PennacchiaFilmAnnotation6

Andrew Pennacchia Film Annotation # 6


 * 1. Film: ****Who Killed The Electric Car? **
 * Director: ** Chris Paine
 * Release Year: ** 2006

The central narrative of the film discusses how the advancement of the electric car in American came to an abrupt end in the mid 1990's, mainly due to the actions of automobile manufacturers, the US government and the oil industry. The film specifically follows the development and commercialization of the General Motors EV1 battery powered electric car, which was made available for lease in California after the state passed the Zero-emissions vehicle mandate in 1990 that required the seven major automobile companies in the United States to offer electric vehicles to consumers in order to continue to sell their gasoline powered vehicles. Although there was a growing consumer demand for electric cars as the green movement progressed over the years, GM believed that they would never see a profit from the EV1. Instead they saw the short term losses from development costs and the future of the electric car industry that would decrease the need for maintenance and replacement parts, which makes up a large percentage of the annual income of the current automobile industry.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

The narrative is sustained by identifying the suspects involved with the killing of the electric car. In addition to the auto industry, who publicly argued that the reason for not continuing development of the EV1 was because of low consumer demand due to the high price of the car and the maximum range of 80-100 miles per charge, the film outlined a list of other suspects that were involved. The oil industry was afraid of losing their monopoly on transportation fuel in the coming years, therefore they attempted to keep consumers from moving towards oil alternates by, for example, trying to financially diminish efforts to build public car charging stations in California. The oil companies also advertised directly against electric cars in national publications. Another major suspect in the film was the Bush administration, who pushed California to abandon the ZEV mandate regulation on automakers. The Bush administration also publicized the future development of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which was presented by the film as an alternate that took attention away from the potential of the electric car, stating that, “ A fuel cell car powered by hydrogen made with electricity uses three to four times more energy than a car powered by batteries". The film attempted to attain a level of emotional appeal by including a large number of interviews with Americans who drove the EV1, all of who highly recommended the car. The interviews also involved celebrities and political figures who drove the car, as well as news footage from the development, launch, and marketing of the EV1.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal? **

The film highlights problems within the automobile industry which make it clear that their main economic interest is making the most short term annual profit, without interest in the continually increasing environmental pollution that is caused by exhaust from gasoline powered automobiles.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological? **

One specific part of the film that I found most persuasive was the role that Alan Lloyd played in the issue. Alan Lloyd was the chairman of the California Air Resources Board, who was responsible for changing and enforcing the Zero- emissions vehicle mandate. While he was in this position, he weakened the mandate's requirements on the automobile companies, and also publicly favored the undeveloped hydrogen fuel cell technology over battery powered electric vehicles. Many believe that Alan Lloyd played a major role in the killing of the electric car since he also was the chairman of the California Fuel Cell Partnership.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **

I was least convinced by the details covering the enforcement of the Zero-emissions vehicle mandate on the auto industry. It seemed that although thousands of electric cars were developed, as stated in the film, none were successful in continuing to be developed. If the ZEV mandate was properly enforced, then how were all of these companies able to get away with not effectively marketing the electric cars while the mandate was in action?
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? **

This film best addresses all people who drive cars, because it is important for the world to realize that there are other options out there instead of the gas guzzlers and polluters that we all drive. If anything, the film definitely gave the viewer a much better understanding of the auto industry, and how we can make decisions to better the environment.
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">7. What audiences does the film best address? Why? **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">The film could have included more information about the comparison of the EV1 cars to the hybrid cars such as the Prius, which currently are one of the most environmentally friendly vehicles on the road. This information would have been beneficial to know whether the hybrid cars compare to the zero exhaust electric cars from the 90's, which maybe would increase public interest in sustainable automobile development.
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">The kind of action suggested by the film are simply to continue the development of more sustainable vehicles, while also increasing the public awareness of the environmentally friendly options that currently exist. There are many vehicles out on the road that are more energy efficient and that reduce exhaust better than most cars, however the average consumer does not know about them.
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">9. 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. **

This film has compelled me to seek out information regarding the role of batteries in the killing of the electric car, which by the auto and oil industry was considered the main reason for failure of the electric car industry. The batteries that came with the original EV1 was a lead acid battery that had a range of about 60 miles. Although a car with this range was sufficient for about 90% of Americans who commute around 30 miles or less per day, the auto industry was pushed by oil companies to argue that consumers would not buy the car. However, the film shows that the company who supplied the batteries to GM was not allowed to announce the improvement of other types of batteries, including nickel-metal and lithium batteries, so that the CARB would not be influenced that batteries were improving. Alan Cocconi, owner of the battery supplier stated in the film that with the new lithium ion laptop computer batteries, the EV1 could have had a range of 300 miles per charge.
 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references. **

[]

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/pages/section3.swf