Cash for Clunkers: What Will They Do with all Those Old Cars?
Two years ago when we bought our Prius, my then second grader had an idea. He thought that everyone should have to give up their old cars and buy a hybrid. That, he believed, would solve the global warming problem that he was so worried about. Someone in Washington has stolen my son’s idea.
The New York Times reported last week that President Obama embraces “cash for clunkers” a government sponsored incentive program that would offer Americans cash for trading in their old, inefficient vehicles for new fuel efficient cars. The program would help both the environment and the ailing auto industry.
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that one of the reasons that we bought our Prius was because my husband’s company was offering a $5000 bonus to anyone who bought a vehicle that got 35 miles a gallon or better at the time. There was also a tax rebate - I believe it was $1800, don’t quote me on that figure, but we didn’t know about that when we made the decision.
- » See also: Organic Farming Would Be Better In Terms of Climate Change Impact. Right?
- » Get Sustainablog by RSS or sign up by email.
The cash incentive went a long way in helping us to make the decision to trade in our Jeep Grand Cherokee for a Prius. The things is, we knew that when we traded in that Jeep, we might have been doing something to reduce our day to day personal impact on the environment, but the Jeep would still be out there. Someone would buy it, and it would keep on getting very low gas mileage.
This is what we needed to explain to our 7-year-old. Although his idea of everyone getting rid of their cars seemed like a good idea, in reality it would cause a lot of problems. We asked him, “If tomorrow everyone woke up with a brand new hybrid gift wrapped in their drive-way, what would they do with their old cars?”
He’s a pretty smart kid and it didn’t take long for him to figure out that gazillions of old cars rusting away, leaking motor oil into the soil was just about as big of a problem as their inefficiency when being used.
So my question to those who are proposing what has been dubbed the “cash for clunkers” bill is, “Are you as smart as my 7-year-old?”
According to MSNBC, Senator Susan Collins said that taking gas guzzlers off the road
would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, decrease greenhouse gas emissions and stimulate the economy.
So it seems as if the cars being turned in would be trashed, not reused. The bill being proposed in Congress estimates that up to one million vehicles will be taken off the road with a savings of up to “80,000 barrels of motor fuel a day by the end of the fourth year.”
According to the bill the cars must still be in driving condition to be turned in. So now my question is “What will they do with all those old cars?” One million old cars that still have many usable parts. Where will they go? Will the cars be stripped? Will their usable parts be reused? Will the metal be recycled? It seems these questions are unanswered in the bill.
There are other questions I have, too.
What’s to keep people from driving more now that it will cost less to drive their cars?
Will people who take public transportation to work start driving their high efficiency vehicles because it’s now much more reasonable to do it financially?
As someone who took advantage of cash incentives to buy a fuel efficient vehicle, it may seem hypocritical for me to ask these questions. But I’m asking them anyway. This program seems much more like a program to give the failing automobile industry even more money than a program intended to help the environment.
If improving the environment is really a major part of “cash for clunkers” then the disposal of the vehicles needs to be outlined in the bill. Without specifics, perfectly good materials that could be stripped from these vehicles will most likely end up in a landfill or worse yet, the cars could end up back on the road - maybe in another country - because the bill isn’t specific about the turned in cars.
Image: Danillo Prates under a creative commons license
Robin,
Thanks for a GREAT post. I, too, hope the government is as smart as your seven year old. My husband, a manufacturing engineer, points out that 90+% of an automobile is recyclable. He drives a 1992 Nissan that STILL gets 25 - 34 MPG. Given this level of MPG, it is MUCH more green to keep driving this car kept in good condition than to consume the oil needed to manufacture a NEW vehicle. (And, cheaper since he can do 90% of the maitenance and repairs.) In fact, the car gets BETTER gas mileage than my 07 Suburu Forester(20-29 MPG). {For info on how to figure out which is greener - keep it or buy a new High MPG auto see this post: http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/this-week-david.php}
My 94 Nissan Sentra 2-door got 30-39MPG. When we were forced to replace it after it was totaled out by a truck on ice (and we had to have a family sized car) we were horrified to find that despite 13 years of technology, we COULD NOT replace the MPG unless we either (a) sacrificed the size vehicle we needed or b) bought a hybrid that was LARGER than we needed (Hylander Hybrid or Ford Escape). In other words, a fuel-effficient family-sized model did not exist. Since we could not afford the $26K for a Prius or Civic Hybrid, the $30-$40K for an Escape or oversized Hylander was out of the question.
I drove my Sentra with a headlight chicken-wired in it for 6 months trying to find a fuel-efficient small SUV/wagon that we could take camping, would haul my recycling, and would transport my products for my business to shows and events. I bought the Subaru because it was the best I could do. I love the car. I HATE the MPG comma lack thereof.
The reality is that millions of people would be driving fuel efficient vehicles RIGHT NOW if we had simply legislated MPG rewquirements that benefit not only the environment but the pocket books of average Americans and kept our auto industry economically viable. I would be one of them.
I know we need to suppport US industries. My husband’s job depends on it. However, we need to require BY LAW that US industries produce the most environmentally and socially just product possible, not as some facist plot as some will insist, but because it is the right thing to do morally and economically. Right now IF we went out to replace my husband’s Nissan, we’d NOT buy a US made car because they don’t make a high MPG, dependable car. In fact, we’d probably buy used because we CANNONT afford two car payments AND it would be greener.
