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

Comments

[andyboy]

Hi Laurie,

I like the way you write. It's good.

Regarding your post. We have to begin to realize that a for-profit company can NEVER be expected to do the right thing just because. It's goes against everythnig that capitalism is.

I would never waste a second fretting over Toyota not endorsing better fuel economy standards.

I'd be in shock if they did.

[Overd0g]

You might expand that thought to: "you can never expect any person or groups of persons to do the right thing just because". Of course, what the "right thing" is, is debatable. The "right thing" also depends on the observer.

[LeftLeaner]

But, by not shooting for more efficient standards, they are RISKING profits, as the public is ever-leaning more towards more fuel efficient vehicles.

Isn't supply and demand still relevant?

[Sumocat]

Why wouldn't Toyota oppose this legislation? Who benefits from it? The people. Who gets hurt? Toyota. As you've pointed out, they have invested much in being seen as the greener car company. But what happens if all the car companies catch up with them? Their perceived edge disappears. Given the success of their hybrid program, they likely will reach that 35 mpg goal on their own, but why would they want their competition to meet it too?

[Overd0g]

"The people" will pay for it in higher car costs. Whether that is an overall benefit to the individual consumer (meriting the cost increase), depends on circumstances.

[Sumocat]

Higher car costs vs. spending more time and money at gas stations, seeing more blood and treasure spent on wars for oil, and breathing less oxygen. Yeah, that's a tough choice.

[Maia]

So what kind of car should we buy?????????

[jazzman]

Toyota has made a shrewd business decision. By supporting the status quo they are positioning themselves to dominate the market. This will be done in two ways: First, Toyota sensing a large market for fuel efficient cars will continue to develop their Hybrids along with other technologies. Assuming that American auto makers use the legislation to sit on their behinds as they have done in the past, Toyota gets a huge advantage in what they know is going to continue to be an inevitable emerging trend. Secondly, Toyota remains eligible to directly compete with American auto makers in the large truck and SUV market. They want to do this because they know there are enough Americans who love their gas guzzling vehicles to keep buying them even as the entire South and Southwest of the US descends into a mindboggling hot temperatures and drought. For Toyota, it's the best of both worlds. They aren't hypocrites, their business men out to corner all the markets. They are smart, and they intend to blow away the competition. They probably will.

As far as Congress goes...well look at the new Democratic majority and you will realize that they have decided to do nothing about the environment. It goes along with their doing nothing about the war, nothing about restoring the Constitution, nothing about anything. Now that's hypocrisy.

[Reaniel]

Look, guys, you can keep swinging this tree from the Hybrid prospective and claiming that Toyota is doing as much as they can to be "green"...

In reality, if you take a loot at the MPG for 2007 Camry and 2008 Camry, you can clearly see that they've been pretty much cooking the books

We just doesn't have not enough people noticing it because they're all hyped up in the "Hybrid" frenzy to overlook these little things.

[givemycountryback]

Well, I guess we could always go back to horse and buggy days. The big 3 everyone bashes put the automobile on the road, not the Japs. And also helped win WW11 with their factories. While I live in Michigan, I do not buy GM, I buy CHrysler. My minivan gets excellent mileage, and yes I need a van for the storage. Most of you people bashing the American cars have not even been in a showroom for years and know nothing about their mileage. They have several models what get decent mileage. I personally could not afford $98.00 for 3 hours of driving. I doubt if many could. You should be directing your rath at the oil companies who are gouging everyone. They are ruining our country. Their profit are obscene. But no. we'll sit back and complain about an American industry that is struggling and probably needs our support right now. Japan wouldn't have their technology if we hadn't given it to them after the war. How do they repay us, by unfair trade practices that has destroyed several of our industries already. Let them destroy another and we will be a country of soup kitchens and Mcjobs.

[detwob]

The Japanese auto companies talk about 'dreams', 'green' and 'safety'; and people think they're doing a good thing buying into that advertising. Wrong.

These companies pollute terribly and workers in the plants measure their time on the job in the number of surgeries the work has caused. Three surgeries for torn muscles, ergonomic damage etc about equals eight years. More injured workers equals more profits.

And when a worker is injured enought they get fired. Poison chemicals in the plant? Fire the workers whose bodies react; cheaper than using safe chemicals.

