America is not the only country whose government is Hell bent on supporting an auto industry past its prime. Take Germany. Bitte. Last autumn, the German government announced it would suspend registration taxes on cars to support new-car sales. The moved shaved between $200 (for small cars) and $2000 (for more prolific carbon belchers) from the price of admission. Net result, sales-wise? Nichts. Never mind. Yesterday, Germany’s government felt inspired by the French example to introduce incentives for motorists to scrap their older cars. Now, any owner of a nine-year-old or older German ow-tow-mobile car can collect around $3,000 (€2,500) if he or she junks his or her car and buys a new, hopefully more fuel efficient model. Hmmm. Corporations account for over 50 percent of Germany’s new cars sales. Looking at the other half, few motorists who drive a genuine clunker can afford a new car, with or without incentives. And those who can usually purchase a cheap, non-German car. In light of these inconvenient Aufrichtigkeits, PricewaterhouseCooper’s estimates that the scrapping incentive will add 300k sales to the moribund annual total sounds like a load of baloney. If so, all that remains is greenwashery (“at least we got some of those clunkers off the road”) and expensive government activism. Look for an American version in the next Congressional bailout budget.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
The People’s Republic of California has (had?) a scrap incentive program as well, except they offered you only $500……
in the photo, the guy’s pushing a GM. how appropriate.
Texas has had a similar program for a couple of years now….
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/consumer&id=5843269
I haven’t paid much attention since it looks like a program for which most people won’t qualify. I wrote it off as a Pink Elephant Insurance program.
I’d be interested if anybody has any statistical results from this program – it might tell us how silly the Germans are being.
If the feds get involved in this it will be ugly.
The Japanese ruined the Detroit automakers’ planned obsolescence scheme, and now cars are built so well that the government has to pay us to destroy them.
Isn’t progress wonderful.
The “dirt” (i.e. stuff other than CO2) that comes out of the tailpipes of old cars is only a problem in big cities. That problem has largely gone away, and in situations where local air quality is poor (LA, Houston) it should be dealt with on a local basis (as the above commenters indicate it is being).
The problem right now, supposedly, is CO2 emissions. If anything most old cars built in the last 20 years emit less CO2 than a new car, and building a new car and scraping an old one requires a huge amount of CO2. Anyone claiming this is good for the environment is a liar or an idiot.
Having people dig ditches and then refill them would be a lot more intellectually honest.
“Having people dig ditches and then refill them would be a lot more intellectually honest.”
Yep! 3,500,000 jobs. No education, no training, and most likely, no digging.
Roger, all of our British contingient will get this reference, otherwise – not.
“And they keep their billycans brewing.”
What is the point of this? 10-year-old cars are nowhere near being obsolete. Even a well designed and cared for 15-year-old car provides acceptable emission controls and safety.
Already introduced: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_co/cash_for_clunkers_1
rpn453 :
January 14th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
What is the point of this? 10-year-old cars are nowhere near being obsolete. Even a well designed and cared for 15-year-old car provides acceptable emission controls and safety.
I respectively disagree. 15 years ago dual front airbags were the only mandated restraints, the emissions requirements were lower, and the car structures were not nearly as safe.
Are 15 year old cars still viable? Sure. Until last year I was still driving my 1995 E300D (totaled by a flood on my street) that had almost 500K miles. I still believe it is safer than many modern cars. Legend has it that Mercedes actually decreased the rigidity of the front of the W210 series (model design after my W124) because it was SO strong that it was causing too much damage to other vehicles in accidents.
But, in general are they safer? No. Are they cleaner or just as clean? No.
The advances in pedestrian safety, passive safety (side/head airbags), ESP, ABS are all evident in recent years.
Porsche986:
There have been huge advances in safety, but that is something that should encourage people to buy new cars on their own, the government shouldn’t need to pay them.
The “dirt” (non-CO2) emissions have improved greatly, but that is a local issue.
CO2 emissions have stayed pretty constant. A 1989 Ford Taurus V6 got 21 mpg combined and a 2009 Ford Taurus V6 gets 21 mpg combined (both under the new mileage measurement standards, the 1989 Taurus got 24 mpg combined under the old standards). And the ’89 Taurus did have electronic fuel injection and a catalytic converter, so it’s not exactly going to be spewing smog.
