Review of Who Killed the Electric Car?
Your Entertainment Dollars can Help the Environment
Use Coupon Code 10DayFreeTrial at GreenCine.com For Free DVD Rentals By Mail.
Okay, I admit. I watched the movie today, and it wasn’t exactly what I expected. In fact, some of the scenes were part of that crazy video I posted awhile back. (You know, the one that apparently only I thought was funny?)
Who Killed the Electric Car? did not, as I’d assumed, put too much of an emphasis on GM. It highlights the company’s actions, but sheds light on a variety of co-conspirators, including consumers, batteries and the government. The movie gives us a lot of facts that most people would be surprised to know … like how freaking creepy the commercials for the EV1 wound up being. They were downright scary! Seriously. Watch the movie just to check one out. If you’re a fan of Silent Hill, you’ll eat them up.
I was intrigued by the long waiting lists, and the celebrity standards the company maintained … and by the way they had powerful people jumping through hoops for a CAR. An electric car at that. I was dismayed, and a little surprised, at the way automakers came together to create “grassroots” organizations to fight electric cars, too. One of my favorite things was hearing how, despite its scramble away from electric, American taxpayers fueled electric car development by putting money toward the research. It’s too bad the Japanese mainstream companies were the only ones really interested in finding a working model.
Technorati Tags:
electric car, movie review, EV1
The EV-1 did NOT have any “long waiting lists” anymore than Honda did for its far superior Honda EV electric car – Chris Paine is what I call a liar – he refers to the list GM made of customers who “might be interested” in leasing an electric vehicle. The EV-1, by the way, was not legal for sale, and had to be leased as per an agreement with the federal govt, and was required to recover all the vehicles at the end of the lease. The movie , once again, lies thru its teeth. Honda had the good sense to move on to a viable alternative – the hybrid, which people actually will buy and use to eliminate a lot of emissions and crude oil. The EV-1 could not, under any conceivable circumstances, be considered a viable alternative of the gasoline powered car. And the entire auto industry would NOT be in favor of the status quo – only the top few companies would have any reason for continuing gasoline powered transportation, thius Chris Paine’s birdbrained theory that the entire auto industry would prosper from no electric cars is completely illogical. No sane individual can make an argument in favor of electric cars during the early years of the century, when global waming was an unknown term, and the best battery around was the NiMH , which no electric automaker would ever consider putting into an EV, as GM did in the EV-1. The simple fact is that Chris Paine’s crockumentary is a
total fabrication and mistatemernt of events that would make unhistorically accurate Hollywood proud that he could have convinced so many otherwise intelligent people, most of whom seem as though they haven’t the vaguest idea of the tasks that an automobile is supposed to perform.
Notice that the current GM Volt “electric car,” which many (including Chris Paine) is so enthusiatic about, IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the EV-1, or any other all-battery EV. That tells you just how far the EV-1 was from being a viable alternative to the gasoline powered car.
It would poetic justice if those who buy into Paine’s absurd fantasy would be required to buy (at $45,000) an EV-1 and have to use it as their only vehicle. Maybe then the dimwits would understand why very few (even in nutball California) ever leased an EV-1 when they were still around (even considering the massive subsidies they received from the state and Fed govt). Everyone over the age of ten understands what killed the electric car in 2002. The same thing that killed it ninety years before : too expensive (cost three times a much superior Honda Accord), too inconvenient , too long to recharge, batteries too expensive (over $20,000 for the EV-1 battery pack, which would last around five years, making the EV-1 the most expensive car per mile to drive ever built), could not get to the next county and back, or any destination a mere 40 miles away with assuredness (impossible to predict how many miles one can get from a full recharge – it went down as the years passed and was greatly affected by AC, terrain, and driving habits, and amount of traffic). Time had it right several weeks ago when their auto analysts named the EV-1 as one of the worst 50 cars ever buillt.
Have you seen the movie recently? A lot of your complaints were addressed, but you’re right, there’s a heavy emphasis on GM and their product – not so much on the other companies.
It’s strange that so many people in the movie seem to have no idea this was a test program, though. I wonder how that was handled when people were attempting to lease the car?
Hilary, thank you for watching the film and posting a review!
Thomas, I completely respect that you don’t agree with the film, but let’s at least stick to the facts for the discussion. First, the EV1 was totally legal to sell; it had passed the various crash tests and NHTSA/FMVSS standards- GM simply chose not to sell it. It did sell the Chevy S-10 electric, which used the same propulsion system but which few would argue was even remotely the vehicle that the EV1 was. Neither program was “a test program”. Toyota will argue that their RAV4 EV program was (though even they only argue it now, after the fact, not back during the program) but the EV1 program was considered small, but real. GM actually announced plans to market the EV1 before there was a mandate compelling them to do so- ironically, GM inspired the law- but the fact that the cars were eventually mandated had nothing to do with them being legal to sell, and small numbers of the Chevy S-10, Ford Ranger, and Toyota RAV4 were all sold in electric versions. The vast majority of the EVs were only leased, but for corporate reasons, not legal ones.
The film does indeed focus mainly on GM, and within that, on the EV1 (not much mention of the S-10.) Each of the 6 largest automakers made EVs, and each of them behaved similarly in reclaiming the vehicles and crushing them. The EV1, however, was the most iconic of the EVs, and had the most passionate driver base. Additionally, most would agree that GM botched the handling of the end of their program worse than the others, but they all behaved badly and should all be held to the same standard. Frankly, the only reason that there was a story to tell (and therefore a film) was because it was handled so arrogantly and with such deception. It was within each company’s right to end their programs- and had GM and the others simply come out with a statement that it was a business decision to end the program, and paid the appropriate penalties to the State of CA, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. People would still have been disappointed, but it never would have reached this level.
Regarding the waiting list, I assure you that it did exist- I helped create it. It was made up of people who knew full well what the EV1 could and could not do and who wanted one anyway, even knowing they’d have to wait at least a year to get it. However, contrary to what GM currently claims, the people on the list were never contacted and whittled down to 50. It’s a popular myth, but a myth nonetheless.
All of that said, I’d respectfully suggest that you misunderstood one of the main points of the film…I agree with you that the EV1 was NOT the car for everyone- most of the proponents would never suggest that it was. But it should be noted that there’s not a single car on the road today that is the car for everyone. The EV1 was not a mass-market vehicle- but nor did it have to be in order to be successful; the break-even numbers on the program were stunningly low. Some of the most popular gasoline cars available today are niche vehicles- Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Sky- heck, the entire Hummer brand is a niche product by industry standards. It’s one of the more prominent trends in the industry- smaller, more flexible production lines with more customization options for the consumer.
The relevant question was not whether the EV1 was the car for everyone, but whether there were enough people who wanted it to make a business out of it. Chris Paine posits that there were, and my experience on the program backs that up.
More importantly, the point is not that the EV1, or any other vehicle or alternative fuel is the one singular solution. The goal, in my book, is simply to make these choices available so people can choose what works best for them. If it wouldn’t have worked for you, fine- but there’s still no compelling reason that the cars should have been ripped from the hands of those who loved them and were willing to pay to keep them.
You do, however, inavertantly touch upon what I think is one of the most important points in the film- none of the suspects is beyond redemption. GM has come full-circle and seems sincere about building plug-in vehicles again- and is shooting for the moon this time with the Volt. It’s a bold move on their part, but a necessary one, given the condition of the company. I’m guardedly optimistic; until they’re available in showrooms, it’s little more than a press release, but I’m hopeful nonetheless.