Bernard Avishai, the author of two excellent, but sometimes misunderstood, books on Israel and on Zionism, is a professor of business at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and on top of the transformation of the older industrial into a new cyber-industrial economy. Avishai has written a very important article on the electric car for Inc.
Most discussions of energy conservation and climate change pivot on the question of how much of a sacrifice in GDP and consumption Americans will have to make to prevent worldwide calamity in 50 years, but in his account of the electric car, and its place in a new economy, Avishai shows that energy conservation can actually fuel economy growth. It’s the best argument I’ve read for a “green economy.”
The key is not thinking simply of car sales, but of the huge infrastructure of small and large firms that will have to spring up in order to sustain electric cars. Where will they recharge? How will it be possible to prevent them from recharging at the same times? How will drivers know where the nearest recharging station is? What kind of devices can be installed in the neighborhood and home to facilitate recharging? What kind of software will be needed to coordinate the components of the electric car? How will utilities have to reorient their output?
If you imagine what the growth of the oil-powered automotive industry meant for the economy of the 1920s or 1950s—again, measured not just in auto sales, but in gas stations, garages, roads, repairs, parts, etc.—you’ll get an inkling of what the transition to electric cars could entail. It wouldn’t mean sacrifice; instead, it would spur growth and jobs. And as Avishai suggests, the Obama administration seems to understand this and is encouraging the new industry.
COMMENTS (1)
The right's chicken-little screaming about how any serious move away from carbon-emitting energy sources will destroy jobs, wreck the economy, and send taxes through the roof makes exactly as much sense is it would have made in 1988 to claim that the move away from mechanical cash registers and paper communications to networked digital communications was going to destroy jobs, wreck the economy, and send taxes through the roof. Yes, there will be a few losers. Anyone in the business of making non-networked cash registers in 1988 was toast. But the paradigm shift to networked digital communications, whereby every retail store in America felt the need to replace its non-networked cash register ... view full comment
The right's chicken-little screaming about how any serious move away from carbon-emitting energy sources will destroy jobs, wreck the economy, and send taxes through the roof makes exactly as much sense is it would have made in 1988 to claim that the move away from mechanical cash registers and paper communications to networked digital communications was going to destroy jobs, wreck the economy, and send taxes through the roof. Yes, there will be a few losers. Anyone in the business of making non-networked cash registers in 1988 was toast. But the paradigm shift to networked digital communications, whereby every retail store in America felt the need to replace its non-networked cash registers with networked checkout terminals created huge numbers of jobs and vast quantities of wealth. Since at least 1974, that type of infrastructure transformation has been the only thing driving the net growth of jobs and wealth in the American economy.
Yet one of our only two political parties has actually adopted as its platform the claim that making the production of goods and services more efficient, and spurring the adoption of new technologies, is not merely bad for business but actually a catastrophic threat to the very survival of American capitalism. You'd have to laugh if it weren't for the facts that conservatives actually believe it, and that they will inevitably regain political power to act on their absurd, pre-mercantilist economic fantasies.