RAC: Cars over 18 years old should be scrapped
The Royal Automobile Club Foundation in the UK has just released a report suggesting that any car built more than 18 years ago should be scrapped in an effort to clean up the roadways. Why 18 years? That would remove the vast majority of cars not equipped with catalytic converters, which was one of the earliest emissions control technologies. Some proposals currently under review by the British government call for higher taxes on motorists with older vehicles, a scheme that the RAC takes issue with. If the older cars are owned by lower-income households, higher taxes would likely make it more difficult for them to replace their old jalopy. For this reason, the RAC calls for incentives to make the transition to a newer car less costly. Of course, there is a small number of classic cars that wouldn't likely be scrapped under any plan, but the real goal is to get old cars that are driven daily off the roads.
[Source: RAC]
PRESS RELEASE:
18 YEARS OLD - AND OFF THE ROAD
A scheme to encourage the scrapping of old cars to increase the rate at which motorists trade them for newer, more fuel-efficient models, could achieve environmental benefits according to new research published today (17) by the Royal Automobile Club Foundation.
The report, Car Ownership in Great Britain*, concludes that financial encouragement for car owners to scrap older vehicles could encourage fleet renewal, but intervention must be done carefully if the vehicle market is not to be distorted. The report relates to use of vehicles but policy must also take account of the environmental implications involved in the manufacture of new vehicles.
The research shows that in the UK, to reduce emissions, the ideal age to incentivise car scrappage would be for 17-18 year old cars. Such a scheme would remove most of the last non-catalytic cars. Incentivising the scrappage of younger cars would only result in payment being made for cars which are going to be scrapped in large numbers anyway.
Encouraging motorists to switch to newer models is a vital part of the fight to cut carbon emissions from road transport. The average new car emits 3.8% less carbon than just 12 months ago (158.6g/km, down from 164.9g/km at the end of 2007) and 16.4% less than the in 1997 (189.8g/km)**.
Despite this, tax changes announced in the March budget, including the introduction of a "showroom tax," will make buying a new vehicle more expensive. The Treasury's decision to raise Vehicle Excise Duty retrospectively also increases the financial burden of owning the more fuel-hungry older cars, leaving motorists stuck with inefficient vehicles.
The credit crunch is also slowing the rate at which people buy new cars, with sales falling for the last five months***.
The RAC Foundation believes that a carefully-designed scrappage scheme would have a double benefit of boosting the new and second hand car industry, whilst helping to make road transport greener by removing the most-polluting vehicles from the road.
According to the report, cars are scrapped for four main reasons:-
· The car is too expensive to repair
· The car has been in an accident
· The car was not worth very much money
· The car had stopped working
Scrapped cars are not normally replaced by brand new models, but by vehicles typically three to four years younger than the ones scrapped. A vehicle purchased brand new typically replaces a three year old car which has been traded in on the basis of age and mileage. Most new cars are traded in within 4 years.
The Foundation commissioned the report after scrappage was recommended by the Environmental Audit Committee**** as a means of encouraging "lower income households ... to trade in their cars for low emission replacements," in order to offer an informed contribution to the debate.
Schemes can offer payments not linked to further action by the car owner, or payments conditional on purchase of a less-polluting newer car. The RAC Foundation's report concludes that in the UK, it would not be necessary to link the incentive to buying a new car as the natural dynamics of the car market will lead to the owners buying a car three or four years younger than the one scrapped, which in turn would lead to a ripple effect of car purchases up the age chain of the vehicle parc.
The Foundation has rejected the alternatives of higher taxes on older cars, calculated on the basis of their emissions; or more rigorous annual inspection routines which make older cars more expensive to maintain, as these will place a heavier financial burden on the owners of older cars, who tend to be lower income motorists in the first place.
Commenting, RAC Foundation Director Stephen Glaister said: "Making it affordable for motorists to scrap clapped-out cars and opt instead for a cleaner, more fuel-efficient and more reliable vehicle could be a way for the Government to support greener motoring. This study identifies a number of countries that have tried scrappage schemes and offers important new evidence to help design a balanced and effective scheme for Britain. This is an essential ingredient of a proper "dust-to-dust" emissions assessment."
