Time Magazine talks to Chris Paine and others on green cars
In a new article in Time magazine film director Chris Paine actually gives GM some credit for their current efforts to develop more efficient, less polluting vehicles. That's mighty praise from the man behind the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car". The company isn't completely off the hook by any means, but in spite of pronouncements by the ever-quotable Bob Lutz, they are making progress. Contrary to the image that many environmentalists have had that GM and other car-makers have not invested in more environmentally friendly vehicles, GM and their competitors have never stopped working on new powertrain technology. The disconnect comes when it's time to mass produce the new tech. While much of the new tech is still not ready for primetime, the company clearly could have been more aggressive in producing at least some technology (hello? hybrids?). They and others like Toyota also get a deserved black eye for fighting fuel economy regulations. Admittedly CAFE is not the best solution, but from the PR perspective they should be working more to tie new standards to changes in tax policy rather than just fighting the rules altogether.
[Source: Time, thanks to LS2/LS7 for the tip]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dean 12:23PM (10/16/2007)
Chris Paine should have gotten his facts straight when he made 'Who Killed the Electric Car?'. While he could prove that there were few people willing to buy the EV1, he did nothing towards proving that it was VIABLE!! GM produced those cars at a loss, and leased them at a price based on far less than what the cars actually cost to build. It's funny that Chris Paine is giving GM credit...he's the one who actually deserves any credit if at all. GM is doing what it can to help the environment, and is taking the right steps in working towards a cleaner environment. Mr Paine needs to get his facts straight...GM was ahead of its time with the EV1, and the times have finally caught up, with GM having made the appropriate advancements.
Reply
Marcelo 1:18PM (10/16/2007)
I think that the huge industry behind oil won't allow green cars evolve
http://www.spymac.com/details/?2263456
MarC
Reply
Tony Belding 1:09PM (10/16/2007)
I think the film made a good case that the EV1 could have been much more successful than it was, if GM had promoted it with sincere enthusiasm. That's not the same as saying it could ever have been viable within GM's business plan. We'll never really know.
I don't think that the government can mandate sincere enthusiasm. To paint GM (and other companies) as Bad Guys for opposing a government policy that they disagreed with is a basically socialist viewpoint, it's really un-American. Our country runs on the interplay of competing interests, not policies handed down from on high.
The movie illustrated that process very well, yet tried to spin it as being a bad thing.
AS FOR the Chevy Volt. . . GM are talking the right talk, and apparently making the right moves, for now. However, the Volt is still very early in its development process, and there are still dozens of things that could happen to delay or derail it. I have some doubts about whether the Volt will be the first mass-product, plug-in car to reach the marketplace.
Reply
Tim Russell 1:48PM (10/16/2007)
Marcelo you may be right but with supplies flat and demand up how is "big oil" going to stop them?
I just checked and oil is at $87.80 right now and hit $88 in overnight trading. The days of cheap oil are done and as such cheap fuel. I see no change as the Chinese are snapping up cars and demand for motor fuels is on the rise. "Big Oil" isn't as worried about electric and high MPG cars as they might have been in years past.
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 2:01PM (10/16/2007)
Paine spent too much time in "Who Killed the Electric Car?" trying to spear GM, that he missed many key points, some of which still show through in his movie.
For example, as Tony Belding and others are convinced above. GM advertised the vehicle as fast (showing it against sports cars). The one thing they didn't do was lie to customers. It's even mentioned in the movie, one person complaining that when selling (er, leasing) a person the car, they would tell them about the range, the cost of putting a charger in the garage and such. How dare GM inform the customer, this must be stopped!
Chris Paine and some others seem to take the opinion that because they are personally well informed enough to know that an electric car is enough for them, everyone else is too. And when they aren't and GM had to tell them the circumstances before selling them the car (it is the right thing to do), Paine then blames GM for "trying to convince people not to buy the car".
In short, just look at the car companies. They're used to selling you more. Faster. Bigger. etc. Just look at the Fit (a pure economy car) growing 2 inches in the next model! They rarely even attempt to sell you a car less capable than your last one or than your expectations. The EV1, unfortunately, was just something the car companies didn't know how to sell and really, most customers wouldn't even consider buying.
One thing about the Volt is it doesn't bring the range compromises or issues with charging (like putting a 240V circuit in your garage or what to do if you run out of power away from home) that an EV does. GM has split the difference, realizing they can more easily sell a car that behaves like the cars people are used to.
But what I still want to see most is a continuing change in people's opinions such that they see that an EV can fulfill their needs and thus become more open to buying them. This will do things no company could ever accomplish with ad dollars.
Reply
yabun 4:26PM (10/16/2007)
But what I didn't understood, and what the movie pointed out as the big mystery, is why GM went out of there way to get all the EV1's back and then flatten every last one. To do it amidst outright protests and lie about re-using the technology. So they can't market it, so it didn't sell, so it was ahead of its time, so they're produced at a loss. Why completely destroy them???
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 6:16PM (10/16/2007)
yabun:
Bean counters. Look up what happened to the Beechcraft Starcraft.
Some accountant does some math and figures out it'd be cheaper to destroy all the cars than to continue to support them going forward (there is a law an automaker must make replacement parts for a car for 10 years past the date of last sale) and so they destroy them.
Horrible PR, a stupid pure dollars decision. But don't attribute to malice what can easily be explained away by boneheadedness.
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 7:48PM (10/16/2007)
ooh, whoops. Beechcraft Starship.
Reply
Chris M 11:37PM (10/16/2007)
I'm sorry, but there is no law requiring a manufacturer to make replacement parts. The law does require manufacturers to honor their warranty, and to do that they need replacement parts - but it doesn't matter who makes those parts.
GM could have sold the EV1s with a very limited term warranty, or even "As Is", with no express or implied warranty, and they would have been off the hook.
No, there was something else going on behind the scenes.
Reply