SEMA rallys against Cash For Clunkers legislation
by Jeremy Korzeniewski on Dec 31st 2008 at 1:27PM 
We're sure that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has nothing but the best intentions with her controversial "Cash for Clunkers" program, which would offer financial rewards to individuals who turn in their older cars to get crushed. It's true that environmental standards get tougher each year, so new cars are vastly more eco-friendly than those sold just a few years ago. Regardless, the backlash from classic car aficionados has already begun, and at least one heavy-hitter is putting its considerable weight behind blocking the legislation. SEMA has called on its members to write or call their Representatives, urging them to vote against the plan, arguing that classics will be destroyed and a ready supply of hard to find parts would be eliminated.It seems unlikely that anyone who owns a vehicle of any value would hand it over to the government to crush, especially since the program couldn't offer enough cash to purchase a new car outright. So, the question of whether or not to support Pelosi's program may hinge on the future value of cars that are currently considered worthless. In other words, how much is that mint '86 Ford Taurus likely to be worth in 20 years? Perhaps a compromise of some sort can be reached that would seek to save historically significant machines from the great junkyard in the sky. Check out the full releae from SEMA after the break.
[Source SEMA via AutoblogGreen]
PRESS RELEASE:
SEMA Call To Oppose Federal "Cash for Clunkers" Program
Diamond Bar, CA. December 29, 2008: Washington lawmakers are drafting a large economic stimulus package to help create jobs and rebuild infrastructure. They want to include a nationwide scrappage program which would give U.S. tax dollars to consumers who turn-in older cars to have them crushed, as a misguided attempt to spur new car sales. The lawmakers need to scrap this idea.
The stimulus package is being drafted right now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wants to introduce the bill on January 6 and have it approved by Congress by January 20, so that President Obama can sign it into law after he is inaugurated.
Contact House Speaker Nancy Pelosi IMMEDIATELY To Oppose Cash for Clunkers!
Call: 202/225-0100
Click here to send an electronic message: HOUSE.GOV
Talking Points
Oppose the Use of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars for Cash for Clunkers
"Cash for Clunkers" programs threaten enthusiasts nationwide with the loss of valuable parts and parts-cars for repair, restoration, and customization projects. The programs also risk destroying classic, historic and special-interest vehicles, our American heritage.
I am [calling/writing] to urge lawmakers not to include a "Cash for Clunkers" provision in the economic stimulus bill. Owners who turn in vehicles for crushing would receive a "minimal" payment to purchase a new car. This is a misguided attempt to spur car sales and claim that the country's air quality or fleet fuel mileage is being improved.
I work for [company name] located in [city and state]. My company is part of the specialty automotive industry, an industry which enables consumers to enhance their vehicle's appearance, performance, comfort, convenience and safety. "Cash for Clunkers" programs deny our small businesses the availability of older cars necessary to develop and market their products and services. The programs will hurt my company and our customers.
Cars turned in for scrappage often barely run, or are rarely-driven second or third vehicles that have a minimal impact on overall fuel economy or emissions.
"Cash for Clunkers" programs will reduce the availability of affordable transportation and repair parts used by low-income drivers. It will also compete with the Salvation Army, the Purple Heart and other charities that rely on vehicle donations to raise money.
"Cash for Clunkers" ignores better policy options. If Congress wants to act, support for repair and upgrade is a better choice and a win-win for consumers, dealers, manufacturers and repair shops. Significant emissions and fuel economy improvements can be achieved in older vehicles through relatively simple and inexpensive means: repaired/replaced exhaust systems, tune-ups, etc.
We hope we can count on you to reject "Cash for Clunkers." Thank you for your consideration on this very important matter.
Please send a quick note and/or a copy of your message to Speaker Pelosi to:
E-mail: briand@sema.org
Fax: 202/783-6024
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
flacopower 1:35PM (12/31/2008)
I really don't like Nancy Pelosi. I am guessing her 'rationale' behind cash for clunkers is to get older more polluting vehicles off the road (plus stimulating the economy), but to do that they have to create a new vehicle, crush the old vehicle, and then probably through it in a landfill. That sounds really environmentally friendly. Unless they come up with a means to recycle the parts in the crushed vehicles I really don't like this idea.
