A important notion inherent in the Conservative political perspective, often incomprehensible to Liberals, is the intimate link between money and freedom. Money, as a broad measure of economic wherewithal, provides choices. With money a person can decide where to live, what to wear and eat, where to travel to, what recreational and educational activities to engage in, and even what opportunities to provide children. The more money the broader the scope of choices in our lives. Money is so important that most of us willing trade the precious commodity of time for money in our jobs.
Personal transportation is also a measure of freedom. Sure there are some people who take special pride and interest an automobiles or manage to travel from place to place via public transportation. However, for the most part, a car allows ordinary people to control their lives like few other possessions. Cars permit us broad discretion in where to live. We are not limited to high-traffic corridors that may be serviced by mass transportation. Cars have made possible for many the achievement of the American dream of a house and yard.
Cars allow us to plan our day more independently of the schedules of others. We can on a given day, deviate from a work-route to pick up a child from baseball practice or purchase groceries.
Cars also provide a sense of possibility. One can spontaneously choose to simply jump into the car and visit grandma in the next state. One can tour and view the country more intimately from a car. The freedom of the open road underpins much of our culture and literature from the TV show Route 66, the movie The Open Road, and the book Blue Highways.
No one wonder Americans are in love with their cars. No wonder car use has increased in European countries, even those with significant mass transportation alternatives. No wonder that as both China and India have become more affluent, the population has raced to own and drive cars.
The recent tremendous increase in gas prices has robbed Americans both of a measure of both economic and transportation freedom. People feel pressure but their scope of choice as been reduced and Americans are apprehensive that it might be reduced further.
The salient political point to understand is that Americans will embrace solutions that allows them to maintain their transportation freedom. There are some on the Left who are smugly happy with high prices because they feel Republicans will be blamed and because they believe it will push people away from cars. Americans will resent this loss of freedom, even if the Left believes it is for their own good of people
There are many possible ways to alleviate the current problem including: the movement to higher mileage gs automobiles, substitution of hybrid and electric vehicles for solely gas powered cars, improving the road infrastructure to reduce eneregy-wasting bottlenecks, and increasing oil production. All will likely play an important and necessary role. However, the option to use high prices to ween people from their cars will not be politically sustainable over the long term. If the Left attacks personal freedom, they will ultimately pay a price. For example, banning offshore oil drilling can be popular when oil is $22 a barrel, less so at $130 a barrel oil.
A Battery Prize
Sunday, June 29th, 2008As the British Empire was expanding its reach both for military supremacy and trade, navigation at sea was a limiting factor. Latitude, the angular distance from the equator, was relatively easy to determine in the sixteenth century. It could be measured by the angle between the horizon and the North Star or by the sun’s angular position at noon coupled with tables of solar declination.
Unfortunately, determination of longitude was more difficult. In principle, it could be calculated astronomically or with a sufficiently accurate clock. The necessary astronomical observations, though useful on land, were impossible to make from a bobbing platform of a ship. The most accurate clocks relied on a pendulum as a timekeeper. However, the motion of the ship and the large changes in temperature rapidly degraded such a clock’s accuracy.
The British were painfully reminded of this inadequacy in 1707. After a victory over the French, four British warships were destroyed when through a longitude navigation error they struck shoals around the Scilly Islands, and thousands of sailors perished. Clearly dead reckoning based on estimated speed was not sufficient for navigation.
This prompted the British Parliament in 1714 to offer the Longitude Prize, 20,000 pounds for a practical method of measuring longitude to within 60 nautical miles. In the popular book Longitude, Dava Sobel, artfully describes John Harrison’s three-decade pursuit of the prize through the steady improvement of his clocks. Sobel’s story explained Harrison’s very human struggle. It took decades to effectively claim his prize. The Longitude Board established to adjudicate the prize always seemed to keep moving the threshold for the prize. Harrison finally claimed the balance of his prize in 1765.
Now in response to rapidly increasing oil prices, Senator John McCain has suggested that we might mimic the success of the Longitude Prize with an $300 million prize for anyone or group that can produce a battery with “the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.”
It is hard to argue against the offer of such a prize, not as substitute for additional action, but as away to draw attention and excitement to the technological challenge. Certainly, there is little cost to the prize unless its challenge is successfully met. Under those circumstances, no one would begrudge the prize.
There is one important lesson we can apply from the Longitude Prize. During his efforts, Harrison was granted stipends from the Longitude Board for promising innovations. If the government ultimately offers a Battery Prize, it should offer intermediate awards for important, but incremental steps along the way. This would maintain interest and keep monetary awards within reach. For example, there might be a prize for an alternate battery chemistry with higher energy density, that might still be more expensive than a conventional battery.
Innovation does not always occur at large institutions with large budgets. Indeed, “out of the box” thinking is hard to nurture at large research establishment and private companies. A Battery Prize might be just he motivation for a break through. There is certainly little downside.
Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »