By Keith Hebert, Fuel Efficiency Analyst
Send Keith an e-mail. To order a Scangauge, visit here.
No doubt most of you are aware of the US program ‘Cash For Clunkers’, where the taxpayers were subsidizing new car purchases by up to $4500. My take on this is that if there was to be any real, lasting benefit for the environment, it was a poorly executed plan. But it seemingly was meant primarily as a short term economic stimulus, and really, the environmental benefits were just a side dish. True, the MPG of the vehicle purchased were better, with some sources online claiming the average MPG improvement was better than 50%.
But for me, it’s even doubtful that the ‘economic stimulus’ will have worked in the end analysis. There was no requirement for the purchased vehicle to be American, or even North American built. Despite this, the popular Toyota Corolla (built in California) was a top choice, but if it were me handing out 3 billon dollars, I would want to know I was getting the best possible value for the money.
In Canada, there was a 2 year program called Eco-Auto Rebate, which was more demanding on the purchaser to buy a very fuel efficient vehicle. Up to $2000 was available, but most qualifying cars and tiny SUVs only qualified for $1000. Also, there was no requirement to turn in a clunker with the federal program. Canadian provinces also had a variety of programs, most notably BC, with a Scrap-it clunker program, and a sales tax rebate, each for up to $2000. This made it possible at one point for the purchaser of a Toyota Prius or smart car to get up to $6000 in total savings.
The idea of rebates though, has to fade away. It’s not sustainable to commit the taxpayer to paying for it all, especially when it just goes onto some mysterious national debt. What’s the real cost at the end of the day? And no one really seems to want to bring this up: If we’re wanting to impact climate change, then it naturally follows that we should see an economic downturn in our traditional sectors of oil, gas and automobiles. Reducing consumption is going to impact the economy. I have no issue being down 10%. 40% was a bit steep all at once, but some reduction is to be expected if we want a sign that we’re making any progress.
Governments really have done little for such a long time, mostly by not requiring improvement in fleet fuel economy averages, that it’s no surprise they roll out quick fix ideas. But, with the USA now mandating improved mpg from the automobile producers, I have some optimism that we’re moving in the right direction. Government needs to support the research and developement of advanced vehicle technologies. And, what’s more, taxing inefficiency should also be considered. BC has the carbon tax, which applies to gasoline and diesel purchases… I think this is a model that North America should consider carefully, and implement properly.
We can’t lay blame solely on the government for a lack of fuel efficient vehicles on our shore, but they deserve a hefty chunk for sure.
Thanks for stopping by.
It was four years ago today that I set out from Victoria, BC on the 100 MPG Challenge. Over the next month, I’m going to share what I’ve learned about fuel economy issues.
