"Cash for Clunkers" Does Little to Save Mother Gaia

"Cash for Clunkers" is a typical Democrat social program, full of good intentions but lacking in real accomplishments:

Buyer's remorse may be setting in for some who question whether the government's cash for clunkers program is really all it's supposed to be.

Sold as an economic stimulus and an environmental salve, the "cash for clunkers" program has succeeded in jump-starting the ailing auto industry. But some environmental and national security watchdogs are now arguing that the harm caused by destroying the used vehicles -- required by the government trade-in program -- may outweigh the benefits of exchanging pollution-spewing gas guzzlers for new, more efficient cars.

"Disposing of old products, a step required by most incentive and rebate programs, also has environmental costs," Gwen Ottinger, a researcher at the Chemical Heritage Foundation's Center for Contemporary History and Policy in Philadelphia, wrote in an opinion article published in The Washington Post on Tuesday.

"It takes energy to shred and recycle metals; plastic components often cannot be recycled and end up as landfill cover; and the engine fluids, refrigerants and other chemicals essential to operating products end up as hazardous wastes," she wrote.

Others say it also does nothing to reduce America's dependency on oil.

So, how much of an impact on "saving the earth" will these billions of dollars have?

"Cash for clunkers" could have the same effect on global warming pollution as shutting down the entire country — every automobile, every factory, every power plant — for an hour per year. That could rise to three hours if the program is extended by Congress and remains as popular as it is now.

Climate experts aren't impressed.

Compared to overall carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, the pollution savings from cash for clunkers do not noticeably move the fuel gauge. Environmental experts say the program — conceived primarily to stimulate the economy and jump-start the auto industry — is not an effective way to attack climate change.

"As a carbon dioxide policy, this is a terribly wasteful thing to do," said Henry Jacoby, a professor of management and co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT. "The amount of carbon you are saving per federal expenditure is very, very small."

Officials expect a quarter-million gas guzzlers will be junked under the original $1 billion set aside by Congress — money that is now all but exhausted.

The real problem is that many of these "clunkers" weren't clunkers at all. When you hear the word "clunkers" you're probably thinking of some old 60's or 70's beast that gets 8 miles per gallon, but in fact many of these cars were perfectly good used cars that just happened to get a little less mileage than the cars they were traded for. Take a look at the Volvo in this video and tell me if it looks like a "clunker".

Another interesting analysis suggests that based on expected auto sales for this period and the increase generated by the program, each car sold above what would have been expected cost the taxpayers over $43,000. And that doesn't take into account the reduced demand for cars that will be expected in the next year, or the increased cost of used cars and parts that will result from the destruction of all these good used vehicles.

It's a perfect example of a Democrat social program.