Dow
     +6.51
12890.46
+0.05%
|
     +1.99
1351.95
+0.15%
|
     +0.00
14109.41
+0.00
|
     +11.37
2927.23
+0.39%
|
     +0.14
54.30
+0.26%
|
     +0.50
115.18
+0.44%
|
     -0.01
2.00
-0.29%
Econwatch
August 5, 2009 5:27 PM

"Cash For Clunkers" Does Little To Help The Environment

By
Declan McCullagh
Topics
Cash for Clunkers
(CBS)
Before the U.S. Senate votes to extend the "cash for clunkers" program, let's examine this question, which seems like a reasonable one to ask: What has it done to reduce carbon emissions?

This was, after all, one of the primary justifications that the Obama administration offered for the program. "This gives consumers a break, reduces dangerous carbon pollution and our dependence on foreign oil, and strengthens the American auto industry," President Obama said last month.

Other Democrats have touted the idea as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Rep. John Dingell of Michigan predicted in June that the legislation "will result in meaningful reductions in vehicle fleet carbon emissions and fuel consumption." And to Rep. John Olver from Massachusetts, cash-for-clunkers will "pave the way toward a lower-carbon future." Time magazine already is calling the program a "green success."

That argument has a visceral appeal: Let's take the cash for our old cars and trucks, get new ones with Bluetooth and iPod connections, and help out the environment in the process. But a closer look at the existing $1 billion cash-for-clunkers program shows that the rhetoric of Washington politicians doesn't match reality.

Some simple calculations suggest that the existing program will save only about 365,000 metric tons of CO2 a year. Compare that to 29,028,000,000 tons of CO2 emitted worldwide every year, according to U.S. government estimates.

To put 365,000 metric tons in perspective, China's CO2 emissions have been increasing by an average of 644,000,000 metric tons each of the last four years, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. As of 2006, China was producing 6,017,690,000 tons of CO2, and the United States was producing 5,902,750,000 tons.

Put another way, if the world's output represented the driving distance from San Francisco to New York, car-for-clunkers' share of CO2 emissions is the distance from CBSNews.com's downtown San Francisco bureau to the nearest subway station. Which is only a few blocks away.

Here's how I arrived at that number: Assume the old vehicle was rated at 18 MPG, and the new one at 24 MPG, and that the average vehicle is driven 12,000 miles a year. The owner will save 166 gallons of gas annually, meaning 3,220 lbs of CO2 or 1.46 metric tons. Adding that up over 250,000 vehicles gives us a total of 365,000 metric tons of CO2 a year.

(I'm aware an alternate EPA method takes into effect methane and nitrous oxide emissions, but the CO2-specific EPA numbers tell us that one gallon of gasoline produces 19.4 lbs of CO2. This is also the calculation that Carbonfund.org uses in estimating vehicle CO2 output. ClimateProgress.org guesses there will be a 9 MPG gain and comes up with a 660,000 metric ton reduction in CO2 per year. If my estimate is significantly off, I welcome corrections from Alert CBSNews.com Readers.)

There are other reasons to be skeptical about cash-for-clunkers. Jeremy Anwyl, the chief executive of Edmunds.com, wrote in an opinion article for the Wall Street Journal this week that "it's not clear that cash for clunkers actually increased sales" -- Americans seem to have delayed pre-planned summer car purchases and accelerated pre-planned autumn purchases. Also, Anwyl notes, rising prices for fuel-efficient cars (because of higher demand) will steer other buyers (who aren't participating in the clunkers program) toward less-efficient models.

Second, swapping newer cars for older ones may cause more driving; fuel-efficient cars are cheaper per mile, and a new car is more fun than a clunker. This is what the House of Representatives was told in January by a pro-stimulus economist: "Old vehicles aren't driven as much as new vehicles, so total vehicle-miles-traveled increases as a result of the program." And it also jibes with experience and common sense: as fuel efficiency has increased since the early 1980s, cars get driven more. Plus, there's the environmental cost of building the new vehicles in the first place.

Consider an overseas example. Last month I drove across Cambodia, home to Angkor Wat and the Miss Landmine beauty pageant, in a car exported from America. But it wasn't a GM or Chrysler: it was a used Toyota Corolla with about 185,000 miles.

This might sound odd, but it makes economic sense. Cambodia is a poor country, behind even the sad cases of Nigeria and Sudan in per-capita income. Three-quarters of the Khmer people, which is what they call themselves, work in agriculture -- and the average rice farmer in Cambodia is lucky to make $1,000 a year.

Cambodians tend to ride scooters (even during monsoon season), and you'll also spot elephants, water buffalo, and cattle hauling cargo. They're kind of the short-haul equivalent of a tractor trailer. If someone in Phnom Penh aspires to an actual car, a new one is likely far too expensive, but a reliable used Corolla from the U.S. with 185,000 miles might be within reach.

Sadly, the cash-for-clunkers program requires that vehicles traded in have their engines destroyed. This will raise the costs of used vehicles for poorer Americans. It will also raise the cost of used U.S. vehicles around the world: Cambodians are less likely to upgrade to newer, safer, less polluting, and more fuel-efficient used Corollas.

Perhaps the need to bail out a struggling U.S. automobile industry is enough to justify renewing the program, even though four out of the five top sellers are Japanese. But it's a bit silly for politicians to claim that cash-for-clunkers can be justified by environmental or economic concerns, and even sillier for Americans to pretend to believe them.


Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com.

  • Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site.

Add a Comment See all 33 Comments
by bigbluewhale August 7, 2009 1:33 PM EDT
It sounds like the environmental benefits are debatable. I do think, like one of the previous commentators, that there may be a national shift to smaller cars brought about by this program, so the ultimate environmental benefits are yet unknown. I hate that good cars are being junked though. Seems like there could be a second tier to this program that allows people to trade their poor fuel efficiency cars/trucks (15 mpgs, for ex.) for the slightly more fuel efficient used cars/trucks gotten through the program (17 mpgs, for ex.) Or how about retrofitting them as small public transportation vehicles for small towns that have no public transport?

One final idea. If we are really concerned about the environment, how about instead of giving "cash (off new vehicles) for clunckers", how about giving public transport vouchers worth $4500 linked with public transportation improvement projects? $4500 would buy me about 3 years of Bay Area Rapid Transport (BART) tickets to get to work!
Reply to this comment
by cdegolier August 6, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
Another complete waste of TAXPAYER money by obama. Now after these idiots to saw the dollars signs default on their car loans are the TAXPAYERS once again going to bail them out. Sounds a bit like the mortgage crap the dems created because they thought everyone has to have a home no matter what. Now they want to push people into fuel efficient cars in the name of "helping the environment", people who otherwise probably had no car payment. If the car dealers want to make money and sell cars it is their responsibility to come up with a way to do it. Thank you of great voters for this idiot in office and for wasting my money.
Reply to this comment
by meganlk August 6, 2009 1:08 PM EDT
What are Declan McCullagh's credentials? PhD in environmental science? or Master of Science in ***************?
Reply to this comment
by winslowe1 August 6, 2009 11:10 AM EDT
Obama says he doesn't want the government to be in the automobile manufacturing business, but he sure is investing taxpayer's money heavily in it. It will be interesting to see how long this false economy can sustain itself.
Reply to this comment
by hellosopo August 6, 2009 7:36 AM EDT
We can only control the emissions in this country; we can't control what China is doing. (Actually we probably could, but we don't seem to want to go there politically.)

How many old Corollas qualify for the clunker MPG requirements? The engines getting seized up under this program are old tired V8s and some V6s that had crap fuel economy from the beginning.


