environmental chit chat

Planet Earth; our home, our life source, our survival. Our planet is something we should treasure, constantly aim to look after and preserve it for the benefit of future generations. However the human race seems to be doing the opposite. Everyone is aware of the environmental damage we are inflicting on our planet. Tons of research has been done, most of which shows that the future only holds much worse results. Global warming is a massive problem the world is currently facing, and it is something that will have a huge impact on the way future generations will live their every day life. People are well aware of this global epidemic, yet it is still not a top priority on people’s minds. There are many, many things people can do, altering the way they live to help the planet, even just a little bit. These things include saving energy by using less electricity, utilizing alternative options of power (such as solar power) and much more. Another aid to help fix global warming involves something that was completely destroyed and hidden from the world; an invention that could have helped the global warming threat greatly; the electric car.

The electric car was something that was subtly introduced to the market (at least in a world wide sense). It was primarily released in the USA and more specifically in California. The first electric car ever made was produced in the in the mid nineteenth century. In 1834 Thomas Davenport invented the battery electric car, which ran on non-rechargeable battery packs. Only a few years down the line, rechargeable lead-acid batteries were produced for electric cars to run on, which revolutionized the way people drove. It combined an element of comfort and ease for any driver; however the product fell short in sales when the price rose above that of petroleum fuelled cars, made specifically by the Ford Motor Company. This however didn’t stop car enthusiasts from coming up with better ways of producing the electric cars. Many people jumped on the band wagon and the electric car became a popular feat to perfect. Over time the improvements made to the electric car (mainly with the aid of better technology) allowed it to stand against petroleum fuelled cars, in speed and design. The price of electric cars also dropped and seemed to be a great option for new car owners. It was comfortable to drive, cheap to run and could keep up on any high speed car chase. But if this car was designed to not only be environmentally friendly and also consumer friendly, why was it completely erased from the face of the earth? So I decided to look into that and try to discover exactly why the electric car was destroyed, who was involved and what the big deal really is.

What makes the electric car so environmentally friendly?

Most obviously the electric car was so healthy for the environment because it didn’t use fuel and therefore didn’t release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2) plays a vital role in plant and animal processes, such as photosynthesis and respiration; however too much of a good thing, often turns bad. The problem being is that too much carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere, due to human activities, such as deforestation, making of cement, burning fossil fuels, and driving petroleum run vehicles. This is causing an environmental problem known as the Greenhouse Effect. This is a process whereby gasses, known as greenhouse gasses, in the troposphere (the lower part of the atmosphere) absorb some of the heat sent by the sun and help to regulate the temperature of the earth’s surface. Carbon dioxide is one of these greenhouse gasses. The problem began at the brink of the Industrial Revolution (1850). Human processes have caused too much of these gasses to be released (including CO2), which is effecting the temperature of the earth to increase. It has been constantly increasing which has now caused the problem we are all so aware of, Global Warming. It is suspected that Global warming is the reason for an increase in storm activity, melting of ice caps, flooding, and a variety of other environmental disasters. This is an increasing problem as CO emissions continue to rise, from 280ppm in the 1850’s to 364ppm in the 1990’s.

Electric cars were a solution to help a big problem we face. Research shows that on average a petroleum fuelled car in the USA releases 7,700kg of CO2 per year. This has a great impact on atmosphere which is why electric cars could have been a revolutionary invention for the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Any small solution to a problem this great should be considered and tested, especially solutions that were as successful as the electric car. The electric car, in particular the EV1 produced by General Motors in 1996, was made to be a zero-emission vehicle that was released to the public market for lease only purchase. It became widely popular and people fell in love with this little car. It was up to speed with regular petroleum fuelled cars and was cheaper for owners to run, as it didn’t require fuel, only the batteries were to be charged every few days. The cars were also more reliable and cheaper to maintain than petroleum fuelled cars. The energy they needed to run could come from solar or wind power, expending no more energy than currently used. As the cars were never offered at a specific sale price (only leased from around $299 to $574 per month) it is not sure how much the car would cost for the consumer. An industry official at General Motors (GM) estimated the vehicles actual cost at around $100,000. The cost being so high, GM decided the car wasn’t worth the cost and didn’t continue production. However after much research was done (as seen in the documentary “Who killed the electric car?”), consumers seemed to accept the high price for a car that would help the environment. Many opted to pay more, as long as this little invention would be given an opportunity to prove how great its impact could be on global warming.

