The House approved a measure on Tuesday that would give Americans a cash incentive to trade in their old, gas-guzzling automobiles for slightly more efficient models. The “Cash for Clunkers” bill passed through the chamber with a 298 to 119 vote, and the Senate could vote on similar legislation later this week.
The bill would give drivers a voucher of up to $4,500 for trading in their older autos for more fuel-efficient models, at a total cost to the federal government of $4 billion. Backers argue that the scheme would boost the sale of new automobiles and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
“The bipartisan cars act will shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies. It will improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” said lead sponsor Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) during floor debate on Tuesday. “The cars act demonstrates that we can free ourselves from the false argument of either you are for the environment or you are for jobs. You can do both, you must do both.”
Where do I sign up?
The House bill would go into effect within 30 days and make vouchers available to car shoppers for a year or until the funding runs out, whichever comes first. Participants could trade in vehicles of model year 1984 or later that are currently in use—no trading in the one that’s been gathering dust in the backyard since Jimmy Carter was in office—and the old cars would be crushed or otherwise permanently removed from the roads.
Under the plan, a “clunker” is defined as a car or light truck that averages 18 miles per gallon or less. For cars, drivers could get a $3,500 subsidy for purchasing a new model that gets at least 22 mpg or 4 mpg more than the old one, or $4,500 for a new car that gets at least 10 mpg more. For light trucks and SUVs, drivers could get $3,500 for a new model that averages at least 2 mpg more than the old one, or $4,500 for 5 mpg more.
Critics argue that the bill’s miles-per-hour benchmarks for new vehicles are way too low and wouldn’t do nearly enough to curb emissions. (Consider that the Obama administration’s new fuel-economy rules will require cars to get 39 mpg and light trucks to get 30 mpg by 2016.) Grist’s Jonathan Hiskes reported on environmental arguments against the bill when President Barack Obama endorsed it last month.
While the measure might not do much for the warming planet, it would be a boon for the beleaguered auto industry.
“The passage of this legislation is good news for manufacturers, auto dealers, suppliers and most importantly consumers,” said Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers President and CEO Dave McCurdy. “With just released May auto sales reporting a 31 percent drop from just a year ago, we can’t afford to wait any longer. Now more than ever we need this fleet modernization proposal to be passed by the Senate and quickly signed into law by the President.”
Hold your horsepower
The Senate, however, is not quite so ready roll.
Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) have introduced a bill similar to the version the House passed, but Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have proposed an alternate version with stronger fuel-economy requirements, which they say would “achieve 32 to 38 percent greater oil savings” than the House version.
Keep your eyes on the Senate to see how this all shakes out.
Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Comments
View as Flat
Dave from Canada Posted 8:24 am
10 Jun 2009
Permalink
Tyler Durden Posted 9:05 am
10 Jun 2009
Permalink
Clunker Bill Posted 9:20 am
10 Jun 2009
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 9:31 am
10 Jun 2009
guzzler. His mileage is terrible, but he thinks he's probably doing
the ecologically right thing by holding on to his old car, given the
resources and energy required to make a new car. I had never
considered this angle, which seems crucial to acting in an
environmentally responsible way. I wonder if either of you have ideas about this or know of a
resource to consult to help one assess the full impact of one's
consumption. Trading your old station wagon for a Prius, or recycling
your old air conditioner and buying a newer, more efficient model, is
it really saving energy? A: A variety of reputable investigators have
concluded that 85-90 percent of energy use and global warming emissions
attributable to an average vehicle over its entire lifecycle come from
operation. Only 10-15 percent is production and disposal. This is true
for both hybrids and conventional vehicles.
In order to achieve
a net reduction in per-mile global warming emissions, (i.e. to offset
the additional emissions from manufacturing and disposing of another
vehicle) the new vehicle will have to get 10-20 percent better fuel
economy than the old vehicle, assuming the vehicle will be driven in a
typical way (i.e. that it will be used for its full useful life -
usually around 170,000 miles).
Or, to look at it a different
way, how long would it take to offset the manufacturing and disposal
energy associated with the new car?
Assuming 15 percent of
lifetime energy use for the new car is manufacturing and disposal, and
a lifetime of 170,000 miles, you can calculate the miles which you need
to drive in order to make up for the manufacturing and disposal of the
new car, using the following formula:
Miles = 25,500 / (MPG_new / MPG_old - 1)
For
example, suppose his old vehicle gets 15 mpg and he's considering
replacing it with one that gets 35 mpg. As soon as he's driven 25,500
/ (35 / 15 - 1) = 19,100 miles, he will have already made up for the
energy and global warming emissions that went into producing that
vehicle. For the remaining 150,000 miles of the new vehicle's life, the
reductions in global warming pollution are all "profit."
That's not to
say he should drive his old car another 19,000 miles. Not at all. So
long as he replaces the old car with one that gets at least 10-20
percent better fuel economy, he should make the replacement right
away. In certain situations, it may take longer for fuel savings to
make up for the manufacturing emissions. For example, if the driver
does very little driving, it will take longer to offset the
manufacturing emissions, and it may be worth discounting future
emissions - something that's beyond the scope of the current discussion. Posted by: Don August 03, 2006 However, given we're talking about heavily subsidizing the trade-in through the government, I think we should set the bar higher than 10-20% so we get greater benefit for the bucks. I'm thinking a fuel economy improvement of at least 25% should be required to get the subsidy.
Permalink
solargroupies Posted 9:46 am
10 Jun 2009
Permalink
davescott Posted 10:01 am
10 Jun 2009
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:14 am
10 Jun 2009
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:29 pm
10 Jun 2009
Permalink
Chris Pratt Posted 12:32 pm
10 Jun 2009
Permalink
Peartree Posted 3:07 pm
10 Jun 2009
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 8:31 pm
10 Jun 2009
Regarding the work truck issue, JustLou, though upgrading from a 10 MPG vehicle to a 12 MPG vehicle doesn't seem to be much of an improvement, that is a gain of 20%, not too shabby. In fact, if you do the math, you can see that twice as much fuel will be saved over 100,000 miles of driving by switching from a 10 MPG vehicle to a 12 MPG vehicle (1,667 gallons) than by switching from a 30 MPG vehicle to a 40 MPG vehicle (833 gallons). I know, it seems hard to believe at first glance--I found it hard to believe the first time I read it--but check it yourself if you don't believe me.
Of course, one will still use far less fuel overall by driving 100,000 miles in a 30 or 40 MPG vehicle than in a 12 MPG vehicle, so we need people to take a step back and ask a different question: What sort of vehicle will meet my daily needs? Many people choose a vehicle which has passenger, cargo, and/or hauling capacity they only use a few times a year rather than a vehicle that meets their daily needs and borrowing or renting for those unusual needs. Right-sizing needs to come first, and then one can consider which vehicle within the class that meets one's daily needs offers the best combination of fuel efficiency, safety, and quality.For those who actually need a truck for work or a large vehicle to haul a large family, it can make a very significant difference to go from 10 MPG to 12 MPG, and it's possible the increase will be much larger if one really has a 10 MPG vehicle. The 2009 Ford Expedition full-sized SUV, for example is rated to get 16 MPG combined city/highway and the 2009 Ford F-150 2WD is rated to get 17 MPG combined.
Permalink
justlou Posted 5:30 am
11 Jun 2009
Permalink