So how did Cash for Clunkers work out from an environmental standpoint? You don’t want to know.
The $3 billion federal program was kinda sorta supposed to send inefficient, high-polluting, belchy vehicles to an early grave. Instead it put a lot of new large, inefficient vehicles on the road, according to an AP investigation of new government records.
The most common deals swapped old Ford or Chevrolet pickup trucks for new pickups that got “only marginally better gas mileage,” the analysis found. Old Ford F-150 for new Ford F-150 was the most common exchange. Buyers were 17 times more likely to purchase an F-150 (rated at 16 miles per gallon) than a hybrid Toyota Prius.
At least 15 owners of large pickups cashed them in for new Hummer H3 SUVs that get only 16 mpg. Excuse me, but why did the government even send claims forms to Hummer dealerships? Government officials are “investigating” out how these deals squeaked through, the AP reports.
About 1 in 7 of all deals went for vehicles that got 20 mpg or worse. If you think about it, though, 20 mpg really isn’t such a bad rate ... for 1979.
There were plenty of signals before the one-month summer program began that it was a poor method for cutting pollution (note our roundup of early warnings). There’s also a lively debate on whether it made sense as economic stimulus.
“If we’re looking for the environmental story here, we’re going to be disappointed,” Jeremy Anwyl, of analyst firm Edmunds.com, told the AP. “It might have started out from the perspective of improving the environment, but it got detoured as a way to stimulate the economy.”
That pretty much nails it.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
Comments
View as Flat
ToSeek Posted 3:06 pm
05 Nov 2009
Permalink
solargroupies Posted 4:34 pm
05 Nov 2009
Permalink
thollandpe Posted 8:02 pm
05 Nov 2009
The top 3 trade-ins were Ford Explorer, Jeep Cherokee/Grand Cherokee, and Ford Windstar. Oink.
The top 3 new cars were Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, and Honda Civic. Tada!
The edumunds.com story tries to say the "real" cost was $24,000 per car because many of those purchases would have happened anyway. But it does not account for the stimulus effect that cash then had elsewhere, so it's a shoddy analysis.
The program was not perfect, but it worked. I'd rather my tax dollars do this than pay bonuses in the bloat-and-gloat financial sector.
Permalink
ToSeek Posted 8:55 pm
05 Nov 2009
Permalink
heybebeh88 Posted 12:42 pm
06 Nov 2009
That you could get a Hummer or an F-150 with that credit is lunacy.
Permalink
mikedudical Posted 10:10 pm
05 Nov 2009
Permalink
mikedudical Posted 10:10 pm
05 Nov 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 12:01 pm
06 Nov 2009
Dan
Permalink
RossBleakney Posted 12:24 pm
06 Nov 2009
As ToSeek said, though, 15.8 MPG to 24.9 MPG is a huge bonus. It might not seem like much, but it is really big (when you do the math). Now, whether we would be better off just buying more buses (GM makes Hybrid buses which I occasionally ride) is a different story. That might help GM, but not Chrysler (I have no idea if Chrysler makes buses).
Permalink
brain Posted 3:30 pm
06 Nov 2009
Permalink
Hotspur2001 Posted 7:30 pm
06 Nov 2009
Permalink
world citizen Posted 7:57 am
08 Nov 2009
Permalink
jb943 Posted 8:39 am
11 Nov 2009
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:34 am
08 Nov 2009
from your link (PDF page 2):
http://www.cars.gov/files/reports/summary-statistics.pdf
"...New vehicles Mileage: 24.9 MPG Trade-in Mileage: 15.8 MPG Overall increase: 9.2 MPG, or a 58% improvement
Cars purchased under the program are, on average, 19% above the average fuel economy of all new cars currently available, and 59% above the average fuel economy of cars that were traded in. This means the program raised the average fuel economy of the fleet, while getting the dirtiest and most polluting vehicles off the road..."
