Skip to main content

If You Care About the Environment, You Should Be Disgusted At Where They Are Getting More Money to Buy More Clunkers

I wonder how any so-called "environmentalist" or self-anointed green energy supporter could ever justify this :

Why are environmentalists seeing red over an ostensibly green program like "cash for clunkers"?

At first blush, the success of the government's "cash for clunkers" program appears like a win for both the auto industry and the environment, a shining example of the way the Obama administration wants to rev up the economy by encouraging consumers and businesses to go green. So why is expanding such an ostensibly green program making environmentalists and members of Congress see red?

Cash for clunkers is clearly popular, but it isn't exactly environmentally friendly, say critics. After the initial $1 billion was used up in less than a week, Congress is now proposing to extend the program with an additional $2 billion.

That money would come out of the $6 billion that the Department of Energy received from the federal stimulus plan and has used to fund start-ups that build lightweight wind turbines, design new ways to store energy on electric grids, and create cheap solar panels for rooftops.

If the Senate approves the extension, the DOE would have not have the money to seed any new initiatives; $4 billion has already been allocated to specific programs.

"If you're looking at it from the perspective of growing a green economy, spending money on innovative green technology is a better use," says Carol Lee Brown, senior manager for the Transportation Program at Ceres, a Boston-based environmental group.

Brown and other environmental advocates say the program is more focused on helping the auto industry than putting fuel-efficient cars on the road. Under the clunkers program, consumers receive rebates of between $3,500 and $4,500 when they turn in cars that are less than 25 years old and that get 18 miles per gallon or less, and then buy a new car.

But consumers don't necessarily have to buy a particularly fuel-efficient car with the rebate. They could trade in a gas-guzzling sport utility vehicle for, say, a new truck that gets only slightly better gas mileage.

"You're putting money out there and allowing people to make bad decisions," says Ann Mesnikoff, the director of the Green Transportation Program for the Sierra Club. The way the plan is currently written, we "don't know if we're seeing a big trend in people buying more fuel-efficient vehicles" says Mesnikoff.

So does anyone other than environmental groups have a problem with current funding strategy? Despite supporting the expansion of cash for clunkers...Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu have said they wish the funding didn’t come from the renewable energy stimulus projects.

But so far, that concern hasn't translated into much action. The Senate seems poised to pass the bill more or less as it is now, with no additional strengthening of the MPG requirements. "If I could write it, I would prefer it to say that people had to buy high fuel-economy vehicles," Mesnikoff says.

Until that happens, the economic and environmental benefits of the program may not truly be in sync.


Oh, that's right...for some, their shallow environmentalist pretenses end at the edge of their partisan fealty to any scheme peddled by the Democrat/Obama ruling junta, no matter how perverse a misallocation of "green" project funding.

Back to the ole Treasury printing press it is, I guess....'cause that's about as close to "green" as this program will ever be.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...