When working today the thought occurred to me that there are obvious parallels between the abolition of the slave trade and the end of the petrol driven car. People in the 18th century recognised that slavery was an awful way to treat fellow human beings, but the important issues which took years to settle was ‘who would pay for an end to the supply of money slavery produced?’ The same question faces humanity today. Companies such as BP and Shell employ thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. Who will foot the bill if the large petrol companies are wound up? What would governments do if those people enter the labour market over the next ten years?
Even more pressingly for governments, what will they do without the fuel duty? In the UK around 70-80% of the cost of fuel is tax. Just imagine if all UK drivers started using battery cars tomorrow – where would be the money in that? And what if they used solar panels to recharge them? Governments would not even be able to levy a tax on electricity if that happened.
Perhaps the potential lack of revenue from fuel is the reason why the Uk government was so keen to set up a pay as you go system a few months ago. That way, you could still charge people for using roads, even if they drove green cars. What is the answer the average road user?
As a believer in helping the environment, it has to be to go for electric cars as soon as possible as they represent the greenest of the car options available.
Concerning the money, I think other uses for the existing infrastructure as well as changes in our behaviour as a nation could off set the cost. As regards the treasury, perhaps we could have a few less wars, that would go a long way to off setting the reduction in petrol duty – and as for BP – there are two possibilities. Firstly, get them to work in the new solar panel industries and car support roles and also use their infrastructure for retail and office spaces. Think of the number of BP petrol stations there are across the country. Secondly, use BP as a chemical laboratory – where new materials are conceived and tested daily.
7 comments:
I'm going to comment on this entry properly soon, but I thought I should mention that Dantares' blog no longer exists, and someone has hijacked the address. You might want to remove the link on your blog.
I was a little surprised while reading first few lines of this entry. I understand your point completely, but I was thinking along entirely different lines of comparison based upon the title and introduction. It was indeed the problem of finding another source of money that held up abolition for a long time (and in order to placate the landowners whose livelihoods were at risk, none of them had to actually manumit their slaves for some time after the passing of the Act). Yet surely the reason why this was allowed to stall the process is that the most central moral reason for abolition, which is the belief in universal liberty and equality (or “Human Rights” as we might call them today), was not actually considered a greater issue by a large number of people? Obviously the idealists were there and they won out, but they faced a lot of opposition even in the British Empire, let alone the United States and the other European powers. Only when the idea that liberty was a far greater virtue than wealth won out was total emancipation actually achieved without thought for side effects. You have some solutions to the problem you mention, but when people believe that the health of the Earth is of greater moral importance than prosperity, we will move to change our behaviour no matter what the cost. That’s just what I was thinking when considering the placement of these two rather unconnected topics in one title.
Looking at the points you then raise, I personally think that in order for the Government to balance their budget they need to find some ways of cutting spending, but that is beside your argument. If I ignore my tax-cutting instincts, certainly I and many others wouldn’t have an immediate problem if fuel tax was replaced entirely by road charging. I’ve always liked the idea of using electric cars. I’ve been told by a few conspiracy-theory types that we should really all have them by now if it wasn’t for some shadowy influence in the motor industry holding up the research and development. Obviously it’s hard to beat petrol for storage of so much energy in such an easy to contain material ready to be applied (apart from hydrogen fuel cells which are very new, the only other technology which stores so much energy in the same space and allows it to be easily transferred is a nuclear bomb), but for a lot of people electric cars would be more than adequate. You could certainly make quite a lot of city buses and trams electric without worrying anyone. The problem is trying to make everyone else drive one, which is always a difficult task because, remember, we hold liberty (including freedom to drive whatever you like) as a much higher ideal than the planetary health. I don’t want to compromise either ideal really, so I would never want the government to stop someone buying and driving a huge 4x4 any more than I would want them preventing me from listening to Kylie.
As far as BP are concerned, I think they already do a lot of renewable-energy research and materials science, and as the oil starts to run out I can certainly see these fields only becoming more important to them. Also, even if we don’t need as many petrol stations, we’ll still need to buy power somehow if we can’t do it ourselves, so there will probably be charging stations for batteries and fuel cells anyway. Also, someone still has to sell those cheap flowers to desperate men who have forgotten their wedding anniversary!
Well Mr. Tozznok, there is quite a lot to be going on with there.
Yes, I am aware that Dantares has seen fit to take his blog down, what a shame...
On the matters of petrol, you raise many avenues that deserve exploration it is hard to know where to begin.
I will say, for the time being, that your description of moral reasoning points out a valuable train of thought - which is that people's priorities dictate their behaviour.
More specifically on the subject of moral behaviour regarding the type of car you drive; people's moral decisions are not made in a vacuum, but rather are affected by the influences around them. Consequently, it may be that many people aspire to drive more environmentally friendly cars (particularly battery ones) however, more could be done to encourage people; rather than assume that the choices they have to make are already fair.
Consider for example that a second hand 4x4 may be had for a few hundred pounds, whereas electric cars; being rarer have to be bought new which costs £7000+. Notice that the UK government is prepared to give you free tax discs (£100), but not take the vat or other taxes off the electric car (vat on £7000 would be around £1000 off). That is before you consider the possibility of green grants, to convert cars to battery power. In short, at a purely abstract level, I believe many people would already choose to drive electric cars but cost factors prevent many from realising their desire owing to high prices. This is before you consider the impact of advertising on many people's behaviour. Even the most anti-conspiracy theorist would acknowledge that there is more profit for the energy producers in selling petrol than nuclear or solar energy. By producing advertisements extolling the virtues of petrol cars and petrol producing companies, much attention is diverted from the already extant battery technologies. The debate is not just moral but also economic and attentional.
Batteries already exists which will do over 150 miles (see wikipedia's article on General Motor's EV1, built in the mid 1990s and the Toyata's rav 4 ev). The Modec van can deliver heavy goods over distances of up to 70 miles without charge. In the case of Toyata, their batteries were deemed to be braking a patent law and have been discontinued from main stream production. In the case of petrol BP holds a number of patents which if released would make the internal combustion engine more efficient. This technology was known about in the 1970s but filed away so that few people would comment on it. This shows that at the moment, the technology for medium to long distance batteries exists, but governments and other vested interests have been very slow to react to it and other energy saving technologies.
Since so much technology already exists which could be used; I wrote last week to David Cameron, who I think will be the next prime minister of Britain. I suggested to him that passing a law which would demand that patents are either developed and used over a period of 5 years, or they are made freely available. I await to hear his response. If he does not reply by next week, may I will start a petition.
I also have a few other things to say on the subject of economic interests and green transport, but for the time at least, I feel I have done enough.
I think I've heard about GM's battery car. I know they also have a fuel cell prototype, which was on Top Gear a while ago, but I haven't heard much about it. Obviously hydrogen fuel cells aren't perfect either, but at least the car itself will not create pollutants if they are used. I agree that there are a lot of vested interests in the petroleum industry, and I do also agree that more action would be taken if there were more incentives towards using batteries. The point I was making is that we have to resist making punitive actions against, for example, 4x4 drivers, because this creates more bad publicity and solves very little, so it's definitely the right way to go by cutting off something like that £1000. I like that one a lot.
Battery cars do need to work off their image, but it can be done. I seem to recall that in Iceland and Northern Canada where engines don't work very well, they are already common because nothing like a silly image or oil concerns is holding them back, so all we need is a bit of an attitude change. The fact that there are even Tories who will think about this sort of thing is a very positive development, but there's a long way to go before Britain makes a big green commitment. That patent idea is ingenious. I like your way of thinking. I do hope it might force the companies to act - if not, lets just do it ourselves once they have to give it away! Have you also thought of writing to Hilary Benn, who's now in charge of DEFRA? He seems to be reasonable.
Sorry if my previous comment was a bit difficult to get through! Sometimes I just start writing.
I will write to Hilary Benn once I receive a response from David Cameron.
I will also be writing to Defra on a different guise - I will be applying to a license to grow hemp in my garden with the hope of using it to make paper. In order to do this, I need a license available from DEFRA.
Regarding the patent idea, I think it has real potential. I wonder if perhaps Mr. Facebook would be a good place from which to launch the idea. The only thing I will say, is that campaigning is a good way for the civil service to ignore you, and many other public institutions. Some public bodies, such as the Civil Service check potential employees against of file of known campaigners and usually decide not to employ people who might be "an embarrassment". So, it is worth thinking about the implications before starting a campaign.
I didn't realise that was standard practice for the Civil Service. Is this to ensure that their public image remains one of impartiality and of being above politics?
I think they wish to avoid recruiting people who a) might be embarrassing to the establishment and b) to avoid equipping tiresome individuals with yet more ammunition with which to attack the status quo.
That is the way I read it.
Post a Comment