When asked to recall a 2006environmental documentary,most people think of “An InconvenientTruth.”

Al Gore’smega-popular sermon on globalwarming remained in the publicconsciousness long after it hadleft theaters.

Only a few people will rememberseeing a much smallerfilm, “Who Killed the ElectricCar?” that was released shortlyafterward.

Writer/director ChrisPaine presents an exposé on therise and fall of plug-in electric vehiclesduring the late 1990s.

It’s possible that Gore’s starpower simply overwhelmedPaine’s smaller film, or thatSony, the movie’s distributor,shied away from the media blitzthat Paramount initiated in orderto support “Inconvenient Truth.”

Where Gore’s film succeeds, and”Car” fails, is in explaining to theeveryday person why our currentenvironmental situation is so precarious,and then offering solutionsto that same problem.

Ironically, the exact oppositeshould be true. On the surface,Paine’s film appears to be themore light-hearted and accessibleof the two. With an albeit cleverconcept that recounts the story ofthe electric car’s “demise” as amurder mystery, it’s replete witha crime scene, suspects and verdict.

But early into the film’s openingscene with a mock funeralfor GM’s EV1, theelectric car at the centerof the aforementioned”murder” plot, it becomesreadily apparentthat everyone in thedocumentary, includingthe director, takes this issuevery seriously.

They may be rightto do so, but the problemwith the film is thatit fails to explain why.Why do people literallybreak down in tears atthe “mock” funeral?Why do former EV1owners risk the likelihoodof arrest in order toprotest in front of GM’s impoundlot? Why is the electric car so importantto the environment?

“Car” could have been a greatdocumentary, as the facts certainlysupport its case. But thetone of the film is all wrong.

“Truth” worked as a serious featurebecause it incorporated tearjerkerimages of glaciers literallyfalling apart and polar bearsdrowning in the arctic.

On the other hand, it’s difficultto sympathize with protagonistsof “Car.” The movie includes richmovie stars such as Tom Hanks,Mel Gibson and Phyllis Dillerwho used to own EV1s, and thescenes in which melancholicmusic is played over footage ofthe cars being demolished seemsforced.

Had the filmmakers utilized amore satirical approach, like MichaelMoore did with a serioustopic in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” perhaps”Car” could have been ableto spread its important message toa wider audience.

But the main problemwith “Car” is that it never answersthe logical rejoinder to thequestion in its own title: “Whocares about the electric car?”

Apparently, no one.