WilsonFilmAnnotation10

Who Killed the Electric Car, Chris Paine, 2006.
 * 1. Title, director and release year?**

The central narrative of this film is to figure out why electric cars are not as popular as gas cars and aren’t on the market. This specific story focuses on GM’s EV1 car. The film achieves this by conducting scrutinizing murder suspects which include the people, the car companies, the oil companies, California’s Air Resources Board (CARB), the batteries, and the government.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

Who Killed the Electric Car has a lot of emotional appeal starting from the very beginning – a funeral for an electric car is given, complete with a car being buried in the ground. Scientific information is kept at a minimum, however, in that the film focuses more on the injustice of having the car taken away, instead of on the shortcomings of the car, although it could be argued that it was an entirely illogical decision to recall the product in the first place and therefore, is completely based in emotional reasoning.
 * 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 sustainability problems the film draws out are political, organizational, and legal. The car died due to the California Air Resources Board facing pressure from the oil industry mainly because the oil industry pushed for California to get rid of its zero emissions mandate. The Bush administration supported this coercing due to its strong ties to energy companies. When California gave in, it showed that there was a major political and organizational problem at play. In addition, the chief of the California Air Resources Board was shown to be biased because he supported hydrogen fuel cell technology over the already available technology of the electric car and despite most of the members opting for the electric vehicle. The chief had a vested interest in hydrogen since he also 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, which is a little bit of a shocking tactic. In the end despite protests from electrical vehicle supporters, the vehicles were junked by the auto manufacturers. Due to people having conflicted interests and the government being overrun by this same problem, the film draws out that there is not only a bigger organizational problem, but a legal one as well.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**
 * Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

I was persuaded by how the decision about zero-emission vehicles was so seemingly and easily reversed by the Californian government. The injustice that the film portrays is a powerful motivator and definitely got me on their side. The emotional argument that they make throughout the film is very strong.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The movie dismisses claims that running a car on electricity produced by coal-fired power plants could actually make pollution worse because “the evidence” from “countless studies” says so. While the exhaust from a few stationary coal-fired plants may be easier to regulate and clean up than the exhaust from thousands of cars, no numbers are given. Many times throughout the film it seems as if emotional content replaces raw data.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The audience the film best addresses are current and future (high school students and above) American car owners. This is so that these people are aware of the decisions they make when they choose which car they want to drive and own. I think that many viewers are probably not even going to be aware that there once was an electric car option when the film was made but would have supported its emergence in the market if it had a wider release. If the film creates more of a demand for energy efficient or zero-emission vehicles, the auto industry may release more options in that line of marketing.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

Statistical analysis would have been a great educational enhancer to the film since it never explicitly states much raw data. It might have also been within their best interest s to also include a comparison to other known “environmentally friendly” vehicles and alternatives, which would have been possible to do in addition to focusing predominantly on GM’s EV1.
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

People who buy environmentally friendly cars will support the emergence of a market that produces zero-emission cars. The audience and viewers have that purchasing power to make that happen. The film’s website also lists several organizations (Actions to Improve Industry is a section on their website) that people can join, volunteer, or learn information from about hybrid and electric cars. They also provide lesson plans for teachers.
 * 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.**

I wanted to see if there were any downsides to electric cars. I found that since heating and air conditioning was powered by the battery, a long traffic jam might now let you go home especially on a really hot day. There might not be enough charge to make it back. In addition the battery had another problem: all batteries tend to heat up when providing large amounts of current such as those needed for accelerating a car. While battery heat has been a problem with the much less demanding application of laptop computers, it has, at times, led to fires and the recall of laptop products. Even rechargeable batteries have finite lives, are expensive to replace, and if not properly recycled, become environmental problems. Batteries cannot be turned off and can pose serious safety hazards to the workers maintaining electric cars. While recognizing that GM had battery problems, the movie maintained that had GM wanted its electric vehicle to succeed, the problems could have been easily solved with existing high quality batteries. However, GM did switch to higher cost, larger capacity nickel-metal hydride batteries and immediately experienced overheating problems requiring GM to cool the batteries with the car's air-conditioning system (a fact not discussed in the movie). Other information the film compelled me to seek out was the Tesla Roadster, a car that was released two years after the film came out. It was an extremely popular “dream car” in that the Roadster was the first highway-capable all-electric vehicle in serial production available in the United States and had a fantastic aesthetic design. Since 2008 Tesla has sold 2,024 Roadsters in 30 countries through September 2011.Tesla began producing right-hand-drive Roadsters in early 2010 for the British Isles, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Unforunately, Tesla stopped taking orders for the Roadster in August 2011.
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

References: [] []