daft clunk

‘Clunkers’ debunkers attack Democrats’ auto trade-in plan 7

Car off cliff.Should the clunkers plan be junked?Support “cash for clunkers” as an auto-industry bailout if you must, but don’t call it green.

So say the Wall Street Journal, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and U.K. environmentalist George Monbiot, all critical of the environmental benefits of the proposal President Barack Obama endorsed yesterday.

Obama and Democratic House lawmakers reached compromise on a plan that would pay drivers $3,500 to $4,500 to trade in gas-guzzling older vehicles for more fuel-efficient new ones. The idea has been tossed about as a way to give automakers a boost and retire the nation’s dirtiest vehicles.

But the House plan, which could end up in the larger Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, sets almost laughably low standards.

A House Energy and Commerce Committee fact sheet [PDF] reveals just how low. The plan would require a new passenger car to get only 22 miles per gallon (according to EPA “window sticker” estimates) and be at least 4 mpg more efficient than the car it’s replacing. For light trucks, the threshold drops to 18 mpg and a 2 mpg improvement. For large light-duty trucks, it’s 15 mpg and a 1 mpg improvement.

“Toothless,” the WSJ’s Keith Johnson calls the plan:

The problem with all this, as Duke’s Bill Chameides pointed out last month, is that making a new car produces, on average, about 6.7 tons of carbon dioxide. By his calculations, it would take at least five years to “pay off” the environmental impact of building the new car with a 22-mile-per-gallon purchase. That SUV might be even worse—the estimated payback time is almost 20 years.

ACEEE, an efficiency advocacy group, preferred the ‘clunkers’ plan put forth earlier this year: “Unlike the scrappage bill introduced in January, which aims to accelerate the modernization of the U.S. fleet to a more fuel-efficient one, the program just announced aims primarily to clear Detroit’s unsold inventory from the storage lots,” it said in a press release.

“I can’t see using taxpayer dollars to sell a Hummer H3T,” ACEEE Transportation Program Director Therese Langer said in the release. “We would welcome incentives to retire gas guzzlers and encourage the purchase of efficient vehicles, but the proposal just isn’t there yet.”

The Guardian’s George Monbiot tore apart a similar U.K. proposal and a German cash-for-clunkers program already in effect:

A paper published in 2000 by the journal Transportation Research comes to even grimmer conclusions: that replacing old cars with new ones increases carbon pollution. Because between 15% and 20% of a car’s emissions are produced during its manufacture, the optimal age for a car, the paper says, is 19 years. (The average age of the UK’s fleet is 4.9 years). If the paper’s assumptions hold (they may be out of date now), it would make more sense for the government to pay us to keep our old bangers on the road.

Wonkette’s analysis is less heavy on the numbers: “Congress Will Buy Your Crappy ‘Ride’ For $4,500!”

And more debunkery, for good measure, from Common Tragedies.

Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, eats, asks questions, self-promotes, looks out windows, and wonders if it could be like this.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Spence's avatar

    Spence Posted 6:13 pm
    06 May 2009

    The threshold should be a sliding scale starting at 30mpg for cars, 25 for trucks. We need to use this as a way to incentivize the manufacturers to ramp up production of their fuel efficient vehicles, not clear out in-efficient deadwood.

    Permalink

  2. Tasermons Partner Posted 8:54 pm
    06 May 2009

    Was there an age limit mentioned?  Like the vehicle had to be a certain age in order to qualify? Also, on a slightly unrelated note: great job on the margins, Grist!  Makes the articles much more readable!

    Permalink

  3. stinkycheese Posted 6:04 am
    07 May 2009

    I think that one of the previous drafts didn't require that the new car have a higher MPG rating than the one it replaced. If I read it correctly, I could have traded in my 33mpg 2001 Accord for a 27mpg car and gotten a tax credit for saving the planet. So while this latest draft has obvious flaws, at least it's an improvement in that area.

    Permalink

  4. Clifford Wells's avatar

    Clifford Wells Posted 11:49 am
    07 May 2009

    It's the spread that matters, not the absolute numbers.  For example, trading a SUV with a weight rating of over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating like a Suburban to an utra-clean, light-duty machine like the Prius gets the most bang for the buck.  Now think about optimizing the rules!  In many cases, you're right: the trade-in might not gain you very much.  Design it to remove the big stinkers is what I say, the deals with the biggest margin.On part most people miss is that the old trade-in engine must be destroyed, or at least should be for the program  to work.  Obviously, if both the old car and the new car are on the road, you've increased emissions, not lowered them.  That's a very important part of any such program - the scrappage angle.

    Permalink

  5. greengoblin Posted 4:20 am
    08 May 2009

    Clifford Wells*That's an interesting and innovative idea to maximize this program.  I don't know how easily that could be implemented, but it does reward those trying the hardest. This should enourage people to make their lives as efficient as possible. I saw a really great video earlier that might help get some people living more water efficient lives.  Check out them out at :  http://www.tomorrowsworldcompetition.com/   Students
    wrote and directed those, can you believe it? They're really working
    hard to raise awareness and get the public involved. It's a cause worth
    fighting for!

    Permalink

  6. splashy's avatar

    splashy Posted 11:00 am
    09 May 2009

    I'm just happy to hear that the way we've done it for years - buying mostly 4 cylinder vehicles for the gas mileage, then holding on to them for 15-20 years until we just have to get another one - has been the most ecological way to do it.Of course, this program wouldn't work for us, because we already have a higher mileage vehicle, unless they offer a hybrid mini-van that gets better mileage compared to our 4 cylinder. We would go for that in a heartbeat.

    Permalink

  7. scarletlew Posted 5:29 pm
    18 May 2009

    I think the idea of converting gas-guzzling vehicles is good. I hope they get to produce more ideas like this or something like trade your old vw corrado parts and get a free gasoline or something.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement