I say this as a Canadian junker driver. Driving a beater is so cost effective I’m not tempted.

The Canadian government is bribing people with their own tax dollars to support the floundering auto sector. Unless you were already considering buying another car, the inscentive won’t be enough to convince you to scrap your old one.

In Ontario at least, there is already emissions testing on cars every two years for cars 1988 and newer. If the gov’t wanted to put this money to more effective use, they would close the loophole that allows people to keep driving their cars when they’ve failed the emissions test (called a “conditional pass”) but subsidize the cost of repairs to make such cars REALLY pass.

If the government really wanted to reduce emissions, they would offer emissions equipment for these vehicle owners so that they could continue on with minimal levels of pollution. Dedicating the monies that come from emissions towards that would be an extremely intelligent way to handle both pollution and consumption.

Approximately 30% to 40% of the energy used in a vehicle’s lifetime comes before the key is first put in the ignition. You also have to take into account that the average vehicle today is just about as inefficient in terms of gas consumption as those that were made 30 years ago (Car & Driver’s Patrick Bedard highlighted this a couple years ago) and substantially less fuel efficient than those even 20 years ago.

An old Dodge Shadow is not really hurting anything or anyone. The Parisienne mentioned in the article may be a more valid case. But then again Canada can always punish the owner of that car through gas taxes and registration costs. Even that’s a little heavy handed, but it’s far better than painting with the proverbial broad stroke and say that old cars are undesirable. In fact a lot of small and efficient old cars are far better in terms of pollution and consumption than virtually any new car when you factor in the production cycle.

Sorry, but this program is definitely not an intelligent answer to the pollution question.

If these cars cost a great deal (environmentally) to keep on the road, increase the registration fee to compensate. Make it so that owners of trashy old cars have to pay for their negligence.

Most vehicles with a carburator that must pass an emission test are increasingly more difficult to pass as they get older. In Ontario up to a 1987 model year vehicle must be emissioned on an ongoing basis.

The 1988 Parisienne with a 305 4 barrel, is either well tuned up new plugs, wires, distributor cap, possibly even a rebuilt carburator, and even a fresh catalytic converter to pass emission.

Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just dump more salt on the roads.

Only in the short-term. Eventually salt (which is usually accompanied by gravel, sand or industrial abrasives) chews up the roads, accelerates the formation of potholes and reduces the useful life of roads. And asphalt roads, well, they’re expensive and will only get more expensive as the price of crude oil climbs.

Here in the metro Vancouver area we have an air quality testing scheme that does a pretty good job getting the egregious polluters off the road, or at least moderately cleaned up. There are holes in the system, of course, but it generally works as intended.

I doubt a few hundred bucks will be enough to get people out of their crappy cars.