OCT 11

But Toyota? Why? It seems like this would give them an advantage, since they already have a much higher fleet efficiency than the Detroit Three. Autopia supposes it might be in order to help Detroit kill itself with ever-bigger, ever-lamer cars, but NRDC is probably more on the mark when they say, "Toyota wants to keep its green halo and beat G.M. in the big trucks, too." You might think you see a lot of Priuses on the road these days, but Toyota actually sells more 17mpg Tundras than 50 mpg Priuses.

Auto Week, on the other hand, implies that Toyota America wants to be included in the Detroit brotherhood, so they're willing to go along with whatever Ford and GM say. Toyota, of course, just says that the "bar can be set too high." What they mean is that "the bar can be set too high for maximum profits." That's all there is to it.

The higher CAFE standard would force Toyota to lose some profit, and that's not what business is about. But it's also possible that tarnishing their green image might cost them a lot more than dealing with higher fuel economy standards. At least, I hope so.

Already, Toyota has received tens of thousands of letters from angry consumers. I hope EcoGeek can contribute somewhat to that. Innovation isn't the end of profits Toyota...you know that better than anyone.

If you're pissed off like am that they're fighting against efficiency, go to TruthAboutToyota.com and take action.

Comments (20)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Definitely Time for Action
written by crash course, October 12, 2007

I suggest all readers Digg It - that way main stream media might pick up on it and give TAT some big teeth!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Gman, October 12, 2007

I don't know who ever got the idea that Toyota was green, just because they sold a product with green credentials! I think it's a naive stance for anyone to believe this. The only green they are has to do with their desire for money.

On the other hand, if enough people wrongly believed that Toyota was a green company, and they create enough pressure to make the company conform to their belief, then the end is obviously a great outcome.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Why targetting Toyota could backfire
written by James Murray, October 12, 2007

Toyota deserves to be criticised for standing in the way of tougher fuel standards and there is no doubt it is guilty of some pretty rank hypocrisy.

But the constant carping by environmentalists at the company's that do try to make an effort to improve their environmental credentials runs the very real risk of discouraging other firms from emulating them. Criticise Toyota by all means but surely it is GM, Chrysler and the like who should be targetted first.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

pwned
written by Dave Smith, October 12, 2007

I appreciate the geek level of this article including the word pwned.
In the future I would also appreciate good environmental companies being referred to as 1337. (for newbs: 1337 = leet = elite)

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Do not Ever spend any Greenbacks
written by new-car-driver, October 12, 2007

Money hates the green movement. It is envious.
The green movement hates money. Money doesn't grow on trees.
Americans love their cars. And Toyota sells more American made cars than anybody. Big deal.

If you are pro-environment, and pro-pizza delivery, what will you tell St. Peter at the Pearly Gates? 1,2,3, what are we fighting for?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Whatever happened to millions of Chinese
written by chinese-bicycists, October 12, 2007

I used to see these pictures of enterprising Chinese workers bicycling down wide avenues.

Now I see traffic in the harbors as oil tankers gridlock massive port cities. Spewing black smoke from coal plants.

Why don't the Chinese people drive Toyotas or Chevy's? Because they make their own cars much more cheaply.

It's your environment, just don't go to China.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Why target GM?
written by reality check, October 12, 2007

I cant believed people are shocked at this. Toyota made one green car. Not because they care about the environment, because they care about money. Their green image went through the roof. In fact though, Gm who often has the worst environmental image, actually has some of the most fuel efficient vehicles its class. If you need a half ton truck for your work, a Chevy silverado gets better mileage then a tundra. Or if u need a big SUV (which very few people actually do) Gm's offerings all get better mileage then their toyota counter parts. People are often to ignorant to notice that, or would rather be seen in a politically correct Toyota then a Chevy.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

The Market Anyone?
written by Jonathan Field, October 12, 2007

I'm a proud and happy Prius owner, but I can understand why Toyota doesn't want this regulation. There is a market for different kinds of cars, and they want to serve those markets. Just because some people appreciate what cleaner more efficient cars offer doesn't mean everyone does. Why is everyone so down on diversity?

Cheers

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Ca, October 13, 2007

We all know Toyota makes cars that we want. However, since its Japanese, Americans don't like watching GM and Ford being over taken.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

China
written by cyndi, October 13, 2007

Actually Buick is one of China's most popular cars

• 
• +0
• 
• 

This makes perfect sence.
written by whyarepeopleagainstdiversity?, October 13, 2007

It makes sence that Toyota doesn't want to support the 35mpg by 2020. Think about the trucks and the S.U.V.s. I highly doubt that all of those vehicles will have that kind of gas mileage. It is just completely unlikely that that would happen before 2020.

