Who Killed the Electric Car and Energy Policy
Jan 5th, 2011 by kcoghill
Based on our discussions regarding “Who Killed the Electric Car” and energy resources comment on the following:
1) What is your view point regarding what was presented in the movie?,
2) Currently, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 focuses largely on supporting research for fossil fuels and the subsidies for fossil fuel and nuclear continue (see pgs. 228 & 229 in your book). Using your knowledge of energy resources, our energy discussions, and what was presented in the movie, What do you think the United States future energy policy should be?
“Who Killed the Electric Car?” is a clear example of just how complex environmental issues are. Like those over wind power, nuclear energy, and oil dependency, the debate over electrical cars is not black or white, not democratic or republican. The documentary does a good job of portraying this complex system, most notably in regard to the environmental implications. It offered background of the Californian Air Resources Board’s 1990 Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate, which specified that an increasing number of vehicles sold would have to be Zero Emissions Vehicles. Also exploring the economics behind electric cars, the documentary viewed the debate through the lens of major automobile corporations, namely General Motors. The electric car did not fail for a specific reason—the car failed for numerous reasons. Oil companies, for example, stood to lose enormous profits if EV and EV1 models were successful. Socially, GM initially installed poor quality lead acid batteries and produced negative advertising aimed at repelling public interest. The documentary showed some consumers who were unaware of the electric car, as well as some who wished they had known of them earlier. Evidently, and somewhat contradictory, GM was producing EVs and EV1s simply to fulfill the regulations of the Zero Emissions Vehicles Mandate, not to promote a cleaner vehicle.
The United States energy policy of the future needs to be sustainable, above all. Besides the obvious environmental negativities surrounding dependence on oil, the U.S. reliance and fixation on foreign oil supply is the opposite of a sustainable system. Drilling within our borders is barely a possibility, considering our limited supply of petroleum, and its severe impact on the environmental integrity of certain lands. In order to assuage the issue of oil dependency, new technologies such as solar energy and wind energy need to be implemented. Nuclear power offers a significant, relatively clean energy, but the social risks need to be considered. The ideal energy policy must be a holistic policy, considering not only environmental ramifications but social and economic. We as a nation need to collaborate and compromise to form a sustainable plan for the future. Like the issue of electric cars, the U.S. energy policy is not a democratic or republican issue. It is a people issue. Our goal needs to be to conserve, to “[allow] the use of resources in a responsible manner—that is, without inflicting excessive environmental damage, so that resources are available not only for current needs but also for the needs of future generations” (Textbook 42).
1. After watching Who Killed the Electric Car, I felt consumed by the bias; I only really learned about who is supposedly to blame for its demise. While the auto industry, oil industry and the government may have contributed, I certainly did not feel as though I was given all of the information. They didn’t even talk about why these industries and the government did what they did; rather they just blamed them for supposedly “killing” it. In a way I felt that the portion about the “suspects” of killing the car could have been effective. However, while the movie did present an idea that their issue is very complex and there are often different opinions, the film did not fully explain it. This left the viewer confused, mainly because the topic was not fully investigated. I think if the film makers touched on other reasons and fully explained the few differing opinions they hinted at, the EV-1 supporters would have actually strengthened their argument. Additionally, the last five minutes of the film were extremely important. I felt that the issues presented regarding to our role in the future of electric cars was effective. We need to move on from the past and start planning for the future-maybe now is a good time to reintroduce the car.
2. I think our current energy policy centers around the economic aspect; however, more emphasis should be placed on researching different options that don’t impair our environment as much. Coal, oil and natural gas have a stigma of being affordable and attainable, while other options such as solar panels are too expensive. Currently, there are no options that fully satisfy our goal of being environmentally friendly, as well as being attainable for the average citizen. Therefore, I think that more of this subsidy money should be put towards research of renewable resources. By increasing these technologies, the issue of resources being attainable for the average citizen would be satisfied. As with any issue, I think it comes down to educating the public. With new information regarding the environment and cost-effectiveness of more sustainable goods, I think many people may make the switch. Additionally, I think if the government created subsidies that encourage businesses to switch to more renewable resources, we would see a huge improvement. Overall, I think there needs to be more education focused on the general public regarding cleaner options, and more incentives from the government.
The video “Who Killed the Electric Car,” gave me a clearer understanding of how electric cars and the technology used to make them came about and abruptly left the consumer market. At the end of the video, it blames consumers for the extinction of the EV-1. I believe that this assumption is misunderstood by many who don’t understand the necessity for intelligent consumers in an open market. Consumers will try to purchase just about anything that is advertised as well as anything that is considerably better than other similarly existing products on the open market. The EV-1 had a definite edge against larger gas dependent vehicles both in terms of environmental and economic effects. The most prominent groups that are responsible for the extinction of the EV-1 are the oil companies and the car manufacturing companies. I feel the car manufacturing companies could have benefited greatly from the idea of an electric car if they had advertised their product better, and give consumers a variety of options for exterior designs. The oil companies would be severely hurt by the decrease in the demand for oil which would in turn make them try and think of more innovative economic and environmentally friendly solutions for the future of the automobile.
I firmly believe that the future energy policy of the United States should be to provide funding for advancements in Alternative Energy Power Generation Plants, such as Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, and Geothermal. If the government should happen to provide major funding money and Federal Loan Agreements then businesses could expand the clean power generation sector of our country. These projects would greatly reduce our country’s large amount of CO2 emissions annually while creating more jobs for the American people, and make the Plug-In Electric Car cleaner. Currently, electric cars such as the 2012 Prius use power from outlets which are coming from fossil fuel plants. Therefore the car itself isn’t emitting toxic pollutants into the air; the fossil fuel power plants are emitting these toxic pollutants by creating the electricity used to power the car. Eventually all of the power plants in this country will be powered by renewable sources, and all cars will plug in electric initiating zero emissions from the production of this electricity from renewable resource plants across the country.
1. I thought that the video was an interesting expose of the electric car and its disappearance from the roads. I was very interested to learn about California’s revolutionary laws. I was a little taken aback by the obvious bias the movie had. I would have thought that in order to better convince people they’d want to appear less biased. I would be interested to hear a response from the car companies. The movie contained some response but they also tried to undermine everything they said. For example, an executive was talking about the recycling of EV1s and that they wouldn’t be crushed and dumped. Then the movie showed a shot of a pile of crushed EV1s. I think that a response would expose the bias. The movie tried to disprove all the reasons that the car companies wouldn’t want EV1s on the road but they didn’t give the ‘real’ reason. They said there was consumer want and that they were logical, so the companies were wrong in saying that was why they shouldn’t be driven, but the movie didn’t state what they thought the reason was behind the removal of the electric car.
2. I think that the future of America’s energy policy needs shift towards being more renewable and zero emission. I think that several policies would assist that shift. I think that the government benefits of large cars need to be altered so that companies using greener cars can also receive benefits. California had to remove its legislation because of external pressure, if more states and the federal government were to decide to make revolutionary policy about zero emission cars, car companies and the oil industry wouldn’t be able to overpower them.
My view point on the issue of electric cars that was presented in the movie is that it was wrong for the car companies to take back the cars that they had already leased out. In addition, i feel that it is wrong for all of the oil and other fossil fuel countries to be taking the steps that they are taking in order to try and hinder steps forward in zero emission vehicles. Though i feel that the all at once move of mandating the zero emission number of vehicles that car companies must produce might have been too much too fast, i feel like the steps that the car companies took to combat it were also out of line. I believe that the car companies need to see this as the first step in the future of automobiles and not as something that will stray away from their huge profit gains.
