If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Cash For Clunkers, designed to help the environment, actually did quite a bit of damage to the environment   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 476
    More: Ironic, radiation damages, environments, national cemeteries, soccer field  
•       •       •

4152 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jan 2013 at 5:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



476 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-05 04:46:22 PM
I thought cash for clunkers was designed to help stimulate car sales in the midst of an economic meltdown, not "help the environment".
 
2013-01-05 05:03:41 PM
What a uselessly ignorant article. It claims that the cars were shredded, but doesn't provide any factual evidence for that claim. And for evidence of the supposedly terrible results of the program it quotes a used car salesman.  Then it rolls out the lie that cash for clunkers created a shortage of used cars. More republican lies, which I suppose is why JWP is so ready to believe it.
 
2013-01-05 05:11:41 PM
It wasn't designed to help the environment. It was supposed to bolster domestic auto sales.

Seriously, it wasn't that long ago. Did everyone forget or something?
 
2013-01-05 05:15:07 PM
The environment needs more of these

Link
 
2013-01-05 05:16:20 PM

Therion: I thought cash for clunkers was designed to help stimulate car sales in the midst of an economic meltdown, not "help the environment".


I work in the embedded semiconductor industry for a Fortune 500 company, and back in 2009, our CEO in a employee town hall specifically called out Clash for Clunkers for helping us out a lot. If dealers are moving cars, their electronics suppliers need more computer chips, which means we can sell the suppliers more instead of just having them sit on the shelf waiting for demand that would otherwise not come. It amuses me when people who have no farking idea what they're talking about say Cash for Clunkers didn't do anything. Had the US automakers fallen, it would have affected a LOT more than just the employees at the automakers.
 
2013-01-05 05:19:13 PM

RexTalionis: It wasn't designed to help the environment. It was supposed to bolster domestic auto sales.

Seriously, it wasn't that long ago. Did everyone forget or something?


Republicans have a 4 year memory span. In a few years Rush can start saying Obama started the Iraq war. None of his listeners will know the difference. None of them. Most Republicans think TARP was Obama's doing. Enough said.
 
2013-01-05 05:19:20 PM
 
2013-01-05 05:20:49 PM

m3000: Therion: I thought cash for clunkers was designed to help stimulate car sales in the midst of an economic meltdown, not "help the environment".

I work in the embedded semiconductor industry for a Fortune 500 company, and back in 2009, our CEO in a employee town hall specifically called out Clash for Clunkers for helping us out a lot. If dealers are moving cars, their electronics suppliers need more computer chips, which means we can sell the suppliers more instead of just having them sit on the shelf waiting for demand that would otherwise not come. It amuses me when people who have no farking idea what they're talking about say Cash for Clunkers didn't do anything. Had the US automakers fallen, it would have affected a LOT more than just the employees at the automakers.


Stop lying. The only people that were helped by this was the Union thugs. Real Americans told me so.
 
2013-01-05 05:21:31 PM
I don't recall the Clunkers program ever being sold with an environmental pitch. It was a "get people to buy more crap" program.

And even if the cars were shredded/dumped/what-have-you, I'd still wager the long-term change in carbon output from not having those vehicles on the road would probably end up being a net positive for the environment.
 
2013-01-05 05:22:36 PM

mjjt: The environment needs more of these

Link


Wow, does that thing actually have SPD clips on it? I want one.
 
2013-01-05 05:22:51 PM

Therion: I thought cash for clunkers was designed to help stimulate car sales in the midst of an economic meltdown, not "help the environment".


It was.
 
2013-01-05 05:22:58 PM

Therion: I thought cash for clunkers was designed to help stimulate car sales in the midst of an economic meltdown, not "help the environment".


RexTalionis: It wasn't designed to help the environment. It was supposed to bolster domestic auto sales.



