PETROLEUM EXPERTS ?

Not even close to that. The highest numbers I have seen suggest that the US may save 15 million barrels of oil over 10 years.

Was the Cash for Clunkers (C4C) program successful? That's the question at hand. I guess it might depend on what you mean by success. It's not completely clear if the real reason for the program was a subsidy for the auto industry or climate change activism. It is possible that it was both. The thing is that, by the numbers, I don't think the program helped much in either way.

Let's start with the environment. From The New York Times:

On average, cars are driven 12,000 miles per year, according to government statistics. Considering that the traded-in clunkers had an average fuel economy of 15.8 m.p.g. while the new ones deliver 24.9 m.p.g., a swap saved some 278 gallons of gas per year ? which would have released almost 2.8 tons of carbon dioxide when burned.

Assuming the clunkers would have been driven four more years, the $4,200 average rebate removed 11.2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere, at a cost of some $375 per ton. If they would have been driven five years, the carbon savings cost $300 per ton. And if drivers drive their sleek new wheels more than they drove their old clunkers, the cost of removing carbon from the atmosphere will be even higher.

To put this in perspective, an allowance to emit a ton of CO2 costs about $20 on the European Climate Exchange. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a ton of carbon would be valued at $28 under the cap-and-trade program in the clean energy bill passed by the House in June.

So we did get rid of some emissions, but we're paying a ton of money for it. The crazy part is that C4C paid 15 to 19 times more than the current EU cap and trade regiem?and that program has been critiqued as largely unsuccessful as it is. The same thing for the proposed cap and trade bill in the US, a program that has a lot of holes and little political traction at the moment, of which C4C paid 10 to 13 times more than the projected cost.

You might argue that, well, at least we did something, but that is not a good argument. Sure, climate change is a real thing and there might be stuff we can do about it, but just because it is real doesn't mean cost-benefit analysis should go out the window. Just look at the oil saved. Saving oil is a good thing right? How much do you think this program saved? From FEE:

Taken together the average fuel economy of vehicles traded in was

15.8 miles per gallon, while the average for the clunker replacements was 24.9 miles per gallon. And according to Ford Motor Company, this kind of fuel-economy improvement translates to a reduction of five to ten million barrels of oil consumed over the next five years.

Okay, so an auto company, bound to overestimate as it is, says we saved

5 to 10 million barrels. Not bad you might say. Now how much do you think we use each day? Try 9 million barrels. Yes, the whole, entire Cash for Clunkers program saved one day's worth of oil. At the cost of $3 billion, that means $300 to $600 per barrel of oil, which is currently trading at $68 per barrel. So in a cost benefit, it would have been better just to buy oil with that money and set it aside. But ultimately, though we need ask whether it is the government's role to spend taxpayer money to save oil or reduce CO2 emissions.

Christopher Knittle, an economics professor at the University of California at Davis, told ABC News "As an environmental program, Cash for Clunkers is basically overpaying for the environmental benefits." Knittle doubts the program did much to ease demand for foreign oil, either. "Knittle calculated the program will save approximately 270 gallons of gasoline per car, per year. If a total of 750,000 vehicles are sold, as appears likely, approximately 12,000 barrels of oil a day will be saved." That's not a particularly significant number, he argues, since the United States consumes an average of 9 million barrels of oil per day.

Now lets think about the auto dealers:

Sure they sold cars, but how many of those cars were gonna be purchased anyway? The estimated national average for a 2009 Toyota Prius, one of the most popular types of fuel efficient cars purchased, is currently $23,435. Now lets assume you got the maximum trade in, $4,500. You still have to shell out $19,000. So here is my question, how many people weren't planning to get a new car, but once the program started figured, hey, I've got $19,000 just sitting here, I'll get a new car. The answer: very few. What dealers are actually going to discover is that nearly everyone who did buy a car was planning to in the next three to six months. They just bumped up the purchase time to take advantage of the offer.

Depends. China has now record sales of autos. World consumption is up, while the US consumption is down. Problem here is decifering Obama BS. Is it down because the economy is down and people and business cutting optional traveling or was it the clunkers program? Given the propensity of Obama turd polishing, I am sure the results will not be straight forward.

I have my doubts this program was intended to seriously save gas.

It is, IMO, another stimulus, trying to throw money at a problem.

Not likely, the record shows the majority of clunker trades were the second and ever the third vehicles owed by the buyers.

Since the new cars and trucks are more fuel efficient they most likely will be driven more miles per year than the vehicle they replaced.