The Death of Automotive Advancement
Zach | 22 02 2007If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!
On March 31, 1998, General Motors took a colossal step forward. Years of research had yielded a car capable of replacing petroleum powered vehicles. The EV1 proved to naysayers that electric cars were a feasible enterprise. A quick glance at statistics on the EV1 prove that the car provided affordable and efficient transportation to all drivers. The futuristic styling was intended to appeal to auto enthusiasts everywhere, as were the nimble 0-60 speed (8 seconds), and the higher than average range (60 miles on a single charge). The EV1 was “simply put…amazing,” claimed Generation 2 EV1 driver Kris Trexler. Trexler’s 3,275 mile voyage through the United States showed that the EV1 was a car that was, in fact, efficient and capable of replacing gasoline powered vehicles. GM pleased thousands with the EV1. One day in 2003, however, the American automaker announced they were recalling all EV1s. The death of the electric car was abrupt and swift. Who Killed the Electric Car?, a documentary by director Chris Paine, documents the rise and fall of the EV1.
“We’ve got the equivalent of a nuclear time bomb on our hands with global warming, claimed S. David Freeman, a former energy advisor to the Clinton Administration. GM’s EV1 seemed to harbor a new era of automotive advancement that would stymie the advance of the aforementioned “nuclear time bomb.” GM enlisted the aid of dozens of popular celebrities, including Mel Gibson, to further the awareness of its new vehicle. All the technology was in place for an engineering revolution. Stanford R. Ovshinsky, a world-renowned scientist and inventor, came up with a battery that could provide the EV1 with all the battery power necessary to make it a viable vehicle for daily transport.
The oil companies took notice. They saw it as a threat “on the monopoly they have on providing the transportation to people,” claimed Jim Boyd of the California Air Resources Board. Immediately, they began smear campaigns against the electric car. Newsweek published an editorial which claimed that “the environmental benefits of EVs are dubious.” The petroleum corporations eventually brought GM to agree with their logic. “Car companies had convinced themselves that they couldn’t make money in the short term on the electric car,” claimed LA Times writer Dan Neil. The oil companies, contends AeroVironment research engineer Wally E. Rippel, “feared…that electric vehicles would become successful six years from now but what the automotive companies feared is that they would be losing money on vehicles in the next six months.”
Those fears culminated in the closure of the EV1 plant in Lansing, Michigan. That same year (1999), GM purchased the Hummer name from AM General. 
“The idea of a penny pinching EV1 that was super green; you know, that didn’t get a lot of traction, whereas the idea of a gigantic SUV that could crush your neighbor; that did get a lot of traction,” said Dan Neil. The year 2000 brought more unfortunate developments for EV1 proponents. The new George W. Bush administration was not too friendly with the environmentalist movement. They sued California in an attempt to repeal California’s electric car mandate. At the advice of the oil companies and Chief of Staff Andrew Card (the former President and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, a lobbyist group dedicated to killing the electric car), the new administration began preaching about the advantages of hydrogen as an alternative fuel. “Hydrogen is the way of the future,” claimed the President at a speech in 2006. Hydrogen has received the support of most major oil companies because they would retain the distribution channel.
“It’s David versus Goliath, but now Goliath has new problems,” notes Martin Sheen, the narrator. R. James Woolsey, Former CIA Director, cites a “pretty good sized coalition” of “treehuggers, do-gooders, sodbusters, chiefhawks, and the evangelicals” that would help to further effective alternative energy. The situation is gradually getting more press and attention in the national media. PBS’ June 2006 special shed more light on the current situation, rather than the errors of the past. Still, there are nonbelievers. Karl Brauer, an automotive expert from Edmunds.com satirically asks, “Who Killed Common Sense?” He believes that “if you’re doing business in America you’re supposed to make a profit,” and therefore the car companies terminated the electric car program strictly because they weren’t making enough money. Oil company lobbyists such as Edward H. Murphy of the American Petroleum Institution still deny the benefits of the electric car. “What killed the electric car,” he believes, “is antiquated technology…an example we do not need to repeat.” The EV1 is a perfect example that the technology was ready. The oil industry, however, was not. Electric cars are ready for the primetime. New startups like Tesla Motors and GM’s own Chevy Volt once again showcase the viability of the electric model. The future is now and alternative energy is ready. Why isn’t America?
For more information on how to help with the electric vehicle mandate, please visit PlugInAmerica.
Last 5 posts by Zach
- At Least She's Not a Quitter - June 5th, 2008
- Fidel Castro Steps Down - February 19th, 2008
- The New School Goes Road Trippin' - February 13th, 2008
- Obama Outlines Economic Plan in New Speech - February 13th, 2008
- Surprises Abound in a Stunning Super Tuesday - February 9th, 2008
Popularity: 64% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
The The Death of Automotive Advancement by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
David Friedman went after the claims in the movie, as
TGGP | 23 02 2007David Friedman went after the claims in the movie, as described here: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/07/why_did_the_ele.html
Good point, from a good blog (marginal rev.). When the EV1
Ryan | 23 02 2007Good point, from a good blog (marginal rev.).
When the EV1 was being circulated GM only leased it, but as Mr. Friedman pointed out, the marginal costs of the car outweighed the benefits when the car was leased. If they were to make a decent profit–a profit that would make the EV1 self-sustaining GM would have had to sell it at a $35k starting price. And in that case the corperation would find it self with a large surplus of ugly looking electric cars on its hands.
The fact of the matter, the fact that environmentalists perpetually fail to acknowlege, is that oil is a commodity in such high demand around the world for a reason–because it is an excellent source of energy. Companies opperate by the profit motive. If supposed “alternative energies” were at all effective then we would see a great deal of investment in them, because they are productive and could turn a significant profit for the company.
This is not a conspiracy; this is how the free market works.
Ryan's points are excellent, I could not have said it
andy | 3 02 2008Ryan’s points are excellent, I could not have said it better myself.
Also, let us remember that the electricity used by an electric car must come from somewhere. And in the US most of it comes from burning coal. Now we could use clean nuclear energy (whose waste is stored discretely in engineered facilities); but the environmentailset have blocked this at every turn, and only recently did any new applications to build nuclear power plants happen.
There is no “silver bullet” as the kumbaya crowd wants. We need to transition to cleaner FEASIBLE power (i.e. nuclear) first, while the less feasibles (wind, solar, fusion?!) incubate towards feasibility.