Cars

(4/1/2009) - I was at the gym the other day, and on the T.V. they were talking about a so-called Cash for Clunkers program the government was considering.  At first, this struck me as a waste

Here’s how the program that Congress is considering would work.  If you have a car at least eight years old, the government will buy it from you for up to $5,000 (less the older the car is).  

The plan is intended to have at least two effects.  First, the program is designed to have some stimulus effect on the economy and the beleaguered car manufacturers in particular.  Second, taking older, less fuel-efficient cars off the road will reduce the use of gasoline.

(12/8/2008) - Wendell Cox and Ronald D. Utt have written an article for the Heritage Foundation entitled “Transportation Policy: Getting the Facts Straight.”  They conclude:

“Congress may soon be embarking upon a massive spending program that is without precedent. And while the purposes of such a package will be both to stimulate the economy and "lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth," as President-elect Obama promised, the facts presented above suggest that money devoted to technologically obsolete transportation schemes that the public does not use will undermine both of these goals, and America will be a poorer place because of it.”

The basic idea Cox and Utt are pushing is that transit receives more funding than its ridership warrants, and that there are more efficient ways to reduce greenhouse emissions related to transportation.  To make this case, they throw up a lot of facts, but little context.  I think its important to examine some of the false choices Cox and Utt construct, as they have become prevelent in a large portion of society.

Transit vs. Cars

This probably won’t come as a shock, but the fact is that America is a car-centric country.  With drive-through everything, cul-de-sac suburbs, and ten lane freeways, we have been the most car-loving nation since at least the 1920’s, if not since the invention of the internal combustion engine. 

(11/23/2008) - Like so many of the new clean/renewable/green energy companies, Better Place promises us that they can change the world.   On their website, Better Place’s asks us to “Imagine living free from oil.”  “Picture,” they say, “zero-emission electric cars running on a clean energy grid.  Governments, auto makers, energy companies and Better Place work hand-in-hand to make this happen.”  And they'll end end war, famine, and religious strife before dinner.

All joking aside, Better Place has set a high bar for itself.  Car companies around the world have been trying for decades to produce a successful electric car, and they all get hung up with the same problem: the battery.  Car batteries are large, heavy, and don’t last all that long.  Unlike gasoline or diesel-powered cars, which only take a few minutes to fill up, batteries can take hours to charge.  This makes it very difficult to take electric cars on longer trips.  Electric car batteries are also expensive to replace.

So Better Place has invented a great new battery?  Nope.  The thing that makes me excited about Better Place is that if they are successful, we won’t need a better battery.