I believe that the future energy policies of the united states need to take steps to create more benefits for the zero emission vehicle. Perhaps if tax breaks are given to auto makers for meeting a certain quota or percentage of zero emission cars sold or produced than that would encourage them to try harder to push the environmental friendly models. In addition, if the tax breaks were to also be extended to the people who are actually either buying or leasing the zero emission vehicles, than it would make more people more likely to buy them. Most people want to help the environment but i feel that a lot of them may in fact be inhibited from doing so as a result of the high cost of the vehicles. Also, i think the government should, if they do want use mandates like the california air resources board did, should introduce them more gradually. That way, the car companies can have more time to adapt to the requirements and wont be so scared by the sudden change that they would want to combat it.
1.) I strongly belive that we should be seeing electric cars on the road today. The environment and economic advantages would be more than enough to entice the consumers of 2012. The car companies made themselves belive that the electric car would not be a viable product for the market because of the things oil companies and lobbyists would tell them. My dad’s hybrid saves him a ton of gas and makes him feel like he is doing something to help save the planet. Electric cars could make people feel the same way if they were allowed to be on the market. It surprises me that the government, in a sense, went against electric cars by giving a larger subsidy for the purchase of a car 2000 pounds or more. Electric cars would help end the United State’s depencence of forgeign oil, which politicians keep talking about.
2.) The future energy policy of the United States really needs to focus on the switch to renewable resources. The government could give incentives to businesses like the electric companies to try and make a switch to, for example, solar energy. This would help both the economic and environmental issues that come with using fuels like oil. The government really needs to understand that the damage to the environment talked by science is actually happening and is a very serious issue. Maybe then the government would work towards making the United States a cleaner country.
1. In my opinion the video did an excellent job of showing the positives and negatives of the electric car even though there was a lot of bias. The electric car is very efficient in MPG, very little pollutants, ect. Although charging stations would have to be built in a lot of places if you were not near your home and the price of them would have to come down, because they’re much too expensive at this point in time. Many people contributed to the fall of the electric car such as car companies, consumers, politicians, ect. It seemed like even when the car was on the market that car companies cared more about shutting it down and getting them off the market rather than obtaining, advertising and selling them. I am personally all for a more efficient car even though it’s smaller. I think this car could have and should have done better with all of its benefits. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see something like this come up again in the near future. Only this time I hope to see it is successful.
2. I personally think people and our country as a whole need to keep working on using more efficient and renewable resources like solar, electric, wind, ect. We have definitely made huge improvements from year to year, but we can still do better. That does not mean we can just stop using all nonrenewable resources like coal, oil and natural gas on the spot. Although we have to keep trying to use less and less fossil fuels/nonrenewable resources and use more renewable or efficient forms of energy.
The electric car lost to the gas car. Why? Because the owners of electric cars lost to the big car companies. The electric car was an up-and-coming phenomenon. It was sleek, fast, and it won races. It was a bright star shining through the black cloud of death slowly consuming some areas. So how is it possible that this flawless solution failed? Our politicians acknowledged this technology of greatest promise; the zero percent emissions vehicle mandate in 1990 confirmed this. The seven main automobile companies in the U.S. were forced to provide electric vehicles if they wanted to continue selling gas powered vehicles. 5000 electric cars were created, most of them were leased, and then all of them were demolished. The companies had a choice, to comply with the law or fight it. They chose to fight it, and they won. Before this fight though, the electric car had a solid run. People loved it. There were helpless electric car lovers everywhere who had no power to fight the big car companies but whose love for the car was undeniable. This is why we need to bring the electric car back. Its quick and painfully short life in 1990 stands to prove to us that the electric car can be successful. If we can overcome the politics regarding the car companies, we can begin to save our planet. The electric vehicle is irrefutably a plausible solution to our global pollution crisis. If we can reduce the number of gas guzzling cars on the street, we will be reducing the vast amounts of pollution caused by driving. The electric cars and the hybrid vehicles employ regenerative braking and suspension, they can restore energy lost during braking with an on-board battery. They are efficient and they are popular. We wouldn’t lose money by bringing them back; every electric vehicle constructed would be put to use. The electric car is a win-win solution.
Our energy policy must be multi-faceted. It needs to stabilize energy prices and reduce our dependence on sources of foreign energy supplies. Currently we heavily subsidize forms of energy that both rely on foreign sources and also negatively impact our environment. We reduce the price of fuel for consumers to stimulate economic growth. We also tax to increase the cost of particular fuels such as natural gas, to serve to raise our government’s revenues. We can continue these policies but divert their focus. We need to continue subsidizing forms of energy, but not forms of energy that cause environmental damage. We should subsidize the reintroduction of the electric car. If we can reduce its price enough to get it on to the market widespread, there would be a massive depletion in the amount of oil consumed in our country. This would lower our reliance on foreign countries for oil and stimulate economic growth. We need to couple these subsidies with taxes on sources of energy that do not promote environmental sustainability. We need to put a tax on oil and use this money to establish a reclamation fund focused on reclaiming environmental damaged caused by mining and oil drilling. We have $32 billion dollars worth of subsidies. This money could change our energy consumption statistics if we use it in the right way.
1) In my opinion, the electric car should be a very important part of our transportation and economy today. Unfortunately, companies stopped making these electric cars and instead decided to make other cars such as Hummers. Companies didn’t think the electric car would ever catch on and become a success, so they simply stopped manufacturing them. For example, a month after GM bought Hummer, they stopped producing electric cars. With the safety and durability of the Hummer, they thought they would make much more money producing only hummers and not electric cars. I think that this was a poor choice made by GM. Even though they may have not made as much profit immediately, they would have most likely made more in the future. Hummers are not very popular anymore, but given gas prices and environmental factors, electric cars would most likely be very popular today.
2) I think the future US energy policy should move away from fossil fuels and begin implementing nuclear energy sources along with renewable energy resources as much as possible. A single uranium pellet can give as much power to a house as a very large amount of coal, so in my opinion we should take advantage of this. Hopefully, the safety of nuclear power plants can improve so using nuclear energy won’t have as many downsides. Eventually, the US energy policy should include requirements to use renewable and more efficient energy to protect our environment. If not, they should at least reward companies who use renewable energy. Basically, I think that the energy policy needs to start gearing towards renewable energy because soon enough, it will be our only option.
1.) The documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car” did a very good job of showing one specific point of view. However, I had to continually remind myself of just that:it is only one side of the story. The investigative style of the film, paired with the use of humor and knowledge was very effective in executing the mission of its producers. I must say though, the film left me with more questions than answers. In an era of growing environmental calamity, why is it that industry giants such as General Motors have not addressed the idea of sustainable, alternatively fueled vehicles? It was this question that made me slightly question the credibility of the film and cited sources. Yes, electric cars are a cleaner alternative to the gas-guzzling automotive industry we are so used to now. However this change can only be made when we fully understand both sides of the argument. I myself am an advocate for the electric car. It was and still is one of the best ideas, incorporating the needs of the consumer and the environment. We cannot just say that the termination of the production of EV1′s was the greatest blunder in automotive history. I am interested to see as to why the industry allegedly made it such a priority to discontinue the electric car, just to try to understand the reasoning and learn from it.
2.) It is scary to think that oil and coal reserves are depleting at a very fast rate. If the U.S. does not take action now to revise the energy policy, we may find ourselves in the midst of an economic and environmental catastrophe. The subsidized research of fossil fuels, in my opinion, is a futile effort to reserve our portion of the world’s current supply. No matter how much research is done, how many temporary jobs are created, ultimately the reserves will deplete. Currently, our government has given about $30 million in subsidies for the research and development of fossil fuel processing and research. According to the U.S. debt clock, our total current debt is over $56 trillion. $2.7 trillion are currently owed to foreign governments and private investors. $179 billion of the $2.7 trillion is currently owed to OPEC nations. That is roughly seven percent of our current foreign debt. Our dependence on foreign energy sources is neither environmentally sustainable, nor economically affordable.
