Cash-for-Clunkers: Too Much Cash for Cutting Emissions

The popular federal program represents a costly way to reduce emissions, says a UC Davis economist. Would you pay $500 per ton?

The "cash for clunkers" program is wildly popular among consumers and car dealers. Apparently, it is also a wildly expensive way to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The billion-dollar program could cost taxpayers $237 for each ton of greenhouse gas emissions, said Christopher Knittel, an economics professor at UC Davis, in a research paper (he called it "back of the envelope calculations").

That's only under the best-case scenario and roughly 8.5 times higher than the $28-per-ton estimate in the climate change legislation (Waxman-Markey bill) that the House passed in June. The cost could exceed actually $500 per ton, Knittel said.

"While the program is an expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, it is certainly possible that the stimulus benefits outweigh the added environmental costs," Knittel wrote. "I leave this question for a broader analysis of the program, but note that key legislators have suggested that the environmental gains from the program are large."

The federal government launched the "cash for clunkers" program late last month to boost consumer spending on fuel-efficient cars. Car buyers get up to $4,500 toward buying a new car only if they get rid of their gas guzzlers, most of which have turned out to be American brand SUVs and trucks such as Ford Explorer.

The $1 billion program was so popular that it was running out of money on a few weeks after its launch (see Cash for Clunkers: The Program's Inside History). Last week, Congress approved another $2 billion for the program.

The U.S. Department of Transportation, which administers the program, didn't appear to have considered the environmental cost. It only touted that the initial program would take about 250,000 inefficient cars off the road.

Knittel did some calculations to find out just what all of that money would buy in terms of the emissions reduced from replacing polluting vehicles with cleaner ones.

Each gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. Knittel took that number and factored in the government rebate, the fuel economy of the new cars, and the effects of having the clunkers on the road if the program didn't exist.

He also assumed that driving habits wouldn't change after consumers received new cars, though he noted that some analysts believe consumers would in fact drive more given the fuel economy they would gain.

He came up with different savings based on the number of years and the amount of emissions the clunkers would've produced it they weren't taken off the road by the government program.

If the clunker were left on the road longer and therefore produced more pollution, then the cost-per-ton would drop. Knittel's calculations showed that it would cost $333 per ton if the old cars were left on the road for five more years and $556 per ton for three years.

He came up with the $237 per ton estimate, the lowest in his modeling, by factoring in other social and health benefits of getting rid of clunkers.

These benefits would come from reducing the particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and other non-greenhouse gas emissions from the cars. Those emissions are known to cause health and environmental damage as well, and federal and state laws already are in place to regulate those emissions.

Image via kodiax2 / Creative Commons

Comments [3]

  • bill 08/14/09 1:09 PM

    It seems to me that the “human physce” side of the issue is always ignored (which I personally believe to be the most important aspect). At some primitive level, one of the concepts that is being expressed by the program is, “low mileage clunker - bad… higher mileage vehicle - good”. I suspect it would be difficult to measure to what degree this concept is penetrating or being re-enforced in the american physce given the enormous amount of publicity, but it would also be difficult to measure how much if any “good” is being created by the greentechmedia website.. Personally, I’m convinced that both ideas are an amazing success..

    Reply
  • Barry Fitzgerald 08/15/09 7:42 PM

    The real failing of the program was that it was not nearly as aggressive as it should have been at eliminating future gas guzzling. One could drive in their 12MPG truck and drive out an brand new 16MPG gas hog with a service life of 10+ years! No vehicle getting less than 26MPG should have been allowed to be sold and those only at the lower tier. A huge opportunity was LOST here as a good idea was watered down by ethically challenged legislators. There are less than 200 tank fill-ups of American oil in existence, under above or in between the ground. The time for panic is NOW!

    Reply
  • ML 08/15/09 10:42 PM

    The original “Cash for Clunkers” proposal had an option to receive a $4,000 credit towards public transportation for each clunker traded in… Being that this never made it into the final bill makes me believe this is really a government handout to the auto industry dressed up as an ‘environmental’ bill. 

    Such a missed opportunity to get our society to really start critically examining the core of the clunkers problem: our culture and habits.

    Reply
.