Does the "Cash for Clunkers" bill have a landfill-stuffing downside?
Oh, come on. With a "Cash for Clunkers" bill being tossed around on Capitol Hill, the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) is trying to round up a posse to fight it. The reason? "These scrapped vehicles will more than likely be sent to landfills, creating more pollution, not less," says AAIA president Aaron Lowe. "Providing incentives for motorists to have their current vehicles maintained for fuel efficiency would be a better use of federal money that would also benefit the environment."
Here's the thing. In America, 84 percent of cars (by weight) are recycled and 95 percent of vehicles go through the recycling process. So, while taking old cars off the road does increase the amount of stuff in landfills and also demands that more resources be taken out of the ground to build the new vehicles, it's not like all these old cars will instantly end up in a junk yard. Plus, there is no way to reduce the overall amount of oil we burn in our cars without one of two things happening: we drive less or we get more efficient cars. I'm in favor of both options. While Lowe's proposal to make the vehicles on the road as efficient as possible (tire pressure is a good and easy place to start), this "fight" smells more like a self-serving battle than anything else. The AAIA's mission is to represent over 100,000 repair shops, parts stores and distribution outlets. With a bunch of new cars on the roads, they're naturally going to have less work to do.
[Source: Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association]
PRESS RELEASE:
'Cash for Clunkers' Promises to Expand Landfills
Unintended Consequences of 'Clunkers' Bill Will Harm the Environment
BETHESDA, Md., March 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Cash for Clunkers bill (H.R. 1550), which is touted as having long-term environmental benefits, could actually do much more harm than good to the environment if the bill is passed, according to Aaron Lowe, vice president of government affairs for the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA).
"Proponents of the Cash for Clunkers bill say that it will benefit the environment because it will take older cars off the road, replacing them with new, more fuel efficient vehicles," said Lowe. "However, there is an inherent problem associated with this theory. What will become of all these old cars? The answer you don't hear from the backers of Cash for Clunkers is that these scrapped vehicles will more than likely be sent to landfills, creating more pollution, not less."
Congress and states have considered Cash for Clunkers proposals in the past and in many cases have decided against them. Many legislators have come to realize the unintended consequences of this program and that they are not a cost effective use of government money. In fact, the Cash for Clunkers amendment to the United States Senate stimulus package was withdrawn from the bill prior to its passage.
"Providing incentives for motorists to have their current vehicles maintained for fuel efficiency would be a better use of federal money that would also benefit the environment," continued Lowe. "Cash for Clunkers might look good on paper, but in reality it has many unintended, irreversible consequences and should be rejected by Congress."
Interested parties can send an e-mail in opposition to the Cash for Clunkers program to the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader and their congressional representatives by visiting www.fightcashforclunkers.org and clicking on "Take Action."
About Fight Cash for Clunkers:
The Fight Cash for Clunkers organization opposes the inclusion of a Cash for Clunkers provision in the economic stimulus package currently being considered by Congress, instead favoring tax credits to help upgrade, repair or maintain older vehicles, as well as tax deductions for interest on car loans and state sales tax. For more information, visit www.fightcashforclunkers.org.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
asus 2:13PM (3/23/2009)
So is there a provision stating you only get "cash for your clunker" if the new purchase meets a minimum MPG rating? Seems like a good idea..
Reply
Kumar 2:55PM (3/23/2009)
The best way to handle this would be to recycle the old cars as well as force states that would like to have in on this program to implement an emmissions and road-worthiness testing programs for vehicles currently on the road.
It's a hassle and expensive, but many cars I see on the roads in Indiana look like they pollute more than your average lawn mower.
Reply
Sir.Vix 3:00PM (3/23/2009)
Keep the horses and buggys! it would be a horrible waste of wood to throw away all of those carraiges!
Reply
Kevin 3:28PM (3/23/2009)
I still say that the cash for clunkers program should mandate that all new cars bought under the program be covered on a maintenance plans for 10 years to cover engine, emissions, transmission services.
Reply
paulwesterberg 4:27PM (3/23/2009)
For a program like this they should have a minimum improvement in mileage. The main problem is that right now there are not many vehicles that get great mileage. In the next few years improvements will be much more dramatic. If you upgrade from 20mpg to 25mpg thats not making much of an improvement. But if you go from 20mpg to 40mpg or from 18mpg to 36mpg then you are making a significant improvement.
I say that to qualify the upgrade should have at twice the mileage of the retired clunker.
