US policymakers are rolling out big incentives for electric vehicle buyers who surrender a gas-powered model, advancing efforts to cancel carbon emissions.
You can look at your own list, it quite plainly shows trade-ins for such vehicles as the Toyota Supra, Mitsubishi 3000GT, and even the aforementioned 2006 A4 Cabriolet Quattro example. I even spot a 2008 Ford Mustang. Some of these vehicles are historically significant, and in many cases donor parts could/should have been used to extend the life of other cars on the road. For the most part, these kinds of cars also tend not to be daily drivers, which means they’d have had insignificant emissions impact.
In regards to supply: While the OEMs weren’t technically at fault for the drop-off in car sales circa-2008, it also wasn’t the government’s job to use taxpayer money to subsidize new sales. That taxpayer money could have gone to social programs and housing development at a time when millions were literally homeless. There are many folks who at that time would have been very happy to possess a running Jeep Cherokee because they had no other options — C4C did not help those people. It’s classic broken window fallacy stuff.
Not debating any of that, nor does it really counter the assertion that C4C was ineffectual in how qualifications were set for the program. It was a lazy program, badly managed, to little actual positive effect.
You can look at your own list, it quite plainly shows trade-ins for such vehicles as the Toyota Supra, Mitsubishi 3000GT, and even the aforementioned 2006 A4 Cabriolet Quattro example. I even spot a 2008 Ford Mustang. Some of these vehicles are historically significant, and in many cases donor parts could/should have been used to extend the life of other cars on the road. For the most part, these kinds of cars also tend not to be daily drivers, which means they’d have had insignificant emissions impact.
In regards to supply: While the OEMs weren’t technically at fault for the drop-off in car sales circa-2008, it also wasn’t the government’s job to use taxpayer money to subsidize new sales. That taxpayer money could have gone to social programs and housing development at a time when millions were literally homeless. There are many folks who at that time would have been very happy to possess a running Jeep Cherokee because they had no other options — C4C did not help those people. It’s classic broken window fallacy stuff.
About 300 of them
2 of them.
1 of them.
C4C was bad for specific reasons, but the paranoia of “zomg! think of all the classic cars that got smashed” is debunked nonsense.
For the most part, the cars that got turned in and junked were run-of-the-mill cars.
Not debating any of that, nor does it really counter the assertion that C4C was ineffectual in how qualifications were set for the program. It was a lazy program, badly managed, to little actual positive effect.