Slashdot Mirror
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."
I don't see this helping the Big Three very much. Foreign makes have better fuel efficiency and more variety to choose from.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Frankly, I think the 'ism supported here is consumerism, not environmentalism. Let old cars die their natural death.
By making it less and less efficient! Yay for progress!
"Should the bill pass, the "Cash for Clunkers" program would reimburse drivers with 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."
Sounds like an automotive version of gun buybacks, and equally as silly.
If the goal is to save the environment, tying the credit to the purchase of a new vehicle just takes a perfectly good car whose environmental costs have already been incurred out of circulation.
If the goal is to reduce oil consumption, using taxpayer money to fund the purchase of new cars, instead of getting affordable, useful mass transit, seems like a horrible waste of money.
Clearly, this is designed to prop up the auto industry. By reducing the number of used cars on the market, which compete with new cars, and using taxpayer money for what normally would be the trade-in value of their car, they're artificially reducing the supply of cars in the country in order to drive sales of new cars. This has the effect of screwing over people who would never be able to buy a new car, since there will be a reduction in the supply of used cars.
But that's ok. The government wants you to get deeper into debt to buy things you can't afford. That's the ticket out of this recession!
Back in 2000, I bought a Toyota Echo that gets about 40 miles/gallon. In 2002, even though I could have afforded more I bought a small condo, skipping out on an ARM to get a 30 yr fixed rate. Now I'm learning that I should have bought a gas-guzzler so I could get free cash down the road, I should have taken out a huge ARM on an overpriced house because the gov would get my lender to reduce the principal anyway, and maybe I should have tried to run a company or two into the ground to get a mammoth bailout. Why is the government trying to take away every incentive to act prudently and responsibly?
So they're going to offer us our own tax dollars we've paid them, to get rid of the cars we have?
May I humbly submit that a bit of money invested in public transport infrastructure, could pay off handsomely in terms of quality of life? Less people would even need cars, which would save them money. And it would help to decongest the roads, so people would get to work faster.
The huge decrease of pollution and need for fossil fuels is just an added bonus.
I don't say this works everywhere in the US, but certainly it would work in many cities.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
This proposal would not help the Big Three, because it won't encourage sales of new cars. People are not going to trade in a $200 clunker in exchange for $2,000 of a $20,000 debt on something that depreciates if they can even get a loan in this environment.
This proposal will help used car dealers at the expense of pretty much everyone. The demand for used cars will skyrocket as people try to trade in their $200 clunkers for $1,500 used cars. Of course in that $1,500 won't buy them what it would buy them now.
There _may_ be environmental benefits as people dump less fuel efficient cars for already existing more fuel efficient cars, but it's certainly not obvious that is going to be the case.
Unless you are a used car salesman, the only real benefit here is reducing our demand for foreign energy. But the amount of oil this is supposed to save after 4 years is only 40,000 to 80,000 barrels per day. That's not even a drop in the bucket. It's not even a drop in the bucket of how much our demand will have increased during the same time period!
So those of us who already made a choice to purchase an efficient vehicle aren't getting any incentives.
I am barely scraping by with my mortgage, but because I am not in arrears, I get no assistance. This is so similar, why are we coddling the idiots of society?
I thought Idiocracy was a fictional movie, not a crystal ball into the future.
If this was about reducing emissions, they would pay more to get older, dirtier, and less fuel efficient cars off the road. The worse the mpg, the more they would pay. This is about encouraging people that proved they have the money to buy a newer car to cycle into another newer car a lot sooner than they would. It's proof this is about encouraging consumerism, not ecology.
How silly. whoever told you that (citation needed) is comparing the total CO2 output of the factories that assemble the car and the raw material against simply what comes out of a car's exhaust pipe. This is forgetting how much energy is used extracting, transporting, refining and distributing the fuel that the car runs on. It also neglects that oil much rarer than the coke and coal burned to smelt steel and run the grid; whatever replaces it will likely be much less efficient to create than oil is to dig up. Rarity is also a factor with how much energy needs to be used invading countries for their oil.
If there was any validity to the claim at all, the places that make cars would be more notoriously polluted than the ones that use them. This is not the case, How many cars are made in Las Angeles for example.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
This has nothing to do with the environment. It is simply a greenwashed incentive for boosting the ailing auto industry. Not that there's anything wrong with that given our economic woes, but it's kinda dishonest. Not only does the production of a new car produce more pollution (as another commenter pointed out), but many older cars are still fuel efficient, especially small ones that are well maintained, while new cars other than hybrids are no more fuel efficient than they were a decade ago. My aging stick-shifting Saturn, for example, still gets around 40 mpg on the highway even though it is now 11 years old. If they were really interested in environmental issues, they would instead propose an investment public transportation and give those who scrap their cars free train/bus passes. In most cities public transport is a joke. There's limited or no rail service and a network of depressing buses. Would I scrap my carbon belcher for a few years of free rides on an expanded and convenient public transit system? Maybe. But is this the point of this bill? Probably not.
no it isn't fine - 34mpg blows
you yanks are convinced that 30mpg is some sort of decent figure for fuel economy - go buy a japanese super-mini (quit whining about it being a girl's car) and revel in the 40mpg+ efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Passo
My 1995 Saturn SL1 gets 40 MPG (overall- probably 43-44 on the highway) in the winter (less in the summer when I need to run the a/c, of course). That's a full-size sedan that seats 5, and can fit almost two bodies in the trunk.