So the whole cash for clunkers program is only evionmentally viable IF it is used only to replace cars that get LESS than a certain MPG AND if the car being replaced is COMPLETELY recycled AND if we have a US auto industry that is CURRENTLY producing a VIABLE replacement product. Otherwise, it is just more consumption.
just remember what happened to cassettes and eight tracks…
now imagine your neighbor’s plight, low income, it’s salvation transportation time again, donate, donate.
if feel good motive do not reach you, please ensure the passage of a bill which would return your rebated vehicle to some form of useful purpose, be it a mechanic’s salary, a recycler’s income or cars into plowshares programs for felon’s re-introduction into society. some good would eventually come out of it.
the speed of the transportation industry will ultimately depend on the size of your willing wallet.
but do ask for a CD or MP3 player in your new vehicle if you get one, at least.
Lori - I find it amazing, too, the lack of options out there when there are so many options!
Nadine - I’m not sure if I understand your p.o.v. Do want the clunkers back out on the road? If that were to happen, it would be an failure environmentally and a fraud politically. The whole point is to get them off the road. If I misunderstand you, please let me know.
Ah, the french abstract mind traps me again, please allow me to clarify my pov.
Yes indeed i do propose to make absolute full use of every vehicle in the market at present: for these reasons.
economy: many are not financially able to purchase a new car.
ecology: for each defunct vehicle, there is the fact of new product manufacture/material/transport/marketing/financing.
Looking at the social and environmental picture, i see cars becoming smarter and people becoming poorer. As the more affluent purchase greener products, older, less efficient ones will naturally phase out to their full-use ending and enrich the recycling material pool.
Within a few years, there will be “used” models of highly efficient transportation which will be made more affordable by market forces; just as the electronics industry has phased out previous technologies.
Yes, the recycling of electronics is barely catching up with the over-production, but it is stabilizing since the recession and green impetus. Keep prodding the industry, they’ll eventually behave.
Should the legal focus be put upon the manufacturers rather than the consumers? ie: NO bail outs for inefficient vehicles.
hoping to have made the socio-economic/ecologic link clearer, nadine
Lori - If you will check the links that I provided in my earlier posts, you will learn that your cars from the early 90’s (and 80’s) did not actually get the gas mileage that you claim. The EPA revised the calculations to force the numbers downward in the mid-90’s. Now, I know that when you divide miles driven by the gallons spent you get the MPG that you claim; so did I back in the day. However, the EPA now says that those calculations were erroneous. Being an engineer, I thought that straight-line division was a pretty basic operation. However, I have to assume that the EPA employs people who are more talented at elementary mathematics than the rest of us. It is also worth noting that the “13 years of technology” that you referenced was selectively applied. Today’s vehicles provide more crash survivability and fewer emissions, which does not necessarily correspond to greater MPG.
The cash for old car’s legislation is completely misguided. I have run into that locally where an old gent traded in his 1985 Chrysler in !!MINT!! condition and it wasn’t alowed back on the road because of a scrapage program! I would have gladly drivin that car for years to come. I can not stand to see old cars scaraped PERIOD! Especialy when they are in chery condition.
Canifornia had this back in the early 90’s some of the cars they crushed….well let’s just say us cars guys would have had heart attacks watching the rust free rare cars getting crushed for BS reasons!
Down with scrapage programs all across the world!
They serve no usefull purpose and take far too many great cars out of the hands of people that could resurect and apreciate them.
It sounds like a good idea. Im sure there are somethings that are hidden in the law to benefit a few people of intrest. Im sure some of the cars are being crushed. I can see some cars being stripped of good parts and being reused because not everyone supports the program and will need parts for the old cars, trucks. ect. They will still make aftermarket parts anyhow. I dont support the program, the cars that are being made today are nothing more than plastic, and cheap metal. Most new cars start having problems around 30,000 miles or so. We used to have a 1997 Dodge Stratus and it didnt even make it to 70,000 miles, the tranny ended up giving out the the suspension gave out as well. All regular maintance was done. So how long will the new hybids last? Cars with Batteries???? How will they dispose of the batteries? I know for a fact that cars today are made very cheap, and not made like they used to. SO in theory I believe that we will be have more new cars of today end up clunkers alot faster than the older generation of veichels. I like my old car, it gets good gas mileage, its easy to work on and to maintain at little cost. So newer is not always better. Their is technology out their that can make a V8 engine get 40+MPG, but we will never see it. Todays cars have no horse power as well. I say clunk the program. Its all a scam to get money. All the money we pay for the new cars, we end up throwing it away 70,000 miles later and buying a new one. So you end up paying more for cars and paying more for the repairs and car insurance. What a waste.
I have yet to get an answer on what they are doing with the old cars that are taken in for Cash for Clunkers. Are they destroying them? If so, where is the money going that is made destroying the cars for scrap metal? My guess is lining pockets and NOT helping the enviroment, which is the whole idea of this program. Can anyone honestly answer my question? KD
Where is the money going from these salvaged cars? Is the goverment recouping some of the money that is being so easily given away at the expense of all of us- especially us “rich” folk who somehow owe the world everything for working harder than most, saving better and investing well.
does anyone remember when cars got 50 mpg? if people want to get a fuel efficient car go buy a 1995 geo metro “clunker” not a suv or a hybrid that gets 25 mpgs. i hear obama drives a chrysler 300 whats with that hes head of gm now your all a bunch of suckers goin out buyin a “fuel efficient car it will be a clunker in 1 year . thats just money in their pockets not yours