What should happen to scrappage scheme cars?

[Number Six]

Did anyone see the pictures of cars collected during the scrappage scheme waiting to be dismantled, and think, as I did "that car is better than mine. And that one is. And that one!"

 

I wonder what the environmental impact of scrapping perfectly usable cars is?

 

I wonder what the benefit to the economy was, and at what cost?

 

I wonder if the government considered that removing all these cars from the secondhand market would force up the price of used cars, thus penalising people who can't afford new cars?

 

I wonder why the legislation was framed so that the cars have to be dismantled, rather than sold for whatever the government can get for them? There are at least half a dozen cars in that picture I'd pay money for.

 

Anyone else got any views on this?

[HeadingNorth]

A large part of the reason for the scheme was to remove old, inefficient cars from the pool, so it would be self-defeating to sell them on.

 

Whether that means it was a silly idea, is arguable. You may well believe it was.

[truman]

I suppose it's done well for the Korean car industry..

[truman]

A large part of the reason for the scheme was to remove old, inefficient cars from the pool, so it would be self-defeating to sell them on.

 

 

So is it more environmentally friendly to run an older car or to manufacture/transport a new one? Genuine question...

[Number Six]

A large part of the reason for the scheme was to remove old, inefficient cars from the pool, so it would be self-defeating to sell them on.

 

Whether that means it was a silly idea, is arguable. You may well believe it was.

 

Some of the cars were only 10 years old - technology hasn't moved on that far in 10 years - and who is to say they were traded in for more economical cars anyway? If you traded in your 10 year old Polo for a brand new Gold R32 you're not replacing a car with a more efficient one.

 

If that was the aim the scheme should only have applied to cars more efficient than those that were traded in. That wasn't the case because this was clearly a scheme to support the powerful members of the SMMT dressed up as being of benefit to the environment.

 

As much of 25% of the lifetime CO2 a car releases is in it's manufacture. It is ludicrous to scrap a perfectly usable car even if you are replacing it with one that does a few more MPG because of this.

[Forumosaurus]

Some of the cars were only 10 years old - technology hasn't moved on that far in 10 years - and who is to say they were traded in for more economical cars anyway? If you traded in your 10 year old Polo for a brand new Gold R32 you're not replacing a car with a more efficient one.

 

If that was the aim the scheme should only have applied to cars more efficient than those that were traded in. That wasn't the case because this was clearly a scheme to support the powerful members of the SMMT dressed up as being of benefit to the environment.

 

As much of 25% of the lifetime CO2 a car releases is in it's manufacture. It is ludicrous to scrap a perfectly usable car even if you are replacing it with one that does a few more MPG because of this.

 

 

Shut your face.

[Tony]

So is it more environmentally friendly to run an older car or to manufacture/transport a new one? Genuine question...

 

No.

 

The argument becomes less clear if the old car is removed from the road because you get into whole-life calculations which are specific to the user. As you know, cars don't disappear in a puff of green smoke when you trade them in for a more efficient model.

[Mr_Squirrel]

Its quite ironic that the government are trying to get everybody to be more 'green' and recycle just about everything including tin cans, yet they are allowing the waste of perfectly decent serviceable vehicles in order to keep businesses afloat.....

 

Environmental issues mean nothing to the government wherever profits are concerned unless there is a way of making the environment issue itself into a profitable business.

[Anna Glypta]

Its quite ironic that the government are trying to get everybody to be more 'green' and recycle just about everything including tin cans, yet they are allowing the waste of perfectly decent serviceable vehicles in order to keep businesses afloat.....

 

Environmental issues mean nothing to the government wherever profits are concerned unless there is a way of making the environment issue itself into a profitable business.

 

It was an ill thought out scheme from a Government desperate to be seen to be doing something.

 

It did wonders for the Korean motor industry as well as causing massive polution there and on the high seas.

 

The Russians had a far better thought out plan. It was restricted to cars built in Russia.

[alchresearch]

When the Tonight programme did a story on it about 6 months ago they said that the cars were crushed. The parts were recycled to an extent - but ultimately destroyed and not stripped and put on the shelf as second hand parts.