Andrew Sullivan Gets It Wrong Again
I've never understood why conservatives in principle oppose tougher fuel standards or conservation measures. Conserving energy is conservative, no? And increasing energy independence is a useful foreign policy tool, no? Where's the catch?
Where's the catch?
The catch is neither YOU nor THE GOVERNMENT own car manufacturers or their suppliers, so neither YOU nor THE GOVERNMENT have a right to tell them how to build their products. For the very same reason conservatives (are supposed to) oppose having the state tell you what you can't write on your blog and how you write what you can, conservatives (are supposed to) oppose the government imposing economic controls on businesses to achieve social goals. The label of "conservative" has nothing to do with the conservation of economic goods, unless you consider mid-twentieth century social tradition, Christian religion, and "decency" economic goods.
Previous posts on the Daily Disher: Talking About Whom?, The Jubilation of Catching Saddam is Fraying Minds, Andrew Sullivan's Confused, Poor Andrew Sullivan, What the Hell, Sullivan's Hand in Your Pocket.
Comments
here's a problem. Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the wave of the future. The problem? It needs stations like gas stations to refurl the automobile. Automakers are reluctant to produce cars that run on hydrogen without the stations to refuel them. And business' currently in the gas business are reluctant to install hydrogen pumps without the cars to pump the hydrogen in.
Both business' would be risking billions in the development of such technologies. So the question is, for an anarchist, "How can we as a community enable business' to provide us with a safe, inexpensive product that we want with little risk to said business'?"
Government believes a good way to do this is corporate welfare through methods of taxation. I don't have any answers.
Posted by: somasoul | January 27, 2005 01:10 PM
I'd say the proper position for an anarchist isn't to try and decide what way the market in consumer transportation options should go. Buy what you think best meets your values and needs.
I think that if left alone, the petroleum and automotive industries won't be switching over to hydrogen anytime soon. There is simply too much value in pursuing the gasoline/diesel internal combustion engine. It works too well to replace. Only after DECADES of government prodding, "consumer advocate" bitching, and (only lately) wider consumer demand for better fuel mileage have we seen marketable and effective attempts to meet those demands: the hybrids.
How will the market handle the future? I don't know. Perhaps some breakthrough will occur that erases the competitiveness of petroleum-based transportation which will provide incentives to car companies to test out H-powered cars? Perhaps Ford will opt to merge, buy out, or join forces with Texaco to mutually sell complementary hydrogen products? Chicken-and-egg scenarios have been gloomily predicted in the past and the market's actors have always found a solution.
But I think your idea that hydrogen is "the wave of the future" is problematic in that 1) it ought/must/will be the wave of the future and 2) it assumes that the acceptance water-powered cars is inevitable and therefore the main problem is getting business to start working with it.
Posted by: Drizz | January 28, 2005 12:06 PM