I am with Toyota on this one.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

The Federal Government should not tell p
written by Kevin, October 13, 2007

Nobody wants to destroy the environment, but who cares if that survives when we've lost all of our freedom? The Constitution does not provide for the federal government to bully private businesses with bullshit mandates for what they can and can't make. They should be able to build and sell anything that their customers are willing to pay for. It's a slippery slope. Today you want the government to make sure your car gets 35 mpg. When does it stop? Why won't the government one day decide that all cars must only be lime green? They would stand out because of the bright colors and we need the government to control the ways we can be safe in our cars, right? What happens when the government decides cars are too dangerous and only licensed operators who pay exorbitant fees every year in the forms of taxes can operate one? Oh, wait...

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Wrong way to Regulate
written by Wrong way to regulate, October 14, 2007

CAFE standards and mileage standards are the wrong way to regulate.
Instead, simply start a carbon tax (gas tax).
That way, you aren't limiting people's freedom to choose, you are simply making it more expensive for them to pollute = less people buying ridiculous cars in proportion to how high the tax is.

The only problem with this approach is that it negatively affects the poor who have to travel far to their job. That's fine, add in a step tax rebate for people who make X amount per year (step-20 percent more than X gets 80% of rebate). Your not actually paying people money here, you're just not levying the carbon tax on them.

That's how you fix it.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Remember, these are AVERAGES
written by Willis, October 14, 2007

These bills specify average fuel economies across a manufacturer's entire line. No one's expecting a 35MPG Tundra... But if Toyota has to average 35MPG across their US sales, that might mean a 18MPG Tundra instead of one that gets 14... Haven't actually done that math but I thought it was an important distinction to make.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Green Fleet?
written by Ryan, October 14, 2007

Honda's fleet is greener than Toyota's, anyway. Do your research if you want a green vehicle rather than being the next in line to buy a yuppie toy marketed as a green badge.

You don't see Honda complaining, do you?

It's easy to downplay Honda in the current automotive rat race...they don't saturate every single market imaginable with their cars (which is partially why the majority of Honda's resale values are so high). I'm no fanboy...just saying, don't overlook Honda in green innovation when in that particular category they lead the pack.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

WHAT???
written by Ward, October 15, 2007

The thought of the federal government mandating private business on what they must do is crazy. Last I checked this is America and the constitution does not support this type of control.

The comments about Toyota making a "green" car soley for money is the most absurd comment I have heard. What do you expect? Toyota is not a non-for-profit company. Why not give them some credit for doing something that is good for our environment. Why should anyone have a problem if they make money from it? If you owned the company would you just give the cars away?

How much Big Brother is TOO MUCH?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

I feel betrayed
written by Lorna Li, October 16, 2007

I own a Toyota. I plan to buy a hybrid Toyota as my next vehicle. And, Toyota supports one of my favorite environmental nonprofits California State Parks.

Toyota has the technology and engineering capability to attain a fuel efficiency standard of 35 mpg by 2020 - so I don't understand why Toyota would even they will not step up to the plate.

That Toyota would side with Ford, GM and Chrysler and compromise on 32 mpg by 2022 is downright lame, especially when they can gain serious marketing leverage out of supporting the CAFE standard of 35 mpg by 2020.

The adoption of this fuel efficiency standard would, from what I understand, save the U.S. 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, and Americans $25 billion in gas costs. As well, it will prevent an estimated 200 million tons of green house gas emissions. Why not be a part of that Toyota? You betray me.

If any of you are at all interested in taking some citizen action, check out this action alert:

http://ga3.org/campaign/blog_energy_alert

Happy blog action day!

Lorna Li
Green 2.0 Marketing http://lornali.com

• 
• +0
• 
• 

I checked out your URL ....
written by Chris Abraham, October 16, 2007

Lorna,

I checked out your URL and I think that it is supposed to be http://www.energybill2007.org

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by fred schumacher, October 17, 2007

Re-Toyota opposing higher fuel economy standars. I would say to Detroit, beware of the company you keep.

Toyota has a higher fuel economy average because it sells to the world. Detroit sells to North America. Toyota will have higher economy over all, no matter what the law says, because it has to to be able to sell to their primary markets, which are not like North America.

Detroit does not have that incentive. It sells to the cheap fuel market. By supporting lower standards, Toyota cripples Detroit, which won't move unless it's forced to.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Lorna Li, October 18, 2007

Very interesting point Fred.

Toyota needs to raise the bar and Detroit needs to evolve to meet world fuel efficiency standards. Failure to innovate would certainly mean that in the long haul, the auto industry will be far worse off than better.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment