This truth thing seems to be catching on. First, Ford buys thetruthabouttrucks.com. Then Audi capitalizes (literally) on TRUTH IN ENGINEERING. And now a coalition of nine environmental groups– the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Environmental Trust, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Friends of the Earth, Conservation Law Foundation and Environment California– have launched TruthAboutToyota.com. The hate site takes Toyota to task for opposing the more aggressive of two congressional bills mandating hikes in federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) averages. The accompanying USA Today full-page ad and press release takes plenty of media-friendly bites out of ToMoCo's ass. "Just because Toyota is taking over General Motor's market share does not mean that Toyota has to take on GM's anti-environmental lobbying practices," pronounced Brendan Bell, Washington Representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Toyota needs to start living up to its slogan, 'moving forward' instead of driving us backward," warned Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust. You can be sure Toyota's none-too-happy about playing truth or consequences with America's greens.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Does this mean eco-terrorists will start torching Land Cruisers and Sequoias?
Considering people can still vote for Toyota with their wallets I don’t see why anyone gets their pantyhose in a bunch. If people want Toyota gas hogs they are going to buy them, instead of domestic gas hogs.
I guess supply-side policies apply only when they suit the purposes of someone else. Asking a maker of cars to affect the sale of their own product to suit idealistic goals of NGO types worldwide is a real stretch,
Dear TruthAboutToyota.com,
Repeat after me:
Free market.
Change purchasers minds.
Producers change.
Please repeat this mantra until such time as A) The changes you’re after have come about, or B) you’re dead.
Thank you,
Adam Smith
Don’t these people realize that upping the CAFE won’t make the planet any greener, it will just save us some gas in the long run? I mean, its not like by upping the milage on your Malibu or what not, its all of the sudden going to spew out less whatever.
Though I still hold to the roundabout logic that CAFE will only hurt us, never help us.
The night of my cousin’s bachelors party, we went to Denny’s for some food about 2AM. Apparently, our local Denny’s is a lesbian and liberal hangout around that time (who knew?). As we were leaving, we noticed his Expedition had acquired an addition while we ate. Someone had slapped a “SUVs kill the Earth” sticker on his back window. He is a pretty laid back guy, so he didn’t get upset. I was aggravated for him though. I mean, I respect that these people have a right to rally around whatever cause they want, but that is techically vandalism.
Of course, it may not be considered vandalism. In a hurry to get to class, I parked past the yellow curb line on the side of the street. I got a call in class telling me that the police will tow my car in an hour unless I come move it. When I got there they had put a huge sticker on my windshield (stating the same as the phone call did), in my direct line of sight. That seems a little unprofessional for someone responsible for punishing unsafe drivers. I mean, I had to go by a scraper to get the thing off.
Every piece of car-related environmental legislation is a joke until the US institutes a massive gas tax. Until that happens no one (not even the environmental lobby) is displaying a serious attitude towards the problem.
Yawn – typical activist drivel. Lots of complaining, not much action.
If you don’t buy a Toyota, what alternative is more green? This whole “Toyota fleet mpg average is going down” bullsh-t isn’t fooling anyone.
What matters isn’t the average mileage of the total fleet, what matters is how efficient is each vehicle in each engine displacement and weight class. Consumers know this – we don’t cross-shop between types of vehicles, we choose a type of vehicle, and cross-shop brands. And guess which brand will probably have the best mileage for the type of vehicle you’re looking for? Yup, exactly.
Oh, and we need a gas tax.
Toyota made a huge strategic error by joining the “Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers”. Publicly joining the political lobby which speaks for GM, Ford and Chrysler was at best a PR blunder of unimaginable size. This is costing Toyota market share for sure. The train ride called Toyota Ascending is getting very bumpy. Several botched redesigns, the loss of multiple high profile executives and big cash on the hood to move it’s new trucks are all signs of a big arrogant company which is in grave danger of loosing it’s way. Think GM circa 1970.
“Free market.
Change purchasers minds.
Producers change.”
This mantra ignores the huge role advertising plays in shaping demand. Do you think Explorer sales would have taken off in the 1990s without carefully crafted advertising campaigns which created demand?
It isn’t as simple as giving people what they want. Companies also invest billions of dollars to create those wants in the customer’s minds.
Microsoft, for example, spends more on advertising than they do on product development. From the 2007 annual report we see that Microsoft spent $7.1B on all R&D and $11.5B on Sales and Marketing.
Ford’s 2006 Annual Report pegs advertising at $5.1B and R&D at $7.2B. GM’s 2006 numbers put advertising at $5.4B while R&D was $6.6B.
All of those advertising dollars are designed to influence consumer “wants and needs”.
I’m loving it! Toyota is officaly a domestic carmaker now that it is “moving backward.” You know you’ve made it when you start getting the kooks to hate you.
Wow, the website quotes the New York Times, the leading source for everything automotive.
Fill in the blanks (assign values to the variables):
If we reduce gasoline consumption by N gallons per year, we will be free from terrorism and war.
Pretending that carbon emissions cause global warming: reducing carbon emissions by Y tons/year by reducing gasoline consumption by Z gallons per year will save the earth.
There are W barrels of oil left in the earth.
Having solved for N, Y, W, and Z, you may apply a gas tax of X dollars per gallon to achieve your goal.
Until you can give me real values for ALL of it, you may not clamor for gasoline taxes.
If it’s a public relations disaster, why doesn’t Toyota just back off? They could claim the decision was made by Press just before he left and was one of the only two stupid decisions he made while employed by Toyota.
What matters isn’t the average mileage of the total fleet, what matters is how efficient is each vehicle in each engine displacement and weight class. Consumers know this – we don’t cross-shop between types of vehicles, we choose a type of vehicle, and cross-shop brands.
