Many programs are being implemented to lessen the impact of today’s resource demanding society. One such example is the federal “Cash for Clunkers” program that seeks to lessen CO2 emissions. It pays individuals up to $4,500 to replace their older, fuel-inefficient vehicles with new, higher mileage ones.
Economist Jeffrey Sachs did a rough calculation of the net reduction costs of CO2 per ton from removing inefficient cars, which amounted to $141 per ton. He says that there are better alternatives to reduce CO2 emissions than “smashing up autos five years before their natural demise.” He also states that we should rely on price signals, rather than subsidized programs.
I think that Sachs’ argument is valid, but fails to state the main aim of the “Cash for Clunkers” program. The main intention was for the program to galvanize automotive sales, while putting safer and cleaner cars on the road. Sachs, however, still states a valid point regarding the use of subsidized programs to counter climate change. We will need to spend an indefinite amount of money to save the planet from climate change, and I think that implementing price controls (rather than using subsidies) like carbon tax seems to be a reasonable idea.
Word count: 200