In a new era with government control of the auto industry on the horizon, my editorial column from March 2008 hits particularly hard.

I hate politics. It’s never as simple as black and white (or blue and red, as the case may be). Line yourself up on one issue, and you’re on the wrong side with another. Case in point: environmentalism. Call yourself an environmentalist, and, voila, like it or not, you’re lined up with Al Gore, and his mansion with the $30K-a-year electric bill. Or Richard Branson, with his fuel-hogging fleet of jumbo jets.

Yet I consider myself an environmentalist too—and I want nothing to do with these bozos. The crux of the problem is that these dudes think our problems can be solved by throwing away everything old, and using a bunch more resources to build a bunch of new junk. Case in point: gas/electric hybrids. In Al Gore’s world, our old cars go to the scrap heap, get melted down, and come back as fuel efficient hybrids. After paying off the cost of a hybrid, then waiting years for the fuel savings to catch up, you’re finally there, and feeling warm and cozy about yourself.

But wait a minute. That equation hasn’t taken into account all the energy and resources that were expended to build the old car you just crushed. If you’re truly thinking global, the real environmental impact of it hasn’t been accounted for. It’s a concept best described as “manufacturing equity.”

A car is not just the sum of its steel, glass, and rubber parts. It represents the expenditure of energy resources—both human and natural—that can’t ever be recouped. But what about recycling, you ask? I’ll point out that there are gradations of recycling. The perfect example is a water bottle. In the old days, you’d have just thrown it out. (Actually, in the really old days, we just drank a glass of tap water and washed the glass.) Now we throw the plastic water bottle in the recycle bin where it goes to a big plant (via a huge truck) for separation (more electricity). It’s shredded, compacted, and baled (more electricity), then transported somewhere else (another big truck), where it’s melted down, chemically processed, and made into another bottle (more electricity). You get the picture. That’s what they call recycling. Here’s what I call recycling: drink the water and fill the bottle with more water. I’m not bashing the recycling of bottles—it’s way better than throwing them in a landfill—I just want to point out that even with traditional recycling, there is still a significant energy cost attached, and people easily forget that.

Now just apply the same logic to a 3,500-lb car, and multiply the expended energy and human resources of our bottle example by a factor of, say, 700,000. Think of it: the melting point of mild steel is 2,730 degrees Fahrenheit. Got any idea how much natural gas it takes to melt down a two-ton lump of the stuff? As hot rodders, we are the ultimate environmentalists. We leave nothing to waste. While the rest of the world wants to haul off our hulks and melt them into Priuses, we say “no way!” Politicians try to make old cars in backyards a “quality of life” issue with stupid laws, but who are they to judge what my quality of life needs to be? If they don’t like the cars in someone’s backyard, then don’t peak over the fence.  

The next time a hybrid owner gives you that scowl while you’re driving your ’78 Malibu, don’t let him lay that guilt trip on you. You, my brother, are the real environmentalist. Hold you head up high, because by keeping your vehicle running for 30 years, you’ve saved enough energy and raw materials to build and fuel four other cars, including that electric Toyota.