Junkers: Several US states already offer cash incentives to get older vehicles off the roads. The federal government may soon follow suit.
(NEWSCOM)Photos (1 of 1)
Would cash-for-clunkers be good or bad for the environment?
Paying people to get rid of old cars is supposed to help the economy and the environment. Not everyone agrees it will do either.
By Gregory M. Lamb | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ April 17, 2009 edition
Boston
In the tale of Aladdin, the young hero is tempted by an enticing pitch to swap his old, but magical, lamp for a new one.
The US government may soon be offering Americans another swap they may find hard to resist: cash toward a new car or truck if they’ll promise to send their old vehicle to be crushed into scrap metal. It’s being pitched as a win for both the economy and the environment.
In a March 30 speech, President Obama endorsed using part of the $787 billion economic stimulus package to fund what’s being called a “cash for clunkers” plan. Several such bills now are being considered by the US Congress.
They follow clunker-retiring schemes already in place in several European countries, most notably in Germany, which, as a result, saw a dramatic 40 percent rise in new car sales in March over the previous year. (March sales by US automakers, in contrast, were down about 40 percent from a year ago.)
Several US states, including California and Texas, already offer cash incentives to get older vehicles off the roads.
While each bill in Congress is different, they all offer rebates of up to $5,000 toward a new car for retiring a qualifying clunker that is at least eight years old.
Whether such a program would boost the US auto industry remains under debate. Some reason that, like traditional automaker rebates, the clunker cash would only temporarily boost sales, and they would plummet again shortly after the program ended.
One bill, sponsored by Rep. Betty Sutton (D) of Ohio, originally restricted the program to US-made vehicles. But that provision may have to be removed because of free-trade agreements the US has signed, which in turn could dilute its beneficial effects for Detroit automakers.
But wouldn’t the plan at least take gas-guzzling, air-polluting clunkers off the road?
Maybe. Much would depend on the specific details in the final plan, knowledgeable observers say.
For one thing, the difference in gas mileage between the old and new vehicles would need to be significant.
Senate bill sponsored by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D) of California and others, for example, would require that the new vehicle’s m.p.g. rating be 25 percent better than the federal standard (the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE) for its vehicle class.
Other variables are harder to figure. Do you only retire clunkers that are heavily driven? Could out-of-service clunkers be registered just to qualify for the cash? Would the program be limited only to vehicles that emit the most pollution?
Another consideration: the amount of CO2 emissions released in the manufacture of a new car – from making the steel, plastic, electronics, and other parts to the actual assembly of the vehicle.
Estimates of the “carbon cost” of a new vehicle range from 3.5 tons to 12.4 tons of CO2 expended per vehicle, says William Chameides, professor of the environment and dean of the Nicholas School of Earth & Ocean Sciences at Duke University. He’s averaged them as 6.7 tons per vehicle.
Depending on the fuel efficiency of the car or truck, and how many miles it will be driven, it could take from a few years to beyond the lifetime of the vehicle to make up the “carbon cost” and begin saving on emissions.
“There are a lot of carbon emissions embedded in the production of that new car,” Dr. Chameides says. “One needs to think about that.”
The biggest savings are in getting true gas-guzzlers off the road. Replacing them with vehicles that get better gas mileage can make a huge difference in the amount of fuel burned and emissions released.
“The difference in gasoline saved between a 35-m.p.g. car and a 30-m.p.g. car is much less than for, say, a 20-m.p.g. car and a 15-m.p.g. car,” he says.
Why that is so “is not intuitive at all,” he adds. Two of his colleagues, Duke management professors Rick Larrick and Jack Soll, call it “The M.P.G. Illusion.”
For example, compare two vehicles that are both being driven 10,000 miles a year. A vehicle getting 10 miles per gallon would burn 1,000 gallons. Replacing it with a vehicle getting 20 m.p.g. would mean you’d burn only 500 gallons, a savings of 500 gallons.
But the effect diminishes in comparisons between high m.p.g. vehicles. Driving 10,000 miles in a car getting 25 m.p.g. would require 400 gallons of fuel. Switching to a miserly 50 m.p.g. vehicle (such as a Toyota Prius) would cut fuel consumption to 200 gallons. That’s a savings of only 200 gallons, despite the large spread in m.p.g.
A cash-for-clunkers plan is “very hard to justify in terms of oil-use reduction or greenhouse-gas reduction,” says Daniel Sperling, a professor of engineering and environmental science at the University California, Davis, and the founding director of the school’s Institute of Transportation Studies.
But, he says, “it possibly could make sense for conventional air-pollution reduction.”
