Governments Cannot Change the Automobile Market

by Greg Walcher on April 22, 2024

Electric cars are set to dominate the worldwide automobile market. They account for more than a third of all cars on the road, and gas-powered cars are only 22 percent. The year is 1900, and both engine types will soon overtake primitive steam-powered vehicles, still 40 percent of the vehicles in America. Although Stanley Steamers rarely explode, many Americans fear they might, and their hissing noise scares the horses. The future of gasoline cars is also doubtful, owing to their unbearable noise, the dirty and dangerous job of hand cranking to start them, and the difficulty in finding gas.

Thomas Edison, who has electrified New York City literally, and the American imagination figuratively, has purchased a Baker Electric, and is touting the quiet and dependable nature of his lead-acid batteries as the future of transportation. Walter Bearsey designed a fleet of electric cabs in London and several companies followed in New York. Their short range is not an issue in the inner cities, and 12 miles an hour beats the horse-drawn carriages.

Fast-forward to 1910: 35 electric car companies are selling well in the U.S. The 1915 Standard Electric, using Westinghouse motors, boasts speeds of 20 miles an hour, though its $1,800 price limits it to wealthy buyers.

Electric cars held the land speed records until 1900, with French cars recording speeds of 39-57 miles an hour. The record was broken in 1902 by both steam and gas-powered cars and by 1904 Henry Ford’s gas-powered car was clocked at 91 miles an hour. Electrics were quiet, comfortable, and easy to drive, but they had challenges, too, primarily their high cost, slow speed, short battery range, and lack of charging stations (sound familiar?).

President Taft purchased the White House’s first cars in 1909, hedging his bets on which technology would prevail by purchasing a Baker Electric, two gas-powered Pierce Arrows, and a steam-powered White. Neither electric nor gas cars would dominate the market until their respective problems were solved. Baker announced grandiose plans to open charging stations at every major intersection in its hometown of Cleveland, and then quickly expand, but the cost was too high because electricity was not available on every corner in Cleveland. In fact, electricity was unavailable in most of America before WWI.

Conversely, what finally killed electric cars were three developments that catapulted the internal combustion engine into the hearts and pocketbooks of Americans. Ford’s introduction of the mass-production assembly line for the Model T allowed his cars to sell for half the price of electrics. Less well-remembered is the Reeves brothers’ invention of the muffler, which made noise levels acceptable. And most important and unsung, Charles Kettering figured out how to get the best of both technologies under one hood, by putting a lead-acid battery and electric starter in gas-powered cars. By 1919 virtually all cars had electric starters, even cheap Model Ts – no more hand cranking. That combined the ease and convenience of electric cars with the range, speed, and flexibility of gas cars. Improvement of highways in the 1920s further expanded travel distances and helped bury the electric car market, as did discoveries of large oil fields that made gasoline affordable and available everywhere.

The electric grid grew from covering 3 percent to over 35 percent of America by 1920, but during that time electric cars doubled in price, while 15 million Model Ts were sold because their price declined from $780 in 1908 to $260 by 1925.

What went wrong for electric vehicles a century ago were the same things that hold consumers back today. Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli created a great discussion last week by posting an interesting question about what would have happened had electrics won the battle in the 1910s, and internal combustion engines been invented or rediscovered now. As he said, the latter would be touted as vehicles with half the weight, half the price, refueled in a tenth of the time, with four times the range, and usable in all weather.

Surely the internal combustion engine would be celebrated as the wave of the future. But instead of learning from that rich history, today’s governments are openly defying it, as my friend and economist Steve Moore puts it, demanding that we that we “buy a technology that we’ve known for a century is inferior. This is the opposite of progress.”

Today’s all-powerful bureaucracies might ban the sale of gas-powered cars, or even the sale of gasoline itself. But in all fairness, we must understand the bureaucrats’ predicament.  Such draconian edicts are all they have because governments cannot dictate what consumers want.

{ 0 comments }

Crying Crocodile Tears Over “Sue-and-Settle”

by Greg Walcher on March 26, 2024

House Republicans were so upset that they held two committee hearings during 2023, and in November the Committee on Oversight and Accountability announced that it will investigate EPA’s “use of secretive ‘sue-and-settle’ practices.” The Chairman says EPA uses the tactic “to avoid congressional oversight” and implement policies that special interests want.

Letting outside groups sue the government to compel enforcement actions dates from the Nixon years, and during the Reagan era became a favorite tactic of the environmental industry. During the Clinton Administration several agencies discovered they could make secret back-room deals, using outside groups to file “friendly lawsuits” demanding they do what they wanted to do anyway, thereby short-circuiting all sorts of administrative hurdles. Convincing friendly groups to litigate was easy – the government would agree to pay their legal fees as part of the settlement. The result would be a court “consent decree,” its details and costs often sealed from prying eyes.

Now, six Republican congressmen led by Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) have even introduced a bill, the “No Regulation Through Litigation Act” to put a stop to it. Well, not exactly to ban the practice, but to “disincentivize” it. And they want hearings soon – though my guess is that there will be plenty of time to discuss this over the next few decades before acting on it. I think it’s what we’ll see because I know it’s what we’ve seen. No need to rush into anything.

James Varney wrote an excellent analysis for RealClearInvestigations, explaining that the practice, which was implemented on steroids by Obama officials, with more than 2,260 such settlements during his second term, just at Interior and EPA. Trump appointees blocked the practice, but not for long. Varney writes that “Under Biden’s Lawfaring Eco-Politics, It’s Back.”

He cites a classic example. “When the Biden administration announced in 2022 that it would remove some four million acres of federal land [in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah] from oil and gas exploration, environmental groups hailed the decision.” He quotes one environmental industry leader gushing, “this is a critical opportunity for the Biden administration to chart a new path toward clean energy and independence from fossil fuels.” Turns out that the decision was made to settle a lawsuit filed by the very same organization cheering – and benefitting from – the “settlement.” Congress did not change the law requiring leasing of those lands; nor was Congress even informed of the resulting “consent decree.”  

The same tactic was used to wall off six million acres of the Gulf of Mexico from exploration. Congress didn’t change the law there either. The agency quietly agreed to the ban to settle a lawsuit brought by environmental industry groups, and paid their legal fees. The reality is that Congress would never be able to muster majority votes for such fundamental changes in America’s economy. So, these groups and their allies in government use the court process to make major policy without any elected official involved. No need for public involvement, depending on who one considers to be “the public.” The environmental litigators, of course, see themselves as the voice of the public. One official says the “sue-and-settle” system “serves the public interest,” explaining that it provides “the public direct opportunity to influence the scope of federal rules and safeguards.” But no public ever elected him, and those who were elected were not consulted. In America, “public” servants are elected, not self-appointed.

It should be clear that “sue-and-settle” is a means to advance an agenda that is specifically not approved by voters and their representatives. And it’s not just “back,” it’s bigger than ever. Legal fees in these settlements in just one agency (EPA) have doubled in the last two years, according to OpenTheBooks.com. EPA officials won’t answer questions about the numbers, and Congress won’t force them. EPA faces hundreds of such lawsuits all the time, with the outside “friendly” groups filing environmental lawsuits at the rate of three a day.

Don’t worry, though, Congress is about to investigate. As long as they don’t have to talk about solutions. Varney says he contacted numerous congressmen on the oversight committees, all but one of whom declined to answer, Rep. Good calling the tactic unconstitutional and railing that the Administration is “weaponizing the government against the people,” but not predicting any immediate action on his bill. Congressmen complain about the revolving door between the agencies and these legal firms and interest groups. But what will lawmakers actually do about it?

The answer is suggested by the fact that 183 Congressmen and Senators are lawyers, including 16 judges and 32 district attorneys; 434 were previously government employees; 264 were state legislators; 77 were former congressional staffers. They can pretend to be angry about this outrageous practice, as they have done throughout the 30 years I have been following the issue – as long as nobody asks what they are doing to stop it. The reason is simple. People have little incentive to change a system of which they are an integral part, and from which they earn a lucrative living.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Using a Different Tool to Control Water

March 1, 2024

There are at least 25 different types of wrenches commonly found in toolboxes. There are box-end, open-end, combination, and crescent wrenches. For particular jobs, one might reach for a lug wrench, basin wrench, oil filter wrench, or an impact, flare-nut, strap, chain, or torque wrench. Like most people, I also have socket wrenches, Allen wrenches, […]

Read the full article →

Do Fish Understand Environmental Justice?

February 23, 2024

Southerners have enjoyed shrimp and grits for generations, New Englanders have their clam chowder, Marylanders their crab cakes, and Cajuns their crawfish etouffee. Oysters Rockefeller is a century-old tradition, while calamari, sushi, and ceviche are more of an acquired taste, but growing in popularity. Thankfully, all those fish no longer need worry about social justice, […]

Read the full article →

None of the Government’s Business?

February 13, 2024

There is a line in The Music Man, just after Harold Hill steps off the train, when he asks a local man on the street, “What do you folks do around here for excitement?” The stranger responds curtly, “Mind our business.” Getting elected to the legislature changes some people in a subtle way, because if […]

Read the full article →

On Pygmy Rabbits and Bumble Bees

February 9, 2024

If I say the sky is purple and you say it’s blue, so I challenge you to prove it, what would you do? How do you prove something nobody has spent money studying because it’s never been questioned before? Are there any scholarly, peer-reviewed journal studies proving conclusively, in a “settled science” sort-of way, what […]

Read the full article →

It’s the Wave of the Past

January 30, 2024

The Dutch electronic band Quadrophonia had a minor hit in the 1980s called “Wave of the Future,” hardly an original title. It was the name of Anne Morrow Lindbergh’s 1940 book calling for appeasement with Hitler. Various magazines predicted that the “wave of the future” would be nuclear powered vacuum cleaners, flying cars, shopping malls, […]

Read the full article →

A Sad Day to be Green

January 23, 2024

A couple Minnesota brothers were “discovered” by Garrison Keillor and invited to his Prairie Home Companion radio show a few years ago. With a retro-country and early rock sound, the “Cactus Blossoms” have now released five albums, toured extensively, and become YouTube sensations. Deservedly so – they are great. One of their biggest hits is […]

Read the full article →

Now Why Didn’t They Think of That?

January 12, 2024

Doug Stone topped the country charts in 1993 with a song about why the other guy always wins the girl’s heart. “He sends her roses, and lines he composes,” he sang. “He’s there to hold her when she needs a shoulder… He says he needs her, tells her he loves her.” All of which concludes […]

Read the full article →

Year-End Mischief in Washington

January 3, 2024

The week between Christmas and New Year’s is, for most Americans, a week of vacation, travel, rest, and time with family and friends. It is a time when the fewest people are focused on the daily news; in fact, many people purposely ignore the rest of world and concentrate on their own families, at least […]

Read the full article →