If the labor, capital and energy resources to produce a new car are going to be used then I have no problem with that car being required to meet the current safety and emissions standards.
But the recent old cars are not that bad in terms of externalities.
This is simply a jobs program, it shouldn’t be greenwashed, and it is not necessarily the most efficient jobs program.
We will loose a lot of ‘collectables’
Wouldn’t this increase the value of the 2nd hand market? This would in turn hurt first time buyers.
I think Steven Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) is right in his skepticism of a cash for clunkers scheme. History suggests that these programs are expensive and don’t work.
That does not stop politicians from proposing, and adopting, these kinds of programs. No one seems to care about following up on them to see if they work.
If they did, we wouldn’t be talking in the US about a new economic stimulus. History has no example of one that has worked. Were Keynes himself alive today, I’m not sure that he would be pushing for one.
If the ONLY intention is to increase new car sales it’s misguided.
These programs properly thought out can;
1. Remove the most inefficient POS off the roads; old, dirty, unnecessary pickups for example.
2. Stimulate the used market; the recipient of the bounty might go into their nearest dealer and buy a better, more fuel efficient version of the car that was junked.
3. If used prices get a boost, the trade-in/change-over value might get a boost, so “trickle up” to new cars as well.
4. Less safe cars are removed from the road.
5. Over-all national fleet efficiency is improved.
6. Pollution is reduced.
It might help dealers, otherwise they’ll be in for a bailout too shortly.
But when the real problem is 17m -> 10m units and industry problems are completely structural, there’s not enough money in the world to get buying started again.
I respectively disagree. 15 years ago dual front airbags were the only mandated restraints, the emissions requirements were lower, and the car structures were not nearly as safe.
In general, cars are better now with respect to safety and emissions. But not enough that the government should initiate culling of all mid to late ’90’s cars!
My girlfriend’s ’93 MX-6 has a 5 star frontal offset impact rating, my ’04 Mazda3 only has 4. Like hers, my car also predates side airbag availability in that model.
We had pretty good emission standards in place for 1994 MY vehicles, under the 1990 Clean Air Act. The phase-out period for that level of emissions was 2004 to 2009, so there are a lot of newer vehicles that meet the same standards as a 1994 vehicle.
That said, I’d love to see all the serious polluters go to the wrecker. If I can smell your car, get it off the road!
No need to argue whether mid-90s cars should be replaced, since the bill introduced in Congress (see ttacfan’s link) considers everything manufactured before 1999 to be old and actually gives the most credit for cars built in 2002 or later. The sponsors are hoping for 1 million takers per year.
Leave it to the U.S. Congress to make European government look brilliant by comparison.
I have a colleague who is buying a car for this very reason. Well, that and his family is about to outgrow his Jetta.
The whole “don’t pay road tax for the first two years” thing is immensely stupid, makes nobody buy a new car but leaves a billion-€-sized hole that has to be filled somehow.
What they should have done: Finally switching to a CO2-based road tax model, so people with economical cars pay a bit less.
On my BMW, the road tax would be roughly half of the 308€ I pay now if they switched to the proposed CO2-based taxing scheme.
Safety sucks. Look, I don’t want airbags. I’ll take my chances. Of course I want myself and my family to be safe – but safe from poor engineering i.e. the 1974 Pinto (kaboom!). I will accept or not accept KNOW DIFFICIENCIES (such as the rollover of a high COG vehicle like the Samurai) but that is MY CHOICE! I know it and I make a conscious decision to drive or not drive it. Until the US has national healthcare and foots my bill, they have no say.
The safetycrats have double the weight of the car. Compare the Civic of the ’70 to the ’00’s.
Look at mini-trucks. I saw a Chevy S-10 just yesterday parked where I used to park my Dodge RAM 350. They were close to the same size! Next thing you know, they will want roll cages for motorcycles! Make us live in protective bubbles. Remove all choice.
Look, I think it is a good idea for “the masses” to purchase newer, cleaner, and safer vehicles. It helps the economy, can help the environment, and can save lives. Just don’t MANDATE it and tell me I MUST!
Give me $3000 per clunker, for my three, let me strip off all the parts I want to save first, and I’ll buy 18 $500 cars.