Then you need to have a program in place to make sure that low mileage clunkers are actually removed from the roads and not just shipped down to Mexico.
Reply
Kevin 3:29AM (3/24/2009)
Mexico is the perfect place for them. They get cheap cars, and we get cheap new ones. Everybody wins.
smog 7:34PM (3/23/2009)
what about I keep my older and more efficient VW/honda and the manufacturer keep their newer-better-fantastic overweight V6 gaz guzzlers ?
(did I mention the very low insurance costs on an older car versus the full coverage required for a new a$$-hauler ?)
Reply
Lad 8:14PM (3/23/2009)
Selected CforC cars should be sold to the local Pick and Pull and not to the crusher directly. It's elitist to force desired good used parts to be removed from the market. It's discrimination against the poor and besides it drys up the market I use to keep my 240Z on the track. I'm against the idea unless you exclude Datsuns from the crush list.
Reply
Karl Jamieson 8:09AM (3/24/2009)
I don't understand why so many in the environmental lobby side of this argument are missing a major point, new vehicle manufacture requires vast amounts of energy. For every old car you are crushing to build a new car (not that it is a real replacement but anyway) you are consuming vast quantities of electricity, raw materials, oil etc.
Recycling is only a small percentage of the energy in the life of a car. Even fueling it for 10 years is only marginally in front of the energy and materials cost of building it.
Come on guys, how come no one ever talks about the total embodied energy in a vehicle?
Reply
jim 9:23AM (3/24/2009)
How they define clunker, is going result in many usable autos sent to the scrap yard. We have 2-150K+ mile cars that get mileage in the mid-20's, pass the emission test with flying colors and have 100,000 miles of use in them. Both are worth more as part of the clunker program than they are on the open market.
Reply
bebop 2:57PM (3/24/2009)
Germany instituted a cash for clunkers program and was the only country in the world to show a positive new car sales increase last quarter. If the US wants to stimulate new car sales and rid the country of polluting, gas hog cars then the cash for clunkers is indeed a win+win situation.
Reply
pgencarguy44032 1:19PM (3/26/2009)
I am a ASE certified mechanic and have been working in cars since I was a teenager. A vehichle that is properly tuned and maintained is very fuel efficient and last longer than most newer cars. Quality in manufacturing has decreased significantly over the years. Also Karl Jamieson is correct in that there is more energy consumption and use of resources in auto manufacturing than there would be than just properly maintaining your current vehichle. This whole thing sounds like the big auto makers ultimatelty trying to fatten up their pockets. If they cant run their businesses any better than that, maybe they shouldn't be in business at all. And what about automotive enthusiasts? Dont they deserve the right to preserve their hobby? As I said, I think this is mostly about big business wanting to fatten their pocket and not so much about the environment. Just my opinion. pg
Reply
Free_Thinker 8:31PM (4/02/2009)
I would like this idea to work, but it is far TOO ideal and depends upon taxpayers. We pay enough to maintain our infrastructure already.
As stated above, there is ALREADY a FREE-MARKET (as in not SOCIALIST) system in place to address old cars. People already trade in older vehicles of lower value for newer cars. Those old cars, like Nissan Stanzas and Chevy Cavaliers, continue to be handed down until they are useless and recycled. This system already has a much lower "energy usage to cost-benefit ratio" than "Cash(?) for Clunkers" would.
Cash for clunkers not only means higher energy usage by junking old cars and building new ones, it also gives no incentive to repair a 6 year old car with a bad oxygen sensor. Just continue driving it ffor 2 more years, pollute the air, and get your credit.
Also, how would you receive the money? Upon trading in the old car, or only as credit towards a new car? That only means more bureaucracy and opportunity for dealers adjust pricing and rip you off.
Competition has forced carmakers to produce better quality, less polluting cars that can actually last 10+ years with regular maintenance. This has been the silent contributing factor to the slump in car sales over the past few years. Cars for Clunkers is another attempt to mitigate the impact of this factor by discouraging regular maintenance beyond the warranty period, accelerating the both the ownership lifecycle and car lifecycle.
Alternative:
Try buying a good car with decent gas mileage, pay it off, and maintain it a few years without making car payments. You'll notice the increase in your monthly savings and have more money to spend on your home, vacation, and local businesses, including your friendly local repairshop that can only survive on a reputation for quality, honest service.
