DaleElectricCar

Jacob Dale Annotation #10, 11/14/10 Who Killed the Electric Car?

1. Title, director and release year?

__Who Killed the Electric Car?__ was directed by Tom Paine, and it was released in 2006.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

The film was a very creative documentary that opened up with funeral music, imagery of cemeteries, and finally the burial of the electric car. The film focused on how the modern day electric car was seen all over the roads of California in 1996. In 10 years, it was totally gone. Around 100 years ago, electric cars were more popular and dominant than cars running on gas. The documentary went on to examine why the gas car won. It was a combination of cheaper oil and mass production. GM became quite serious with making an electric car after it won the world solar race challenge in 1987 in Australia.

The company then went on to challenge its design team to make a practical electric car for consumers. The car became known as the EV1 and was sold through the Saturn brand in California and Arizona. Amazingly, the vehicle was stylish, quiet, fast, and rather well received. It even resembled a corvette. The car was rather affordable, and it was available for lease for only $250 to $500 a month. Best of all, operating costs were very cheap and the car cost only around 60 cents per gallon to run compared to its gas counterparts. Momentum built up behind the car. Soon, celebrities such as Tom Hanks and Alexandra Paul were driving it. Other car companies followed up with their own electric vehicles. So why did it die out?

The car died due to the California Air Resources Board facing pressure from the oil industry. The oil industry pushed for California to get rid of its zero emissions mandate. The Bush administration jumped in as well supporting hydrogen fuel-cell technology. It so happens that the Bush administration had strong ties to energy companies, and this was their technology of choice. California soon gave in, and the Bush administration even handed out huge tax write offs to people purchasing SUVs. The chief of the California Air Resources Board also supported hydrogen despite most of the members opting for the electric vehicle. The chief had a vested interest in hydrogen since he soon took a position on a hydrogen fuel-cell committee in California. The auto industry caved in as it didn’t see prospects for profits in the short term, and companies like Texaco were purchasing the battery technology used in these vehicles to prohibit further technological advancement. In the end despite protests from electrical vehicle supporters, the vehicles were junked by the auto manufacturers.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The film draws out numerous sustainability issues that include the environmental effects of maintaining the status quo, the government being intertwined with special interests, and the power of the oil and car industries. Our current vehicles are not only aiding in CO2 being pumped into the environment which is aiding global warming, but they are causing a public health disaster. Smog is a large issue in California. In fact, California has the worst air quality in the nation. Cars are aiding in this. A 1980s study showed that 1 in 4 fifteen to twenty year olds in LA County had lung issues. Asthma and problems with lung development are also common as a result of pollution. Every car that we drive on the road adds 19 pounds of carbon dioxide into our air. We are even drilling in Alaska now.

Another major problem is that our government is intertwined with special interests that include energy and auto companies. The Reagan administration stopped fuel economy standards which allowed auto makers to continue to produce gas guzzling cars, and oil companies loved the fact that more oil and gas would be consumed. The film made several points that the Bush administration had several ties to companies like Halliburton. The Bush administration pledged over $1 billion in 2003 to develop new energy particularly hydrogen energy. It so happens that this was the energy of choice by the energy companies. We dumped the technology of the present for technology of the future that might not even be possible. It was basically a bait and switch maneuver. The federal government even gave out tax breaks up to $100,000 for those purchasing large vehicles like SUVS. The max benefit for electrical vehicles was just $4,000. Our government is clearly supporting unsustainable practices. Besides the federal government, this type of corporate backing happened at the state level in California. At the California Air Resources Board meeting deciding the fate of the California mandate for zero emission vehicles, unequal representation was given to the side supporting electric vehicles. They were given just 3 minutes while the automakers were given virtually unlimited time to discuss their opinions. There were only 2 auto company reps while there were 80 electric vehicle proponents. Coincidently, the chair of the board sided with the auto reps, and it turns out that he later accepted a position with the California Fuel-Cell Board.

The power of the oil and car industry is also another issue. The owners of the EV1 had no power over their cars being taken back. They signed lease agreements only, so GM had the right to take back the cars. GM was solely concerned about profits, and it did not see profitability in the short term future. GM wouldn’t be able to profit on the maintenance of these vehicles like traditional cars. A big part of the car business is maintenance. Our dependence on the internal combustion engine is a sustainability problem in itself. In a way, GM was making use of product obsolescence to make money. Cars break down and need routine maintenance, new parts, and so on. The EV1 did not have the internal combustion engine so it was not as prone to breaking down or needing new parts. This meant less money for car dealerships and the auto makers. Despite a huge waiting list of possible buyers, GM destroyed the vehicles. It faced pressure from the energy companies. The oil companies were worried that the electric vehicle would mean a lesser demand for fuel in the long term future. So, they launched a massive campaign to kill the electric car. The industry funded groups and editorials across the country. It focused on labeling the benefits of the vehicles as being dubious. It pressured stores and plazas not to offer charging stations, and even suggested that gas cars were better since the electricity in our country is based predominantly on coal. They proclaimed that this would have more negative effects despite this not being true. They even went as far as labeling the cars as an injustice to the poor who could not afford them. Companies like Texaco even bought a 60% stake in the batteries that powered these vehicles. In the end, they helped to overturn California’s mandate for zero emission vehicles, and they helped to kill the electric car.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?

I found many parts of the film to be compelling. One of the most compelling portions was when Dr. Tom Everhart talked about how GM did not try to keep the EV1 afloat. Adding to this was the fact that he was a professor at Caltech and a former member of the board of directors at GM. GM made complicated applications to lease the vehicles, and even well known celebrities like Mel Gibson had trouble leasing the car. GM ended up closing the EV1 assembly line and firing its staff that was working on the vehicles. Other compelling parts for me were the images of the electric cars being in landfills and the protestors holding funerals for their vehicles. This showed to me that GM was motivated solely by profits despite the owners of the vehicles actually loving their cars.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?

I was not compelled by the GM executive saying that the cars would go to colleges, others would be recycled, and some given to engineers to continue with the technology. The film clearly showed the auto manufacturers destroying the vehicles. The GM executive lied. Also, another person in the film said that GM did not kill the electric car because they would sell anything if people bought it. This is clearly not true since the demand for the EV1 was there, and there even was a waiting list. GM refused to extend the leases to its customers, and it destroyed the cars. Finally, the most unconvincing part was an oil executive blaming the demise of these vehicles on the cars’ inferior technology. The cars were not only quieter, but they were fast, and they were cheap to maintain. Charging them only cost about 60 cents per gallon, and their batteries kept their charge for about 70 miles. This was more than enough time for the average person to do all their driving.

6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?

The film is great for anyone high school aged and above. It covers concepts such as fuel cells and other sophisticated technology that younger individuals would not be able to grasp. I believe the film is good for the general adult population. Before this film, I was not aware of the EV1 or that we had electric vehicles in the early 1900s. It was truly an awakening experience for me.

7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

The film did not really go into appropriate solutions for replacing the vehicles we have now. It seemed to focus on expensive solutions or just simply protesting. I would have had more scientific information on fuel cells and discussion of bio fuels. It would have been nice if the film talked more about the original electric vehicles in the 1900s. It talked about them briefly to prove they existed, but it didn’t really go into detail on why they died out. They just mentioned that gas vehicles succeeded due to cheap oil and mass production. This was the extent of the detail.

8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.

The film was rather skimpy on solutions. It made it sound like solutions are nearly impossible by emphasizing David versus Goliath. One of the more promising solutions was converting cars to be electric vehicles. This does not seem practical to me, and it seems rather expensive. It would require consumers to bring their cars into a shop to undergo a costly transformation. The next solution hinted at was protests. It mentioned the funeral protests and all kinds of intervention. I believe that today, protests could come from electronic communication and spread more easily. Grassroots support via social networking has been huge. It almost helped Iranians overthrow the Iranian government, and it was responsible in the grassroots support of Barack Obama. Barack Obama utilized social networking to gather support from young people. It helped him beat Hillary Clinton and eventually John McCain in the presidential election. If we are to make any progress in regards to climate change we need to continue to educate the public on alternative technologies for energy. Social media can definitely help as well as the education we receive in school. We need to end our oil dependence.

9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)

The film sparked me to see if any electric vehicles are being developed currently by large auto manufacturers. It turns out that many of the large automakers have electric vehicles coming out soon. Nissan has allowed people to reserve the Leaf which is an all electric car. In fact, as of September 20th the pre-orders have sold out. Nissan didn’t even expect the demand to be so high. GM plans on releasing the Volt soon, and Honda and Mitsubishi are working on their own electric vehicles. So, it appears that we are seeing the resurgence of the electric car.

[]

[]

The Chevy Volt seems to be promising as well. It will run off of a lithium ion battery allowing it to go about 25 to 50 miles on a full charge in 10 hours or 4 hours if a 240-volt line is used to charge the vehicle. The vehicle will cost as little as $1.50 a day to charge. If you can’t charge it or want to go long distances, it has a gas-powered range extender. The car does not sacrifice performance since it can reach speeds of over 100 miles per hour. It even has a sports mode for those willing to sacrifice fuel efficiency for performance. The car is a bit pricey, but it is available for a starting price of $32,780 after a $7,500 federal tax credit. California will begin selling it in late 2010, while other states will start selling it in March of 2011.

[]