1. After watching this movie, I really began to wonder why the car companies recalled all of their electric cars. I understand this from the point of view of an oil company, but I was still very confused about why the car manufactures would stop production. To me, an electric car seems like the perfect innovation as we move into the future; this vehicle requires no gas and therefore produces no emissions, all it needs to run is to be plugged into an outlet. With the popularity of electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius or Honda Civic, it makes sense that a car that ran on solely electric power would be just as well received. With so many people talking about global warming and the mess we have made for ourselves, I think now would be an excellent time to reintroduce the electric car. In a time like this, the electric car is perfect; it produces no air emissions or environmental impacts, making it inexplicably better than the vehicles we use now. While getting past the oil industry will be hard, I still think that this is something worth fighting for because it has the potential to save the environment.
2. The energy policy now seems to focus most of their money and efforts on lowering the cost of fossil fuels and nuclear energy for consumers. While this is helpful because both are so necessary to our everyday lives, it is also ridiculous that 90% of our country’s $32 million subsidy is being spent on nonrenewable resources when we should be investigating new ways to fulfill our energy needs. In the future, I think that more of this money should be spent on the research of renewable resources, conservation and more efficient energy for a few reasons. First of all, spending money on this would increase the technology and make these options more readily available for U.S. citizens; this small step alone would probably lower energy consumption a great deal because it would educate people as well as provide them with other, more sustainable options. Another big problem with dedicating so much money to lowering fuel costs is that it promotes the use, and over-use, of this product. As the cost is minimized, people are able to buy more and more of it, depleting the resource faster and harming the environment. If money was taken away from this cause, the country’s oil consumption would likely lower and the funds could be spent on investigating new, more efficient sources of energy.
1. The video “Who Killed the Electric Car,” gave me a clearer understanding of how electric cars and the technology used to make them came about and abruptly left the consumer market. At the end of the video, it blames consumers for the extinction of the EV-1. I believe that this assumption is misunderstood by many who don’t understand the necessity for intelligent consumers in an open market. Consumers will try to purchase just about anything that is advertised as well as anything that is considerably better than other similarly existing products on the open market. The EV-1 had a definite edge against larger gas dependent vehicles both in terms of environmental and economic effects. The most prominent groups that are responsible for the extinction of the EV-1 are the oil companies and the car manufacturing companies. I feel the car manufacturing companies could have benefited greatly from the idea of an electric car if they had advertised their product better, and give consumers a variety of options for exterior designs. The oil companies would be severely hurt by the decrease in the demand for oil which would in turn make them try and think of more innovative economic and environmentally friendly solutions for the future of the automobile.
2. I firmly believe that the future energy policy of the United States should be to provide funding for advancements in Alternative Energy Power Generation Plants, such as Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, and Geothermal. If the government should happen to provide major funding money and Federal Loan Agreements then businesses could expand the clean power generation sector of our country. These projects would greatly reduce our country’s large amount of CO2 emissions annually while creating more jobs for the American people, and make the Plug-In Electric Car cleaner. Currently, electric cars such as the 2012 Prius use power from outlets which are coming from fossil fuel plants. Therefore the car itself isn’t emitting toxic pollutants into the air; the fossil fuel power plants are emitting these toxic pollutants by creating the electricity used to power the car. Eventually all of the power plants in this country will be powered by renewable sources, and all cars will plug in electric initiating zero emissions from the production of this electricity from renewable resource plants across the country.
1. After seeing “Who Killed the Electric Car” I learned a lot about the issue, but was only able to hear the bias viewpoint of the people in the video. The video focused on blaming the auto industry, oil industry and the government for the death of the electric car but the never really talked about the flaws of the vehicle. I think it was important for people to see a video like this so people can understand how the electric car was made and how EV-1 owners felt about the car. It was also important to see how the EV-1 was killed and what contributed too its death. Although certain aspects of the video were very detailed and informative I don’t think that it put enough focus on how the EV-1 supporters are planning on fixing the issue. I think electric cars could be successful but the supporters need to find better ways to make the car more appealing to the “consumers” who were found guilty. Overall the video was educational and a great way for viewers to understand what the electric car was and how it died.
2. In the future, the United States needs to find other resources besides coal and oil. We should be using renewable resources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal. Our dependency on fossil fuels causes a lot of problems for the environment and it also creates more need for foreign oil, which is a major issue. Renewable resources won’t run out which is a much better solution than using temporary fuel sources like oil and coal. The country needs to pay more attention too using renewable energy sources in order too help the environment and diminish our dependency on foreign oil.
1.) The presented video, “Who Killed the Electric Car,” was a very biased look at the demise of the electric car industry. Although, the realities presented in the video do ring true. They placed blame on the government and the oil industry, two people who are responsible for the demise of the electric car… for better or for worse.
Government is a complex system which, according to our founding fathers is suppose to flow through the voices of the citizens. However, in the present day government this theory is not necessarily enacted. The oil industry has a huge influence on our government through financial means and tons of lobbyists in the halls of Congress. This influence also sways our government to make decisions which may not necessarily benefit their constituents.
2.) The future of our energy use must benefit our environment as well as our economy. I think that these can work together. We currently view coal, oil, and natural gas as somewhat affordable resources for our citizens, and attaining energy sources such as solar panels are expensive and unaffordable energy sources for the average citizen.
As engineering and American innovation develop into further into the 21st century, this focus must shift from consumer motivated to environmentally motivated development. This will occur not necessarily through individual incentive, but forced policy. Through the implementation of laws and regulation such as a Zero Emission Regulation.
If energy engineering can supply a work force for the American people as well as provide cleaner energy sources for citizens to use, a clean air initiative will be achieved.
1-My viewpoint on “Who Killed the Electric Car?” is that it is unfortunate that the Electric cars were destroyed by so many different suspects. The documentary did a great job testing out and investigating all of the potential suspects, and made for quite an informative video. From the oil companies, to the other competing fuel sources such as the Hydrogen Fuel Cell, the documentary researched an abundance of potential threats to the electric car. It also covered social, economic, and environmental issues. The social side of the electric car is that it was quick, efficient, and would probably hold its own in selling numbers. Unfortunately, they were a bit pricey, but not too over the top, and electricity would be cheaper to refuel with. And it obviously created less pollution from the environmental standpoint as well. In my opinion the electric car is a steal, and it would serve the nation well to bring it back. We do see it thankfully coming back, for example, the Nissan “Leaf”.
2- Personally, I know that we need to bring our dependence on fossil fuels to an abrupt stop soon. I believe spreading out our uses of fossil fuels is key. Using them sparingly and adjusting to just conserving energy as much as possibly. Nuclear power is very efficient and produces fewer greenhouse gases. Coal, oil, and natural gas are also somewhat effective too, but unfortunately none of them are renewable. Their supplies will deplete regardless, so if we can slow down the process that will help tremendously. So by thinking green and doing even the smallest things to save electricity , or switching to an alternative form of transportation, we can make a huge difference. Plus, as our technology expands, I believe that the indirect solar forms of energy (wind, hydroelectric, ect.) as well as solar power and even geothermal and tidal energies are going to become a huge help in the future for energy.