"Motorists can't afford to be on the receiving end of another muddled, poorly thought out scheme like the VED proposals unveiled in March. Any scrappage scheme should be further researched before implementation in order to benefit the environment, motorists and manufacturers, without distorting the market."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Victor 10:22PM (10/17/2008)
What about taxing older cars more and using the money to help them buy a new, clean one? Talk about an incentive !
Reply
jeremyK 11:14PM (10/17/2008)
Or they could just let the older cars die off, you don't really see too many cars older than say 1985 anymore, they are slowly fading away.
No, this is just an excuse to get more money to the greedy governments under the guise of "Earth Friendly" regulations. It's crap.
Reply
ale 11:53PM (10/17/2008)
glad not to be a limey... haha
Reply
ale 11:53PM (10/17/2008)
i guess my 428 cobra jet or my 440 six pack couldn't fit in their scenario either eh.
Reply
george 12:24AM (10/18/2008)
How can they do that? Seriously, it is great that the environment needs saving, but to force people to give up their cars for new ones is just not something the government should be able to do. Since when did that become part of government responsibility.
I think they should just promote clean fuels and give more incentives for clean technology, batteries, motors, and other clean technology companies.
They should also promote electric car conversions. Companies that are taking gas cars off the road and replacing them with fully electric cars. That is a double effect and it sounds completely consitutional to me. http://gas2electric.net
Reply
Paul Sallmen 3:01AM (10/18/2008)
George,
Your comment makes too much sense to be implemented. In Canada, especially in the province of Ontario, the car manufacturers are so far up the government's a**. Take a look at some of these policies:
1. GM gets a bailout to save about 2500 workers' jobs in Oshawa, Ontario (GM's main factory in Canada), costing taxpayers about $120 000 / worker.
2. The $750 Car Heaven program (as a rebate to trade in the clunker for a new car) is a drop in the bucket for the price of a new car. Better keep the 1990 Corolla. It does, however, have benefits for bus passes and bicycles, which is definitely good.
3. The soon to be defunct Eco-rebate (up to about $4000) to encourage people to buy fuel efficient cars, even gives discounts to cars that have no better fuel efficiency than a 1990 Corolla, a 1992 Civic or 1988 VW Golf. And much worse than an old diesel Golf.
4. Little effort is given to help electrics. Transport Canada has only recently allowed low speed electric vehicles (like Zenn and Dynasty) to be sold in Canada, even though both of those manufacturers are Canadian (although I heard tha tDynasty has since moved overseas). Since then, only two provinces (British Columbia and Quebec) have legislation allowing low speed vehicles. Really governments should give discounts to those who want to convert their existing car to electric.
5. GM gets the Flex Fuel (gas or Ethanol-85) vehicles to have the Eco-rebate, even though fuel economy is mediocre, the environmental benefits of ethanol are questionable (and are probably worse than gasoline), and there are hardly any E85 pump anywhere in Canada. I think the Flex Fuel capability that GM, Ford and Chrysler seem to put into their vehicles is a way for them to circumvent the upcoming much stricter American CAFE (Corporate average fuel economy) standards. Interestingly, none of the European and Japanese manufacturers seem to see a future in ethanol.
6. Only a handful of cars in Canada are truly fuel efficient. The focus over the years has been on size and horsepower. We get cars mostly for the American market, even though Canadians have generally bought smaller cars than Americans. In fact, many small cars make their North American debut first in Canada (eg: Hyundai Pony, Smart Fortwo, Toyota Echo). Canada needs a Supermini class of cars, much like the Europeans and Japanese have, which has far cheaper licensing and insurance costs than regular cars.
