Environmental impact of "cash for clunkers"?

Question

Environmental impact of "cash for clunkers"?

Answer 1

Cash for clunkers is not an environmental bill - it's economic. It was clearly intended to encourage the purchase of cars to spin the economy. Judging by the speed at which the funds dried up, I'd say it worked.



If it truly was an environmental initiative, they'd be cubing cars that were 20 years old, not 10. I hardly consider a '97 a "clunker".



As for Dax's concern about hybrids: your old car gets passed down the chain; it doesn't go to the landfill. The nice thing about our auto system is that we can buy used. That means that most cars get a life of 20 or so years. Buy a new hybrid and your old car goes to someone else. Their older car goes to someone else, and so on down the line until the oldest, worst cars at the bottom finally get crushed. The unfortunate thing about this bill is that it's stopping the pass-down from happening and crushing cars when they're still decent.

Answer 2

They are literally destroying wealth.



Obama is taking cars away from the very people who elected him.



Those who are in an economically healthy enough position to buy a new car receive a huge benefit.



The guy who needs a $2000 car to get to work suddenly has a lot fewer cars to choose from.



In most countries, the poor don't have cars. In America, though, the poor drive clunkers. Obama wants to take those cars away.



For an environmental answer: The environmental cost of manufacturing a replacement PROBABLY outweighs the environmental cost of the difference in fuel consumption.

Answer 3

There might be a better use for the junked clunkers if the engines were simply removed and recycled. Still, I doubt that there will be a dearth of parts. At the very worst, you might have to pay for a new replacement part. In any event, don't blame the president; he did not write the bill.



It would be nice if someone could work out the energy cost/benefit of CARS instead of guessing and hand-wringing. Then, we'd know.

Answer 4

everyone here raises good points, taking "clunkers" off the road sounds a good idea, but when all that metal goes to waste... well thats really bad for the envrionment. yes fossile fuels are bad, but the enegry cost of making a new car, crushing the old one, and driving it to a dump is really ineffiecnt. This is why I believe that there need to be more scientists in office, politicans have some good ideas, but they dont really understand the science behind it.

Answer 5

I pay for most of my "in-person" stuff in cash, partly because back when I started to do this is kept me on budget better (I couldn't spend it if I didn't have the cash in my wallet). It's just far to easy to chalk up a huge credit card bill without realizing it (all those coffees add up fast when you aren't paying attention). I also get very annoyed when someone is buying a candy bar or small bag of crisps and they are paying with their credit card--slows things down significantly. But I do know a whole lot of people who never carry cash anymore. And my local supermarket always asks "are you paying by debit card or credit card?" and I go "I'm paying cash!" and it usually takes the check out clerk a second to wrap his/her head around that idea. We do have taxis here that will only take cash (the cab drivers have to pay for the fees the credit card company charges for the use of their card so many drivers won't take credit cards) and I see (generally young) people climb in a cab, then climb back out because they never carry any cash. I personally believe in always carrying a little cash.

Answer 6

Other people have pointed the tremendous waste of this program. It's just they don't always get on the news. Some of them do, though.



One of the problems environmentally is that the carbon and materials that went into the manufacture of the car are essentially wasted if the car isn't used up and is destroyed prematurely. In addition, fuel mileage improvements by themselves are not enough to make up the difference. You'd have to drive the new vehicle for a number of years before you'd see a net benefit. Of course, that's not the only reason to oppose this program.



If they really wanted to help the environment, they'd make sure that people could get their cars repaired, they'd help poorer people get into these newer used cars that are better, they'd allow someone to turn in a working car older than model year 1984, and they would improve the MPG standards for cars. If they just improved fuel standards, the old cars would eventually wear out and then they could be scrapped at that point, if necessary. Then all of the cars left would have better gas mileage. This would just occur naturally. It wouldn't be a case were assets were being destroyed. This asset destruction leaves us poorer as a nation. Read about the fallacy of the broken window on wikipedia.

Answer 7

Ive been wondering this for years. When the whole tree hugger Hybrid thing first got big I was wondering this exact thing. Great you have a hybrid what happened to the car you already had? Oh its in a landfill or junk yard! Wow look how much you and your hybrid helped the environment!

Answer 8

Duke, you do have a valid question imo. My family just used the C4C program to purchase a new vehicle. It just so happens we got rid of our Jeep Grand Cherokee(97) and traded up for a Kia Sedona EX(09). The advantages for us are that the jeep needed so much work done to it, that if we had attempted a straight tradein, we would be lucky if we got $500 for it, $1000 on a private sale.



Although our jeep was in poor/fair shape, there were still many parts that I would have preferred to see recycled versus outright destroyed. New tires about 1yr old. New Lights all around. Interior seats were in excellent shape. Good glass all around that could help someone else at.



The bill was very poorly written yes, we can all agree to that. It was meant to immediately stimulate new car sales, which it has done. It just needs to be modified.



Here are some points that I think should be changed/added:

1. All cars turned in should be sent to 1 or 2 centralized scrap yards for parting out of reusable parts. This would increase jobs for workers to remove the good parts.



2. All parts that are resold to fix up clunkers that couldnt afford the program, the money collected should be put back into the C4C program to extend the life a bit longer, or pay the workers that the scraping has created.



3. I doubt the scraps are being sent to Japan but they should stay in the US for recycling.



I think if these rules were added and followed, many clunkers would be recycled and many more would be effectively repaired.