Environmental Benefits of ‘Cash for Clunkers’

NO to more Guzzlers!

It’s always a good thing to get polluting, inefficient vehicles off the roads. It looks like the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program might exceed expectations not just in cars sold but in positive environmental impacts.  If Congress would extend the program it could have a real impact on ridding the roads of gas guzzlers and unnecessary SUVs.   So I’m very happy to read that Congress will probably add more money to the program.  Did you know that it originally started out as a $4 billion dollar program and the Republicans and conservative Democrats reduced it to one billion?  Republicans now criticize the program as inadequately funded so they are, in effect, criticizing themselves.  The following is partially summarized from Fresh Greens.

“The program was once derided as “Handouts for Hummers” by Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Susan Collins, who argued for stricter fuel-efficiency standards for the trade-ins. But Cash for Clunkers, the nickname for the Car Allowance Rebate System, has proved to be extremely popular, necessitating a $2 billion boost from Congress. And while some Democrats may have objected to the less stringent environmental rules, their fears may be assuaged. Says the New York Times:

The Transportation Department reported that of 120,000 rebate applications processed so far, the average gas mileage of cars being bought was 28.3 miles per gallon, for SUV’s 21.9 miles per gallon, and for trucks, 16.3 miles per gallon, all significantly higher than required to get a rebate.

“The statistics are much better than anybody dreamt they would be,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who, with Senator Susan M. Collins, Republican of Maine, was the author of an early version of a “cash for clunkers” bill that would have required bigger improvements. The actual mileage gain seen so far, she said was not due to the details of the law but “the good judgment of the American people.”

According to the Associated Press:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the average mileage of new vehicles purchased through the program is 9.6 miles per gallon higher than for the vehicles traded in for scrap. Buyers of new trucks or cars that get 10 mpg better than their trade-ins get the $4,500 rebate. People whose cars get between 4 mpg and 10 mpg better fuel efficiency qualify for a smaller $3,500 rebate.

LaHood said some 80 percent of the traded-in vehicles are pickups or SUVs, meaning many gas-guzzlers are being taken off the road. The Ford Focus is a leading replacement vehicle. General MotorsCo., Chrysler Group LLC and Ford accounted for 47 percent of the new vehicles purchased.

Are people using their Cash for Clunkers funds to get a shiny new gas guzzler? Ford’s sales of SUVs and trucks have continued their decline, while car sales have improved.”

Read more here.

While Congress rushes to save the program, others find the program environmentally lacking.

Reuters analysis says we can’t count on Cash for Clunkers for an efficiency boost:

Even if the program is extended, analysts said the scheme will shave little more than 0.05 percent, or between 4,000 and 5,000 barrels per day, off the nation’s daily consumption of 9 million barrels.

The projection assumes some 250,000 “clunkers” with an average 15 miles per gallon efficiency are traded in for vehicles rated at an average 25 mpg, and travel an average 10,000 miles per year.

CBS News is also  pessimistic:

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.

My position is that it’s helping,  so why complain?  And they always bring up China, as if bringing up China will give us an excuse to do nothing.  Don’t buy it!

Increase funding for this program and extend it, instead.  If we can get more gas-suckers off the road, then let’s do it.

In fact, this should be extended in an open-ended way, like the program helping people pay for more efficient furnaces and air conditioners, which the government is also doing.  The Energy Star program is a great way for people to conserve energy in many ways, and get a government rebate.  Since this is all in the public interest (far more so than a war with Iraq, for example) it makes no sense for people to protest or complain about this except to wish the program was extended indefinitely.