Feds To Offer Cash For Your Clunker

coondoggie sends along a NetworkWorld piece that begins, "The government... wants to motivate you to get rid of your clunker of a car for the good of the country (and the moribund car industry). A 'Cash for Clunkers' measure introduced this week by three US Senators, two Democrats and a Republican, would set up a national voucher program to encourage drivers to voluntarily trade in their older, less fuel-efficient car, truck, or SUV for a car that gets better gas mileage. Should the bill pass, the program would pay out a credit of $2,500 to $4,500 for drivers who turn in fuel-inefficient vehicles to be scrapped and purchase a more fuel-efficient vehicle."

The environmental cost?

[TheEvilOverlord]

I'm no eco weenie, but this is total madness... the manufacture of a car creates SIX TIMES the CO2 that the average car will emit in its lifetime... the government should be encouraging people to keep their cars for longer, not pointlessly bail out a few failed car makers...

Just a question

[papabob]

Is this the first time the US goverment give helps to replace old cars? In Europe is a common practice and I though it was a worldwide routine.

(If I recall correctly, it started here in mid 80s to help the transition from leaded to unleaded gas and to improve the general safety of the cars - you know, in those days people drove those 70's tiny tin-'cubic'-car with sharp edges and no safety belt)

One sixth, not six times

[tinrobot]

The average is in the range of 10-15%, which is about one sixth the lifetime emissions of the vehicle. Perhaps you got your numbers mixed up.

Here's a good Google Answers article with lots of references:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=433981

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Prius owners I've met have all gotten government handouts for their purchase of a hybrid. Not to mention that if you buy one, even now, you can use the "HOV" lane even if you're not driving an HOV.

This proposal is a complete and total clusterfuck and scam, of course, but let's not muddy the waters with lies about not receiving incentives for buying fuel efficient vehicles in the past.

Does it have to run?

[stonedcat]

I'd be more than happy to give them mine, it just sits all the time.

Occasionally I push it around the parking lot so the front office doesn't harass me, but it really isn't worth keeping.
I'll take the Apple II out of its trunk, give it to them, and instead of a voucher I'd be happy to take cash.

With which I will buy one of those stackable Japanese pieces of shit that you can fit in a walkin closest that they call a car.

Seems like a good plan to me.

Re:Won't Help Big Three

[martin-boundary]

That's not very good economics, though.

Say A buys a used, more fuel efficient car from B, B buys a used, more fuel efficient car from C, C buys a used, more fuel efficient car from D, and D buys a new, more fuel efficient car.

All the old cars are exactly as fuel efficient as they always were, one new fuel efficient car was bought at the cost of 4 vouchers for a total of $10,000-$18,000, and one old car is either being scrapped, or more likely is put on the market for someone else to drive.

Re:My old car is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you get all high and mighty, realize that the US and UK use different gallons. And the UK gallon is larger. 1 US gallon is about .8 UK gallons.

So 34 mpg (US) is a little over 40 mpg (UK).

Oops, that 15 year old car hit that 40+ mpg efficiency you deem so magical.

Re:My old car is fine

[borizz]

Oh, shut up. Really. Land area is not a valid argument. Hell, my dad drives his Opel Zafira more than that and he gets 40 miles per gallon. And that's a 5/7 seat mpv.

I work for the mail service, as a driver. Our cars see a lot more than 15,000 miles a year. For example, they bought a Volkswagen Transporter last June and it has 20,000 km on it now. Just over half a year old, 20k km. And it's all in the city driving. And even that thing gets a lot better than 30 mpg.

Re:What environmental cost to build a new car?

[pub_tib]

Many States already have mandatory tests that must be passed for registration. California, for example, has a Smog test that requires a vehicle to pass a yearly emissions test. If you fail, you don't get to register until you've fixed the problem. Various other States have similar laws in place. Honestly, I wish all States had mandatory checks, the State I'm currently in does not require any vehicle to pass any checks in order to register. There's nothing like sitting behind a car that burns more oil than gasoline and getting a face full of smoke when they hit the gas. There are multiple benefits to implementing yearly checks on vehicles. It forces people to keep their cars in good running order which helps save fuel and the environment, and it gets those cars which are beyond help off the road with the added benefit of keeping new cars coming off the assembly lines to keep a supply of "road-worthy" cars on the road.

