Toyota's Green Bubble Bursting?
Toyota has gotten a lot of mileage out of portraying itself as the greenest, most fuel-efficient car company on the planet, and has reaped the benefits both financially and public relations wise. Yet they are careening toward becoming the most hypocritical car company on the planet by aggressively opposing desperately needed higher U.S. fuel economy standards. Toyota should be worried that their green bubble will burst.
Let's take a little stock here. The company has sold over 1 million hybrids to consumers who'd rather sip gas than guzzle it, and who want to do their part in the battle against global warming.
But now Toyota is teaming up with Detroit's Big Three to scuttle legislation that would raise fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 -- a technologically feasible, and urgently needed step for a country President Bush has admitted is "addicted to oil." When our nation is contributing more C02 pollution than any other -- and fueling the global climate crisis -- isn't it the reasonable thing to do to perhaps, I don't know, become more efficient?
For those customers who bought the Prius long before it was "cool" and thought they were investing in Toyota's vision of a gas-sipping fleet, this latest move is insulting. It's a slap in the face to every driver who has helped make Toyota the first foreign company to surpass all the American car companies in sales. We believed the company when it said it was a leader, that it had a vision to sell a million hybrids a year and make its fleet 100 percent hybrid, that it wanted to help move America beyond our addiction to oil. And now this?
Toyota should know better than to follow the dinosaur logic of Detroit, which claims that the 35 m.p.g. fleet-wide goal is "unattainable." Come on Toyota, why don't you use your new position as the largest American car manufacturer to lead this failing industry forward, not follow its relic Detroit rivals down the road to "assisted suicide" as Tom Friedman labeled it last week in the New York Times.
Whether you own a Toyota hybrid or are in the market for a new car, click on NRDC's call to action here and tell Toyota to get a grip. We must move forward, not backward on fuel economy.
www.StopGlobalWarming.org
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have sent emails to Toyata attempting to get a response from them about not installing lithium-ion batteries in their Toyota Prius to improve the all electric range of the vehicle. In their August 2007 press release they stated that lithium-ion battery technology has not advanced enough to overcome thermal runaways leading to fire. This is a is complete lie. Altair Nanotechologie's Nanosafe battery has solved the thermal runaway problem as well as other manufactures by eleminating carbon from the cathodes.
Toyota would have no excuse for not making the Prius and other hybrid models as plugins which would push their mileage above 100 mpg in the plug-in version if they began using lithium in the nonplug-in versions. Why, because their is no significant competition on their heels to warrant being truely green.
This is about perception and as long as they can maintain a facade of green, they can lie and engage in underhanded activities like lobbying for lower CAFE standards. I wont buy one of their cars because of their environmental arrogance.
Anyone truely interested in green cars should be looking at the adavncements taking place on all electric vehicles which soon will be able to travel 300 plus miles on a charge and have 10 minute fast recharging cycles.
ALVDH1
St. Louis, Mo
The LiIon battery pack on the Tesla Roadster is a $25.8K battery pack and is built using commodity 18650 LiIon cells so teh price is extremely aggressive. Build that same pack with a more expensive ("advanced") cell, and you can bet the cost will rise 30-50%.
BTW, that pack cost is what it costs Tesla to make the pack. Generally, things sell at retails for 1.4X (minimum) the cost to make. Additionally, LiIon cells have had 10 years to come down in price, and have been driven hard by the cellphone and PC business. They aren't going to drop a whole lot more in price.
The Tesla pack is 56 KWH, which is what it takes to move a 2500 pound car for ~250 miles. You can cut the pack cost in half, but then you need to cut the car weight in half to get the same range.
Yes, thermal runaway is still a major problem in the Li cells.
Currently Toyota is cleaning up because their vehicles are more efficient than any others on the road, even their SUVs. Why would they give that up?
The CAFE stanndards would force every car company to be fuel efficient, that takes away Toyota's edge. If you ask me, the fools are the other car companies who are losing ground to Toyota, yet still think to include them in their case. That is evidence of extinction stupidity. They are selecting their asses out of existence.
Toyota is simply goading them into maintaining the staus quo. EASY business decision.
It is the Government who must protect their citizens and their citizens environment, not the for-profit company.
Toyota has it right, join in this fight to keep MPG unregulated and keep their market for as long as possible. It would not make sense, as far as profits go, for them to try and get the higher MPGs set in to law, and most businesses don't give a rat about anything but, as has been pointed out.
