* The History Channel’s “The Cars That Built the World” prompted the following reaction.
History shows that we go through periods of frenzy. Nearly everything gets sucked into a time’s all-encompassing and obsessive manias. We’re in one of those crazy times. You can’t escape the time’s convictions. The idea(s) permeates every nook and cranny of modern culture. There can be more than one overriding and widespread infatuation, but “climate change” seems to rise heads and shoulders above most others. It’s an ideology and is only science insofar as science can be recruited to lend it some credence and therefore an aura of irrefutability. Thus, a seemingly objective excuse is presented for intolerance of countervailing views and force-feeding the people into the narrow confines of its beliefs.
It’s an ideological enterprise with overtones of authoritarianism, even straying into totalitarianism. The difference between the two is summarized by the fact that authoritarians don’t really care how you think and live so long as you don’t threaten their power. Totalitarians seek to control everything about you. The “total” thing enshrines a surveillance state to manage your life in the most intimate details.
Can democracies be totalitarian? Impossible, you say? We are in the midst of an experiment to prove them compatible. Totalitarianism enters through the door of the mass acceptance of an ideology that has many of the characteristics of a religion – with or without God of course. Most often, if God is mentioned as part of the equation, He is the caboose trailing the train of thought. As a quasi-faith, environmentalism has its dogmas, such as “climate change” and an assortment of sacraments like “net zero” in carbon. One manifestation of “net zero” is the full-frontal assault on the internal combustion engine and the drive to get everyone into electric vehicles (ev’s).
The infatuation with the ev is a product of our time’s Secular Great Awakening: the vast upsurge in ethusiasm for Environmentalism. Environmentalism entails a severe preservationism that implants a loathing to alter the natural world for man’s benefit. It’s a prejudice against convenience for humankind. The ev is one allowance approved by the faith’s ecclesiastical leadership because it is said to address the cardinal sin of climate change, similar to the purchase of an indulgence.
Au contraire to The History Channel, the electrical vehicle has a distinct developmental history as compared to the rise of the SUV. The modern all-electric auto is not the outcome of the earlier scattered, hit-and-miss process of freedom-loving actors that led to the conventional automobile. The ev was essentially commanded into existence by the faith’s politically powerful adherents. In that sense, the ev mandates have much more in common with Stalin’s Five-Year Plans rather than anything recognizable in Adam Smith’s free market.
The track record of command-economy technologies isn’t impressive. Mao thought that he could jump-start Chinese industrialization (The Great Leap Forward) by turning the country’s peasants into steel producers with smelters in village backyards. It all was a bunch of hooey and culminated in the worst famine in history.
Then along came the Soviet MIG-25 “Foxbat” fighter. A Soviet pilot defected one to an American airbase in Japan in 1976, and, low and behold, its materials and avionics were outdated. Like most everything coming out of the Soviet Union’s command economy, it was as flawed as the fake tractor that first rolled out of one of Stalin’s first new tractor factories in the 1930’s. Politicians, ignorant of production processes and engineering, are agog over flashy, showy things. The impracticality of their hairbrained ideas is unknown to them, and irrelevant to them anyway. In today’s political eco-system, environmentalism’s dogmas are assumed to be true and therefore windmills, solar panels, and ev’s are commanded to be the only true path to the Promised Land.
These thoughts were lurking in the background as I watched the four episodes of The History Channel’s “The Cars That Built the World”. I kept expecting the ubiquitous reference to the threat of man-caused apocalyptic climate change to rear its ugly head in the program’s rendition from the development of the internal combustion engine to Toyota, like so much of today’s litany of programming. It’s usually lurking in there somewhere. It finally did at the end of the last installment by associating the development of the electric vehicle to the creative energies of the bygone era.
The parallel is misleading to say the least. The ev is the dream product of today’s ideologically driven central planners. The thing’s glaring deficiencies are overlooked in the headlong rush to get people into them. True, advances in the ev have been made but not enough to overcome its inherent shortcomings and justify a junking of nation’s entire car fleet in a few decades. This can only happen when powerful political actors stray outside their limited lane of competence to force us into their preferred choice.
