When the Clunker Is Greener (Want to be green? Consider keeping your clunker)

Washington Post ^ | 8/4/2009 | Gwen Ottinger

[SeekAndFind]

The wildly popular "Cash for Clunkers" program is one of a number of policies funded by this year's stimulus package that encourage consumers to make major purchases in the name of the environment. The program offers incentives for car owners to trade in automobiles getting fewer than 18 miles per gallon for more fuel-efficient vehicles. State-run rebate programs for Energy Star appliances operate similarly, encouraging consumers to replace their washers, dryers and refrigerators with new models that meet efficiency standards set by government agencies. These programs presumably benefit the economy and the environment simultaneously: Increased consumer spending helps manufacturers and retailers, while increases in fuel efficiency reduce the amount of fossil fuels consumed and greenhouse gases generated.

But these consumption-promoting policies are not necessarily a boon to the environment.

First, even when new cars and appliances are more efficient than the ones they replace, the act of replacing them entails environmental costs not accounted for in the stimulus programs. Building a new car, washing machine or refrigerator takes energy and resources: The manufacture of steel, aluminum and plastics are energy-intensive processes, and some of the materials used in durable goods, especially plastics, use non-renewable fossil fuels as feedstocks as well as energy sources. Disposing of old products, a step required by most incentive and rebate programs, also has environmental costs: It takes additional energy to shred and recycle metals; plastic components often cannot be recycled and end up as landfill cover; and the engine fluids, refrigerants and other chemicals essential to operating products end up as hazardous wastes.

Policies that encourage purchases of energy-efficient products may also increase, rather than decrease, energy use by confusing efficiency with consumption.

[KeyLargo]

Someone said today that the program should be called the Korea and Japan bailout program since the majority of cars sold in this program are foreign made.

I thought that this was supposed to help the U.S. auto makers?

[shredderman]

Here in NJ, the Governor has already stated that the $4500.00 “Incentive” will be subject to the 7% Sales Tax, along with the amount of the new car. I thought of trading my 95 Windstar, and found out it qualified, but I need another minivan for my disabled spouse’s scooter. Not too many minivans are offered for a good price, and the ones that are, don’t sound like they will be able to go over 55 mph. The 2010 Ford minivan model has a 4 cylinder engine and looks like a breadtruck! Sorry, I’ll keep it for now....

[shredderman]

My 95 Geo Prizm Gets 25-27 mpg (A/C on or off)in the city, with 35 mpg on the highway......and it’s paid for.

[TomOnTheRun]

My 95 Geo Prizm Gets 25-27 mpg (A/C on or off)in the city, with 35 mpg on the highway......and it’s paid for.

Great! You're a wise shopper who purchased a car that was both durable & thrifty! At least I assume it's durable since you are still able to drive it. I'm really not sure what else you expect me to say.

[KarlInOhio]

I’m increasingly unclear as to the alleged point of this program.

It was to get people to buy more GM and Chrysler cars. The Obama administration is hiding the sales figures because it looks like the big winners are Toyota, Honda and Hyundai.

[sheik yerbouty]

The Obamanite intend to cruch the Ford Motor Company for not bowing to our Dumbo eared emperor..

[jimt]

If your priority was denying oil money to people that you believe support terrorism and murder of your fellow citizens which would you choose?

I'd choose to "drill here, drill now" in the many areas of the US where we can obtain oil & gas.

As opposed to stealing from Peter so Paul can buy a car with the proceeds.

[TomOnTheRun]

"I'd choose to "drill here, drill now" in the many areas of the US where we can obtain oil & gas. ..."

A valid idea but part of a distinctly different program. I'm merely standing my ground on the fact that if reducing oil consumption was a goal of this program there is a lot of evidence suggesting that low mileage cars have been traded in for higher mileage cars. I didn't care about any of the other supposedly green aspects or economic benefits. Sorry. I'm just tickled that people paying the bills of terrorists and murderers have less money to fling around and I want to see what we can do to further reduce that.

[devolve]

[freekitty]

Cars symbolize the great American Dream.

Is there any reason why we are letting the government take away our cars?