Re:My old car is fine

[jo_ham]

Are you kidding me? 15k a year is "a lot?".

Give me a break. I live in the UK (a quarter the size of Texas) and do 12k a year, and I don't commute long distances. Talk to sales reps who roll up and down Britain's motorways week in, week out in their American designed, European built Fords, Vauxhalls, and Japanese and other Euro makes (Hondas, VW, BMW, Toyota etc)

There is a *world* of difference between the quality of supposedly identical models of cars in Europe, Japan and America, and let me tell you, the cars on the US market suck huge donkey balls.

I'm talking side by side comparisons with same-manufacturer models. The US Toyota Corolla is a heap of junk compared to the European version. The Ford Focus in the US is a joke compared to the UK version.

There's no way you can stand there (or sit there and type I guess) and say that Japanese cars (built for the Japanese and European markets) don;t have "durability" compared to US models. There's just no comparison.

Not QUITE...

[denzacar]

From TFA:

The catches:

        * The traded-in vehicles must have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon;
        * Auto needs to be in be in drivable condition, and have been registered for at least the past 120 days;
        * The voucher needs to be used towards the purchase of a vehicle that has value of less than $45,000, is model year 2004 or later, and meets or exceeds federal emissions standards;
        * Vouchers could also be redeemed for transit fares for participating local public transportation agencies.

For traded-in vehicles that are model year 2002 and later, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $4,500; the purchase of a used vehicle: $3,000; a transit fare credit: $3,000.

For traded-in vehicles that are model year 1999 - 2001, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $3,000; the purchase of a used vehicle: $2,000; a transit fare credit: $2,000.

For traded-in vehicles that are model year 1998 and earlier, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $2,000; the purchase of a used vehicle: $1,500; a transit fare credit: $1,500.

So... you are free to buy a USED car as well - only you get less cash for that. Then again - a used car WILL be cheaper.
And you can even use the money for public transport - if you want to go really green and give up your car completely.

Texas already has such a program

[SethJohnson]

One caveat to the proposed bill is:

* The traded-in vehicles must have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon;

So, the program wouldn't really replace those fuel efficient cars with gas wasters. Additionally, emissions are a priority in this program. Although those old civics, etc. were super light and nimble, many of them have been poorly maintained over the years and the piston rings are worn, etc. which reduces fuel efficiency and increases their emissions footprint.

I agree, though, that I'd really enjoy a mint 1989 Civic hatchback.

The state of Texas has a similar voucher program [state.tx.us] that's been in place for a while now. Residents can get a $3,000 voucher for replacing a 10+ year-old car with a three-year-old or newer car. Perhaps I'd be able to double-up on the vouchers and get something like $7,000 for my 1988 Ford Ranger. Unfortunately, neither the proposed federal bill or the existing Texas program offer vouchers for automobiles that are replaced by motorcycles or scooters.

Seth

Re:My old car is fine

[pablodiazgutierrez]

I hear you. I love my 1998 SC2, which looks pretty slick for the $2700 I paid a couple of years back and saves me in gas while not polluting as much as cars from pretty much every other American brand. And they're getting rid of the line. Way to go, Detroit.

Re:What environmental cost to build a new car?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was stunned that there's no national mandatory MOT for cars in the US.

That is because cars are licensed by the individual states and not the federal government. Some states do require that sort of thing.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

You can only qualify if the car you're trading in gets no more than 18 mpg. So you can relax, it actually makes sense.

Re:Old Stereotypes

[mad flyer]

Have you seen the Toyota lineup in japan ?
It's thicker than the phone book. When I was shopping for a hatchback I gave up on trying to know what was available. I just lookup at was what on the floor of the nearest dealer. Who quickly tried to send me to 4 other dealership to see the rest of the lineup...
just for hatchbacks... it's beyond madness...