This is corporate logic. Pollute. Injure. Lie. Profit.
(no we don't need to live in a grass hut to 'boycott' corporate logic, we need to change a pathological economic system)

[Reaniel]

Being a Japanese brand doesn't make it entirely a Japanese Company. As matter of fact, Honda, Toyota, or even Sony, is about as American as GM and Ford are Chinese.

Get your facts straight before going into "Help GM and Ford!" mode, sheesh...

[detwob]

I think you misunderstand the nature of corporations. They have no loyalty to community or nation. They are above and beyond all that - loyal only to themselves.

My use of the term "Japanese automakers" was simply shorthand.

My facts are straight.

You falsely claim I said something about helping GM and Ford; I understand that's the Limbaugh style, but c'mon fella, it's easy for anyone to see you made that up.

[way2muchsense]

attribution, please?

[detwob]

First hand knowledge. Interviews with workers.

Comparable unionized plants are three to eight times safer & healthier to work in than the non-union Toyota, Honda etc. Comparison of OSHA logs. Reported by NY Times in June '02.

For pollution reports for your community or these plants try this website:
http://www.scorecard.org/

[mike53]

I don't pollute..I sold my car and ride a bike. I also use just one ply.

If the world comes to and end its not my fault.

[Overd0g]

You breathe and flatulate, which contributes to global warming. You consume food, which kills helpless plants and/or animals. You consume consumer products, which are produced by diabolical corporate multinational evil-doers and destroy the planet for their evil profit. You aren't off the hook while you live. It's the new "original sin".

[HBeachbum]

I just bought carbon credits for my wife's Hummer H2. $48 bucks a year and it is now carbon neutral! Cleaner than a Prius! Thanx AlGore!

[jsarets]

Today's hybrids are disappointing, not much more efficient than an ordinary gasoline vehicle. From a design perspective, there are two problems: First, while the Prius is considered a "full hybrid", meaning that the electric motor can propel the car on its own, it can only do so at very low speeds and accelerations. The majority of the power still comes directly from the gasoline engine.

Second, all current hybrids are "parallel hybrids", meaning that the power from the engine and the motor are combined mechanically. The Prius is a parallel hybrid, but it demonstrates some aspects of a "series hybrid" design, where both power sources supply current to a unified electric drive. This design is the only reasonable way to implement a plug-in hybrid, and it eliminates many of the moving parts of a conventional gasoline drive.

However, the fundamental issue behind these design decisions is battery technology. The NiMH batteries in today's hybrids are a step up from deep-cycle lead-acid batteries, but neither the energy density nor the charge/discharge current is sufficient for the electric side of the hybrid to dominate over the gasoline side. The result is that today's hybrids use electric motors to improve the efficiency of a gasoline vehicle rather than using a gasoline engine to improve the range and power of an electric vehicle.

Lithium ion batteries will change everything. Current solutions leverage the very same cells used in laptop batteries, but thousands of them instead of 6-8. Take the 2008 Tesla Roadster, for example, which is a full electric vehicle (not a hybrid) that uses 6800 standard laptop cells in a sophisticated battery pack. It goes from 0-60 in 3.9 seconds (faster than a Lamborghini Murcielago), top speed of 125 mph, 245-mile range per charge, and 3.5-hour charge time for $98K. Not a bad price considering it holds its own with high-end sports cars.

[jsarets]

These tiny laptop cells will probably give way to larger lithium ion phosphate cells. Also, the single 2-wheel-drive electric motor will give way to a 4-channel power oscillator that drives independent motors in each wheel assembly. Unlike gasoline, electric powertrains get more efficient as they get more powerful. Furthermore, while gasoline vehicles are only around 25% efficient from the tank, electric vehicles are 83% efficient from the grid, and that could have room for improvement.

This is one of the reasons why electric vehicles don't simply trade millions of small tailpipes for dozens of large ones. Just like a hybrid is more efficient than a conventional vehicle even though they both use 100% gasoline, electric vehicles are dramatically more efficient at using whatever source fuel is used to generate electricity. This is called "well-to-wheel" efficiency, and the high-performance Telsa Roadster is over 3 times as efficient as the Prius well-to-wheel.

Electric vehicles are true multi-fuel vehicles, since they can use energy derived from any fuel that can efficiently produce electricity. Whether we end up favoring natural gas, solar, nuclear, etc. or a combination thereof, electric vehicles are the most efficient means of converting these energy sources into transportation.