Reply
caddy-v 1:45PM (12/31/2008)
Maybe handcuff Nanny Putslosi and Harry (pee-wee) Dweeb to the steering wheel then crush.
97% of all vehicles are recycled. Where have you been?
cwj 2:40PM (12/31/2008)
Cars are already one of the most recycled consumer products, are they not? Aside from being parted out, scavenging batteries, etc., each frame/chassis/body is about 1000lbs of steel scrap waiting to be turned into cranial implants and brake lines.
Rob 8:23PM (12/31/2008)
This is yet another dim-witted very shallow look at environmental impact. They think a new car is more eco friendly than an old one, just because it's tailpipe is cleaner, and never stop to consider OTHER THINGS. How many more parts does the new car have? How much more complex is it? How much energy did it require for all that tooling? How long will it be reliable, given that it is so complex? How much energy was required to extract all those raw materials? And then ship them?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The GREENEST car you can drive is an old car that gets relatively decent MPG, drive the snot out of it, and keep fixing it until you can't fix it anymore. That uses the MINIMUM amount of energy, and resources on this planet.
Reply
LM 1:43PM (12/31/2008)
Chances are if you have a mint 1986 Taurus with low miles and no accidents saved in a garage you aren't thinking of crushing it. Most I imagine are already destroyed.
I think the opposition is silly.
Reply
mike 1:46PM (12/31/2008)
so basically crush and recycle a vehicle that runs so we can pollute more by producing more cars? Considering the Prius is more harmful to the environment to produce than a Tundra, this is disturbing news. How about we do what needs to be done. Convert existing vehicles to run on hydrogen and CNG. Stop wasting resources to make new cars.
Reply
Polly Prissy Pants 3:12PM (12/31/2008)
"Considering the Prius is more harmful to the environment to produce than a Tundra"
If you're referring to that horse excrement argument that a hummer is better environmentally than a Prius then you must have missed this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/?from=rss
That urban legend was exhaustively debunked long ago. The idea behind cash for clunkers is that the pollution these old, poorly maintained cars emit far exceeds the total pollution to produce and operate a modern one.
Mike 4:20PM (12/31/2008)
Polly,
No, that's not what I'm saying. If you read my post you'd realize how far off base you are with your response. I'm referring to the FACT that the Prius consumes more toxic material and requires more rare raw goods (mining) than most other vehicles to produce. Besides that the Prius gets a pathetic fuel mileage rating and even worse for common driving needs than what the EPA states. The VW Lupo 1.3 TDi gets almost twice the fuel mileage the Prius gets and that was back in 1999. The 1975 VW Rabbit 1.5 gas fueled 4cyl got 45mpg.
What needs to be done is converting vehicles to run on fuels that put out less if NO toxic emissions. Producing new vehicles that get marketed as "green" is not helping.
Erik 1:46PM (12/31/2008)
Oh this would be aweful. We would lose our automotive heritage. Sometimes it is hard to tell what cars will be future classics. I bet in the 80's a lot of people would have considered some of the 60's and 70's muscle cars to be environmental disasters who's value would never recover. Could you imagine if these were crushed? I believe the even some of the quirkier or more commonplace cars of the past like the Gremlin or Impala or even the Omni add value to today's overall automotive landscape. In addition, not everyone can afford a new (or newer) car. If it weren't for these "clunkers", there are a lot of peole who wouldn't be able to afford a car at all. If the supply of older cars dries up, what will these people do for transportation?
Reply
Kevin 1:58PM (12/31/2008)
Rallies
Reply
Claff 7:31PM (1/01/2009)
Thank you!
swimstarguy 2:01PM (12/31/2008)
So...
All I need to do is steal an old car from a scrap yard or lying around somewhere and the government will pay me to dispose of the evidence?
Sweet deal!
Reply
EEL 12:59AM (1/01/2009)
I was thinking the same thing. Not to sound like some tree-hugger, but wouldn't it be better for Pelosi to create a better network for junk yard owners to sell stripped parts and/or recycle them so their land can be cleaned up for the environment? Think of it as a supply chain more in line with what Pelosi wants and what SEMA is suggesting.
RJ 12:43PM (1/01/2009)
My 1992 Toyota Tercel has performed admirably for the 16+ years it's been on the road. My frugality and once urban lifestyle have not warranted anything more than this basic form of transportation even though I do consider myself a "car-buff". With that being said, if the government wants to give me cash to send it to the crusher, I don't think I would have a problem crushing it as long as I could use the money towards a newer "used" car (Maybe 2007 or newer). I would only demand that I be the one who pushes the button and sends her to that great junkyard in the sky.
Reply
andy 2:02PM (12/31/2008)
Autoblog,
Can you either remove the "Share" button or at least shift it over to the other side of the post footer? Its quite irritating to see it pop up to block the comment button when its near the bottom of a screen. Just some feedback.
Reply
caddy-v 2:05PM (12/31/2008)
Toyota's next model name for the Tundra will be "Clunker".
Wow. Six months from factory to boneyard.
Reply
havoc 2:11PM (12/31/2008)
this is both good and bad. in california we have the gold shield (iirc the name) program for folks who don't pass emissions testing. this plan will give you up to $500 to help fix your car, so long as the repairs are emissions related (no dents pulled). the other side of this program offers a waiver for the smog testing, only once per car. if you wish to register the car in 2 more years when the smog testing comes up again, you can either fix it yourself, or junk it with the stipulation that you surrender the vehicle to be 'retired'. retiring the car will also give you $1500. this is great for people that have excess cars in their lawn (i'm looking at you, middel america). this is a great plan for people that have an old clunker and do not want it anymore, they can get some cash for it. (this may also be a better deal than some trade-ins, lol)
also shoudln't it be up to the owner to decide if they want to junk the car?
Reply
Ian 3:43PM (12/31/2008)
As a vintage water cooled VW enthusiast, I oppose this. Do you know what a gold mine it is to find old Rabbits and Sciroccos (OLD, like from the 70's) that people have had and think they are worthless? A decent, not even mint, dash from a mk1 Scirocco goes for $400-500 all day on site like VWVortex. If people start crushing them, theres a wealth of parts that will be off the market. Heck, for $10,000 a piece I'd give them my 2002 GTI 1.8T and my 2005 TrailBlazer.
Reply
drivesafastback 6:59PM (12/31/2008)
Just when you thought you have seen the peak, this proposal shows up.
An owner of a vintage 30s - 50's era vehicle only drives their car to shows and maybe for a Sunday drive, not daily driven. A nice 30's car on I-5 during rush hour is begging to be crashed in to by some dumb chick putting on her eye makeup.
An owner of a 60s era muscle car is the same as above, mostly driven to shows, weekend cruises and rarely daily driven.
I have seen more dirty hippies driving around in older crap cars spewing white/grey smoke from the exhaust then I have seen in a new prius. Since most of the hippy crowd hate the establishment, corporations, self responsibility, waking up early for work and despise rules, they rarely have the job/credit/funds to buy a prius. I believe most of the anti establishment losers do more harm to the environment through their lack of resources to buy new efficient cars then an executive driving an M3 daily that also owns a 69 camaro. The hippies driving old crapboxes need to be dealt with before classics that see the road for less than a few thousand miles per year.
Reply
gesner 3:48PM (1/01/2009)
Works for me... It's a voluntary program. The problem isn't the 'car people.' It's the folks that drive the unwanted vehicles into the river instead of disposing them responsibly. Nobody will sell a 65 Mustang fastback to the state for crushing, when they can sell it on E-bay for much more money. Sure we will lose some ugly cars that nobody wants. Not a big deal for me...I won't even mention the massive pollution older cars emit, somebody already covered that.
Reply