I was searching for a new mode of vehicular transportation recently, hoping to replace the wagon with something smaller. The search is off, for the moment, but I did learn about a new program that I am trying to decide if I like or not. It is being called the "Cash for Clunkers" program, officially the Car Allowance Rebate System (acronym CARS...isn't the government clever?) You can read about it here: www.cars.gov
The basics are, the government is offering a credit to people who buy new cars that are more fuel efficient than the cars they are currently driving. The credit is applied as the payment for the trade in of their old car to a dealership. Goals are twofold:
1. Stimulate the economy by helping car makers recover from the recession.
2. Push americans toward more fuel effficient vehicles, trying to improve the overall efficiency of the US driving fleet.
Both of these are ideas I am pretty OK with. The economy needs some help and I am always in favor of reduced buring of carbon fuels. So far, so good.
However, there are two aspects of the program that bug me. First, part of the requirements of the program is that the dealership send the traded in car to a certified salvage yard for destruction/parting out. Second, there requirements/eligibility for the program is pretty weak, meaning the actual improvement on fuel efficiency isn't going to be that great.
Point 1: There are some used cars out there that yes, probably need to be off the road. However, there are a lot of used vehicles that are still practical, drivable vehicles for people. Part of conservation is using the resources we have to their maximum benefit. Don't throw out a pair of pants that has a hole, patch the hole. Don't throw away food that is still good, eat it for lunch tomorrow. By the same token, we should use cars longer and reduce the number of new cars on the road. Save energy and materials by not manufacturing so many new cars while we still have viable cars available.
This isn't well (or at all) researched on my part, so the tradeoff may be worth it, but I always wanted to place a moratorium (5 year? 10 year?) on new car sales in the US, just to give us a chance to "use up" all the used ones that are around, then start over fresh with new, higher efficiency vehicles.
Point 2: This is the part I really don't like. For different categories of vehciles, there are minimum MPG improvements that have to be met for a new purchase to qualify for the credit. You can qualify for a 3500 or a 4500 dollar credit. Bigger MPG improvement = bigger credit.
To get the 4500 credit for a car, your new car must be 10 MPG more efficient than your old car. That is good. I like this so far. Instead of 18 MPG, you have to get 28. That is a pretty dramatic improvement and goes where we need to be.
To get the 3500 credit for a car, the improvement only has to be 4 MPG. Well...it is improvement, but not too much. Not the real frustrating part though.
You move down the categories to Light Duty Trcuk (which, if I am reading everything correctly, includes the Yukon your "suburban neighbor who has never left the asphalt" bought to so they could have a big, cool, SUV. To get the credit, the new vehicle must have a MPG rating of 18. 18??? Seems like we don't need to be doing anything that promotes 18 MPG vehicles. Now someone can trade in their old SUV gas guzzler for a brand spanking new gas guzzling SUV to drive to work.
I'd have to research a bit more...there may be some more redeeming characteristics to the program that I am missing, but for now I am a fan of the idea, not necasarrily the implementation.
It also makes me sad to think that if I took advantage of this program, the wagon would get smushed. Maybe I can find someone to buy it for 4500 instead, althought the KBB is well below that and my little run ins with A. overzealous drainage ditches and B. the bumper of a ford focus have done nothing to improve the value. I'll have to think about it for awhile.
Thus ends Daniel's longest post to date.
