I am in San Jose today speaking at Santa Clara University to high school debaters who are preparing for debates on environmental policy.
In the meantime, here is a question to debate. According to this report on the cash-for-clunkers program, the average MPG of cars purchased under the program is 61 percent greater than the average of the cars being traded in.
However, the medication reacts with order cialis online check out that now certain drugs. If you are lucky, you might find mere traces of Sildenafil citrate in them but not even close to enough to cause a firm and rigid orden viagra viagra erection. Men, who are suffering from persistent erectile difficulties, can take this purchasing cialis online medication every day and enjoy sex life. Vacuum pumps increase blood flow in the penile region causing an erection. midwayfire.com online viagra soft professional is a high possibility that you are suffering from erectile dysfunction or low sex drive.
Ignoring the effects on the economy of boosting car sales, does this make the program worthwhile? Has anyone calculated the environmental cost of recycling/disposing of all the cars being traded in before their times (such as the 14-year-old car in the above video)?
A waste of a perfectly good asset.
If the smart growth idiots had any common sense, they would let these cars trickle down to low income people who cannot afford new cars and destroy the even older cars that they are driving
thanks
JK
Jim – great job ruining a perfectly intelligent comment by attempting to link Clunkers to Smart Growth.
hkelly, Karlock’s conflation may be nothing but inflammatory, but the point is still worth noting. This program is taking affordable vehicles and destroying them. Owner’s of older vehicles have had the continuing supply stream of replacement parts decimated by this program.
Echo the above. I’m happy to see a soot-belcher leave the road, setting aside the issue of the means by which it is accomplished, but what have we really gained if that soot-belcher could have displaced an even worse soot-belcher, but did not?
My guess is that tool junk into the air is possibly the same as before the destruction of the clunker. I think that people are turning in 3rd and 4th cars that used to sit in the alley and get driven a lot less than than the new cars taking their place. Just a hunch though, so don’t hassle me about it.
This is a bad idea and a waste. I wouldn’t even characterize many of these car’s as “soot-belchers.” Less efficient as many of their newer counterparts, yes, but this is a waste.
I can say this as someone who likes and advocates for many SG, NU and other “planning” principals.
Apparently we aren’t the only ones noticing the issue of waste:
The Atlantic Business page
One angle I had not thought of is that the oldest of the clunkers are eventually going to die off to attrition anyway. They weren’t building cars in the 1970s and 1980s that last the way the classics of the 1950s (to some extent) have. You can find someone driving a 1953 Buick Super Eight in good shape, but good luck finding someone driving a 1988 Pontiac 6000 that isn’t an rusted rolling death trap. Perhaps the planners (cough) behind C4C decided to just write off the secondary market displacement.
Every time I see some dirt-poor family riding around in a rusted out 1978 Ford Fairmont, I’ll wonder why C4C never contemplated a way to get them into a decent used 1992 Honda Accord. Of course, I’ll know why: because the best-laid plans, however well-intentioned, can never allocate resources as efficiently as an unfettered free market.
Economically, most purchases would have happened anyway, and were either delayed in anticipation of the program or sped up to take advantage of the program. I read somewhere that one car expert estimated only 20% of purchases were created by the program. That makes the public subsidy about $22,500 per new purchase….the government could just buy a new car itself.
Environmentally, I can some improvement in gas mileage. But surely it is a trivial amount compared with CO2 goals.
While I agree that its short-sighted of the Administration to require that all vehicles being traded in be destroyed, we may be making our own set of assumptions that are too critical. In the YouTube video, the person who posted the video included a text box that stated that every warning light on the dashboard is on. This suggests to me that the car was too old and too problem-ridden to be useful for resale. While many of the cars being traded-in and dismantled were doubtlessly still usable, if less fuel-efficient, I think it’s also important to recognize that some of the cars traded-in had outlived their useful life. If such cars were resold to low-income families, they may have become more of a liability, and the costs required to maintain them in their poor condition may have been greater than the benefits that the family derived from having a car. After all, it’s not just access to transportation, its access to reliable and effective transportation that counts.
