Saying no to clunkers

By James Paton, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 28, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

• 7 Comments
• Email
• Print

A group representing Colorado auto dealers is starting a nonprofit to get old cars off the road. With $250,000 in seed money and a hope of cleaning the air, they're . . . Saying no to clunkers

Colorado auto dealers, resisting the idea of tougher emissions standards for new cars, want to shift the focus to the old clunkers responsible for much of the pollution.

The state group representing the industry plans to launch a nonprofit organization in the next two weeks aimed largely at taking jalopies off the streets and getting Coloradans into newer, cleaner cars.

"We want to find a way to have a long-term, sustainable effort to identify and target the high-emitting vehicles," said Tim Jackson, president of the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association. "We'll take these cars out of service, and we believe this will be a much more effective way to clean the air than anything else that is dictated by the government."

Gov. Bill Ritter's plan is to reduce emissions of global warming gases 20 percent by 2020, and he has said Coloradans will have to use less electricity, recycle more and drive cleaner cars to fulfill the goal.

Members of Ritter's team have suggested population growth is making the effort to address air quality more urgent.

Environment Colorado, a coalition of groups, released a set of proposals this month, including one to implement a "clean cars" program like the one in California that could mean establishing strict emission standards on carbon dioxide.

Jackson's group estimated that 5 percent of the vehicles out there - made in 1990 and before - are responsible for more than half, and perhaps three-quarters, of the emissions. The Colorado auto dealers association has opposed the adoption of tough California- like standards, saying they would increase the prices of new cars. And that could keep more old gas-guzzlers on the road.

The nonprofit, which is being created by the state and local auto associations and has $250,000 in seed money, doesn't have a name yet, but one possibility is the "Clear the Air Foundation," Jackson said.

"That would have dual meaning because we are also interested in clearing the air as to the misinformation out there about vehicular emissions," he said.

Part of the nonprofit's purpose would be to fund education, including the training of automotive technicians, the group said.

The plan would take the dirty cars out of service, recycle the parts and send them to be crushed, he said. The group will ask dealers to donate old cars once they are traded in.

The nonprofit also could offer to buy older cars directly from their owners for a small sum.

The problematic cars typically have a market value of $500 or less, the auto dealers said.

"Certainly this will send a message that we need to focus on what is really causing the problem," said Don Hicks, owner of Shortline Automotive based in Aurora. "Auto dealers have been vilified for causing the problem. Unfortunately, we need to have cars. Light rail and buses don't go everywhere."

The dealers noted that they are selling clean cars that use alternative sources: flex fuel - also called E85 - hybrid electric and clean diesel.

It is uncertain how the debate about emissions standards will unfold. The Environmental Protection Agency denied California's request for a waiver that would have allowed it to impose its own standards. The state is fighting the decision.

Jackson said the effort would dovetail with a new state program that will use mobile sensors to single out high-polluting cars in the metro area. Owners of those cars will be notified by mail, and if they don't appear for a test or make repairs, they will face a $100 fine and will not be able to renew their registrations.

patonj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2544

• December 28, 2007

  3:32 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  windbourne writes:

  Great idea, but it has a major problem; it will encourage ppl to bring clunkers here. So, I have a couple of recommendations:
  1. all cars that are bought out have to be registered for at least a year in the area(i.e. a grandfather clause).
  2. all cars that are brought in from outside of the region, will be offered a conditional registration. They need to pass the emissions test and then for the next year, not flunk at the roadside tests. If it flunks, then it should be denied future registration.

• December 28, 2007

  7:33 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  fmikey writes:

  Let's see....if you are forced to get rid of your old car and buy a newer one, who profits? No conflict of interest here...

• December 28, 2007

  7:47 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Katoom writes:

  The simple solution would be for the police to actually ticket people who drive cars with no valid license plates. And then the car would be impounded until they get plates and insurance. You see these cars everywhere and they are usually the type of car that would be classed as a clunker. I would also be willing to bet that most of them don't have insurance either. Judging by the number of unlicensed clunkers that I see every day on the street is is obvious that the police are ignoring these vehicles. This is especially true in Aurora where our city council seems to encourage people to drive without insurance or license plates.

