Murder most foul
Remember when the car makers killed off electric cars? No?
Murder most foul
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Amnesia is a lamentable American trait. Obsessed as we are with the here and now, we tend to erase even the recent past. Which is too bad, considering the value that can be gained by judging current events in their proper context.
Case in point: The flurry of press stories this week about the potentially bullish market for electric cars.
President Obama stopped in Michigan yesterday to publicize a factory - now under construction, with help from federal stimulus money - that will manufacture batteries for the newfangled vehicles. GM, Ford, and Nissan are currently readying their respective models, none of which will have gas tanks or internal combustion engines or carburetors or air filters or transmissions. The feds have put up $2.6 billion in stimulus bucks for energy-efficient cars, politicians in Michigan are ballyhooing the prospects of new jobs for the auto industry, and the auto industry is talking up these cars as the next big thing.
These developments were all duly reported in the stories out of Michigan. Yet none bothered to point out a crucial historical fact: If GM in particular had not worked so hard and so successfully to murder the electric car less than 10 years ago - "murder most foul," as a Hamlet ghost intoned - we would not be stuck at the starting gate today.
An AP story yesterday referred to the electric car market as "a sector with a promising but uncertain future." Perhaps it would have been valuable to provide some context, to recount, if only briefly, what happened in California well within living memory. The future was then, and GM willfully blew it.
For the full history, check out the award-winning 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? This is the short version of what happened:
Electric cars actually outsold gas-powered cars way back in 1900, but the discovery of Texas crude changed that equation. Goodbye, electric car. Fast forward now to 1990. That year, smog-ridden California (home of the nation's biggest consumer car market) crafted a set of state regulations that essentially compelled the auto makers to develop emission-free vehicles. The state rules mandated that, by 1998, two percent of Californians' cars had to be electric; by 2003, 10 percent. Well, it just so happened that GM had an electric prototype on the drawing board anyway, and in 1996, it actually introduced the EV1, a model that could be powered by plugging it into a socket. GM made a few of these vehicles, and leasing roughly 800 to willing Californians. Several other car companies did the same thing, building a few thousand more.
But GM's green sensibility was merely for show. Clearly, the electric car threatened the economic interests of the usual suspects. Early in this decade, GM, working with its allies in the oil industry and the Bush administration (sorry, Bush fans, but this is the factual record), filed a string of lawsuits that ultimately succeeded in watering down the California emission rules. Meanwhile, GM slow-walked its marketing of electric cars - while pouring big bucks into advertisements for its favorite gas-ingesting, zero-financing behemoth. That would be the SUV.
After buttressing the status quo, GM then proceeded to call back the smattering of electric cars that it had leased. Then it shipped the cars to a remote location in Arizona, where they were flattened and destroyed. Other car companies did the same. The '06 documentary has this process on film, a visual metaphor for a perpetually purblind auto industry.
GM has since insisted that it tried very hard to market the electric cars in California. Yeah, right. Just look at GM's history; its corporate culture has always been allergic to socially conscious innovation. After World War II, GM came up with a small, inexpensive, efficiently engineered gasoline car - nicknamed the Cadet - but it was strangled in its cradle because the brass didn't think it would yield enough profit.
We're all upset about the sluggish job market, understandably so, but perhaps the situation would not be as dire (at least in Michigan, and in other locales where battery manufacturing might already be thriving) if American auto makers hadn't declared war on the future 10 years ago. It would have been nice to see this historical context in yesterday's news stories.
And it would have been nice to read the sheepish confession, uttered three years ago by Bob Lutz, a GM product development executive. He said that the decision to crush all the EV1 cars, "from a PR standpoint, was probably the dumbest move we ever made."
Actually, the "PR" dimension was the least of it.
-------
But let's cruise to the weekend on a lighter note. Here's an AP story that reminds us, yet again, about why we love South Carolina:
(AP) Alvin Greene action figures are here - thanks to a South Carolina minor league baseball team. The Charleston RiverDogs will give out statues of the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate at Saturday's game. Greene, who shocked the political establishment by winning the primary without campaigning, has suggested that manufacturing action figures of himself could spur economic growth in a state with chronically high unemployment.
The statues are actually Statue of Liberty figures the team planned to give away as a different promotion. But after hearing Greene's idea, the RiverDogs decided to put a picture of his face on the statues instead.
The RiverDogs are known for their promotions. They set a record for having no fans in the stands on Nobody Night. They tried to have Vasectomy Night on Father's Day 13 years ago, but canceled it when some fans complained it was too crass.
swedesboromike - Perhaps that's why Polman was "on the road" for the full month of June. Forty mile runs with 8hr recharge periods make for a leisurely trip.
Lord, the power source recharging my cell phone battery is standard 110V AC power from a standard house outlet. The source recharging a car battery would be significantly greater, again had we spent the past 40 years developing the technology. Again, to use my analogy, the battery on my brick phone would take about five hours to fully charge then I'd have to drain the battery all the way down before recharging it so I wouldn't shorten the batteries run time (it was called battery memory back then). Now, if I drain my cell battery fully, it takes about 30-40 minutes to recharge it fully. The advancement of technology has reduced the recharging time while using the same power source. And now you can buy a recharging pad that requires no plugs or adapters and recharges your phone in 30 minutes. Again, advances in technology. I hope you see the pattern here. It's really quite simple. Even you can understand, I think.— amg
I am trying to insult you amg because you make such an asinine post. Please tell me why a company would spend millions or hundreds of millions of dollars to invent something that for the last 40 years has been completely needless? Oh yeah it's because amg thinks it would be better that way. Why do you insist on pushing your views on other people?- I think that we should start right now developing the technology that will allow humans to drink battery acid. That way in 40 years when we have all amg's dead super fast charging car batteries laying around we won't have to worry about them polluting the groundwater. Think of all the future amgs who will think of us as a far sighted and intelligent people!
