I was going to respond NO, but after careful thought and consideration I decided to respond HELL NO.

On a more serious note a thread on another forum suggested that - all things being equal - this proves there is pent up demand for new car purchases at the right price.

But if that "right price" reflects up to $4,500 in gov rebate plus whatever mfgs are rebating (I think Chrysler matches) then to me in the absence of rebates wouldn't this smell like deflation?

I dunno how - in the absence of rebates - the dealers much less the mfg can't profit.

Pete

I had been planning on buying a new car using this program. I had everything ready for this Saturday, but that's looking doubtful now. Oh well, I didn't want a car payment anyway. I guess it's back to the original plan, which is to drive my current vehicle until it falls apart, then buy another used car. The only problem is that my current vehicle only gets about 16 mpg.

I didn't think there would be such a large response, given that you had to have a car that got less than 18 mpg, and which was worth less than $4,500, and you could afford a car payment. They should have done this a year ago, before the GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. They should have also set higher mpg requirements for the new vehicles.

It seems that the USA did not plan much money for their cash for clunkers program.

Here in Germany they initially put €1.5 billion and when that was used up they offered even more.
There is a bit about it here in wikipedia.

Germany only has a population of about 80 million. Seems to me in the U.S you would need at least $4-5 billion to match Germany.

One of the first anecdotes I read about the cash for clunkers program was about a guy who traded in a late-80s Ford Ranger, combined 16mpg, for a 2009 Ford Ranger, combined 18mpg. Uncle Sam supposedly forked over $3500 for that transaction.

I thought that was funny, since I recently bought a 1996 Ford Ranger, combined 18mpg, that for some reason doesn't have a 5th gear (manual). So its mpg is currently around 20 hwy. Since we almost only drive it highway, for only about 1000miles a year, and I have a replacement transmission I need to have put in, I don't feel too bad about the lousy mileage. But it isn't eligible for the cash for clunkers program, since the new Rangers don't get any better mileage than the 1996 models.

Wouldn't it be better if the scale were sliding based on the improved mileage? Something like new combined - old combined * 200 up to $5k. Or better yet, increase gas taxes or implement a carbon tax and use the extra money to fund the program along with a formula. And while we're at it, ditch the flex-fuel slight of hand.

This should have been called "Cash for Clowns" -- The requirement that the "clunkers" meet specific low milage requirements means that only owners of cars/SUVs which should generally not have ever been sold were eligible for this bailout. And of course the very modest required increase in milage was a complete joke.

Glad to see it end.

Program was an outrage, a product of our corrupt and dysfunctional government. Minimum requirement for new vehicle should have been 40 mpg. Rewarded those who didn't give a damn about the environment in the first place. Good riddance!!!

Reading in the local paper yesterday interviews with local car dealers it was obvious there was a lot of confusion as to the workings of the program. One dealer seemed to be unaware the trade-ins had to be destroyed no matter their condition.
This morning I read somewhere that many dealers were afraid to pour sand in the engines of the trade-ins for fear the program was ending and they would take the loss.
This is artificial demand,I wonder what new car sales will be after this program ends.

Fantastic program, one family member of mine already took advantage. Traded in a 13mpg SUV for a 30/40 mpg Corolla. I just ran some numbers and using a conservative each car is 12mpg better than the owners previous one, and if we ramped this up to a 10 billion dollar program we could reduce US gasoline consumption by 15%, nearly overnight, nothing short of outstanding.

Here is a nice report

"I figure the truck is only worth about $700 and they're giving me $4,500," so it's a pretty good deal, said Skreen, 58, who works in public works for the city of Orono.

When the government gives away money for free, three things happen:
- A long line is formed very quickly
- The money is used for purposes it was never intended
- The taxpayer is stuck with the bill and a small group of lobbyist is drunk for a week

This can never work.

Based on the numbers I saw, it looked like the average payout was around $4200.

The whole effect of this is to funnel tax dollars to automakers that should have gone under due to poor management, a shrinking market, and not having appropriate products to compete for dwindling sales, and to sucker people into taking on additional debt to buy those inappropriate products. They'll go under anyway eventually, and there will be fewer potential buyers for all those new EV's that will be on the market any day now (having already bought the old tech).

The only thing I can say positive about this program is that it's better than giving the money to bankers. However, if you've lost your job you won't be paying that new car loan, even if it is smaller. The automakers will still go under, and I'm sure the taxpayers will bail out the banks that made these new loans.

This sick gimmick epitomizes our Toxic Culture.

