The History And The Future Of The Car

"The Car

By Bryan Appleyard

(Pegasus, 305 pages, $28.95)

Celebrations of the utopia that will emerge with the demise of the combustion-engine automobile may be a bit premature. That's one of Bryan Appleyard's conclusions in "The Car: The Rise and Fall of the Machine That Made the Modern World," an encyclopedic retrospective of how the car came to be, how it has evolved over the past century and how, as the subtitle suggests, it has shaped the world we live in.

Mr. Appleyard, an award-winning British journalist, admits that the car as we know it is destined to change, but he's not so sure it will change in the way many are envisioning. There's certainly a strong case to be made for electric cars -- which some predict will dominate new-car sales by 2030 -- even though, as Mr. Appleyard points out, these vehicles account for only 0.3% of the cars in Europe today.

Then there's the issue of infrastructure. "Entire industrial and power-generating systems will have to be transformed," Mr. Appleyard writes, noting that if all the cars in London were electric, "the city would consume five times as much [electricity] as the London Underground." Here in the U.S., "California alone would need 50 per cent more electricity if all cars were electric."

Electric vehicles have oft-ignored production costs, such as batteries that rely on specialty metals found in some not-so-pleasant places like China, which could care less about its carbon footprint and uses its resources to shape global policy. The author cites a study by the International Energy Agency that suggests that an electric vehicle with a 250-mile range would have to be driven almost 40,000 miles "just to pay off its emissions debt."

Regardless of these shortcomings and viable alternatives, Mr. Appleyard feels the die is cast. "Hydrogen power . . . could still win in the end," he writes. "But, for the next decade, too much money has been spent by too many people for electric to fail."

Regardless of how cars are propelled 50 years from now, Mr. Appleyard thinks Henry Ford's Model T, Harley Earl's tail-finned land yachts and Ferdinand Porsche's Volkswagen Beetle should all be celebrated as the glorious, transformative inventions that they were. "In their brief ascendancy cars have dominated every aspect of public and private life," the author writes. "They have occupied the summit of consumer society as the ultimate objects of desire. They have also permanently changed our understanding of space, time and nature."

The bulk of the book focuses on these grand themes of change, speckled with pithy tidbits of automotive and engineering history. Mr. Appleyard reminds us that in 1900 London there were some 50,000 horses depositing about 500 tons of manure daily, which "formed banks along the pavements of even the most fashionable streets and when wet formed a 'pea soup' that would be flung up in sheets by passing carriages." There had to be a better way, and it was paved by the likes of Daimler, Benz and Olds. Mr. Appleyard also resurrects some names mostly lost to history, such as Samuel Brown, the Englishman who developed a gas-vacuum engine in 1826, and the Duryea brothers, Frank and Charles, of Springfield, Mass., credited in 1896 with "the first appearance of American cars in Europe."

Not even Mr. Appleyard is sure who should get the credit for the first automobile, but Henry Ford's production line and Model T are rightly acknowledged as transforming automobiles from the "toys of the rich" to something achievable for the masses. Interestingly, it wasn't the Model T's price that was the main selling point, but its ability to successfully navigate America's nearly nonexistent road system. The Model T was one of only two cars to complete the 1909 Ocean to Ocean Automobile Contest from New York to Seattle, arriving 17 hours ahead of a second-place Shawmut. The key, Mr. Appleyard tells us, was the Model T's suspension system. Fast-forward 20 years and the Model T was "eulogized and sung about. In a way never achieved before or since, the word 'car' meant this car."

As cars became more affordable -- and more ubiquitous -- they transformed our lives in ways we couldn't have imagined. They made post-World War II towns like Levittown, N.Y., possible. "The suburbs were sold as little paradises of middle-class gentility or pioneering realizations of the American dream," Mr. Appleyard reminds us. But there were unforeseen consequences, too. "Since these places also encouraged giving the car to the kids," in the car was where "the kids had sex, plotted against their parents and fomented revolutions."

Mr. Appleyard does a good job chronicling the 1950s and '60s heyday of American car culture, from GM designer Harley Earle's Cadillac Series 62, inspired by the P38 Lightning aircraft, to George Lucas's 1973 film "American Graffiti," an homage to the hot-rod culture of 1960s California. "This is not really, as it is often described, a teen or coming-of-age movie," Mr. Appleyard argues. "It is, in reality, a car movie. The cars -- most of them -- are drawn from the golden age of American automotive baroque." It was the hubris of this golden age that made American auto executives blind to the 1970s arrival of Japanese and Europe subcompacts, which would lead to a seismic shift in American car manufacturing and culture.

Is the move toward electric cars the next big thing? Mr. Appleyard isn't so sure. He puts Elon Musk on a pedestal next to Henry Ford, but seems to forget that Ford's goal was to make a car everyone could afford. Mr. Musk's objective has been to produce a car that vacuums up every government subsidy and tax credit available, affordability for the masses be damned. Even if we're browbeaten into a technology fraught with questions, Mr. Appleyard recognizes that it'll fall short of the broad and universal impact cars had on society in the early 20th century. "No matter how much Elon Musk and his successors might impress us in the future, it is unlikely they can compete with the shocking simplicity of a new machine that moved freely without rails, wind, human or animal power."

