Earlier this year some Wyoming legislators proposed outlawing the sale of electric vehicles in the state by 2035. They cited the lack of infrastructure to support a network of charging facilities in Wyoming with its vast stretches of open highways and low population density. After raising that objection, they got to their real problem, the importance of the oil and gas industry to Wyoming’s economy.
Throughout history paradigm shifting technologies have been opposed by those whose social and economic status is threatened by emerging technologies. The Luddite revolt in Great Britain in the early 19th century is a famous example. Luddites were textile workers whose livelihoods were threatened by the invention of mechanized weaving machines. Before mechanization, textile making required highly skilled workers who had invested a great deal of time learning their craft and earned higher than average incomes. One can think of many occupations that have been replaced by new technologies. As Jimmy Buffett sang “My occupational hazard being my occupation’s just not around.” (“A Pirate Looks at 40”)
Like all entrenched socioeconomic orders, those whose livelihoods derive from the existing order will strenuously oppose any new, status threatening technology. When winners in the old technological environment have significant resources, as the oil industry certainly does, they frequently marshal support from legislators in whose ears they whisper and campaign wallets they stuff. Opposition to electric vehicles is the latest iteration of vested, very well-funded resistance to new technology.
In his 1942 book the economist, Joseph Schumpeter, described how technological advancement is an unalloyed benefit to society. He saw capitalism as uniquely suited to incentivize and reward the development and adoption of new technologies. Schumpeter was fully aware that the process both creates and destroys jobs, even entire industries, which he referred to as “gales of creative destruction.” We all benefit from the creative part; the rub is the destruction part. Handsomely compensated executives of old tech corporations should be able to see the gale coming and take appropriate actions to reorient their firms to survive in the new technological environment. To be fair, many firms are doing that, even some petro firms.
I have no special insight into what our energy future will look like. But I am confident the petroleum age is winding down, for both technological and environmental reasons. And, as oil is a finite resource the supply of which is dwindling, it will someday be uneconomical to extract, if not completely exhausted. Transition to new energy producing technologies has not been and will not be seamless or rapid in addition to fierce resistance from diverse and well-healed oil interests.
In the race to become our major energy source, electricity appears to be leading so I would put my money on the nose of the electric horse. Perhaps like the horse we saw galloping down the Seine at the opening of the Paris Olympics.
Despite deep pockets and great political influence of carbon-based energy interests, like the Luddites, sooner or later their party will end. Wyoming legislators and other likeminded lawmakers are whistling past the graveyard in hope of preserving the economic status of their supporters.
New technology replaces old only if the new is more efficient. Greater efficiency means higher GDP, hence, higher national income. New tech winners enjoy higher incomes, however, those vested in the old technology will individually be worse off. Since total income is larger, there are opportunities for winners to compensate losers in a “gale of creative destruction.” The problem will be making sure winners compensate the correct set of losers, displaced individuals.
Sadly, the political duopoly that controls Congress tends to prop up entrenched, moneyed interests. In this case, petro-tech companies rather than individuals whose lives would be disrupted if new energy technology destroys their jobs. Even if new technologies overcome the opposition of existing interests, experience suggests Congress will not design appropriate compensation.
Patrick Taylor lives in Ridgeland.
