Posted on 08/01/2009 8:44:13 AM PDT by catfish1957
Good morning. In my 10 years as a freeper this is my first vanity thread. I just could not stand to stand by and see the environmental scam that is brewing with the Klunkers for Cash program.
1st a little backgorund, I have been an enviromental professional for 30 years, and was a pioneer in emissions calculations and estimations that were promulated and implemented mostly in the early '80's, and really came to fruitition with SARA TRI regulations in about 1987.
The jest of my heartburn starts with the premise in the first place.
Point 1- I am not an expert on emissions associated with manufacture of automobiles, but I can imagine that the electrical power demand with is very significant, which has huge impacts on CO2 emissions. GHG's are the crust of what the climate change freaks claim as the culprit of global warming (bunk :))
Point 2. I have calculated that the overall average increase in gas milage will reduce demand for gasoline of a range of 100-150 gallons of gas yields about 1000 pounds of carbon based gasoline for each incremental car. This will be offset by some reduction in refinery emissions, but likely not near the same degree of the manufacture of the car itself
Point 3- Add the associated emissions of transport of these vehicles to replace good vehicles
Point 4- Energry associated with environmental processing of all the spent fluids of the old vehicles.
Point 5- Energy and emissions associated with dismantling and scrapping these prefectly fine vehicles.
Point 6- Emissions and energy associated with transport of scrap.
Bottom line is that I don't have all the data, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this president has damaged the environment with his little stunt.
Thanks for letting me vent.
The first thing I thought of when I heard they were destroying these engines was the ammount of pollution produced in that process. When you run an engine hard with the intent of causing it to sieze up, I suspect it produces as much pollution as driving it several hundred miles.
I believe you have hit the nail on the head. Obama's move was not environmental. Gee....what else could it be???
They do. And here’s the “teachable moment”...
Few understand what Obamacare is all about, but everyone - including the good ole boys who may not go to the doctor unless a body part has turned green but grew up working on cars - can see what an unmitigated disaster this Clunkers deal is.
So we need to help them connect the dots.
If the Smart Guys in DC can’t get used cars right, who in the world wants them running healthcare?
This is a very interesting take on the “Law of Unintended Consequences”. You have some credentials to go with this vanity. If you could do a bit of research and extend it somewhat, I’d call it a full fledge “article”. So far so good.
Thank you. That’s exactly what I was thinking as well.
Democrats conveniently overlook how their “green” ideas create more problems.. It’s not about the environment.. It’s about control.
Reminds me of my environmental geology professor back in college.
He made the same case that you did in justifying why he was driving his 12 years-old gas guzzler instead of buying a new compact car.
I really wanted to find the GHG emissions at the plants, but EPA’s database only lists “toxics” only. The EPA has recently published some proposed GHG regs. I would love to see what the CO2 per capita would be.
I agree with the poster that said you should write an article on this. McCaughey made herself a name by actually reading the Clinton Health Care bill (unlike everyone else) and then commenting on what is in it. You might just have something here if you can do an analysis and submit it for publication in one of the conservative outlets.
Thanks , but unfortuanely a lot of the auto mfg. GHG data is not published, and is the main point. If we could get the auto plants megawatt usage, and tie that to their power plant source, and their equipments (boilers, furnaces, turbines, etc.) emission factors...... We might have a case.
Yes. And the sad truth is a slight majority of the American People are fools. The marxists were placed in office by a majority of the voting public. The non-voting public didn't know/care enough to show up to stop them. I think they are fools and that makes the Dims correct.
Conservatives view problems as things to be confronted and solved. Liberals view problems as opportunities to be exploited. They don’t care that their “solutions” causes more damage than it cures - the way they see it, it simply offers them “steady employment”.
The first rule of every petty dictator and bureaucrat is self-perpetuation...
Now that is just silly. You should know it is not about the environment, it is about buying votes. After all, there are union jobs that have to be protected.
See if you can take this to the next step and put some numbers together. This whole gimmick may be just a knee-jerk, feel good stunt intended to foster popularity. Just like the gun buy-back programs but with worse environmental impact.
Why don’t they do a free tuneup & repair program? That might improve gas mileage and reduce pollution more per dollar spent than this stunt.
Well, I’m definitely not a rocket scientist but my first question was how much energy it takes to build a new car. I don’t think the gas savings will be an even exchange.
Parts from all over the world and diverse US states, manufactured and trucked to the plant and then the actual energy to put them together and disperse them throughout the US.
Thanks for the rant.
In addition to the environmental concerns on scrapping perfectly usable vehicles, I still don’t see the advantage of the program.
I was always taught to hang on to a car and drive the heck out of it. At some point, repairs might become impractical, but if a person has a perfectly drivable and paid-for used car, all he gains is better fuel economy.
Take for example a $25,000 25 mpg new car vs his 15 mpg oldie. It would cost $500 a month for a five year loan to finance a 25,000 car at 7.74%.
At 15,000 miles annual driving that may mean $900 or so in gas savings a year. But it seems that gas savings would be more than defeated by payments, interest, and depreciation.
I have pictures of some of the MANY “clunkers” turned in across the street from my house. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to post a pic. There’s probably 50 + many utility vehicles that non-profits would love to have for doing community service, you know, that thing the great one is so good at. I think he may as well said “screw you” on this project. These cars were turned into the Toyota dealership - I also noticed they had no Scion XB’s remaining on the lot - those aren’t even BUILT in the US.
You are absolutely right. Think of every single part, and it’s journey from raw supply through the showroom. The energy expended will be significantly more than common sense approach of using a vehicle to the end of it’s useful life.
Good points, never thought of it that way. I guess it just shows how short-sighted Dems are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.