Electric Vehicles: There’s More At Stake Here Than Simply an Evolution in Transportation
Commenting on my recent post of the electric vehicle market’s being in the tank, a libertarian reader writes a note that concludes: EV’s will continue to improve, but it’s an evolution, not a revolution.
I’m with you on most of this.
But the central issue here, though I know you don’t agree with it, is that our civilization very much needs to move away from oil in favor of EVs charged with low-carbon sources. We either get this done or we’re dooming our descendants to an enormous amount of suffering. Most of us think this is a very big deal.
The adoptation of almost every new technology has been an “evolution” until the tipping point and then it is a revolution.
The emissions from cars gets all the press, but the emissions from ocean-going container ships generates more and would be much easier to solve.
http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182
Another under-reported problem is the tremendous amount of fossil oils we consume by virtue of the way things are made. If we switched to plant-based oils for industrial production, we’d be far better off.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/life-after-oil/infographic-the-surprising-ways–you-consume-oil-every-day-20160224
We humans have a tendency to get old early–and smart late. Maybe if we get to the next planet in time, we will have a little more respect.
Craig,
Just two points.
1) I’m not a “libertarian” , at least not in the US meaning of the term. I’m something that no longer seems to exist in the US political spectrum, a ” progressive conservative”.
2) “I know you don’t agree with it, is that our civilization very much needs to move away from oil in favor of EVs charged with low-carbon sources”
I have no idea why you have gained the impression I would disagree with that statement! I’m an early pioneer of EV transport, even building my own. Fro the last 19 years I have been the principal shareholder and active participant in a business that builds, sells, leases and promotes specialist EV’s.
I drive an EV as my daily drive car.
That doesn’t mean I’m not pragmatic about the scale of difficulties in replacing oil. I just believe creating a viable, practical solution or alternative is better than endless self-righteous bleating about the problem.
Right. A ” progressive conservative” (in the US at least) would mean no more than a “tall short” person.
Maybe we’re closer together on this stuff than I thought. In any case, I encourage you to continue with all your cogent comments.
In the UK and particularly Australia, “progressive conservatives” are identified as pragmatic moderates.
In general they adhere to conservative economic policies, (especially smaller government lower taxation) with carefully monitored and effective government spending, but progressive social policies. (no capital punishment, independent judiciary, social welfare safety net, individual freedoms, no racial discrimination, gender equality, abortion on medical grounds, responsible environmental policies etc ).
I suppose the most important principle is the concept that the state exists for the benefit of the individual, not the individual for the state. Conservatives do not agree with change just for the sake of change. They try to preserve the those traditions and values that provide positive stability to society.
Conservatives understand governments have a positive and beneficial role in managing the economy, primarily as a regulator but also as a manager in times of crisis. It’s the duty of governments to set economic policy, but with a deft and subtle hand that allows the maximum initiative and growth in the private sector.
Business and the community needs secure economic conditions to grow and prosper. Security is difficult in a system which is inherently designed to be continually changing and fiercely competitive. Government policies must be flexible enough to allow the natural boom and busts of free enterprise, but strong enough to ensure that the overall economy remains sound. (not an easy trick).
Governments and politicians have a very difficult task preserving and advancing the freedoms of individuals against the demands of the collective. Freedoms are best preserved by encouraging citizens to exercise those freedoms with a sense of social responsibility and regard for the rights of all to participate in the democratic process, even the most despised.
I believe successful nations pursue free market economic policies, but also afford a social welfare safety net to ensure that no citizen is left destitute and in a poverty trap. I’m a great believer in redemption. I don’t believe in labeling people as criminals, and just writing them off. Massive punitive incarceration is not an effective answer to aberrant social behavior. I believe even people who commit crimes are still citizens. Citizens who have committed crimes, but no one is beyond redemption and rehabilitation.
Police and law enforcement, should encouraged to consider themselves as a social service, not an isolated para-military.
Even the most serious offenders, should be viewed as potentially redeemable. A humane society should provide adequate funding to research crime prevention and understanding the underlying issues, especially in mental health.
Sorry for such a long post, and a little off topic) but it saddens me to see the polarization of US politics. The great moderate leaders like RFK and Ronald Reagan seem to belong to an era in the distant past. These men had their flaws, but were essentially decent and well meaning.
Today, when America desperately needs not just a good President, but a great President, it would appear the only rational option is the deeply flawed and divisive Hillary Clinton. I hope HC will surprise everyone ( like Justice Earl Warren) and grow into the great office she aspires to attain.
The world needs a strong and united America.
You’re right about the polarization; this deal with Donald Trump took me completely by surprise.
I’m fairly close to you on these issues, but what about government subsidies? I believe one of the functions of government is to foster technologies that have obvious social benefit, like renewables, and that there should be no subsidies for extremely profitable industries whose products are social evils, e.g., fossil fuels. For some reason, not everyone agrees.
Craig,
It’s always difficult when governments commence spending taxpayer money to “foster technologies they believe have obvious social benefit”.
Governments don’t have a very good track record when it comes to managing this sort of investment. Governments are very unwise to discourage even highly prosperous industries that make substantial contributions to the public purse.
Not only does the entire economy suffer, but the nation becomes less competitive, while pollution and employment get transferred beyond national borders, but not out of the bio-sphere.
It’s a difficult balance. Currently, the Oil Industry is the largest taxpayer in the US. The oil industry constitutes approx 28% of the US economy and funds most of the US superannuation and retirement industry.
In reality, the US oil industry receives almost no “subsidies” from the US taxpayer.
Economies are often very complex. It’s often easy to identify problems, but simplistic solutions (especially those based on ideology) can have disastrous and very counter-productive consequences.
But yes, in principle governments have a duty to provide incentives for the development for beneficial technologies, but within reason, and always mindful that the technologies must eventually become self supporting without mandates or continual welfare.
Every major development in technology (at least in the US) since WW II has had some level of government participation/support. The track record is actually pretty decent.