First, the plan includes a fraud - Faux Green. No one in their right mind believes we are suddenly doing this to try to increase gas milage of the nations auto fleet (and I doubt anyone in their right mind actually believes this will have a significant effect on gross fuel use or auto emissions).

Second, the plan is a band-aid that does nothing about the problem of the dying auto industry - it just pushes the problem down the road (by what, maybe a few months???).

This is exactly what the retarded auto industry has done since 9-11 when they started their "O down, O interest, O brains" gimmick that pulled forward demand and wiped out their own future.

Third, the plan has a bribe - "free money" - which is always popular among the Adult-Sized Children who get to vote.

Fourth, the plan creates false economic activity that results in huge waste of resources (while pretending otherwise - see first point above).

Obama is a sicko who steals from children to satisfy a Nation of titbabies masquarading as adults.

Actually this is interesting. Often on this site there are posts about some new car technology, that allows great mpg (say for the obvious example the Prius) and how if everyone had one there would be a major dent in US Oil usage (generally not european, as people have more efficient cars there). Then there is always a response in the comments that it will be useless because it will take 15-20 years for the US fleet to turnover and everyone likes big SUVs, cars and trucks except when gas is too expensive, and it isn't right now- which is of course all fairly true in the US.

But now we know that the US fleet turnover time can be significantly reduced if you pay people enough - perhaps down to a decade, given the financial commitment.
That this is possible (and even politically possible in the US) has to be good news for a world that will soon be adjusting to the down slope of world oil production.

HELL NO! I should not have to pay for other people to perpetuate their fatass oil hogging lifestyles. There's no stimulus money available for bike lanes, but we can spend $1B in a week on cars?

The poor junk man doesn't like it because they sell parts for other clunkers and the program is getting rid of the clunker market.

The government need to raise the miles per gallons quite a bit(to 30 mpg). That would slow the rush to the showrooms a bit and do more for energy conservation but would hurt Detroit (and its new buddy--the US taxpayer) that makes mainly gas guzzlers.

Otherwise, the program is a successful stimulus measure.

Detroit is already saying there aren't enough cars that qualify as clunkers.

What they could do is loosen the definition of beater but raise the mpg to 30. If the average car gets 22 mpg, you'd save 145 gallons per year per car. If a car lasts 15 years that's 2175 gallons total, worth at today's $2 prices well over $4000( not including inflation and discounting).

And all those guzzlers on the lots? The dealers can send them back to the factories and put in smaller motors(or hybrid tech) and then sell them.

I'm torn here about the opportunity cost of investing this money elsewhere (or not taxing/spending it at all)--as one comment in drumbeat pointed out, how does this expenditure compare to $1 billion in new solar panels, or $1 billion in home insulation grants?

Since we haven't even considered these opportunity cost issues, this is plainly a political/stimulus effort first and foremost. However, IF we're going to do it we should at least roll it out gradually by offering it initially only to high-return exchanges (e.g. where the mpg difference between junker and new car is 30 mpg+), then after two months make remaining funds available for a differential of 20 mpg+, etc.

A $1 billion twig to hold on to for 1 week, however the law of gravity will not obscure the view of the canyon reality below.

Q2 GDP only down 1% - more green shoot fiction to come...

I planned on using the cash for clunkers program to purchase a new car. I had a 1998 Chevrolet K1500 pickup with 45,000 miles that according to the EPA, get 16 MPG. I was trading in for a Mazda CX-9 FWD that gets 18 MPG. I actually wanted the AWD version, but that gets 17 MPG, so it didn't qualify.

I went to the dealership and had all my paperwork, proof of insurance and registration and my title. Everything was good. Then the sales manager came to me and said they didn't have faith that the gov't would make good on the rebate, so they wanted me to leave a $3,500 check as a security deposit. They said the response to the program had been tremendous and they felt the money would quickly run out. If the rebate fell through, they would cash the check. I didn't like the idea. After all, before they can file for the rebate, they have to destroy my car. I would be out %3,500 and I would not get my car back. I was ready to walk.

The used car manager came over and said they didn't want to wreck the car and was willing to give me a normal trade in for $3,500. The car was in good condition, had low mileage and the only reason I was willing to take $3,500 was I didn't want to try to sell it myself and I knew from experience that dealerships give lousy trade in values. Anyway, I took their offer and have a new car. I would have been OK keeping the pickup but when I bought it I had 0 children and now I have 3 and there was a lot of pressure from my wife to get a car with 3 rows of seats.