Ralph 2:29AM (10/18/2008)
I wonder what the percentage of cars 18 years and older is in the UK? Considering the rust from the cold, wet climate and just plain wearing out of major components, I'd guess that the number is a few percentage points at best. In another 5-10 years the percentage will be miniscule. Let's be real, what kind of effect can such an action really have on global warming?
Forced retrieval of legally purchased property by any government is total and utter BS. I feel for the people in the UK if such a proposal is seriously being considered by their elected officials, but if the people allow this to happen then shame on them!
Reply
JamesWB 9:12AM (10/18/2008)
1. There was no mention of it being forced.
2. It's not a government proposal.
GenWaylaid 2:43AM (10/18/2008)
What kind of auto club hates on classic cars? They couldn't pay me to be a member!
True, the British auto industry dropped the ball about 35 years ago, then kicked it through the mud for a while, then sold what was left to the Germans and Japanese. Still, that doesn't mean that every car made before 1990 is better off as slag!
Reply
HOT ROD 3:50AM (10/18/2008)
I WENT TO MY LOCAL EMMISSIONS STATION AND CONVINCED THEM TO LET ME GO THRU . THE PROBLEM WAS WHAT TO CHARGE ME BUT WE WENT BACK TO THE DAY THAT TESTING FIRST STARTED AND FOUND A COST ON THE FIRST CHEVY TRUCK TO BE TESTED AND USED THAT FOR A BENCH MARK . I DRIVE A 1964 CHEVY 1/2 TON LONG BED RESTORED TRUCK WITH A 283 CUBIC INCH ENGINE WITH DUAL EXAUST AND A Q JET 4 BARREL CARB ALL STOCK NO HEADDERS OR ANYTHING SPECIAL IT HAS A POWERGLIDE TRANS WITH POWER STEEING , POWER BRAKES AND A/C AND GUESS WHAT IT PASSED ALL TESTS EVEN GAS CAP TEST . SO MAYBE THE OLD CARS AND TRUCKS ARE CLEANER THAN THE DO GOODERS WOULD LIKE YOU TO BELEIVE !!!!
Reply
Phil L. 1:08PM (10/18/2008)
The "vast majority" of cars in the UK had catalytic converters...
Only 18 years ago?
Is this right? Were things really that bad in the UK?
C'mon - I remember my parent's 1975 Ford Torino having a catalytic converter (that's 33 years ago, for the math-challenged). That's back when you still had to hunt for unleaded gas when in remote areas.
Reply
Avinash machado 7:28AM (10/20/2008)
So what happens to all the Morris Minors that still are driven regularly?
Reply
Jason White 9:45AM (10/25/2008)
What worries me is that people can publish this sort of Horsesh1t these days and, because it has some unproven dubious link to nut munching they are not publically lampooned for their total stupidity. It's become politically incorrect to question anything for fear of appearing at odds with the great religion that has arisen around green issues.
The key piece of information missing from this report is what percentage of total emissions comes from cars over 18 years old. I'd hazard a guess that it's the root of feck all, so the measure will therefore do - you guessed it - feck all.
I would imagine, with fields full of unsold new cars beginning to appear, that this piece of research was generously funded by the motor industry
a car uses more energy and creates more pollution in its manufacturer that is does in its complete lifecycle, cars that are now 18+ years old are quite common in the UK, we dont have as much rain as people would have you believe, plus in the late 80's a lot of car makers were starting to galavanise so bodies last a lot longer.
i have a number of 18+ year old cars, all of them are within regulation and a number of them are puttingout less emission that a 5 year old ford.....figure that out!!!!
Reply
dickie 12:28PM (12/04/2008)
to be fair ur all idiots most of the old cars are quality there are far worst new cars about its just like sayin get rid of all skodas there all unreliable
Reply
Sean Smith 6:36PM (3/08/2009)
What a joke saying that older cars should be scrapped,where does the government think half the old cars & vans end up,not in the crusher but being shipped out to African nations where they will be used for many years to come,Just go to tilbury docks and see all the old vans going to Nigeria,Will they use any less emissions whilst being used in Africa.
Reply