Not cool

[Y33TREKker]

It sounds like a voluntary program, so what's the big deal? I see a lot of old tanks rolling around with probably little to no operational emissions systems in use, so scrapping them and letting the owners use the $$$ to buy a more modern and emissions-efficient model-year used vehicle doesn't sound like that bad an idea to me.

[Ascinder]

That's all well and good, but consider how scarce parts are for our vehicles now. If the whole country decided to start turning in old cars, all the classics and a bunch of future classics all go bye bye. That means things start turning expensive as supply dwindles. It's just one more thing to have to worry about. If someone can get a $4500 straight tax break instead of having to go through the hassle of selling their VX, then we are going to lose a lot of VX's. Bottom line is most people don't see these for what they really are. Ask Bart and CrnCnn, we have tons of VX drivers here in Reno that couldn't care less about meeting up or visiting this board, I would venture to say that many of them see it as just a cool car to drive, and leave it at that, their loyalty to keeping the VX population alive is highly questionable. If something llike this passes, our car values will go up due to rarity, we just won't be able to afford to drive them anymore.

[ScottinMA]

Not to piss off this forum but I for one applaud the concept! It is very necessary step in lowering this country's carbon footprint and a voluntary measure as well. I look forward to the auto industry moving in the direction of design and manufacture of efficient and fun vehicles for enthusiasts like us. Personally, I hope that the US sets the standard in green technologies and is an example for other countries to follow. Given we have enjoyed more consumption and created more waste than so many others. My two cents.

[Ascinder]

I'm all for reducing our carbon footprint too, but that isnt what this plan is doing. It does clearly state that these techniques have tried and failed even in smaller scale situations, meaning if you can't build a house don't try and build a skyscraper. If they wanted to make more eco friendly vehicles, why not put more money into research to develop better powerplants for existing vehicles. You can't just retire a fleet of several hundred million automobiles and not pay for environmentally one way or another. The energy it takes to crush and burn down that many vehicles is going to have a gigantic greenhouse effect. It seems like they're trying to throw a band aid on someone who has been decapitated. To me this looks like another ploy to get car sales back on track since after this bailout, Detroit is just going to go back to their old ways. The current problem isn't that people drive cars that aren't fuel efficient. It's that there is no supply of replacement vehicles that are that are that much better. Tell me what the incentive is for your average yuppie soccer mom type to ditch her giant wasteful SUV of choice for something that costs more, is smaller, and looks retarded(I'm sorry these hybrids and electric cars typically look kinda fruity). I'm telling you it isn't going to happen on environmental conscience alone.

[circmand]

the eco friendly as they call themselves are designing and advertising to those who are similar in thinking to thgemselves. Those who would seek out and buy these extremely silly looking toys. There are not enough of them to make a difference. Thye need to design an eco friendly vehicle that appeals in looks to the normal driver.

It is the same people that look at an accident between a Ford Excursion and a Prius. We all see the prius getting mangled by the Excursion and they conclude that the Ford not the Prius is the vehicle that is unsafe.

[Y33TREKker]

While I don't plan to get in another circuitous environmental argument with you circ, I have to say that using a collision between an Excursion and a Prius for your example isn't exactly a credible justification. That we currently have monstrous Excursions rolling around just because some genius in Detroit a decade or three ago decided that's what America needed to be driving isn't really a justifiable cause for keeping them around any longer. It's proven that it was a wasteful path to have started down, so wouldn't it be best for all involved to just cut our losses and try again before it's too late? That Excursion that seats 12 isn't going to do anyone any good if there isn't anywhere worth driving any more.

I mean, while I've personally never actually hugged a tree, I'm just saying that it would seem to be in all our best interests to do what we can to help ensure we do at least have some in the future should a person happen to get the urge. Another bonus would still be that whole air-making thing.

Didn't the I'll-drive-what-I-want-let-the-next-generation-worry-about-it attitude die out back in the 80's?

And some valid points being made here, but again, it's voluntary. No one is saying you'll have to do it.

[nfpgasmask]

Didn't the I'll-drive-what-I-want-let-the-next-generation-worry-about-it attitude die out back in the 80's?

I don't think so....that attitude is part of human nature I'm afraid.

Bart

[ZEUS]

On top of all that, the so-called "eco-friendly" cars are more detrimental to the environment during their creation than that of a Hummer! http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...s_more_ec.html

[nfpgasmask]

On top of all that, the so-called "eco-friendly" cars are more detrimental to the environment during their creation than that of a Hummer! http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...s_more_ec.html

Ahhh yes, there it is again...that damn BIG PICTURE most people like to ignore. Thank you for bringing this up, Justin. Because now, I can once again sit back in my uncomfortable office chair and chuckle to myself, knowing that we are doomed and there is no solution. Why do people think that JUST BECAUSE a car uses some form of propulsion other than gasoline that it is environmentally friendly? Sure, it's different, but it came from somewhere, and surely it has some sort of consequences as well. It's just like recycling. There is a lot of energy spent and pollution created by the recycling industry. But hey, we are saving the planet!!!

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Bart

[nfpgasmask]

I'm all for reducing our carbon footprint too, but that isnt what this plan is doing. It does clearly state that these techniques have tried and failed even in smaller scale situations, meaning if you can't build a house don't try and build a skyscraper. If they wanted to make more eco friendly vehicles, why not put more money into research to develop better powerplants for existing vehicles. You can't just retire a fleet of several hundred million automobiles and not pay for environmentally one way or another. The energy it takes to crush and burn down that many vehicles is going to have a gigantic greenhouse effect. It seems like they're trying to throw a band aid on someone who has been decapitated. To me this looks like another ploy to get car sales back on track since after this bailout, Detroit is just going to go back to their old ways. The current problem isn't that people drive cars that aren't fuel efficient. It's that there is no supply of replacement vehicles that are that are that much better. Tell me what the incentive is for your average yuppie soccer mom type to ditch her giant wasteful SUV of choice for something that costs more, is smaller, and looks retarded(I'm sorry these hybrids and electric cars typically look kinda fruity). I'm telling you it isn't going to happen on environmental conscience alone.

There you go. You said it perfectly. Personally, I can't imagine ANYONE in their right mind would take a perfectly good vehicle that they own, like a VX, and turn it in to be crushed for $4500. I mean, maybe a 1995 Honda Civic that is rusted through and through, but not a solid vehicle that otherwise has no cosmetic or mechanical issues. I fully agree that the time and effort should be put into the development of replacment engines for existing cars, ESPECIALLY collector cars from the past and present. Like you said, what are we going to do with 500 million old gasoline engine cars? There will be an environmental consequence regardless of if they are crushed and burned, buried in a landfill or disassembled and recycled. This is a prime example of legislation that fails once again to look at the big picture. There is no simple solution to the global environmental crisis. Like you said, if the government wants to make legislation that really changes things, they need to outlaw the production of gasoline based engines in commuter vehicles and other vehicles that do not need the full power of gas engine. And if they want to start small, that's fine. Imagine what downtown Chicago or New York would smell like if ALL the buses and cabs were electric?

I agree that SOMETHING must be done going forward, but destroying perfectly good running vehicles for a tax break makes no sense unless the ONLY option is to "upgrade" to an environmentally friendly vehicle, not just a car that gets better gas mileage. It definitely sounds more like an "automobile industry stimulus plan" than a "save the planet" idea.

Bart

[kodiak]

I’m all for reducing dependence on fossil fuels and making the country energy independent, but I have a problem with the hole carbon gilt thing.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY