Cash for clunkers: A floor polish AND a dessert topping.

[lumberjack_jeff]

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2009/08/will_clunkers_program_deliver.shtml

Supporters of Cash for Clunkers have suggested the program is both a floor wax and a dessert topping - it's both good for the environment and a boost to the economy. Good mileage automobiles use less fuel. Less fuel is less pollution. It's hard to argue with that logic.
<snip>
Quality Planning, a consultant to the insurance industry, studied the habits of drivers of hybrid vehicles. It found they drove their vehicles 25 percent more than drivers of non-hybrids.

"The additional miles driven by hybrid vehicle owners would seem to offset the net ecological benefit of owning a fuel-efficient vehicle. After all, a gallon of gas is a gallon of gas, no matter which type of engine is burning it," Dr. Raj Bhat, president of Quality Planning said on a posting on the firm's Web site.

Bhat says he doesn't know, however, if the lower per-mile cost encourages people to drive more miles each day or take more trips.

But why wouldn't it? It's an established fact, of course, that the cost of fuel changes our driving habits. As the price of gasoline went up last year, people combined trips and drove fewer miles. Why wouldn't a reduced per-mile cost similarly affect drivers' behavior?
<snip>

The environmental cost of a car is not primarily a function of its use.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111511131

Hemsley traded a 12-year-old Chevy van that got 14 miles a gallon for a Nissan Cube that gets 30 mpg on the highway. He says he'll cut his gas costs by almost two-thirds.

But even before Hemsley drove out of the lot, his new car had actually added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That's because it takes electricity to make a new car, and fuel to ship it.

"The estimates vary, but somewhere between 3 and, say, 12 tons of CO2 are produced for every car you make," says William Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University.

Chameides calculates that if you trade in an 18 mpg clunker for a 22 mpg new car (22 miles per gallon is the minimum mileage allowed for a new car under the program), it would take five and a half years of typical driving to offset the new car's carbon footprint. With trucks, it might take eight or nine years, he says.

[Richardo]

1. A Rec just for the SNL reference

:applause: Kudos!

[unc70]

24. And look at that shine!

Scotch vs butterscotch

[scheming daemons]

2. Sigh..... "It takes electricity to make a new car, and fuel to ship it"

Yes.... by all means... we should stop the production of ALL cars.

That'll save the auto industry.
:eyes:



Look.... don't be a whacko. People are going to continue to drive cars. That is the fact for the forseeable future. Given that fact, we should encourage them to drive more efficient cars. That is what the Cash-for-Clunkers program does.



Now.. I realize that you are a whacko who wants all cars removed from the planet RIGHT FUCKING NOW. The world doesn't work that way.

[Richardo]

4. It may take 5 years to offset, but it cuts fuel consumption IMMEDIATELY

In the example, by 100%

Some people have a narrow focus.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. "The auto industry" also includes the people that fix old ones. n/t

[Romulox]

10. I thought international capitalism was about COMPETITION????

Why are we buying this man a Nissan, made in Japan? How does that help a taxpayer in Pennsylvania, or Michigan? :wtf:

[global1]

3. Perhaps That Was The Reason In The First Place That They Bought A Hybrid......

vehicle - because they had a longer commute than most and the high price of gas was bankrupting them. They might be driving the same amount of miles than they did before they had a hybrid - but with the hybrid now - they are using less gas.

[Statistical]

26. Exactly. That "study" was fail.

It would be like a study of red car owners like the color red. Does the red car make them like red? Or maybe they LIKED red so they bought a red car.

Now a study that compared annual driving of the SAME DRIVER before and after buying a hybrid over a 5 year period might tell us something.

Comparing low mpg vehicles to high mpg vehicles and "finding" that people who drive a lot have a high mpg vehicle is pure fail.

[mkultra]

5. you lack sanity.

get help.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Don't be so hurt

People call out others bullshit every day. You aren't the first person it's happened to.

[mkultra]

15. Sounds like you have much experience in the area

Im sorry your called out so frequently. It's probably due to your illness.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. "I know you are but what am I"?

Learn that in math class Dexter?

[mkultra]

23. irony at its best

[gmoney]

6. I think people that have longer commutes buy fuel efficient cars

If you know you're going to put a lot of miles a year on your car because of your commute or job or whatever, you're more likely to pay the upcharge to buy a hybrid rather than a conventional car. Hence, statistically, it will look like you're driving more because you have a hybrid.

But I don't think ANYONE says "oh, I get such great mileage, I'm just going to drive around aimlessly for the hell of it, maybe take the long way home."

The people who DO say that are the ones who have low-MPG sports cars they go tearing around in, or cruising vessels they take up and down the strip for hours, or "off road" SUVs and such that they feel obligated to take into the woods to tear up the great outdoors.

