I don't have any hard figures, but isn't there a large CO2 cost to process
the old junkers and build the new replacement cars? Overall, this whole
program just might yield a negative gain with respect to the carbon
footprint.


Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

"George Orwell" <nobody (AT) mixmaster (DOT) it> wrote


Good point, and I think it would be a major input into the equastion as the
new cars contain more non-eco friendly plastics and it takes CO2 to make and
recycle them early.

But it sells the idea of debt-spending.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:20:02 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell
<nobody (AT) mixmaster (DOT) it> wrote:

Of course there is... Massive, at that. But when you get a bunch of
socialist democrats in office, who feel the only way to solve problems
is to have a give-a-way of the tax payers (not theirs, but mine, yours
and the guy working next to you) money.

Read the Dust-to-Dust report. It is a real eye opener WRT what the
true costs and pollution figures for cars really is. Hint: none of the
'hybrid' clean cars are any where near as good as their backers claim.

"PeterD" <peter2 (AT) hipson (DOT) net> wrote

It is part of how big statist government slls the idea of big government to
people. Put $5000 of debt on the taxes owed, give you back $500 so you
think the big government screw is working for you. Sucks in million in
Canada.