Actually, it was meant to do both. Generally, trade-in vehicles were required to get a combined 18MPG or less and new cars 22MPG or more. Seriously, it wasn't that long ago. Did everyone forget or something?
 
2013-01-05 05:24:34 PM
farking obvious.

What, you think new cars just magically appear out of nowhere and cause no polution during their construction process?

You don't think someone might be willing to drive a brand new car a lot more then an old rust heap?
 
2013-01-05 05:25:30 PM

IrateShadow: Dinki: It claims that the cars were shredded, but doesn't provide any factual evidence for that claim.

Maybe not shredded, but it was a provision of the program that any cars brought in any cars brought in had their engines destroyed and made unsalvagable.


And so? As the Wiki states, that was so the engines were never used again. The program was designed to take inefficient cars off the road, and it was a resounding success.
 
2013-01-05 05:27:16 PM

aevert: Actually, it was meant to do both. Generally, trade-in vehicles were required to get a combined 18MPG or less and new cars 22MPG or more. Seriously, it wasn't that long ago. Did everyone forget or something?


Hell, the fox news viewers didn't know what the program was doing while it was going on, much less now.
 
2013-01-05 05:32:45 PM
Nice one subby. The cash for clunkers was not for the environment. It was to stimulate the auto industry.
 
2013-01-05 05:33:53 PM

Dinki: aevert: Actually, it was meant to do both. Generally, trade-in vehicles were required to get a combined 18MPG or less and new cars 22MPG or more. Seriously, it wasn't that long ago. Did everyone forget or something?

Hell, the fox news viewers didn't know what the program was doing while it was going on, much less now.


I remember back when this program was implemented one of the Fox News talking heads was on blabbering on about how the Europeans were laughing at us for doing this. You know laughing at us for implementing a program that most of them were implementing at the same time. This program brought out some of the most bold faced lies from the right.
 
2013-01-05 05:41:13 PM
A pointless article that offers nothing to support the claim. It quotes E magazine for supporting data, fer chrissakes.

I especially like how "690,000 vehicles" is a very large number in paragraph four, but a mere pittance by paragraph nine. The very same number.

It wasn't that long ago. People with brains can remember just how well it worked, and it wasn't that bad.
 
2013-01-05 05:43:22 PM

Therion: I thought cash for clunkers was designed to help stimulate car sales in the midst of an economic meltdown, not "help the environment".


Agreed.
 
2013-01-05 05:45:31 PM

Dinki: IrateShadow: Dinki: It claims that the cars were shredded, but doesn't provide any factual evidence for that claim.

Maybe not shredded, but it was a provision of the program that any cars brought in any cars brought in had their engines destroyed and made unsalvagable.

And so? As the Wiki states, that was so the engines were never used again. The program was designed to take inefficient cars off the road, and it was a resounding success.


But it also created plenty of environmental nasties when they shredded parts of those old cars.

Look, I'm a liberal, but from my PoV it was a crappily designed program, and it created a bunch of nasty externalizes- used car prices really did go up dramatically in its wake, which hurts poor people. For one. The concept was sound, but I remember at the time thinking there were a lot of things about it I would change. As time has gone by, I've forgotten many of the details, so I couldn't offer you the same type of analysis I could have then, but it was far from a perfect program, and criticism is justified.

It created some nice effects for the environment on the carbon front, but I'm inclined to believe TFA when it says that it created a lot of solid and chemical waste issues. Now, I think that global warming is a more serious threat than the waste issues, which are usually localized problems, and well, we have a shiatload of land in this country, but that doesn't make the criticism invalid.
 
2013-01-05 05:48:57 PM
CFC had nothing to do with the environment. It had everything to do with car companies needing a return on their election donations by getting the cheap compitition off the market and forcing people into leasing new cars.

If you think a politician gives a flying fark about you or the environment then you are the problem.
 
2013-01-05 05:50:53 PM
The cars may not have been recycled but the story sure was; lifted by News.Yahoo from Takepart.com who stole it from emagazine.com and added just enough commentary to get away with it under the 'fair use' clause.
The original content creator has been royally ripped off.
 