I came to realize the history/creation, commercialization, and death of the battery electric vehicle (EV-1), and the influence that General Motors EV1 had. The California Air Resources Board passed the Zero-emissions vehicle mandate, which required the seven major automobile companies in the United States to offer electric vehicles in order to continue sales of their gasoline powered vehicles in California. This mandate then caused General Motors to increase their attention to electric technology. This movie exposed the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the USA government, California’s government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers which limited the development of Ev-1s. In general I got to see the many factors that are needed to make the Ev-1′s work. There isn’t a direct culprit of the death of Ev-1′s; everyone played a role.
The United States’ future energy policy should focus more on renewable resources such as solar, wind, and water. These resources are more enviromental-friendly and abundantful. Also this will cause the dependence on foreign countries to reduce. On the other hand it wouldn’t be ideal to totally cut off using nonrenewable resources. We should monitor our usage on nonrenewable and renewable resources. But lean to more research and awarness of renewable resources.
1) My view point on what was presented in the movie is the fact that the electric car is one of the best and most efficient inventions of the century. I believe this because not only would the use of this vehicle lessen the amount of fossil fuels emitted into the air it is a safe was for society to meet their daily needs. In my opinion the electric car is one opportunity that society as a whole should take before it’s too late. While I do agree with the fact that large car industries would rather not invest in the electric car because it would be very expensive to rid of all gas stations and open electricity stations, it is also very important to think of the future benefits. Of course if car industries invested in this, the first few years would be an economic nightmare but that would be the point in the investment, the benefits to come years later. Not to mention the fact that the earth itself does not have much more time to support its population.
2) I believe that the United States future energy policy should focus more on the uses of renewable energy sources, such as, heat energy solar energy wind and wave energy. Not only would the uses of these energy sources reduce the amount of fossil fuels being burned, but it would make society less depended on the earth’s natural resources. Because society is so dependent on nature’s resources, the earth itself is diminishing and becoming unable to support the life styles of its growing population.
After watching Who Killed the Electric Car, my viewpoint on the use of electric cars on our streets has not changed. I still believe that they pose no problem and could only have a positive impact. This is why it is so upsetting to see major car companies like GM and Toyota completely get rid of their EV1 programs. As we move forward in the world and gasoline and oil be come harder and harder to come by, I believe electric cars will be the answer. It is clear from the video that members of this project and those linked to EV1′s are very passionate about their cars and there is a reason for them being so passionate. They see the problems we will face in the future pertaining to natural gas and they chose to make the switch now. My only problem with the EV1′s after seeing that video was the giant filling stations. With such a little percent of the population using the car, it seems a bit absurd to have the giant filling stations being constructed. However, I still believe that the way the companies simply disposed of their EV1 programs is sad. Based on what I saw in the video, which granted was full of bias, the EV1 cars at the time of their production were a great hit with the greater population. The only reason I could see as to why GM shut down its program was out of self interest and profit from big oil.
The United States future energy policy should revolve most heavily around the consumer testing of more sustainable products moving forward. For now at least, our energy policy has more to do with nonsustainable forms of fuel, yet that is really where we should be spending our time. Additionally ethanol is not the answer in the long run. I recall around the time when this bill came out that their was a big push for ethanol, and as a kid I found it weird that we were powering stuff by corn. We need to realize what works and what doesn’t. And for now electric, wind, and solar, all seem to provide the best hope for an america that is run sustainably.
After watching “Who Killed the Electric Car,” I now have a more clear understanding of how this technology came and left the automotive market and recently returned. It was interesting how the movie included many different sides (suspects) that could have been responsible for the extinction of the EV-1. Although at the end of the film it partially blames consumers for the murder of the EV-1 I do not agree with this. Consumers will buy anything that it well advertised and has an advantage over another product. The EV-1 defiantly had an edge against large gas-guzzling SUV’s, in the environmental and money saving sense. I defiantly think that the two groups that are most responsible for the extinction of the EV-1 are oil companies and car manufactures. If car companies really wanted the idea of the electric car to succeed it could have, with better advertising and more attractive exterior designs. Of coarse the oil companies would pay large sums of money to the automobile manufactures to not produce electric cars because it would make them a lot more money in the long run. In all “Who Killed the Electric Car” was an informative presentation of the history, and what may arise in the future regarding the Electric car and other forms of clean technology.
I think that the future energy policy of the United States should be to provide funding for Alternative Energy Power Generation Plants, such as Wind, Solar, and Hydroelectric, Geothermal etc. If the government provides funding and Federal Loan Agreements (which they already are in some cases http://lpo.energy.gov/) then business oriented people could expand the clean power generation sector for this country. Although Earth still does have fossil fuels left to last for an extended period of time, running out of these recourses will come up in the next few generations. For people to survive without fossil fuels the age of renewable sources of energy needs to start moving. As of now the fossil fuel market has already developed and in my opinion no more research and subsidies are needed. I do not think research and subsides are needed from the government, because major oil and resource companies have created a net worth of billions of dollars and have enough capital to move on their own. Alternative Energy projects would take many tons of CO2 out of the air annually, create many jobs and make the Plug-In Electric Car “truly clean”. I say “Truly Clean”, because currently electric cars, such as the brand new 2012 Prius use power from the plug which is most likely coming from a fossil fuel powered plant, therefore the emissions that aren’t coming out of the tailpipe are in turn being released from the smokestack of a Coal, Oil or Natural Gas Fired power plant. In a perfect world eventually all of the power plants in this country will be powered by renewable sources and all cars will plug in electric initiating zero emissions from the production of the electricity, and to power the cars on the road.
1) there are a lot of bad decisions that led to the death of the electric car, bad decisions by the government to give breaks to large vehicle owners, the strength of the oil company, and the submissiveness of the automakers to those oil companies. It goes without saying that electric cars are bad news for oil companies. Electric car drivers mean diminished profits for companies such as Shell and Exxon. oil companies have put a stop to cars that consume less gasoline in the past such as in the case of Tom Ogle and others like him. These oil companies can therefore flex there muscles onto the car companies and legislators and force them to stop manufacturing these vehicles by making them come up with poor reasons such as a bad battery. Green vehicles may be good for the environment bad they are bad fr profits with is the biggest problem these efficient vehicles face.
2. Finding a new energy source is incredibly difficult for a number of reasons, one of them being that we already have hundreds of millions of gasoline and diesel powered cars on the road. Even if we do find a new energy source, whats going to happen to those vehicles, those vehicles simply cannot be converted, at least not for a cheap price, and the conversion would be incredibly unappealing with middle class consumers. Wind power might be appealing but technology is not yet good enough for that alternative, also it has a lot of downsides such wind energy is generally used close to the area that it was absorbed, it interferes with television reception heaven forbid, and of course there a general eyesore for many Americans. The biggest downside to wind energy however is that its unpredictable. Wind, solar, and hydroelectric vehicles share similar problems, first off they are unbelievably expensive, there isn’t exactly a fueling station for them on every block, and of course they aren’t as appealing as good old gasoline cars to the average consumers. Their cost is the biggest challenge these vehicles face, consumers care about their pockets and not the earth. As far as radioactive power goes it may be appealing but its also extremely dangerous, these plants have the potential to cause devastating tragedies and their radioactive waste is not only dangerous but difficult to dispose of. What the nation needs at the moment are vehicles that are fuel efficient. One should find it difficult to believe that as a society we have been to the moon and back, over forty years ago, that we can remove brain tumors and other life threatening illnesses but we have trouble producing fuel efficient cars. The oil companies are the ones to blame because they are the ones with tremendous influence on how fuel efficient a car is and their going to make sure they make their profits and that business is booming.
