Agreed.  The grossest polluters, the pre-emissions cars from the 70s and
earlier are long gone now simply by attrition.  Sure there are a few
here and there but not enough to make any statistical difference.  If
you're being honest about your environmental concerns, you have to weigh
all the energy and raw materials used and pollution generated in the
manufacturing of the new car and the disposal of the old one against the
savings due to fuel economy.  A 5 or 6 MPG differential is probably
never going to offset that.  And for all the folks that bought hybrids,
you think those batteries were grown in a garden?  The mines that
produce the raw materials for batteries are some of the most polluted
areas in the world.  Some of them are literal dead zones.

Allan

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:42 -0400, "B Feddish" <bfeddish@NETREACH.NET> wrote:
> I don't have to disagree with it just because they crushed Vanagons
> and Eurovans. I have to disagree with it because you don’t destroy
> good usable things that still have a purpose for no reason whatsoever
> other than trying to artificially boost the economy. I would have
> even been more agreeable to this if they just handed $4,500 to people
> buying a new car OR maybe given allot of those good used cars to
> people who need them to get to work.  A $4500 used car can be quite a
> nice car.  The biggest joke was the gas mileage spread. It was
> something ridiculously small like you could trade in an 18 mpg car
> and get a 24 mpg car.  I do not agree one good thing came out of
> this. There are selfish reasons, like "Hey, there are more Vanagons
> in junkyards now for me to pick off of.", but they are not really
> good ones.
>
> Bryan
>