I just watched this documentary in the Environmental Science class. It is fast paced, fairly entertaining documentary. There are many flaws though. One of the biggest is the environmental movements belief that businesses should develop eco-friendly products solely because it is morally right to do. They seem to ignore the purpose of business, to make money for its investors. If the product that is desired is unprofitable, the business will not produce the product.
In this movie the focus is General Motors EV1 and California attempt to force zero emission cars onto the road. It failed. The makersrs of the documentary put the major blame for this failure on GM and their desire to make money, as though it is evil to make money. They also blame the Bush administration, consumers, and the oil business. They fail to point out the weaknesses in their products. They tout the abilities of the car, which are impressive, but ignore the fact that the batteries take several hours to charge and then you can go only 60 miles to the charge, although better batteries have been created that allow for longer travel times. They do point out the “greed” of the industries involved. They assume that GM killed the EV1 solely because they didn’t want it to compete against their other products, even though, GM had done studies of the profitability of the EV1 and showed it would not be profitable in the long run. Since GM is in the business to make money, why would they produce a product that would lose money?
As far as consumers, they blame them for having too high expectations for the car. The consumers would be willing to buy the EV1 if it performed as well as their internal combustion engine cars, which, when running, it did. But the fact it took so long to charge and the limited mileage per charge was a major roadblock. The newer batteries would have helped consumer desirability, but there was still the charge time that needed to be improved. As far as I could tell from the movie, there was no attempts to improve that aspect of the vehicle.
Oil industries would, of course, oppose electric cars. They are a direct threat to their profits. The ad campaign and media blitz against the EV1 is a natural reaction, and not immoral or illegal. The oil companies, like GM, is responsible to their shareholders, not the environment. I have no problem with their opposition on the business end.
The Bush administration is singled out for the harshest criticism. It is assumed that administration officials with previous ties to the oil companies directly affected the fate of the car. The truth is unknown. It is a poor logical argument to say that previous association implies guilt. What happened in the campaign when Obama’s and McCain’s previous associations were mentioned? The people bringing them up were excoriated, especially those that mentioned Obama’s past. Similar comments about Bush and his administration are treated as poof of corruption. It is a classic guilt by association. When I did a similar thing in a paper in college, I failed the paper and was told by the teacher to never assume guilt without proof. Association is not proof.
The best way to get a business to do something you want is to make it economically desirable. If the California Air Resources Board had made some kind of tax credit or incentive for GM to make money, they would have had a better shot at GM producing the car. Again, as far as I can tell from the video, there was no incentive for GM to comply. Environmentalist need to learn to work with business and give them reasons to want to produce eco-friendly products, which has been happening lately, rather than try to force business to comply through laws and mandates. Businesses will always resist measures that will lose them money. This is true with any industry.
I did some further research for the story. The batteries the EV1 were using took 8-10 hrs to fully charge. For a 60 mile trip, that’s a long time. There is research going on to try to create a battery that will charge in less time, under an hour if possible. Also, for all the equipment, electricity, and maintainance on the car would cost almost twice the amount as an internal combustion engine, over the life of the car, comparably.
Something else to think about. The electricity for the cars has to be produces some way. The power plants would have to generate alot more electricity for the cars, especially if there are alot of them sold, on top of the electricity already being used in normal households. I don’t know if an environmental impact study was done to figure out how much more electricity would need to be produced and the pollutants that would add to the atmosphere, as compared to internal combustion engine cars.