Archive for May 5, 2009

Cash for clunkers

Here’s something to watch if you’re looking for a more fuel efficient car that’s better for the environment. This is from the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement regarding the White House and the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s agreement on a “cash for clunkers” proposal that will provide incentives for Americans to trade in older vehicles for more fuel efficient for cars and trucks:

“’Cash for clunkers’ is a common-sense proposal that will help provide a shot in the arm for the American auto industry at a crucial time for our economy, reduce the emissions that cause climate change, and make America more energy independent.  By helping Americans trade in their old, less fuel efficient cars and trucks for newer, higher mileage vehicles, consumers will save money at the pump, help protect our planet, and create and save jobs for American auto workers.

“I congratulate Chairman Waxman, Chairman Emeritus Dingell, Chairman Markey and the Obama Administration for working hard to arrive at this agreement, as well as the many strong proponents of this legislation, including Congressman Inslee, Congressman Israel, and Congresswoman Sutton.  I look forward to working with them and with the Senate to pass this critical job-creating, energy independence legislation through the Congress so that we can send it to President Obama’s desk for his signature.”

Back to Cindy: I hastily posted this today, with questions both nagging and selfish swirling in my thoughts.  Nagging, because to me, buying new isn’t always the environmentally friendly route and selfish being – would my little 2001 Nissan qualify?

The Detroit Free Press:

spells  it out in greater detail.  Hopefully, all those old vehicles traded in could be resold, but I think a higher fuel efficiency is warranted on the new vehicles and environment aside, should our tax dollars really be subsidizing someone’s new car purchase? That question will continue to nag.

Leave a comment »