That being said, I wish that the Administration had allowed car dealerships or people making the trade-ins to determine for themselves if the car was too old to be useful to anyone else. I agree that many of these vehicles could have been donated or resold to people driving even less fuel-efficient vehicles.
Mike said: Every time I see some dirt-poor family riding around in a rusted out 1978 Ford Fairmont, I’ll wonder why C4C never contemplated a way to get them into a decent used 1992 Honda Accord. Of course, I’ll know why: because the best-laid plans, however well-intentioned, can never allocate resources as efficiently as an unfettered free market.
THWM: Well the genie is already out of the bottle.
So in your case don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
If such cars were resold to low-income families, they may have become more of a liability, and the costs required to maintain them in their poor condition may have been greater than the benefits that the family derived from having a car. After all, it’s not just access to transportation, its access to reliable and effective transportation that counts.
How’s about we let them decide that? And I’m sure many needy people would take issue with your claim that what really counts is “access to reliable and effective transportation” — that sounds like a euphemism for auto suppression and subsidized (but shiny) deep-in-the-red toys like light rail. Lest anyone think the government is actually accepting “clunkers” like the name advertises, here are a few eligibility criteria:
* Vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date.
* Only the purchase or 5 year minimum lease of new vehicles qualify.
* Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or fewer MPG.
* Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in.
* Trade-in vehicles must be in driveable condition.
I’m glad to see that even a lot of the SG/NU guys on here can see the madness of just destroying these cars. This to me seems like a payoff to the the most strident wing of the environmental movement, and I’m glad to see that we can have environmentally-minded people on here who don’t actively wish to go off the deep end and start pulling western civilization back into the Dark Ages.
Chipdouglas: Actually in this case, by “reliable and efficient transportation”, I really just meant “cars that run reliably and run well”, a category which excludes cars that, well, don’t always turn over. Honestly. I’m saying that cars that aren’t usable (in the case of “every warning light on the dashboard being on”, as in the youtube video) shouldn’t be resold. And while I agree with you that we shouldn’t tell low-income families (or anyone else) when a car is beyond proper use, I’m saying that there ARE situations in which people are sold cars that are beyond their useful life, but they don’t know that–the sellers deceive or misguide them with imperfect information.
And I apologize, I didn’t know that the criteria included cars in a drivable condition. That’s ridiculous.
Well, it doesn’t have anything to do with the environment. It’s just a way of stimulating purchase of new cars.
It’s a pity though that the car wasn’t shipped out to Africa. Many markets in Africa would have been glad of a car like that, which has very little in the way of electronics, is inexpensive, and which can be serviced in a small garage.
bbream: Thanks for the clarification — no disagreement here.
“…the sellers deceive or misguide them with imperfect information,” is what happens in an “unfettered free market.” While some are “glad to see that even a lot of the SG/NU guys on here can see the madness of just destroying these cars,” some of us are still confused as to why there is still an irrational belief that the market will solve all of our problems.
chipdouglas said: How’s about we let them decide that? And I’m sure many needy people would take issue with your claim that what really counts is “access to reliable and effective transportation† that sounds like a euphemism for auto suppression.
THWM: Though you think transit suppression is perfectly fine.
bennett said: “…the sellers deceive or misguide them with imperfect information,†is what happens in an “unfettered free market.†While some are “glad to see that even a lot of the SG/NU guys on here can see the madness of just destroying these cars,†some of us are still confused as to why there is still an irrational belief that the market will solve all of our problems.
THWM: What we have today is a “market” built on 100 years of bad policy.
Francis K, no need to ship them that far…Cuba or Mexico would have been more than happy
Antiplanner, et al.,
C4C just goes to show that the Obama folks have a bit more to learn about running car companies. C4C should have been restricted to GM and Chrysler products only. After all, they’re the companies we own. Why help out our competitors, e.g., Ford, which sold the most C4C cars?