Who stopped the electric car and why?

“Who killed the electric car?” is an eye opening documentary by American writer and director Chris Paine. The shocking truth abut the death of the electric car is revealed in this gripping issue-orientated documentary. Chris relays the story through a number of interviews and narratives, showing audiences the truth about an industrial culture whose dislike of change and constant reliance on oil may be deeper then its ability to embrace effective solutions. The film has been nominated and won many awards at a variety of prestigious film festivals. With the help of Sony Pictures marketing influence, this LA produced documentary has become a world wide hit, and has become the third highest grossing documentary in 2007.

In the film, the question “whose fault is it?” is posed. The demise of the electric car is considered a serious offense throughout the film. Interviews with electric car fans and activists reflect how loved this car truly was, and was believed to be a perfectly good solution to helping our planet replenish itself after our damage. The film reviews a number of suspects that could be to blame for the complete destruction of the electric car (namely the EV1). The suspects are all investigated and scrutinized, and found either guilty or not guilty. The following are to guilty suspects: the oil industry, the automobile industry, the USA government, the California Air Resource Board (CARB), the hydrogen fuel cell and finally the consumer.

Suspect number one is the oil industry. This seems to be quite an obvious assumption. The oil industry sells 3 billion gallons of gasoline per week in the USA, amounting to a large amount of profit going straight into their back pocket. Although the electric car would not have been a great short-term threat, in the long run, if the electric car gained success with the market, oil companies would lose out on huge amounts of money. So the oil industries wanted the electric car gone. They tried to stop funding of the battery charge stations built around USA, and also publically critiqued attributes of the electric car in nationally read newspapers. So the oil companies are found GUILTY for the demise of the electric car, purely

due to their greed and money hungry attitudes.

Suspect number two is the automobile industry. Being the competitor to the electric car, of course the automobile industry would not be too happy with this new well loved product. However GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan all produced their own model of an electric car. Seemingly joining a healthy trend, all these companies undermined their success straight away. It seems the electric car range was too much of a threat to the profits made by petroleum fuelled cars. Saving consumers’ money through cheaper maintenance when owning an electric car meant the “car guys” would lose out. Therefore the automobile industry is found GUILTY for fighting against the production of the EV1 as well as all other electric cars.

The third suspect is the USA Government. In 2002 the USA government, headed by George Bush, joined the automobile industry in the lawsuit against the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB) zero emission mandate. The government argued that only the federal government had authority to regulate fuel economy and CARB was going against this rule. The government however has been closely linked to the oil and auto industry, so taking their side in this battle is unsurprising. Bush pushed the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology to over ride electric cars. Once again the drive behind scrapping the electric car is money. Oil generates money for a country’s economy, so it remains a top priority. Alternative options,

although better for our planet, are pushed aside. However in 2006, with the alarmed American public over war on oil in Iraq and increasing oil prices, Bush called for research on better batteries for hybrid and electric cars; whether or not this makes a difference, remains to be seen. The USA government is therefore found GUILTY for cooperating in the destruction of the electric car.

Suspect number four is the California Air Resource Board (CARB). Although CARB did much to try aid the production of electric cars, they failed to steer their mandate in the right direction and it failed. CARB buckled under pressure put on them by the oil and auto industries, and dropped electrical vehicle production from the mandate. The chairman of CARB, Alan C. Lloyd, only a few months after the failed mandate and the killing of the electric car, became the chairman of the California Fuel Cell Partnership. Seemingly jumped ship, Lloyd claims that the CARB mandate was not feasible. CARB is found GUILTY for being involved in destroying the electric car.

