Toyota is a good company. Their engineers in Japan got their company out front on hybrid technology with the original Prius, and some really forward-thinking Americans like the late David Hermance made sure that their technology would actually take hold in America with the Gen. 2 Prius redesign. They scored impressively in our last Automaker Rankings, scoring a close second to Honda – and impressive feat for a full-line manufacturer.
Those are the wonderful things that can happen when engineers are given a mandate to use technologies to make our cars cleaner and more efficient. It’s why we asked them to channel their considerable hybrid talents into more fuel efficient model for American drivers, such as a hybrid minivan like they already have in Japan.
Unfortunately, that can do spirit that has guided Toyota to become the world’s largest automaker seems to stop at the foot of Capitol Hill. As I noted in the last Driving Change Network newsletter, Toyota has decided to take its lobbying marching orders from the Detroit-led Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and campaign against the Senate-passed provision in the Energy Bill that would bring fleet-wide fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
This provision was a hard-fought, bipartisan compromise, and quite doable without compromising safety and performance according to the National Academy of Sciences.
We pointed out these facts to our activists, and they poured over 18,000 messages into Toyota USA President Shigeru Hayakawa this week telling him that Toyota can’t be an environmental leader and campaign against the first meaningful increase in fuel economy standards in 30 years.
I was excited when I actually got a response from Toyota that wasn’t just a “thank you for your message” but an actual response to my letter. Unfortunately, that response seems more of a reflex action than a reconsidering of a wrongly-held position.
First, they try and lean back on their engineers, who have, according to their message, told corporate executives that “the technology to meet such stringent standards by 2020 does not exist.” As we showed with our UCS Guardian cleaner SUV blueprint, the technologies to do this have existed for some time. Indeed, Toyota is already working to comply with Japanese fuel economy standards that will hit roughly 46 mpg by 2010. As much as I respect Nissan’s engineers, I don’t think they’re any better than the engineering minds at Toyota – and Nissan says it can meet the 35 mpg Senate standard.
Next, it’s onto the main spin. Given the Auto Alliance failed in their first tactic—to completely submarine any CAFE improvements in the Senate—they’ve instead attempted to bring a weak substitute in the House with H.R. 2927. This is only a “compromise” in the sense that it would compromise any efforts to genuinely address U.S. oil dependence in the transportation sector. This fact sheet clearly shows the Senate position as an imperfect, but substantial gain, while H.R. 2927 is nothing more than a token gesture.
When I received Toyota’s response, which told me that their efforts against stronger fuel economy standards were an “inaccurate assertion,” I quickly rattled off a response letting them know that it is their response that was inaccurate, not to mention highly disappointing. For those who received Toyota’s letter, or even those who didn’t, I would recommend you do the same. And while you’re at it, send a little note to those actually making this decision, your Representative, and let them know how you feel.
Posted by: ScottN
It's easy to react to a fleet-wide proposal by thinking of one or two cars in the driveway. "My hybrid gets X MPG" is a typical response to the CAFE debate which goes way beyond Toyota.
First off, what is a "fleet" and why 35 MPG?
Before we discuss "fleet" how did we get to the proposed magic answer of 35 MPG, where did it come from? Why 35 MPG which equals 14.86 KM/L a very strange global number.
The reason that number is so strange is that the Insight and Prius are already rated at 40 KM/L which is about 94 MPG.
Is 35 MPG halfway in between 45 MPG (20 KM/L every small car in Europe meets this) and 25 MPG (10 KM/L every car in Japan meets this) so auto makers can allocate to cars and trucks, as half the vehicles are trucks anyway, and trucks deliver everything we consume.
So it seems like politics are playing domestic with MPG numbers to settle debates... After all, are there any universities in American turning out automotive engineering majors at the PhD level???
I propose that 100 MPGs is more like it!
Why, because the global fleet (population) of cars and trucks is projected to triple around the time my future kid buys his first car.
One or two billion first-time car buyers are just now starting to trickle into dealerships around the world and they will start stampeding over the next few decades.
If our current fleet is only 800 million cars and trucks responsible for 1/3 of the global pain we're all debating, how can the oil and fuel and road infrastructure as well as ozone support an explosion in the number of vehicles upwards of 300%.
Imagine 3 times more smog, 3 times more accidents, 3 times more traffic, 3 times more expensive gasoline, etc.
Yes, vehicles kill one million, smog kills another 2 million, each year, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I love cars, grew up next to a race track and pumped gas at my 1st job, but I'm worried about two billion lower middle class car buyers who don't give a hoot about CAFE or even Toyota for that matter...
I'm worried about 2,000,000,000 or six United States population first-time car buyers shopping on price and looks not mileage. We're on the right track in America because we already have 230 million cars and trucks which is probably enough to hold us for awhile.
So if Toyota's stance is the same as the other guys in Detroit, I'm not surprised, that's the way Japanese companies do business, status quo first, then incremental change...
So let's understand the problem and get the debate over with. If we had started at 100 KM/L we could have been talked down to 100 MPG.
Anything short of a global 100 MPG will sicken this planet far worse than it's slight fever today. Anything less than three times more efficiency will be back peddling into the future...
Posted by: John Acheson | November 06, 2007 at 02:05 AM
I appreciate John's conviction, and I believe that change always happens slowly. I work for a company that supplies it's sales force with company cars. These people are driving incredible distances every day. The company that I work for has take a great first step in providing the option of a Hybrid company car. I can get too upset that the world isn't changing faster with regards to the environment, but I do believe that a lot of changes is driven by people like John with similar conviction.
Posted by: Earl | January 26, 2008 at 06:36 PM
I appreciate John's conviction, and I believe that change always happens slowly. I work for a company that supplies it's sales force with company cars. These people are driving incredible distances every day. The company that I work for has take a great first step in providing the option of a Hybrid company car. I can get too upset that the world isn't changing faster with regards to the environment, but I do believe that a lot of changes is driven by people like John with similar conviction.
Posted by: Earl | January 26, 2008 at 06:39 PM