Who Does GM Think They're Kidding?

Josh was telling me about this movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" and as I am obsessed with buying a hybrid/electric car (my current choice is the 2005 Toyota Prius, if only I had an extra $20,000 lying around) I decided to spend a little time looking into purely electric vehicles and came across this article. My immediate gut reaction was "You gotta be kidding me!" GM seems to be a little confused about the differences between the general public and those persons who would actually be researching electric/hybrid cars if it thinks it can print this garbage as a defense and have people swallow it hook line and sinker. The point of the program was to test the vehicle out. One would assume that feedback from the testing would then be incorporated into later, mass release ready models. If there was a fundamental flaw in the design, which it seems there was, it still doesn't make sense to destroy the cars. It would have made more sense to sell those cars "as-is" at a loss than to spend additional money in their demolition. Instead of defending itself, GM should just admit it made a mistake and then make a genuine commitment to introducing more fuel efficient/conservative, responsible vehicles ASAP. And no, I don't consider an SUV that gets 30mpg to be an improvement. We should be aiming for 75+ mpg and the development of gasoline alternatives. PS to this, Corn Ethanol is no bueno. It takes more energy to produce than it replaces and creates massive amounts of farm-runoff pollution (from presumed increased corn production).

Sure, there's a lot of attention being drawn to fuel efficient vehicles now that the reality of limited fossil fuel supplies is leaving the 7th grade science textbooks and entering the realm of public knowledge, but actually buying into hybrid/electric technology is sadly not associated with the McDonald's eating, SUV driving, 2.5 child Traditional American Family. Yes, people still love their big cars and have the (mis)conception that electric vehicles have lower performance than their gasoline powered counterparts (although I agree that a strictly charge-and-go vehicle is not a great idea if it has no way of recharging its batteries on the go). This conception is largely fueld by the special interest marketing set forth as truth (aka Commercials and "special news reports" that are really industrial promotions). Most still don't see the need to be more environmentally conscious. They still consider it a personal decision, not an ethical question. You can tell this by reading all of comments posted on various blogs on the subject of green living, hybrid/electric/alternative fuel cars, etc. The Oil industry wants our money guys. The Car industry is in their pocket. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better and the only thing we can do is keep educating ourselves so that we can discern between fact and fiction. This is not an issue of personal choice. Developing more environmentally safe transit options is our moral responsibility. To continue to ignore this problem would be a gross excercise in arrogance, and it is shameful we as a society have allowed it to go so far unchecked.