Why is CBS constantly publishing this guy's idiotic rantings as if they were news? We know he doesn't like Obama and will take the opposite view of anything he does.
Reply to this comment
by jschamberlin August 6, 2009 7:55 AM EDT
For the record...I used to work with a guy that drives an old (84 or 85 I think) Firehawk with a V8. After some fine tuning on the carb, and dropping a 6 speed transmission behind that old V8, he's pulling about 30 mpg out of it. The whole point is, the idea of what is a "clunker" is skewed, based on inaccurate calculations (as the EPA's MPG calculations have always been). Cash for clunkers is just a way to get us to pump more money into the car industry to try to jump start the economy. Let's face it, if you go buy a new car under the program, you'll get your $3500 to $4500 for your clunker. Now, you may have been spending about $300 a month on gas. With your new car, you're now spending, say $200 in gas, but you have a $300 car payment on top of it. Trust me, you're better off with the clunker.
by jschamberlin August 6, 2009 7:21 AM EDT
My 2000 Ford Ranger is getting 24 to 26 MPG, and my girlfriend's 2003 Ranger is getting just as a good of mileage. My girlfriend's 2007 Toyota Matrix gets 29 MPG. None of those numbers are anywhere close to the EPA's new mileage system (or old system for that matter) that has been used in determining what a "clunker" is. So, I think I'll stick with my "clunker", thanks.
Reply to this comment
by miloschneider August 6, 2009 8:26 PM EDT
Sorry, I'm afraid you can't stick with your Clunker, since you don't have one. You and your girlfriend's Rangers are already efficient enough. It's just not worth it to the rest of us to give you an incentive to give them up; you may as well keep them.
by Kauaiguy August 6, 2009 3:16 AM EDT
You wanted the economy to get going and this program has certainly helped to do that. Now you're all complaining about what it does to the environment. Are any of you ever happy? ... or are you all just a bunch of whinners! And let's start with whoever wrote this article.

Maybe we should stay in the recession.
Reply to this comment
by ScabbyBabbage August 6, 2009 2:56 AM EDT
Some nice responses. I should add that the car manufacturers now have a huge incentive to build fuel efficient cars, which means that they will switch over production lines to those, which will mean they have more of them, which will drive the price of the fuel efficient vehicle down, all while giving the manufacturers incentive to advertise these vehicles. Make no mistake, getting US auto manufacturers off of the SUV addiction is a big step in the right direction.
Reply to this comment
by grabandgo August 6, 2009 8:05 AM EDT
VW has had a 45mgpg car out for quite a while. Why doesn't GM or Chrysler? I guess their CEO's were to busy counting their money and had no time to manage their companies
by jimhenry0608 August 6, 2009 1:07 AM EDT
The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

Jimhenry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
Reply to this comment
by beals1978 August 5, 2009 11:54 PM EDT
I was ok with this program until last night when i realized they crushed the cars that were traded in.I'm sick to my stomach due to this.I grew up in the country in rusted out cars with no heat and non working windshield wipers. I can't believe they would think crushing a running car is a good idea.They should go to the poor or they would make great first cars for a teenager.This is nonsense.
Reply to this comment
by tmittelstaed August 6, 2009 12:23 AM EDT
They don't crush the cars. They run the engine until it's at operating temp, turn it off, then pour "liquid glass" powder into the oil fill. The heat from the engine melts this which essentially fuses into a solid block of glass in the crankcase. The engine is then considered destroyed. (technically, a good rebuilder could recover the engine but the labor to do so would be greater than just rebuilding a junk core engine out of a scrapyard. There's no shortage of engine cores)
Once the engine is destroyed the car is sold through auction. Real POS cars are bought by scrapyards at these auctions for pretty much the price of steel. Really nice/desirable cars are bought by rebuilding companies who will yank the engine out and replace it with a rebuilt engine (or a good engine from a wrecked car) then resell the car as a Salvage/Rebuilt vehicle. Cars that have good bodies but just aren't worth a lot end up in junkyards where they are parted out for body panels and such.

The real fact of the matter is that the majority of cars turned in are SUV's, big trucks, and vans, and are traded in for economy cars, because only the delta in such a trade will yield the full $4.5K rebate. Teenagers typically don't want to be driving these big cars around anyway, they want something sporty. And we franky don't need a bunch of Ford Explorers out and around on the road anyway.

Keep in mind as well that pulling these cars out of the market will drive up prices for cars of this type, which will help people in the following months after the program is over, who want to trade in their older cars and buy newer ones. And with the prices of these big cars higher, the owners will probably take better care of them, which will help them from polluting so much.
by miloschneider August 6, 2009 8:33 PM EDT
Your stomach will feel better once you understand that these are *not* "great first cars for a teenage" -- they're polluting, gas guzzling, unsafe relics that cause all sorts of expenses which, for the most part, the rest of us pay for. The program probably would have worked with tighter requirements and a smaller rebate, but the net effect is fine.
See all 33 Comments
.

Follow Econwatch

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook