Cash for Clunkers

Is the government's new plan to pay people to trade in old, inefficient cars and trucks an environmental bane or boon? David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Below is the original script. Some changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

Cash for clunkers sounds like a good idea. Give people cash to upgrade their old cars for more efficient vehicles. Beyond helping the environment, it might also help Detroit's bottom line more than bailouts.

But how does it work in practice?

Germany is a good example. They've had a "wreck rebate" as they call it, since February. The government pays more than $3,000 to people who scrap at least nine-year old cars in favor of a newer vehicle—and there's little doubt that today's cars are more fuel efficient than yesteryears. The program could ultimately cost more than $6 billion.

Here’s the problem: in the U.S. we'll be giving as much as $4,500 to people to consign their clunkers to the scrapyard and then replacing them with vehicles that aren't that much better. Sure we’ll save on fuel and greenhouse gas emissions, going from cars that give us less than 18 miles-per-gallon to cars that can do more than 22 miles-per-gallon.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But the production of a new car is a pretty emissions-intensive process. So to make this program environmentally sound, the fuel efficiency bump between the old and new vehicle has to be sufficiently big enough to justify its manufacture. And that's not the case with the program as it stands now. And that means this program's a clunker.

—David Biello

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe