U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced Thursday that after a wildly successful run, the cash for clunkers program will come to a close on Monday, August 24th at 8 p.m. EDT.

“This program has been a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to work,” Secretary LaHood said. “At the same time, we’ve been able to take old, polluting cars off the road and help consumers purchase fuel efficient vehicles.”

As of today, the CARS program has recorded more than 457,000 dealer transactions worth $1.9 billion in rebates.

But Joe Romm counters that the program will pay for itself in less than five years, and so we’re essentially making environmental gains at no cost. Cash for clunkers is expected to save around 72 million gallons of gasoline each year. At $3 a gallon (Romm considers this a conservative estimate for the coming years), that amounts to $216 million in annual gasoline savings. At this rate, the $1 billion that’s been allocated to cash for clunkers so far would be more than paid for in a half decade.

Romm maintains that cash for clunkers is not primarily an environmental program, though its green benefits are certainly a plus. Instead, it has important economic and national security implications:

The majority of the $200+ million a year in gasoline savings would have left the country, since we import nearly 2/3 of our oil (and probably a higher fraction of marginal increases in oil use). Now that money stays in the pockets of consumers, who will save some of it and spend the rest of it, circulating most of the money in this country rather than overseas.

Liberal environmentalists have been highly skeptical of the program’s modest fuel-economy provisions, which require an efficiency improvement of just 4 miles per gallon. But so far, the average gain from the program’s trade-ins has been nearly 10 miles per gallon. Despite quibbles over the details, there seems to be a growing consensus about the program’s overall effectiveness.

From Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.):

After months of hard work with the Obama Administration and members of Congress, I am pleased to join with a bipartisan group of Senators to introduce legislation that will provide a much-needed boost to our auto industry during these dark economic times. This bill is a win-win for Michigan and the country. Not only will we provide incentives to bring people back into dealer showrooms, but we will remove less fuel-efficient vehicles from our roads helping to reduce pollution in our environment and preserve our way or life. Bottom line, this legislation will help stimulate new car and truck sales, saving good-paying jobs in the process.

Okay, about a third of a sentence of green amidst a paragraph of car. How about Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.):

The bipartisan legislation introduced today by Senator Stabenow and me will give the American economy a much-needed boost by giving money from the stimulus package directly to citizens. The legislation will also give a great boost to the struggling auto industry. It’s important to note that the bill is responsibly financed by money already allocated through the stimulus package and will not require funding through additional deficit spending.

Zilch on the environment.

Two weeks ago, I published a post titled “Dems Finally Stop Pretending Cash-for-Clunkers Is an Environmental Bill.” Shortly after it was published, I received an email from Nichole Francis Reynolds, chief of staff to Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), who sponsored the cash-for-clunkers amendment to the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill in the House. Reynolds told me in a subsequent phone conversation that Sutton and some of her Democratic colleagues objected to my headline, arguing that they had not changed their stance on cash-for-clunkers. Her point was that they had never pretended it was an environmental bill — to Sutton and others (though certainly not to environmental groups), it was an auto bill from the start, with some small environmental perks to boot (very small environmental perks, in fact, since the benefits would be undermined by the emissions created by manufacturing new cars). The calculus behind the bill, Reynolds said, had not changed at all.

Now CNNMoney tells us:

While the original cash-for-clunkers proposal had its roots in an environmental initiative to get less fuel efficient cars off the road, the Stabenow proposal would jump-start sales of new cars and trucks, including some that don’t quite meet the average fuel efficiency standards.

I suppose they can expect a call from Reynolds, too.

While the numbers are noteworthy, the real significance here lies in the sponsors of the agreement. Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) are, not surprisingly, at the top of the press release. But so are Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), and Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) — all moderate Congressmen from coal- or industry-reliant states who were considered swing votes on the bill.

Boucher said he was “pleased with the product we are able to put forward on this issue,” while Dingell, the former Energy and Commerce chairman who has expressed strong reservations about the bill, said the compromise “moves the ball forward significantly in terms of renewable energy, but does so in a framework within which all states can operate.”

The renewable electricity standard is merely one of several controversial components of the legislation. Still, Waxman appears open to compromise, and the moderate Democrats on the committee, who previously expressed concern over the renewable energy provisions, have agreed to what is really only a modest change. Democrats may indeed be able to vote this bill out of committee by Waxman’s Memorial Day target.

Update: Just a few minutes later, the Energy and Commerce leadership sent out another press release, announcing a compromise on the allocation of carbon allowances to the auto industry. The Obama administration has pushed for all allowances to be auctioned off to polluters, not given away for free. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, representing eleven major vehicle manufacturers, has asked Congress to give the auto industry 5 percent of all allowances for free. The compromise: the industry gets 3 percent of allowances until 2017, and then 1 percent until 2025. Again, Dingell’s name is on the press release. One step closer to a bill that House Democrats can pass.

Update 2: And now they’ve released a compromise on allowances for “energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries,” which will receive 15 percent of allowances, as expected. In 2025, the president (whoever that may be) will determine whether the continued allocation of allowances is needed. What remains: the allocation to electric utilities, which are expected to receive 35 percent of allowances.

The Detroit News reports that Global Wind Systems will open the facility in Novi, Mich., about thirty miles outside of Detroit, and will begin hiring as early as May. Because it requires skilled assembly-line workers, the plant will likely hire its employees from the growing ranks of laid-off auto workers.

Not surprisingly, Global Wind Systems’ plan has grabbed the attention of the region’s unemployed. According to Chief Executive Chris Long, the company has already received thousands of applications, 90 percent of which list auto industry experience.

Of course, 250 jobs are a drop in the bucket compared to the massive layoffs Detroit has suffered. But Long expects to have hired more than 400 employees within two years, and a successful launch in Novi will be likely to attract other wind manufacturers to the region.

Another sign of good things to come: Global Wind Systems’ investment in the new facility was made possible by a $7.3 million tax credit from the Michigan Economic Growth Authority. One expects that the $6 billion in alternative energy investments procured by the stimulus package will allow for many more projects of this type.

Yet the environmental goals of the program are quite modest. Although the White House press release on the subject claims that it will “prevent 26 million pounds of CO2 from entering the atmosphere,” it also states an “overall goal of at least a 10 percent increase in fuel-efficiency for the entire procurement.”

Studies have shown that 10 to 20 percent of a vehicle’s lifetime emissions come from its manufacture and disposal. If the government program results in the assembly of over 17,000 vehicles that are only 10 percent more efficient than those they are replacing, the overall effect is an increase in emissions.

The real impetus for this program, then, is to stimulate Detroit and help put the auto industry on a more eco-friendly path. The White House does not attempt to hide its aims; the press release states:

This accelerated GSA purchasing strategy is one component of the President’s overall commitment to supporting auto demand during this period of restructuring in the industry. Moving forward, the Administration will continue to work on several fronts to increase the flow of credit to auto consumers and dealers, and will work with Congress to pass an incentive program for people who turn in older, more fuel inefficient cars for cleaner cars.

Like a cash-for-clunkers program, this new fleet purchase is a small step toward a greener auto industry in the long term, even if its immediate effects are not as environmentally friendly as they appear.

Yet the plan has come under some criticism, the basic thrust of which appears to be that it might be too successful.

Some environmentalists have argued that by spurring new car production, it could actually lead to higher carbon emissions, rather than reducing emissions as intended, since 10 to 20 percent of a car’s lifetime emissions come from its manufacturing. Still, with Detroit on its knees and many thousands of Americans out of work, few would argue that stimulating the auto industry would be a bad thing, particularly if it’s producing more fuel-efficient vehicles. There may be merit to this line of reasoning, but it’ll never fly in Congress or with the public at large.

Other critics point to the example of Germany, where a similar cash-for-clunkers program was so popular (car sales rose 11.9 percent in February, as they fell just about everywhere else in the world) that it cost the government three times the anticipated price tag. Sure, Berlin might have to scrounge a bit to come up with the extra 3 billion euros (roughly $4 billion). But if we can turn around Detroit with just a few billion dollars, none but the fiercest deficit hawks will complain — particularly when we’ve already spent over $17 billion trying to do just that, and could end up shelling out as much as $130 billion.

Now, there are some legitimate causes for concern, such as the potential impact of cash-for-clunkers on used car dealerships. Still, with the auto industry in such perilous straits, it’s hard to turn down the prospect of a program that can simultaneously encourage fuel efficiency and improve the long-term health of Detroit.

The measure supported by The Times, sponsored by Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in the Senate and Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) in the House, would give drivers up to $4,000 for a car that gets 18 miles per gallon or less, if they trade it in for a vehicle that is 25 percent more fuel-efficient than the average in its class. The alternative, sponsored by Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), requires that the new vehicle get just 27 mpg. (The national average for 2011 vehicles, according to new regulations, will be 27.3 mpg.)

A cash-for-clunkers program would have two main goals: stimulating the flagging American auto industry and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sutton’s bill favors the former, and has therefore won much more support in Detroit, because it stipulates that only American vehicles can be bought under the scheme. The Schumer-Israel plan, on the other hand, emphasizes the latter, with higher fuel-economy standards and no buy-American clause.

Yet in the long run, the Schumer-Israel bill could actually do more to get Detroit back on its feet. By encouraging the production of fuel-efficient cars, the measure could help Detroit retool for a new auto economy that will favor smaller cars and hybrids. The Sutton bill does nothing to dissuade Detroit from continuing to produce the gas-guzzlers that helped get the American auto industry into its current fix.

In related news, The Michigan Messenger reports on a similar plan to get people to trade in their old household appliances.

Shortly after the Treasury announced the auto supplier funding, President Obama, speaking at an electric car plant in southern California, President Obama said that $2.4 billion of the Department of Energy’s stimulus funds would go toward the development and production of plug-in hybrid vehicles.

“This investment will not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” Obama said. “It will put Americans back to work.” According to a White House press release, the plan will create “tens of thousands of U.S. jobs.”

Most of the funds — $2 billion — will go to grants to companies that produce electric vehicles and their components. That leaves “up to $400 million to demonstrate and evaluate Plug-In Hybrids and other electric infrastructure concepts — like truck stop charging station, electric rail, and training for technicians to build and repair electric vehicles,” according to the press release.

While the $2 billion figure should go a long way toward jumpstarting (ha, ha) the electric car industry, the $400 million can do little more than “demonstrate and evaluate” the broad array of other projects. And the unfortunate timing of the announcement that conventional parts suppliers would get twice as much funding as manufacturers of new, energy-saving technology detracts from the impact what would otherwise be a milestone in the road toward low-emissions transportation.