---

Mr. Yost, a writer on Cape Cod, was the Detroit bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswires." [1]

1. Machine Dreams
Yost, Mark. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 09 Sep 2022: A.15.

 

JAV naujienos: Bidenas svarsto prezidento įsakymą tikrinti JAV investicijas į technologijas Kinijoje

„VAŠINGTONAS – Bideno administracija svarsto vykdomąjį įsakymą tikrinti ir, galbūt, apriboti JAV investicijas užsienyje į pažangiausias technologijas Kinijoje ir kitose potencialiai priešiškose šalyse.

 

    Pasak žmonių, susipažinusių su šiuo klausimu, Baltieji rūmai ketina išleisti tokį įsakymą per artimiausius porą mėnesių, kad būtų galima stebėti ir, galbūt, blokuoti Amerikos įmonių ir investuotojų investicijas.

 

    Iniciatyva buvo įgyvendinta po nesėkmingo bandymo priimti teisės aktus, kurie būtų numatę panašius apribojimus, bet buvo išbraukti iš paketo, kuriuo siekiama šią vasarą padidinti JAV konkurencingumą.

 

    Baltųjų rūmų Nacionalinio saugumo taryba atsisakė komentuoti.

 

    Naujos pastangos, kaip ir anksčiau pateiktas teisės akto pasiūlymas, kelia susirūpinimą kai kurioms JAV technologijų įmonėms ir investuotojams, kurie teigė, kad toks žingsnis gali pasirodyti sudėtingas arba pernelyg platus ir sumažinti JAV ekonominę įtaką.

 

    „Būtina sutelkti šią schemą į JAV technologijų brangakmenius“, – sakė Johnas Murphy, JAV prekybos rūmų vyresnysis viceprezidentas, atsakingas už tarptautinę politiką. „Per platus požiūris pabrėžtų ribotus JAV vyriausybės išteklius ir galėtų nubausti JAV darbuotojus ir įmones.

 

    Nesvarbu, ką daro JAV, sakė M. Murphy, tikslinės šalys greičiausiai ir toliau galės gauti daug technologijų iš kitų šalių.

 

    Pastangos taip pat gali susidurti su teisinėmis kliūtimis, sakė kai kurie su šiuo klausimu susipažinę žmonės.

 

    Vykdomojo įsakymo idėja kyla dėl didėjančio kai kurių pareigūnų ir politikos formuotojų susirūpinimo, kad JAV investicijos į Kiniją gali padėti Pekinui pasiekti jo tikslą dominuoti strategiškai svarbiuose sektoriuose – ypač puslaidininkių, bet ir tokiose srityse kaip dirbtinis intelektas ir kvantinė kompiuterija.

 

    „Keista matyti, kaip JAV finansų įmonės investuoja į Kinijos lustų gamintojus, o tai būtų gerai sustabdyti“, – sakė Vašingtono ekspertų grupės Strateginių ir tarptautinių studijų centro technologijų ir viešosios politikos programos direktorius Jamesas Lewisas.

 

    Per pastaruosius kelerius metus įstatymų leidėjai bandė parengti teisės aktus, kuriais būtų nustatyti tokie apribojimai.

 

    Ankstyvoji teisės akto versija tapo verslo lobistų taikiniu, kurie tvirtino, kad jis per platus ir būtų nepagrįstai apribojęs tarptautinę prekybą.

 

    Siauresnė versija, pasirodžiusi vasarą, buvo labiau skirta JAV investicijų pažabojimui tiekimo grandinėms itin svarbiuose sektoriuose arba susijusiuose su svarbiomis ir naujomis technologijomis, pvz., puslaidininkių, didelės talpos baterijų, biotechnologijų, hipergarso, finansinių technologijų ir autonominio vairavimo sistemomis.

 

    Šis pasiūlymas galiausiai buvo pašalintas iš platesnio konkurencingumo teisės aktų šią vasarą, sulaukus tam tikros pramonės kritikos ir įstatymų leidėjams suskubus užbaigti darbą su besiplečiančiu, ilgai atidėtu, paketu.

 

    JAV dešimtmečius reguliavo užsienio investicijas į JAV subjektus ir ribojo Amerikos įmonių jautrių technologijų eksportą į užsienį nacionalinio saugumo sumetimais. Vykdomasis įsakymas, kaip ir šią vasarą svarstomas teisės aktas, išplės federalinės vyriausybės kompetenciją dėl amerikiečių investicinės veiklos užsienyje.

 

    Siekis griežčiau reguliuoti JAV verslo veiklą užsienyje atspindi vis stiprėjantį Vašingtone suvokimą, kad Kinija siekia išstumti JAV lyderystę pasaulyje ir kad Amerikos kapitalas ir kompetencija padeda stiprinti Kinijos karinę ir ekonominę galią.

