‘Clunkers’ benefit debatable

The pitch for Cash for Clunkers included the environmental benefits of getting less fuel-efficient cars off the road. But whether sidelining clunkers translates to reducing the haze that sometimes shrouds the Las Vegas Valley remains to be seen.

Even to see "marginal improvement," said Dave Hassenzahl, Environmental Studies Department chairman at UNLV, there's an if -- and that is whether "people are going to drive the same amount." And some experts doubt that will be the case; people will want to drive their new rides more than they would have their clunkers, offsetting any environmental benefit.

As for the amount of money spent on rebates aimed at reducing emissions from smog precursors or carbon dioxide, "we would spend it in much better ways than the Cash for Clunkers," said Hassenzahl, who has spent 20 years working on air quality issues including risks associated with pollution and climate.

"This was a stimulus for car makers," he said.

A growing number of researchers who analyzed the program arrived at the same conclusion: It gave a financial boost to the automobile industry but does little for the environment at a high cost.

And its impact on reducing the carbon footprint that many scientists say causes global warming is debatable.

Even improvements to air quality by putting more cars on the road that are better equipped for reducing smog-forming emissions can't be measured.

As one local automotive recycler noted, the program left some of the biggest polluters on the road, and most of the cars and trucks that were sent to the scrap yard, though older, already were equipped with pollution controls.

"In my opinion, I thought this was a total economic stimulus program," said Steve Burke, general manager of Nevada Pic A Part, an automobile recycling business.

"Most of the people who drive the cars that pollute the most can't afford a car payment. So they limp along with the cars they got, which pollute a lot," he said.

It would have been better, according to The National Center for Policy Analysis, if those drivers could have received a rebate to apply toward the purchase of "any vehicle with better fuel economy," including used cars.

Many poor people are unable to afford a new car even with a rebate, said the center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization. A voucher would have encouraged people with low incomes to trade a 20-year-old used car for 5- to 7-year-old cars with better fuel economy and improved emissions technologies.

Christopher Knittel, in a paper this month for the University of California Energy Institute's Center for the Study of Energy Markets, reported that a number of variables need to be taken into account when assessing the program.

Among those noted by Knittel are that some people were turning in cars and trucks that weren't being used. And motorists would tend to drive more miles per year in more fuel efficient cars, since doing so is more affordable.

Based on average annual vehicle miles of 12,000 -- if clunkers and new cars are driven the same and the clunker's fuel economy is 16 miles per gallon and new cars get 25 miles per gallon -- then Cash for Clunkers saves 270 gallons for every year the clunker would have been on the road.

Burning a gallon of gasoline creates about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide -- or 2.7 tons of carbon dioxide for each year the clunker would have survived.

If the clunker would have stayed on the road another four years, sending it to the junk yard now saves 10.8 tons of carbon dioxide. That translates to more than $400 per ton, if the deal for a new car involved a $4,500 taxpayer-financed rebate.

Under so-called industrial "cap-and-trade" programs in Europe and proposed in the United States -- where carbon becomes a commodity that can be traded if a cap is set on the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions -- then the price of a credit for reducing a ton of carbon or preventing that much emission is $20 and $28, respectively.

Even if Cash for Clunkers took vehicles off the road that could have been driven for 10 additional years, the carbon price is still more than $200 per ton, Knittel noted.

The National Center for Policy Analysis found that the rebate program cost the government $3 billion and failed to accomplish the program goals except for possibly improving urban air quality.

"There is evidence that removing older cars from the road will cut air pollution, but the numbers indicate that any reduction in carbon dioxide emissions or oil consumption will be minimal -- and expensive," according to the group.

Cash for Clunkers, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, offered consumers rebates of between $3,500 and $4,500 for trading in vehicles that got less than 18 miles per gallon for new cars that get more than 22 miles per gallon, or new trucks that get at least 18 miles per gallon. This resulted in roughly 750,000 trade-ins nationwide.

One advocate for curbing climate change, Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, asserts that the difference in gasoline consumption doesn't necessarily translate to reducing the carbon footprint.

All it does is replace old clunkers with new clunkers, said Becker, noting that new cars sold gets only a few miles per gallon more than ones that were scrapped.

Cash for Clunkers "wasn't an environmental program," said Becker, a lawyer and climate expert whose work for 25 years has focused on global warming. Instead, the program was promoted by automakers to get cars off lots.

"We didn't have a subsidy before the program and the average consumer was buying a car that got 25 miles per gallon," Becker said. "We're not getting benefits to the environment. Instead, we're getting the same kinds of vehicles with the subsidy. And that's not great for the taxpayers."

Regardless of whether the vehicle is a Hummer or a hybrid, the carbon footprint for burning a gallon of gasoline is about 28 pounds of carbon dioxide, taking into account more than 7 pounds that result from extracting, transporting and refining fuel.

Hassenzahl said what matters "is how far you're driving" and what the motorist is getting out of the effort to burn a gallon of fuel.

In the end, if the motorist trades in a clunker and drives more because it is less expensive, then the clunker's carbon footprint isn't offset, he said.

Contact reporter Keith Rogers at krogers@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0308.