As mobile devices, vehicles are generally limited in their ability to efficiently convert energy. Therefore, it makes sense to use larger, centralized facilities to efficiently convert energy into the form that can be most easily converted into propulsion by the vehicle.

This is where solutions such as ethanol, natural gas, and (especially) hydrogen fall flat as potential fuel sources. There's a theoretical limit of 50% efficiency for hydrogen fuel cells, and current implementations are significantly worse. We'd be better off using the natural gas directly instead of processing it into hydrogen. However, the most efficient natural gas vehicle is significantly less efficient than conventional gasoline or diesel vehicles.

[jsarets]

It's time to realize that the simplest powertrain with the fewest moving parts and the highest efficiency that uses the energy form that's cheapest to distribute is the inevitable winner in the struggle to reinvent the vehicle. Yes, widespread adoption of non-hybrid electric vehicles will require a rapid charging infrastructure with reasonable coverage. Plug-in hybrids, although prohibitively expensive for most consumers, will ease the transition from liquid fuels to electricity.

Storing large amounts of electricity in small and light batteries is a challenges shared by numerous industries. Whoever makes the next breakthrough in the energy density, charge/discharge current, safety, and resilience of batteries will dominate the next 50 years. America has only one large corporation in the game, Johnson Controls, compared to many Asian efforts. Smaller leading-edge American battery firms such as Valence Technologies are starving for capital.

The modern electric vehicle is here. Ignoring it is not an option.

[mrkerb]

"However, the most efficient natural gas vehicle is significantly less efficient than conventional gasoline or diesel vehicles"
That is the core of the problem when trying to develop a replacement for our current transportation. One pound of gasoline has an incredible amount of energy for the space that it occupies.It takes 10x the weight of gasoline to replace it with batteries and the weight is there whether they are charged or not (you gas powered car gets lighter as it consumes its fuel) Electric cars, particularly AC motors, are appealing in many ways but currently (and that is no pun) the electric grid is largely coal-fired. If the time ever came where every new home, every commercial building etc were fitted with economical, mass-produced photovoltaics then plug-in cars will be viable; but as it is now, rechargeable cars are a loser both environmentally and economically. Also, do you ever wonder how Europe manages to build millions of economical cars withous the need for government mandated CAFE requirements? Fuel taxes.
European fuel prices are the same price per liter as we pay per gallon here in the US.

[cam]

Li-Ion batteries are unstable (with the exception of Fe-Phosphate which has lower energy density), they have a limited life expectancy (about 500 charge-discharge cycles in service & 20% capacity loss per year regardless), they are prone heat damage, and they are very expensive.

In short, the electric engine has a long way to go before it is functionally competitive with a gas engine. Obviously that is not going to happen unless we invest more in evolving battery technology.

[alvdh1]

Reply to Cam

It sounds like you have really done your research on battery technology. Unfortunately, you haven't done enough, otherwise you would be aware of Altair Nanotecnology and their NanoSafe Li-Ion battery which has zero thermal runaway problems and has been tested to 12,000 full charge/discharge cycles by an independent testing company AeroEnvironment. At 12,000 cycles, Altair's battery retains 85% of its original energy density.

The reason most Li-Ion batteries are prone to thermal runaways is because of carbon cathodes. Their batteries use a titinate cathode which might explain why AES, one of the largest utilities in the world, invested $3,000,000 in ALTI this year.

The U.S.Navy has given the a 1.9 million dollar grant build a 2.5 MW battery system to replace their diesel generators on Navy ships. I am sure the Navy was concerned about thermal runaways and did their due diligence so that they could replace diesel generator with a fire hazard Li-Ion battery system with only 500 cycles declining at 20% per year.

Phoeinx Motocars has an exclusive agreement with ALTI to supply their SUT and SUV vehicles with their 35kwh battery pack in 2008 which can attain a speed of 95 miles per hour and travel 130 mile on a charge. ALTI will begin supplying Phoenix with their 70kwh battery pack in 2009 which will increase the range to 250 miles per charge. Both vehicles can carry five passengers and with their rapid charge sytem can be recharged in 10 minutes.

PG & E has ordered several hundred vehicles from Phoenix and San Diego Gas & Electric has placed orders as well. The vehicles sell for $45,000 which is below cost, the vehicle is not in mass production yet and price will fall as with most technological advances that reach mass production.