Although there was notable bias in the film, I do think there were a range of perspectives shown. This film clearly illustrated all the different things that lead to the demise of the electric car. There wasn’t just one moment and instant when this product was doomed, but rather this documentary exposed all the many “suspects” involved with the abolition of the electric car. All the disjoint interactions between big industries and politics lead to a failed launch of the electric car. Too many large groups, like the oil companies and general motors are self-interested on how they can make a profit, and general motors weak advertising efforts were a cause of the lower consumer demand. The beginning of the documentary showed an obscure ad for the electric car and after it was shown a commentator remarks “It was unclear if they were trying to sell the product or scare people away from it.” Advertisements drive consumerism which drives the economy and selects who benefits from the economy. By faltering with the advertising of the electric car, people really didn’t feel there was too much “coolness” associated with this product. This is exactly what oil industries wanted however, as they introduced the oil guzzling Hummers and SUVs. However, now, after being introduced to hybrid cars in a well-marketed way, I think people feel hybrids are “in” and SUVs are “out,” so it would be interesting to see how the oil industry feels about hybrids now.
I think our future energy policy needs to move to renewable resources. We have such an abundance of technology, and so much progress has been make with regards to renewable resources, we really need to utilize sustainable living. Rather than trying to reduce emissions to lower and lower amounts, or trying to come up with nuclear energy, which is also nonrenewable, we need to embrace solar energy, wind energy, hydroelectric energy. I’m not sure at this point what the reasoning behind these energy sources being less mainstream at the moment is, but I know with wind energy there is often resistance from local people because they don’t want to see the loud, noisy machines. I think it’s somewhat reasonable to complain when your land is being altered and you have no say or control, but the benefit is that the energy is much better for the environment as well as the local people. People should prefer to live near those windmills over a nuclear power plant or coal processing plant. I think the United States should ultimately mandate that industries especially move towards at least partially using renewable resources. The US should also progress towards using solar and wind power in residential housing, and these technologies also need to become affordable. People aren’t going to make the change if they have to pay more out of their wallet, but if these energy sources equate to the energy sources currently being used, there should be minimal consumer resistance.
1. After watching this documentary, I found that it described the controversy over electric cars very well. The movie presented most aspects of why the electric car was “killed”, but was extremely biased. The documentary neglected to give the view point of the car industries, specifically GM who caused the fall of the electric car. I think if more of the public knew about the benefits of electric cars, which would cause the demand to rise, GM may have been more likely to keep producing electric cars. Instead of GM immediately taking EV1s off the market, they should have invested more money in advertising and changing the cars to become more appealing to consumers. In my opinion, I don’t think there are many disadvantages of the electric car. The car would ultimately decrease our emissions of carbon dioxide, which would help the environment.
2. I think the United States dependency on fossil fuels needs to change and start depending on renewable energy sources, such as solar or hydrogen fuel cells. This would not only keep our environment cleaner but would also decrease our dependency on foreign oil companies. The government should spend more money and time researching renewable alternative energy sources, because if we continue relying on fossil fuels such as coal and oil, we will eventually run out. Although some alternatives, like solar power are expensive to install and run, ultimately these changes will benefit the earth forever.
1. My viewpoint regarding the information that was provided in this movie is that its objective to educate people on the history of and possibility of a future with electric cars is very important because it is a technology that most people would recognize if it came up in conversation, but very few people are well educated about the topic. The way it mentioned all the different potential “suspects” for “killing the electric car” was a good idea because it provided the opportunity to show the complexity of the issue and how there is no one single side or opinion that is right, but the bias present lowered the effectiveness of the presentation because it did not offer complete explanations from all of the viewpoints that it presented. I also feel that the last five minutes of the movie, describing the possibilities for the future, was the most important part of the film. While the history of the electric car is important to have an awareness of, it is now behind us and we really need to worry about what we are going to do about the future, so I think more than the last five minutes should have been spent discussing where we can go from here and less time should have been spent on what already happened.
2. I realize that we need to relieve ourselves of our dependence on fossil fuels, but I don’t feel that moving towards nuclear fuel is the way to do so. Even though nuclear fuel is a lot cleaner burning than fossil fuels, releasing fewer greenhouse gases into the air, and a significantly less quantity of Uranium is needed to produce the same amount of energy as fossil fuels, nuclear energy is no more sustainable than burning fossil fuels. Uranium is no more renewable a resource than coal, oil or natural gas; its natural supply will simply take us longer to deplete, and the waste that nuclear energy produces will last for extremely long amounts of time, which is not a sustainable practice either. I think that instead, our energy policy in the future should focus on renewable energy resources, such as solar and wind energy.
1.) I thought the bias presented in the video was very interesting. The documentary focused on the “greener” side of the debate, strongly advocating the creation and marketing of the electric car. Not much of any opposing side or “suspects” where presented to make their case. Despite this, I thought a great deal of the evidence was strong, but pushing to include the other side of argument would have made the video even more conclusive than it tried to be. Out of all the “suspects” I thought the “messy” capitalism of the US could be seen as the overarching culprit. More specifically, the video addressed the tax cuts favoring vehicles over 6,000lbs, hydrogen fuel (for marketing purposes vs. a potentially threatening self-sufficient fuel (battery) to motor companies), destruction of E1s by the motor company, and the buying out of the battery companies so any advancing battery technology would be unused.
2.) I believe that future energy policies should be thorough and undeniably enticing to consumers and big companies from an economic point of view. From what I collected, a lot of the fall through of electric cars or greener options in general appears to be a lack of planning in terms of advertising (consumer ignorance or un-interest), supporting parties (not many to protect the original E1s from being taken away) and a follow-up in policies (the potential corruption of involved companies). Greener (self-sustained) fuel is inevitably the direction of the future, and companies as well as consumers always resist change unless it is easy and benefits them. For example, policies such as the tax cut on machinery over 6,000lbs should be substituted for tax cuts on greener options. Getting a great deal of small businesses and large companies on board would be one demographic that could be changed through financial benefits. It all comes down to money, education and interest.
1. This documentary on the Electric Car was a very informative and thought- provoking movie. Its many sided views on the benefits and downfall of the electric car presented the audience with potential eveidence as to who was responsible for this “wonder car’s” gradual disappearance. In my personal opinion, I believe that the reason behind the Electric Car’s henious crash was due to a number of factors. I feel that GM was unsupportive and unwilling after the cars were leased to customers, and that the government was actually clueless as to what would really aid the world and its imminent future. It is obvious that our current consumption of natural and non-renewable resources is dangerous and blind. The fact that a perfect oppurtunity for ameliorating our conditions regarding pollution and environmental safety was shut-down before it had a chance to prove itself, is disturbing. in the end, I can only asssume that what major profit companies and corporations had in mind were uncomfortable realities- car companies like Toyota and Honda would soon be out of business, or racing in a very difficult competition; the demand for oil would drop down considerably, one major advantages would put many other marketers of oil, cras, etc at a disadvantage. In other words, the world would be significantly better with the Electric Car. The aim had been to maximise profit in every area of expertise involving automobiles and oil, and this car would tae that all away.
Before seeing the movie, I was unaware there was ever even an electric car movement and I think that is how those who “killed the electric car” wanted it. It saddens me (though not to the degree of some people in the movie) that such an innovative step taken in California had to end so abruptly because of the greed of certain car manufacturers and government officials. I think an issue not entirely discussed in the movie was the lack of ability from car companies to adapt to the changing needs of the environment. I think that companies were scared that the new norm was going to be electric cars and that they wouldn’t be able to keep up. So in turn, they used their leverage to bring down the electric car. The idea that there wouldn’t be enough interest is completely false. In 21st we learn that the best companies with the highest profits are the companies who create emotional bonds with their consumers and the EV1 clearly did that.
