SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Cash for clunkers bill should be junked
The 'compromise' between President Obama and Congress on the car scrappage bill is a big, wet kiss for automakers and dealers. But it doesn't help the environment much. Viva the reform bill!
Fri, Jun 05 2009 at 5:58 PM
Junkyard dogs are overwhelmingly in favor of the tougher legislation. (Credit: Flickr)
Got an old V-8-powered clunker lying around? The government says it could be worth $4,500 towards the purchase of your next SUV — and it’s OK if it only gets marginally better gas mileage. I love the idea of the federal cash-for-clunkers law, but I hate the way it is shaping up in Washington, the city where dreams go to die.
There’s no question that cash for clunkers is a good idea. According to a Center for American Progress white paper, cars 13 years old or older account for 25 percent of the miles driven, but 75 percent of the auto-related pollution. They’re 30 times dirtier. And we could scrap 2 million gas guzzlers for $5 billion, a relative bargain.
But the compromise worked out between the House of Representatives has resulted in a bill that doesn’t make much sense, especially when it comes to trucks. The clunker has to get 18 mpg or worse, but the trade-in can be only two mpg better and you still get a $3,500 voucher. For $4,500, it only has to be five mpg better. This is not a misprint — two and five mpg — we’re not saving the planet with tiny increments this way.
The bill is a bit better for cars — it has to be 10 mpg better for you to clear the $4,500 voucher, but even if there’s only a four mpg improvement you’re good for $3,500. Thanks, Captain Planets of the U.S. House of Representatives!
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy says the scrappage program “needs repair.” According to Therese Langer, ACEEE’s transportation program director, “I can’t see using taxpayer dollars to sell a Hummer H3T [which meets the 15-mpg large truck threshold].”
There’s a better bill, introduced in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Charles Schumer (D-NY).
This one would achieve 32 to 38 percent greater fuel savings than the House compromise, and would demand that the car you buy has above-average fuel economy in its class. The trade-in will have to be 17-mpg or worse, which may raise the price on ’74 Cadillac Eldorados. New cars under their version of the program will have to get at least 24 mpg and trucks 20 mpg. The new car will have to be at least seven mpg better than the one traded in, and the new truck at least three mpg.
The senators think their version would save 176 gallons of gas per vehicle per year (compared to 133 gallons in the House bill) and 11,451 barrels of oil per day (House: 8,706 barrels). Feinstein says the House compromise would “allow for the scrapping of perfectly adequate vehicles in return for federal incentives to purchase gas-guzzling vehicles. That’s unacceptable.”
It’s not surprising that the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers likes the Senate version of the bill backed by Deborah Stabenow (D-MI) and Sam Brownback (R-KA). It’s much friendlier to SUVs and other cars Detroit is still stuck with. New cars have to get 22 mpg instead of 24, and trucks 18 mpg instead of 20. Brownback and Stabenow say it will sell a million vehicles over its one-year life. That’s great for Stabenow’s state of Michigan, but what kind of cars will they be?
According to Alliance President and CEO Dave McCurdy, “With just-released May auto sales reporting a continued decline towards numbers that haven’t been seen in a quarter century it is imperative to consumers, dealers, manufacturers and the communities they represent that a fleet modernization proposal be passed by Congress and quickly signed into law by the President.” That's their emphasis.
Jack Hidary, one of the authors of the Center for American Progress white paper and the chairman of Smarttransportation.org, says the compromise bill came about because lawmakers needed the vote of powerful Michigan Congressman John Dingell on the climate bill, and "he demanded a much lower bar because U.S. automakers produce so few fuel-efficient cars."
U.S. automakers currently have a million cars in inventory, so action is needed fast. Ten other countries, including Germany and Italy, have instituted their own version of clunker bills, and they're already producing increased car sales.
Let’s get rid of the clunker of a bill now moving forward. The reform bill would actually help, compared to legislation that is a big wet kiss to auto states and car dealers. It is still early in the process, Hidary says, and it is possible that the legislation that actually gets passed will be a further compromise — between the Stabenow and Feinstein versions of the Senate bills. The differences could be worked out in a Senate conference.
Here's a bit more of an explanation of how cash for clunker bills work, from Cars.com:
(MNN homepage photo: raffa080808/Flickr)
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- 7 surprising things Pope Francis has done in his first 100 days
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- Henry Cavill's 'Man of Steel' workout video
- Watch: Sir David Attenborough deals with a band of cannibals the British way
- What a grocery store without bees looks like
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- Obesity: It's officially a disease
- 8 astonishing benefits of walking
- Student science experiment finds plants won't grow near Wi-Fi router
From our sponsor
NEWSLETTER
ABOUT Jim Motavalli
New York Times contributor blogs about green transportation.
Advertisement
prom dresses
dress up games for girls
prom dresses
wedding invitation wording
Bridesmaid dresses
Oh yes, and variations of this plan has been tried by some states just to get rid of highly polluting performance chips vehicles.
I am so pleased the EPA revised my car downward on its mileage. Now the venerable town car gets an all around 18 instead of 20mpg. It doesn't burn oil, but it's never seen 18 mpg even downhill with a tailwind. Maybe some politico could tack on an EPA error factor with a 1 mpg per decade of age? So my 2 decade old clunker would be rated closeer to it's actual 16 mpg (dream on) than the EPA fudged up 18 mpg. Otherwise, it's a keeper. At least I fit in it!
This bill would put every charity car donation program in the nation out of business since the amount of the voucher would be much greater than the tax deduction. The solution is to simply allow the charity to issue the voucher in lieu of the tax deduction. The charity would then junk the car in accordance with the bill. This way, everyone wins, the car dealer, car maker, car buyer and the charity.