Credit for Clunkers--good idea?

Community Leader
Registered: 04-05-2002
Credit for Clunkers--good idea?
4
Mon, 07-20-2009 - 11:18am
What do you think about the $4500 credit for clunkers?  I'm not sure it's a good idea.  I have a old minivan that would qualify and we've considered trading it in for a more fuel efficient car but trashing a perfectly good working car just because it gets a few miles less than a new one doesn't seem like a good idea.  The environmental cost of producing a car is huge, as is the destruction of it.  I want to see the analysis that it's better for the environment to destroy a lot of working cars to replace them w/ more efficient cars.  How many miles would that be, in total, destroyed and how many cars need to be produced to compensate for cars that are crushed? I know the idea is to get people to replace cars they're planning on replacing with more fuel efficient cars but this seems to encourage people to get rid of cars that still might have good miles left. FWIW, we've gone through this debate in our household on whether it's better to get rid of our minivan (which we do use for carpooling fairly often), considering the environmental cost of producing a new car.  I've considered keeping the minivan, for when we need it, and getting a smaller car for run around purposes so we can use up the remaining miles in the minivan only when needed. But, that would cost us so much more to maintain an extra car.





 





iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Mon, 07-20-2009 - 6:58pm

It's not the good idea it should be. Many older vehicles are gas guzzlers. My understanding is that the credit is only for vehicles which got 18 mpg or less when brand new.

I'm sure that the program is eagerly anticipated by new car dealers. They'll get an influx of customers looking for a good buy and could well benefit by those who walk in with one car in mind but find a good buy (not necessarily high mpg!) on a flashier or more luxurious alternative. Sort of like bait and switch. NOT what is needed to wean the nation off fossil fuels. But it could "stimulate" the economy (also not convinced that's what we need in the long term if those who buy cannot really afford the expense).

The CARS deal is not really requiring an environmentally significant difference between the old "clunker" and the new vehicles: "If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy that is at least 4, but less than 10, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 10 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500."

I'd like the qualifying vehicles to be no newer than six years old--would come closer to the break-even point for using energy either in fuel or manufacture. There's a government website which actually shows a vehicle's projected energy impact score at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm for vehicles manufactured between 1985 and 2010. They should use it in conjunction with vehicle age to cull out the true "clunkers" instead of what seems like the more lenient guidelines currently in place!

BTW, not all the details are available right now so my answer is equivocal. What restrictions are currently known can be seen at http://www.cars.gov/ and http://www.cars.gov/index.php/faq.

The German government had a similar program for its older vehicles but allocated more money and the vehicles had to be at least nine years old.

Edited to remove an extraneous phrase




Edited 7/20/2009 8:44 pm ET by jabberwocka

Jabberwocka

Community Leader
Registered: 04-05-2002
Tue, 07-21-2009 - 8:38am

That side by side comparison site is very informative--thanks.






Community Leader
Registered: 04-05-2002
Tue, 07-21-2009 - 9:20am

I've been searching for more information and found this, albeit old, article.






iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 07-21-2009 - 3:12pm

I "manufactured" the six years number in a fit of mental sloth. A more accurate estimate of break-even point regarding environmental impact would have to include the energy and environmental cost of specific vehicle manufacture in a matrix which also reckoned miles driven and mpg with perhaps vehicle age as another factor. Probably other factors too which haven't occurred to me.

But here's the problem with vehicle manufacture and use computations. They don't necessarily reckon in the real cost of our "cheap" fuel. The true tab of gasoline, diesel, and electricity are not necessarily just a function of dollars paid at the pump or meter. When Bush waged his @^#%^*@#$%! war of "pre-emption", it was pretty damn clear to all save absolute idiots that his covert purpose was attaining access to Iraq's reliable and cheap oil. He didn't allow for anything but the best case scenario in terms of Iraq's political and social systems after getting rid of Saddam Hussein. The cost in both lives and war dollars proved that "cheap" oil was anything but. Moreover, by failing so abysmally to "win" and making rash statements, he put adversary nations on the defensive and upped the ante that they would make efforts to exploit our proved weaknesses. Dumb, dumb, dumb. We'll be paying that particular bill for years to come in ways we can't even imagine.

And the military/industrial complex which is currently struggling to maintain our global dominance (such as it is) has costs in environmental impact are far far far from tiny. Do their vehicles have to comply with CAFE? No. Do they perform environmental impact studies in combat zones? No. And we aren't even reckoning in the cost of human lives lost or bodies and minds maimed. My point--there are geopolitical variables which also impact on environmental, dollar, and life costs; and they HAVE to be analyzed in order to make sound policy decisions regarding domestic consumption.

The sooner we are energy self-sufficient and the more renewable and clean that energy is, the better off the nation will be--and this CARS program doesn't have anywhere near enough incentives for the purchase of hybrids or high MPG vehicles.

"Our way of life", to quote one of the Big Oil company ads, is not geared to be frugal, environmentally careful, or fossil fuel-free. It will be a hard sell to get people to change habits which no longer serve the nation or the globe well because we are creatures of routine. Nor are we patient and willing to accept short term pain for long term gain. More aptly, we want our creature comforts and we want them NOW!

The political party and figures which try to institute drastic shifts are going to be challenged (to put it mildly).

Jabberwocka