i dont see what is so bad about crushing old crappy cars.

Earlier this year Dan and I were up in the San Francisco area covering the Motoring J Style show. Driving through a slightly run-down area, we noticed a billboard displaying the unmistakable profile of a Datsun B210. "Hey, cool!" was my first reaction. It's not often you see some old J-tin prominently brandished across a signpost.

At second glance, though, the ad was less flattering. Ominous black balloons floated up from the Datsun's tailpipe, past the words "Healthy cars pollute less" and a website address, DriveHealthy.com

Turns out, the website and billboard are part of a campaign launched by California in April 2008, aiming to reduce pollution generated by old cars. It intends to do so by offering certain owners who have failed the state's notoriously stringent smog checks either $500 towards repairs on the offending vehicle, or up to $1,000 to "retire" it altogether. Retire? We know what this really means: a thinly veiled excuse to scrap old cars.

California isn't the only state with such a measure. Texas implemented a similar buyback program this January with vouchers going as high as $3,500. Owners there have been handing over their old cars at the rate of nearly 1,600 per month since their program's inception, according to The Detroit News. Local governments in the areas of Canada have carried out similar efforts as well.
We immediately wrote about it on the JNC website and before long readers began relaying their stories. Billboards had been sighted all over California, and some JNCers had even received state letters offering cash in exchange for their pride and joy.

Don't assume all of these cars are worthless buckets either. Here are some of California's own eligibility requirements:
- All doors, hood, side and/or quarter panels, and at least one bumper present
- Dashboard, driver's seat, exhaust system, windshield, and at least one side glass present.
- At least one headlight, one taillight, and one brake light present.
- Vehicle must be driven to an approved dismantler under its own power.
- Vehicle engine starts readily through ordinary means without the use of starting fluids or external booster batteries.
- Vehicle drivability is not affected by any body, steering, or suspension damage.

Forgive me, but any car that meets these conditions would be rolling treasure for the average Japanese car restorer. California appears to see no irony in saying on the exact same page, "Inspections will be performed on the items listed below at a CAP-approved dismantler." Inspecting a car to see if it's good enough to be dismantled? I've owned at least a half dozen cars that wouldn't even be acceptable to California as scrap.

Obviously, we don't expect every old car owner to undergo a painstaking restoration. But now, instead of selling the car to someone who might restore it, owners may choose to scrap it for a quick buck and less hassle. Not to mention even cars beyond repair can be a good source for parts.

Look, we're all for keeping the air clean and making sure our planet doesn't turn into a giant sauna. However, these programs may not be as clean as they appear anyway. Unless the person that scraps their jalopy plans on biking or taking a bus, they will inevitably have to buy a new car. And once you factor in the environmental costs of manufacturing that shiny new ride, the old heap doesn't looks so bad anymore.

There aren't a lot of accurate figures out there on exactly how much energy is used to manufacture a new ca, because automakers typically don't release such data. Suffice it to say getting a lump of iron ore from a mountainside to your local showroom is no small task.

Sustainability engineer Pablo Päster has used the Argonne National Laboratory's GREET model to calculate that the energy used to produce a Toyota Highlander is about 107 million BTUs. The formula accounts for everything - glass rubber, plastics, suppliers and even fuel used in transport.

Now, as an exercise, let's assume that your nostalgic is fully operational and that EPA fuel economy ratings are accurate. A typical Japanese four-cylinder from the 70s like the 18R-G in a Toyota Celica, gets an average of 27 miles per gallon if driven equally on city streets and highways. A gallon of gasoline contains about 124,000 BTUs. Therefore, because of the initial manufacturing expenditure, you'd need to buy a new car that gets 32 miles per gallon and drive it for 10 years before it broke even with the Celica. The average new car sold in America gets only 22 miles per gallon.

Of course this isn't a perfect calculation. It doesn't take into account that a new car probably emits fewer greenhouse gases than an old one. But, it also assumes that an old car owner is driving the national average of 15,000 miles per year. It's impossible to consider every scenario, but the point is that the difference is not as great as you might expect.

What's worse, buyback programs are gleefully supported by the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, a lobbying group made up of 10 companies, BMW, Detroit's Big Three, Mazda, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and VW - that happen to have an entire business model based on selling you new cars. It appears that our lawmakers are either fooled by the idea of an even trade between old and new cars or have bought into the industry racket. This is just the latest example of how they show, at best, indifference to the old car hobby.

Fortunately, there are organizations like SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association, to represent enthusiasts in issues like this. It's an uphill battle though, and one we are not likely to win unless we join the larger automotive community.

We hope that these programs will cease, but if they don't we have an alternative to recommend. In one of our writeups on this topic, we suggested that if automakers were interested in the environment, they should offer bolt-in engine swap kits. Think about it: engine mounts, bellhousings and driveshafts to drop a clean, modern 1ZZ-GE and a 6-speed transmission into the old Toyota of your choice. It wouldn't cost them much to produce, and we would have the best of both worlds - nostalgic style and low-emissions power.