Who Killed the Electric Car? Essay Example

Who killed the electric car happens to be a film documentary designed in 2006. The producers highlighted the demise of battery electric operated vehicles in United States of America. The content targeted General Motors EV1 that existed during the mid-1990. It would appear that three major themes were projected. They encompassed scrutinizing automobile manufacturers’ role in the evolution of a new type of vehicle; the impact of the oil industry at the time and United States government’s influence especially, articulations of California State authorities in the battery hydrogen operated vehicles’ industry (Dargis, 2006).

Further, the film offered specific details of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passing a zero emission vehicle law. The law mandated that Toyota; GM, Ford; Honda, Nissan, and Chrysler produce electric cars to be able to sell gasoline operated vehicles. In compliance the cars were manufactured, but donated to museums or to educational institutions as souvenirs. When a saturation point was reached the cars were destroyed (Dargis, 2006).

As the film continued it was shown where the mandate was reversed and the hydrogen care took the market. Reasons given for destroying were the electric car were air pollution, global warming among many considerations, which were not profound logically. A critical assessment of hydrogen vehicles were also given in the film.  Celebrities and politicians were interviewed in the film. They included Mel Gibson; Peter Horton and Alexander Paul. Renowned politician represented were in the caliber of Ralph Nader; Frank Gaffney and Allan Lloyd, Chairman of the California Air Resources Board. Engineers and technicians who led the transformation of the modern electric car were also interviewed in the film (Dargis, 2006).

Waste = Food

Waste =Food is a film that was released in May, 2008.  This Rob Van Hattum’s award-winning documentary evaluates the necessity for humans to explore traditional thinking further   by devising measures for recycling society’s waste, which exists in large qualities. In reality it is researching how more recyclable waste can become. The film develops the paradigm whereby the Technosphere can develop into a bidegradable food for this Biopsphere.

It is further shown where in using non-toxic reliable production strategies waste can be converted into means of humans accessing more reliable sources of food on the planet. Precisely, already adaptations of this theory according to the film have been attempted in many parts of the world. These include a German clothing producer; Swiss Textile factory and the Nike Shoe manufacturers. American architect William McDonough and German eco-chemist Michael Braungart were among the many influential people featured in interviews the film.

They shared views regarding how the world could be a better place only if only human knew developed strategies to harness waste efficiently. It embraced a cradle to cradle philosophy instead of cradle to grave as is being projected by most modern environmental scientists. Importantly, the film sensitizes twenty-first century towards thinking that the materials they classify as waste are recyclable for the benefit of the starving population.

In describing the concept starving and food it appears that they are articulated metaphorically to mean that what is thrown away or deemed waste has the potential for more use instead of no use. For example, the film shows how water can be saved by reducing food waste. The extent was explained to be as much as ten times the water flow into the Nile River. Also the greenhouse effect and global warming would be less destructive to the planet.

References

Dargis, Manohla ( June, 26^th, 2006). Who Killed the Electric Car? Some Big Reasons the Electric Car Can’t Cross the Road. The New York Times.