US policymakers are rolling out big incentives for electric vehicle buyers who surrender a gas-powered model, advancing efforts to cancel carbon emissions.
Eric Hartman, a retired pilot in Lakewood, Colorado, junked his 2003 diesel Volkswagen Jetta in September in exchange for a rebate on a new Hyundai Kona electric. To qualify, the car needed to be more than 12 years old or have failed an emissions test.
The problem with these programs is that they are not restricted enough.
My own ICE would technically qualify for this, since it’s 14 years old now. But there is literally nothing about it that makes it a “clunker”… It’s in great mechanical condition, I get 32 MPG in most highway conditions, it’s a cool enthusiast type car, it fits my needs… Why would I even consider sending it to the scrapyard?
And this vagueness means that, technically, a 2011 Toyota Corolla (or similar) could qualify. A Corolla is far and away one of the most reliable vehicles on the road, ICE or otherwise. It’s a car that a lower-income individual can just pay for with cash and drive it for many more years with minimal fuss. And yet, to benefit those buying new, it technically is allowed to be scrapped, removing it from the market.
The sentiment is good but the types of vehicles that qualify need to be restricted to trucks, SUVs, and larger cars.
Not to mention that the emissions it took to produce the EV still need to be offset, so the polluting vehicle makes sense to keep depending on how often they drive.
It looks good on paper to be able to say, “we took another ICE vehicle off the road”, when realistically it makes no sense.
Not to mention that the emissions it took to produce the EV still need to be offset,
I saw an article posted on here within the last few weeks that an EV beats a new gas car on emissions by ~15k miles driven. In other words, the break even point for a normal commuter’s driving requirements is about 12-18 months.
You’re looking at a few years of driving an ICE before you’re behind a new EV plus driving the same distance. That makes it better for the environment to replace an ice now with a BEV, because you’ll be contributing less to emissions in about 18 months or so.
I really disagree. Emissions requirements have generally gotten tighter over time, older cars will mostly pollute more than new cars because of components that fail over time. Their mileage has gotten worse too. We don’t have a problem with too many people trading in their old cars for an ev. We have too few of these. If you make it too complicated people will shy away from it.
Until we are running out of money for this trade-in strategy, let’s keep it up.
Speaking only about co2: due to how ICE produce their emissions (less grey, more on use) vs how BEV do it (more grey emissions, less on use), it is always effective to scrap (=recycle) the ICE as soon as you can and replace it with a BEV.
It is never worth it to keep driving the ICE until it fails, their emissions at manufacturing are just too low compared to what they produce afterwards while being driven.
It is not intuitive, but it is logical when considering the global emissions of cars.
Don’t buy ICE that fails. Toyota doesn’t fail. Guy in Florida drove Highlander over 1 million miles but it got destroyed in hurricane so Toyota gave him brand new one. Otherwise he still be driving the old one.
IF EV battery fails it will cost an arm and a leg to fix it assuming it can be fixed. Exploding it with a dynamite works too. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I own a 2006 Corolla and it’s insanely reliable, although it’s showing its age already. The government here offers a 12K$ voucher for it if I will buy an electric car, but I still can’t let it go even though I kinda want a new car.
And this is exactly why Cash for Clunkers was a failure in every way except for giving a massive handout to the auto industry. Studies showed it had no impact on emissions, or even new sales. All it did was pull ahead existing sales by a few months to a few years.
The main thing these cash for clunkers schemes do is drive up the 2nd hand market by creating artificial scarcity.
Manufacturers love this shit because coming off the back of supply issues, they can go back to pushing up demand for new vehicles all over again.
It’s also a scheme that helps people that are already able to afford a new car - people shopping the 2nd hand market aren’t going to be helped, so it’s really not effective as a societal benefit - it just helps people who likely were already shopping for a new car get a slightly more expensive one.
The problem with these programs is that they are not restricted enough.
My own ICE would technically qualify for this, since it’s 14 years old now. But there is literally nothing about it that makes it a “clunker”… It’s in great mechanical condition, I get 32 MPG in most highway conditions, it’s a cool enthusiast type car, it fits my needs… Why would I even consider sending it to the scrapyard?
And this vagueness means that, technically, a 2011 Toyota Corolla (or similar) could qualify. A Corolla is far and away one of the most reliable vehicles on the road, ICE or otherwise. It’s a car that a lower-income individual can just pay for with cash and drive it for many more years with minimal fuss. And yet, to benefit those buying new, it technically is allowed to be scrapped, removing it from the market.
The sentiment is good but the types of vehicles that qualify need to be restricted to trucks, SUVs, and larger cars.
Exactly, that guy’s 2003 diesel Jetta probably got 35-40 mpg and pollutes far less than any truck or SUV.
hahahahaha no. They pollute quite a bit more, especially since that’s pre-stricter emissions standards that came into effect here in 2006.
Diesels have disproportionate impacts on local air quality too, a major driver of asthma and respiratory illnesses.
FWIW I’ve owned all generations of small VW diesels since MY2001. Most recently had a Touraeg that was unfixable for emissions.
Not to mention that the emissions it took to produce the EV still need to be offset, so the polluting vehicle makes sense to keep depending on how often they drive.
It looks good on paper to be able to say, “we took another ICE vehicle off the road”, when realistically it makes no sense.
I saw an article posted on here within the last few weeks that an EV beats a new gas car on emissions by ~15k miles driven. In other words, the break even point for a normal commuter’s driving requirements is about 12-18 months.
You’re looking at a few years of driving an ICE before you’re behind a new EV plus driving the same distance. That makes it better for the environment to replace an ice now with a BEV, because you’ll be contributing less to emissions in about 18 months or so.
I’ve got an rx8 that gets 12-14mpg and requires oil injection. Should it qualify?
The standard to qualify apparently require the vehicle to be scrapped to have an EPA MPG rating of 18 or less. So your 30+ MPG car wouldn’t qualify.
I really disagree. Emissions requirements have generally gotten tighter over time, older cars will mostly pollute more than new cars because of components that fail over time. Their mileage has gotten worse too. We don’t have a problem with too many people trading in their old cars for an ev. We have too few of these. If you make it too complicated people will shy away from it.
Until we are running out of money for this trade-in strategy, let’s keep it up.
Speaking only about co2: due to how ICE produce their emissions (less grey, more on use) vs how BEV do it (more grey emissions, less on use), it is always effective to scrap (=recycle) the ICE as soon as you can and replace it with a BEV.
It is never worth it to keep driving the ICE until it fails, their emissions at manufacturing are just too low compared to what they produce afterwards while being driven.
It is not intuitive, but it is logical when considering the global emissions of cars.
Trees need CO2 to live. Stop cutting the trees.
Don’t buy ICE that fails. Toyota doesn’t fail. Guy in Florida drove Highlander over 1 million miles but it got destroyed in hurricane so Toyota gave him brand new one. Otherwise he still be driving the old one.
IF EV battery fails it will cost an arm and a leg to fix it assuming it can be fixed. Exploding it with a dynamite works too. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I own a 2006 Corolla and it’s insanely reliable, although it’s showing its age already. The government here offers a 12K$ voucher for it if I will buy an electric car, but I still can’t let it go even though I kinda want a new car.
Damn sick deal tho. That+fed tax credit you could get a bolt for very cheap.
And this is exactly why Cash for Clunkers was a failure in every way except for giving a massive handout to the auto industry. Studies showed it had no impact on emissions, or even new sales. All it did was pull ahead existing sales by a few months to a few years.
The main thing these cash for clunkers schemes do is drive up the 2nd hand market by creating artificial scarcity.
Manufacturers love this shit because coming off the back of supply issues, they can go back to pushing up demand for new vehicles all over again.
It’s also a scheme that helps people that are already able to afford a new car - people shopping the 2nd hand market aren’t going to be helped, so it’s really not effective as a societal benefit - it just helps people who likely were already shopping for a new car get a slightly more expensive one.