Are you old enough to remember what a TI calculator cost back in the mid-seventies and what they cost now. Prices fell because the Defense Department was a huge purchaser of their technology which it should be doing with Li-Ion batteries.



Alvdh1

[realitytrumpsbull]

Hey, building the BloatWagon8000SUX worked for
De Troit for a long time, why not for Toyota-san?

[watchingthings]

Toyota has different models to choose from for fuel economy. Name me another that has same, and forget mentioning any of the big three from North America. [they don't qualify]. They do however have the most models that are gas guzzlers.

[way2muchsense]

One thing that Toyotas do that Chevrolets do not is last a long time. That represents a benefit to the environment by itself, since we're not spending energy and resources building more and more disposable cars. I expect to still be driving my Scion xA (33-35 MPG no matter how I drive) ten years from now, and I live in the lake-effect snow belt of upstate New York.

[Mack20]

Of course were addicted to oil, Ms. David. How do you expect to get to Dayton to visit your aunt Betty? You can drive or fly. Either way fossil fuel is used. Of course you could ride your bike or jog. Funny thing is all those tree hugging limousine liberals you swear allegiance to are and will continue to fly around in private jets and stomp on everyone’s carbon footprint with their 20k sq foot homes. What hypocrites.

Here is a better solution that kills two liberals with one SUV. We should secretly develop our own alternate fuel source while gobbling up the rest of the worlds supply of oil. China and India will help us unwittingly. Meanwhile we save and hoard the oil we have in ANWAR and elsewhere. As the world supply is exhausted, and our enemies oil is used up, we will suddenly introduce our brand new alternate fuel and we will hold all the fuel cards. Since Detroit and our good friends in Japan have been privy to this, cars that have been sold for years will be compatible to the new fuel. All of a sudden, the countries that have been living off of us for decades will be dependant on us. My how the tables could be turned. Our citizens will be paying $2 or less a gallon while we sell our vehicles and fuel for a healthy profit. The Arab countries will be begging us for fuel. So will the Venezuelans. The Islamofacists will give up and go home. No economic leverage will be left for them to exploit. Turn around is fair play is it not?

Of course this is a big pipe dream. Liberals feel good about themselves when they can control everyone’s behavior. They always have a global crisis agenda. Back in the 70s it was overpopulation. In the 90’s it was the demise of the rain forest. What about the 80’s? I think all the big hair bands created a crisis involving the ozone and aerosol spray cans.

[PhilD]

Excellent parody of Rush, thanks!

[andyboy]

Mack20,

I guess if you drive around in a big SUV and you don't ever give a thought to the evironment or fossil fuel usage then your not a hypocrite.

If only all of us could aspire to such heights.

Look at me Ma! I'm a mindless consuming idiot! It's something to be I guess.

So your saying that if you drive a car and are aware that burning fossil fuels is bad for the atmosphere and would like to see something done to develop alternative cleaner renewable options your a hypocrite?

Wow. That's one weak argument. So weak I don't think it even qualifys as an argument. Gibberish maybe.

Mack20's solution for problems. Igonre them and act irresponsibly and never question if something could be better. And don't ever express concern for the environment.

Great job Mack.

[rwe]

But none of that applies here. Fossil fuels are not harming the environment to any degree , in fact Australia is perfecting a way to use their abundance of coal in that manner. And just in case , Your icon Al Gore wants the people in Africa to remain poor and not develop electricity and any means of technology

[NoCorporatePersonhood]

There is nothing you should take personally in this situation. Toyota is the worlds most profitable car company. They have a huge vested interest in the status quo. The CEO would not being doing his job and should be fired if he did not join in the fight. Corporations by law must take action to what will generate the most profit. That is all corporations are designed to do...profit.

Toyota is the big winner if this works out and the big 3 are on their way out.

[Guitarsandmore]

Solar panels on every roof
Plug in electric cars in every garage

[Idle Spectator]

This IS the Titanic, and there ARE life boats, but wouldn't it be wise to simply change course, NOW?

We can make even more difference by giving up eating meat than by giving up cars.
Ask the experts, the FAO:
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm
or download their full report (19Mb) here:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

But can you imagine Americans giving up meat for the environment? We'd rather die.
We probably will.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

We have not struck the iceberg yet.