I think the program has been great. $1 billion dollars is nothing when it looks like the gov't is going to run a $2 trillion deficit this year. It amounts to about 1/6th of one days deficit. As far as bailout money goes, this has been way more successful than anything else the gov't has done. All the other bailout money has gone to buying toxic assets from banks, which does nothing for the economy. Not only should the gov't add more funds to the program, they should expand this to kitchen appliances. I have a 17 year old fridge that I would like to replace.

Perhaps it's worth noting that the CARS program ran thru it's mere $1 Billion of funding as the U.S. House added more than $6 Billion to the Defense budget for unwanted purchases of military hardware. And, money spent for military hardware is well known to provide fewer jobs than spending the same amount of money for most every other purpose. If the Congress were actually thinking of stimulating job creation, that $6 Billion should be shifted into the CARS program..

E. Swanson

I find it VERY amusing that 1 billion dollars... in $4500 increments lasted through 23000 sales. do the math peeps, where'd the other 90% of the money go?

It appears that there is a strong push to extend the c4c program. I just heard on NPR that the program will be extended for a short period of time. There looks like there is a concerted push to extend it for a much longer period - CNN.

Problem: fuel consumption in the transportation sector has become a public-policy issue for a variety of reasons.

Solution: expand the transportation sector even more by adding to the lavish overuse-encouraging subsidies it already receives.

Absolutely typical government power trip. If you're having trouble sustaining something, throw money at it indiscriminately to expand it. When that gets you far enough behind the eight-ball, declare that you're oh-so-sorry about trampling the few liberties that are left, but you're "forced" to ration it.

Then you get to micromanage everyone's lives through their ration cards as in any other totalitarian state, which is what you were really after the whole time. Now, when folks want to take the kids to the soccer game, they needn't bother too much about the cost, because that's subsidized. Instead, they've got to pay your bagman some sort of bribe, or else they'll be left so far back in line they'll never live to reach the front. Whoo-eee, life is so much "fairer" that way.

Yup, Congresscritters often seem like kids who never outgrew pulling wings off flies...

["Retrospective"? Balderdash! Wanna bet they expand this turkey?]

In the interest of accuracy and honesty in advertising, I suggest that this be renamed: "Cash to sweeten trade ins of clunkers for ever-so-slightly-less-than clunkers"

this is tricky... it's important to coax Americans into driving more sensibly, but at the same time perhaps an education campaign for US consumers and some tough love for the car companies could make this sort of chnage more systemic

there's a breakdown on the cash for clunkers article over at economixt - http://www.economixt.com/2009/07/cash-for-clunkers-part-ii/

Wow, if only I had known that the government would reward me for buying a carbon spewing monster, I might have bought a gas guzzler instead of a reasonably energy-efficient automobile the last time I bought one.

One of the most ludicrous features of this bill is you get a big wad of cash from the government for the wonderfully environmental act of buying a gas guzzler that is just slightly less of a belcher than the one you are getting rid of.

To me this lends a lot of credibility to those who contend that if we expect to rely on the government to steer our energy future then we are dead in the water.

1). Market forces will get us to a renewables world, but their drawback is that they don't kick in fast enough to make for a smooth transition.

2). Intelligent government action could provide a smooth transition to the future.

3). Unintelligent government action, however, could mean that there is no future at all.

Unfortunately, recent history suggests that scenario 3 is the most likely path for our energy futur.

I believe in transition and this wasn't even the first step, it was half a baby step.

It was over a year ago that my wife and I switched to motorcycles. An 800 that gets 50mpg, a 250 that gets 75mpg, and a 50 that gets 100mpg. We commute year round on them. I still have an SUV for trips to Lowes and Walmart or towing the lawn equipment or kayaks 25miles to the lake occasionally. It gets low low mileage but we only use it for its intended purpose. Cash for clunkers should have started people on the road to transition. I believe this decade will be extreme transition time. I would rather have seen give us your under 20mpg vehicle and we'll give you an under 500cc motorcycle, helmet, safety course, jacket. The roads need less cars.

Secondly, what happened to those good little 4cyl pickups of the 70's that got 30mpg. Why are the small pickups the size of a house and get 18mpg? I could just as easily use something like that as my explorer but they won't build them.

I would say NO, it only leads to more consumtion.
The best car, is the car that is not build if you take the embeded energy in the car into account.

I think the process could be made more efficient by simply scrapping the new clunkers as they roll out of the factory.

