Posted on 01/15/2009 5:32:50 AM PST by Red Badger
A measure introduced by US Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Charles Schumer (D-NY) would establish a national voucher program to encourage drivers to trade in older, less fuel efficient cars, trucks or SUVs for a more fuel-efficient vehicles or to use mass transit. Companion legislation was also introduced in the House by Representatives Steve Israel (D-NY), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Dennis Moore (D-KS).
The Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Retirement Act of 2009 (ARIVA)—also called the “Cash for Clunkers” program—would reimburse drivers with a credit of up to $4,500 for scrapping vehicles with a when-new fuel economy rating of less than 18 mpg US as reported by the original manufacturer for purposes of CAFE compliance. (CAFE compliance figures are lower than the adjusted EPA fuel economy ratings for consumers.)
Eligible drivers would receive a reimbursement voucher for the purchase of a new or used vehicle with a fuel economy rating that exceeds the CAFE target for that class of vehicle by at least 25%. The bill also requires that the voucher be used towards the purchase of a vehicle that has an MSRP of less than $45,000, is model year 2004 or later, and meets or exceeds federal emissions standards. Drivers who apply for the program must ensure that their vehicles are in driveable condition and are currently registered in the US.
Vouchers could also be redeemed for transit fares for participating local public transportation agencies. The program would operate for four years, from 2000-2012, and is expected to encourage the early retirement of up to one million vehicles per year. [SNIP] See linked article for price chart
In each subsequent year (2010, 2011, and 2012), the model years would be advanced by one year. Vouchers would be eligible for redemption for up to two years after the date of issuance, and no individual would be eligible to obtain more than one voucher in any three-year period. Dealers, dismantlers and scrap recycling facilities would also be eligible for a payment of $50 per vehicle, or an alternative amount to be specified by the Department of Energy.
Last Congress, we successfully enacted legislation...to improve the fuel efficiency of America’s fleet of new cars, trucks and SUVs by at least 10 miles per gallon over 10 years. But we face real challenges with trying to encourage drivers to trade in their older, less fuel efficient vehicles—particularly in this tough economic climate. This bill will help address that problem...If enacted, this bill would be an important part of helping getting America’s struggling automobile industry back on its feet—and help consumers who are concerned about covering the cost of buying a more fuel efficient vehicle. —Senator Feinstein
If implemented,the program would, as estimated by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE):
*
Save between 40,000 to 80,000 barrels per day of motor fuel by the end of the fourth year, (based on an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 vouchers issued per year). *
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions between 6.6 million metric tons to 7.6 million metric tons, or the equivalent of removing 1.1 million to 2.2 million vehicles from the road in one year, (based on an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 vouchers issued per year). *
Reduce NOx by 3,043 short tons (2,761 metric tons) by 2013, (based on an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 vouchers issued per year).
While participation in the voluntary program is hard to gauge, ACEEE said, its preliminary estimates are that 575,000 vehicles would be retired annually, and that fuel savings would reach 46,000 barrels per day by 2013.
Resources
*
ACEEE white paper on accelerated vehicle retirement
You sell you ‘95 Jetta on eBay or Craigslist, take some of the money and go buy a 88 Oldsmobile anything, trade it in along with the money that you got for your 95 on a NEW Jetta AND for $4500 voucher........
>> I have a ‘95 Jetta that gets 32mpg. How can I upgrade from there?
Sorry, pal. Obama ‘n Nancy drew a circle around us gas-guzzlers that shut YOU out. Sucks to be environmentally responsible, don’t it?
I’ll bet you’re all caught up on your mortgage, too, so there goes that windfall.
You poor chump. The only benefits you’ll get from all that personal accountability is being able to hold your head up high, respect yourself, and sleep at night. No gubmint money 4U, though.
/justkiddingofcourse
I'll take that under advisement. ;)
no one could ever convince me to let go of my ‘70 F100, completely overhauled for $2,500 (i did the work)...will pull another truck across country no problem...to go $35,000 in debt for a new truck thet gets about 4 more mpg...351 windsor, flat tops, rv cam, offenhauser dual port manifold, eldebrock-jetted slightly lean on the primaries, msd ignition and a ZF 5 speed from a ‘92 F250. I’ve gone Cuba and am staying that way...been in debt before and never plan to live under that sword again.
This could be fun.
Now the government want's me to turn it in so they can give me a $4500 voucher toward the purchase of a newer truck from a company that may not exist at the end of this year? In today's economy?
F'n morons.
That’s one of my bookmarks............
Me neither. The full sized van I drive would handle a new engine and tranny rebuild, some body work and paint and go another 100K (nearly 300K now), far, far cheaper than a used vehicle, and still do the job sans computer (it is a '75). I'd retain the ability to work on it as well.
I have been weighing that against buying a used van which would (equivalent vehicle) probably require all that and more before the next 100K miles, and likely be something I could not work on myself. Not too tough to figure that one out.
My old clunker apparently doesn’t qualify:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectEngine.jsp?year=1987&make=Lincoln&model=Town%20Car
Unless the CAFE figures are significantly lower. When new it had a combined EPA of 21 MPG. Today, I doubt it’s getting 10 MPG, and it just isn’t worth the cost of repairing it to get better fuel mileage.
Anybody have a link to the ‘when new’ CAFE MPG for my 1987 Lincoln Town Car? I did a little googling, but came up enpty.
Woo hoo!!
MORE tax dollars to throw away on junk policy!!
If you wonder why your taxes are so high (and about to go a lot higher!), junk programs like these are the reason. If this is the most important thing that the Congress has on its agenda, adjourn them now and save the taxpayers several boatloads of money. Send the politicians home until there is an actual issue that, under the Constitution, they are able to address!!
The link you give HAS the “When New” EPA mileage.........
I understand completely. It’s a common sense thing...something that is woefully missing in Congress right now.
LOL! It wasn't the environment that caught my attention. It was the $1200 price.
I’ll bet you’re all caught up on your mortgage, too, so there goes that windfall.
You poor chump. The only benefits you’ll get from all that personal accountability is being able to hold your head up high, respect yourself, and sleep at night. No gubmint money 4U, though.
Don't forget I get to wag my tail as they raise their hand to slap me.
/justkiddingofcourse
Kind of, I know.
But that doesn’t give you the CAFE numbers, just EPA.
Aw come on now, all of us a rich. That’s why they put a $45,000 limit on the car you could buy...they just know all of us won’t settle for anything less than a $50,000 vehicle, after all it’s what they would buy.
Seriously, there has never been, nor will there ever be a time when I would consider buying a car that cost that kind of money. I could buy a house and land for that.
Neighboring Cathedral City recently had a $100 "no questions asked" gun buyback program; TV news showed mostly old white guys laughingly turning in rusty, worthless, inoperative pistols.
Another feel-good use of tax dollars...
But the article says you have to use the CAFE fuel mileage number, which, it says, is usually lower than the EPA number.
For 1987, the CAFE standard for passenger cars was 26 mpg..........
MOST of our cars have been used, previously wrecked (but not in vital areas) and restored by an excellent mechanic friend. They have been both economical and dependable....and nice to look at.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.