Cash for Waste

[martian687]

I've been silently fuming over the Cash for Clunkers program since it went live last week. According to the rules, the program contributes a $3500 or $4500 credit towards the trade-in of an inefficient "clunker" (defined as a vehicle < 25 years old that gets < 18mpg) for the purchase of a new "fuel efficient" vehicle. The rules define "fuel

Comments

[mbrubeck]

Simple subtraction ("a 0-4 mpg improvement") is the wrong math here. If you're trying to reduce fuel consumption, then you need to invert the units before subtracting.

For a given trip distance, upgrading a truck from 16 to 18 mpg saves more fuel than upgrading a car from 25 to 30 mpg.

(And 16 -> 18.5 mpg saves more fuel than 30 -> 40 mpg.)

(A zero mpg savings is of course a wash no matter how you measure it. And the incentives of the program are certainly all messed up...)

[martian687]

There is also the fact that if you consider the environmental impact of manufacturing a single car, the most environmentally friendly thing to do is keep a running car on the road.

[porfinn]

Yes! That's why this pissed me off. This was an incentive to buy a new car wrapped in warm-fuzzy, feel-good BS. I do not like incentives that give people any reason to feel a sense of smug, self-satisfaction for making a so-called green choice when the only thing green about that choice is if the new car they purchased happens to be that color!

[saerulj]

do you have some data to back this up? i'd be curious how long i have to drive my new car to make up for its manufacturing costs to the environment as compared to keeping (and driving) my old car.

THE DATA!!!!

[martian687]

Via an article on Slate:According to an early analysis from the Web site Cash for Clunkers Information-which estimated an average fuel-economy increase of 69 percent and total sales of 250,000 cars-the program would cut overall fuel consumption by about 76 million gallons a year and carbon dioxide emissions by about 737,200 tons annually. Using Chameides' figures [making a new car produces 3.5 to 12.4 tons of carbon dioxide, with an average of 6.7 tons per vehicle], it would produce about 1.7 million tons of CO2 to manufacture those 250,000 cars, so we won't really see those savings until a little more than two years from now.

Was spending $1 billion a particularly cost-effective way to achieve those CO2 reductions? Probably not. Assuming the above calculations are correct and that each consumer keeps his or her car for 10 years, then the total savings should be a little less than 5.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. That means each ton of carbon dioxide would be worth about $175.53 to the U.S. government. As the Washington Policy