Older vehicles emit conventional air-pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, at rates as much as 100 times higher than newer vehicles, he says. That’s because they have less-sophisticated pollution controls and because emission levels tend to worsen as vehicles age.
A better strategy than cash-for-clunkers, says Professor Sperling, would be to raise the CAFE standards for automakers. “That’s by far the No. 1 strategy,” he says, for cutting fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
To ensure demand for high-m.p.g. vehicles, the government should create incentives, such as rebates for gas-sippers or raising gas taxes, he says.
Britain is considering a cash-for-clunkers plan, too. But some critics have labeled these programs as “greenwashing.” Such schemes are “nothing but hand-outs for the car firms, resprayed green to fool the incautious buyer,” writes firebrand environmental activist George Monbiott in The Gauuardian, a British newspaper.
Others wonder if replacing older vehicles with other vehicles, even if more efficient, is the most environmentally friendly way forward. The Feinstein bill does, for example, allow the cash voucher to be used to buy transit fare instead of a car or truck.
That indicates that improving the vehicle fleet doesn’t address the whole transportation picture. “I was disappointed that in the stimulus bill more money was not put into mass transit and public transit as opposed to building roads,” Duke’s Chameides says.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Mike Dempsey | 04.18.09
This is a thoughtful and carefully researched article. Finally someone mentions the associated cost of building the newer car, which includes steel smelting, oil drilling (plastics) glass smelting (windows) etc.
I would like to see an article about the physics and costs of alternative energy. A wind or solar farm CANNOT produce enough power in to reliably smelt the aluminum (blades, towers) or glass (mirrors), pump the oil (composites) mine the copper (windings) or power the other heavy industries required to BUILD THE SOLAR OR WIND COMPONENTS. I feel we will be burning coal in China to make the unreliable alternative energy sources in the USA and feeling smug about it while INCREASING the CO2 actual output of the actual planet. An article about the carbon neutral (or carbon negative?) aspects of nuclear generated electricity would be nice.
3. Joe In Texarkana | 04.18.09
I own a 1989 Chevy pickup that is definitely a guzzler by today’s standards. Due to personal financial conditions, it will remain my main mode of transportation, as I have no choice - unless a “Cash for Clunkers” type of legislation is passed. But if I were given a choice, I would be in a more fuel efficient vehicle tomorrow.
4. David | 04.18.09
“The difference in gasoline saved between a 35-m.p.g. car and a 30-m.p.g. car is much less than for, say, a 20-m.p.g. car and a 15-m.p.g. car,”
The same applies to application of hybrid technology. Total fuel savings per vehicle would be potentially much greater for a hybrid pickup or SUV than for an econobox. GM has fantastic new hybrid transmission technology which gives as much as 25% mileage improvement. The problem is that this technology is offered only as high-cost optional equipment and only on high-end models, thus ensuring that economy of scale will never be achieved and will prevent many who need or want a larger vehicle from buying them. As a condition of government assistance, hybrids should be mandated as standard equipment on all GM light trucks and SUVs. The government could also give a tax credit to cover part of the extra cost to consumers until production achieves economy of scale savings. If other manufacturers (foreign and domestic) don’t have similar technology in the works, they should be required to license it from GM and also make it standard equipment on their larger vehicles as well.
5. lordmorgul | 04.18.09
This article raises good questions but comes up without answers; far too much on one hand but on the other hand for me. Replacing all our 1990s cars is NOT the most environmentally friendly way to spend money.
A car you get rid of does not become an instant net-zero environmental effect. The car may be recycled, somewhat, but it still costs SIGNIFICANT energy to recycle them, causes carbon emissions, and has by-products that are not recycled. Meanwhile, the car you replace it with required additional carbon emissions to manufacture and transport… and assuming it has more plastics than the previous one (usually the case) it required more carbon emission to manufacture than the previous car did, and it will be harder to recycle when it is used up itself.
The fact is this is not AT ALL simple to calculate. Saving gas is one small part of that puzzle… but of course environfreaks (particularly those without any scientific or engineering education who do the majority of writing on these topics) will completely ignore the complexity of this.
Getting a new car MIGHT help the environment and it might be worse. Burned gasoline is quite the favorite of politicians and writers to discuss, but what of the electricity and heating (coal?) costs of manufacturing? In the U.S. most of our electricity is still produced by coal which is emitting more carbon into the atmosphere than all our cars combined…
If you want politicians to ’save our environment’ then tell them to invest in COST EFFECTIVE alternative (carbon neutral) energy, like nuclear power for instance, and forget this drop in the bucket caused by gas guzzling cars.
6. James | 04.18.09
I drive a low mileage antique… 35 year old Mopar muscle car once a week.
I’ll never give it up.