By contrast, no one was forced out of their horse-and-buggy at the dawn of the twentieth century in order to go further, faster, more cheaply and reliably than ever before. But our choice today isn’t between facing the back end of a horse and Henry Ford’s Model T. It’s a choice between a cleaner and fuel-efficient multi-cylinder and something that can’t be charged quickly, drains quickly the moment you turn on life support (heating, a/c), and is tied to a grid that ev-enthusiasts have made astonishingly unreliable. The trajectory of the internal combustion engine is toward lower emissions and greater fuel-efficiency. Ev’s have an improvement ascent as well, but where’s the cost-benefit for the centrally planned disruption that will inevitably ensue?
Answer: There isn’t one. Cost/benefit commonly stems from a calculation of the opportunity costs and tradeoffs of competing options. What opportunity costs and tradeoffs are entailed in the massive shift to ev’s by government command? What are we giving up by doing so? Therein lies the limiting principle for these politically driven economic schemes. It’s not that the product doesn’t look and sound great – you know, the all-agog reaction of our elected nincompoops. It’s what we are forgoing as we turn a good portion of our lives upside down. The amount that we spend or give up on this choice isn’t available for other things.
The result isn’t a seamless transition but a chaotic, disruptive mess. It won’t be anything like the shift from analog to digital recordings (cd’s, etc.). Digital’s advantages were immediately apparent. Leaving aside its recording superiority, its portability and ease of transition across multiple platforms using its storage advantages, flash drives, WIFI, streaming, cellphones, and assorted peripherals, it turned music into an easy-to-access commodity. Music was democratized every bit as much as personal transportation was by Henry Ford’s Model-T. Can we expect the same glorious outcome when we are forced to scrap our $30,000 sedan in exchange for a thing that will introduce us to serious “range anxiety”. It’s a step down, but for what?
We will be expected to accept the devolution because of the faith’s catechism in the original sin of climate change. So, we must forego something that has only gotten cleaner and more efficient in return for something with inherent difficulties in recharging, long recharge times (1 hour to 2 days) producing long wait times, a range dependent on ambient temperatures and use of basic accessories (such as a/c), and a dependence on a fitful grid.
To iron out the some of the most glaring deficiencies, batteries, batteries everywhere will be necessary for the zillions of ev’s and to level out electricity generation from an uncooperative nature with her flippant spasms of wind and her half-day time off when the sun is on the other side of the planet. More open-pit mining and disposal facilities for all those environmentally unfriendly batteries will be imperative. And, by all means, if you happen to live in a flood-prone area, park your drenched ev blocks away from anything of value. They spontaneously combust like Spinal Tap’s drummers.
The electric vehicle – like the secular catechism’s other components such as wind, solar, locking up the forests, and the assault on suburbia – is a product of an ideology that functions as quasi-religion. Though, an ideology is different from a religion. While exhibiting many of the characteristics of one, ideology possesses one fundamental difference: a religion doesn’t generally concern itself with your choice of car, but an ideology can. A religion is primarily limited to the condition of your soul. An ideology can march you off to the death pits or simply shame you into fealty to the ordained lifestyle. Puritanism never really faded. Our modern version just stripped away the God-garb and donned the raiment of the prig. Only this time, the self-righteous are commissars.
Progressives pride themselves in being in the vanguard of history’s arc of betterment, thus Obama’s “wrong side of history” claptrap. But history has no arc. While one technological advance can lead to others, amidst the science and gadgets, we are the same hoard of clashing ambitions, prejudices, and interests. We can still spend ourselves into oblivion and turn the knowledge to malevolence such as robust ways to kill babies, surveille the population, force everyone into lockdowns, and believe in the unbelievable. So, history isn’t an ascending glide path but the teeth of a saw blade. The quality of life bounces up and down. It can register a descent if the balance of nonsense overwhelms the sense.
The electric vehicle as a substitute for your regular family sedan makes no sense. One sure way to institute a new dark age is to force people into making their lives more difficult. The ev aligns more appropriately with the rule of Xi Jinping. Welcome to the reign of today’s eco-Puritanism.
RogerG
