Cash for clunkers - Page 5

Originally Posted by jamac

avg fuel savings per traded car = 9.6 miles/gal (phenomefuckingnal)

avg drive distance per year 12,000 miles

total miles for 750,000 cars = 9,000,000,000 miles

fuel @ 15.8 miles/gal = 569,620,253 gal (avg consumption of cars to be destroyed)
fuel @ 25.4 miles/gal = 354,330,708 gal (avg consumption of new cars purchased)
Fuel savings initiated = 215,289,545 gal per year.
Consumers will save approx $ 560,000,000 per year on gas. ($ 2,60 per gal)

In 5.36 years individuals who have purchased a new car under the program will save 3 Bill $ in gas.

If there is a free market that will mean that gas will become cheaper, FOR EVERY ONE!

Originally Posted by jamac

Ok margin of error ±5% .. would you agree?

Originally Posted by jamac

It is far more important to our security, our planet and our children to use less gas than anything else. PERIOD!

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

No. We don't have all the numbers. Once we have them then we can do some real analysis. Until then, this is guess work.




This is an opinion.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

An opinion based in fact unless you ignore CO₂'s role on global warming.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Some assumptions are being made here. First the 9.6 MPG improvement is based on a sampling of 120,000 cars not the full 750,000 (like the rest of your calculations) so we'll have to see when the program is completed a couple of things:

1. What is the average MPG improvement at that time. Undoubtedly we can do better than a "sampling" since someone will have electronic records that can easily be shove through a spreadsheet to get the actual number.

2. In addition to the $3 billion spent by the government, how much did individuals spend?

Then we can get closer to a total cost benefit analysis.

None of this factors in the secondary effects that have already been mentioned (e.g., upward price pressures for remaining used cars, etc.)

Originally Posted by franksargent

The above are real numbers though, not mear handwaving of overly simplistic demand/supply arguments that are only true in a truly free market, something we all know has never existed.

Originally Posted by franksargent

...not mear handwaving of overly simplistic demand/supply arguments that are only true in a truly free market, something we all know has never existed.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

An opinion based in fact...

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

Not to mention the political implications of all that Arab Oil Money.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Not really.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

So what else is causing this?

"When the Chacaltaya glacier vanished six years sooner than scientists predicted, a victim of global warming, so too did the world’s highest ski run.The loss of the 18,000-year-old glacier this year that loomed above Bolivia’s altiplano threatens to diminish water supplies to 2 million people"
~ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a5uefC1W0_bY

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

I'm not going to engage in a debate about global warming or climate change or whatever the heck we're calling it these days.

The fundamental opinion stated makes a personal value judgement about security and the environment and suggests, unequivocally that this is the single most important issue. Undoubtedly we can look at objective facts and find other issues that are similarly concerning that could rank above those. Further, the national security "issues" related to foreign oil are misplaced and do not address root causes. Finally, all we hear regarding so-called climate change are its negative effects and hear nothing of potential positive impacts. So given this lack of information, it can hardly be said that an opinion is based on "fact". It is an individual value judgement based on partial facts.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

The only real positive effect is that technology is becoming greener, it can't happen soon enough.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

But they are incomplete numbers with assumptions built in. When we have the complete numbers then we can talk.



We've already established that involuntary_serf is the one doing the hand waving. If I wish to ignore the reality and real-world impacts of the laws of supply and demand, you can't help that.

Originally Posted by franksargent

No, you have only decided that you are doing all the handwaving.

All your links on increased prices occured prior to the CARS program.

Talk about being incomplete, you are de facto, incomplete.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

The earth has always undergone periods of cooling and warming. Icecaps and glaciers recede and grow. The earth's climate is never the same. Change is the only constant.

The earth was once much warmer than it is now. Studies indicate life flourished during that time.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Are you saying we shouldn't limit our CO2 emissions? Don't you think the negatives of increased CO2 levels far outweigh the very few positives for the vast majority of (really all) people?

Originally Posted by franksargent

Truly, you are an ... who presents incomplete anecdotal evidence to support their mind numbing and singular POV.

You assume "negative unintended consequences" and that about sums up your "in depth analysis."

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Are you sure? There are absolutely, positively, unquestionably no other positive effects?

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Very few...

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Like what?

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I thought this was your area of expertise!

