The Mises Institute monthly, free with membership
September 1996
Volume 14, Number 9
The War on Clunkers
Eric Peters
If there's anything a government bureaucrat hates more than
the unhampered market, it's the automobile. He'll do anything to
take it away from people, though of course he'll couch his true
intentions in euphemistic banalities about "cleaning up the air."
So-called "clunker" laws are a case in point. They have been
sprouting up like fungi after a rain. They use tax dollars to
finance the removal of cars built before the advent of modern
computerized emissions controls. The theory is that these
"clunkers" are the largest contributors to our smog problem.
In truth, clunker laws are not about improving the quality of
the air. They are about giving huge government subsidies to big
industrial polluters--coal-burning utility companies mostly--in
the guise of a "free-market" solution to air pollution.
As usual, the problem originates in Washington. Federal
mandates stemming from the ill-conceived 1990 amendments to the
Clean Air Act require states to meet an arbitrarily set air
quality standard. Otherwise, they face losing funding for highway
construction and maintenance.
The portion of the Act that specifically threatens old
automobiles is the provision mandating reductions in mobile
sources. That's bureaucratic cant for car and truck emissions at
levels to be set by the Environmental Protection Agency in
"non-attainment areas." Non-attainment areas are parts of the
country--cities mostly--which do not meet the standards set forth
in the act.
Since old cars, derisively referred to as clunkers, are highly
visible and easily portrayed as mobile bilge barges, they are an
attractive target for state governments seeking to find ways to
meet the federal government's requirements.
The schemes run the gamut, from programs that provide
incentives for people to trade in their older cars to elaborate,
transferable emissions credits. Under these, large industries
avoid compliance with emissions requirements if they heldp get
old cars off the road.
Granting emissions credits to smokestack industries as a
market-oriented way to get clunkers off the road. But granting
what amounts to a pollution subsidy to heavy industry is more
akin to central planning a la Soviet Russia than anything Murray
Rothbard might have come up with.
In actuality, these schemes merely shift the source of
pollution around like some elaborate shell game, and thus do
nothing to improve overall air quality. After all, does it matter
if the source of smog is your neighbor's 1956 Plymouth--or the
incinerator five miles down the road?
A bill recently introduced by GOP luminary Sen. Arlen Specter
of Pennsylvania would have encouraged new car dealers to destroy
pre-1980 model cars received as trade-ins. In return, the
manufacturer would receive a credit towards its corporate average
fuel economy (CAFE) requirements.
Other bills under consideration have pushed for the removal of
pre-1980 model cars through similar "incentive" programs. None of
these laws have yet been passed, but the worry is that it's only
a matter of time.
It's funny to reflect that government types actually believe
that substituting one bureaucratic boondoggle for another (say,
CAFE credits for emissions credits) constitutes the unfettered
marketplace doing its thing. These are the same people who have
gotten into the habit of referring to captive citizens as
"customers" on income-tax forms.
Present efforts to get old cars off the road are mostly
voluntary, and only involve the usual waste of tax dollars. The
fear among car collectors is they may soon become mandatory as
states are faced with the loss of federal revenue and other
strongarm tactics from the EPA.
Clunker programs in California, Virginia, and other states
have met with vociferous opposition from older car owners. They
rightly believe that politically powerful industries are avoiding
having to comply with environmental and emissions standards
themselves. In return, they sock it to the collector, the young
person who cannot afford a newer car, and the family of modest
means.
The emissions credit plan is especially galling. Say a large
textile company buys up 100 pre-emissions controlled cars (1968
model year and earlier) and has them crushed. That company is
then given an exemption or credit which permits it to spew its
own pollution in an amount equal to the reduction achieved by the
elimination of the 100 old cars.
Crushing older cars might be justifiable if, indeed, they were
indeed poisoning the population with fumes. But they are not. A
handful of older cars may emit higher levels of carbon dioxide,
volatile organic compounds, and oxides of nitrogen, the principle
components of smog. But when tuned properly, most have levels of
exhaust emissions comparable to or exceeding that of post-1981,
computer controlled, and fuel injected cars.
Further, the number of classic, antique, and other special
interest pre-emissions cars in circulation is quite small. How
many 1963 Cadillacs do you see? By their very nature, old cars
don't rack up a lot of miles. It's unfair to single them out as
significant contributors to the pollution problem.
Moreover, it's not true that a computer controlled car will
always pollute less than a pre-emissions car. Modern cars rely on
a vast array of extremely complex and interrelated systems, all
governed by a computer. There are dozens of sensors and relays
which must work perfectly for the car to be clean running.
Should a critical part fail--the oxygen sensor, for
example--the resultant emissions could be significantly higher
than a pre-emissions vehicle. Any mechanic worth his socket set
knows this is true. But of course the people writing regulations
never consult anyone who knows anything about the issue.
Another problem is the high maintenance cost of late model
cars and trucks. In the real world, poor people coerced into
trading in their old cars in favor of new ones would probably not
be able to afford to keep them up properly. The end result is no
net reduction in emissions.
The bottom line in this debate is not over clean air. It's
another case of arrogant federal and state regulators with the
wrong motive and incentive, spewing out misguided, expensive, and
ultimately futile laws. We expect this from our government. But
why do they insult our intelligence by claiming they're following
the principles of the free market?
--------------------------------------------
Eric Peters writes on automotive issues for The Washington Times
Back