Comments on: Cash for Clunkers: “Environmental Effects Will Be Negligible”

By: Garrett

Garrett — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:43:11 +0000

Really great information I really enjoyed it!

By: What’s Schipper Saying? “Very Little Energy Savings Per Car Clunked” | TheCityFix.com

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:45:26 +0000

[...] Schipper chimed into the discussion from an environmental standpoint, commenting mainly on his conclusion from earlier this summer that the environmental impact of the program is negligible: “The available data suggest very [...]

By: CGI Live Blogging: Cash For Clunkers “Not a Silver Bullet” | TheCityFix.com

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:45:22 +0000

[...] But not everyone is so enthusiastic about the results of the program. Earlier this summer, EMBARQ’s founder and senior fellow Lee Schipper, along with his colleagues, published research in an op-ed for The Washington Post that said the environmental effects of the government-funded program would be “negligible.” (Read about their specific findings here.) [...]

By: TheCityFix » Consumer Hype Wanes as Cash for Clunkers Revives

TheCityFix » Consumer Hype Wanes as Cash for Clunkers Revives — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:56:26 +0000

[...] our previous post about why the environmental effects of the CARS program will be negligible. Main points: 1) the [...]

By: TheCityFix.com: Exploring Sustainable Solutions to the Problems of Urban Mobility » Blog Archive » Consumer Hype Wanes as Cash for Clunkers Revives

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:40:25 +0000

[...] our previous post about why the environmental effects of the CARS program will be negligible. Main points: 1) the [...]

By: lee schipper

lee schipper — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:23:12 +0000

Thanks for Meander’s comments. An article in tuesday Aug 11 NY Times points out that the original version of the bill would have driven a much larger wedge between clunked and new car MPG, so that the new car would have been much better than the standards and what was being bought anyway. Feebates and other mechanisms would help. In fact buyers have reacted to higher fuel prices by buying cars that in the first half of Model Year 2009 were almost 15% above the CAFE standards, while light trucks were just ahead of standards that were tightened after 2003.
That was one of the points we tried to make – the “outcome” of C4C should be framed as “what was bought versus what would have been bought otherwise”? There the answer is ab out 7.5% less fuel/mile.
And since new cars are driven way more than old clunkers, which car’s miles were replaced. We think from the data DOt kept from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey that the cars the new vehicle replace were former first vehicles getting 20-22 MPG on the road, NOT the clunkers.

The 2008 Household survey will be available later this year. If DOT releases files on the exact switch for each C4C deal we might be able to measure the impact of C4C.

But with at most 750 000 vehicles affected out of perhaps 10 000 000 sold this year and many more in a normal year, the impact is tiny.

Lee Schipper

By: meander

meander — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:13:12 +0000

Although lawmakers from the auto-making states reduced the effectiveness of the fuel consumption (and thus CO2 emission) portion of the cash for clunkers program, the program will have many other benefits, including cleaner air and fewer injuries.

A reduction in smog-forming air pollutants — which many areas in the U.S. desperately need — is almost guaranteed (note that the S.F. Bay Area and L.A. air quality districts have similar programs to get the dirtiest cars off the road). Consider the Environmental Protection Agency’s standard for a smog precursor called nitrogen oxide. In 1994, the standard for passenger cars was 0.6 grams per mile. In 2004 the standard was lowered to just 0.07 grams per mile. That’s almost a 90% reduction from the 1994 level. Emission limits on other pollutants like hydrocarbons (another smog precursor and often toxic on their own) were also significantly reduced between 1994 and 2004. Another benefit is that newer cars are safer, as air bag technology and structural design have improved greatly in recent years and they are less likely to have mechanical failures. It’s also possible that newer cars will run closer to the advertised MPG rating than an older car — the components on older cars are worn, not up to the original precision, and so on.

Ideally, though, all of this criticism will cause future rounds to be much more stringent, perhaps following some of the suggestions proposed by various commentators, like a fee-bate type structure, or a sliding scale for the rebate.

All of the (complicated, phased-in) standards can be found at the EPA’s website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/