20th October 2006 was a special day for the Broadway as it officially opened for business in its revamped and renewed configuration.
And it was a tiny privilege to watch the first screening of a movie in the new Screen 4, decked out in striped cloth settees.
The movie was "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and I spoke on it before its second showing to around 40-50 people.
Part 1 - Review of “Who Killed the Electric Car?"
I'd written some extensive notes based on seeing the trailer (see below), but the movie was so much better because it was more than a story about why General Motors developed a high performance electric car and then withdrew it. It moved onto a debate about fuels for the future and how to innovate.
At times hard to follow for a British audience cos of the reference to American vehicles and processes of state legislation and politics, the story concerned how an arm of Californian state gov't, seemingly in isolation of any political movement, stipulated that a growing percentage of cars sold in the state should be zero-emission.
This ambition had apparently been triggered by a General Motors project to develop a high-performance battery powered car, publicly portrayed as a drive to develop cars of the future, but most probably developed for the purposes of gaining a technological advantage of 2-3 years in the use of electric motors (which helped enable the development of the hybrid engine).
Faced with the scale of change that might be needed to support a new type of vehicle, General Motors (and the other car companies who had responded by developing less sleek electric cars) prevailed upon the California Air Resources Board to withdraw the commitment on the sales of vehicles. This was made worse by a Chair of the Board who’d previously taken up an interest in fuel cell technology and mismanaged a key hearing such as to give time to car manufacturers, but very limited time to those who wanted to keep the commitment.
In answering the charge of the movie title, the film goes on to proclaim most of the interested parties guilty, including the hapless Chair.
But what astonished me is that something so ambitious as to drive for a new type of mass market product, requiring substantial infrastructure in the public domain, seemed to have been attempted in isolation of a substantial political movement for change. (Think about the challenges we face when we in Britain have merely wanted to convert to new types of receivers for television!)
Some interesting points are made on the greenness of such a car - that for instance, it’s still more environmentally friendly to use such an electric car rather than a traditional car, even if its power has come from a coal-burning power station. And it’s given an authenticity by the narrator, Martin Sheen, the world’s favourite fantasy US President. Some of the advocates are fabulous, most particularly two women who talk over each other in the enthusiasm for the points they want to make in a thoroughly engaging way (their reaction to arrival of a new type of vehicle called the Hummer was to call it a tank).
The Hummer - to British eyes - is genuinely worrying. Our huge concerns over climate change - and only today Tony Blair issued a renewed concern over the time we might have left - does call in doubt the values of businesses who want to push such vehicles as this crucial time for the future of the planet. In another classic moment, a commentator sums up American consumer resistance to electric cars and smaller vehicles as ‘wanting to live permanently in the cold’ - “to make us live like Europeans”.
The movie develops cos it moves on to discuss how we might prepare for the future, suggesting very strongly and somewhat to my surprise that hydrogen is not a fuel of the future and that fuel cell cars may take too long to become viable, if ever. And it shows how battery technology has moved on such that an EV1 today would have nearly treble the range between recharging (or perhaps a more family based car could be developed).
And it shows Japanese manufacturers pushing on with hybrids cos they thought American manufacturers’ commitment in front of Clinton and Gore had meant they’d have to compete. George W Bush gets in and drops the commitment - but meanwhile the Japanese have developed a more economical car which may well leave the Americans trailing. A point Al Gore made in his movie.
So a good film - despite some unfair points at G.M.s expense (a spokesman’s commitment not to land-fill the EV1’s was undermined by a following shot of the cars crushed and ready for shredding - which is not at all the same thing - shredding is a process that can enable recycling of the materials.)
Worth seeing and thought provoking.
- - -
Part 2 - Nottingham’s progress on mitigating climate change; and the challenge of supporting the development of environmentally friendly technology
The film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is billed as - “A lively, informative whodunit about an energy-efficient vehicle that debuted with fanfare and went out with a whimper. A sleek two-seater whose batteries could be charged overnight at home, the EV1 earned loyal drivers including Tom Hanks, Ted Danson and Mel Gibson, who provides some hilarious interview segments. GM eventually yanked the cars off the road, saying demand was insufficient. But Paine builds an impressive case against business interests potentially fretting over lost profits that could result from the fuel-efficient, low-maintenance cars.”
Easy then to sit back and enjoy the discomfort of American car companies and oil companies.
But if the imperative of the climate change crisis teaches us anything, it’s that we must all try to take some kind of responsibility for what we can.
And Nottingham has to take its share of responsibility in terms of facing up to the future. And that means we have to look at ourselves in terms of technology and progress.
The city has done great things (pioneering safe public water supplies nearly 200 years ago); and some of progress is still sustained - like the development of new medicines (Ibuprofen) and the invention of body-scanning (using nuclear magnetic resonance).
But other pioneering work has not been converted into products and services, businesses and jobs. I still hear presentations that say how threatening the climate change situation is, only to then call for more research.
And mainstream ideas from Northern Europe, in particular ground source heat pumping (taking advantage of the consistent temperature of the earth 20 - 30 feet down which with heat pumps like those used in fridges can either warn or cool our buildings) are used in only exceptional circumstances.
There is a lot that Nottingham City Council has taken a lead on - (and if I had time, I’d list them ) -
- turning the city centre into a place for shoppers, pedestrians and public transport - and making the car go around the city centre;
- keeping traffic steady and increasing public transport journeys when other cities are not;
- reducing land-fill by incinerating; and using the heat to produce electricity and cheaper warmth for thousands of homes;
- committing to expanded recycling, despite having had the cheapest waste collection service in the country; and now having the highest collection rates of the major English cities outside of London (known as the Core Cities);
- purchasing green electricity - being the 8th largest purchaser in Britain and the 17thlargest in Europe;
- improving energy efficiency in many homes, especially in council owned properties;
- oh - and having the best tram in the country, zero emissions at the point of use;
- and we use an electric car for our internal courier service.
