I wanted to share something with you guys & gals. Below is an exerpt from the Cash for Clunkers law that is currently being debated in Washington. We will all be hearing about this as a savior for the auto industry and the environment. Please do not beleive what you are told, this legislation is terrible for the environment.

Basically what they do is give you $$$ for trading in your car to replace it with a more efficient vehicle. BUT that vehicle that you trade in (which must be running and have been yours for atleast 1 year) must be crushed. It can not be resold. For those who have not been to Detroit producing a new car requires a lot of natural resources and causes more polition than driving said car. So to try to say that by replacing cars with more efficient ones you are helping the environment is just plain wrong. When the manufacturing of that car is factored in it will never catch up in the emmissions race with the existing car.

Requires any dealer receiving a certificate of title to any eligible high polluting automobile in exchange for a CARS voucher to certify to the Secretary that: (1) such title has been retired or otherwise extinguished and not re-issued; and (2) the dealer has received from a dismantler or recycler a certification that such automobile, engine, and drive train will be crushed or shredded within a certain period, will be processed prior to crushing or shredding to ensure removal and appropriate disposition of specified products, and has not been, and will not be, registered, sold, leased, exchanged, distributed, or otherwise operated at any time as an automobile in the United States or in any foreign country.

 

I would love to see some data on what the total enviromental footprint for producing a car as compaired to driving it. I remember reading somewhere that the Prius is not nearly as enviromentally friendly as one would think because of the energy costs of its production as it uses part from all over the world. Plus you have to include the impact of shipping it here.

Anyway the only "cluncker" I have is my classic Mini and they can't have it

 

i don't like this new pres


more of a celebrity/comedian than an actual leader

 

This is Polossi and her comrads in Congress, not the President. It also limits it to cars produced in the last 20 or 25 years so older cars do not qualify.

http://www.whatgreencar.com/emissionsanalysis.php has interesting ratings for vehicles based on their entire life, not just the time we are driving them.

 

We get £2000 here in the uk and its doing well

 

Here is a larger report that was done:

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automoti...%20VERSION.pdf

Do note that the reason the hybrids do so poorly is that their estimated life is shorter than that of regular vehicles, this is based on the assumption that the batery will die and the car will be scrapped earlier in its life.

 

and how many layers of interaction that one wants to deal with. Large installations can have point of use scrubbers that are easier to deploy than putting that on each and every car. Costs of consiquential damages (acid rain, athsma etc.) are hard to roll into these calculations, Costs of unemployment for the cars that aren't made, assumptions of battery life etc make it all a very tough calculation to get total impacts correct.

One of the ideas in programs like this is that it's stimulative in getting automotive demand up, increasing employment and moving more money into the economy. Germany has a similar program (not being sold on environmental impact, but on helping the automotive sector and fighting recession) that is doing well.

There are tons of ways to look at programs like this, and personally I'd rather subsidize some new car purchases, get a cleaner running light vehicle fleet (hopefully with higher average MPG) as opposed to writing bankers really, really big checks. But that's just me....

Also, it's volentary. You don't HAVE to do it.

Matt

 

I have a 1987 Jaguar XJ6 (64K on the clock) and I would probably get more for it through this suggested program then selling it outright - any buyers out there?

 

Never said it was a bad program or that it would not create jobs, but to me there is a social question that needs to be asked. How far down the disposable society road do we need to go? Should we make cars last only one trip so that people can have jobs? What good are all these dependable cars if the government is going to try to get people to dispose of their cars sooner?

Also I might not HAVE to trade in a car, but I sure HAVE to pay for those that do since the government is the one cutting the checks here.

 

first one is including the commute energy costs of the workers in design and manufacture of cars. The people doing this stuff would still be doing SOMETHING if they weren't making the cars, so including the energy cost of these activities will just bias up costs of lower production cars and decrease the effective costs of higher production cars.

While they do ascribe a huge cost of developement to hybrids (and that drives the cost per mile up greatly) and most conventional drivetrains don't have these costs associated, they were paid in the past. They are good at pointing out that the local benefits of improved emissions will have a geographically dependant local beneift (using the LA basin as an example) but fail to point out that the hybrid high cost is driven mostly because the inclusion of dev dollars and energy in an emerging technology is really a long term investment that will pay off much more in the future.

Like all long reports, reading the first few pages and getting the "sound bites" that make an impression is really a miss-representation of the true conclusions of the report.