Better still, from an energy standpoint, would be to have the assembly lines make imaginary clunkers which would subsequently be immediately recycled into stray thoughts. It would involve little change in actual union labor performed and would minimize counterparty risk.

This would pump up the economy and save energy. Those carbon credits could then be sold, and the proceeds distributed as checks sent directly to the least responsible Americans as "patriot rebates".

If this didn't prove sufficient, those with a history of buying efficient cars, using public transit, or riding bicycles could be made retroactively ineligible for medicare and social security programs.

Let the Great Potlatch begin!

Hmm. I presume "clunkers" is a euphemism for assholes?

The thing I found interesting is that the "old cars" they want to get rid of can only be 25 years old!
My 1977 Chevy 1/2 tom pickup gets 10 mpg, my 1979 Chevy 1/2 ton 4x4 pickup gets 14 mpg and I have in reserve a 1981 Ford pickup that would get only 13 mpg. All are rusty wrecks (body wise - mechanically in excellent shape - I do my own maintenance) and not a single one qualifies for the program.
The "Cash for Clunkers" program was just another case of government handouts to the well to do in most cases.

The government that governs best, governs least!

Get the government out of the things they really have no business in.

There is no strategic planning with respect to national policy regarding automobiles. The magic of the market place at work, you can compare mileage and show that essentially there have been no marked improvements, on average, using US manufactured cars, for decades; why? The businesses dictate the terms and the government falls into line. This program is a perfect example. Having painted themselves into a corner business decided it was decided to walk away on a gold bar paved path. It would be interesting to estimate the fraud in this program, I guess around 30%.

Under cash for clunkers, the government is advising car dealers to replace a trade-in's engine oil with a sodium silicate solution and run the engine to ruin it before giving or selling the car to a scrap dealer.

HAhaha, you are mad, mad I say, hahaha

I have already cried today, what is left but to laugh?

Since this is a site about energy and peak oil, shouldn't we focus on the energy ramifications of this program?

One of the irony of this program is that clunkers that are at least 1984 are vehicles that by and large, have relatively modern exhaust emission systems and greatly downsized from the behemoth engines that are first generation electronic ignition / mechanical controls mated with inefficient drivetrains and transmission ratios of pre-1980 cars.

The cars that qualify in the program, namely, 1984 or later models, are actually not the most inefficient vehicles on the road.

If they are driven relatively few miles, they actually are very economic and energy efficient if the alternative is to consume energy to manufacture a brand new vehicle that is in turn, driven few miles.

Furthermore, by spurring the auto industry to build and sell more new cars when we already know peak oil is upon us is simply not very cleverl

We, on this blog, know this temporary lull in oil prices is deceiving buyers to buy more car and engine than they need.

Furthermore, the industry is within 2 to 3 years of delivering a generation of gasoline fueled vehicles with much better mileage --- e.g. the new Fords with direct gasoline injection and small turbo/super chargers.

At the same time, we are still at the peak of the horsepower race - which like the tailfin race of another era - gave us sedans like a Toyota Corolla with standard ngines that develop over 130hp in the USA.

This level of performance is far in excess of any reasonable, sensible need that a sedan optimized for fuel economy should have, and comes at the expense of lifetime fuel economy penalties in the form of heavier engines, transmissions, brakes, chassis, that is paid even in the absence of a lead footed driver.

By having the US (and EU) governments purchase cars now to "stimulate demand", they have taken these buyers out of the market for many years, and perhaps, make it less likely for them to upgrade to a truly fuel efficient vehicle that will be widely available in a few years --- when petroleum is back to $200 a barrel and gasoline is scarce and expensive at over $7 a gallon.

Then there is the stupidity of the program administration --- which required cars turned in to be disabled by having a mixture of water and sodium silicate and water poured into the engine and run --- in effect, sanding the engine and making it unusable from the inside.

The only problem is, scrap yards routinely salvage engines and transmissions from their wrecks --- it is probably one of the best profit makers in a yard to salvage these parts and resell them to be either rebuilt or, if the mileage is low enough, placed straight into another car with a bad motor/transmission.

Not surprisingly, scrap yards are now saying they may not accept the vehicles (unless they are compensated otherwise) because the disabled vehicles are nearly worthless, or worse, actually cost the scrap yard money to dismantle (drain fluids, etc.) them --- except to be shredded and sold for scrap to China or other steel mills.

No one that rammed this program through, which is really a car dealer bailout and bribery program to complement the GM / Chrysler / Auto Parts bailout program, truly understand energy economics.