2013-01-05 05:54:20 PM
Did they use math that they do as a Republicans to feel better about themselves?
 
2013-01-05 06:01:05 PM
OHHHHBAMMMMYYY...AHHH! ! !....HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHaaaaaHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHH! !.....bammy bammy bammy OHHHHHHHHHH! !..... .* thud.
 
2013-01-05 06:05:21 PM

cptjeff: Dinki: IrateShadow: Dinki: It claims that the cars were shredded, but doesn't provide any factual evidence for that claim.

Maybe not shredded, but it was a provision of the program that any cars brought in any cars brought in had their engines destroyed and made unsalvagable.

And so? As the Wiki states, that was so the engines were never used again. The program was designed to take inefficient cars off the road, and it was a resounding success.

But it also created plenty of environmental nasties when they shredded parts of those old cars.

Look, I'm a liberal, but from my PoV it was a crappily designed program, and it created a bunch of nasty externalizes- used car prices really did go up dramatically in its wake, which hurts poor people. For one. The concept was sound, but I remember at the time thinking there were a lot of things about it I would change. As time has gone by, I've forgotten many of the details, so I couldn't offer you the same type of analysis I could have then, but it was far from a perfect program, and criticism is justified.

It created some nice effects for the environment on the carbon front, but I'm inclined to believe TFA when it says that it created a lot of solid and chemical waste issues. Now, I think that global warming is a more serious threat than the waste issues, which are usually localized problems, and well, we have a shiatload of land in this country, but that doesn't make the criticism invalid.


I think the author of this article is cherry picking some numbers here. He seems to be saying, that the "shredding" instead of "recycling" of these cars created a non-recyclable waste stream (in the form of mixed or contaminated plastics, mostly). It sounds like "recycling" the cars means just plain old reselling, or parting out. Which is fine, except that shredding cars IS recycling. What do the pick/part yards do with non-sellable parts? They kick them on down the line to a car shredding operation. Basically this complaint, and MANY of the complaints, concerning cash for clunkers is coming strictly from a group of businesses who didn't get a chance to wet their beaks.
 
2013-01-05 06:07:50 PM
Article summary: If you only count the negative effects and ignore the positive effects of the the program the program is a failure.

The program was not about "recycling cars" it was about getting high polluting cars off the road. Recycling the parts to put more pollution cars on the road would of been the opposite of what it was supposed to do.

Anyone with half a brain can figure that out.
 
2013-01-05 06:10:05 PM

karmaceutical: I think the author of this article is cherry picking some numbers here. He seems to be saying, that the "shredding" instead of "recycling" of these cars created a non-recyclable waste stream (in the form of mixed or contaminated plastics, mostly). It sounds like "recycling" the cars means just plain old reselling, or parting out. Which is fine, except that shredding cars IS recycling. What do the pick/part yards do with non-sellable parts? They kick them on down the line to a car shredding operation. Basically this complaint, and MANY of the complaints, concerning cash for clunkers is coming strictly from a group of businesses who didn't get a chance to wet their beaks.


And reusing parts means putting back polluting cars on the street which is the opposite of what the program is meant to do.


Would it make sense to take 1 polluting car off the street and people use those parts to put back 3 polluting cars on the street? That seems to be what the assclown writer is pissed off about.
 
2013-01-05 06:12:17 PM

fluffy2097: What, you think new cars just magically appear out of nowhere and cause no polution during their construction process?


Oh, you believe cars are created in the back of the showroom as soon as the customer is willing to buy one. Hahahahhahaha. Please continue.
 
2013-01-05 06:15:14 PM
It was a poorly designed , shiatty program. Stupid idea. But in the grand scheme of things, not a very big deal so as a policy mistake, ranks pretty low when compared to major policy blunders presidents have made in the last 30 years
 
2013-01-05 06:20:56 PM
Only a lib would consider the destruction of perfectly usable cars a solid economic plan. I guess the think natural disasters are good for the economy too.
 