[predfan]

8. Bingo, IMO

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. High gas prices reduce consumption.

That simple observation proves the rest. People drive less when it costs more.

It is certainly true that a person with a long commute will choose a car with better fuel economy. But it is also true that people will consolidate trips and find ways to drive less when their costs are higher.

[The2ndWheel]

13. Nobody has to say that though

"But I don't think ANYONE says "oh, I get such great mileage, I'm just going to drive around aimlessly for the hell of it, maybe take the long way home.""

It just happens. If the fuel is cheap, it just sort of happens that way. It doesn't become a big deal to take an extra trip, or do this, or do that. The cheaper the energy, the more ways we find to use it. We force ourselves to use it, just to grow the economy, just to help more people.

[bullwinkle428]

21. Whoops! I should have read your reply before posting mine -

I ended up saying essentially the same thing, to point out the ignorance of the reporter.

[Romulox]

9. I'm just glad that my tax dollars are keeping Nissan plants running...in JAPAN.

C4C is just another backdoor shift of taxpayer dollars to multinational corps. :hi:

[scheming daemons]

18. 47% of cars sold in C4C are American... compared to 45% of cars sold OUTSIDE C4C program....

You need a new talking point.


The #1 selling car in the C4C program is the Ford Focus.

[Romulox]

25. So only 53% of my C4C dollar is going to foreign corporations. You've changed my mind!

Could you remind me why any of my tax dollars should be going to foreign corporations?

Does it have any to do with "the free market"? :silly:

"The #1 selling car in the C4C program is the Ford Focus"

Not any more.

Toyota Corolla overtakes Ford Focus as top seller

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/reuters/MTFH33012_2009-08-05_23-12-49_N05179751.htm

[scheming daemons]

28. 95% of Corollas sold in America are made in the U.S.

...by American workers.

[Romulox]

29. Still waiting for an answer as to why ANY of my tax dollars should be going to foreign corporations.

To employ workers in factories overseas. (Bonus points if you can couch your answer in terms of either "the free market" or "competition". Triple points for a vague appeal to "international trade obligations" that you later refuse to clarify!) :rofl:

[gmoney]

30. how about your tax dollars going to KBR/Halliburton, a Dubai-based company?

I'd say it's a helluva lot more than $2 or $3 billion going to them...

I don't hear you squawking about that.

[Romulox]

31. Bring back our people from Afghanistan and Iraq tomorrow; indict Halliburton's entire BOD

Why would you try to derail this thread with a non-sequitur, and at the same time assume I was all for the use of mercenaries there? Aside from being inaccurate, it's just a massive deflection. :hi:

[Romulox]

32. scheming daemons: RETREAT!

:rofl:

[LondonReign2]

14. Faulty Logic

"Chameides calculates that if you trade in an 18 mpg clunker for a 22 mpg new car (22 miles per gallon is the minimum mileage allowed for a new car under the program), it would take five and a half years of typical driving to offset the new car's carbon footprint. With trucks, it might take eight or nine years, he says."

This bit of sleight-of-hand assumes people would never otherwise buy another car. Unless one thinks we are all about to convert to bikes, we WILL be buying new cars, so factoring production cost of the car is non-sense. It is, essentially, a sunk cost.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. How so?

To simplify the argument, if I buy a replacement for my 25mpg car, I've instantly created 20,000 miles worth of CO2. It is always 9 tons better to drive the original car 200,000 miles than to drive two otherwise identical cars 100,000 miles each.

The easiest way to not generate carbon is to not buy stuff.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Wow, they're really laying it on thick.

[bullwinkle428]

20. Doesn't it make LOGICAL SENSE that people that MUST drive

long distances on a regular basis, would choose to drive hybrid vehicles?

The reporter seems to be suggesting that people are running out to buy Priuses or other hybrid vehicles, and then just running them up and down the highways and bi-ways all day long, just for the hell of it!! More pathetic excuses for "reporting" in this country these days!

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. If the miles a person drives is fixed...

... then why did consumption go down when prices went up?

People drive less when it costs more. Simple as that. I wouldn't think it so controversial to suggest the reverse is true.

[mkultra]

22. his math is fuxored

Chameides calculates that if you trade in an 18 mpg clunker for a 22 mpg new car (22 miles per gallon is the minimum mileage allowed for a new car under the program), it would take five and a half years of typical driving to offset the new car's carbon footprint. With trucks, it might take eight or nine years, he says.

This being the worse case scenario , it is not average nor median and cannot be used for extrapolation. In either case, even at this model, the carbon savings per year is 2 tons of carbon. Since his production range is so incredibly large( between 3 and "say" 12) it makes his prediction untenable.