I think that nuclear fuel holds a lot of promise. Though it does have some potential dangers that have revealed themselves in the past, the usefulness of the fuel is far too great to pass up. I think that we also must definitely begin to slow down the hunt for oil and coal and instead use those energies to execute renewable fuels. I think that mining and purchasing coal and oil is currently the choice we make now because we know that it is easier and takes less ingenuity but it is not the sustainable choice.
1. My viewpoint from the video is that the video was pretty biased but at the same time showed good multiple reasons on why there should be electric cars. I felt that the video was prepared well to show the issues from multiple people and organizations such as consumers, electric car producers, and the government. I found that the electric car people couldn’t put blame solely on one person but multiple parties and organizations that were against the electric car such as oil companies and certain carmakers. While it was biased on promoting the good of electric cars I did come away from the movie feeling that electric cars are for the better! It seems that there are an abundant amount of pros to electric cars rather than cons. Electric cars can travel just as far if not farther and has a very eco friendly appeal to it.
2. I feel that the future energy policy should focus more on energy that can be reused, recycled, and pollute the environment as little as possible. Some of those resources can and should be wind, solar, and electric power. Our country is all ready dependent enough on foreign countries and the oil/products they sell to us. If the United States was less dependent on others they could save money and lower costs. If we slowly slow down spending money on fossil fuels and slowly start investing in ways to get renewable sources it could change the future. By using less and less fossil fuels we can save money and pollute less all the while getting the same amount of energy from renewable sources. I feel we should co exist with fossil fuels and renewable sources simply, still use small amounts of fossil fuel but use as much renewable sources as we can! Store energy with the wind and solar energy to consume less fossil fuel. Bottom line is to start focusing on renewable energy sources more and start cutting back on foreign fossil fuels, the less dependent we are on other countries the more powerful we can become.
1. Although I was absent for the conclusion of the movie, I did get the reoccurring theme of the failure of the electric car and what caused it. I concluded that the “killer” of the electric car, is in fact, the consumer. If there is demand for a product, companies have incentive to invest in the technology and rid of the polluting cars the majority of us drive today. However, GM did not believe it could make money on the electric car, so the company’s decision to pull the car off the market and instead invest in an area where they saw an opportunity for profit, the Hummer. Overall, I found the movie interesting. It presented various cases against many different causes of the death of the electric car. However, there was a bias, as the producers of the movie were environmentalists, clearly for the idea of going green and against oil companies. This movie made me realize that social and economic impacts can really outweigh environmental impacts in many peoples’ eyes. At first, you’d think that if everyone just drove electric cars, we’d clean up our emissions and attempt to fix the environment. However, this movie is a prime example of how
2. What we do with current fossil fuel usage and how we plan to handle the transition to more clean energy is definitely an issue. As for how we currently handle fuel, foreign dependency is a huge issue. We need oil to power our cars, however if we were shifting towards electric cars, foreign oil dependency would be much less. Instead of tax breaks on large trucks over 6,000 pounds, we should give tax breaks to those who opt for greener, clean energy. On top of foreign dependency, these fuels that we depend so much upon are dirty and emit Coal and oil are dirty fuels that emit tons of CO2, NOx, SOx, VOCs, and particulate matter that contribute to global warming and other environmental issues. New, cleaner potential sources of energy would be geothermal, solar, wind, and tidal. However, not all sources can be utilized everywhere, so we must be smart about what source is used where. For example, Solar power would be more effective in southern California, Texas, New Mexico, etc., where sunlight is not hard to come by. On the plains, we can use wind power. As for nuclear energy, there are many pros, however the storage and disposal of the waste is a great issue. Also, as for the earthquake and Japan, finding safe locations for these power plants is crucial to the human population and the environment. Overall, we need to begin a transition towards alternate sources of energy.
1) Before watching who killed the electric car, I had thought that electric cars were a new, developing technology. I think the movie showed a perspective that is hidden from the average consumer. The federal government made it so the EV-1′s wouldn’t be widely distributed. The oil companies put pressure on the government and the car companies in order to keep their business rising. Overall it is the oil companies fault that the EV-1′s and the other electric cars were destroyed and taken off the market. The oil companies didn’t want to loose their business so they put a huge pressure on the American Government and then the government put the pressure on the car companies to get rid of all the electric cars.
2) In the future, the United States energy policy should be directed towards renewable energy sources as much as possible. We are too dependent on nonrenewable sources and when the resources are all used up it will be too late to find another option. As many wind turbines and solar panels that can be used in the U.S. the better because the oil we’re currently using is a high contributor to global warming.
1). After watching the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car”, I felt as though I learned a lot about the topic. It presented many scenarios that could have prevented the car from becoming a success, but showed sufficient evidence to convince me that the auto industry, the oil industry, the California air regulation board, and the government all played a part in killing the electric car. It was too profitable for all involved to let the electric car into the mainstream market, as it took away the millions of dollars in profit in oil sails and combustion engine repairs. While it presented opinions from both sides of the issue, it provided data supporting its agenda. The claims that battery technology and limited range killed the electric car are simply not true, as people rarely exceeded the range and the best batteries on the marketed were not used in the EV-1′s. Furthermore, GM’s strict callbacks of the EV-1′s showed that they were adamant that the cars were not successful, and while they claimed that the whole car would be recycled, they were in fact demolished and left in the desert. After watching the film in completion, I tend to agree that the car companies never intended the electric car to be a success, and cars running on alternative energy was never the plan of car companies.
2). I think the United States energy policy for the future should be a gradual shift towards reliance on nuclear and renewable fuels and resources instead of fossil fuels. However, this will be a gradual process as the fossil fuel industry is vital to our economy, and technology is not yet advanced enough to make the switch. If Americans can change their living habits and reduce the energy they use, in addition to a slow switch to renewable energies, the earth will gradually be less harmed by our actions.
1) I thought that the documentary was very informative on the controversy surrounding electric cars. It was careful to represent issues from all different industries that produced the electric car, the government and consumers. However, I did also find it extremely biased. The maker of the documentary did not allow much room for car industries, the government etc. to comment on their actions and why they occurred. It would have been more well-rounded and accurate if those had been included as well, and then it had been left up to the viewer to decide for themselves.
2) I think that for future energy policies, the United States needs to move away from researching fossil fuels and how to improve them, and instead put more time and money into developing renewable fuels, or technologies like hybrid cars that minimize use of electricity. Firstly, because we don’t have huge resources of fossil fuels like oil in the USA, we should explore our local resources first so that we don’t need to depend on other countries, and have repeats of the 1973 oil embargo. Secondly, fossil fuels are already declining and as we increase our use of them, they are declining even more rapidly. Renewable resources like solar energy and wind energy will not run out, and therefore it is more productive for us to look into them as permanent solutions, instead of temporary solutions like oil and coal.
1. Having the EV 1 built was probably one of the most reliable and most environmentally safest measure ever created my human kind. The film did in fact show a lot of bias, but it did have some points made which explained what the problems were. The film had amazing evidence and sorted out so much to know why and who to blame; as a supporter for the electric car ,there just had been a complete mess. In the film they talked about how the government, manufacture etc. could had been involved in the fall, but who was it really blame? Watching the film had slowly broken down all the suspects in the fall for the car. There were absolutely no problems with it, nothing at all, it had just a problem with GM motors. If the car had taken it’s time to come out in the market, then people would start buying it instead of keeping it on lease. Fuel did not have many problems when deciding the car’s fate. When GM had made the decision to take back all the EV One’s people were devstated and heart broken just like as seen from the movie. The cars then later on we crushed in a junkyard leading to more problems for the public. But as we follow this to be tragic and the end to the EV cars era, the movie still had still talked about more of these cars yet to come in the future. But a little differently created in there ways.
