Interesting that gas mileage is never translated into mpg per person - 4 individuals on 50 mpg motorcycles = 1- 12.5 SUV, and that SUV with 1 person going to work may carry 4-5 or more on week ends or eve and may serve other purposes such as pulling a trailer or large items. Its so easy to curse the moron driving to work when we don,t know the facts, then again I don,t believe large families are considered "earth friendly"

These scholarly analyses always amaze me. Let's look at the opposite pole. Reduce gasoline consumption by buying an econobox. Tax revenues, both State and Federal drop. Shortfall of revenue to finance the lib and dum projects? No problem, increase the taxes on gasoline so there is NO NET SAVINGS TO THE CONSUMER, just another increase in taxes. I assume Dr. Larrick rides a bike??

Let me guess, Norris... do you drive a Hummer? I don't see anything in Dr. Larrick's letter that discusses the financial benefits of increasing fuel efficiency in vehicles. There are other benefits to increasing fuel efficiency- we'll have less greenhouse gas emissions (which is probably a hoax in your alternate reality), and we won't be at the mercy of OPEC. Also, have you heard of "Peak Oil"? Oil isn't an infinite resource, you know.

I'm again surprised to read an article about fuel use and pollution that seems to assume that doesn't factor in miles driven. I have an old SUV that burns less gas and pollutes less than most hybrids, because I hardly ever drive it. I could replace it with the most fuel-efficient car model on earth, and it would make almost no difference. All of the improvements to fuel economy and emissions that have been made in the history of the car have been more than offset by people driving more miles. Instead of thinking we can buy our way out of our problems by buying new cars, we could just get out and walk, share a ride (as commenter Jim mentions) ride a bike, take the bus, or move closer to where our work and other activities are.

"...the need for consumers to make that their priority when they shop for new vehicles."

What a bunch of complete and utter baloney. I will make whatever I need or want to be my priority my priority.

If I want a nice big comfortable car that gets 15 mpg, I'll get a big SUV and that's my priority. If I want a minivan to carry my family around town and take all our stuff on vacation, that's my priority. If I need a pickup for my business, that's my priority.

And if I want to signal that I'm one of the in crowd and better than everyone else, I'll get a Prius because that's my priority.

How on Earth can some professor of management (?!?) from 400 miles away possibly know what I need to make a priority?

There's far too much of people telling other people what they need to do. It's a sickening development and will lead us down an ugly road.

(And to beat you to the punch, MCG, I don't drive a Hummer. I have a nice mid-sized sedan that gets 32 mpg. But anyone who wants to drive a Hummer, for any reason, should have at it.)

I don't really want to be on jjjackson's side here, but I sort of am. To expand on my earlier point, if people can drive more miles for the same money, there's a good chance they will. That's always been the case in the past. The recent spike in gas prices caused an unprecedented increase in demand for public transportation and other modes, and the changes in people's habits persisted when gas prices went back down. And to question Prof. Larrick's argument, there seems to be an assumption that cars with poor gas milage are driven at least as far as cars with good gas milage. My unscientific observations suggest that people who make fuel economy a big part of their car purchasing decision do so because they drive a lot of miles.

No matter what mileage our vehicles are reported to provide, driving style can improve it. It's impractical to think that everyone can downsize their car immediately, but we can all drive in ways that save gas, and pollute less.
A key way is to be aware of when you are idling when you could turn your car off. I attended an eco driving workshop at this summer's Midwest Renewable Energy Fair and have a lot of info to share on when to turn off your car, and how much gas you can save.
Check it out at http://digginginthedriftless.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/idle-thoughts-turn-the-damned-thing-off/
It's amazing how much you can save that way.
Denise Thornton
http://digginginthedriftless.wordpress.com

You donot need actual vouchers or coupons to partipate in this program. All dealers are required and government will
reimburse the fees for the clunkers

Jimhenry

Cash for clunkers is not about improving the environment, it's about boosting new car sales. It won't accomplish that because people can't afford to buy new cars.

You can either Lease or buy a new car to use the cash for clunkers program. It has to be new vehicles and not used ones.

Why are we rushing to pass this bill to provide money for the CARS program. This reminds me of the way the first TARP funds were rush through only to be misused. There is time to think this through and see the consequences of our actions.

2010 Jeep Commander 4WD
2008 Land Rover Range Rover Sport
2008 Jeep Commander 2WD
2005 Chevrolet Van 15/25 2WD Conversion
2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee 2WD
Approved! According to CARS.gov these vehicles May qualify for cash for clunkers. Although I doubt someone would trade in a 2010 or 2008 for 4500 dollars. However this shows the folly of this program. They can scrap a 1 year old car. Someone is likely scrap a perfectly usable 2005 Chevrolet Van 15/25 2WD Conversion with high miles or cosmetic imperfections or maybe broken Air Conditioning and radio. There are people and business that cannot afford a new car and could otherwise use some of these vehicle that are being scrapped.

CARS program is in fact very wasteful and therefore is not an benefit to the environment. We must also consider the fact that to manufacture a car or truck creates pollution and toxic waste.

1983 8 cylinder Jeep
1980 Ford thunderbird
1979 Dodge Aspen
Denied! Vehicles older than 25 years are not eligible for CARS rebate. These older cars pollute more, use more gas and are less safe. They have no airbags. Does that make sense?

If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy that is at least 4, but less than 10, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 10 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500. This means that 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee 2WD which gets 15 mpg will get a credit if the replacement car gets only 19 mpg.!
The program should require a much higher fuel economy rating.
The program should merely be a tax credit for buying an ultra fuel efficient or electric vehicle.

Instead of trashing the whole car, Why not refurbish it with a more efficient engine. There are also companies that can convert a gasoline powered car to electric. This would make sense!

Some are admitting that this program is merely an economic stimulus plan. I and many others don’t like it. It is going to increase my taxes somehow. It is as if I am giving the money to other people to buy a new car. Even worse is that it is rewarding those who wasted gasoline all these years because they did not care about fuel economy when they bought their car. People who were responsible and bought a fuel efficient vehicle which, for other mechanical reasons, may now be a clunker, have no incentive to buy a new vehicle. However that is far from my primary concern

In the early 1930s during the great depression . Millions lost their jobs and while many went hungry, farmers poured large quantities of milk into ditches and government officials forced farmers to kill millions of farm animals. The economic system stipulated that farm products and other commodities be sold for a profit. Milk, meat , and grain had great value to the poor . However when food could not be sold profitably it was deemed worthless and were disposed of. This seems to be what the CARS program is all about! We are eliminating the supply of usable vehicles to make a demand for new cars at a profitable (higher) price. The rest is just environmental green-washing. This is both wrong and short sighted. It is setting a bad morale example and is further perpetuating the throw-away society that has evolved around us. It is bound to fail in the end and cause more harm than good.

What happened to the green economy we were promised during the election? These billions of dollars can be used for solar panels on homes instead.