I commute on a light Kawasaki street bike to work and back. 75 mpg.
I’m doin my part. ;)
7. Marquis Jean Henri ‘ D’Lacroix | 04.18.09
My 242 Volvo (1981) 4 cylinder, is a daily driver,that emits less than 1/2 of this counties standard for NOX .A simply designed ,well built car (Swedish brains,sweat&steel) that once gone from the roads, will never be duplicated- to the relief of Ford % it’s confederates.As the late great Charleton Heston once said “from my cold ,dead hands…”.
8. grrr | 04.18.09
This article does not take into acount the overall costs of owning a new vehicle. While the environmental aspects probably cancel each other, in my state we have substantial property taxes on veheicles. A new car can cost $500-700 per year for the first several years whereas an older car may be a low as $50 per year. Economically it is all of these things that factor into the purchase of a new vehicle. It used to be that insurance was cheaper for older cars, that has changed over time and in some cases the costs are now cheaper for the newer car due to better safety equipment. This would be a economic windfall for local property taxing entities if more people bought newer cars. Overall it amounts to the gov’t paying individuals to trade up. One has to ask, are we helping the environment or the car companies.
9. Raymond C. | 04.19.09
Let’s implement SMALL engine capacity car like they do in Europe and Asia. It will do a lot of good to conserve gas and reduce air pollution. Limit engine capacity of a car to no more than 100 cubic inch.
10. FGFM | 04.19.09
“Saving gas is one small part of that puzzle… but of course environfreaks (particularly those without any scientific or engineering education who do the majority of writing on these topics) will completely ignore the complexity of this.”
This sort of rhetoric is particularly amusing given that this idea was originally floated by right-wing economists like Walter E. Williams years ago.
11. sharon | 04.19.09
The article doesn’t mention what will be done with the old clunkers. Is there a demand for scrap metal? If not, we could be creating another environmental problem.
12. Warren Emerson | 04.19.09
Carbon savings is not all of the likely intended effect nor real effects of improving the mileage of the national fleet. Another is reducing the price of oil on the market. The difference can be taxed in order to lower demand and the US would benefit from the taxincome instead of foreign producers.
Further in the event of national emergency (read war), a more efficient fleet would provide more flexibility. You may be too old to remember, but gas was rationed during WWII.
13. Patrick Giyan | 04.19.09
RE: 9. Raymond C. | 04.19.09
Let’s implement SMALL engine capacity car like they do in Europe and Asia. It will do a lot of good to conserve gas and reduce air pollution. Limit engine capacity of a car to no more than 100 cubic inch.
—————
Limiting engine size both comes across as highly socialistic and unsafe. The beauty of our country lies in the fact that someone can make and someone can buy that lovely 302. To tell me that I can or cannot make something, which doesn’t directly or indirectly impede on another person’s safety or basic rights as a human, is both unacceptable and a blatant violation of our constitutional rights.
Secondly, as an issue of safety. When you merge onto the expressway, is it SAFE for you to be going 40 miles per hour? Is it okay for traffic to ‘work around you’ as you still have another 10 seconds to get your anemic car to a safe 70mph (Michigan speed limit)? No, it’s not. I pay close attention to everything when I drive, and I feel frustrated when people **** around on the ramp and take for-ever to get to speed. It causes traffic to merge and shift quickly - which is sometimes not safe. It may cause others to have to speed up very quickly - as slowing down is not a safe option.
I understand your point of having automobiles that are more efficient with the fuel that they use, that’s great. But we ARE a capitalistic society - companies go were the money is, that is a tried and true reality. By creating incentive, because God knows many people don’t do something for the ‘big picture sake’ and just their immediate cost, we encourage people to make smarter choices. Life here, in the US, is about that - freedom and choices - by not respecting that, we are going against the essence of our culture, our rights and our personal pursuits of happiness.
~Patrick
14. Dan the boatbuilder | 04.19.09
I drive pickups for working and a toyota sedan for running around. I have one “carless” day a week so far. Conservation seems to be the most sensible thing regarding using automobiles. Lets just regulate ourselves. We will solve this problem naturally.
15. RICH STAN | 04.19.09
RE 13.
MR PATRICK GIYAN
Believe me Mr.PG, in Europe they have expressways.They have to merge.
We have trucks in America, they do not accelerate like a sports car.And they are allowed to enter tollways.
Bigger, heavier cars are not safer, they are bigger.
Important is ratio weight to power, as you can imagine.
Better car does everything better, is more expensive, not bigger.
Many “guzzlers” are totally unsafe, will not name bad guys on the road.
But the most important thing is the driver.Driver, who let you merge.
