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
(
Read more... )
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 Center pointed out on its blog in June, a ton of CO2 currently goes for about $17.50 on the European Climate Exchange.
Also from that article:At first glance, the numbers look pretty good: Burning a gallon of gasoline produces about 19.4 pounds of CO2, so if you if you swapped a clunker that got 18 miles per gallon for a new car that got 27.5 mpg (the current average fuel economy standard for passenger cars) and drove it for 12,000 miles (the average distance an American car travels annually), you would personally save a little more than two tons of CO2 from being emitted in one year.
So if it takes an average of 6.7 tons of CO2 to make a new vehicle, you'd have to drive your new car for at least 3+ years to make up the energy cost of production.
Reply
Leave a comment