In article ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:13:33 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:59:03 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Sep 26, 7:07*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ct.../ItemId/9132/D...

It seems like a good idea, but wether it is or not is left to be seen.

Sounds like a boondoggle to me. * The amount of pollution produced by
lobster boats is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, and so is
the amount of emissions that the lobstermen are exposed to. *There are
lots of risks to lobster fishing that are far greater than diesel
exhaust. *This whole idea was probably dreamed up by a bunch of old
salts trying to figure out out they could get some fed funding for
routine engine replacement.

I was kind of wondering that myself, Wayne...

Plus, what are the hidden catches. from what I've understood, the
Stimulus for Cash for Clunkers really didn't prove that sweet of a
deal for the consumer.

I posted this once, asking about the math, but no one helped out.

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a
year of gasoline.

A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a
year.

So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline
consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles - so that's 224 million gallons / year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels of oil is about ? of one day's US consumption.

And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $375 million dollars at
$75/bbl.

So, in a down economy, with auto makers all ready have been given
billions of dollars,
we all contributed even more, spending $3 billion to save $375
million.

How good a deal was that ???

Obviously, the way you pose the problem... pretty poor, but saving
fuel isn't what it is all about, is it?

Please also factor in savings and benefits of safer vehicles that
pollute less and giving the struggling American auto industry a sales
boost. A car cannot be sold without sending money to nearly the entire
continental 48 and firming jobs and the economies there.

Factor in, too, that the $3500 or $4500 is not a "gift," it is taxable
and your version of the math is even more confused.

It is funny how these things work so well in other places, but here it
is the devil's spawn......

Quantify, please. In your quantification, please note which
manufacturing companies got the biggest boost. Also note that used
cars also provide incomes for many. As many states have emission
testing programs, do you think you've really cut back on pollution so
much?

Does anybody really believe this was anything more than another 3
billion dollar donation to the UAW?