Would you let somebody driving 55 mph /max legal speed/ to merge in front of
you, or hit the gas, to show him, how rich you are in your big something?
We need better drivers, driver education and better cars.This is 21 century.
We can make better cars in America, they do not need to be bigger.
16. Jack | 04.19.09
What about all the people with classic cars?… How do you determine if it “junk” or not?
If they melt down all the old cars, then there won’t be any spare parts for those restoring an old one.
Why doesn’t the US govt. figure out a way to keep from shipping all our jobs overseas ? Maybe that way we won’t have to rely on cars for our only big industry left in this country.
17. shadowsprite | 04.20.09
I really feel this is a bad idea. We talk about the economy and debt and yet here is a plan to help out the auto industry while hurting many consumers. If you have a car that is old enough for this program than any loan you might have had for its original purchase is most likely all paid off. This plan may encourage some to think about getting a loan in order to buy a new car when they really shouldn’t be taking on debt. Eventually many of these cars will be taken off the road due to the fact that their owners will no longer be able to keep them in running order or afford the higher gas prices that will inevitably rise again.
18. Jeff | 04.20.09
I don’t think this is an issue that really needs a government solution. I don’t like driving behind a smoky clunker any more than you do, but I take comfort in the fact that they are close to the end of their lives (the car, not the driver). Let’s just let “planned obsolescence” take its course.
19. lewlew | 04.20.09
I think the last comment in the article hit the nail on the head. Everyone in America seems they must have a car. Is that so true? If the public or mass transit system was more accessable, dependable and convenient, I would park my car in the garage as long as possible. In St. Louis, that’s the first thing to go. What if you got a free solar panel or tax break or something if you could show that your odometer didn’t go over 5K for a year? How do we get people to take the bus/train instead of their cars? To all the Civil Engineer’s out there, what’s the plan?
20. Koolkev | 04.20.09
A rebate to change voluntarily from a 15 or less car to a 35 or more car would be a good idea. And without doing the complex math would appear to pay off the CO2 price of the deal. Those arguing that people should be able to keep their old cars must be reading different articles the proposals discussed here doesn’t force anyone to participate. I am against forcing small engines, but an incentive for efficient vehicles or switching to mass transit would be a good idea. Imagine the cost benefit analysis of taking a 18MPG hummer off the road and replacing it with a 47MPG Prius or even a 100+MPG plug in electric. CO2 payoff in 3 years?
By the way a Prius gets to 70 mph pretty easily
21. Tony | 04.20.09
“Cash for my Clunker” - no, I don’t think so. I have a 1960 P/U truck and its probably in better shape than the europeans(yes, the people, not their ****** cars). You might ask why, in the year 2009, are we still burning gasoline? Simple: its still cheap compared with the next viable option(whatever that is). My 2 cents.
22. suki | 04.21.09
I appreciate an explanation that considers the cost of building new cars. Too often we are quick to throw whatever is “old” into the dumps and take up the new version without really considering whether it makes sense to society or the environment.
I have family members who work on their own cars, partly due to cost and partly because they enjoy the process. They don’t buy newer cars because some are nearly impossible for a person without expensive equipment to maintain.
And, for people living in rural areas suggestions about biking or mass transit don’t always make sense for personal or family use. Are we going to force people to move close to town if they can’t afford the payments and insurance of a new car? If so, who will pay them to live close enough to use mass transit or bikes?
The issue sounds simple enough, but it’s not. Thanks for a article.
23. kewlbob | 04.21.09
By driving a car an additional 100,000 miles, (for each 100,000 miles) you save $35,000 to $40,000.
24. Mary A. McKinley | 05.01.09
I will keep my 1999 car with less than 40,000 miles. It is driven 50 miles or less a month. If I did not take the long way, the mileage would be even less.
25. karenc | 06.06.09
This bill would put every charity car donation program in the nation out of business since the amount of the voucher would be much greater than the tax deduction. The solution is to simply allow the charity to issue the voucher in lieu of the tax deduction. The charity would then junk the car in accordance with the bill. This way, everyone wins, the car dealer, car maker, car buyer and the charity.
26. diamond eye front pipe | 06.11.09
But it is still nice to see an old car running on the road. I myself own a restored 1969 Volkswagen Beetle, and it is my pride and joy. It feels good whenever you see a restored classic or vintage car that is still in good condition.
27. toyota replacement parts | 09.09.09
I can recall a research where in they used scraps of metals(can’t recall what specific element that is) to produce new iron ores. The logic of the research is to come up with new materials with lesser cost. That may be the same logic behind the cash for clunkers. Anyway, Prius really runs tons of miles.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Emil | 04.18.09
It is not as though cars built in the 1990s thru 2001 are gas guzzling polluters