who killed the electric car?
Who Killed the Electric Car has certainly lit up a few neurons in the outrage areas of my brain. In fact, this Electrical Vehicle (EV) neuron storm has extended beyond my outrage
processors, and gone on to ignite nearby areas of disgust, despair, and heck, I’ll admit
that there was some action in the more sociopathic regions of my psyche, as I flirted with
ideas of targeted terrorism against automobile manufacturers. But I’m getting ahead of
myself here.
The scenerio has the depressingly familiar hallmarks of the typical american conspiracy story. California car manufacturers (GM) reluctantly put an electric car on the
market under pressure to comply with California’s new air standards. Enter the EV1 — an
efficient, sexy, vehicle that is easy to use, a pleasure to drive, and has the added benefit
of extremely low environmental impact. Consumers respond favourably, in spite of the
manufacturers’ best efforts to sabotage the vehicle’s success through anti-marketing,
highlighting the vehicle’s shortcomings, and deliberate use of inferior battery technology
to limit its appeal.
Why on earth would GM go to such lengths to sabotage it’s own product? Why on earth has the entire industry not galloped off together in pursuit of this new technology — one that has not only enormous environmental benefits, but the potential to release us from dependence on foreign oil?
The answer, of course, as always, is MONEY and POWER.
1. Because GM’s primary product (gas guzzling behemoths) suffered through the juxtaposition with the stylish, sleek electric vehicle. Car manufacturers cannot promote a new green product without admitting to how filthy, inefficient, and environmentally disastrous their regular vehicles are. To promote/offer an electric vehicle is to give consumers the ability to NOT choose your primary product.
2. Because electrically fueled cars threaten the global fuel monopoly. If consumers all switch to electric cars, how will the big fuel companies continue to make their money? If people can just plug their cars in at home, who needs all of those filling stations?
Sigh.
Of course.
But what about other alternative energy sources, you may ask. What about hydrogen fuel
cells, and where do they fit into the picture. After all, hydrogen fuel cell powered
vehicles are the real next big thing right? (You can be sure of this because the Governor
Terminator drives one). Well, hydrogen fuel cell technology is where the fuel companies
come in to stabilize their postion as sole providers for the worlds’ energy needs — promoting hydrogen fuel technology is their attempt to maintain their monopoly on
the fuel supply, having already consumed and destroyed the fledgling battery technology.
Unlike electrical outlets, not everyone has home hydrogen storage. Ergo, hydrogen
technology perpetuates consumer reliance on these fuel giants to provide fuel and filling
stations, as well as encouraging people’s belief that a humvee is the ‘tooting around town’
vehicle of choice. It is absolutely galling to see the comparison between GM’s hummer and
the EV1. Polar opposites in really every way. And yet, I bet you can guess which one came with $100 000 (yes, you read that correctly) in tax credits, free with purchase?
Even while taking this movie with mountains of salt, it is very simple to see that this is
yet another example of the powers that be (car manufacturing giants, US government, oil
companies) manipulating the market, the information, the technology, and the people to keep themselves on top, while screwing the earth and every one of its citizens in the process.
Thanks GM! Thanks Mobil! Thanks Shell! You blood sucking, soulless, assholes.
Thanks Reagan! Thanks George Dubya! (see above).
Thanks consumers! Thanks for buying into the marketing shiite that dictates that the
ability to crush your neighbour with your SUV/humvee should be your prime buying
consideration. Thanks to everyone who contributed in big and small ways to ensure that this whole mess carries on for just a few more decades.
AAAARRRGH!
Yeah, I’m a little wound up after seeing this film – in spite of it’s attempt to finish
optimistically. In the end the bright eyed red head poster girl asserts that a grass roots consumer movement will prevail, and eventually the forces of good will triumph over the evil villains.
Sadly, I can’t help but wonder if this is really the case. There won’t ever be a major change until the powers that be can find a way to reconcile an environmental and political agenda. Unless it’s possible for the industry giants and politicians to maintain control while being green, it will just imply never happen. And as much as we talk about these big corporations as if they can be classified as good or bad, in the end, corporations are only constructs — fictional entities existing as ideas or agendas which ultimately need people to function. So ultimately, it’s individual people who are to blame. We have all failed in this story — not just the people making the self serving toxic decisions at the top, but also the average person at the bottom who is putting up with it — complicit through their ignorance and apathy. I think the words “total abdication of responsibility” sum it all up nicely.
But where to from here? I find myself again in the position of being all outraged up with no place to go. In spite of the film’s insistance that optimism is warranted, I feel it fails to provide a direct opportunity for consumers to take action. (ie: write to this address, support this organisation, find out more here). While I’m sure this helps the film keep its hands clean(er) politically, I consider it a major rhetorical failure. To highlight an exigence without giving options for resolution is a major missed opportunity. Especially when your target audience is accustomed to spoon feeding.
And in that spirit, I give you the following opportunities to learn more, to help you make up your own mind:
