Now this one seems different but what is missing is an analysis on whether it is a good use of resources and actually positive for the environment to spend money on scrapping an existing car instead of continuing to use it for its useful lifetime and only then to replace it for a better car or mode of transport.
I highly doubt it that this is missing - it's just not mentioned in the article.
Also, this argument sounds a bit like sunk cost fallacy to me: the car already exists, so whatever embodied energy it has is irrelevant.
It is likely to stay on the road for decades if not encouraged to be removed. Meanwhile the embodied energy of an ebike or escooter is tiny by comparison, can in principle be powered by renewable energy, and the difference in energy footprint is so huge that I would be very surprised if it doesn't earn itself back long before the expected life-time of the car ends.
On top of that there's reduction of traffic congestion and air pollution, and less pressure to create infrastructure (like parking space) for cars. All of which is the kind of externalized cost that isn't actually externalized if you're a government.
It's not that uncommon for such policy decisions not to be fact-based because "of course it's better", so I'll keep my critical stance on governments' policies.
> Also, this argument sounds a bit like sunk cost fallacy to me: the car already exists, so whatever embodied energy it has is irrelevant.
No this is not the point. It costs energy and resources to scrap a car and to produce and distribute its replacement so this should be taken into account. Keeping a car longer reduces the need to produce more cars and to scrap existing cars. If I scrap my car every year than a car must be scrapped and a new car produced every year. If I keep my car for 20 years then this process occurs much less often, which is much more economical in terms of energy and resources. The cost of the subsidy could also be spent on something else that may or may not have an higher impact.
I am just saying that this is the sort of decision that cannot be judged at face value, which seems to be what many people do ("great decision", "of course it's positive", etc), without digging quite deep into the numbers. And I must say that your comment goes in the same direction.
So, maybe it is positive and useful, maybe not so much. They would need to show the numbers for anyone to make an informed opinion.
Could we please not use personal accusations like these? I disagree with your viewpoint, fine. To point at that as if this must mean it is an unreasonable and naive opinion, without giving any factual back-up of your own viewpoint isn't going to get us anywhere.
> It costs energy and resources to scrap a car and to produce and distribute its replacement so this should be taken into account.
- the scrapping of said car is an eventual cost regardless
- the replacement is not another car
My only viewpoint is to reserve judgement on these policies if the facts are not known and to state that governments do not always make fact-based decisions on these issues (all issues in fact) because these are difficult and technical issues and that politics dictates a level of showing that something (anything) is done.
If this policy is indeed fact-based then very good. If it is, and will be, assessed on clearly defined metrics then even better.
Would not that make this subsidy no more than a "windfall gain", then? I.e. it makes little to no difference and people are just happy to pocket the extra money.
> The main effect of the subsidy is to move people to greener alternatives, rather than finding another car.
An ebike/escooter is quite different from a car so I have my doubt that people will change their purchasing decisions base on a small-ish cash bonus: If I need a car I will still buy a car but if I was already thinking of buying an ebike/escooter than obviously I like the windfall as a bonus. Or maybe I'll buy an ebike with the subsidy cash in addition to buying a new car...
Sad the article doesn't report anything about changes in e-bike use etc. Just that people are applying for and taking taking the money. Of course they are.
You need to objectively define what "works" means. We need to compare the cost with the effect and with the likely course of events without the subsidy (the latter is often difficult to do especially when the 'natural' trend already goes in the same direction as what the policy tries to encourage, and in this case sales e-bikes and e-scooters are already booming).
I may sound very critical. This is because I do think that many of these so-called "green initiatives" at the moment cost public money with no clearly quantified or quantifiable benefits at a time when public finances in most European countries are already pushed to the limit.
> Just that people are applying for and taking taking the money. Of course they are.
Indeed.