The Toyota Rav 4, one of the many SUVs to qualify for the "Cash for Clunkers" program
It is frustrating to see the Obama administration support an additional $2 billion dollars in funding for the $1 billion dollar “Cash for Clunkers” program under the facade of increasing efficiency and decreasing emissions. A recent study confirms what anyone could have seen coming–”Cash for Clunkers” has done nothing for reducing our emissions and oil consumption. For $3 billion dollars and 250,000-750,000 new cars, a .05 to .15 percent decrease in oil consumption (yes, that’s between 1/20th and 1/6th of a percent) is completely insignificant. Obama and the Democrats should at least quit the environmentalist and conservationist rhetoric and be straightforward with the true intentions of “Cash for Clunkers”–another ineffective bailout of the automobile industry.
If Obama and the Democrats really wanted to reduce oil consumption and emissions, there’s a wide range of measures they could take that would have an effect more than ten times as great as “Cash for Clunkers.” At a fraction of the cost, lowering the speed limit from 65 to 55 and encouraging regular tire inflation could cut gas consumption 2-3% apiece. I’ve also discussed the potential benefits of a moderate investment into pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in reducing our emissions and oil consumption while making us a healthier nation, and $3 billion could increase bicycling’s mode share at least 2-3% nationwide. $3 billion could go a long way in assisting struggling transit agencies nationwide, while still having money left over to develop a streetcar, light rail, and DMU manufacturing industry so cities could stop buying European-made transit vehicles. And, if the Democrats still cannot escape the political lobby of the automobile industry, at least mandate the purchasing of hybrids and other highly-efficient vehicles, rather than subsidizing more SUVs and gas guzzlers that get as little as 22mpg for passenger vehicles and 15mpg for trucks!
So Obama, Lahood, and the Democrats, please stop wasting taxpayer money with a greenwashed second bailout of the automobile industry. There’s so many better things that we could do with $3 billion dollars.
More info here.
I’d like to of see that when they appropriated the additional funds they boosted up the requirements significantly. At least that would of been better.
It’s true that there are more efficient ways to reduce our oil consumption. As the article states: “Even if the program is extended, analysts said the scheme will shave little more than 0.05 percent, or between 4,000 and 5,000 barrels per day, off the nation’s daily consumption of 9 million barrels.”
But this is also an economic stimulus package with the goal of infusing money into the system, which most mainstream economists believe limits a recession. It’s also an infusion of funds into the auto industry, which is hard to feel sorry for but will help the U.S. economy if it stays in business.
Is cash for clunkers perfect. Absolutely not. But I think it’s serving several purposes and shouldn’t be discounted completely because it’s not the ideal way to reduce oil consumption.
And I’d love to hear just how we get people to regularly inflate their tires.
It’s not really the ideal way to stimulate the car industry either–a lot of economists are saying that increased car sales now will come at the expense of car sales 6, 12, or 18 months down the road. I just there’s better ways to stimulate the industry over the long term. The Washington Post recently had a good bit on it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/08/08/GR2009080802658.html
The author claims cash for clunkers won’t reduce gas consumption is absured.
The reduction is at least and estimated low of 5000 to a high of over 10000 barrels of oil a day. Remember that the newer cars Must be significantly higher in MPG. Common sense shows that replacing thousands of low mpg vehicles with high mpg cars,tIt will save fuel.
5,000 to 10,000 barrels of oil per day is pretty insignificant when you consider the U.S. consumes 20.8 million barrels per day–that’s a .04% reduction (four hundredths of a percent). Considering we’re putting three billion into this program, that’s definitely not worth it. And while newer cars must have higher gas mileage, it can be as little as 2 mpg higher, which I wouldn’t call “significant.” Common sense shows that America has 250 million registered cars, and a three billion dollar subsidy for 750,000 new cars that use an average of 25% less fuel isn’t going to do anything for reducing oil consumption or emissions.
Also see below for another analysis of the ineffectiveness of Cash for Clunkers from an environmental standpoint:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/42260