I'm searching for the right vocabulary in the battle to defend old cars. There is a term that escapes my mind that refers to the idea that old cars are extremely resourceful. A new car not only uses a certain amount of raw materials, but also the electricity and waste needed to build it. Contrast this with an old car, which has already been built and has lived through four or five lifespans of the average automobile. It's a form of recycling and conservation. And I think it makes a compelling arguement in defending the use of an old car. This idea has a name. What is it?
Not the term, but a statistic I read somewhere--1/3 of the energy used in the life of an average car is the energy used to make it! I would guess that assumes about a 10-15 year span of use.
Ok. I'm in an academic library now, running the reference desk...found a resource book, "choose to reuse".--there isn't even a specific subject term, as this book's subject is listed as "recycling", which is different....some quotes: by its very nature reuse requires less energy and fewer raw materials...than either production of new...or recycling... ...it is unique in coupling environmental activity with social needs... ...reuse is more effective and rewarding than recycling...reuse keeps goods and materials from entering the waste stream... The book has a chapter on cars and keeping them going, noting the use of used parts, junkyards, etc., all stuff that is common knowledge here but largely unknown to the masses. I have had conversations about this concept with recycling nuts--they have largely been unable to grasp the difference between recycling and re or continued use!
Adaptive reuse? The eco-mantra (that hot rodders unknowingly live by) is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle -- IN THAT ORDER. In fact, The EPA's website says this -- "Reusing items -- by repairing them, donating them to charity and community groups, or selling them -- also reduces waste. Reusing products, when possible, is even better than recycling because the item does not need to be reprocessed before it can be used again." Eco-justification for what we do. That's direct from: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/reduce.htm Steve.
How about frugality . Characterized by or reflecting economy in the expenditure of resources; sparing. pigpen
"Reusing items -- by repairing them, donating them to charity and community groups, or selling them -- also reduces waste. Reusing products, when possible, is even better than recycling because the item does not need to be reprocessed before it can be used again." I understand the theory, but if the item doesn't have to be 'reprocessed', how come there is so much money involved in getting the said object into your interpretation of the statement that you are trying to convey in order to reuse it?? -slacker
Not sure I get you (no offense dude, but that's one obtuse sentence you got there). Recycling costs money because it takes energy to smelt, melt, pulverize, pulp, or whatever to process the junk before it becomes reuseable. Reuse is better because it avoids those energy costs -- the junk is reused without processing. It what what you're wondering? Steve.
Thanks for all the responses. I know there is a specific term to describe such a premise. Something like "conservation of resources", but more convincing. I think I read about this at SEMA, so I'll try and dig a little deeper to find it. It makes sense to me to be able to verbally defend the use of an old car. Most people I've encountered think that an old car is automatically a pollution hazard and would like to see them regulated off the road. Even people that LIKE old cars think they are gross polluters, so it's our job to peacefully defend the old gals.
I think you have gotten plenty of good responses.... Soooo I'm gonna go off the deep end here. If you want to build a case for preserving our way of life (old cars and hot rodding)....DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT make the case that they are a way to bring down the current "system" of automotive wastefulness. Let me explain:in many ways, hot rodding and old car restoration, by nature flies in the face of consumerism. We do recycle. We do reuse. We do find value in "obsolete" items. If everyone did this on a grand scale, just imagine what it would do to the automotive industry.... I beleive "our thing" is sort of a cool little secret. If the general population gets wind of this "idea"....its all over for us. Let me explain: The general population is conditioned to accept a system of consumerism that values the "throw it away" mentality. Do you think those commercials where you see a new SUV romping through boulders and mud are a mistake???? HELL NO its NOT a mistake. The car manufacturers WANT you to destroy your car. A car that is loved and cared for is fucking kryptonite to a car manufacturer. The government and big business (same thing) BOTH want us to NOT drive old cars. Why the hell do you think its so hard to get a title for an old car? Take a look at insurance policies....EVERYTHING is designed to make us NOT drive old cars. Matter of fact. The only reason I am able to drive my old car all the time is because it resides BETWEEN the cracks. The government IS winning. The government has conditioned the population to destroy their stuff and buy new. I'm living off of the droppings of that system. Change it so that system gets overthrown with "our way" of thinking....and WE'RE FUCKED. hows that for a fat dose of paranoia?.....
I think its the opposite of what you stated above. I don't think the government gives one rat's ass about pollution. They use it as an excuse to hide the REAL reason for ridding the world of old cars. The government and big business only give a damn about MONEY. If everybody drove old cars and reused stuff from past generations..... The government would NOT BE ABLE to get MONEY from taxation. If its really about pollution, then why is California scrambling to figure out a way to TAX people by the MILE? California is afraid of the new low MPG vehicles....why you ask?.....Cause the government is going to LOSE tax dollars from each gallon of gas saved. Its not about pollution, its about MONEY.
yeah it is resourceful. but capatilists won't agree because the huge amount of money that comes from financing cars by americans is a huge factor in our economy. i think that's why cars are kept expensive. so most people have to finance a new one. i was always wondering why someone would not make cars that are really simple and only cost 5,000 but then i realized because the banks would make no money from financing. so they kept coming up with shit we don't need like posi-track and shit like that when all i won't is rear wheel drive, lots of horsepower, and that's it!!!! lobbyism again, lobbyism is it.
I believe it all balances out in the end. Both methods (new production and "reuse") use resources and create pollution to creat the parts they need (unless of course the reuser can find every part they need from a junkyard). The one positive side to our arguments as reusers is that we support many american made automotive part companies, where most of the new production companies- even GM, Ford and Chrysler are outsourcing more and more every year. Bless us
The Jalopy Journal
