Comments on: Economists: Scrappage Programs Are Clunkers for Environment

By: KandisSobiech

KandisSobiech — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:45:12 +0000

F*ckin’ remarkable issues here. I am very glad to see your post. Thanks a lot and i am having a look ahead to contact you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail? Visit Your URL Simply wanna remark on few general things, The website design and style is perfect, the content material is rattling fantastic .

By: manual backlinks

manual backlinks — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:18:11 +0000

This is a inquiry for the webmaster/admin here at . May I use some of the information from this blog post right above if I provide a backlink back to your site? Thanks

By: Sara1

Sara1 — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:48:59 +0000

Here is a great chance to drive a large number of targeted visitors to your blogs and websites for free.

Submit your websites, blogs, videos to http://www.zillionsb.com and get 1000s of visitors everyday for free. It also helps your websites/blogs gain valuable backlinks.

Let the other bloggers cast their votes to push your posts up for a greater visibility. Enjoy free huge traffic to your sites.

Thanks

Sara

http://www.zillionsb.com

By: Todd1964

Todd1964 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:20:29 +0000

I am with Steved28. We spend SOOOO much of our tax payer funds on other countries, that a measly 3 billion on our own people gets some people all worked up. However, I wished that they would have dedicated every penny given to the auto companies to cash for vehicles. Allowing EVERY American the chance to trade to a more efficient, less polluting vehicle. This would have had nearly the same result as it would have given billions and billions to tax payers to purchase vehicles, instead of corporations.

My only hesitation with this or any program right now... the government is borrowing the money. What they take in, is what they should be allowed to spend; not one penny more!!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:36:46 +0000

"For a mileage improvement of 4 mpg, consumers can receive a voucher from the dealership for $3,500 towards a new car. An improvement of 10 mpg qualifies for a $4,500"

To little.
Improvement of 4 mpg way to little. ghange it to 8 mpg & if your new car gets 15 mpg improvement you should get $5,500. & if your new car gets 20 mpg improvement you should get $7,500.

By: EVO

EVO — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:19:51 +0000

Charles said “I disagree that because people buy a higher MPG vehicle that the new vehicle is driven more, losing the CO2 reduction.”

This is known as the Jevons Effect and is usually counteracted and dominated by the opposite pure efficiency gain effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
“in the context of a mature market such as for oil, the direct rebound effect is usually small, and so increased fuel efficiency usually reduces resource use.”

Put simply, if people buy a much higher MPG vehicle but the new vehicle is driven only a little more (real world example in studies – Prius) only a small portion of the total possible CO2 reduction from efficiency gains is lost to the Jevons Effect. Net CO2 reduction still occurs and at close to the iamount without the Jevons rebound effect.

Welcome to the world of countervailing forces. High efficiency gains dominate the gain reducing Jevon’s effect, which is why we still have any coal, which is what Jevons was studying, left on the planet.

By: steved28

steved28 — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:22:03 +0000

NoYouCan’t, we have spent about 674 billion in Iraq to date. And you want your 1 billion back for a program which at least puts some money into our own economy? Where are the the complaints about where our money is really going?

By: David

David — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:18:40 +0000

You know, many of these ‘clunkers’ *were* smart choices way back when. In the past 20 years I’ve owned a few cars that would have qualified if I still had them. My Intrepid was more efficient than the minivan I had which, in turn, was more efficient than the Lincoln Town Car I’d inherited when my mother died. Now I’m driving a still-more-efficient Camry (now that 1 kid has graduate college and the other is in her last year of high school I don’t need the ‘family truckster’ abilities quite so much)

By: NoYouCan't

NoYouCan't — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:46:15 +0000

Thanks to Nobama you are not only forced to pay for GM and Chrysler's failed businesses but you now have to spend your tax dollars on this ludicrous and ineffective CFC debacle.
Effect on the 'environment': Pitifully small.
Effect on the economy: Short term blip that further buys off the failed car companies.

Nobama - I want my money back.

I find it an irony that you (if you're American, I mean you) would applaud the government for the CFC program when it was you who bought the clunkers in the first place.

By: DC

DC — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:35:25 +0000

The one thing that needs to be kepi in mind is, the CFC program real purpose, as opposed to its PR reason, was never really meant to benifit 'The enviorment' in any meaningful way. Its real purpose is to benefit the american ecomony. Any other concerns are secondary, unless they can be exploited for PR points, then those points will be empahsized over all others. While there is nothing wrong with a government attemping to boost or assist industry in hard times per se, cash for clunkers as a concept, is one that essentially works at cross-purposes with itselt. Puting more gas powered cars on the roads, can never benifit the enviroment, it can only make an allready untenable enviromental situation perhaps mariginally less so, and the cost?, putting more air-conditioned mobile trash bins onto an allready overcrowded and wasteful road system. In short, any cash for clunkers that promotes replaceing ICE's with other ICE's, even if more 'effiicent', is pointless. Pointless if you beleive CFC is a envorimental program(its not), it works well if your wish is to maintain the car culture-status quo.

A CFC program that ONLY awarded incentives to people that replaced there ICE's with ZEV's(of whatever type), would be the only program that could truly claim to be benifiting both the economy and the envoriment equally.