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.
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?
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.
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
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!
Here in BC, they have a ScrapIt program, where you 'sell' your car to a scrapyard, and in exchange you get either a big discount on a bike, bus passes for a number of months, or a relatively small amount of cash. So it encourages switching/using a alternate form of transportation.
Of course, when I put my car into ScrapIt, I resold the bus passes and bought another car...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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.
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.
Hans Reiser, is that you?
Common sense is not so common
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.
"Let old cars die their natural death."
What's wrong with a yearly mandatory test? Fail the test either fix it and get a certificate of compliance or your heap of junk will be taken off the road, as is the case in parts of Europe.
Would improve road safety too.
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.
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.
This is about a bill that gives people the option of getting a little extra money if they want to replace their cars with one that is more fuel-efficient.
How is government making a decision for people?
Furthermore, what is government for, if not to protect shared public assets, such as, I dunno, the entire earth, which, if my geography serves, includes the United States of America? And if by doing this, the cash flow to enemies of the US can be reduced, that's following another major charter of the federal government: defense.
And Slashdot tilts way to the right. If you think it's left, then... how the hell did you get internet access all the way out in that highly-fortified shack in the woods?
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.