The fifth suspect is the hydrogen fuel cell, being the reason for the abandonment of the electric car. CARB was in favor of zero emission vehicle technology, the hydrogen fuel cell, as it proved to be better and more equipped technology. However practical hydrogen fuelled cars were decades away from being in production, and remains unrealistic according to where the technology stands now. The oil and auto industries support this technology because hydrogen is compiled from fossil fuels, unlike battery power. This route is best for these industries as it allows them to seemingly value innovation and conservation, when still their goal revolves around profits. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is therefore found GUILTY for aiding toward the murder of the electric car.

The last remaining suspect is the consumer. The consumer never seemed to embrace the idea of the electric car, even though they were well aware of the price of maintenance (in comparison to petroleum fuelled cars) as well as the environmental impact electric cars have. Still the consumer indulged in “gas guzzling” vehicles, such the SUV. Even opinion makers, such as the press, did nothing to shift perspectives. Lack of effective advertising and awareness gave consumers little incentive to utilize the electric car as an alternative transport option. Rumours were also spread about the EV cars, and were given the reputation of being “elitist”. It was said that electric vehicles means that everyone pays but only the elite will drive. It was never considered though that no matter what the income level is, the EV still benefits everyone, through a better air quality. So the consumer is found GUILTY for naivity toward a new product that may have aided their future exsistance, in allowing the electric car to be destroyed.

Seen in the above information on who destroyed the electric car and why, it is clear that humans seem to disregard their planet and the importance of looking after and preserving it constantly. The removal of the electric car is only one rejected solution. There have been many more. After watching the documentary “Who killed the electric car?” I realized how money hungry people truly are. They say that money makes the world go round, but in fact that saying seems now to be a little ironic. Money seems to be the thing that is stopping our world, from growing, from healing and replenishing. We constantly use this earth to survive, through the resources it provides for us. But how long do we expect these resources to be around for? The environment is a precious thing. Global warming has become a big hazard to our environment, a hazard that needs to be stopped, or at the very least reduced. Humans are responsible for the condition the earth is in. But we could also be the solution. The electric car is only one of many helpful aids that move us toward a life of environmentally friendly living. The less carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere the better chance we have of reducing global warming. The results will most likely only take effect years and years from now, but if generations constantly think of the future eventually it will come full circle.

How to help.

There are a number of solutions to our environmental problem that people should consider on a day to day basis; such as planting trees. It may seem like a feeble way to “save the earth”, but it will in actual fact make a difference. In the USA there are a number of organizations that encourage people to plant more trees and increase forestation. Tree People are just one of many of these organizations. Their aim is to inspire and engage people into taking personal responsibility for their urban environment. They are an LA based non profit organization, working in around the city center to try joining together nature with the concrete jungle. This type of organization is one of many that aid the replenishment of the earth. The work they do matters because it aids in reducing global warming. Cities cover less than 1% of the earth’s surface and contribute 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. Pavements and rooftops create urban heat islands, making global warming worse, so trees help to reduce space for more buildings to go up. Trees help better the air quality in cities, making it healthier for residents.

Other than planting trees, there are a number of other activities that can be done to help the environment. Conserving energy is one, by utilizing alternative methods of power that are more environmentally friendly. There are so any advances in solar power, hydro and wind power, that won’t affect our way of life, but will make a big difference to helping reduce global warming. Less greenhouse gas emissions is another solution, one that may take longer to achieve. Hydro and hybrid powered cars are environmentally healthier to use, instead of petroleum fuelled cars. This is a bump in the road that the public need to become more aware of. Awareness is an important element when it comes to this great environmental issue.

Our earth is our home, our life source, our survival. But it now depends on us as much as we depend on it. Finding a common ground is important in order for humans to live a comfortable lifestyle as well as maintain a healthy, sustainable planet.

The End.