Is ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Good for the Planet?
Is ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Good for the Planet?
California economist reveals the true cost of carbon abatement from Car Allowance Rebates
The University of California Energy Institute has just published a thought-provoking study by UC Davis transportation economist Christopher Knittel focusing the federal Car Allowance Rebate System
Knittel modeled potential reductions in fuel consumption under the program and found that American taxpayers are doling out at least $237 per ton of carbon abated by subsidizing the replacement of old gas-guzzlers with more efficient new cars
Of course Cash for Clunkers is as much about stimulating the U.S. auto industry as it is an environmental program, but an equivalent investment of public monies in cost-effective home retrofitting would bring about much greater environmental benefits and create good construction jobs for American workers.
Read the press release from UC Davis:Download The Implied Cost of Carbon Dioxide Under the Cash for Clunkers Progrm in PDF format here:###
http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/csemwp189.pdf
http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/csemwp189.pdf
http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/csemwp189.pdf
– popularly known as “Cash for Clunkers.” – and that figure is only a best-case scenario. “More likely scenarios produced a cost of more than $500 per ton,” Knittel said, “even when we accounted for reductions in pollutants other than greenhouse gases.” Even at $237 per ton, Knittel’s study suggests that greenhouse gas reductions under the Cash for Clunkers program cost nearly ten times the projected carbon allowance price of $28 per ton under the Waxman-Markey cap and trade program.
Copyright © 2009 Efficiency First ·
Powered by
A large concern for everyone with this program is efficiency of spending taxpayer funds. The only reason for taxpayer assistance in replacing an older 18mpg car with a new 22mpg car is to benefit various beleaguered American car makers. Cash for Clunkers, of course, was not limited to American-made cars or to the “big three”.
One way to improve the efficiency of the program would be to take bids from the public on the “delta” between the trade-in and the replacement car. Buyers with a 12mpg trade in and a 40mpg replacement would be prioritized and the efficiency of taxpayer dollars maximized.
How about a lower-cost carbon reduction program – Cash For Incandescent Light Bulbs. Since CFL and LED technology offer 80% or more electricity savings over incandescent, it is time to put these dinosaurs to rest. Impose a 12-month deadline on the sale of all incandescents and a January 31st 2010 deadline on the sale of decorative string lights (holiday lighting). This has known, measurable savings in electrical usage AND no cost to taxpayers. There could be a government rebate program (like the digital TV rebates) to help with the cost of replacement bulbs – but even this is optional.