2. What is yet to come from our nation of America? did we ever think heavily on the energy policy we have? Instead of wasting giving off money to the middle east how about we just create solar, wind or even electric power? The government funding these issues would be a change, instead of wasting time grabbing the oil from other countries. With these possible new changes there is more room for more jobs and things to do if we change through and help impact the environment better then we do now.
1.) I think that the video did a very good job in showing different sides to the story of the electric car. That being said, I don’t think that you can put the blame of the fall of it on one group or one person. Instead, there were a series of events that led to the eventual fall of the car, and the finger can be pointed at car companies, oil companies, politicians, consumers, etc. In my opinion, I’m not sure why the groups (with the exception of the oil companies) were so reluctant in making this car successful. It seemed as though they were putting forth more effort to make sure that it failed than it was to trying to sell the cars. Personally, I don’t see many drawbacks to the electric car, especially since those were some of the first ones, meaning there was of course room for research and improvement. I think that if the car companies had done a better job advertising the car and showing its environmental benefits along with the performance of a regular car, it would have been in higher demand and would have done better.
2.) I think that the country needs to make a push for more renewable energy sources such as solar, electric, and wind power. It is pretty clear now that we are much too dependent on foreign resources to fuel our everyday lifestyles, so using some of these renewable sources would be a great step forward. Although we do need to continue researching these, I think we also need to look at how to make our nonrenewable sources more efficient. I don’t think it is realistic to think that we can just all of a sudden cut our consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas, but making steps such as better gas mileage could go a long way in helping the problem.
1. Though the movie was narrated through the eyes of the electric car supporters and can be perceived as biased, it was convincing and compelling. I really think that the electric car was such a step forward and to have lost it like that is a shame. Up to President Jimmy Carter’s term as president, clear improvements in automobile regulations were evident. After that, however, things took a turn for the worse. Reagan’s decision to annul Carter’s advancements was just foolish. Some serious reductions in air emissions could have been seen by now if it wasn’t for that. I think that government has a great fear of pouring lots of money into funding research for cleaner emission technology because they don’t want failures. This plus the convincing-enough prices of gasoline have lead to no advancements in automobile regulations and ‘oil addiction’. It is clear that we have been in a vicious oil-dependence cycle for a while and this will lead to a deep energy crisis. Our heavy foreign oil dependence could be seen by the oil embargo in the 1970’s. As explained in the video, electric vehicle technology is here and it can be used, except we are being told otherwise. We are made to believe that oil is the only way to go and are dealt offers that convince us even more so, for example the tax cuts from purchasing of large SUV’s. The demand for the electric vehicle was also there. People had the incentive to buy these cars except that they were not marketed properly.
2.The United States’ energy future should not lie in fossil fuels orin foreign suppliers. The intentions to drill in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have been made clear, but this is not the way to go. There are so many people with potential here to put everything into renewable energy research but laws and regulations disable them to do so. This was shown in the video by the man who created the EV-1 battery which GM sold to Texaco who ultimately discarded it. Turmoil has taken shape close to oil suppliers. Consequences from oil dependency are growing every day we don’t take initiative to make the switch to research renewable energy. We are taking a big gamble by sticking to importing so much oil. Our best bet is to pour everything into energy education to further improve renewable energy knowledge. In the meantime, we should exploit renewable energy sources. We have the technology, but we just need to maximize its use. These sources have been proven to work but we just need to put more faith in them and get them out to the masses. Sources like solar panels should be installed in most homes.
1) I believe that the electric car is one of the best sources of new energy today. Even though this was a biased film, I am a strong advocate for the electric car. I believe this film did a very good job giving factual evidence and examples to show how the electric car died and who was to blame for the fall. They gave amplitude of different parts of society, showing how each contributed to the fall of the electric car. They associated the consumers, producers, other recourses, manufacturers, and the government all together. I believe that if we slowly manufacture the electric car more and more it will become more popular and will sell easily. It is self-sufficient and due to new technology car run on ample mileage. I believe it needs better promotion and needs to be completely supported by the government. There are, in my opinion, very few drawbacks to this fuel. The film shows how GM took away all of the EV1s and destroyed them. The film expressed a major point, that our society is run on short-term goals and solely on money. However, at the end of the movie it was more uplifting, saying that the necessity and the chance of the electric car coming back is much higher. The electric car has always been at our grasps, and hopefully we will come and use it.
2) The future of the United States energy policy should focus on mostly alternative fuels such as solar power or electric power. This will reduce the need to rely on foreign sources for oil. These alternative fuels may be as efficient fossil fuels, however, they are renewable clean sources of energy. The government should slowly begin to fund alternative fuel programs more and more. It will take ample funding to master and make the new fuels cheaper, nevertheless, in the long run it will create many new jobs in the U.S, lose our dependence on foreign oil, etc… Oil, coal, and natural gas are all non-renewable sources and need to be monitored much closer than they are today.
1) Shockingly, it was not my first time watching “Who Killed the Electric Car”. My dad and I watched this informative documentary together, and my reaction and thoughts stand the same now as they did then. “Who Killed the Electric Car”, although slightly biased, successfully investigates the whereabouts of clean cars.With the world’s safely, our home, at stake, we should be putting the brightest minds together to try and solve the pressing issue of cleaner vehicle emissions. To my surprise, there was already a solution –the EV1. Due to a “lack of customer interest” the EV1’s (an electric car model) went off the market. However this doesn’t seem to be the full story. GM, oil companies, and the California government all took part in the killing of the EV1. Why? Well the automotive and oil industry are some of the top grossing industries in the world. They couldn’t step aside and let a 0 emission, environmentally friendly car rule the streets. No, that would results in a large loss of money out of their pockets. Their business- driven decision to recall the EV1’s now poses a threat to our earth. Facing global warming and climate change, the race to undo our damage is on. The movie did a great job of informing the audience something of great importance that was intended to be swept under the rug.
2) Unless we want to face dangerous living conditions, environmentally and internationally in the near future, I would suggest a transition into renewable, cleaner energy sources. Unstable and unpredictable, the Middle East provides us with oil to run our country daily. This foreign dependence is risky and could end very poorly for the United States. Every president for the past 30 years has declared our dire need to end foreign dependence. But each president conveniently passes that immense task on to the next. It is not something we can quit cold turkey, nothing that can be accomplished in 4 years. That is why we need to set up a long term transition plan that allows us to gradually decrease our oil consumption from the Middle East while gradually increase our clean energy sources. These sources include solar, geothermal, wind and tidal. We can make full use out of these sources by locating them correctly and enhancing their technology to become more efficient.
1) The movie did a really good job summarizing the history of the electric car. Though there was some bias involved regarding who was and who was not responsible for the removal of these cars, I do believe that the car manufactures and oil companies were mainly at fault. The creators of this movie clearly showed and explained what the benefits of electrical cars would be, and how they would not only help the environment, but also would save people a lot of money. The car companies responsible for making the cars, and then taking them away, were obviously not concerned with the other benefits these cars provided. However, they were only thinking about the immediate cash flow and short-term sales. If the electric cars and their proponents had been given more time to broadcast the benefits of the cars, I think both the car companies and the public would have been more pleased with the result, as the electric cars would have been more successful.
