Congress Calls for Clunker-Culling

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

“Cash for Clunker” policies have been enacted in a number of developed countries as a conveniently “green” way to stimulate new car sales. The idea is sold as a greenhouse gas-reducing measure which provides tax credits for removing older, less-efficient models from the road. Of course the point isn’t to get people out of cars or permanently reduce the number of GHG-emitting vehicles: to claim credits, you typically have to buy a new car. Texas already has its own take on the debt for more debt swap. And now the Congress– well the auto industry anyway– wants a piece of the action. Hence the Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Retirement Act of 2009.

According to Green Car Congress, in order to claim the full $4,500 tax credit, participants would have to scrap a vehicle that was rated at 18mpg (CAFE ratings, somewhat lower than EPA) or under and built in or after 2002. They must also replace it with a new vehicle.

You can get $3k towards a used car or mass transit expenses for vehicles of that age, but the point is clearly to stimulate sales of new vehicles. Older vehicles get smaller credits, ranging from $3k for a new vehicle replacement for a ride built between 1999-2001 ($2k for a used or mass transit purchase) to $2k for replacing a 1998 or older model with a new car ($1,500 for usedor mass transit).

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) estimates that this plan would attract half a million to a million takers, and would save 40k to 80k barrels per day of motor fuel by the end of the fourth year, while reducing C02 and N0x emissions.

Unless of course you subscribe to the crazy notion that the greenest car is the one that has already been built, and factor in the embedded carbon and energy of new cars. But then again, the greenwashed facade was only intended as thin cover for an auto-dealer bailout anyway.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 34 comments
  • Anonymous Anonymous on Jan 18, 2009

    davey49, Are we really to the point where a car without ABS or side airbags is a clunker? I get the emissions requirements to a point; I would try to cull cars that can't pass emissions tests appropriate for their age. That and plain old attrition will clear out the older, dirtier cars. The rest is silly.

  • Davey49 Davey49 on Jan 18, 2009

    Attrition isn't good enough, people keep their crappy running cars too long. With the safety regs I figured I'd save the people in the car as well as the people outside

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next