I disagree with this. Our current CAFE system–with different standards for cars, light trucks, and heavy trucks–makes this assumption and has resulted in a country that now buys more trucks than cars. This has produced a perpetually decreasing overall mileage even while the “standards” have held steady or gone up over the last 25 years.
If the country wants to be more fuel efficient, cutting engine power by 50%, weight by 33% and size by 20% will do much more than just applying efficient technologies. Of course cutting while also using efficient technologies will do even more.
Around here many people cross-shop between types of vehicles. Most people that have giant SUVs would be better off in a minivan, for example. Also, without the CAFE truck/car split, there would be more large car offerings capable of doing the types of hauling for which people buy SUVs and pickups.
Hmmm, many people buying gas guzzlers are those with lots of kids who are stretching to make ends meet. Some on this board advocate slapping those folks about the face and neck with a useless gas tax that will undoubtedly be used for some bridges to nowhere or some nice pork spending for some greasy politician.
Great idea. Pick the pocket of the working family to help incumbents get more pet projects for their buddies.
Until pork spending is fixed, no more money from us.
How is the UAW spending the VEBA money again?
RE: Sunnyvale CA:
I disagree with this. Our current CAFE system–with different standards for cars, light trucks, and heavy trucks–makes this assumption and has resulted in a country that now buys more trucks than cars. This has produced a perpetually decreasing overall mileage even while the “standards” have held steady or gone up over the last 25 years.
Um, sure. This doesn’t contradict what I said. CAFE is a stupid artificial system, that creates distorted results.
If the country wants to be more fuel efficient, cutting engine power by 50%, weight by 33% and size by 20% will do much more than just applying efficient technologies. Of course cutting while also using efficient technologies will do even more.
If the country wants to be more fuel efficient by cutting engine power by 50%, the people in the country would buy cars with 50% less engine power. Obviously they don’t. Most cars come with a V6 option – they wouldn’t have that if people didn’t want it.
What environmentalists really want is to force manufacturers to make smaller, weaker cars, so that customers would have no choice but to buy smaller, weaker cars.
The consumer has spoken – we want fuel-efficiency, but not at the expense of responsiveness and comfort. I’m not saying this is right, I’m just saying this is what the market reality is. You can’t blame Toyota (or anyone else) for catering to the market.
If environmentalists care so much about fuel efficiency, they should stop being so gutless, and start lobbying for what they really want – to restrict consumer choice to smaller vehicles. Don’t blame the corporations for providing what people want. Start blaming the real culprit – evil lazy Americans who want to burn gas and don’t care about crying baby polar bears. Good luck.
Around here many people cross-shop between types of vehicles. Most people that have giant SUVs would be better off in a minivan, for example. Also, without the CAFE truck/car split, there would be more large car offerings capable of doing the types of hauling for which people buy SUVs and pickups.
CAFE sucks. Agreed. Most people would be better off in a minivan, but most people would also be better off not eating Oreos, not smoking pot, and not watching daytime TV. People buy what they want, not what is good for them.
jkross, Nicknick:
Pork spending should be eliminated, agreed. In general, the guvvmint should be as small as possible, taxing and spending as little as possible. But gas taxes and pork spending are entirely separate things – just because Congress throws money away doesn’t make a gas tax a bad idea.
Why? Because gas costs more than it costs at the pump. I don’t want to wade too deep into politics, but Middle East oil really screws everything up. It gives money to the wrong people, and it costs the military a pretty penny to keep the oil flowing. All that should be in the cost of oil, because that is how much it really costs to get oil. It’s a negative externality, that should be compensated with taxes.
What would a gas tax do? Look around. Americans complain about gas prices, but we don’t change our behavior. We don’t car pool, we still have three cars, we still get into giant traffic jams. Look at anywhere that has a gas tax – Europe, Japan – smaller cars, more diesel cars, more public transportation. All things Americans hate. But that’s the point. We’ll never reduce consumption unless we give up some of the convenience and comfort.
As for the hypothetical giant poor family – we could give them deductions or tax credits. A gas tax would be regressive, so they should be compensated in some fair way.
Environmentalists and public-policy types can b-tch and moan about energy efficiency, but unless they advocate a gas tax, they just aren’t being serious.
Well, one man’s pork is another man’s beef. Or another woman’s tofu.
Look at one small example of supposed pork: the Bud Shuster By-Way (I think it’s officially hyphenated) around the little town of Everett, PA. It was championed by longtime congressman Bud Shuster (his son now holds the seat).
I’m sure the locals love their byway, but even I, some 200 miles or so away in VA, get to take advantage of it. That is, when I go visit my extended family in Pittsburgh and don’t want to use the PA Turnpike, I can take parallel US 30, which includes the Bud Shuster B-W. Going through Everett used to be a pain — traffic lights and 25 mph speed limits.
Back to Toyota, what is the problem? Last I heard, its corporate-wide fuel economy stands in 2nd place among the major automakers selling in the US, behind only Honda.
“Until you can give me real values for ALL of it, you may not clamor for gasoline taxes.”
Unfortunately, real human individual and group decisions need to be made without every last piece of desirable data. In fact, nearly all decisions are made without the degree of precision you are looking for. Holding out for information perfection on the topic of fuel taxes is no more sensible than it would be to hold out for perfect information before getting married or having a baby.
The reality is that all of the really important decisions in life are made in the face of a shortage of facts and reliable forecasts.
“Until pork spending is fixed, no more money from us.”
How about this then. Eliminate all sales taxes and replace that money dollar for dollar with increased fuel taxes. The general sales tax is the most regressive tax their is.
Increasing fuel taxes doesn’t have to mean an overall higher tax load.