The first engine and clutch (on a manual- my first manual transmission) lasted 231,400 miles, and the first time it stranded me for anything other than a dead battery was at that point. Drop in a used engine, and it's back on the road- getting 40 MPG while meeting the county's stringent air quality laws by nearly half.
What the heck, Detroit? What did you do to our cars? (I know- gave them decent acceleration and class, but- dangit, I like my Saturn. Even if everybody else laughs at me, it's saved me a lot of money and hassles over the years.)
What the fuck happened to the concept of limited government? 50+ comments on here, and not one asking what business is it of government to make people's decisions for them? I understand that /. tilts way to the left, but a total lack of outrage or even acknowledgment of the underlying problem here is just depressing.
Let me use an example. The Chicago suburbs (one of which I live in). Public transportation from the 'burbs to downtown is easy. Anyone can do a hub and spoke light rail system (called Metra in our area). But how do you get around using public transportation from suburb to suburb? Bus? Doesn't happen. You can't cover hundreds of square miles with public transportation, becasue public transportation is built specifically for high density areas (for our purposes, I exclude things like Amtrak, the bullet train in Japan, and other long haul public transportation options).
This is because Americans spend a lot more time and effort telling themselves that public transportation can not work and is frequented by people outside of my race & social status, when compared to Europeans.
For what it's worth: I am an American expat living in Europe.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
One thing I've alwasy thought would help a lot would be better traffic control systems. Governments don't really have a big incentive to really optimize these systems and I think that great strides could be made in improving them. I always wind up spending several minutes every time I go to work sitting at lights when there is no traffic going the other way. That should never happen. Better and more intelligent systems would mean faster commutes, less idling at red lights, and fewer cars on the road at any one time since travel times would be shorter.
I too was always shocked at the quoted American miles per gallon figures until I realised that the British figures were using the Imperial gallon (4.55 litres) compared to the American figures using the US gallon (3.79 litres)
Therefore, a car doing 34 miles to the (US) gallon is equivalent to a car doing 40 miles to the (Imperial) gallon.
I am an European expat living in California, and I can attest for that. I found it intriguing that my college roommates would refuse to ride the bus on the principle that buses are for losers. I know they were half joking, but there's a kernel of truth to it (that they believe what they joke around, not that it's actually true).
To do list for Windows
Quote: "It's actually quite a smart move."
It's NOT smart. Giving away free money just makes prices rise. Those buying new cars will pay more. Why would a car company give a discount when the extra money is free?
The U.S. government has NO money. The U.S. government is DEEPLY in debt, more in debt than any organization has ever been in the history of the world. This bill would be funded by the Chinese, Saudi, and Dubai governments, among others, and eventually by inflation of the U.S. dollar. Inflation makes everyone pay more, forever.
Have you checked the prices of used SUV's lately? The prices for used cars have gone UP, because people don't want to spend the money for a new car.
Many people with old cars drive old cars because they drive very, very little. There's no yearly mileage requirement in the bill. The fuel economy will not be what the bill's sponsors say.
Someone who drives an "old clunker" now will not want to buy a 2004 or later model car, and probably would not be able to buy a car that expensive. Also, there are many small old cars that get close to the 18 miles per gallon specified in the bill, and many 2004 model year or newer "fuel efficient" cars that get not much more. Someone could, for example, trade in an old Toyota and buy a 2004 SUV or pickup that gets worse gas mileage, but still good gas mileage for that "class" of an SUV or pickup.
Someone who gives a 1998 car to the recyclers that runs fine but gets 16 miles per gallon and buys a far, far more expensive 2004 or newer car that gets 28 miles per gallon, and drives 5,000 miles per year, saves 133 gallons of gas per year. Under the bill, that person gets a $1,500 credit.
That 1998 car doesn't get "recycled" of course. If it runs well, it becomes part of illegal traffic in inexpensive cars for people who don't have jobs. Or, it becomes illegal traffic to Mexico. Cities and states will hire more policemen to prevent the illegal activity.
To get the $1,500 credit, the owner gave a car worth $3,000 or more! That's if the car was in a condition that it was actually being used. Obviously, no one will do that.
What will mostly happen, of course, is that people who want to buy a 2004 or newer car will first buy a damaged car in "drivable condition" that has been sitting in someone's driveway not being used. The buyer will give the junker to the recyclers and will use the free money from the U.S. government to save a little on the newer car. But the savings won't be much, because the prices of all cars will rise.
The biggest effect of that bill, other than lowering the value of the dollar and raising the price of newer cars, would be to cause the price of worthless cars in "drivable condition" to go up enormously.