2013-01-05 06:25:03 PM
How does one compare the environmental damage done by dumping extra stuff in landfills to the environmental benefit created by less carbon being released into the atmosphere.

Is there some sort of conversion factor that you can multiply by?
 
2013-01-05 06:25:26 PM

giftedmadness: I am guessing English class wasn't your strong point.


giftedmadness: I guess the think natural disasters are good for the economy too.


Indeed.
 
2013-01-05 06:26:15 PM
Republican Dream car, can run for 30 years and more, runs on anything even remotely flammable, super cheap parts, no government regulations in the making of this bad boy!

upload.wikimedia.org
/hot like the engine
 
2013-01-05 06:26:59 PM

Corvus: karmaceutical: I think the author of this article is cherry picking some numbers here. He seems to be saying, that the "shredding" instead of "recycling" of these cars created a non-recyclable waste stream (in the form of mixed or contaminated plastics, mostly). It sounds like "recycling" the cars means just plain old reselling, or parting out. Which is fine, except that shredding cars IS recycling. What do the pick/part yards do with non-sellable parts? They kick them on down the line to a car shredding operation. Basically this complaint, and MANY of the complaints, concerning cash for clunkers is coming strictly from a group of businesses who didn't get a chance to wet their beaks.

And reusing parts means putting back polluting cars on the street which is the opposite of what the program is meant to do.


Would it make sense to take 1 polluting car off the street and people use those parts to put back 3 polluting cars on the street? That seems to be what the assclown writer is pissed off about.


I do not know where you live but most population dense areas I know of have emissions testing; some ridiculously strict. Unless the repair is simple and cost effective, most failing vehicles are scrapped.
 
2013-01-05 06:27:15 PM
 
2013-01-05 06:27:54 PM

Therion: I thought cash for clunkers was designed to help stimulate car sales in the midst of an economic meltdown, not "help the environment".


Correct. However saying it would help the environment does more to satisfy the mob then saying it was to help the auto industry generate sales.

Corvus:

Would it make sense to take 1 polluting car off the street and people use those parts to put back 3 polluting cars on the street? That seems to be what the assclown writer is pissed off about.

Economically and environmentally in many cases yes, the environmental cost of producing an item is tremendous. Consider the entire life of a product from pulling the materials out of the ground, to production, the thousands of miles everything moves along the way, disposal, and then finally actually using the item.
 
2013-01-05 06:27:54 PM
You know this wasn't an environmental thing right retards?

This was to give the consumer more incentive to buy a car when the auto manufacturers were desperate for customers.
 
2013-01-05 06:38:28 PM

Therion: I thought cash for clunkers was designed to help stimulate car sales in the midst of an economic meltdown, not "help the environment".


Originally it was billed as cutting down on demand for oil. Environmental concerns were next then finally the economic benefits of purchasing new cars.

A lot of people will say it was designed to bolster the US auto industry but they're wrong. Especially since the guidelines were set to buy back fuel-inefficient old cars only. Fuel efficient cars of any age weren't included. It was only 4 years ago so you can tell what type who the idiots are when they can't remember four years ago.

So far most of the reasons for it have been shown to have failed.

ImpendingCynic: Here's some breaking news for you: unlike Republicans, Democrats do not automatically sanctify their standard-bearer. Every Obama supporter I know acknowledges that he's made some mistakes, but they supported him because the alternative is so much worse.


Republicans didn't sanctify Romney and were saying precisely what you were claiming Democrats say about Obama.
 
2013-01-05 06:39:09 PM
Cfc is crackpot economics
 
2013-01-05 06:40:31 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574326531645819 464.html
 
2013-01-05 06:41:06 PM

Mrbogey: Originally it was billed as cutting down on demand for oil.


