CTV.ca reports that John Baird, Canada's firebrand Minister of the Environment, has green-lighted a $90 million vehicle scrappage program. In essence, the objective of the program is to encourage Canadians to trade in their high-emission beaters in favor of credits on a new car. CTV notes that "[t]hese older vehicles make up just a fraction of the estimated 18 million vehicles in Canada, but they account for up to two-thirds of the pollution that causes smog." There is a current mish-mash of recycling programs in Canada, but the new legislation aims at creating a national, uniform program for beaters nationwide. Though one can't argue with the aesthetic merits of getting some of the ancient, rusted-out Pontiac Parisiennes off Canadian roads, one has to wonder about how enticing any recycling credits would really be. All of those clunkers, being fully depreciated and cheap to insure, have very low cost of ownership, which usually (and easily) offsets any extra fuel costs. Unfortunately, specifics of the plan have not been announced by the Federal government, which makes any assessment of its effectiveness difficult, at best.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
With the rising commodity prices you talked about in an editorial a few days ago it seems like this sort of plan makes more sense than ever. As long as this sort of thing never becomes mandatory I’m all for it. I think the money spent on emmisions testing most places would be better spent like this.
For the most part, people don’t drive beaters because because they enjoy the rust and smoke aesthetic. They drive them because, as you say, they are cheap to own and because the owner either can’t, or doesn’t want to, pony up for newer wheels.
Here in the metro Vancouver area we have an air quality testing scheme that does a pretty good job getting the egregious polluters off the road, or at least moderately cleaned up. There are holes in the system, of course, but it generally works as intended.
I doubt a few hundred bucks will be enough to get people out of their crappy cars.
Emissions testing that is specific to a State or Provence just moves the problem elsewhere. Rural NV is full of old cars that can’t pass SMOG in CA.
I have been in favor of imposing a $2.50 increase in the gas tax and using the proceeds to buy SUVs and other guzzlers at some predetermined price, such as dealer net with 40% annual depreciation.
How do you say “stimulating weak new car sales” in Canadian?
we need nation wide inspection/emissions rules and standards. In parts of PA you need to have your car emission tested every year when you renew your inspection. But only in some counties. The one i live in requires it…yet 5 miles north in the next county they dont…how is that helping a damn thing?! Then 10 miles East in New Jersey you dont need to have a NEW car inspected for 3 years (i think). that just makes sense!
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just dump more salt on the roads.
I see plenty of Parisienne’s here in Montreal. The mid 60’s version is so long that it takes up a parking space and a half.. maybe that’s why they want them off the streets. The sad thing is that they’re better looking cars than just about any Pontiac made in the past 20 years…
50merc :
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just dump more salt on the roads.
Only in the short-term. Eventually salt (which is usually accompanied by gravel, sand or industrial abrasives) chews up the roads, accelerates the formation of potholes and reduces the useful life of roads. And asphalt roads, well, they’re expensive and will only get more expensive as the price of crude oil climbs.
Conceptually this is a good idea, but the devil may be in the details. Since some people drive bombs because of economic reasons, even $500 will not be sufficient to get these people into new(er) cars. I think that having uniform emission testing for all vehicles up to 18 years would be a more effective way to improve air quality. Scrappage programs tend to reduce availability of used cars/parts that have value to the hobby industry. A uniform emission and safety program would yield the best results. Some may consider this as “excessive government intrusion”, but operating a vehicle affects not just the user, but everybody else, too. Responsibility must be borne by all users. It is obvious from the condition of some older vehicles in states that don’t have inspection programs that voluntary compliance does not work. Some people simply will not spend money on maintenance until their car dies on the side of the road.
The vehicles have to be older than model year 1996 to be eligeable for the program.
Most vehicles with a carburator that must pass an emission test are increasingly more difficult to pass as they get older. In Ontario up to a 1987 model year vehicle must be emissioned on an ongoing basis.
The 1988 Parisienne with a 305 4 barrel, is either well tuned up new plugs, wires, distributor cap, possibly even a rebuilt carburator, and even a fresh catalytic converter to pass emission.
Simple idea for the Canadian government.
If these cars cost a great deal (environmentally) to keep on the road, increase the registration fee to compensate. Make it so that owners of trashy old cars have to pay for their negligence.
This idea is just plain wrong.
If the government really wanted to reduce emissions, they would offer emissions equipment for these vehicle owners so that they could continue on with minimal levels of pollution. Dedicating the monies that come from emissions towards that would be an extremely intelligent way to handle both pollution and consumption.
Approximately 30% to 40% of the energy used in a vehicle’s lifetime comes before the key is first put in the ignition. You also have to take into account that the average vehicle today is just about as inefficient in terms of gas consumption as those that were made 30 years ago (Car & Driver’s Patrick Bedard highlighted this a couple years ago) and substantially less fuel efficient than those even 20 years ago.
An old Dodge Shadow is not really hurting anything or anyone. The Parisienne mentioned in the article may be a more valid case. But then again Canada can always punish the owner of that car through gas taxes and registration costs. Even that’s a little heavy handed, but it’s far better than painting with the proverbial broad stroke and say that old cars are undesirable. In fact a lot of small and efficient old cars are far better in terms of pollution and consumption than virtually any new car when you factor in the production cycle.
Sorry, but this program is definitely not an intelligent answer to the pollution question.
@Steven Lang: Most of the cars that are being targetted by this program already have emissions equipment (catalytic converters, EGR valve, etc) that was adequate at the time of their manufacture. The cost to retrofit a 15 year old car with up-to-date emissions equipment would be very cost-prohibitive.
The Canadian government is bribing people with their own tax dollars to support the floundering auto sector. Unless you were already considering buying another car, the inscentive won’t be enough to convince you to scrap your old one.
In Ontario at least, there is already emissions testing on cars every two years for cars 1988 and newer. If the gov’t wanted to put this money to more effective use, they would close the loophole that allows people to keep driving their cars when they’ve failed the emissions test (called a “conditional pass”) but subsidize the cost of repairs to make such cars REALLY pass.
I hope the US never tries any of these bull-headed railroading techniques. Older cars are simpler than new, and simple machines are almost always better. I find it ironic these particular Pontiac’s are in the crosshairs, because that’s a cousin to the Chevy Caprice which I wouldn’t mind at all. With the police package and a fresh 383 small block, of course.
Oh course what is actually going to happen is those driving real beaters will continue to do so. Those who were going to buy a new car anyway will just happen to buy some off the road anyway junker and own it long enough to collect the credit. Thus crushing an old junker that wasn’t really on the road anyway. Tax dollars well spent.
I say this as a Canadian junker driver. Driving a beater is so cost effective I’m not tempted.