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

I never made such a claim. But you've admitted that there are a few positive effects of "climate change" (that beautifully, vaguely, all-encompassingly named "issue"). I'm just curious to know what those few are.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I've never argued that there aren't any positive effect's that can be attributed to increased CO2.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

The only real positive effect is that technology is becoming greener, it can't happen soon enough.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Instead, that they are far outweighed by the negative effects.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

Granted it is just a start and I trust Toyota, more than anyone else in the business, to find a way to make it work.

We might just find out that the cheapest "solar" energy is that black stuff in the ground.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

I realize that being shown to be wrong is painful for you, but some day you'll have to come to terms with it.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Though Toyota may have been leading and may continue leading, I wouldn't want to completely rule out another company,even GM, making a breakthrough and getting ahead at least in some areas.

Originally Posted by franksargent

And you have not shown any evidence whatsoever to support your biased view point.

Give us all some evidence for the CARS segment of the used car market.

You don't have any.

Or it's clearly incomplete and can't be judged until all the factual evidence is in.

That's your own apparently fuzzy pretzil logic thrown right back at you. \

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

It's okay frank. I understand. It'll be fine. It's not the end of the world.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Still making stuff up I see. I understand. It'll be fine. It's not the end of the world.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

After the above quote where you claimed only a singular positive effect, you said there were a few.

Can you tell what they are?
Can you tell what the possible magnitude of them is?
Can you tell what the probability of them occurring is?

NOTE: It's okay if the answer to those questions is "no". It isn't a crime.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

CO2 is an essential part of the atmosphere for life on this planet. I and every scientist acknowledges that. Increasing CO2 levels does encourage plant growth, however it's not always that straightforward as studies have shown that sometimes there are negative consequences for the plants too. As shown here-

"When attacked by Japanese beetles, the plants grown in CO2-rich air failed to induce these three genes to the same extent as plants grown under normal conditions. In contrast, the soybeans' exposure to carbon dioxide didn't affect their use of two control genes unrelated to defence, regardless of the presence of the beetles."
~ http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsci..._against_h.php

The point though is that rising global temperatures far outweigh any benefits, as shown here-

"WITHIN 60 years the Arctic Ocean could be a stagnant, polluted soup."
~ http://www.newscientist.com/article/...climate-change

Green critics have been circling the program since it began in late July, focusing mostly on concerns that 'Cash for Clunkers' does not require high enough fuel economy for the new vehicles that are eligible for the program.

Now comes Harvard economist Edward L. Glaser with a criticism from the behavioral economics camp in his weekend Boston Globe op-ed. Glaser's point? If Americans derive more pleasure from driving newer cars, they are likely to drive more. Not to mention that they will be getting better gas mileage that will make leisure drives, long road trips and the daily commute much more affordable. As a result, even if they are driving more fuel efficient vehicles, "Cash for Clunkers" might not have a net GHG-lowering impact. There goes one leg of the economy/consumer/environment stool.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

You seem to be evading the questions.

You have one article that says "WITHIN 60 years the Arctic Ocean could be a stagnant, polluted soup." No mention of the probability of this happening and certainly no mention of countervailing effects or factors.

You've not answered my questions. That's fine. But you should note that if you cannot, then you're not making a rational determination. If you are unable to know all or most of both the negative and positive effects as well as their impacts and probabilities, then your determination is based on incomplete information.

Now granted, no one can know all of these things with 100% certainty. We're talking about predicting the future here. But my point is that all we've heard about are the negative impacts (along with the assumption that the impacts will be huge and wide not to mention happen with almost 100% probability).

When I find someone trying to sell me something (whether it is a "Cash for Clunkers" program, a government takeover of banks, insurance companies and automobile industries; a "stimulus" program or a government health care "reform" plan) I always find it curious when I see the following pattern:

1. All of the effects are claimed to be positive (or negative depending on which way the argument is going).
2. All of these positive effects are claimed to be of a large and wide magnitude.
3. All of these effects are assumed to be highly probably to the point of near certainty.
4. No mention is ever (or at least rarely and or casually, sometimes derisively dismissed) made of any negative (or positive depending on which way the argument is going) effects (or their magnitudes and probabilities).

I've found this to be true for all of the above mentioned "issues" (and more).

This tends to set off my "Bullshit Meter" or at least my "I Think I Might Be Getting Conned Meter".

Originally Posted by jazzguru

How 'Cash for Clunkers' is Adding Carbon



Other good points are made in this article. I suggest reading the entire article.

The environmental "benefits", if any, will probably be minimal.