JAN 20

A new bill introduced in the Senate this month is being called the "Cash for Clunkers" program. It would offer drivers a $4,500 voucher for turning in their gas-guzzling cars for more fuel-efficient ones.

It seems simple, but there are a few requirements that a driver would have to meet in order to cash in. The vehicle being traded in must be drivable and have a fuel-economy rating of less than 18 miles per gallon. The new car must exceed federal fuel economy targets for its vehicle class by 25 percent, must cost less than $45,000 and be a 2004 model or later.

While this is a good idea in theory, there would be easy ways to take advantage of this program without actually making a dramatic improvement in fuel efficiency. Someone could trade in their old car for a truck or SUV that is considered fuel efficient for its class, but doesn't actually improve the drivers overall fuel performance. The senators backing this bill claim that this program could save 40,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day in four years. I think that this type of program is the right kind of idea - one that aims to help people across the country reduce their fuel consumption, but I think they could do better. There aren't high hopes for this bill to pass, but I hope to see something bigger and more effective pass soon.

via GoodCleanTech

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Ben, January 20, 2009

People often claim that exchanging a car that uses lots of fuel for a fuel efficient car is good, but i'd have thought it would be better to keep the gas guzzler going for as long as possible rather than waste resources on building new cars? does anyone have any statistics on car creation material and energy costs??

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Better idea yet
written by Ryan, January 20, 2009

I agree that this bill is a good idea. But as was mentioned, there is a chance for people just buy an SUV with good milage for its class. What about stipulations on the voucher itself? Making the voucher only be redeemable on certain economical small cars (none of them being SUVS!!!). A good idea from the Senate. Need more like them with perhaps some more forethought....

• 
• +0
• 
• 

New product foot print....
written by elepski, January 21, 2009

in line with Ben's statement... The carbon cost of a new smaller car might out weight that of keeping the SUV on the road. I do not know the carbon output from making one car.. from raw material to off the lot.. But that new Prius or Smart could very well have a higher cost on the environment than a Chevy Tahoe that is already on the road. I am a proponent smaller cars... but if you release more carbon by switching .. what's the point?!?.. just to feel righteous... Again.. this is not a bad idea.. but each person will need to make the critical choice of what is right in their situation.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Fine print
written by Foraker, January 21, 2009

I agree with Ryan, it's all in the details. The article said that the new vehicle must get at least 18 mpg, in addition to exceeding fuel economy targets for its class. Well, why don't we just bump that up to "at least 30mpg," which only the hybrid SUVs are likely to meet. We could also include a weight limit to exclude SUVs.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

18 mpg ?
written by Franz Ferdinand, January 22, 2009

30 is more like it.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Senate Bill Would Exchange Gas....
written by Candace, January 22, 2009

Re: new product footprint, This is a very important point. It also would stimulate the new car industry, which is another goal of congress. Genius: put more new cars on the road, reduce fuel consumption and perhaps emissions all at once.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

not a fan
written by eh, January 22, 2009

why not just raise the federal excise tax by 10 to 20 cents per gallon while gas prices are kinda/sorta/almost low again?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

The cost
written by Ar, January 24, 2009

According to Toyota the energy cost to build a new car is equivalent to 500 gallon of gas.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by booo, January 29, 2009

This is a terrible idea. Keeping a used gas-guzzler is better than producing a whole new car. I'm also an old car guy and this would be very bad for the hobby.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Wonderful concept
written by Wounded, April 04, 2009

I own a "clunker" a 86 Chevy Van. Which has seen better days. Now after years of service is on its last "legs". Wouldn't it be great if every one could afford a new efficient vehicle, especially a $45,000.00 one? Also, some people actually have a need for a vehicle thats not the size of a tuna can. So my guess is that bill could use some tweaking to include a better cross section of the current population comprised of a whole lot of people just trying to keep a roof over the family. Try writing a bill that could actually help somebody help the enviroment, instead of just another bailout for the auto industry disguised as something to help global warming. Sounds more like an underhanded way to sell more high priced cars to me, but what do I know....

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment