New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe