Lately, I have written a lot about unintended consequences. An investment background taught me always to remember what could go wrong. Balancing factors affecting the present and the future provides not only a gauge if a move is going well but when your assumptions are incorrect. Focusing only on rewards ignores the risk-reward ratio.
The earlier you admit when you’re wrong, the less you lose. Let your successes run on the right calls and cut losses short when you’re wrong. Being human, we will be wrong sometimes. It’s how we handle it that determines overall success.
Two disparate things have such apparent unintended consequences, and we need to discuss them before we do significant harm—first, the rush to impose electric cars. The second is the Fox-Dominion settlement.
While many of the same drawbacks exist in the government’s headlong push into solar and wind power, autos occupy a special place in our lives. The second-largest purchase for most of us, we have a more intimate relationship with our cars. Few know what we pay per kilowatt of electricity, but we see the gas price.
Under the proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules could require 67% of all new vehicles sold in 2032 to be all-electric. This rule is industrial policy run amok. Even if you think the actions we take here in the U.S. will have a meaningful effect on the earth’s temperature (and it won’t), this action has a real possibility of being a costly boondoggle.
Electric vehicles (E.V.s) are competitive with gas-powered ones only when you get a substantial government subsidy and run it for many years. Even this computation may be off when you figure out E.V. battery life.Continue reading