The recently introduced Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Act (H.R. 1550) is seriously flawed, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
The ACEEE is one of the most respected organizations in the country analyzing and promoting sound energy efficiency policies. I have worked with them many times over the past two decades. Here is their press release:
March 31, 2009
Washington, D.C.: ACEEE commends the intent of Representative Sutton, sponsor of the CARS Act, to help the U.S. auto industry emerge successfully from the current crisis while reducing oil dependence and global warming emissions. Unfortunately, the vehicle scrappage program outlined by the bill as introduced would not achieve its energy and environmental objectives.
The most serious shortcomings of the bill are:
- The qualification for vehicles to be scrapped under the program is based on age (model year 2000 or earlier) rather than poor fuel economy; and
- The fuel economy threshold for U.S.-assembled cars to be purchased under the program (27 miles per gallon highway) is very weak, with well over half of all cars sold meeting this threshold.
Scrapping all pre-2001 vehicles indiscriminately does not serve any valid purpose and should not be funded by taxpayers. Fuel economy in the U.S. has been roughly flat since the late 1980s, so replacing an older vehicle with a newer one does not generally save fuel. The bill as currently drafted fails to ensure that a new vehicle purchased under the program will be significantly more fuel-efficient than the vehicle that is scrapped.
Crafting a bill that will both accelerate our transition to a vehicle fleet that dramatically reduces oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions AND stimulate demand for new vehicles to help our auto industry recover is an achievable goal. Any bill offering federal subsidies for new vehicle purchases should require that the scrapped vehicle is a fuel-inefficient vehicle, not simply an old vehicle, and that the purchased vehicle is a highly fuel-efficient vehicle.
We recommend the approach taken in H.R. 520, the ARIVA bill introduced in January by Rep. Israel, which promotes scrappage of vehicles having a combined fuel economy under 18 miles per gallon and purchase of vehicles exceeding Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by at least 25 percent.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Must see electric car dragster….fantastic stuff.
World’s Fastest Electric Car: ’72 Datsun (VIDEO) -The White Zombie
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/26/worlds-fastest-electric-c_n_179582.html
…
Zero to 60 in three seconds, no foreign oil required. And it looks like something out of a Ted Nugent video.
…
It takes about 20 minutes to fully charge the car, and it can get up to 40 miles on a full charge.
What do you think about the newly instituted income tax deduction for people who buy new cars, motorcycles, SUV’s, light trucks, and motor homes? This doesn’t seem to help global warming much. Barbara Mikulski said ” This amendment also helps the environment because it gets more people into new cars and new cars are cleaner and more fuel efficient than old cars.” But, a new SUV ain’t better than an old Honda Civic.
I have been looking for automobile LCAs, but haven’t found much, but here is one:
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/pdf/pgr_e.pdf
It seems reducing miles traveled substantially and maintaining your vehicle may be a better option than purchase of a new car for many people in terms of mitigating AGW and it also saves money.
Global trade is not sustainable currently….
US study warns of pollution from merchant ships off Florida coast
• Freighters, tankers and cruise ships pose health risks on shore
• Ships emit as much pollution as 300m cars
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/31/noaa-pollution-florida-freighters-tankers-cruise-ships
This proposed law is a fraud. Its only real intent is to pull pre-2000 cars off the road, forcing consumers to buy the much-more expensive (but not more fuel-efficient) cars made after 2000. It was after 2000 that the really big SUV and truck craze in America took off, with some of the worst fuel efficient engines of the past 30 years hitting the market (and yet with the highest retail price tags ever).
My personal Real World example:
My 1998 Chevy Camaro with its V6 fuel-injected engine and 5-speed manual transmission has 170,000 miles on it and yet it *still* gets the exact same 30 mpg on the highway that it did when it was brand new. Most of the new “high mileage” cars (even most of the so-called hybrids) sold today have a hard time getting 30 mpg on the highway… only a few can top 30 mpg, and only then by 3 or 4 mpg.
In other words, my 11-year old car is *still* one of the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the road, but it only cost me $5,000 used in 2005. To replace it with something as efficient made after 2000 would cost me $10,000 or more even used — and I would be gaining NO additional fuel economy. I don’t have $24,000 for a new Prius (and they’re all sold out anyway).
It was not unti just last summer, when gas in the U.S. topped $4 a gallon, that a few (foreign) car makers began to get serious again about improving fuel efficiency. Before last year, there had been no significant efficiency improvements for almost 20 years (except for the Prius).
This is a law designed to help detroit sell more of its lousy new vehicles by taking perfectly good, fuel-efficient vehicles that are 9 years or older off the road and leavign the consumer with no choice. More business as usual for Detroit and Washington.
agreed. CARS made before 2000 are efficient by any modern standards. Removing SUVs makes some sense, but is not addressed by the bill. There is a value in the stimulus — see Germany — buy with 50% of vehicles sale being imported in the US a clunker rebate makes no sense.
Give me $1500 to only drive 5000 miles next year — goverment funded demand destruction — will reduce imported oil bill (by 50%) and also reduce need for dollars on Treasury.