It ought to be common
knowledge by now that people selectively accept information. This is nowhere
more evident than in the case of anthropogenic climate change, which, if it is
to be taken seriously, will entail massive social, economic, and political changes.
This is
characteristically worrying to conservatives—by which I mean actual
conservatives, not the nihilist predators currently adopting that moniker—who
prefer their change to be incremental, rooted in tradition, and localized.
Dealing with climate change, however, requires abrupt and radical action, and
will require a worldwide effort. It is no wonder that they succumb to the
temptation to deny the science, sometimes even going so far as to deny that
carbon dioxide is really a greenhouse gas.
Consider the
ramifications. Transportation that uses fossil fuels will have to be
significantly curtailed. There will need to be restrictions on raising beef
cattle. Forest preservation will no longer be a matter of merely aesthetic
concern, and there will have to be unified efforts at planting more trees. The
impact on industry will be enormous. And all of this will have to come through
central government effort, even world government effort.
Anything that is going to
require such governmental power is going to be daunting to the conservative
mind. And it is easy to see how some may decide that governmental power is the
true end of efforts to combat climate change, since the actions of governments
throughout human history haven’t inspired confidence on that score. Therefore,
they will conclude, anthropogenic climate change is a ruse, a hoax to get
people on board with an increase in governmental power.
Of course, it is not
logical to conclude that the remedy for a problem has unpleasant political
ramifications and, therefore, the problem does not exist. And there is a
scientific consensus that we are warming the planet through human activity,
stubbornly resisting contrary political aspirations. What’s more, scientists
have been aware of the problem for some time, and the delay in making necessary
changes have only resulted in requiring the necessary solutions to be more
drastic.
Volkswagen has recently
taken a step in the responsible direction. It is “rolling out what it bills as
the breakthrough electric car for the masses, the leading edge of a wave of new
battery-powered vehicles about to hit the European auto market.” [1] But
the challenges it faces gives us indication of the sort of steps that need to
be taken.
The fact is, “it’s not at
all clear whether consumers are ready to buy them. Electric cars remain a niche
product, with less than 2% of the market, due to higher prices and worries
about a lack of places to charge. It adds up to a risky undertaking for”
Volkswagen and other companies that want to enter this market.
So, what to do?
It is apparent, or ought
to be, that when the market puts roadblocks in the way of preventing global
catastrophe that we need to find non-market solutions. The only objection to
that comes from a place of market idolatry. But the market is a tool, not a
deity, and when the tool at hand doesn’t work it is necessary to find another
one.
In this case, the answer
is straightforward. The price of electric vehicles needs to come down. And that
can be accomplished through subsidies, either to the companies that make them
or to the consumers. Additionally, there needs to be a sizable infrastructure
project to ensure that there are enough charging stations so that drivers don’t
find themselves stranded. Tax incentives will certainly come into play.
Right now, the market
hesitates. Electric cars await enough charging stations, and charging stations
await enough electric cars. And consumers await more reasonable prices. Only
governments can intervene to resolve this three-way impasse. It is in the
interest of future generations that they do so with alacrity.