In fact, buried way down in the four month old AP investigation ( http://www.contracostatimes.com/business/ci_13712112?source=rss&nclick_check=1 ) link in the OP, we find this:
"...The data show the average fuel economy was 15.8 mpg for the old vehicles and 24.9 for the new ones..."
Which sums it all up. Everything else is relatively irrelevant. Much to my surprise (and I suspect to the government's surprise as well), this program really did put much higher mileage cars on the road, although the cost to taxpayer's to pull this off obviously would not be sustainable. It really was a stimulus package disguised as a green package, but it flushed out a statistic. Americans on average are seeking higher mileage cars.
I can't blame Jonathan for missing the one relevant sentence buried in a pile of irrelevant junk meant to grab our attention and readership.
Permalink
mm510 Posted 9:04 pm
08 Nov 2009
A reduction in air pollutants -- which many urban areas desperately need -- is almost guaranteed (note that the S.F. Bay Area and L.A. air quality districts have similar programs to get the dirtiest cars off the road). Consider the Environmental Protection Agency's standard for a smog precursor called nitrogen oxide. In 1994, the standard for passenger cars was 0.6 grams per mile. In 2004 the standard was lowered to just 0.07 grams per mile. That's almost a 90% reduction from the 1994 level. Emission limits on other pollutants like hydrocarbons (another smog precursor and often toxic on their own) were also significantly reduced between 1994 and 2004. The difference in air pollutant emissions between a new car or truck and the 1987 Suburban and 1985 Mercedes mentioned in the article would be even larger, perhaps a 99% reduction in smog-forming gases.
Another benefit is that newer cars are safer, as air bag technology and structural design have improved greatly in recent years and the vehicles are less likely to have mechanical failures. It's also possible that newer cars will run closer to the advertised MPG rating than an older car -- the components on older cars are worn, not up to the original precision, and so on (which also burns more oil, leading to higher emissions of the metals that help lubricating oils function, like zinc).
That said, I'd like to see future rounds be much more stringent on fuel economy, perhaps following some of the suggestions proposed by various people, like a fee-bate type structure, or a sliding scale for the rebate.
All of the (complicated, phased-in) standards can be found at the EPA's website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/
Permalink
BigBucksAuto Posted 11:47 am
09 Nov 2009
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:21 pm
10 Nov 2009
You dis a program that was designed to keep the auto business from crashing and had a environmental sweetener stuck on as a secondary benefit. You act as if the main purpose was to fix the CO2 problem.
You cherry pick some problems in the program, the sort of screw-ups that happen in any large program.
And you fail to report the MPG percentage gain for the trade-ups.
You didn't "pretty much nails it". You flat out missed and smashed your own thumb. It's a crummy hit piece that one would expect from some right-winger hack.
And, no, I don't think I do want to see any more from this author. At least until he starts doing journalism...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:18 am
11 Nov 2009
There is no doubt that our politicians greenwashed a stimulus package. They could have put high mileage cars into the hands of twice as many people who wanted them had they done the bill right. Instead they sent a message that it is still cool to drive poseur pickups and station wagons disguised as sport or utility vehicles. Their real goal was to clear dealer backlogs. I suppose it's a good sign that they felt compelled to green wash the idea and I'm sure nobody expected so many high mileage cars to be sold.
Maybe we need to change our mindsets. In general, politicians (although we put them in leadership positions) are not leaders and they are not innovators. They are opportunists, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic. They are professional opportunists.
Our persuasive efforts need to turn toward consumers, of which 25% vote. Politicians would fall all over themselves to replace coal plants and Hummers if they perceived that most voters wanted them to.
The struggle boils down to winning the hearts and minds of voters. Control
of the opportunists, I mean, politicians is between voters and corporate special interests, who not only use direct, yet legal, campaign bribes, but also propaganda, er, advertising, to persuade voters.
Can't think of a better way to expose the ads and bribes for what they really are than with blogs.
Permalink
splashy Posted 4:35 am
11 Nov 2009
I sure like the above comments, where it's almost 10 mph better. To me, that is a big improvement.
