The most efffective and politically popular way would be to pay a bounty, based on how polluting the vehicle is, to surrender the car to the crusher. Many of these aged and maltuned cars are owned by poor people who won't give up on them unless there is cash in return to buy something newer.
Posted at 2007-11-25 09:59:15 [PermaLink]A possibility would be to get Environment Canada to subsidize a "Car Heaven" type program.
The idea would be to double the current rebates available for a "green" class car if you're trading in a car that's 1995 or older.
How much energy is used and pollution generated when a new car is made? In an extreme example, should we scrap a one year old car because the new car gets 1mpg more? 3mpg more? 10mpg more? What is the cost / benefit analysis?
Imethisguy
drives a well-maintained 14.8 yr old car.
I still drive a 1982 Mazda (25 yrs young). Best car I've ever had and I will drive it until the fenders fall off. It was rustproofed when brand new and only now showing rust on the driver's side, back wheel-well. It still looks as good as any new car. I will not part with it, period.
Posted at 2007-11-25 12:36:49 [PermaLink]Smokers? My 1995 Nissan Pathfinder does not smoke. It burns no oil between oil changes.
Forcing a life limit, a Logan's Run, for cars will require that some entrenched interest see a benefit to themselves with cost to others not a consideration. Wait until the auto workers' union gets the idea of government mandated obsolescence stuck in their ear.
Here's something to digest- A few years back, Ford tried to head this whole issue off by demonstrating to California emissions regulators that if they were given an easement on new car emissions regs, they could guarantee substantial emissions reductions at 200,000 km and beyond, compared to what they can currently accomplish. The Sierra Club led the fight against this in the face of the evidence Ford presented. What Ford had shown, was that by allowing a small increase in the regulated emissions levels of new cars, they could guarantee a tremendous improvement in emissions during the 2/3 of the life expectancy of a car that is not covered by warranty's or emissions regulations. The Sierra Club fought this plan tooth and nail, not because they didn't understand the evidence, or believe Ford, but because they couldn't accept the political reality of being seen as "caving in" to big business, regardless of the overall effect on the environment. Ford had spent millions on this project, not for any reason other than they understood the engineering principles of emissions reductions and the various ways certain emission reduction initiatives work at odds with each other and they also actually believe in the concept of reducing harmful pollutants. They're just not tied to the political correctness of it.
Posted at 2007-11-25 14:29:08 [PermaLink]Would you happen to have a link/URL for more info on the California Ford proposal?? I would be very interested. As a classic car hobbyist, "Car Heaven" programs scare me a bit. I admit the likelihood of seeing a dented 91 Corsica on the lawns at Pebble Beach may be remote, but the clunkers of my youth (and I'm not all that ancient) are the classics of today, and along with others I have been trying to develop a solid environmental case for keeping well-maintained older cars on the roads instead of at the crusher. One needs to factor the entire environmental impact of a car's life, not just the CO2 emissions (which is why a Prius is in fact not as efficient as Prius-drivers think it is).
Posted at 2007-11-25 14:57:42 [PermaLink]My father said decades ago that old cars were not better. He told me that you would be lucky to put 10,000 Kms on a set of tires for example. Tuneups as often and at 50,000 kms you have to rebuild the engine literally. Yeah cars have come a long way but the commie press still slams the local product all day long. (real conservative)
Posted at 2007-11-25 21:14:05 [PermaLink]I read about the Ford/California fiasco in a column in Car&Driver magazine a few years back. It may be in their archives. I'll do some poking around and see if I can find an online article.
Posted at 2007-11-25 22:48:13 [PermaLink]Don't bring the 'Global Warming' straw man into this issue. Pollution and smog are a daily fact of life in most big cities. California is a leading proponent in this drive for cleaner burning cars because the locals are CHOKING to death in LA.
The Fraser Valley, here in B.C., is on the verge of being unlivable during the Summer months and especially during temperature inversions.
[External Link]
[External Link]
And in the spirit of balanced reporting:
[External Link]
"...the real challenge is how to reduce the number of older polluting autos on the road."
Three decades ago the complaint was about how planned obsolescence forced consumers to keep buying new cars. There's just no pleasing some people.