And since we’re running GM and Chrysler as not-for-profits anyway, it makes sense that whatever short-run money they might have earned by selling trade-ins be forfeited to long-term environmental quality.
Antiplanner, et al.,
I have a farm, so I have a farm truck. It is a 1992 F-250 4X4 with the big engine. Great for hauling a couple tons of hay or a tractor on a flatbed. Gets 11 mpg. Mine isn’t running so hot, its Blue Book value is less than $3,500, and I no longer raise livestock or grow hay.
Seems like my truck would be a great candidate for C4C. Not! My truck is only eligible if I buy a new gas-guzzling truck or SUV. My truck does not qualify for C4C trade-in for any kind of car.
C4C is all about boosting car sales — not improving the environment.
Andy Stahl said: C4C is all about boosting car sales  not improving the environment.
THWM: That’s the point. The Autoplanner & the oligarchs that pay him are rejoicing.
Francis K and t g,
Agreed on the developing countries being able to get good use out of many of the “clunkers” in all probability.
This ties into the “one domestic truck theory.” For those of you new to the realm of disaster preparation at the household level, the ODT theory means that you should own at least one vehicle that requires nothing but gas, oil, and water to run and nothing but common tools to service. Domestic trucks are the most common low-tech vehicles that meet these criteria. Imagine if there was a sustained interruption in general commerce and daily life. A person who owned a Prius that requires the dealer’s computer interface to service would be unable to drive after some time, while the ODT owner is limited only by the availability of fuel.
In developing countries, inconsistent access to technology and commerce is a fact of daily life. The ODT theory is reality, in that (if they have a car at all) they have one that can basically be serviced at the village level. It doesn’t help them to have to repair a transmission-governing microchip, for example. I would suspect many “clunkers” are low-tech enough to meet their needs, especially since so many of the trade-ins have been trucks and SUVs.
Mike said:
Francis K and t g,
Agreed on the developing countries being able to get good use out of many of the “clunkers†in all probability.
This ties into the “one domestic truck theory.†For those of you new to the realm of disaster preparation at the household level, the ODT theory means that you should own at least one vehicle that requires nothing but gas, oil, and water to run and nothing but common tools to service. Domestic trucks are the most common low-tech vehicles that meet these criteria. Imagine if there was a sustained interruption in general commerce and daily life. A person who owned a Prius that requires the dealer’s computer interface to service would be unable to drive after some time, while the ODT owner is limited only by the availability of fuel.
In developing countries, inconsistent access to technology and commerce is a fact of daily life. The ODT theory is reality, in that (if they have a car at all) they have one that can basically be serviced at the village level. It doesn’t help them to have to repair a transmission-governing microchip, for example. I would suspect many “clunkers†are low-tech enough to meet their needs, especially since so many of the trade-ins have been trucks and SUVs.
THWM: Then get one of these. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgUXmqlgOAo
Dear bbream et al.,
The clunker program was first proposed by environmentalists (and maybe the EPA) a few decades ago as a way to remove highly polluting vehicles from the road. For that reason, the clunkers have to be drivable. Fuel economy and economic stimulus are modern unintended add-ons, and the original intent has been lost.
The clunker program will likely be the only benefit that anyone gets from the coming Obama communist police state, so maybe we shouldn’t complain. A new car is better than a tour of Gulag. Where will ours be, I wonder, Alaska, Gitmo?
Toyota has joined Chrysler in adding their own discount to the bill. Unfortunately, none of my vehicles qualify.
THWM: Though you think transit suppression is perfectly fine.
Is that what I think? Because what I thought I think — and it sounds now like that was erroneous — is that any government transit project is fine IF accompanied by (1) a democratic vote, and (2) true and accurate presentation of the projections, to specifically include publicly released data about projected transit share, cost-per-rider, cost to an average family, maintenance/ops/rebuild cost and schedule, etc.
The reason I throw in (2) is to preempt the “bait” projections. Where I live in Seattle, we have voted down big rail projects 4 times. Just over a decade ago, public transit ideologues got smart and lowballed their projections to seem like a bargain. After “gerrymandering” districts to exclude rural votes (which I cannot verify), the fifth rail proposal passed at 54.4% with the following claims:
Length: 25 miles
Completion: 2006
Daily Ridership: 107,000
Cost: $1.8 billion
That’s what the people voted for. Now that the initial phase is complete, here’s what the people really got:
Length: 14 miles
(Distortion: 79%)
Completion: July 2009
(Distortion: 35%)
Daily Ridership (OPENING week): 12,000 rides and declining (Distortion: 792%)
Cost: $2.4 billion
(Distortion: 33%)
It’s the most expensive-per-mile light rail project in the US (one critic says the world but I also can’t verify that). They also held a vote for a massive $18+ billion expansion project (undoubtedly with similarly inaccurate projections) BEFORE voters could gauge the effectiveness of the first LR project. It was voted up by a lesser margin, although in both cases it is instructive that the county that already had some semblance of rail offered the fewest votes of the three.
As ROT has pointed out in his BLP book, these radical inaccuracies are typical of urban rail projects throughout the US whenever they need to get the public on board. When our local LR advocates — mostly upper-class white people, which the far Left Seattle Weekly mag will attest to — defend it tooth and nail against cost and ridership criticism (because you can’t put a price on light rail), they always go first to the fact that it was voter-approved… as if it’s meaningful that a small majority of (possibly gerrymandered) voters gave the thumbs-up on a project that didn’t turn out anything like promised.
In summary, you may benefit from this all-or-nothing game of accusing your adversaries of wanting to “ban you” and your ideas (because you need to feel aggrieved to displace attention from the injustice of your own social engineering vision), but I don’t want to ban you. Public transit projects should be approved provided they are voted in by a non-gerrymandered majority who have been presented with complete and accurate projections of all costs and benefits. Because this comes from the tax pool, there should also be some sort of loser-pays punitive measure to prevent deliberate agency distortions and incentivize them to provide the people with accurate numbers. I’m afraid you already know what a disaster your dreams are, which is why you go to the martyrdom thing and the “Randal is a paid shill” thing as a first resort.
Pingback: The Antiplanner :: That’s Stimulating? :: http://ti.org/antiplanner
Chip, this is some thing that Seattle has been paying for over the last 70 years!
?
What are the other costs involved when it comes to measuring if a program like this is doing any environmental good? If anyone has studied it I’d be curious as to what they came up with. Especially if they took into account that while the newer car might have a higher MPG, it could also lead to more driving being done.
Cash for “clunkers” is a big joke. My Volvo is a clunker; the radiator has been leaking for who-knows-how-long?, the front axle needs major repair to keep the tires from unevenly wearing, the front windshield needs replacing, the engine burns/leaks oil at the rate of 1 quart per 1000 miles, and so on and so on.
But because it gets over 20 mpg, it’s not a clunker. Go fu&3ing figure. Meanwhile, my friend turns in one relatively ok minivan for a new minivan, and my head spins.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Frank said:
Cash for “clunkers†is a big joke. My Volvo is a clunker; the radiator has been leaking for who-knows-how-long?, the front axle needs major repair to keep the tires from unevenly wearing, the front windshield needs replacing, the engine burns/leaks oil at the rate of 1 quart per 1000 miles, and so on and so on.
But because it gets over 20 mpg, it’s not a clunker. Go fu&3ing figure. Meanwhile, my friend turns in one relatively ok minivan for a new minivan, and my head spins.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is bliss.
THWM: Well, you reap what you sow.
Thanks for that turdbit of knowledge.
PRK166 asked:
What are the other costs involved when it comes to measuring if a program like this is doing any environmental good?
There is a giant unanswered (because unasked) question as regards this program and its actual environmental impact: how much additional energy will be consumed and pollution created by the economic activity required to generate $3 billion + interest in government revenues to pay for this program? It seems unlikely that the marginal increase in fuel economy derived from the program will be the greater of the two.