehicles.

Of course smart people like me have known this and have made preparations. You can't keep a good man down baby. Although, I do applaud you on for once being dead on balls accurate.

Howey of course is a complete dumbass.
 
Force?

damn dude wash your elbows they still have shit on them from the last ass yanking you did to get that shit
 
Force?

damn dude wash your elbows they still have shit on them from the last ass yanking you did to get that shit

Of course it is force. It is not at the point of gun, but it is force none the less. The elites know that if given a choice people will not buy those piece of shit cars. So they must devise ways to limit their free will without letting them know that their free will is being limited. The elites have learned from experience that they cannot do an outright ban on things because there will be a backlash. So they come up with creative ways of doing things.

What is ironic is that cash for clunkers actually hurts the poor who can't afford these tin can piece of shit vehicles and even if they could who has a charger in the hood?

It is no different than the lightbulb scam. They never had an outright ban of the incandescent lightbulb, but the regulations were in effect a ban. Again, fortunately for me, I was prescient enough to know what they were doing and I have enough light bulbs to last a lifetime and I will never be FORCED to buy one of those piece of shit LEDs
 
it was designed to keep the engine parts from being resold to keep other gas guzzlers from staying on the road.


When you cant find the parts to keep a car running or they are so expensive due to rarity then you replace the vehicle.


That in turn gets more of these things off the road.
so that whole freedom of choice thing is just a red herring? why dont you just write up a law mandating that people buy an electric car or pay a penalty that is really a tax?
 
There's that little word that automatically points out an opinion piece totally lacking in any factual basis.

The fact?

Cash for Clunkers saved (pdf)2.8 BILLION dollars in fuel savings based on the early retirement of less efficient vehicles not counting the added stimulus to the economy.

Did you comprehend the article? 600,000+ vehicles were wasted and destroyed (so they couldn't be resold) and you think fuel savings makes up for the huge amounts of energy wasted. The spare parts that could have been used fixing other cars? Now they have to be manufactured to be replaced. How green is that?

Not to mention all the used car dealers who suddenly faced a dearth of products to sell and had to close up. Way to go, libtards!
 
Did you comprehend the article? 600,000+ vehicles were wasted and destroyed (so they couldn't be resold) and you think fuel savings makes up for the huge amounts of energy wasted. The spare parts that could have been used fixing other cars? Now they have to be manufactured to be replaced. How green is that?

Not to mention all the used car dealers who suddenly faced a dearth of products to sell and had to close up. Way to go, libtards!

You are missing the point. That was the whole point of Cash For Clunkers. It might have been sold as a way to "save the environment", but that was always a ruse to hide its true goals which as Desh correctly pointed out was to get those cars off the road for good and have the very effects you highlighted. It was designed specifically to accomplish all of those things you point out are negative.

So while, yes I agree with you factually. In Obama's world it was Mission Accomplished.

What is truly sad is that people really don't know what they are up against with this guy. Even those who oppose him are arguing on the surface and don't see the underlying goals.
 
it was designed to keep the engine parts from being resold to keep other gas guzzlers from staying on the road.


When you cant find the parts to keep a car running or they are so expensive due to rarity then you replace the vehicle.


That in turn gets more of these things off the road.

So you want to force the poor to have to sell the car they can afford and put more of their budget into something they couldn't afford in the first place!! :eek2:

Why do you hate the poor Desh?
 
Cash for clunkers was a pretty stupid thing.
The cars were shredded so they could not be resold in whole or part so as not to compete with the parts business or auto sales business. A typical corporatist thing to do.
 
It will also effect the ones not traded in.

when parts are too rare they get costly.

People heave the car and buy a new one.
 
Cash for clunkers was a pretty stupid thing.
The cars were shredded so they could not be resold in whole or part so as not to compete with the parts business or auto sales business. A typical corporatist thing to do.

I can't believe I am doing this, but Desh is the only one who is dead on balls accurate on this issue. Fortunately. I have spare parts as part of my prepping. Obama can't stop me
 
There's that little word that automatically points out an opinion piece totally lacking in any factual basis.

The fact?

Cash for Clunkers saved (pdf)2.8 BILLION dollars in fuel savings based on the early retirement of less efficient vehicles not counting the added stimulus to the economy.


And it only costs the taxpayers 3 BILLION TAX DOLLARS and it led to a gain in market share for Japanese and Korean manufacturers at the expense of American car makers, with only Ford not taking a significant hit.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System#cite_note-japkor-13

So logically, most of the 2.8 BILLION dollars in fuel savings went to the buyers of Japanese and Korean car makers....if that figure has a validity at all, which I doubt.
 
How much did we spend to convert to digital broadcast TV?

Still not saying that Cash For Clunkers was a good idea.
 
Under the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005, full-power broadcasting of analog television in the United States would have ceased after Tuesday February 17, 2009. To help U.S. consumers through the conversion, the Act also established a federally sponsored DTV Converter Box Coupon Program.

The purpose of the extension was to help the millions of households who had not been able to get their coupons for converters because demand for coupons exceeded the funding provided for in the initial bill, leaving millions on a waiting list to receive coupons. Funding for extra coupons was provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television_transition_in_the_United_States"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_television_transition_in_the_United_States[/URL]

Well over 1.5 billion was spent on set top converter boxes.
 
Back
Top