marcszar_who_killed_the_electric_car


 * Who Killed the Electric Car? -** //Chris Paine, 2006//

//What is the central argument or narrative of the film?// This film investigates the rise and decline of electric cars in the US and argues that GM, even as it was forced to manufacture and provide electric cars to the California market, worked to undermine and kill the electric car project all along.

//What sustainability problems does the film draw out?//
 * //Political?//
 * The federal government itself (under the Bush Administration) sued California over its ZEV requirement - a good example of conflicting ideologies in government that lead to paralysis and a bad outcome for the average citizen.
 * //Legal?//
 * The CARB (California Air Resources Board) passed a Zero-Emissions-Vehicle mandate in the state that required an increasing percentage of the state's vehicles to be ZEVs each year. The mandate faced intense opposition from the auto industry to the point that it was eventually completely gutted.
 * //Economic?//
 * GM argued that it was becoming increasingly uneconomical and expensive to produce EVs especially when compared to gas cars - it is absolutely true that electric cars are more expensive to design and manufacture than gasoline cars and that the price to the end user must therefore be much higher, so it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask if they will ever be affordable on a mass scale.
 * //Technological?//
 * An interesting point was made in the film that the auto parts companies might have felt threatened by the EV car because it was so well-designed that few products would be needed to service it. Besides not requiring any gasoline, the cars required no oil, very little lubrication of parts, and far fewer parts than the typical gasoline car.
 * //Media and informational?//
 * Despite odd advertising campaigns by GM, the EVs generated immense public interest and long waiting lists for the cars (you could not buy them outright but only lease them). GM argued that the response to its electric cars campaign was lackluster but quite the contrary was true.
 * //Organizational?//
 * The manner in which GM chose to distribute electric cars was very odd and bureaucratic - they didn't simply appear on lots where interested customers could just buy them, they had to be leased and serviced in special locations. It seemed they tried to do everything possible to make operating an electric car as inconvenient as possible.
 * //Educational?//
 * The film provided an interesting case for the emergence of electric cars in the early 20th century - although most drivers today have long forgotten about electric cars, the film interviewed an old woman who remembers that before the internal combustion engine became so prevalent the electric cars were actually more common very early on in the automobile age.
 * //Behavioral?//
 * Proponents of the EV argued that its limited-but-fairly-ample range of about 100 miles to the charge would be enough to meet the commuting needs of most people but that the mileage ceiling could also encourage people to plan their trips more carefully and eliminate excessive and redundant use of the automobile for minor chores so as to save the charge for lengthier, more distant trips.
 * //Cultural?//
 * As other films questioning the sustainability of gas-powered cars have done, this film was also skeptical of the public's infatuation with hydrogen cars. However, this film did not question our infatuation with the car culture itself.
 * //Ecological?//
 * The film touted electric cars as being effective in reducing smog and other pollutants in densely populated areas - of course, electric cars do nothing to alleviate traffic congestion, suburban sprawl, or extensive car dependency.

//What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?// The film conducted a very-well-organized analysis of the various stakeholders invested in the electric car to examine which ones were at fault for its demise - the film broke the analysis into segments by examining what roles American consumers, the car companies (specifically GM), the oil companies, the battery companies, the federal government, CARB, and hydrogen fuel cells all played in the demise of the EV. The film concluded that every one of the above stakeholders - save for the battery companies - played at least a small role in the car's failure. Consumers were unwilling to adopt the new car in the face of limited mileage, GM found it was too expensive to make, the oil companies viewed it as a threat to their bottom line, the corrupt federal government sought to undermine the program at the behest of the auto and oil companies, CARB chickened out and bent to lobbying pressures, and hydrogen fuel cells were infeasible and only distracted from much-need attention towards electric vehicles.

//What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?// The film unfortunately labored under the impression that continuing to be car dependent was perfectly fine. There was a brief discussion of how auto companies had shut down streetcars in their attempt to monopolize transport but no discussion on whether it really was a smart thing to continue to monopolize auto transport over other forms of electric transportation.

//What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?// It would be interesting to see how much influence the oil companies really have over the car companies and if they really could pressure them to shut down or delay production of electric vehicles. After all, Japan and Europe have far more stringent laws on transport and even there, with lots of government support for electric auto transport, electric cars have failed to become a significant component of the transportation market. This suggests that there probably is no "conspiracy" by the oil companies to specifically suppress the production of electric cars; rather they have failed to catch on because they are currently hampered by structural flaws (cost of production, battery life, etc) that prevent their popular adoption by the public.

//What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?// The film is geared towards American automobile drivers (that means practically all of us) wondering about the future of gasoline cars. The film seeks to show us that there was once a viable alternative to the gasoline car and, if we put enough pressure on policymakers and automakers, we can pressure them to provide us with electric cars again someday.

//What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?// The film discusses the future of emerging technologies such as plug-in hybrids and suggested to the audience that if they wished to support the development of electric cars, perhaps shifting towards supporting and driving plug-in hybrids might be the best way to financially spur research, development, and interest in electric cars.

//What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?// .
 * Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
 * Yes, it made sure to incorporate arguments from GM spokespeople about why they stopped production of the EV and why they didn't think it was a successful automobile.
 * Is it overly “balanced”?
 * No, it clearly articulated opinions and conclusion on all of the stakeholders responsible for the failure of the EV.
 * Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
 * No, it does not go into technical detail or describe specifically how the electric car works except for spending a little time describing the various battery technologies used in the car.
 * Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
 * No, the film reads more as a sort of dialog than as a lecture or presentation.
 * Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
 * Yes, the crushing and trashing of the EVs in the middle of the desert is connected back to images of the similar crushing and trashing of electric trolleys in the early 20th century.

< Back to my portfolio