backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 161 comment(s) - last by Pythias.. on Jul 25 at 5:51 PM


  (Source: Detroit News)
New program hopes to provide a boost to hybrids, put more eco-friendly cars on the road

With increased concerns about global warming and soaring gas costs, the U.S. and Canadian governments are looking to provide relief to consumers checkbooks and the environment by stepping up efforts to get old, dirty, inefficient autos off the road.  A variety of state-level efforts are aimed to provide help to lower-income families in purchasing newer, more efficient transportation.

Leading the way in the U.S., perhaps surprisingly to some, is Texas, the iconic face of the U.S. oil industry.  The traditionally conservative state is launching a large $45 million annual program aimed at providing subsidies to help get polluting autos off the road.  The effort is named "Drive a Clean Machine" and is only available to Austin, Houston and the Dallas-Fort Worth area citizens with low incomes and a car over 10 years old.

A family of four must make $63,000 or less to qualify.  Texas has the second most vehicles of any state, with 8.7 million total on the road.  The vehicles eligible for the program must also fail an emissions test and be drivable to a dealership under their own power.

The program will offer those that qualify up to $3,500 to help in their purchase of a new or (newer) used vehicle.  Andrea Morrow, a spokeswoman for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality says the program has been a phenomenal success, replacing 11,000 elderly vehicles.  "It's a great way to get those older vehicles off the roads," said Marrow

Citizens buying a hybrid are eligible for $3,500, while those buying traditional autos can receive a $3,000 in voucher form to buy a truck up to two years old or a car up to three years old.  All vehicles must be $25,000 or less and be on a state-approved list.

Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing Detroit's Big Three, Toyota Motor Corp., Daimler AG and six others, said his group strongly encourages such efforts.  While encouraging newer auto purchases will help the auto companies, he says the big thing is that it helps the environment and consumers.  "We strongly support efforts to get older, less-efficient vehicles off the roads and help consumers," said Territo.

Indeed there is evidence that much of the nation's auto population is becoming increasingly decrepit.  The economy has been getting hammered, with June being the worst month on the stock market since the Great Depression, and consumers are feeling the pinch and hanging onto older vehicles, afraid to spend. 

R.L. Polk in a recent 2007 study found that the average age of autos on U.S. roads is 9.2 years, only tying a 2006 study.  Light truck ages are up to 7.1 years on average, the highest level since 1998.  However, efforts may be working -- Americans junked 13 million vehicles in 2007, or 5.2 percent of all vehicles, a rise from 5 percent in 2006.

California is offering a similar program to Texas.  California has the most vehicles in the nation, with 33 million cars and trucks, or 13.5 percent of the nation's auto fleet.  The state is offering $50 million a year to give lower-income the chance to enjoy newer vehicles.  The program will give those eligible either $1,500 for a new vehicle, or $500 to repair their current vehicle.  While the program from the state's Bureau of Automotive Repair is aimed to help lower income citizens it does not check or require specific levels of income.  The program scrapped 16,000 vehicles last year, replacing them with new vehicles.

The state remains concerned as the California's Air Resources Board predicted that by 2010, thirty percent of the state's vehicles will be 13 years old or more.

Finally, Canada is joining the U.S. in offering subsidies to scrap older cars.  Canada is launching a major program Jan. 1, which it hopes will get 50,000 vehicles off the road, or about 1 percent of the nation's fleet.  A total of $92 million has been allocated to the program.  Vehicles must be running to qualify.  The three-year program will offer citizens $300 cash or a discount on a bicycle or a public transit pass in exchange for their old car.  Canada's environment minister John Baird states that the program will "get Canadian's smog-causing, gas-guzzlers off the road."

Local Canadian governments also have a variety of programs, some of which are ongoing, others which are complete.  These programs include the "Cash for Klunkers" in Kelowna, British Columbia; "Bye Bye Beaters" in Winnipeg, Manitoba and Nova Scotia; and "Steer Clean" in Halifax.

While eliminating old autos certainly provides environmental benefits in cleaner and more limited emissions and provides consumers with more safety, reliability, and cost savings in gas, the programs remain controversial.  For the time being though, it appears that if anything the subsidies will only see increased adoption across the nation, thanks to strong reception.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

$3K off a $25K vehicle + low income = wtf
By Screwballl on 7/1/2008 12:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
if the people are low income, they likely can't afford anything over what the $3000 itself would cover much less a $15-20,000 vehicle. Most low income people could only afford a $500 car or with this subsidy, a $3500 car, nothing close to new or within the 10 year old timeframe except maybe a 2000 Kia with 150K miles, but at that point the Kia is likely putting out as much pollution as their old 1989 Honda Accord they traded in, but with worse gas mileage.
I honestly wouldn't mind a subsidy here in FL, I could trade in my 10mpg beast for $3000, plus $3000 subsidy for a $6000 vehicle on the list.. then after a few months, sell the $6000 vehicle to get something I want (but with better gas mileage than the 10mpg beast).




RE: $3K off a $25K vehicle + low income = wtf
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 12:31:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
then after a few months, sell the $6000 vehicle to get something I want


The exact reason I'm against this.


RE: $3K off a $25K vehicle + low income = wtf
By walk2k on 7/1/2008 6:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter what they do with the new car, the old junker is still off the road, which is the whole point.