Permalink
filups Posted 8:46 am
11 Nov 2009
Permalink
Scott Marlow Posted 10:00 am
11 Nov 2009
Source:
http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/12/20/18-is-enough
http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/12/19/how-suvs-can-save-the-climate
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 12:38 pm
11 Nov 2009
I am not sure this table will show up aligned exactly correct on the browser, but here goes:
Premise: You save more gas if you change from 18 from 15 MPG
than if you change from 100 to 150 MPG
Conclusion: False Premise
Demonstration:
TABLE:
..... .......... ................ .................. .......... MPG rate
--././././././../ /-/-/-,/,//, 15 mpg..... 18 mpg.....100 mpg..... 150 Mpg
If you drive 150 miles ...... 10 gal...... 8.33 gal.......1.5 gal.......1 gal
if you drive 100 miles ...... 6.67 gal.... 5.56 gal.....1.0 gal ....... 0.67 gal
if you drive 18 miles ........ 1.2 gal ...... 1 gal ........ 0.18 gal.... 0.12 gal
if you drive 15 miles........ 1 gal .......... 0.83 gal..... 0.15 gal ..... 0.1 gal
The intersection is the actual gallons of gasoline used
Therefore, if one drives 150 miles with a 15 MPG vehicle, it requires 10 gallons of gasoline
However, if one drives the same 150 miles with a 150 MPG vehicle it requires 1 gallon
Thus, the difference is 9 gallons of gasoline
Calculated Relative Percentage Change
18 MPG/15MPG vs 150 MPG/100MPG
83% vs 67%
Since 83% is larger than 67%, one might confuse the percentage rise
as an improvement, when it is merely a artifact of division. Even if the percentage change is 83% versus 67%, the actual gasoline used is vastly different between the two scenarios.
This reveals the misleading nature of percentages when applied in this way.
Moreover, a more correct way to view the physical setting is, if you use a 15 MPG vehicle instead of a 150 MPG vehicle, it requires 1000 percent of the fuel use.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:52 pm
11 Nov 2009
Drive 100 miles.
Drive a 10 MPG vehicle and burn 10 gallons.
Improve your ride's mileage 50%...
Drive a 15 MPG vehicle and burn 6.7 gallons.
Fuel saved? 3.3 gallons.
Drive a 40 MPG vehicle and burn 2.5 gallons.
Improve your ride's mileage 50%...
Drive a 60 MPG vehicle and burn 1.7 gallons.
Fuel saved? 0.8 gallons.
Permalink
ToSeek Posted 12:56 pm
11 Nov 2009
at 15 mpg you'll use 120 gallons of fuel
at 18 mpg you'll use 100 gallons of fuel
You've saved 20 gallons
at 50 mpg you'll use 36 gallons of fuel
at 100 mpg you'll use 18 gallons of fuel
You've saved 18 gallons
Therefore, in terms of absolute usage of gasoline, the change from 15 to 18 saves more fuel than the change from 50 to 100. Even Coffey's own numbers show this, if you look at actual fuel usage rather than percentages.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 3:36 pm
11 Nov 2009
I think you're missing the point: 120 gallons is many times greater than 36 gallons for the same trip. Just because one "incremental difference" technically saves 2 gallons more than another "incremental difference" (20 minus 18 gallons), does not mean that is an efficient use of fuel, it's merely a game with numbers.
So, I suppose that if we have an automobile which gets one mile to the gallon and we up it to two miles to the gallon, and then drive 1800 miles, we get 1800 gallons minus 900 gallons, which saves 900 gallons of gasoline. Whereas, the 100 mile per gallon vehicle goes to 150 miles per gallon and only uses 6 fewer gallons (18 gallons minus 12).
By your logic, that means that the first scenario is better than the latter because it gets a 50% increase and saves 900 gallons, and the second only gets a mere 33% increase and saves a mere 18 gallons.
Clearly if the object of the game is to see who can incrementally save the most then the least efficient wins because they use the most for the least return. Excellent environmental policy - if you're in the business of selling gasoline.
OK, I'll bite: what engineering school did you graduate from, I've just got to know?
As a last thought, who will have the best dinner out on the town with the money they still have in their pockets after they drive the 1800 miles?
Permalink
ToSeek Posted 5:13 pm
11 Nov 2009
I'm not saying that's better - in my opinion, 18 mpg is still sucky gas mileage. I haven't driven a car with mileage that bad since I learned to drive on my parents' 1966 Plymouth Fury station wagon.
But if I trade in my 30 mpg Nissan for a 50 mpg Prius, I'm still not doing as much good for the environment as if I persuade my neighbor to trade in his 15 mpg Ford F-150 for a 20 mpg Toyota Tundra (or whatever - I haven't checked the actual mileage on these guys).
Yes, ideally, I could persuade my neighbor to buy a Prius, too, but you do what you can. For my part, the car my wife and I primarily drive is a 2000 Honda Insight whose lifetime average mpg is 56 and which could go 1800 highway miles on under 30 gallons of gas.
We eat out as often as we like. ;)
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 5:51 pm
11 Nov 2009
This falls into semantics - word games, worse, silly word games.
What I have been saying from the beginning is that this entire observation that you "save more" by "using slightly less of more" elevates silliness over substance. Its simply a comparison between two things which focus only on the difference in the increments, not on the total difference in consumption. Just because incremental differences are relatively larger in small numbers, is no reason to avoid the more important aspect: how much fuel is consumed to accomplish the same task.
To suggest that numerically one saves more by switching entirely ignores the fact that you use more overall in less efficient vehicles. Just because there is a difference which is "larger" only matters if you ignore the entirety of the consumption and focus entirely on the difference.
On second thought, this is a waste of time which has become incrementally a bigger waste of time the more I think about it. I think I'll stop while I can recapture a larger increment of my time relative to the time I would have to spend to discuss this bit of time-wasting nonsense.
Permalink
EricHess Posted 4:42 pm
13 Nov 2009
Thanks for your comments on this issue.
The original article isn't stating that 100 MPG cars aren't great. But there is a lot of hype about making a 100MPG car, when in fact there are a lot of fuel savings to be had by making smaller upgrades in the low end of our vehicle fleet.
Instead of focusing our energy on inventing super-efficient cars to replace already efficient cars, we should work to upgrade our super-inefficient at the bottom end of our fleet to more efficient cars. That's where the real savings will occur, as this math shows.
Imagine if we took every 50 MPG car off the road and replaced it with a 100 MPG car. Contrast that that by taking every 15 MPG vehicle off the road and replacing with with an 18 (or 20, or 30) MPG vehicle. We would save a lot more fuel, and it's technology we already have.
Meanwhile, we can keep working on making more efficient vehicles.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 6:53 pm
13 Nov 2009
My view after about 15 years of following the topic of electric cars and hybrids (yes, see AC Propulsion's hybrid trailer hooked to their all electric 200 HP Civic retrofit), is that we need to move rather uniformly to bi-directional pluggable hybrids in order maximize the efficiency of chemical fuels (gasoline, natural gas, diesel, you name it) via regenerative braking and smoothing the energy curves, and by tapping into energy produced locally or stored for grid availability. This combination, with a properly balanced ratio of battery to chemical fuel capacity, allows for a highly flexible shifting between fuels (chemical and electrical) and provides significant opportunities for grid stability and renewable energy storage using SmartGrid interoperability and control.
As we all know, one root of difficulty with high levels of deployment for intermittent renewables stems from the "just in time" nature of power production and usage. The sooner we can deploy a tool of general utility for both grid stability and efficient transportation, the better off we will be.
Incidentally, in 1994 I argued vigorously for hybrids in lieu of all electric vehicles, but few saw the advantages and AC Propulsion feared they would not meet the ZEV standards in California. So the Japanese did it instead.
http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?Commentary_ID=176&SourceCode=20090806tza
Permalink