Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In

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 USA

Talking Headways Podcast: Not Eating Exhaust with Your Beer

Author Mike Eliason on single-stair buildings, development on arterials, building back after climate disasters and the problem with RFPs.

January 30, 2025

What a Federal Funding Freeze Would Actually Mean for Sustainable Transportation

How much do U.S. communities really rely on federal funding to keep their transportation networks running — and what would happen if the money stopped flowing?

January 30, 2025

Q&A: This CEO Has Lessons For E-Bike Regulation

Company CEO Mike Peregudov sits down with Streetsblog to talk about his industry and why putting license plates on e-bikes is a non-starter.

January 30, 2025

Thursday’s Headlines Pick Up the Slack

Now that Donald Trump is back in office, it's up to state and local governments to fund walking, biking and transit projects, according to Fast Company.

January 30, 2025

Everything You Need to Know About Keeping Pedestrians and Bicyclists Safe In Your State, in One Document

Every state legally has to complete a report that shows exactly how it plans to get safer for people on foot and bike — but some do it better than others. A new report breaks down how they could all step up their game.

January 29, 2025
See all posts