I saw on Fox that some people were trading in some very nice cars. This raises the question what is worse for the environment. Getting rid of a perfectly good car and sending it to the scrap heap, or using that same car for many more years and get 10-30% worse fuel economy.
"Printing money and destroying things that are valuable is terrible economic policy. Next thing you know, the government will be "buying" old homes (with monopoly money), and burning them down. ...."I'm reminded of FDR's programs to mass-slaughter livestock and burn wheat fields in order to prop up prices so the "economy would recover".
I can give you a for instance: me.
I traded in an older GMC pickup that I had refurbished: rebuilt engine, rebuilt transmission and paint job. I got the itch for a newer model and decided to look into the cash for clunker program as an alternative. I was able to buy a $27k GMC pickup (sorry about that part) for a little over $16.5k, including tax, due to the GM Employee Discount through a relative and the cash for clunker program.
I was sick when I learned the dealer had to ruin the perfectly good engine that had maybe 5,000 miles on it to meet the requirements of the program. My opinion is that any effect on the envirnment was a net negative. Such a waste.
Supposedly dealers take in the clunkers, fix them up and ship them overseas. Net help to the environment=zero. Making liberals feel good=priceless.
Not to mention the energy and pollution created from the ore pit to the showroom floor. Next time you hear a greenie talk about the benefits of hybrids, mention this and watch their head explode.