Every day in and on newspapers, the internet, televisions, and radios, we are bombarded with information. We are given enough information but what are we missing out on? How much does the media really tell us about an issue unless we delve into deeply?

The purpose of the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009, or CARS for short, was supposed to help bolster the auto car industry and take a stronger environmental stance. That seemed like a great idea because we have all seen them: old junky cars that are blowing out smog clouds. The government would take old cars and give a whopping $3500 to $4500 voucher towards the purchase of a new vehicle. People could help the environment by decreasing CO₂ emissions while saving gas by trading their old clunker in. An old proverb says, “If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.” So was the government really trying to go green or was there an underlying motive?

The environmental movement sale scheme was used to help push for the “Cash for Clunker” bill. This bill was pushed along as a guise of Obama’s attitudes of saving the environment, but remains simply a large benefit to the auto industry. Two premises of the bill were to be more environmentally friendly and to increase auto industry sales. The goal would supposedly help the auto industry by selling ideally more hybrid cars and increase revenue. Although according to Time magazine, the auto industry had increased sales but also pushed more people into debt. A report relating hybrid cars and the CO₂ emissions was released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) last year. It said that hybrid cars would have no effect on decreasing greenhouse gas emission. They projected if half of the driving population were to switch to hybrid cars, the demand for coal burning plants would increase to power the hybrid cars. Thus the entire idea of switching to a hybrid car seems unreasonable.

The terrible, out-dated carbon dioxide fuming trucks are bad for the environment, but removing them from the road makes an insignificant impact. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Executive report of 2007, it shows carbon dioxide emissions from cars are largely responsible for the increased CO₂ admission. But when compared to other green house gases such N₂O, CH₄, HFC and SF₆, CO₂ is negligible because the others ability to trap heat is substantially more than CO₂. For example, N₂0 is 310 times more capable of retaining heat than CO_2, HFC-23 is 11,700 times more capable, and SF₆ is 23,900 times more capable of retaining heat in the atmosphere than CO₂. Most of the other greenhouse gases are being released by entities other than cars.

As the act was designed for, the auto industries benefited from increased sales using “creative marketing”. Auto dealers were able to push consumers into a hasty decision to buy more fuel efficient cars. This was seen by the rapid depletion of the government funding within the first few weeks. People were more or less sent into frenzy to buy a new car "before the government money ran out". In other words, people were rushed into buying cars without doing enough research and moving their anticipated purchasing dates to the first or second quarter of the year. And while the new car industry benefited, used car dealerships took a hit because of the loss of prospective automobiles. Charities also took a 12% dip in automobile donations.

The “Cash for Clunkers Program” was advertised as an environmental movement, but in reality it only served to benefit the auto industry. Betty Sutton said that act would “improve our environment” amongst other things, but it served the large car industries while providing no environmental change. Other extensions of the auto industry other than major corporations lost profits. The entire sales gimmick of selling environmentally friendlier cars was a feel good message that took advantage of people. The rapid depletion of federal funding along with the “creative advertisement” pushed people into purchases they may have not been ready for. Using the wave of environmental awareness, the biased CARS act was able to slip through. Nor did it save jobs in the auto industry. Other biased acts will continue to follow in step using similar advertisement methods, despite the insignificant environmental impact the CARS act provided.

References:

1. “TITLE XIII – CONSUMER ASSISTANCE TO RECYLE AND SAVE PROGRAM”
 www.cars.gov/files/official-information/law.pdf

2. Gott, Lena. “2009 Cash for Clunkers Bill for U.S. Consumers”
http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/
2009_cash_for_clunkers_bill_for_us_consumers

3. Szczesny, Joseph. “Was Cash for Clunkers a Success”. Times
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1918692,00.html

4. Fletcher, Dan. “What Happens to Clunkers Traded in”. Times
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1914367,00.html

5. “Executive Report”. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007.

6. Gabriel, Monica. “Electric Cars Will Not Decrease Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Says Federal Study”. CNSNEWS.com
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50070

7.”Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act”. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

8. Thompson, Derek. “Was Cash for Clunkers a Success?” Business, August 21, 2009.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/08/was_cash_for_clunkers_a_success.php 

__________________________________________________________________

Join the 2200+ subscribers - sign up to get an email of each new issue at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sbuaaezine/