Yes, it’s another rant, but this time, there’s actual facts and figures on the REAL IMPACT this program stands to have in terms of CO2 emissions, fuel savings, and helping the auto industry.  I hope it helps you to understand why some of us are so adamantly against this legislation.

EDIT: Thanks to Kris Dahl of FatBoyRaceworks for pointing out the error in my calculations!  Post is now correct in terms of percentages.

In 2006, there were well over 250 million vehicles registered in the United States. This program, at best, is aiming to replace just one million of them. That’s 0.4% (four tenths of a percent).

According to the Department of Energy, the United States burned through 390,000,000 gallons of fuel a day. That’s more than 140 BILLION gallons a year. Research from Hyundai suggests that the best-case scenario for the “Handouts for Hummers” program would be a reduction in fuel consumption of 69 million gallons a year. That comes out to 0.04% or a four hundreths of a percent reduction in fuel consumption.

The Energy Information Administration reports that the United States created 2,579,900 metric tons of CO2 (from petroleum alone) in 2007. According to the research from Hyundai (which has a stake in the success of the program and likely feels very optimistic about it), Cash for Clunkers could reduce CO2 output by as much as 600,000 metric tons. That’s a 0.23% reduction in CO2, but it turns into a 0.09% reduction of CO2 emissions overall for the US, which created some 6,000,000 metric tons of CO2 in the same year.

Finally, I understand that there’s a halo effect to this program, stimulating people to get out and onto the lots shopping, where the emotional component of a purchase comes more into play than the rational side, so there’s potential for sales beyond just the 1 million vehicles supporters are rallying to have replaced. Even so, when the industry is crying about how moving 10 million years this year is barely going to be enough to just keep their doors open, a ten percent boost in sales isn’t what I’d call a smashing success.

Suppose they get their additional $2Bn for this program. Whether the standards are tightened, relaxed, or left alone, the program, at it’s current rate, will be out of money again in two weeks. Then what? Do we get “serious” about things and ante up $10Bn so the program will last a full two months? If the demand drops off before the money runs out, do we relax the restrictions? When does this become everybody gets a trophy day?

And what about when they do shut this thing down and demand for new vehicles flatlines again. Are we going to have to go right back to last winter’s pursuits of bailing out automakers who are still too big to fail and still haven’t managed to adapt to market forces? When does the insanity end?

So I realize that, in the broad strokes, a couple billion on this program isn’t much, I realize that there will be a good number of gross polluting vehicles removed from the road and that an improvement, however small, in CO2 emissions, fuel consumption and our economy are noble causes and every little bit helps, but where my tax money is being used as a handout, I feel there should be higher standards in place. I think the working middle class, out here scraping by without bailouts, deserves better.

If we’re going to promote reduced emissions, CO2 figures MUST play a role.
If we’re going to promote improved MPGs, requirements MUST be higher.
If we’re going to promote recycling, engines MUST be parted, NOT destroyed.
If we’re going to help the economy, we need to help the PEOPLE – NOT big auto.

In the glovebox:

• TWICs XXI
• Social Networking: It’s About People
• Gimme a Reason