Here Here Laurie. I agree!
I have long liked Toyota and what they have done for the Hybrid, but lets have some follow through. They can't pick and choose like this.
We need strict legsilation to force Americans to drive environmentally friendly vehicles. If Americans are allowed to decide for themselves, they will buy big impractical cars.
There can be no freedom of choice while the planet is at stake. We need the courage to use the power of the Federal Government to force Americans into fuel efficent vehicles.
We must commit to etermnal oversight of the Auto industry. If we are not vigilant, and relax the iron fist, Americans will go back to their narcisstic and wasteful lifestyle.
Why, just the other day, I saw a picture of Larry David driving a Hummer.
Using CAFE standards in this situation is like treating a brain tumor with aspirin: your headache goes away for a little while, but you're not getting healthier. Use a variable carbon tax to bring the gas price up to or past the "tipping point" that one commentor mentioned, and suddenly there is a great incentive to find alternatives to fossil fuels.
And yes, agreeing with many; battery/energy storage tech is key. All the other tech is off-the-shelf at this point. With an energy storage technology approaching the energy density of gasoline, we could have practical plug-in electric cars now.
Laurie could you ask al gore to prove all of these british allegations to be false so we all dont look bad?
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
You want Laurie to ask Gore to prove the issues you contend above false? AL GORE did not MAKE THOSE THINGS UP. SCIENTISTS, reputable ones are the sources of his information, NOT A COURT OF LAW.
BTW - Why don't you back up your allegations with evidence to support YOUR assertions?
This comes as no surprise to those of us that watch these sorts of things.
The big car companies, like any other large business, will ALWAYS choose profit over doing the right thing.
Another example of their trickery:
The dirty secret about clean cars
Automakers push flex-fuel vehicles, get around efficiency standards
BusinessWeek Online
March 28, 2007
There's a dirty secret about clean cars. The policies for flexible-fuel (Flex-fuel) vehicles—those that can run on mixtures of gasoline and more than 10 percent ethanol—are written in such a way that they result in a number of unintended consequences. One result is that automakers gain some leeway in meeting fuel-economy standards if they produce flexible-fuel cars and trucks. So Detroit's automakers have been pumping out hundreds of thousands of the vehicles, even though most consumers have no access to alternative fuels because they're available at only a fraction of U.S. gas stations.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17842304/
The irony is, it's the breaking of our dependence on oil that will ultimately spread democracy in the middle east and not any war. Because our current oil consumption keeps a royal ruling family in control of the bulk of the market and Saudi Arabia is pretty much the opposite of democracy.
Toyota is still more fuel effecient than the Detroit brands. They will make the 35mpg by 2020 anyway. Why should a "Japanese" corporation have to, as you put it, "help move America beyond our addiction to oil "??
Your outrage is aimed at the wrong corporation! Aim it at Dodge, Chevy, and Ford.
The reason Toyota is teaming up with the "Detroit 3" is becasue of the labor unions. Millions of Camry's and other vehicles are assembled right here in the U.S.A. with American workers.
Millions of Camry's and other vehicles are assembled right here in the U.S.A. with American workers"
Who gets the profits???? TOYOTA. duh
Explain what you mean "The reason Toyota is teaming up with the "Detroit 3" is becasue of the labor unions. "
Recently, a disinformation campaign has been launched to misrepresent Toyota as a company opposed to improved fuel economy standards.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Toyota has heard the call to combat rising greenhouse gas emissions and the proof of that is in the million hybrid vehicles we have already on the road and the investment being made in advancing sustainable mobility that includes vehicle design and alternative fuel development.
Toyota has publicly called on Congress to pass up to a 40% increase in CAFE by 2022, and we have urged them to act before the end of this year.
That’s huge number by any estimate, and a number comparable to other competing, but far less technologically feasible, proposals.
The critics say the objective of their campaign is “to stop their lobbying efforts and increase the chance of passing a higher fuel efficiency standard in the energy bill.”
But we do not intend to let political heat of the moment divert us from what we strongly believe is the best chance for a meaningful CAFE increase this year. We do not want to sacrifice the progress made toward a very challenging bill that represents a real win for everyone.
Toyota is not saying that we won’t improve fuel economy to the best of our ability.
What we are saying is that we have always exceeded CAFE requirements without any form of "credits" and been a leader in fuel economy, that will not change. We will do what is necessary to exceed any legislated requirement.
What we are saying is that there is an OPPORTUNITY to be seized. One where automakers, Congress and those who are dedicated to improved fuel economy can come to a meeting of the minds. This doesn’t have to be a win-lose situation. It can be a win for everyone.
Let me say this one more time, as clearly as I can: We at Toyota want new CAFE standards. We want to move forward with fuel economy…NOW.
Irv Miller
Group VP, Corporate Communications
Toyota Motor Sales
Then why don't we see you saying so across every venue open to you?
Why are private companies seemingly ahead of Toyota in the progress towards producing an affordable family sedan that is fully electric?
I would expect a company with as many advertising dollars as Toyota obviously has to be able to preempt any so-called attempt at misrepresenting their position - so where's yours? Instead all I see is Toyota marketing larger and larger vehicle which if that is what is so desirable then why do you spend so much on advertising it?
Why all the commotion for fully electric vehicles. Are they not the ones that go 250-300 miles and then need to sit and recharge?
How does one manage a trip of any length, say, from Palm Beach in Florida to Philadelphia? Are we to drive 300 miles, get out and sit and wait while the batteries are brought back to full charge. Then, repeat this routine until, days later, we arrive at our destination? I don't think so. Full electrics are good for the daily commute and trips to the mall...that's all.
I just returned from a trip from Lake Worth, FL. to Crossville TN, a trip of 815 miles each way. Throw in a drive to Nashville, another to Knoxville and a couple hundred miles of running around for a trip total of 2,720 miles. Not once did I have to stop for hours at a time to recharge. Not once did I have to consider stopping to charge. I found a gas station, filled up and 5 minutes later was back on my way.
Oh, what was my mileage, you ask....32 mpg. What was I driving? The largest 4 door vehicle Toyota makes outside the big Lexus...an Avalon.
There were portions of the trip where the onboard computer indicated 36.5 mpg. Get that in your Hummer.Oh, and try that trip in a full electric.
This is not a good argument. If you aren't pushing for standards at least equal to what other industrialized nation's have then you are not part of the solution, no matter how many hybrids you put on American streets or workers you employee. Our dismal standards contribute to the growing oil wars and don't reflect the reality of the situation.
Here is a snapshot of standards around the globe:
-EU: 44mpg in 2008, projected to 48 in 2010 and 52 in 2012.
-Japan: 48mpg in 2010.
-China: 36mpg in 2008
-Australia: 34mpg in 2010.
-Canada: 32mpg in 2010.
-USA: 24mpg in 2006.
It is criminal that the US is at the bottom of that list as we are BY MAGNITUDES the leading consumer of oil in the world.
If Toyota truly had the courage of its convictions, it would be working with environmental groups, not Detroit, to address this critical issue.
As a Prius owner, I can guarantee that we won't buy another if Toyota doesn't do more than pay lip service to this issue in pursuit of sales.
Of course, like Kyoto, they will fail to meet every goal miserably.
A friend of mine has a Toyota Prius and just loves it. It might be our next car. I drove it and it's really neat and very quiet. My tall husband fits too.
Irv,
Lets start with the disinformation you launched this summer about lithium-ion battery technology.
The thermal runaway problem doesn't exist in lithium-ion batteries that do not use carbon cathodes. There are several companies that make long life lithium-ion batteries (12,000 cycles plus) that have been fully tested by AeroEnvironment across a wide range of temperature
conditions without fire. Toyota does not want to compete when they don't have to compete.
Why not do what is right and throw all of your corporate might at producing an all electric vehicle that travels 300 plus miles on a charge and can be recharged in 10 minutes for $30,000 or less. I would be the first person in line to buy it from Toyota.
My next car will not be a Toyota, it will be a ZAPX or a Phoenix Motorcar. It will end up being the little inovative company thet finally makes you compete and do what is right while, of course, making a good profit.
ALVDH1
St. Louis, Mo
I'm sorry, Mr. Miller,but you must be brainwashed or something. Toyota doesn't give a rat's ass about anything else but lining their pockets.
After carefully reviewing the statistics at the EPA web site I have determined that Toyota makes cars that are extremely fuel efficient, extremely low polluters, and emit the least amount of green house gases of any car.
I think we have no complaint about Toyota right now.
You are right. That's their success. We can ask for more from all of them can't we?
