>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>Well since the 'emissions' of both building that replacement and
>>>destroying (and not recycling!) the old one factored in, I think you
>>>will find emissions are about as well off as consumption.
>>
>> Except the clunkers did get recycled the way other old cars do.
>
>No, they were crushed, instead of being parted out to help people keep
>their older cars running. And as well, that crap they put in the
>engines contaminated the metal turning it into low grade scrap at
>that.
Most but not all of the clunkers did get crushed, and a few minus their engines did yield spare parts first.
But old cars in general have some going to junkyards to get parts taken from them, but with few exceptions they all get crushed and scrapped, with the scrap metal being recycled. It's not like the clunkers go to landfills.
However, I do think the program caused destruction of wealth, since most of the "clunkers" probably would have lasted longer than Jim Thompsom thinks. I would have had this program have a greater requirement of improving fuel economy, at least almost to the point that on average fuel savings would cover the loss of value of the cars,
at which point the argument becomes justification of redistribution, trade issues (should the minimum fuel economy improvement be greater for foreign replacement car and less for American one?), emissions reduction, etc.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)