Enlarge
#gallery http://daily.stanford.edu/image/full/6693
John Laxson

An electric formula one race car parked in front of Cubberley Auditorium prior to the screening of the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

Enlarge
#gallery http://daily.stanford.edu/image/full/6694
John Laxson

Chelsea Sexton, former employee of GM, speaks with an audience member after the screening of the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

One should never underestimate the power of ordinary individuals to do extraordinary things, concluded University of Maryland Assistant Prof. of Management and Entrepreneurship David Kirsch as he addressed a capacity crowd at Cubberley Auditorium following last night’s free screening of the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?”

The event, sponsored by the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Program, featured a panel with filmmaker Chris Paine, Kirsch, Stanford Cultural and Social Anthropology Prof. Sarah Lochlann Jain and electric automobile activist Chelsea Sexton. Together, the four unraveled the mystery surrounding the short market lifespan of General Motors’ promising, emissions-free, electricity-powered automobile (EV1).

Sexton, a star of the film, also discussed her grassroots effort to resuscitate the electric automobile after the GM killed the production of its model. Although automobile companies resisted her efforts to bring the electric car back, she continues to serve as a prominent activist for alternative fuels as director of Plug in America. Kirsch noted her accomplishments in the field of grassroots organization and labeled her “the moral center of future alternative fuels.”

“With gas prices going up, now is a good time to contact your state legislators,” Sexton said. “Now is the perfect time to make your voice heard on this one.”

After noting the car for its innovative, environmentally-friendly technology, she lamented its death and placed part of the blame on a power web of politicians, automobile companies and the oil tycoons that she said were resistant to this needed change.

Prof. Kirsch said that GM — which created the electric automobile — should shoulder much of the blame for the car’s death. After EV1’s birth, GM dragged its heels throughout the marketing process, which prevented the concept from catching fire, he added.

“In short, this film demonstrates a case study of how not to get a technology adopted,” he said.

The documentary depicts GM spokespeople arguing that they had to discontinue production of the electric car due to lack of consumer demand. But Sexton countered that this simply isn’t true.

“When it comes to any product, you have to ask: are there enough people who want it to make a business?” she said. “In this case, the answer is yes. There were wait lists of prospective customers who were eager to purchase the car.”

Freshman Joshua Wong said he found the talk informative, but was turned off by the emotionality of electric car enthusiasts.

“I liked how the movie provided evidence that the idea of a hydrogen car may only be a smokescreen for protecting the oil and car industries,” Wong said. “But I disliked the cult-like behavior and fanaticism of electric car proponents. One of the film’s stars even cried when the cars were crushed, and in my mind I thought, ‘It’s a car, not a cure for cancer.’”

As the event drew to a close, director Chris Paine thanked the film’s supporters and described the impact that he believes that the film has and will continue to make.

“Whatever you do, go out and tell people what you have learned,” Paine said. “Tell everyone how this knowledge has made a difference in your life and in your perspective on alternative fuels. By getting this message out there, more people will want to see the movie, and hopefully more will have the courage and motivation to try new technologies that can help save our environment.”