RE: $3K off a $25K vehicle + low income = wtf
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 7:35:08 PM , Rating: 4
Just keep sucking on that "free" government money teet. One day it won't be there anymore.


By herrdoktor330 on 7/1/2008 11:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. While the thought is nice, this is pointless. If government really wanted to do something about this, they'd lean on the Auto Industry to make more affordable and energy efficient cars.

A while ago an Indian company, Tata, released a car called the Nano which got 60+ MPG and was $2500 new. What would be refreshing is if the federal government would "rework" the roadworthy standard to allow something like this to fly in the states. Granted, there's no way this car could pass an American crash test. But I see it this way: if they managed to create an incentive for poor folks to ditch the guzzlers and go with something smaller, that might help reduce the number of cars that would totally crush a Nano in an accident. And it can't have a worse impact rating that the SmartCar.


RE: $3K off a $25K vehicle + low income = wtf
By oab on 7/1/2008 11:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
The smart car actually has a fairly good impact rating.... It got a "G" in the IIHS frontal offset, and side impact tests. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?i...

The Tata Nano doesn't even run on gas, it runs on compressed air, so it's 60mpg equivalent, and compressed air is a horrible method of powering a car (efficiently), however it's really cheap, and safer than a moped. If only because you can't fall off it when someone hits you.


By coolsam2 on 7/2/2008 12:59:41 AM , Rating: 2
doesn't even run on gas!!!! yes it does - on petrol - as we like to term it in India - or gasoline - as americans put it.. as for safety ratings I can't comment - but it be definitely good enough for in-city driving..


By Reclaimer77 on 7/2/2008 10:36:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The smart car actually has a fairly good impact rating.... It got a "G" in the IIHS frontal offset, and side impact tests. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?i...


Thats nice. Too bad it tied for absolute dead WORST in passenger safety rating. Who cares how good the car holds up if the people inside are turned to hamburger ?


RE: $3K off a $25K vehicle + low income = wtf
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2008 6:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
You can drive that death trap if you want.


By foxtrot9 on 7/2/2008 4:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Slowly over time as everyone downgrades to small go-carts, it will make them safer as there is less chance of a semi-truck rolling over you


RE: $3K off a $25K vehicle + low income = wtf
By strikeback03 on 7/1/2008 12:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
When a friend of mine moved to Texas last year, she flew instead of driving since her 97 Saturn was a POS, then bought a car once she got there. Ended up with an 02 Grand Am with 15k miles for $8000. With a subsidy something on that order should be doable for a lot of the target market (income range up to $64k) and should still be plenty clean enough.


By Screwballl on 7/1/2008 2:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Those making around $25K or more should be fine with a $10-15K vehicle but it it those under that income bracket that this whole WTF is for...


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2008 3:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well they should aim for low income families/people first. The average income for a family of 4 is around $43,000 in the USA. So this report is saying if you earn $20,000 over the national average income you are in the low income bracket? That's about 50% more then the average income.
The target should be around $20,000 or less then they could give out $8,000 to $10,000. This would get low income families out of old beast of cars.
Best solution...lower Government spending so you can stop taxing low income families - or lower tax amount from 25% to something like 5% (reduce taxes to all, not just low income). Let them and everyone else take home more pay, so they can spend it where they need it. Not where the Governmnet thinks it should go.


RE: $3K off a $25K vehicle + low income = wtf
By foxtrot9 on 7/2/2008 4:39:08 PM , Rating: 3
You do realize that in the US we use a progressive tax rate - meaning that low income familys (making less than 20k) probably pay around a 7% in taxes....but yeah we should tax the wealthy productive people even more because they are so horrible for providing jobs to the unproductive folk


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/3/2008 2:56:30 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, though I don't think they get down to 7% however, the guys who make 20 million plus per year end up paying zero dollar in tax...that is after deductions.


By ICE1966 on 7/5/2008 9:58:56 AM , Rating: 3
WOW, lets give away more money to poor people. This country should have learned after the failure of welfare to help people get back on thier feet did not work. we people who have been getting government handouts almost thier entire life and they have never progressed past the welfare line. why, no motovation to do so. While I do feel for people who have had something tragic happen to them, and may have had to receive welfare help, thier are to many who are on welfare simply because thats what momie and daddy was on most of thier life. Most of these people just got a stimulus check and now we want to throw more money at them, i don't think so. We live a country where you have the opportunity to go to sachool and better yourself, hell the government will even pay for it. So, to me there is no excuse if you are the holder of a very low paying job, especially if you quit school, to expect every other tax paying person to furnish you with money to buy a car, to pay your bills, and keep your family up. Like I said, while I do understand this situation, I do not think subsidizing the poor even more will fix this. getting an education and putting forth the effort to do something more than holding out your hand for the check will be a better solution.


Nothing to see here. Move Along.
By Borfman on 7/1/2008 12:28:51 PM , Rating: 3
These programs have been tried before and all have failed to even make the smallest scratch in emissions.

If you go and look at the programs, they are pretty much set up to fail. People are driving these old cars because that is all many of them can afford let alone finance. If they can get financing, it’s at very large “high risk” interest rates. (And those buy here pay here places pray on people what can’t get other financing.)

This is just more Greenie PR BS that doesn’t work. Worse... It’s more of the same harass the car owners and leave all the major polluters doing business as usual.