`Cash for clunkers' effect on pollution? A blip - Yahoo! News
"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."
Hmmm, lemme see, we'll be reducing the carbon dioxide emissions by 700,000 tons a year at a cost of $1BILLION when we spewed out 6.4 BILLION tons last year. Geesh, I wonder why it seems wasteful. Imagine what that $1 billion (now looking to be $3 billion total) could have done if it had been spent in alternative energy research. It would have still been a stimulus to the economy, it just wouldn't have bolstered the sales of an industry that has failed to keep up with the needs of the people it serves.
"There's 260 million vehicles on the road and you're talking a quarter-million vehicles. It's not even close. It's just a drop in the bucket," said Bruce Belzowski, a scientist at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute. "It's really small numbers. But if you don't start somewhere, where are you going to start? It heads the country in the right direction."
Man, if that wasn't a "political" answer I don't know what is. Can't actually be seen taking a stance and saying that this was/is a complete and utter waste of money.
I'd still like to see where in the constitution it gives the government the right and power to regulate what kind of cars we drive and how much carbon dioxide they are allowed to produce.


