It Costs How Much?

by Dan Burger
submitted by Chuck West

    Most companies are looking for ways to cut costs these days. Most of my friends are too. But who has the toughest time making prudent financial decisions? That would be anyone who has anything to do with a government-backed program. It's the last place the belt gets tightened. Even in instances where small benefits cost big bucks.  For example, when programs are dreamed up to pay people to scrap old cars and trucks, where does this money come from, what benefits is it buying and who gets screwed?  Those questions are lost in the swirl of propaganda that tries to prove significant environmental gains result form the capture and elimination of old cars and trucks.  There's even reward money dangled in front of dutiful citizens as incentive to round up the usual suspects. Naturally, if a vehicle is older than 25 years, it's suspect.  It's time we all start displaying bumper stickers that say "I am not a criminal" or "Restoration is not a crime."

    I'm told that in places where the bounty on old cars exists, the average price on the head of a "clunker" is $800. What does that money buy?  Maybe who does that money buy is a better question. Despite the flapping jaws of special interests waving the banner of environmental righteousness, there's no evidence to prove it is money well - spent in terms of the greater good. The people who manage the air quality districts in the most polluted cities know this is a sham, but they do what they have to do to protect their own jobs. They closely monitor these actions every step of the way for obvious self-preservation reasons. They present their version of the facts to the media who takes them without questioning, pursuing alternatives or demanding accountability.

    The  companies that are the biggest polluters put their public relations departments on these projects. The next thing you know, these smokestack polluters are our blessed corporate citizens. Their choreographed support of vehicle scrappage programs is intended to divert attention from more effective pollution-reduction programs that would coincidentally be more expensive for the company.  Because these companies can receive "credits" for exterminating "gross polluters," this amounts to a type of welfare program for those who least deserve it.  Not only that, but you can bet that these same companies influence the wording of every new legislation and regulation.  They have representatives attend every meeting and their opinions are heard by the decision makers on a persistent basis.

    Legislation and regulations continue to work their way toward villain-izing all old cars and trucks and making those who support such actions heroes.  It's a bad joke and it ought to make us all mad enough to raise some stink.  Even though many hobbyists don't live in areas where air quality is problem, the regulations that are being but in place will have an impact on all of us nonetheless.  These programs of scrapping old vehicles are grossly ineffective (there are cases that prove this) and contribute to the image that old cars are bad cars.  Those who force these regulations down our throats are basing their decisions on over-stated benefits and the belief that the public is too stupid or uncaring to know that this is imitation environmentalism.  However, without resistance, without raising questions and demanding accountability, nothing will stop these programs.  No alternatives will be discussed.

    I'm not big on shelling out incentives, but if incentives can be given to those who scrap a vehicle. Why not offer them to someone who restores a vehicle? Restoration is the positive side of recycling and it results in vehicles that run cleaner than all but the newest (and most expensive) transportation alternatives. Retrofitting classics with equipment that reduces emissions is another way that incentive money could be put to use rather than solely for the destruction of older vehicles. Do your local politicians know how you feel?  Does your local newspaper?

    The above editorial was reprinted with permission of the author: Dan Burgel, editor of Classic Auto Restorer magazine. It appeared as  the "Steering Column" editorial for Apri1 1997, and caught our attention because of its thought provoking  content and timeliness. The magazine, Classic Auto Restorer covers a wide range of topics which should interest anyone who has ever been involved in the restoration process.  For subscription information. phone (800) 735-9335.