While the study of energy impact on the USA has yet to be done on this program, I have a suspicious hunch that this program will end up costing more energy than it saves.

But Congress, in their rush to spend money, didn't think of that one.

House OKs $2 billion more for Clunker program
House passes bill to add $2 billion for Cash for Clunkers program.

The House voted today to spend another $2 billion on the cash for clunkers program. "I'm pleased about the progress made in the House today about the cash for clunkers program," said President Obama immediately following the vote. The fate of the trade-in program was in doubt after concerns it may have burned through its $1 billion budget less than a week after it was launched.

How much carbon is released into the atmosphere to make a motor car?
Replacing the fleet will release more.

I have some bitumen at home. I want to make carbon fiber. How do I get the sulphur out of the bitumen?

When I was born there were 3 billion people on the planet.
I hope that this gas conversion thing will buy us enough time to drop our population to 1.1 billion. But, hey, I am an optimist.

How can I improve my grand sons' survival chances?

"Darkness at the break of noon,
Shadows even the silver spoon.
The home made blade, the childs balloon,
Eclipse both the sun and moon.
To understand you know too soon,
There is no point in trying."
Bob Dylan.

Everything that's happening continues to be fully consistent with the broad spectrum of scholarship on historical collapse. And, in particular, the sunk cost effect in decision-making which is now thought to have also been a key ingredient in the collapses of antiquity, and is of course strongly present in Washington's full range response to the financial crisis. After all, we are the same human beings of AnkorWat, and EasterIsland. So why would we do anything different? We have advanced now, basically, to printing up money in an attempt to retain all the old systems and practices. Cars, houses, highways, and so on. There is no "green" economy on the way. There is no transition to a new system.

G

The auto lobby pretty well gutted the Cash for Clunkers program from an economic and environmental standpoint
Handouts for Hummers

I did some quick numbers on the relation between how much money could be given back and MPG rating

12,000 miles per year average driving
15 MGP
800 Gallons per year
$2.5 per gallon
$2000 per year expenditure

Bump that up to 25 MPG and you would cut expenses to
$1200 per year for an $800 per year savings.

Over 5 years that would inject an extra $4000 into local economies that would otherwise have been spent on gasoline. If the tax was spread over the whole local community then the community would be ahead on a $3500 trade in. That assumes the money spent on gasoline is spent on clothes, food, housing, etc.

Now that was if the MPG rating improvement had been kept in the bill. But it wasn't and it is worth looking into who voted to water it down.

Will to be interesting to see if gubmint can manage this program well enough that they actually get the dealers paid for the car deals that they have made under it and how long that might take.

Heard on the radio that dealers in D/FW TX area are very concerned about that. Having to file long forms online, gubmint computers crashing, fear they will not get paid and left holding a "clunker" that they have committed to disabeling as collateral on a $3500 note to the gubmint. They said it made business good for a few days, but are worried about the realities of follow up procedures.

It is a prelude to Obama-care folks. Watch and see how this plays out and you will get some idea of how your health care will be handled by the government, oops, I meant gubmint.

While I am at it, your congresspeople are on their break until mid-September or so, be sure to contact them while they are back in their districts and express you opinions relative to health care, bail outs, executive bonuses, stimulus packages in general, this C4C thing, and also about all those people in your area that are finding new JOBS. Tell them how you want them to vote on these issues and if they don't tell them that you will do everything in your power to unseat them in their next election. Especially you folks who have elected to represent you people like: Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Dodd, Boxer, Schumer, Al Franken, Rangel, Waxman, Durbin, Kerry, Specter, Byrd, etc., etc., and etc..

Good luck to us all,
JCS

From a systems point of view, this scheme is giving money to people who are already relatively well off - they have savings and/or can get credit to replace their vehicle. It's not making money available to those who drive old inefficient cars but can't afford to replace them.

So it's increasing economic inequality.

Under the program, the "clunkers" have to be scrapped. So it's interrupting a stream of vehicles that the poor could eventually have bought and used to go to work. That will drive up prices of vehicles to the poor and make it harder for them to earn income.

It won't materially change employment, because those people lucky enough still to be employed are working reduced hours. Their hours may increase slightly, that's all.

Yes, it's a really good idea. Not.

The whole thing is pretty ridiculous IMHO. Obama is rewarding obnoxious consumerism behaviors -- those who have been wasting our resource are now being rewarded. How stupid is that.

