Comments on: Separating Myth From Fact on “Cash for Clunkers” http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Irvin Dawid http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-94261 Irvin Dawid Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:23:46 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-94261 My apologies - it's the current program or nada, as Daniel above noted. And yes, the trade-up requirements are way too lax for SUVs and large trucks/vans - anywhere from 1 to 5 mpg as opposed to the 4-10 mpg for cars, as Larry above notes. However, as I heard <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=111527095&m=111527052" rel="nofollow">NPR: Senators Debate Clunker Extension"</a> this morning, "80% of the trade-ins are trucks and SUVs, Ford Focus the most popular vehicle purchased, and 10 mpg the average increase in efficiency for the new vehicle over the trade-in", it would seem the American public are truly using this program wisely - reducing both carbon emissions as well as criteria pollutants. My apologies – it’s the current program or nada, as Daniel above noted. And yes, the trade-up requirements are way too lax for SUVs and large trucks/vans – anywhere from 1 to 5 mpg as opposed to the 4-10 mpg for cars, as Larry above notes.

However, as I heard NPR: Senators Debate Clunker Extension” this morning, “80% of the trade-ins are trucks and SUVs, Ford Focus the most popular vehicle purchased, and 10 mpg the average increase in efficiency for the new vehicle over the trade-in”, it would seem the American public are truly using this program wisely – reducing both carbon emissions as well as criteria pollutants.

]]> By: J. Mork http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-93871 J. Mork Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:08:54 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-93871 Also, don't the CAFE rules stipulate the average fuel efficiency of all cars sold by one company? Selling a few more "high" mileage cars will just enable the car companies to sell more low mileage cars to someone else. Also, don’t the CAFE rules stipulate the average fuel efficiency of all cars sold by one company? Selling a few more “high” mileage cars will just enable the car companies to sell more low mileage cars to someone else.

]]> By: Daniel Nairn http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-93751 Daniel Nairn Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:06:31 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-93751 Irvin, I do agree that the Feinstein bill is much better than the one we're currently stuck with, but I don't think the Senate can change anything now. The House has already gone into recess, and the money will run dry by Friday. It's all or nothing. I think the environmental community should know when to fold their hand, even if they thought it was good at first. Irvin, I do agree that the Feinstein bill is much better than the one we’re currently stuck with, but I don’t think the Senate can change anything now. The House has already gone into recess, and the money will run dry by Friday. It’s all or nothing. I think the environmental community should know when to fold their hand, even if they thought it was good at first.

]]> By: Larry Littlefield http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-93721 Larry Littlefield Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:41:30 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-93721 You need to get 10 mph more to get $4,500 when trading in a car. But for those who took the socially sanctioned route of getting a low mileage SUV, a 1 mph gain will get you $3,500, I believe. As existing SUVs get bought, new ones will be built. You need to get 10 mph more to get $4,500 when trading in a car.

But for those who took the socially sanctioned route of getting a low mileage SUV, a 1 mph gain will get you $3,500, I believe.

As existing SUVs get bought, new ones will be built.

]]> By: Jim Mearkle http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-93541 Jim Mearkle Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:18:03 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-93541 $1B would fund a whole lot of sidewalks... $1B would fund a whole lot of sidewalks…

]]> By: Rhywun http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-93481 Rhywun Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:33:12 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-93481 The "ethanol industry" (i.e. corn growers) are upset that their massive subsidy might be raided to provide a massive subsidy for someone else. Rent-seeking at its finest. The “ethanol industry” (i.e. corn growers) are upset that their massive subsidy might be raided to provide a massive subsidy for someone else. Rent-seeking at its finest.

]]> By: Irvin Dawid http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-93471 Irvin Dawid Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:29:02 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-93471 Ian, when a car is scrapped and its replacement gets 10 mpg more, and assuming its driven the same mileage as the replacement (yes, huge assumption...good for another article there), the carbon emissions and oil consumption FOR THAT HOUSEHOLD are HUGELY reduced. However, I was responding to minuscule aggregates savings reported by energy crunching analysts in <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE56U4KW20090731" rel="nofollow">Reuters: Clunker scheme a tiny boost for U.S. fuel efficiency</a>. Critics are a dime a dozen.... Daniel et.al: Contact your Senators today and have them consider the <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/04/BU9O1808JK.DTL" rel="nofollow">Sen.Feinstein bill (D-CA),S.247</a> to replace the current program. "Vouchers would range from $1,500 to $4,500 and could also be used for mass transit. I share your concern about the lack of modal opportunity. Alas, Feinstein lost and Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio,and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. won that debate.... Ian, when a car is scrapped and its replacement gets 10 mpg more, and assuming its driven the same mileage as the replacement (yes, huge assumption…good for another article there), the carbon emissions and oil consumption FOR THAT HOUSEHOLD are HUGELY reduced. However, I was responding to minuscule aggregates savings reported by energy crunching analysts in Reuters: Clunker scheme a tiny boost for U.S. fuel efficiency. Critics are a dime a dozen….

Daniel et.al:
Contact your Senators today and have them consider the Sen.Feinstein bill (D-CA),S.247 to replace the current program.
“Vouchers would range from $1,500 to $4,500 and could also be used for mass transit.
I share your concern about the lack of modal opportunity. Alas, Feinstein lost and Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio,and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. won that debate….

]]> By: Ian Turner http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-93441 Ian Turner Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:17:16 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-93441 Irwin, If this program doesn't effect oil consumption, isn't that the same thing as saying that it doesn't affect carbon emmissions or criteria pollutants? Irwin,

If this program doesn’t effect oil consumption, isn’t that the same thing as saying that it doesn’t affect carbon emmissions or criteria pollutants?

]]> By: Daniel Nairn http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-93421 Daniel Nairn Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:56:21 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-93421 If equity were taken into consideration, the program would have allowed the purchase of used cars, transit, or bicycles. Since it didn't, there are already signs that used cars may even inflate in value, hurting the very people who are barred from participating in this program in the first place. The poor are either not driving or no where near able to come up with the 20K+ for a new car. Then there is the slightly-better-off class (I consider myself here) that would be able to spring for a new car with this subsidy by using it for a down payment on a loan. I'm not sure if pushing these folks in this direction is the best thing for their long-term financial stability, however. Especially with a very tenuous employment situation. This is a time for scaling back and changing course, not full steam ahead with the old way doing things. If equity were taken into consideration, the program would have allowed the purchase of used cars, transit, or bicycles. Since it didn’t, there are already signs that used cars may even inflate in value, hurting the very people who are barred from participating in this program in the first place.

The poor are either not driving or no where near able to come up with the 20K+ for a new car. Then there is the slightly-better-off class (I consider myself here) that would be able to spring for a new car with this subsidy by using it for a down payment on a loan. I’m not sure if pushing these folks in this direction is the best thing for their long-term financial stability, however. Especially with a very tenuous employment situation.

This is a time for scaling back and changing course, not full steam ahead with the old way doing things.

]]> By: Irvin Dawid http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-93411 Irvin Dawid Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:41:40 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-93411 I think the critics are missing the point here - this isn't about how much less oil will be imported because of this program, rather it's about an individual household trading in their guzzler for a modern, efficient vehicle, resulting in less criteria pollutants as well as less carbon emissions. Consider that to get the full $4500 trade-in credit, the new car must by 10 mpg greater than the trade-in - that will result in an enormous saving for that household. I think an equity argument could easily be made for this programs as well as the economic stimulus and environmental improvement. I think the critics are missing the point here – this isn’t about how much less oil will be imported because of this program, rather it’s about an individual household trading in their guzzler for a modern, efficient vehicle, resulting in less criteria pollutants as well as less carbon emissions. Consider that to get the full $4500 trade-in credit, the new car must by 10 mpg greater than the trade-in – that will result in an enormous saving for that household. I think an equity argument could easily be made for this programs as well as the economic stimulus and environmental improvement.

]]> By: Mark Walker http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-93391 Mark Walker Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:01:15 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-93391 "'Change you can believe in' has morphed into 'a status quo you will bend heaven and earth to hold onto'." -- today's column by <a>James Howard Kunstler</a> “‘Change you can believe in’ has morphed into ‘a status quo you will bend heaven and earth to hold onto’.” — today’s column by James Howard Kunstler

]]> By: travis http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/08/03/separating-myth-from-fact-on-%e2%80%9ccash-for-clunkers%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-93331 travis Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:26:03 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=22161#comment-93331 What about the embodied energy it takes to manufacture 250,000+ new cars? I find it hard to believe that, all told, this program reduces our carbon footprint whatsoever. And if we're going to steal from one government program to fund another, let's make sure the dollars are spent to fundamentally restructure what got us into this mess in the first place. These billions could have bought light rail for ten transit-deprived American cities, which would provide a bigger long-term boost to the economy, taking thousands of gas-guzzling cars off the road in the process. But as always, the quick fix band-aid for the auto industry rules the day. What about the embodied energy it takes to manufacture 250,000+ new cars? I find it hard to believe that, all told, this program reduces our carbon footprint whatsoever.

And if we’re going to steal from one government program to fund another, let’s make sure the dollars are spent to fundamentally restructure what got us into this mess in the first place. These billions could have bought light rail for ten transit-deprived American cities, which would provide a bigger long-term boost to the economy, taking thousands of gas-guzzling cars off the road in the process. But as always, the quick fix band-aid for the auto industry rules the day.

]]>