June 2005 Asleep at the WheelGas prices, traffic, smog, global warming, dependence on foreign oil, domestic drilling...no amount of bad news seems to be producing a ground swell of change when it comes to finding ways to reduce transportation-based pollution and greenhouse gases. If a war in the Middle East, unhealthy air and climate change aren't convincing us to find alternatives to the internal combustion engine, what will? Unless the problem is not the problem. Maybe the problem is the solution -- or lack of one. Where are our alternatives to gas guzzling, carbon dioxide spewing vehicles?
The electric vehicle (EV) was once on its way to revolutionizing travel thanks to a California law passed in 1990 that required auto makers to sell a certain percentage of zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs) in the state. California's zero-emissions mandate was subsequently adopted by several other states, and the automakers finally had no choice but to get to work and comply. GM was one of the automakers that stepped up, albeit reluctantly, and created an all-electric vehicle from the ground up, eventually named the EV1.
Eight hundred EV1s were leased to customers between 1997 and 1999 and there was a long waiting list of eager consumers who very much wanted this stylish, no-emissions car. Fast forward to 2003. California killed its zero-emissions mandate and all EV1s were reclaimed and destroyed by General Motors. Why? According to the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, that chronicles the rise and fall of the EV1, there is plenty of blame to go around.
In the end, General Motors along with Ford and Toyota killed their EV programs due to what they called a "lack of sufficient demand." Demand they were instrumental in sabotaging. EVs received little advertising support during there brief production runs; an atypical approach for the ad-savvy auto industry which strongly suggested success was not their goal. In addition, the unhappy General Motors Company filed suit to overturn California's zero-emission vehicle mandate.
The oil lobby played its part. Oil, though a nonrenewable fuel that will peak, some say within 30 years, is today a tremendously profitable industry. The oil lobby is fierce at protecting their interests and keeping us dependent on oil for the time being.
Government let us down too. Never quick to understand and act on its role as a public trust and overseer of programs and regulations for the greater good, the federal government has stubbornly refused to raise fuel economy standards since the 1970s or support electric car and battery technology-both ideas detested by the auto and oil industries. Under the leadership of industry-friendly G.W. Bush, the administration is investing instead in hydrogen fuel cell technology -- a technology so riddled with challenges that uncertain success is thought to be decades away. Coincidentally, this gives the oil companies just enough time to exploit world oil reserves before they start to decline and it becomes convenient for them to turn their interests to hydrogen.
Consumers were not entirely blameless either. Then and now, automakers need to sense consumer restlessness, even outrage, over the same ole' same ole' that is polluting our air and escalating global temperatures. It's not enough to believe in a product's virtues: Only one thing will turn a good idea into a mass produced consumer product -- a commitment of purchase.
Simultaneously, consumers will have to support cleaner power sources. EVs are only as clean as the utility grid from which it draws power. Electricity customers can support clean, renewable energy right now, no matter where they live, through the purchase of tradable renewable certificates at www.green-e.org.
The solutions, not the problems, will be what convince and enable us to break our dependence on the automobile, especially dirty automobiles. In this regard, indisputable consumer demand may be the only force stronger than a powerful oil lobby. It's time -- even overdue -- for Americans to persistently request solutions from decision makers. For help and suggestions on who to contact go to www.pluginamerica.com.
October 2005 Reckless Driving
In this day, it is unlikely that any SUV owner, or buyer shopping for an SUV, could be completely ignorant to their harsh criticism. This criticism includes 1) a lousy fuel efficiency rating (33% less than the average passenger car), 2) gross vehicle weights that overtly stress our roads (the Ford Excursion V-10 4x4 model weighs 3.5 tons--empty), 3) poor crash compatibility with lighter vehicles (when SUVs strike lighter passenger cars the overwhelming majority of fatalities occur in lighter vehicles), and 4) the questionable safety of the SUV itself (SUVs are involved in the highest number of fatalities due to rollovers).Many SUV enthusiasts claim that the SUV offers features and benefits just not available in one package from another vehicle class. Maybe not, but does anyone really need it all -- increased vehicle clearance, luxury interiors, cargo space and 4-wheel drive? These features, give or take one or two, can be found in more fuel efficient sport wagons like the Subaru Outback and the Volkswagen Jetta Wagon. Unless one routinely traverses ditches while carrying a 1,200-lb. load, I just can't see the justification for an SUV designed with that kind of customer in mind.
Some SUV owners don't even try to defend their purchase based on need. To this group, regardless of their reasons for choosing an SUV and regardless of the SUV's problems, their defense is that this is America, and they have a right to drive whatever car they can afford. Quite right, but this is one self-indulgence that has insidiuous consequences: their operation quanders petroluem reserves, thwarts energy independence, exacerbates greenhouse gases, and kills.
On the occasion indefensible SUV-owners answer their critics, their responses frequently have a tone of impudence and righteousness. The environmental impacts? "Who cares!" or "Trumped up!" they cry. The stress on public roads? "I pay for those roads too," they proclaim. The grave accident statistics? "I'm not responsible for bad drivers and I'm certainly not one of them," they insist.
I don't mean to pick on SUV owners. Well yes I do actually, but for the record, I don't approve of littering, building homes the size of mansions, burning trash in your yard, and lots of things that impact people and planet, but are so easily avoided.