Should we be upset about Ford's crushing THINK? by Cheryl K. Chumley 
Rainforest Action Network calls it a danger to America’s “health, national security, economy and environment.” Environmental Media Services quotes a source likening it to a “shattering [of] the new American dream for an energy independent future.” And the environmental coalition Jumpstart Ford characterizes it as an “utter lack of concern for true solutions to reduce local air pollution and halt global climate change.” The issue? Ford manufacturers’ recent announcement to crush rather than sell its fleet of THINK electric vehicles offered for lease in California in 2001. On surface, Ford’s announcement might be construed as reprehensible. After all, why crush cars that are reportedly in the care of happy leasers with both money and desire to save them from apparently needless destruction? Such an act could understandably be perceived as selfish – big business’s wanton dismissal of the little guy, the complete unwillingness of corporate America to shoulder any responsibility for safeguarding the environment. Greens groups protested Ford’s actions via mock funerals, where environmentalists gathered before dealerships in California to mourn THINK’s passing—that is to say, the return of their leased THINK vehicles. Don’t they deserve some measure of sympathy? Not so fast. Research reveals the protesters are using the THINK issue dishonestly: that is, skewing or ignoring the facts in order to promote an agenda that includes a future completely free of the internal combustion engine. But first, some background. In furtherance of federal Clean Air Act mandates, California implemented a law requiring zero emissions on 10 percent of all new vehicles sold in the state by 2003. These standards were modified a bit in 2001 so that only two percent of sales had to be zero emission vehicles, while two percent could be hybrids and another six percent could be “super ultra low emissions vehicles,” but California nonetheless remained the strictest US state with respect to regulating vehicle tailpipe emissions. During the late 1990s, Ford was already being condemned by environmental groups as the leading offender among all car manufacturers in terms of producing vehicles that guzzle gas, pollute, and contribute to climate change. So, Ford purchased controlling interest in a bankrupt electric vehicle company in Norway, PIVCO, in 1999. A name change later, THINK was born. In 2001, the electrically powered vehicles were placed primarily in California and New York markets, the former for lease within Ford fleet dealerships and the latter as part of the state government’s Power Authority program. THINK produced different types of electric vehicles; one was called the THINK neighbor, a safer but low-speed means of residential road travel; while the other, THINK city, was intended for highway commutes. But from here, the divergence from truth begins. Greens groups say these EV cities leased THINKs at record pace in California, at such a rate that waiting lists were formed. These self-same groups claim that THINK leasers were led to believe Ford would eventually sell the vehicles. But according to both the documentation and the law, these claims prove unfounded. “In California, it took over a year to successfully place 170 THINK city EVs; in New York it took over nine months to place 100 THINK city EVs,” James Francfort of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory found, in his THINK city 2001-2002 annual report for the U.S. Energy Dept. This finding hardly upholds the picture of ever-increasing consumer desire for EVs that the environmentalists have tried to paint. But even more deceptive is the Greens’ ongoing condemnation of Ford for its supposed reneging on its promise to sell THINKs – and the subsequent attempt to paint the company as a company bent on profits and eco-destruction. In reality, the law was such that Ford could not sell its THINK vehicles in this country. Ford’s decision to produce THINK vehicles at its Norway plant for U.S. markets was part of a 2001 Electric Vehicle Demonstration Program, an ideological and economic partnership between federal, state and city governments to promote the idea of zero emission vehicles and determine the feasibility of the manufacture and sale of such. The laws guiding the program can be found in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s division, Title 49, Code 591.7, that states any vehicle imported into this country that has also not been tested for compliance with federal safety standards “shall not remain in the United States for a period that exceeds three years from its date of entry.” In other words, at no time during the entire THINK venture did Ford ever possess legal authority to sell its EVs domestically. The THINK division was as it was named – a demonstration program only, and moreover, according to one National Highway Traffic Safety Administration engineer who requested anonymity, a demonstration program that proved unfeasible from at least one very crucial perspective—safety. “These vehicles were brought into the country under one condition only, for evaluation,” he said. “Under law, they don’t sell those, they only lease them, and at the end of the time period they have to crush them or send them out of the country. Ford never intended these for leasers to buy and I thought they made that quite clear.” Even if purchase of THINK commuting vehicles had ever been an option, allowed by law, federal motor safety standards would have prevented immediate sales, it seems – a point the environmental groups have failed to raise. “They don’t meet any standards,” the NHTSA engineer said, of the plastic-topped TH!NK city vehicles. “Put it this way. If you’re in a crash in these, you would be history.” Regardless of these facts, the Greens’ continue to condemn Ford—going as far as to decry the manufacturer’s reluctance to sell the cars leased in America to an interested party overseases. (Curiously, since 2003 Ford has no longer owned interests in THINK, as dwindling profits led Ford to focus on fuel cell and hybrid research, which in turn lead to Ford’s selling THINK to KampKorp Corp., a Swiss technology company.) “As the worst auto manufacturer when it comes to fuel efficiency, I’m flabbergasted that Ford Motor Company would destroy the THINK electric vehicle,” a Rainforest Action Network “Take Action” letter to William Clay Ford, Jr., reads. “Ford faces a tremendous opportunity to avoid adverse publicity and to capitalize on environmental market trends by negotiating to sell the THINKs to Ebil Norge for the Norwegian market.” By federal law, Ford can certainly take advantage of Norge’s Aug. 12 written offer to “purchase all THINK city electric vehicles … that you plan to scrap,” but to do so would be risking the company’s decades-old reputation for stability and mechanic soundness for a few dollars, a corporate public relations official said. “The letter (from Norge) said they would assume liability, but at the end of the day, Ford would still be responsible,” said Kristen Kinley, Ford spokeswoman. “It’s our reputation, our name, our label on the line and without proper service and warranty, we don’t know how they would be maintained. It could just be someone working on them in a garage at their house. We don’t know.” But Green groups say these are risks worth taking. “Electric vehicles are one of the solutions to (America’s) oil dependence,” Rainforest Action Network reports. “The THINK consumes no gas and emits no greenhouse gases and is an environmental inspiration.” But are EVs as viable and environmentally sound as their supporters claim? Consider, for example, simple considerations of driver convenience. The THINK neighbor, which does meet FHTSA standards and can double as a golf cart, has a top speed of 25 miles-per-hour and is powered by six 12-volt lead-acid batteries with a collective range of about 30 miles—unless the temperature dips to zero degrees Fahrenheit and then the range becomes 12 miles. The similarly “fueled” THINK city vehicles, meanwhile, boast a top speed of 56 miles-per-hour and a range during 80-degree weather between 50 and 80 miles – hardly a beacon of consumer convenience, especially given the lack of available recharge points and service outlets. More uncertain still, are the environmental benefits of electrically charged vehicles. In a question-answer session with Cars.com in 2000, AeroVironment Inc. product engineer manager Catherine Anderson addressed the ecological aspects of both the battery recycling process and of the electricity generated for EVs at a power plants. Though batteries can be recycled cleanly, “if done poorly or without regard for the health of the workers at the plant, battery recycling can contaminate soil, water, food supplies and the air for miles around,” Anderson said. As for the production of electricity to charge the EVs, Anderson said that while coal-fired plants can cause “dirty electricity,” this form of producing in American is still being replaced by cleaner technologies. | 
