Mike_Byron wrote:
Hey - deep breath. I dont think at any stage the government suggested it will pay $2000 for every car surrendered that is over fifteen years old.
I thought they said they'd allowed the $2k for only 200,000 vehicles.
I fail to see how a significant proportion of those who currently own vehicles more than 15 years old are going to be able to afford to go and buy a Prius. Even a Getz is likely out of budget - if you're driving a car worth $2k, where are you going to dig up the other $16k..? Odds are you've got bills and don't want to borrow all of that...
jbeenz wrote:
Has anyone read "The dust to dust report"
Will this environmental impact be greater than the reduction in impact on the environment caused by running a less efficent car for another 5, 10, 15 years?
I believe Top Gear said a few years ago that the number was anywhere up to 150 years... I could be wrong on that. But it was a recent repeat of the show.
Gotta love the logic behind all this - even the Greens agree with it. But what it does it continue the cycle of consumption, rather than looking for sustainable industry. It's usually greener to repair something existing than to harvest raw materials and turn them into a completely new item. As Kevin McLeod pointed out when he was on Top Gear, Aston Martin is the most sustainable manufacturer of all. Why? Because so few of their cars have ended up in landfill...