you also bring forward the point they buy another new car etc

Not neccessarily – baseless assumption. If someone’s been used to crappy cars every two years then they get a spanking new one, I’d say the inclination could be to keep it for a long time.

Only not unreasonable if you ignore the fact that cars haven’t become that much more efficient

Not in the last few years, no. But if you’re swapping a 15 year old car it’ll probably be petrol since diesels weren’t so common then, and it’ll probably be emitting more CO2 than it did when it was new due to being old and less efficient. Plenty of 120g cars around now and that was unthinkable 15 years ago.

Are you absolutely sure, Molgrips?

No, of course not. I have no figures for the energy costs of new cars. I was just pointing out a flaw in someone else’s maths.

I’m not neccessarily in favour of the policy, but it could be good for the economy. I am a die-hard greenie but I appreciate the role of the economy in the green revolution unlike some. I’m just countering some arguments being made above, that’s all.

I think there are a lot of green possibilities being missed currently. Why not offer the £2k if the car you want to buy is say less than 120g/km for small cars and 140g/km for big ones? That’d get them flying off the shelves.

if you’re swapping a 15 year old car

How many people driving about in a 15-year-old car are going to buy a brand new car just because it’s £2k cheaper?

Mind you…

If the prices in the used car market increase as a result of this scheme, that could actually make buying and running a car more expensive. Maybe it is a green scheme after all?

But if you’re swapping a 15 year old car it’ll probably be petrol since diesels weren’t so common then, and it’ll probably be emitting more CO2 than it did when it was new due to being old and less efficient.

With assumptions like that, I’d suggest your whole theory is so full of flaws it’s almost not worth arguing with. I was going to suggest the opposite – that some people would be swapping diesel for petrol, since the current price differentials make diesel not really worth it for a lot of people. BTW diesels were plenty common enough 15 years ago (when I got my first one, having been planning on a petrol). In any case, the figures I’m using are the ones in Monbiot’s article which compares the average emissions of a current new car with the average of a 12 year old car, and even allows for a 10% deterioration in the old car (which is about twice what my 10 year old one has deteriorated). Hence my figures are backed up by facts far better than the numbers you’ve pulled out of the air.

I drive a c9 year old diesel, it works there isn’t anything wrong with it, it has done 140k miles and returns c60mpg. By virtue of this scheme its value would be 2k, To replace this car with an equivalent model would cost in excess of 14k.

I don’t happen to have that sort of money, the car isn’t broken, to buy a new car is of no benefit environmentally, etc. If i were to replace the car it wouldn’t be made in the UK.

Then there is the obvious issue of where the money is coming from? the rate debt is being racked up, the increase in benefit claimants, bank bailouts etc.

The sole purpose of this scheme is to increase the purchase of new cars. It is therefore self-evident that it will increase the total number of new cars manufactured, and hence increase associated CO2 with their manufacture. There is also extra CO2 associated with the premature scrapping of existing cars.

It is also questionnable that the new cars will have lower emissions. What if people use the money to upgrade to a car with a larger engine?

People are also missing the fact that the car industry was screwed well before the financial crisis. Propping them up in the manufacture of products without a market or long-term viability is not doing the country any favours.

Why dont they scrap all those big diesel engined buses? You know, with the bollocks environmental ads on the side. That rankles.

I’d suggest your whole theory is so full of flaws

If you read closely you’ll see that I don’t have a ‘theory’ I am playing devil’s advocate. That is, postulating things to maybe think about. So please let’s not get nasty… 🙂 I already said I’m not neccessarily a fan of the scheme. I used IF a lot, because these are things that could happen. I disagreed with the way people were saying ‘people will do this and that and the other’ when it’s definitely not neccessarily the case.

BTW diesels were plenty common enough 15 years ago

They were around (I drive one) but not as common as they are now – that was my point.

the figures I’m using are the ones in Monbiot’s article which compares the average emissions of a current new car with the average of a 12 year old car

Is the mean emissions figure the best one to take into consideration? I try and look further than the stats, there are always other things to consider.

Anyway as before stated, I think the scheme could work if it’s linked to buying a greener car. Maybe a sliding scale, so that you get more if you save more CO2. Then it’s a double whammy – maybe saving CO2, maybe not – but helping the economy as well, which has associated green benefits.

Bailing out the banks didn’t save any CO2 at all directly. So there. In fact, letting them all fail would’ve saved since people wouldn’t be commuting to the city all day. Then again, we’d have been paying more in benefits. And getting less in tax revenues. Which means less room for tax breaks for green initiatives. But then green initiaves mean more new business, which could mean more new commuters to different jobs.. and so it goes on.

See how complex it all is?

I drive a c9 year old diesel, it works there isn’t anything wrong with it, it has done 140k miles and returns c60mpg. By virtue of this scheme its value would be 2k, To replace this car with an equivalent model would cost in excess of 14k.

I don’t happen to have that sort of money, the car isn’t broken, to buy a new car is of no benefit environmentally, etc. If i were to replace the car it wouldn’t be made in the UK.

Then there is the obvious issue of where the money is coming from? the rate debt is being racked up, the increase in benefit claimants, bank bailouts etc.

Ditto, except mine has 170+k on it, and a new equivalent would be nearer £20. Even with a £2k discount that’s £18k. Why the hell would I even consider spending that (which would have to be on credit)when I can get a 3-4 year old model, 1 owner, FSH etc for £8-9k (paid cash up front) at the mo.

Let alone the environmental issues of scrapping loads of perfectly useable vehicles, or the financial implications of that many people taking out loans on luxury goods (which a car essentially is), that depereciate hugely the second they’re taken out the showroom. Seriously, has nobody learnt anything from the CREDIT crunch??

Anyway as before stated, I think the scheme could work if it’s linked to buying a greener car.

But it won’t be, as that won’t achieve the real purpose of such a scheme (from the politicians POV)! I agree it might work if that was the case, but it simply won’t be.

Seriously, has nobody learnt anything from the CREDIT crunch??

The politicians at least haven’t learnt a single thing from what I can see – but then their perspective appears to only extend as far as May next year. Anybody fancy a bet that within my lifetime another PM/Chancellor will claim to have abolished boom and bust and eventually be proved horribly wrong.