more harm, no real benefit

Obviously, I don’t intend to send this

car to a crusher. So such a proposal shouldn’t affect me, right?

Wrong.

This program would hurt people, like me, who choose to keep their old cars.

Why do people keep old cars?

Ÿ They’re distinctive.

Ÿ Historic and sentimental value.

Ÿ Often, they’re practical — this one gets 25+ mpg.

Ÿ Restoring old vehicles is a rewarding (and quite popular) hobby.

Ÿ Environmental consciousness — “Reduce - Reuse - Recycle”!

What harm would this program do?

Ÿ It would crush a valuable and irreplaceable supply of spare parts.

Have you ever tried to locate older auto parts, even something as simple as a replacement tail light lens? Or a windshield wiper arm? It’s a formidable task, even without the problem of car-crushing.

Ÿ Family sedans like this one would be the primary victims.

Sporty cars have a higher perceived value in the marketplace, so they are more likely to be saved. But a family sedan is a more tangible memory for most people — a piece of history worth preserving.

Why wouldn’t crushing old cars reduce pollution?

Ÿ Old cars are the wrong target.

Cars become gross polluters if they are poorly maintained. The US EPA has acknowledged that not all old cars are dirty cars and that many are quite clean. (March, 1992)

Ÿ Cleaning up poorly-maintained vehicles is both cheaper and more effective than crushing.

Studies in southern California have shown that scrapped vehicles were typically not highly used, and therefore pollution reduction due to their demise was minimal. Alternatively, programs in San Diego have demonstrated sizeable success with upgrade/retrofit repairs. (SEMA, 1998-9)

The scrappage proposal poses serious threats, and will not accomplish its environmental goals.

F Please don’t risk destroying history for all of us. E

Erik Ievins, March 24, 2000

erikievins@yahoo.com