 

    Kinijos ambasada Vašingtone pranešė, kad Pekinas prieštarauja įsakymui ir pridūrė, kad ši priemonė apribos įprastas investicijas Kinijoje, sutrikdys tarptautinę prekybą ir iškraipys pasaulines puslaidininkių tiekimo grandines.

 

    „JAV politizuoja, instrumentalizuoja ir ginklu paverčia technologijų ir prekybos problemas, taip pat imasi technologijų blokados ir atsiejimo, bandydama monopolizuoti pažangias pasaulio technologijas, išlaikyti savo hegemoniją mokslo technologijų sektoriuje ir pakenkti glaudžiai susietoms pasaulinėms pramonės ir tiekimo grandinėms. “, – sakoma ambasados ​​atstovo Liu Pengyu pranešime.

 

    Administracijos pareigūnai ir toliau diskutuoja, kuri agentūra vadovaus naujoms pastangoms, taip pat kiek gali išsiplėsti jos įgaliojimai.

 

    Galimybės apima Iždo departamentą, kuris vadovauja JAV gaunamų investicijų priežiūrai, taip pat Prekybos departamentą ir Gynybos departamentą. Prekybos departamentas atsisakė komentuoti. Iždo ir Gynybos departamentas į prašymus komentuoti neatsakė." [1]

1.  U.S. News: Biden Weighs Order to Screen Tech Investment in China
McKinnon, John D. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 09 Sep 2022: A.4.

U.S. News: Biden Weighs Order to Screen Tech Investment in China

"WASHINGTON -- The Biden administration is weighing an executive order to screen and possibly restrict U.S. overseas investment in cutting-edge technology development in China and other potentially hostile countries.

The White House is aiming to issue such an order within the next couple of months to monitor and potentially block outbound investment by American companies and investors, according to people familiar with the matter.

The initiative follows a failed attempt to pass legislation that would have imposed similar restrictions but was dropped from a package aimed at boosting U.S. competitiveness this summer.

The White House's National Security Council declined to comment.

The new effort, as with the legislative proposal before it, is drawing concern from some U.S. tech businesses and investors, who said such a move may prove unwieldy or overbroad and undercut U.S. economic influence.

"Keeping this scheme focused on the crown jewels of U.S. tech is imperative," said John Murphy, senior vice president for international policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "A too-broad approach would stress limited U.S. government resources and could punish U.S. workers and companies."

No matter what the U.S. does, Mr. Murphy said, targeted countries likely could continue to source many technologies from other countries.

The effort also could face legal hurdles, some of the people familiar with the matter said.

The idea for the executive order stems from growing concern among some officials and policy makers that U.S. investment in China could help Beijing achieve its goal to dominate strategically important sectors -- particularly semiconductors, but also areas such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

"It is weird to see U.S. financial firms underwriting Chinese chip makers, something that would be good to stop," said James Lewis, director of the technology and public policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

Over the past few years, lawmakers tried to craft legislation to impose such restrictions.

An early version of the legislation became a target for business lobbyists, who argued it was too broad and would have unduly restricted international commerce.

A narrower version that emerged over the summer focused more on curbing U.S. investment in sectors that were crucial to supply chains or involved critical and emerging technologies, such as semiconductors, large-capacity batteries, biotechnology, hypersonics, financial technologies and autonomous-driving systems.

That proposal eventually was dropped from the broader competitiveness legislation this summer, amid some industry criticism and as lawmakers rushed to complete work on the sprawling, long-delayed package.

The U.S. has for decades regulated foreign investment in U.S. entities, and limited American companies' exports of sensitive technologies abroad for national security. The executive order -- like the legislation under consideration this summer -- would expand the federal government's purview over Americans' investment activities overseas.

The push to more closely regulate U.S. business activity abroad reflects a growing perception in Washington that China aims to supplant U.S. global leadership and that American capital and expertise are aiding the buildup of Chinese military and economic power.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington said Beijing opposes the order, adding that the measure would limit normal investment in China, disrupt international trade and distort global semiconductor supply chains.

"The U.S. politicizes, instrumentalizes and weaponizes tech and trade issues, and engages in tech blockade and decoupling in an attempt to monopolize the world's advanced technologies, perpetuate its hegemony in the sci-tech sector and damage the closely-knit global industrial and supply chains," embassy spokesman Liu Pengyu said in a statement.

Administration officials continue to discuss which agency would lead the new effort, as well as how far its authority might extend.

Possibilities include the Treasury Department, which leads U.S. oversight of inbound investments, as well as the Commerce Department and the Defense Department. The Commerce Department declined to comment. The Treasury and Defense Department didn't respond to requests for comment.” [1]

1.  U.S. News: Biden Weighs Order to Screen Tech Investment in China
McKinnon, John D. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 09 Sep 2022: A.4.