For doubting Thomases of Cash for Clunkers handouts, here's more fodder for skepticism in the face of what proved blowout media coverage: according to a University of California-Davis study, the federal government's Cash for Clunkers program is expected to have paid "at least 10 times the 'sticker price' to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide."
"While carbon credits are projected to sell in the
"When burned, a gallon of gasoline creates roughly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. I combined that known value with an average rebate of $4,200 and a range of assumptions about the fuel economy of the new vehicles purchased and how long the clunkers would have been on the road if not for the program," Knittel said through the statement. "I even assumed drivers didn't change their habits, although some analysts have suggested that the owners of new vehicles will drive more than they would have with their old cars."
"In the end, the lowest cost to remove one ton of carbon from the environment was $237. More likely scenarios produced a cost of more than $500 per ton, even when we accounted for reductions in pollutants other than greenhouse gases," he said. "That suggests the Cash for Clunkers program is an expensive way to reduce carbon."
Knittel's study did not analyze the program's other goals of stimulating the economy and providing relief for automobile manufacturers, the university said. Knittel's analysis, titled "The Implied Cost of Carbon Dioxide Under the Cash for Clunkers Program," was published online by the
Enjoyed this posting. Very creative. The professor didn't consider the idea of cash-for-clunkers keeping US autoworkers employed and aiding US auto dealers, who are often politically connected and large contributors to local economies in smaller cities. That's why climate change is such an immensly sticky topic.
Cash for clunkers had several benefits and the study you cite only addresses one. It was economic stimulus and, by all accounts, was incredibly successful as such. It was a support for an industry facing tremendous challenges (both the auto manufacturers and dealers). Again, it was wildly successful on this front. By removing older, dirtier vehicles from the road, it also will help cities like Denver address air pollution, including (but not limited to) high ozone. It also will help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. And, yes, it will limit carbon emissions. That's a win-win-win-win-win situation(five wins by my count). That's two and a half times as many "wins" as the typical win-win situation.:) (Full disclosure: I represent the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association.)