It just got more expensive to fix your older car because we are taking a lot of good usable parts and crushing them under the Clunkers program.

This program is also taking revenues away from some good charities that normally receive used cars as tax deductible donations.. here is a list of some…
“Cars for Courage” (Courage Center) , Cars for Veterans, Easter Seals, American Cancer Society, New Gate Education Training Center, Minnesota Aids foundation, Make-a-wish foundation.

These charities normally use or auction off vehicles that are now instead being crushed under the CARS program.

Oh, and by the way: It’s hard to fix older cars when you can’t find the parts for them, or when parts are expensive.

Here’s a list of the cars being traded in and the cars replacing them:
http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/how-cash-for-clunkers-is-shaking-out-so-far/

The Ten Most Traded-In Vehicles
1. Ford Explorer 4WD
2. Ford F-150 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
7. Ford Explorer 2WD
8. Ford F-150 Pickup 4WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

The Ten Most Purchased Vehicles
1. Ford Focus
2. Toyota Corolla
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Ford Escape FWD
7. Hyundai Elantra
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt

People are ditching the gas hogs for the smaller vehicles. I suspect that a lot of the urban-cowboy crowd got sick of trying to parallel-park the land barges.

There are deeper reasons why the scheme is wrong

Presumably it’s to save on oil:
Yet fuel efficient cars effectively means cheaper energy which in turn means they will be used more (instead of, for example, using public transport)

Fuel efficiency is of course an advantage people can consider when buying a car – and can compare with advantages that inefficient cars can have (speed or greater safety because of greater weight, etc, as well as a probably lower price – or they would be efficient already).

As far as government is concerned, any oil shortage – for geopolitical or economic demand reasons – raises the gasolene price and – guess what – increases demand for fuel-efficient cars anyway, no need to legislate for it.

Another reason is that – as research at Georgia Tech has shown – it is possible to clean emissions of CO2 (and other substances at the same time).
A fuel-neutral emission tax on cars therefore makes more sense:
If it is economical to make gas-guzzling cars with emission processing, then, again, there is no reason for government to prevent it.

Any regulatory measures should therefore focus on emissions, rather than the fuel used, and emission taxation on cars retains consumer choice, while also giving significant government income with the lower sales of such cars, income that can go to projects that themselves lower emissions eg electric car manufacturing subsidies etc.
(Regardless of whether CO2 reduction makes any sense, lowered emissions of course have their own benefit, for all the noxious sulphur etc substances that the emissions also contain)

For more see http://www.ceolas.net/#cc25x