Skip to Content
Streetsblog New York City home
Streetsblog New York City home
Log In
Streetsblog

Report: “Cash for Clunkers” Was a Lemon

Here's the thing about subsidies: They encourage people to do more of something than they would have under normal circumstances.

false

That's okay if the activity the government is subsidizing creates an overall benefit for society -- like better educated kids, or a cleaner environment.

But if said subsidy encourages behavior detrimental to society, well, that's just bad policy.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising then that President Obama's Cash for Clunkers program -- which paid people to buy more fuel efficient cars -- is being described as a failure.

According to a recently revised evaluation [PDF] from the environmental group Resources for the Future, the program did little to improve the efficiency of the nation's private auto fleet.

Erica C. Barnett at Network blog PubliCola explains:

According to the report, “the average fuel economy was only 0.65 miles per gallon better than it would have been among newly purchased cars had the program never existed.” Additionally, 45 percent of the new-car buyers who took advantage of the program would have bought new cars anyway, the study found.

The program, the WSJ notes, set the bar for “fuel-efficient new cars” incredibly low—so low that auto owners could get a $3,500 rebate for trading in an 18-mpg “clunker” for a 22 mpg replacement. (The $4,500 rebate kicked in with a 10-mpg fuel-economy improvement.) SUVs, of course, had even lower standards.

Barnett borrows from a Wall Street Journal report that predicted the underwhelming result:

The problem with all this, as Duke’s Bill Chameides pointed out last month, is that making a new car produces, on average, about 6.7 tons of carbon dioxide. By his calculations, it would take at least five years to “pay off” the environmental impact of building the new car with a 22-mile-per-gallon purchase. That SUV might be even worse—the estimated payback time is almost 20 years.

Imagine if the government had put that money into shoring up the nation's shell-shocked public transportation systems. We could be seeing better environmental results, as well as better financial returns.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Steven Can Plan expounds on the Netherlands mobility education program featured by Streetfilms yesterday, which trains young children how to share the road with bicycles and pedestrians. Cycle Fun Montreal instructs readers on how to dress for wintertime cycling. And Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space wonders when colleges will begin to understand the wrongheadedness of subsiding driving through parking.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog New York City

‘Stupendous Potential’: Pay-Per-Mile Auto Insurance Would Cut Costs And Traffic Violence

Lowering car insurance costs doesn't have to eviscerate crash victims's rights.

March 5, 2026

Senate Majority Leader Questions Hochul’s Insurance Premium Scheme

The growing chorus of state lawmakers who want clarity on how the governor's auto insurance helps real New Yorkers now includes Stewart-Cousins, the second-most-powerful woman in state government.

March 5, 2026

Locked In: Mamdani Proposes $25M For Long-Sought Secure Bike Parking

Nine years after the city announced an unrealized plan for secure bike parking, Mayor Mamdani wants $25 million to build a network of 500 bike lockers.

March 5, 2026

Thursday’s Headlines: Mamdani’s Criminal Crackdown on Cyclists Edition

Another day, another criminal summons. And another record from Jimmy and the Jaywalkers. Plus other news.

March 5, 2026

Opinion: A Fairer — And Better — Way For Taxi Passengers To Pay The Congestion Toll

A per-minute, rather than flat, fee on passengers entering the central business district would reduce traffic, Charles Komanoff says.

March 4, 2026

NJ Scales Back Part of Gov. Murphy’s Turnpike Boondoggle

There’s now one less thing for New Yorkers to dislike about New Jersey.

March 4, 2026
See all posts