Comments | martian687: Cash for Waste

martian687

Cash for Waste

Aug 03, 2009 11:30

I've been silently fuming over the Cash for Clunkers program since it went live last week. According to the rules, the program contributes a $3500 or $4500 credit towards the trade-in of an inefficient "clunker" (defined as a vehicle < 25 years old that gets < 18mpg) for the purchase of a new "fuel efficient" vehicle. The rules define "fuel ( Read more... )

Comments 36

mbrubeck August 3 2009, 16:29:26 UTC

Simple subtraction ("a 0-4 mpg improvement") is the wrong math here. If you're trying to reduce fuel consumption, then you need to invert the units before subtracting.

For a given trip distance, upgrading a truck from 16 to 18 mpg saves more fuel than upgrading a car from 25 to 30 mpg.

(And 16 -> 18.5 mpg saves more fuel than 30 -> 40 mpg.)

(A zero mpg savings is of course a wash no matter how you measure it. And the incentives of the program are certainly all messed up...)

martian687 August 3 2009, 16:31:19 UTC

There is also the fact that if you consider the environmental impact of manufacturing a single car, the most environmentally friendly thing to do is keep a running car on the road.

porfinn August 3 2009, 17:34:44 UTC

Yes! That's why this pissed me off. This was an incentive to buy a new car wrapped in warm-fuzzy, feel-good BS. I do not like incentives that give people any reason to feel a sense of smug, self-satisfaction for making a so-called green choice when the only thing green about that choice is if the new car they purchased happens to be that color!

saerulj August 5 2009, 03:50:54 UTC

do you have some data to back this up? i'd be curious how long i have to drive my new car to make up for its manufacturing costs to the environment as compared to keeping (and driving) my old car.

Thread 5

omega697 August 3 2009, 17:13:30 UTC

It IS about bailing out Detroit, and since fuel consumption is really not nearly as large a part of the costs of car ownership as people perceive it to be, hybrids are not worth the increased cost to everyone.

Now, I'm as environmental-minded as the next chap, so I also disagree with the program, but let's be clear that it is not aimed at reducing our consumption of fuel. If we wanted to do that, we'd do bus passes/bikes for clunkers or something. Or, you know, invest the 3 billion dollars in electric vehicle technology instead.

sillygoosegirl August 3 2009, 19:07:40 UTC

I didn't realize this was supposed to have anything to do with the environment (which, of course, it really doesn't), I thought it was just meant to be a stimulus. Don't even get me started on how messed up our economy must be if we can "jump start it" by paying people to buy things they don't need ( ... )

well, now i've actually read something about this... saerulj August 5 2009, 03:40:30 UTC

since it seems likely i'll be taking advantage of this program. and i have to disagree, although admittedly i'm now biased ( ... )

Re: well, now i've actually read something about this... martian687 August 5 2009, 03:51:21 UTC

1. The MOST environmentally friendly thing to do with a running car is keep it running. Any reduction in carbon emissions from increased fuel efficiency is totally obliterated by the environmental impact of manufacturing a new car. Thus, by taking running cars off the road and then destroying them so they can't continue to be used, the program results in a net harm to the environment. The fact that the engines are required to be destroyed within seven days means that many recycling/scrap yards won't even bother trying to part out the clunkers, as the cost of dismantling and parting out the car is more than they will likely make in profit. (Most of the value in a car is in the engine ( ... )

Re: well, now i've actually read something about this... saerulj August 5 2009, 04:02:05 UTC

yes, i read the article and i found it "fluffy." statementes like "Worse, cash for clunkers might cause more driving, since new cars are more fun to drive" really seem to have no data behind them ( ... )

Re: well, now i've actually read something about this... martian687 August 5 2009, 04:40:28 UTC

1. This was something I'd repeatedly heard, but I could only find one article about it, and it was a study conducted in the UK:"Some 80-90% of a vehicle’s lifetime energy consumption takes place during its ‘in-use’ phase. Emissions of local air pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen during use are higher than those produced during all other phases of a vehicle’s lifetime and make up the greatest environmental impacts associated with road vehicles."

So in terms of energy use, there is definitely a benefit to getting a new, more fuel efficient car. But this doesn't address the environmental impact of the waste products generated in the manufacturing of a new car.
"...an average of about 75% of the weight of each End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) is already recycled or reused, mostly through
parts reuse and recycling of metals." The remaining 25% ends up in landfills, and accounts of 0.3% of total UK waste.
75% recycled sounds pretty good, right? Oh wait, except that under this program the engines of the cars must be destroyed, leaving little ( ... )

Thread 25

stupid stupid stupid inkyblue2 August 5 2009, 04:16:39 UTC

this whole thing is dumb. i am the US government. i have a spare $4500 and i give a shit about carbon emissions. what should i do ( ... )

Re: stupid stupid stupid saerulj August 5 2009, 12:38:29 UTC

can you 'flip' cars? o_O?
i thought they depreciate by thousands just by driving them off the lot? ; )

"spare money to buy a brand new car" is a flippant way of assuming that this is a luxury purchase for people using the program- i think the stats actually imply that it's people buying the cheapest replacement cars they can really get.

seriously though, please read the thread above with some more facts.

instead of complaining that it doesn't do enough, people should be saying this is the first step- how can we make it better?

Re: stupid stupid stupid inkyblue2 August 5 2009, 14:41:40 UTC

we're all middle class here on LJ. $15k is only cheap by our standards. there are people in this town who don't own cars, can't afford cars, and have to take the bus to work because it's their only way around. those people aren't getting any cash for clunkers. there are also people who own a shitty old beater that qualifies, but they can't get financing and/or swing the extra $200-300 per month that a new car (minus $4500) would cost. those people don't get any help from this program, either. the people who get the money are people who already have extra room in their budget for a new car purchase ( ... )

Re: stupid stupid stupid saerulj August 5 2009, 17:39:14 UTC

yep- this is a program targeted towards the middle class, definitely. you can't help everyone all the time.

can you link the carbon offset data you mentioned?