One of the fundamental ideas of Cash for Clunkers is sound, in my opinion: Get people interested in buying more fuel efficient vehicles.
But the wastefulness of destroying perfectly usable cars bothers me a lot. We know that they’re useful because the "clunkers" have to have been insured for the prior year, and they have to be driveable. Therefore, these are functioning vehicles, not actual clunkers or basketcases.
My 1976 Triumph Spitfire, with its engine in a box, the doors at a friend’s house, and the interior in boxes all awaiting a restoration wouldn’t qualify.
The other problem is that the average fuel consumption hasn’t gone down all that much. The average trade in gets 15.8 mpg, and the average new car gets 25.3 mpg. Surely we can do better than 25.3, since there are plenty of cars with an average fuel economy greater than 30 mpg. Perhaps this is because only 59% of the new vehicles being purchased are cars, the rest being SUVs and trucks.
So these two changes would address some of the fundamental problems I have with the program:
1. Don’t destroy the cars, but collect them and donate them to either third-world nations such as in Africa or to groups that resell vehicles for charity.
2. Require a greater fuel economy difference, and set the new car bar at 25 mpg.
The second point is pretty obvious, so there’s no need to discuss it.
The first point, though, has a number of benefits. The first is that in countries like those in Africa, any car originally sold in America regardless of its fuel economy is going to have better emissions controls than what is available there. Additionally, most of our cars get better fuel economy than what is equivalently available in Africa.
If they are resold for charity, at the very least disadvantaged people in America will be able to get safer vehicles, and probably more reliable vehicles than what they may already own. If they’ve already got a Corolla they probably won’t get an Explorer. But if they are stuck with a 1978 Monte Carlo, then the Explorer is a better choice all around: It’s more fuel efficient (shockingly), safer, and pollutes less.
What originally got us into this whole mess was wastefulness and greed. Throwing away a useful vehicle just so we can get a newer, fancier one is just a continuation of that.
Same Stuff new post.
Higher mandated fuel standards? Ok by me. It’s a separate issue from the program, but whatever. Many of the Foreign cars (Chinese) are already at a higher fuel standard. Now that its popular, my guess is that our companies with begin to compete with those cars in that respect whether it’s mandated or not. I am glad that we did raise the standard though.
As far as the Africa thing, I am just going to laugh at that shit. I’m sure that manufacturing parts for Windstar clunkers in Africa would be an incredibly lucrative idea that our companies would surely embrace… OR…NOT. Good Try. Maybe you should write them a letter suggesting it. Had fun. Thanks Mike
John
Re: Same Stuff new post.
Yeah, I’m petered out on it too.
As far as the fuel standard goes, I think you misinterpreted: I just mean mandate a higher fuel standard for the program.
There’s another discussion here regarding the Chinese fuel economy you mention, but that’d get all long too. The nutshell: Don’t be mislead by their supposedly more fuel efficient cars. They have none of the emissions or safety features our cars have. Also, their fuel economy is measured differently.
I don’t think I ever want to hear the term “cash for clunkers” again. I’m REALLY tired of hearing about it (mainly on the news)!
I agree with point 2, but regarding point 1, can’t we use the cars to build robots instead?
It would be win win.
(glutting the market with that many used cars would put a bunch of used car types out of business, would drive down the cost of the used cars to the point that people would buy them just as readily as the new ones no?)