Citation needed.
 
2013-01-05 06:46:11 PM

Mrtraveler01: You know this wasn't an environmental thing right retards?

This was to give the consumer more incentive to buy a car when the auto manufacturers were desperate for customers.



Uh huh... show me in the law where it MANDATED they buy a car from a US auto manufacturer. I'll show you where it mandated the traded car be over a set fuel economy and the new car be under.

BTW... the actual stat is 47%. 47% of cars sold via the program were American cars.

So the whole, "Cash for clunkers was designed to help auto manufacturers" is blatantly untrue.
 
2013-01-05 06:47:02 PM
Cash for Clunkers cost us a lot of money, was bad for the environment and destroyed the cheaper used car market. For years, teenagers and those of low income had trouble finding an affordable used car.
 
2013-01-05 06:54:37 PM

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Originally it was billed as cutting down on demand for oil.

Citation needed.


Link

Link

Link

The program was designed primarily for higher fuel economy across the entire US. Auto maker sales were a minor consideration. Though, yea, Obama did speak in favor of it in terms of auto makers having more sales it still wasn't his primary argument for it. Heck, in this quote he doesn't refer to auto makers getting a boost but the general American economy getting a boost through the spending.

"Now, more American consumers will have the chance to purchase newer, more fuel-efficient cars and the American economy will continue to get a much-needed boost," Mr Obama said in a statement minutes after the vote.

But again, if it was to prop up the automakers... why didn't they have a provision mandating the consumer buy a US car?
 
2013-01-05 06:54:54 PM
So...wait. This article was based off both another article full of conjecture and an op-ed piece? No actual facts, other than the few presented in the E Magazine article?

And that, somehow, is damning?

Wow.
 
2013-01-05 06:56:11 PM
Republicans suddenly concerned about the environment. Well played, Obama.
 
2013-01-05 06:56:15 PM
I made good use of the CFC program.  I was already shopping for a newer car.

Had a 86 Suburban that got about 7 mpg and was on it's last legs, not worth fixing any more.  Was shopping for a used pickup.  CFC came along and I got a new Ranger that gets about 23 miles to the gallon.

Even if they just took that old Suburban and dumped it in a lake somewhere, I'm pretty sure between the better gas mileage, noise pollution, and me swearing at the old piece of junk trying to keep it running, the environment is better off.  There was little if anything on that car that could be resold, it was plain used up.
 
2013-01-05 06:57:19 PM

Nemo's Brother: For years, teenagers and those of low income had trouble finding an affordable used car.


This kind of statement belongs in the same category as "They lived happily ever after."
 
2013-01-05 06:57:38 PM

FormlessOne: So...wait. This article was based off both another article full of conjecture and an op-ed piece? No actual facts, other than the few presented in the E Magazine article?

And that, somehow, is damning?

Wow.


If your entire political purpose in life is to get riled up over what the opposite side does and then to create legislature to stick it to said side then yeah, this article is damning, to everyone else its worth a shrug and a smirk.
 
2013-01-05 06:59:29 PM

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Originally it was billed as cutting down on demand for oil.

Citation needed.

Link

Link

Link

The program was designed primarily for higher fuel economy across the entire US. Auto maker sales were a minor consideration. Though, yea, Obama did speak in favor of it in terms of auto makers having more sales it still wasn't his primary argument for it. Heck, in this quote he doesn't refer to auto makers getting a boost but the general American economy getting a boost through the spending.

"Now, more American consumers will have the chance to purchase newer, more fuel-efficient cars and the American economy will continue to get a much-needed boost," Mr Obama said in a statement minutes after the vote.

But again, if it was to prop up the automakers... why didn't they have a provision mandating the consumer buy a US car?


So according to all of those articles, it was to increase fuel efficiency in addition to boosting auto sales.

So we're both right. I can live with that.
 
Displayed 50 of 476 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report