Who Killed The Electric CarArgumentative

Introduction

Chris Pain film is however based on some more recent efforts which were implemented by the California Air Resource Board when it passed an emission bill which supported that any auto company which wanted to sell car in the market had to make sure that more about 2 percent of the cars sold were emission free. This was later expected to be increased to about 10 percent by 2003.  California is one of the biggest auto markets in the country and thereof a number of car producers immediately took to the demand of the bill and started producing electric car. Notable among them was Ford EV1 which signed Electric Vehicle 1.

There were about 5,000 electric cars which were produced in the market but in a turn event which amazed everyone, 4,000 of these cars which were in good state were eventually crushed.  There were several reasons which were given about why the car was killed. GM argued that there was low demand for the car in the market.  It was argued that the technology used was not promising and the battery used could not store enough power to cover average daily miles for most Americans. The hydrogen fuel cell that was used in the care was also said to consume more power than the average battery and therefore unprofitable.  However, all these reasons have been refuted and straight facts given on the death of the car. We can therefore strongly assert that there was conspiracy theory between the auto industry and the oil industry which eventually led to the destruction of the car that had provided American with a solution to the environment problem of emission. (Luton, 2007)

Conspiracy behind the death of the electric car

GM had stared producing the EV1 model in 1996 and the first car was immediately leased. Consequently the company then invested heavily in the production of the cars. However the company discounted the production of the car arguing the there was low demand for the car. But his has been shown that there was a long list of those who had requested for the car and those who were leased had promised to buy their cars by the expiry of the lease.  There was high demand for the car in the market since unlike the gasoline powered car, it required less maintenance cost.  However on the part of the company it is evident that they make a lot of money from spare parts and if this car did not breakdown, then there would be low demand for spare parts. This means that the reason behind the discontinuation of the production of the care was not due to low demand but to its impact on GM’s business. It means the company valued its profits more than the environmental effect of its cars. (Shnayerson, 2006)

We have already said that right from the start, the production of electric car was hampered by the conspiracy between ford and Oil Company. The oil company has also a hand in the death of the recent car. They made big campaign to show that electric car was produced with inadequate technology. They argued that the batteries used could not keep enough power to last the average mileage per day. However it has been shown that with an average plugging in of the car at night, it accumulated enough power to drive for 50 to 70 miles. On average most American do not cover more that 30 miles and therefore the car met the mileage needs.  Unlike the gasoline powered car, electric cars were quiet clean, sleek and very fast. It could cruise 60 mph in 7.4 seconds. However their use could have led to decreased use of oil which would have threatened the multibillion oil industry.  This means that the oil company conspired to ensure the death of the car in order to protect their business. (Murray, 2007)

There were also claim that the car could use hydrogen fuel. However it ahs been showed that hydrogen technology is far to be useful in the present but it present technology for the future. Hydrogen fuel has been shown to be three to four times more expensive compared to the other energy. Although the government has put a lot of money on the investigation of this claim no light has been shed on the issue abut it still remains an expensive source of power. It was also claimed that we needed to have more hydrogen fuel stations to fuel the car. But contrary to this you only need to plug in you car at night and store enough power to travel. You don’t need to have any hydrogen fuel station to drive an electric car. (Shnayerson, 2006)

Conclusion

Electric can provide one of the most important opportunities for the world to deal with the problem of emissions. However GM carried out a campaign to kill a useful technology it had initiated.  There was high demand of the ca in the market. The car could cover a mileage of 50 to 70 miles and therefore it met the demand for most American since they have an average of 30 miles per day. The car was clean, quite and very fast and therefore friendly to the environment. GM also colluded with the oil company to claim that the car could use Hydrogen fuel which is very expensive unaffordable instead of promoting the use of electricity in car.  GM electric vehicles were an important initiative that would have save use from the problem of emission. I would buy the car since is cheap to travel in terms of that there is plenty of electricity and the car does not pollute the environment.

Reference:

Luton, H. (2007): The death of electric car. Wall street Journal, July 2007

Murray, R. (2007): Who Killed Electric Car? Devlin on the Documentary

Shnayerson, M. (2006): The Inside Story of GM’s Revolutionary Electric Vehicle. Random House publishers