- Spock, Your hero GWB took 4 years to create a single job and then left with the economy hemorrhaging jobs. His job creation record is terrible and the GOP wants to go back to his policies. I have faith Obama will turn things around. Democrats are simply better at creating jobs: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/01/job-creation-by-president.html— PA_Dutch
- First of all spock, this is a discussion forum where people share ideas, not "force them" on other people. If I'm forcing my opinion on you, aren't you doing the same by disagreeing and insulting me? Of course you are...............Second, the only thing asinine is your question. Companies develop new things every day regardless of the fact that there is something on the market that consumers are perfectly happy with. Why do you think there is an iPhone4? I know people that still have their original iPhone and love it. I also know people that waited in line for hours to get the new version. We are a consumable society that is hellbent on getting something newer and better now matter how good we currently have it. Companies spend billions of dollars on research and development and they do it because consumers want newer and better stuff. Seriously, you can't be that stupid. Although reading your posts, you clearly are.— amg
- AMG- Here is how you win the alternative fuel argument. Advocate for abundance, inexpensiveness, and performance. Show me a car that performs, can carry my family of 5, and is the same price or less than my current vehicle and I'll drive it. Show me a " smart " car or a golf cart and you take a flying hike. Don't give us this nonsense on what percentage of the worlds energy we consume because that is just a testement to our prosperity. And quite frankly I am glad we are a prosperous nation.
- amg - At the most you'll have a 220v outlet available at your home. The energy requirements to power an automobile are many orders of magnitude greater than those for your BlackBerry. You need 30-40 minutes to fully charge your BlackBerry. I hope you see the pattern here. It's really quite simple. Even you can understand, I hope.
- PA_Dutch Bush is not my hero knucklehead. This is all Bush's fault. And if you think Democrats or Republicans create jobs than maybe you should go back to the pretzel factory.
- amg you are so dense it's unbelievable. The iPhone 4 is hardly new technology. And they sold so fast Apple couldn't keep up. Now how many electric cars were sold? Oh yeah no one wanted them.
- SMike, I couldn't agree with you more. I think the "Smart Car" is about the dumbest thing on the road. I'm not putting my family in that rolling death trap. I actually love my kids. LOL. Personally I drive an F150 Extended Cab with the 5.7L Triton XL motor fully equipped. I'm not switching from that to the Smart Car. But that's not my point. And I know you're smart enough to understand what my point is. We've conversed many times and you're a bright guy. My point is, if car companies had spent the past 40 years developing this tech instead of doing everything they could to prevent it's development, then maybe my truck would have an electric motor now that performs like my combustion engine. Maybe not, but since they've squandered the last 40 years, we'll never know.— amg
- SMike, I couldn't agree with you more. I think the "Smart Car" is about the dumbest thing on the road. I'm not putting my family in that rolling death trap. I actually love my kids. LOL. Personally I drive an F150 Extended Cab with the 5.7L Triton XL motor fully equipped. I'm not switching from that to the Smart Car. But that's not my point. And I know you're smart enough to understand what my point is. We've conversed many times and you're a bright guy. My point is, if car companies had spent the past 40 years developing this tech instead of doing everything they could to prevent it's development, then maybe my truck would have an electric motor now that performs like my combustion engine. Maybe not, but since they've squandered the last 40 years, we'll never know.— amg
- Spock 1:37 PM "You see, we won't have any jobs to go once Obama is done with us." Spock 2:35 PM "And if you think Democrats or Republicans create jobs than maybe you should go back to the pretzel factory."— PA_Dutch
- Lord, again you're missing the point. You're comparing today's technology to today's technology for cell phones and car batteries. I'm saying if technology could advance a cell phone so quickly over 15 years then it's highly likely it would have advanced similarly over 40 years for car batteries. Now I have no idea if that's what would have happened. We might not have any more capacity after 40 years of trying then we do now without trying. The point is we didn't even try. And it has nothing to do with consumer demand. Companies make their own demand via marketing and promotions. They generate buzz for something, get people interested in it then they make them believe they actually need it. It's pretty simple. I'm saying the car companies could have spent 40 years moving forward, not backwards and maybe, just maybe, we'd have a viable electric alternative. That's all I'm saying.— amg
- Lord H., Mikey, have you guys ever heard of a little company called Tesla Motors? Raised $226 million in an IPO from some pretty smart investors the other day to develop new models of their electric car? So far they offer only an expensive sports car, but their goal is to offer a full line, including 5-seater sedans, at affordable prices. Thank goodness we have some smart people in this country (actually an immigrant from Israel, I think) who are planning for the future instead of living in the past. THAT's an example of capitalistic creative destruction we can believe in.— yoda
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