Maybe if we had elected officals that actually gave a shit, we wouldn't have to worry about bitching at Toyota. I can dream at least...
Ford GM Chrysler Toyota and Honda did a study that showed them that gas buying and car buying habits would not drastically change until gas became unaffordable to a huge amount of people and the study showed them that tipping point currently is $3.00gallon. Toyota has played the game the smartest, but they still make the FJ Crusier that gets 15mpg city/18hwy. The SUVs are the most profitable vehicles for any automaker. Detroit is still run by the old boys network who have an anti-Japanese bias and won't try to learn better ways of doing business. Not to mention the current dependent nature of the auto industry and the oil industry. Whoever comes up with the innovation to convert all the cars on the road now to some alternative to oil based petro and how to deliver this power nationwide (worldwide) is going to own the market on energy, transportation and all that goes with it. I'm sorry to say in my town I see marjority of SUVs on the streets. One even had a bumper sticker that said 'Nuke their ass, Take their gas'. It made me feel shame for that person. Unbelievable. The buying public has to force the market to change with the way they spend their money.
I think the price of gas ( petrol) in Europe is close to $8 per gallon due to a high sales tax.
Plenty of cars on European roads, albeit smaller than the US.
Europe has social programs attached to their gas price (like national health care, etc.). We get nothing for our high price.
Get a grip folks.
You don't want to allow the a-h0les on the right to legislate morality.
So -- why would you want to allow the idjits on the left to legislate the consumer marketplace?
I admire all of the manufacturers in their opposition to increased CAFE standards. In fact, I would like to see the CAFE standards abolished entirely.
If the goal is to have more fuel efficient cars, then convince the buying public to buy them. If the demand were higher, the manufacturers would build them. As it is, the manufacturers build the models that meet the demand.
As this crop of Republicans have proven, they can not be trusted with unfettered, unregulated trade. Perhaps it's just human nature, but when you give people no restrictions, no rules, they will take every advantage of the public, use every substandard, and only worship at the altar of the bottom line, before considering the general public, and the greater good. With unfettered trade, you're not going to have an auto executive wake up one day and say, "Hmmm...maybe we should have higher standards on our cars". All they think about is how can they make more money with what they're doing now.
And as for the buying public, the public has spoken. For years now they have demanded better, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and the auto industry has dragged their feet to respond.
It is vital that these standards remain in place. Perhaps then, some automaker might have the epiphany that making a real commitment to changing the industry for the better will make him, and his company, wealthier than they can imagine, and be revered as a hero to the American public.
Hell...people wanted Lee Iacocca to run for President.
CountryBeforeParty writes: "And as for the buying public, the public has spoken. For years now they have demanded better, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and the auto industry has dragged their feet to respond."
My friend, look around you for a ratio of fuel efficient vehicles to inefficient vehicles. Reality will set in, eventually.
Yes, there is some subset of consumers who are demanding more fuel-efficient vehicles. Those consumers do not make up the majority of the buying public.
If this subset WERE the majority, demand for hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles would outstrip supply and the manufacturers would produce more of them, regardless of federal CAFE standards.
Gee whiz. All those dumb car companies, staffed with idiots. If only they had you to show them how to make money. LOL.
Toyota(USA) is full of it, and that's coming from someone who loved his 1976 Celica GT liftback, 20R motor, 5speed manual, I also owned a Tercel. They use the Prius to market to the greenees and NASCRAP for rednecks. Why does Toyota invest huge money into NASCAR, which is low tech(cam in block,2 valves per cylinder,carburator)? So they can shill their gas guzzling large pick up trucks and SUVs. Their cars have gotten bigger with every model change and the engines have followed(more hp and cubic inch). Todays Corolla is the size of 1980s Camry and it has more power. Toyota does offer fuel efficient diesels and small cars worldwide, just not in the USA. Half the cars sold in Europe are diesels(25-30% more fuel efficient). Think the governments "Big Energy" friends have anything to do with this?
No
I swear I will be drinking soy lattes on the moon before I drive a solar car, RIDICULUOS!!! I don’t believe for ONE minute that the technology is not available to make more fuel efficient cars. Has anyone seen the movie Who Killed the Electric Car? Disgusting. I’m turning in my SUV for a golf cart. GAME OVER…
When democrats run the white house, look for increased control over these corporate villians.
Count on Clinton, Reid and Pelosi to do the right thing....
choke, cough, barf...................
!@#
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