If one were to use thier calculation is a metric for deciding what vehicle to buy, we'd all drive small, feature-poor cars into the ground (to lower the dev and manufacturing costs per mile contribution) and the report makes no allowance for the risk premium we all put into the decision about having a reliable car, for example. But it is a nice way to get many to start thinking about life cycle impacts of products, which is a much better way to view purchases than just what costs the least when one buys....

Matt

 

The story is on the NBC Cleveland news right now. Go Allen you are so in tune with stuff.

They said Obama is a fan and the house passed the resolution, it should pass in the senate.

Oh yeah... and sales of new cars are up 20% compared to last year at Classic Chevy, the dealership in the news piece.
IMHO - Not sure they need the program

 

cause most other dealers, as well as year on year numbers by the brands, are down across the board, pretty much.... Crap, if all GM dealers were up 20% this may to last, GM would be growing!

But remember, it's congress. It rarely does anything quickly....

Matt

 

Congress passed it today, it is off to our friend in the Senate! Voinovich and Brown representing for Ohio

 

Can I order a new MINI and get the dealer to submit the $4,500 Cash For Clunkers rebate paperwork before I actually take delivery? I am prepared to pay cash for my new MINI. It would seem that once the car is built, and the dealer has the VIN, they could accept my clunker and cash - and since the sale would be complete except for delivery, they could get the rebate request submitted before the Cash For Clunkers money runs out. Has anyone done this yet?

 

Not sure, but I'd call the dealer to find out. if it is yes I'd suggest you get it in writing.

Hope this works out for you.

 

Personally I think that the government has put the wrong thinking into peoples heads. They say that it is to get a more environmental friendly car. As Allen pointed out this can not be true because what happens when a car is made. Also it is a rough figure trying to find out the impact that the car would have on the environment during its life time. The other thing with the plan is this, they do not have to get a new vehicle that gets any better then their previous. I've been told that if they wanted to get a new Hummer then they could.

One other thing that is not fair is that the cars that have been junked have to be destroyed and shredded. WTF, what about those people that can't afford to get a new car payment but need parts for their clunker to make it better and to keep their job. They can't always afford new parts and who wants to put a few new parts in a 20 year old car. No! You go to the junk yard and pull them off of another car for a fraction of the cost. Everyone makes money and saves money.

The government needs to come out and say it, it's not about the environment, it is simply about money and stimulating the economy. They need to stop trying to cover things up and make them look pretty. We are not stupid we know what it is about. I think that if they tell their true intentions then it would be a little easier to get it to pass. I know that they are all about money and always will be. I just hope and pray that they do not fall in love with the money. For we all must know that 'the love of money is the root of all EVIL' <- take that as you will. LOL!
Oh and the fact that we have to eventually pay it back. It is our tax dollars that they are using for this crap.

Ugh, I think I got everything out that I wanted to say. This thing has been bugging me since it started.

 

I wish my Maxima qualified. If so, it would be g-o-n-e.

 

I think the Cash For Clunkers program could be a real benefit for the people who ordinarily can't afford a new car. Consider that many low income people can presently only afford a gas guzzling clunker, like ThuMike37 stated in his post. If you assume they are only getting 15 mpg in their clunker, they could come out WAY ahead by purchasing a new economy car (a local dealer is selling a brand new Kia Rio for $8,750 - with payments of $129 a month for six years). After deducting the $4,500 Cash For Clunker rebate, their cost would be just $4,250 - with payments of about $60 a month (financing would be a sure thing at that price). If that person drove 15,000 miles a year, their old clunker would require 1,000 gallons of gas ($2,500 a year, or $208 per month). The new Kia Rio gets 30 mpg, so would only require 500 gallons of gas a year - meaning the fuel savings of over $100 a month would more than make the monthly car payments. Plus, the Kia Rio has a 10-year 100,000 warranty.

So, while I am not interested in buying a Kia, I think this program that ThuMike37 is so opposed to is actually a great opportunity for low income folks to get out from under the never ending cycle of buying a cheap junker to drive until it breaks, only to replace it with another junker, etc. What is wrong with helping folks get into a good fuel efficient car?

 

I think Mike and I have the same opinion on this. The gorvernment should just come out and say that it is all about the stimulation for the auto industry.

Also to dispell a couple of rumors the cars are parted out prior to being crushed and shreded. The only things recycled are engine and chasis.