Ultimately this is an attempt by automakers to monopolize all car care service and maintainence, and to keep consumers addicted to buying new cars, even if they don't need them. They would love it if you never tried to service or repair your car yourself or at a private shop and could only bring it to the dealership. They would love for you to give up on an older car rather than repair it, just to buy a new one.
Let's be clear. Building a new car requires far more energy than maintaining an older one.
Does that sort of monopoly sound good for the consumer? Especially in a recession? I went in for an oil change on my luxury sedan a few months ago at 25,000 miles. My warranty just expired and suddenly the dealer claimed to "find" 3 new "leaks." The car was perfectly dry at 20k miles. They poked my perfectly good oil pan gasket. Jerks. I guess they were trying to make up for their lack of car sales last year. I pulled my car from them and now go to a private shop. Imagine if we didn't have that option.
So it's not just about "car hobby interests" and it's not just about new 22" wheels.
It's about the entire car maintenance industry OUTSIDE of the automakers and the dealerships. FOR YOUR DAILY DRIVER.
By artificially decreasing the average lifecycle of a car, automakers get to constantly use more and MORE ENERGY to build more new cars and monopolizes the car repair industry. How does that save the environment and help the consumer?
Try maintaining your old car, trading it in, and saving to buy a newer one instead of depending on a handout.
Imagine if Cars for Clunkers passes:
Eight years from now, everyone will drive their car to the ground and EXPECT to get a handout. Carmakers will increase energy usage by 20% to keep up with demand, further polluting the air. Manufacturers of aftermarket maintenance car parts will go out-of-business along with autoparts stores. The only place you can go to get your car repaired after the 4/5-year warranty expires is at the dealership. You have no alternative, so they charge you as much as they like.
Even if they increase the warranty to 8 years it still give more incentive to use MORE energy by building more new cars. Someone, please tell me how this is all good for the environment and for the average, middle-class to upper middle-class consumer? I promise I will listen.
Reply
Don Rye 8:44PM (4/03/2009)
Our elected officials are not smart enough to pass this bill. Forget it!
Reply
Laieth 5:06AM (5/11/2009)
what a bunch of shit alot of good cars are going to be crushed for nothing.
I think they should give the intensive and people will buy the new cars and there will be lots of cheap used cars on the market too.
Like stated above it takes so much energy to make a new car that you really don't benefit environmentally. Kinda like the H2 takes 10 years of hogging gas to make up for a prius in terms of harming the environment.
The only good out of it is for the economy as an artificial sales curve. (that the companies may not deserve)
So atleast lets get more cheap cars on the road.
If Obama really wants to help the environment then build efficient CHEAP railways that always make it on time like Japan to urge alot of people not to drive as often or at all.
And instead of bailing out G.M. and Dodge we should have put them to work building those trains on a government contract... A STIFF government contract not a lazy "its just tax payer money" contract with bloated spending.
Make them build a train at a competitive cost and use Japan's cost as an outline.
Reply
mike 4:17PM (6/03/2009)
Their are a lot of people who earn a living restoring & repairing old cars !
we went through this crap before back in the 90's when steel prices were up. the idea was to empty out all the salvage yards close them up so every one would buy new cars, Cars are part of America's heritage ! The old cars are rolling art ! Would you take down a Davinchy and crush it up ? but back to the big issue the American
(tax payer ) can't afford to give money to people to buy a new car ! at $4500 a cluncker it would cost you and me $45,000,000. for only 10,000 cars ! i'm not shure about you but i can't afford a good used car! sounds good to get $4,500 towards a new car till you have to pay for someone else to get one ! Think about that for a minute ! The way this government is throwing away money you won't be able to pay for food & shelter ! Is their no common sence left in this country? Gimmy! Gimmy !
Some one has to pay for it ! What part of ( pay for it )do you not understand ?
Reply
karenc 11:00AM (6/03/2009)
Cash for Clunkers, beside being an administrative and recycling nightmare will end charitable car donation since the amount of the voucher would far exceed the tax deduction. Charities are already hurting in this down economy, lets not add another nail to the coffin!
Reply
Flaman 3:42PM (6/24/2009)
All the repair shops are crying about this bill, its about time we see them sweat as thay have made many people sitting in their stores waiting on the bill. Not to mention all the mechanics that have ripped off thousands of people. A $200 part with $1000 charged for work done, that was my quote for a fuel pump, that I changed in a hour by myself, so is $1000 an hour a fair wage. Have fun when the work dries up like it has for so many, and you all still kill people on fixing what they need to go to work, take kids to school, pay bills, etc
Reply