Monthly Archives: July 2006

On the death of the electric car

Posted on by

Recently, I saw the documentary movie Who Killed the Electric Car?. I recommend it as a sobering look at how a successful and innovative technology was strangled by forces that feared it would hurt their profits.

When my mind wanders to recollections of the film, the scene that sticks with me the most (well second most; the most memorable scene is all those cars taken away for destruction over the protests of their owners and supporters) is one whose significance is largely glossed over by the filmmakers.

It is at the point where the film is describing how, instead of battery technology, the car and energy industries are pushing for the development of hydrogen fuel cells as a clean alternative to conventional engines.

There is a specific scene, with President Bush, that takes place at a Shell station outfitted with a tank for “refilling” a hydrogen cell. The narrator’s criticism focuses on the fact that hydrogen technology is still at least 20 years away from being a practical alternative (if it ever gets there at all), while the electric car is practical today.

But to me, the most telling point was the Shell station itself. With electric cars, owners “refuel” their vehicles in their own garages at night, with a battery charger. With hydrogen, you still need to go to a Shell station (or equivalent) to refuel.

No wonder oil companies are aghast at the idea of a successful electric car. How many Shell stations would wind up going out of business if people never needed to use them again, because they could get all the fuel they needed from a wall outlet?

If the oil companies get their way (and they seem to be doing so), that future will never happen. At least not as long as their is oil in the ground and money to be made from selling it.

North Korean missles target Bush hypocrisy

Posted on by

Whatever else you might want to say about the current Bush administration, one thing is clear: they are a bunch of hypocrites.

Yesterday, North Korea made good on its months-long threat to launch short and long range missiles. The lone long range missile crashed shortly after take-off, but at least they get an A for effort.

As to the Bush administration, their response is to express “outrage,” look for a U.N. resolution supporting economic sanctions, and push to resume the six-party talks. Nowhere was there a mention of any possible invasion.

The comparison to Iraq is illuminating. North Korea has demonstrated the intent and capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, with the potential of these weapons actually reaching U.S. shores. Iraq never showed the least indication of any intention to attack the U.S., the evidence that it even had WMD was muddy at best, and the end result, of course, was that no such weapons even existed. So guess which country we invade?

Now I am not in the least suggesting that we should seriously consider invading North Korea. I support the restraint currently being shown. What I am saying is that the irrationality and inconsistency of the Bush administration here points up the basic hypocrisy of the decision to invade Iraq. While Condoleezza Rice urged the invasion of Iraq lest the smoking gun we find too late turned out to be a “mushroom cloud,” the same logic does not seem to apply to the more real threat of North Korea.

The explanation for this hypocrisy is that the invasion of Iraq was never really about WMDs. I doubt we will ever know for certain exactly what the internal justification was. Getting control over Iraqi oil? Putting a U.S. friendly government in the middle of the Islamic Mideast? Finishing up the unfinished business of the first Iraq war? Whatever it was, it was not sufficient to justify an invasion. So the threat of WMDs was exaggerated. Even worse, the presumed existence of WMDs was claimed to be sufficient for a preemptive strike. Yet, the more real threat from North Korea does not clear the same bar.

The Bush administration has continued to rewrite history over the past 4 years, coming up with a new rationale for the war in Iraq each time the old one proved in error or no longer relevant (eradicate WMDs, depose Hussein, set up a democratic government, eliminate the insurgency). I guess it’s time to get ready for a similar list of rationales for why North Korea is not the same as Iraq, a list that will similarly evolve each time North Korea’s increasingly belligerent behavior makes the old rationale obsolete.