I’ve been involved with cars since childhood – I grew up in a garage, working alongside my father.
For 28 years, I ran my own car repair business. Today, I’ve stepped away from active entrepreneurship, but I’m still deeply engaged in technical matters. Everything related to automotive engineering is familiar to me down to the smallest detail.
All in all, that adds up to over 36 years of hands-on experience.
That was a brief introduction.
Lately, I’ve been hearing more and more claims that older cars are major sources of pollution.
To be honest, I cannot agree with that statement.
Every vehicle on the road must pass a technical inspection – and the requirements have not become more lenient over time, quite the opposite.
My own cars have always been in excellent condition. In fact, there have been occasions when inspectors have said:
“The emissions from this exhaust are cleaner than those of some cars just a couple of years old.”
Let’s assume someone owns a collection of around ten vehicles.
Four of them are used daily by different family members.
The newest of those is from 2011, and the third oldest dates back to 2003.
These are not wrecks. These are well-maintained, carefully preserved cars, each with its own story to tell.
That’s why it feels rather shortsighted to label all older vehicles as “polluters” under the same standard.
Reality simply isn’t that black and white.
In some ways, I do understand why this kind of narrative is being pushed. Most likely, it serves to justify new taxes and to steer people toward what someone considers to be the “right choices.”
But then an inevitable question arises:
How reasonable is it to push people in a small country like Estonia to make sacrifices for the environment, while a single large nation can offset an entire year of our efforts in less than an hour?
And then there’s another simple, but uncomfortable question.
If fully functional, well-maintained cars are forced into the scrapyard prematurely, is that really environmental protection – or just resource waste in another form?
On one hand, we talk about sustainability.
On the other, we continue producing new vehicles, consuming fresh raw materials, energy, and labor.
Which of these actually puts a greater strain on the environment?
The situation has become paradoxical.
Let’s assume the family of such a collection owner suggests selling the cars before 2027.
But if that advice is followed simply to avoid taxes, another question immediately arises:
how is a collection of cars any different from a collection of paintings, stamps, or even empty beer cans – that it should be taxed into extinction?
In reality, selling the collection is not a solution.
The reason is simple: for some of these cars, the official statistical value is already equal to – or even lower than – the registration fee.
So, should they be scrapped?
That would be even more absurd than building a fire hydrant where there is no water supply.
What kind of rational person would send a well-restored, durable piece of automotive history to the crusher – a machine that has already “paid back” its environmental footprint over time?
And so, a closed loop emerges:
you can’t sell,
taxes keep increasing,
and scrapping means giving up something a person has spent a significant part of their life building.
Half-jokingly, someone suggested putting on a mask and taking a loan from a bank.
Humor aside – not exactly a practical solution.
So here’s the question to the wider audience:
Are there any reasonable people out there who can suggest what one should actually do in a situation like this?
I would genuinely appreciate thoughts that help move things forward – not just slogans.
All of this, so that the illustrative image does not become reality.
Goodbye rare Saabs… or is it?