Re:They pay more to scrap fuel efficient cars

[c]

> The equivalent 2009 model has 1MPG less efficiency than my model.

You're not comparing the original sticker mileage of a '94 with a '09, are you? Remember that they changed the rules a few years back, and newer cars on paper tend to be less efficient than the original values of older cars.

c.

Re:Busses

[slash.duncan]

I guess that depends where you are. Most public busses here in Phoenix are LNG powered. Sure, they emit CO2, but take a look at the cars for even five independent riders and you've probably covered that, pretty much regardless of /which/ cars they are or what they run on (even electric is often ultimately coal).

The two biggest problems here are one, with summer days typically running 45C/113F in the shade, waiting even ten minutes for the bus in the heat is hard, and with them on 30 minute schedules, 15 minutes is going to be the average wait -- possibly several times if it's not a direct single-bus route -- and two, they only run ~ 5-22, which means leaving no later than 20:30 for anyone with a second bus to catch before 22:00. (Until the recent budget cuts they were running an hour longer at each end, ~ 4-23, which did help. Fortunately Phoenix is in better shape financially than many cities. The county OTOH...)

Re:Won't Help Big Three

[Ginger Unicorn]

this comes up quite frequently - america has different gallons to everyone else so you can't compare uk mpg directly to us mpg. 28miles/usg = 34miles/ukg. (which still aint spectacular)- 45ukmpg would work out 37usmpg.

Re:Won't Help Big Three

[repvik]

Your logic is based on the assumption that one has an old car, then buys a new car which one proceeds to drive for 15 years. That just doesn't work out.
In my experience, people change cars about every 4-5 years. The older (more polluting/less safe) cars are "handed down", while a less polluting/more safe car is aquired. It's not just about the energy, but also safety and comfort. And for some, status.

Are there any real arguments against this?

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading through some of the comments here, I see a lot of people convinced that this is a terrible idea. Some argue, on ideological grounds, that the government simply shouldn't be involved in this sort of program. That's fine, but it won't convince me or other people who have different ideology. The most effective arguments against this would be explanations of why either this won't have the intended outcome, or why the intended outcome is undesirable.

It is clear that (no surprise) most of you have not read the article. If you had, you might have noticed that it references a report but does not link to it. Fortunately for you, I have saved you the 30 seconds of effort required to find it. The report [aceee.org] is 18 pages long, 10 of which are tables listing eligible vehicles for purchase.

Now I will point out how many of the arguments posted here are addressed:

• My 11 year old Saturn still gets 40mpg.
  Fine, then this program isn't for you. It only applies to vehicles that, when new, had an EPA "combined, unadjusted" fuel efficiency rating of less than 18mpg. The report states that these are nearly all pickup trucks or SUVs.
• This should go to support public transit. Also, people with old clunkers won't be able to afford new cars.
  The plan calls for vouchers that, in addition to new vehicles, have the option to be spent on used vehicles or on public transit (although in the latter cases the voucher's value is slightly less).
• For newer cars, the voucher value won't be competitive with the used vehicle market.
  What, do you think the people who design these programs are stupid? This is taken into account in the report's projections. On page 5 of the report, there is a table stating "Estimated Percentages of Inefficient Vehicles with Trade-In Value less than Voucher Value".
• The construction of new cars will pollute more than the savings due to having more efficient cars.
  For this, I will quote from the report, page 8:

  The GREET model from Argonne National Laboratory calculates "vehicle cycle" energy consumption for a gasoline-powered
  vehicle with a conventional internal combustion engine to be approximately 10 percent of lifetime energy consumption. Hence, if a new vehicle uses half the fuel used by the vehicle it replaces, it will take only 3.3 of the fifteen years of (average) vehicle life to offset, through fuel savings, the energy costs of producing the new vehicle. Moreover, replacement of a vehicle under the program typically will delay the ownerâ(TM)s subsequent vehicle purchase, which in effect reduces the energy impacts of added vehicle production and disposal.

Now if there are any serious arguments against this program, please help me see why this is such a terrible idea.