Only today, Nottingham City Council gave a presentation to the Core Cities about best practice in taking the work on climate change forward.
And last week, we dedicated full Council to discussing climate change and agreeing to a whole range of measures as policy.
(Somewhat astonishingly, Lib Dem enthusiasm to be in alliance with the Tories and present a common amendment meant they were only prepared to note the measures. Seriously, if we’re going to make a difference, we have to be better than that.)
There is wider progress outside what the council does. Climate Change Levy is having an impact. As are landfill taxes. Recent high fuel prices are said to encouraged one in three households nationwide to have installed some kind of energy efficiency measure. Larger Nottingham businesses are also claiming to have made progress in green practices and the next step is to host an event for smaller businesses so that they can stay legal, take the next steps in being green suppliers and reduce their costs.
The Council believes city living is more sustainable and is driving to reduce the impact of factors that deter people choosing to live in the City of Nottingham. And we will press on with radical policies such as the workplace parking levy.
We have the campaigning edge, which saw us launch the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change for British local Govt. 183 councils have now signed the declaration or an equivalent statement (up 83 in 10 months). And every Nottingham household received a leaflet advertising the Al Gore movie, with the latest City Council newsletter. From the Al Gore movie, we took the polar bear for the symbol of our pledge campaign - “Respect for the Climate”.
What Nottingham is seeking to do is to take responsibility where it can - and not as some do - to retort that it’s everyone else’s responsibility. Hence we’ve been tough-minded in the range of measures we’ve adopted.
And hence the challenge to be drawn from the movie. Not to simply accept the film as a critique of trans-national capitalist corporations. But as a further challenge to what we do in Nottingham, using such things as our Science City status, to take climate saving technology forward in our own neighbourhoods and our own city.
Part 3 - web-site links for “Who Killed the Electric Car?"
-
The film’s web-site is OK and the trailer is very good - www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
-
From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car? - “Others explained the killing differently. GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss argued it was lack of consumer interest due to the maximum range of 80–100 miles per charge, and the relatively high price. The film also explores the future of automobile technologies including a deeply critical look at hydrogen vehicles and an upbeat discussion of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies.”
-
In 1996, General Motors (G.M.) launched the first modern-day commercially available electric car, the EV1. The car required no fuel. In a film that has all the elements of a murder mystery, Paine points the finger at car companies, the oil industry, bad ad campaigns, consumer wariness, and a lack of commitment from the U.S. government.
"[The film] is about why the only kind of cars that we can drive run on oil. And for a while there was a terrific alternative, a pure electric car," Paine said.
In 1996, General Motors (G.M.) launched the first modern-day commercially available electric car, the EV1. The car required no fuel and could be plugged in for recharging at home and at a number of so-called battery parks.
Many of the people who leased the car, including a number of celebrities, said the car drove like a dream.
"...the EV1 was a high performer. It could do a U-turn on a dime; it was incredibly quiet and smooth. And it was fast. I could beat any Porsche off the line at a stoplight. I loved it," Actress, Alexandra Paul told NOW.
After California regulators saw G.M.s electric car in the late 1980s, they launched a zero-emissions vehicle program in 1990 to clean up the state's smoggy skies.
Under the program, two percent of all new cars sold had to be electric by 1998 and 10 percent by 2003.
But it was not to be. A little over 1,000 EV1s were produced by G.M. before the company pulled the plug on the project in 2002 due to insufficient demand. Other major car makers also ceased production of their electric vehicles.
In the wake of a legal challenge from G.M. and DaimlerChrysler, California amended its regulations and abandoned its goals. Shortly thereafter, automakers began reclaiming and dismantling their electrics as they came off lease.
Some suggest that G.M. -- which says it invested some $1 billion in the EV1 -- never really wanted the cars to take off. They say G.M. intentionally sabotaged their own marketing efforts because they feared the car would cannibalize its existing business. G.M. disputes these claims.
-
The Guardian is challenging about the quality of the documentary - http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,1836539,00.html
-
Part 4 - what might General Motors say?
-
There is a G.M. reply available at - http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2006/06/who_ignored_the_facts_about_th.html
General Motors would contest significant points in the film. For instance, the cars were shredded but not sent to land-fill without recycling the materials. Part of the recycling process involves crushing stripped bodies to shred the metals and other plastics so they can be reused.
General Motors are some what distraught over the film, having invested £1,000 million US dollars in a product that they claim didn’t sell and which they took back because of obligations to customers who had bought a product which they felt they couldn’t sustain previous commitments to maintain. But if this was a genuine attempt to develop a new product, it calls into doubt the competency of General Motors business management.
G.M. would contest whether a product that made 800 sales in a four-year timeframe was commercially viable. Consumers would have to make trade-offs in terms of range (60 to 100 miles) ... time of recharging (six hours) ... basic utility (a two-seater) .. and service needs (no spare parts were available due to lack of volume).
G.M.s former EV1 engineers are now working on new products such as hybrids and fuel cell powered cars.
The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is an electric car too ... one that uses hydrogen to create the electricity that the EV1 batteries stored. The latest G.M. fuel cell vehicles exceed the range (more than double) that of the EV1 and can seat five or more people comfortably with all the gear that may go with them.
[The screening took place on 2006-10-20; this page was last updated on 2006-10-21]
Comments