I think that Eric Sevareid's Second Law has now been validated:

"The chief cause of problems is solutions."

Many of the comments on this thread are amongst the most surreal that I've ever seen on TOD. But then, they're coming from US citizens. It's difficult to believe that people are still speaking of using vehicles which offer less than twenty MPG (let alone fifty) as if that's OK and no big deal. Blindness in the face of onrushing catastrophe doesn't even begin to describe it. Maybe you should rename your federation "The United States of Easter Island", because y'all are sure as hell going there. Good luck! You're going to need it.....

I was wondering where they found the extra money to fund more Cash for Clunkers. Over on The Automatic Earth I saw two articles with more info, excerpts below

----------------
The NADA poll found that actual sales were as high as 14 per dealership, suggesting that more than $900 million had already been used. The association sent its findings to NHTSA early Thursday morning. "That's when the alarms went off," said one DOT official. Concern spread to the White House and its Office of Management and Budget, where officials began to comb through the federal budget for money they might draw on to pay dealers should the program bust its budget. Early Thursday evening, OMB sent out word that there was none to be had.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood began briefing lawmakers Thursday afternoon, informing them that the fund was depleting rapidly. Around 4 p.m., Mr. LaHood called NADA President Phillip Brady and told him the department was "terminating" the program at midnight that night, according to NADA spokesman Bailey Wood. A spokeswoman said Mr. LaHood wasn't available to comment. As word spread, lawmakers said they were inundated by phone calls from car dealers and voters in their districts, expressing anger that such a popular program might die. Late Thursday, the White House scurried to announce that the program had not been suspended. Some Senators are expected to push for more aggressive environmental targets for the program as part of any extension.

-------------------

Congress moved Friday to inject fresh funds into the wildly popular "cash for clunkers" program after it nearly ran out of money, threatening to become a symbol of government bungling. The House approved moving $2 billion from a program that backs loans to renewable-energy companies into the car-repurchase program, which apparently burned through its allotted $1 billion in just a week.

-------------------

OK, done with excerpts. Now I really want to say Hell No. They took funds from "a program that backs loans to renewable-energy companies" for this? Insanity.

i was very excited about CARS until i found out my clunker didn't qualify. my '98 ford windstar with 3.0 liter engine gets 19 mpg, therefore doesn't qualify. the 3.7 liter model gets 18 mpg, therefore is eligible. DOH!!

It appears to me that the main motivation behind a popular give-away like CARS is simply to clear the domestic dealer lots of languishing SUV's and other modest gas-mileage vehicles as soon as possible. That's why the fuel-efficiency bar is set so low.

The requirement that the 'clunker' engines be destroyed and the bodies crushed is probably intended to give a little boost to the auto parts manufacturers and suck a lot of good used cars out of the market so more people have to buy new vehicles.

I don't think there's been a lot of high-level or long-range thinking about esoteric energy or transportation policy concerns here. This program was promoted by the car makers for their own immediate benefit, and passed by Congress for their own immediate benefit.

Take a slow calming breath and then repeat the following aloud, slowly.

There......is......no......future.

There......is......no......future.

There......is......no......future.

We make this choice every day in more ways then we can count.

We cannot manage the planet any more than the mountain goats manage the mountain.

We cannot manage water, soil, and air anymore than flowers can manage the soil, air, and water in the field they find themselves.

We are a bit more complex than flowers or mountain goats perhaps, but not nearly as much as we might think.

Our collective efforts devolve into war and so to developing stories that we tell ourselves to make our own violence seem reasonable and justified.

Any glimmer of empathy is drowned out with alcohol or other drugs, and especially with the digital media crack-cocaine that we feed to ourselves in myriad ways.

Had Obama tried to bring stringent efforts into this kind of program related to the environment, he would have been brought down by a pack of howling dogs -- the auto industry and its lobbyists, the Republicans and the so-called Blue Dogs who are the Dems most overtly like the Repubs.

This program shows an Establishment trying desparately to maintain the status quo.

Perhaps some believe that this is needed simply to buy more time to plan and execute "Greener" programs -- oh, wait, did I just use the term "execute?" That was Freudian slip. There is no future -- we've already executed all those "greener" options anyway.

We each do our best bit, and then we die. Bittersweet. What a wonderful and terrifying time to be alive, eh?

I think 2008 that while probably was peak oil; it was definately "peak SUV". Now it is time to rid the streets of these old clunkers. Further I think we should preserve a few SUVs for a diorama for in a museum, like they do for dinosaurs.