• December 28, 2007

  7:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jvvin writes:

  Colorado has plenty of its own wildfires. Even though they create short term health issues and release CO2, humans cause MOST of our air pollution and it is the conversion of FOSSIL Carbon to CO2 that is heating our atmosphere. So, there are two air quality problems Ritter is trying to get at. One is that the Denver Metro area exceeds health standards for ozone and the nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons that cars emit greatly contribute to that problem. Older cars emit more, and some "bad" newer cars do as well. So we should get them off the road or fixed. The other "air quality" problem is carbon dioxide. Old or new the only way to address that issue while we still use carbon we take from underground is to use LESS of that fossil-based fuel. Using less means adopting higher mileage requirements for new cars. California and KANSAS, and the northeastern states all want to do that and promote non-fossil fuels, but the BUSH administration doesn't like that idea and came out with a less stringent MPG level in the recent energy act and delayed the implementation date to 2020. So I say, more power to Ritter and the other governors who want to do something about our health and our children's future NOW. Colorado, like many states and municipalities across the country, is also taking steps to reduce energy use (look at the state's website on energy reduction goals). I have a modern diesel car that gets 40 mpg in town and 50 plus mpg on the highway, I burn biodiesel fuel and I drive it less than 5000 miles a year. I commute by bus / light rail to work, I am replacing my home light fixtures as the old ones burn out. We all need to do our part. So I say to this "helpful" automobile group, let's do BOTH. They should agree to PROMOTE higher mileage / cleaner new cars AND give incentives to owners of older cars to trade-up. Drivers don't need 200-plus horsepower to go to the grocery store every week or to commute to the office. Auto dealers should be helping people to understand that rather than just being worried about protecting profits on big SUV's.

• December 28, 2007

  8:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  TheVentilator writes:

  The Dealers are right, 1 junker puts out the same emissions as 25 newer units

• December 28, 2007

  8:26 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Dhakala writes:

  The problem is that clunkers belong to poor people who cannot afford newer replacement vehicles. Driving may be a privilege but it's also a necessity for someone who may be working two jobs, delivering pizza, juggling child care, etc. A program that helped these people buy lower-emitting cars is the way to go.

• December 30, 2007

  12:37 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  StagByTriumph writes:

  Thank you James for the article.
  
  I will be passing the word to as many of the the other Colorado car clubs to make sure this does not affect the hobby, classic car groups, and of course to SEMA so as to not become fixed legislation.

  I would however like to comment on verification of the numbers that are simply recited and printed as fact, such as:

  "Jackson's group estimated that 5 percent of the vehicles out there - made in 1990 and before - are responsible for more than half, and perhaps three-quarters, of the emissions"

  As an engineer I do not believe it. How was this quantified? Was there an accurate count of the pre 1990 cars with a survey of each one to document a total cubic feet of tailpipe gases emitted per vehicle at any instant, followed by the finding of the actual parts per million content of those emissions for each of those cars for any specific volume of fuel consumed? Or did Jackson's group simply go to CDOT and gather the numbers of pre 1990 vehicles, throw a SWAG number of miles driven per year average times the amount of the worst polluting car they repaired with another wild guess of total gallons sold in Colorado and toss out a best guess that affects a group of the population based on their speculation?

  Who verified the results?

  For one the State can not inflict a financial burden on any group based on speculative data and assumption.

  It is very clear by the structure and content of this quotation from Jackson's group that it is simply a wild guess devised specifically to infuriate the ignorant masses in absence of factual data collected from a random sampling and extrapolated for their intended means. They fail Statistical Analysis 101.

  This is hype and hysteria, and as a journalist it is one of your obligations to present facts to the public, not promote hysteria.

  Why is there no mention in the article of large engine displacement SUV's, commercial transport vehicles such as tractor trailers and construction equipment, the latter of which have absolutely no emissions or mileage regulations? And commercial aircraft and oceanic ships? Shouldn't they fall under the exact same regulations?

  What is the carbon and CO/CO2/particulate load of this years California wild fires affecting Colorado air quality? One California wildfire produced "8.7 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere" (quoted from the National Center for Atmospheric Research - NCAR)

  A single volcanic eruption or the continuous eruption of Mauna Loa and Kilauea? Volcanoes around the world emit tons of CO/CO2/NOX and other noxious and toxic gases and particulate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year in huge volumes.

  Please, we need facts, truth in reporting, and real comparisons to size up the problems, not promotion of hype and hysteria.

Featured

• Legislature Blog

  

  Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.

• Rocky multimedia

  

  The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.

• Who's next?

  

  Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.

• Rocky year in photos

  

  View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.

• Winter Escapes

  

  Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.

• Sam Adams' Open Mic

  

  Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs

• Shanahan's career

  

  See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.

• 12 days of Drew

  

  Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.

• A dream fulfilled

  

  A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production