2) I feel that the future United States energy policy should include a lot of renewable resources while gradually diminishing our reliability on and need of fossil fuels and non-renewable resources. Solar energy is a great way to reduce our dependency on oil and coal and if we can find ways to make the costs of solar power cheaper and easier to install, I think a lot of people would be more willing to convert to solar power. If conflicts can be put aside and compromises can be made regarding nuclear waste storage, I think it would be a great alternative considering how efficient and effective nuclear power is. A lot of people are concerned with the costs of renewable resources, but once people realize that the benefits would outweigh the negatives, a lot of progress would be made. Energy companies need to make a greater effort in making renewable energy sources more affordable and attainable, because that’s one the first steps to altering non-renewable dependent lifestyles.
1.Although this documentary was very bias, I think they did a nice job showing how electric cars, in reality, have come and gone. I like how there were many interviews by different people, and we saw how the different Presidents such as Reagan, Bush and others handled environmental issues. I learned all about the Zero Emissions Vehicle or (ZEV) mandate. This was the way the Californian Air Resources Board (CARB) thought that they would solve all of their problems pertaining to the air quality issues. Some companies such as General Motors comlied with the mandate. I thought the fact that they thought Hummers would increase their sales was a little silly, because we all know how bigger cars use up more gas, and are not good for the environment. This particular thing made me scratch my head. I also agree that we need to be more conscious of our environment, and some of this movie was doing the opposite. This movie was out a few years ago, so they probably were not as concerned with the economy/environment as we are today in 2012. However, I think from now forward we need to be more concerned with our environmental impacts especially with oil.
2. I think the United States future energy policy should be that we should focus on renewable resources. Conserving oil, and natural gas are also very important. Also, I believe Nuclear Energy will be seen in our future because we need to conserve and produce energy that will benefit our environment. The Government should issue more rebates for people that buy or use products that conserve energy. Even though the costs will go up, the benefit in the long run is what will save the world. Hopefully in the future people will realize that pretty cars are not good, and will cost them more money and hurt the environment.
1. Because I was absent for the first day we watched “Who Killed the Electric Car,” I missed some of the information, however, from what I did see, I have gathered that a series of events caused the electric car to fail. Obviously not many electric cars sold because of a lack of consumer demand for the product. Therefore, I would conclude that although others may be to blame for the cars’ demise, the ultimate murderer, so-to-speak, on the American consumer. If there had been true demand throughout the country, even the great car companies would have eventually been overcome. Companies will invest and grow in areas where there is a large profit to be made. However, GM did not believe it could make money on the electric car, so the company’s decision to pull the car off the market is a sound business choice. Overall, I found the movie interesting and informative. It presented various cases against many different “suspects,” which allowed the viewer a range of possible reasons for the death of the electric car. Yet there was a definite bias, as the producers of the movie were environmentalists and clearly against the car and oil companies. In order to move toward sustainable energy in the future, we must take into account not only the environmental impacts of innovations, but also the economic and social impacts. Often when we watch movies that have a distinctly environmentally sympathetic lens, we lose sight of the need for these last two categories.
2. In the future, I believe the United States needs to move away from reliance on foreign oil and coal. Foreign oil keeps us dependent on other countries, especially those in the Middle East. The region is rife with turmoil and instability, which could both jeopardize our fuel supply. We have seen the consequences of disturbances in the Middle East in 1973 and 1979 when oil prices increased and fuel was scarce. Coal and oil are dirty fuels that emit incredible amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, along with NOx, SOx, VOCs, and PM. They contribute to global warming, which could have a profound effect on the world in the coming decades, and acid precipitation, among many other issues. We need to move away from fossil fuels and the risks they pose and begin using cleaner energy sources. Potential sources of energy would be geothermal, solar, wind, and tidal. And it makes more sense to invest in a myriad of sources rather than just one. Solar power, for example, would be more effective in southern California and Arizona, where sunlight is abundant, than in gray and rainy Washington or upstate New York. In large windy plains, we should harness that wind energy to power our homes. By using more than one type of energy source, we can be more efficient with our consumption of energy and our production of instruments than enable us to get the energy. My verdict is still out on nuclear energy. While it is a clean source of energy, the issues with disposing of the leftover waste would need to be solved before I would completely endorse widespread nuclear power plants. As far as automobiles are concerned, I believe that the US needs to improve its infrastructure so that mass transit is more readily available and cheaper, and that existing cars have very low emissions.
1) I think the documentary did an excellent job of covering the numerous different aspects of the debate over electric cars, from the political and economic ramifications of the Zero-Emissions Vehicle Mandate to the obvious environmental impacts of using electric vehicles instead of regular cars. From this information, I learned that the auto and oil industries are self-interested enterprises that are very focused on now and not on the future; they want to make huge profits from Hummer sales, but aren’t considering issues that lie on the horizon, like oil supplies running low and our nation and world facing an extreme energy crisis. In light of this fact, I think we need to find a balance between economic and environmental considerations. According to the film, oil suppliers overseas manipulated oil prices in the 1980s to kill competition from alternative energy sources that are better for the environment, but threatening to their profits. This is an example of how the financial side of their business was the only part they cared about, and we need to do a better job of tipping the scale back in the direction of environmental issues. With regard to the California Air Resources Board, I feel that they failed in advertising and truly supporting EV cars; when they took them off the market and began destroying them, they claimed their reason for doing so was that there was not enough consumer interest to continue manufacturing the EVs. This was not necessarily the case, though, because many consumers interviewed in the film said they didn’t know about the electric cars and/or were disappointed that they couldn’t buy them.
2) While there are a few elements of President Bush’s national energy policy that are worthwhile and should be kept (such as enacting legislation to reduce and cap SOx, NOx, and mercury emissions from electric power generators), there are also several issues that clearly need revision. One of these topics is drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Bush proposes that we fund oil and natural gas exploration at the potential cost of well-preserved natural land and animal habitats.) Despite the fact that profits earned from leasing and royalties in the region could be earmarked for funding research into renewable energy sources, the costs of disrupting this persevered area don’t seem to outweigh the benefits. There is supposedly only enough oil in the ANWR to fuel the U.S. for one year, and the amount of oil present is not significant enough to make a major impact on world oil prices. Also, I would support allocating less money to support fossil fuels and sending more money toward renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy that will prove more sustainable than fossil fuels in the long-run. Though these renewable sources are expensive, “we all should share in [the] costs because we will all share in the benefits,” as the textbook states. Nuclear energy also seems to be promising for the future, as hopefully better developments in storing radioactive waste come to light and we are able to use nuclear power to provide cleaner energy.
1) Although, Californian auto makers presently benefit from the revoked Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate, they will be forced to return to more sustainable car models as oil resources are depleted. Because oil can only sustain for an estimated 50 more years, fuel prices are going to exceed the former outrageous $4/gallon therefore creating a consumer demand for auto makers to create cheaper transportation. I believe that the electric car will eventually be resurrected because it is coal powered and coal is the United States’ and the world’s most abundant resource.
2) The United States’ future energy policy should be primarily renewable resource based but also coal supported. Hundreds of wind turbines should be stationed in desolate areas such as regions of Wyoming. Additionally, nuclear energy should be not be treated lightly because the radioactive waste that is produced is too long-term damaging to future generations and too immediately harmful to residents living near Yucca Mountain.
While researchers discovered a ‘safe’ location for nuclear waste, economists and environmentalists were studying the effects of oil. Although rising gas prices empty wallets, they are beneficial because they pressure foreign oil demand and research for renewable energy. In a dismal economy, increased fuel prices force consumers to purchase fuel-saving vehicles or take public transportation;both of which are progressive concerning the energy crisis.