Lastly we got this idea from europe and it has not worked for them, once the money is gone car sales have declined back to pre rebate levels. Also guess who pays all these rebates???? If you pay taxes you are paying for the rebates, this is how governement money works.

 

I'm also looking at less use of fossil fuels as a national security issue. So I love this bill...good for Jobs, economy, and sticking it to the mid east. Something that should have been done a long time ago and was being done until Reagan reversed it all and gave us terrorism as we know it now.

 

What about the psychological impact of this? I'd think that every car out there with improved fuel efficiency helps the public perception that "fuel efficient = good". Given that we're coming off over a decade of "big and gas guzzling = good", I'd think that this is a victory, albeit a small one. YES the main goal of this is to stimulate the car companies and in the same stroke the economy, but there's also a broader picture I think, namely combating the attitude of "bigger must be better" that has been fostered in the American consumer since the 80's. As someone who lived through and remembers well the last "gas crisis" and how it led to people actively seeking out smaller, more efficient cars to buy, I can tell you categorically that I'd prefer we NOT get to the point of gas rationing or hours-long lines at the pumps before we do something about this.

Given the overall level of hostility that seems ingrained in current partisan politics (see the Republican's current comments on health-care reform and how it must be killed to "break Obama's presidency"), I think that this plan, while not perfect, is at least SOMETHING. It's a plan that, at the least, puts more fuel-efficient cars into the marketplace while stimulating the economy. ALso keep in mind that those cars will eventually enter the secondary car market, which means that teens, first-time car buyers and others will end up having more fuel-efficent options right out of the gates, further fostering the EXPECTATION that cars can (and should) be fuel efficient.

Incremental help? Possibly. But I do think it IS helpful.

Also: re: the "I don't like this president" comment... You DO realize that this isn's a MONARCHY, right? The bill was passed by Congress, all of who were elected. Nothing was (or can be) dictated by a President - all he can do is try and steer the conversation. 8 (or 10, or 12, depending on how you measure these things) years of ruinous Republican domination in the House, Senate and Presidency, years that nothing was done to stem the tide of AMmerica's dependency on foreign energy, has lead us here, and is why the American public VOTED for the current representation. They could be doing better, I will surely agree with that, but America is a very big ship, one that only turns slowly and with great effort. At least we actually have an active hand on the tiller now.

 

ImagoX, Thank you for your excellent post!

 

ImagoX
Wonderful post, and I agree with you. The thing that I may have failed to disclose was the fact that I think it might help in some way, shape or form, I just don't like that the government is trying to sugar-coat it.

I hope that it helps in more than one way and more than a limited time. I think the country is being lead in the right direction, it is only going to take time. I agree that the biggest problem is our dependency on foreign power. If we can create or use our own, we'll be better off.

another note: I hate politics!
good day all

 

Political views aside...

Been there done this. Turned in a E150 Conversion van on a Ford Flex and got $4500 rebate. Needless to say the MINI is still around :-)

 

You shouldn't... the alternative is repression. Politics is nothing more than the art of compromise. Compromise is NOT a bad thing or a show of weakness... In a country as large and as diverse as the USA, there will NEVER be 100% agreement on the "best" possible solution to any given problem, but through politics, everyone at least has a say in the discussion. Compromise is NECESSARY if we are all to be able to co-exist.

Here, that representation is via elected officials, people that some people voted for and others did not. If (and when) the majority decide that those representatives are no longer in-line with the views of the people, they can and will be voted out. We saw this last November, and eventually we'll see it again. The trick is to remain engaged and to never... never... give up your right to speak and protest whenever you disagree. That means remaining informed, showing up on election day, and questioning your leaders and representatives whenever you can. This alone - not believing what you're told or refusing to make waves because "it would be disloyal to question our leaders in a time of crisis" - is what makes a citizen a patriot. The other side to that questioning is carefully sifting the KNOWN FACTS and not believing things that just seem to agree with an ideology that you've already decided on - that's just ignorance.

If everyone... EVERYONE... remained engaged, strived to educate themselves on the issues at-hand and then voted, this would be a more stable and moderate country, as most people, in the end, are inherently reasonable and only want to be left to live their lives in peace. It's only when the vocal minority is allowed to wield too much power (after the majority abdicate that power) that things get wonky.

But, in the immortal words of Dennis Miller (before he lost his mind, anyway): "That's just my opinion - I may be wrong."