Toyota’s Green Problem

[Oracle of Delphi]

When Toyota introduced its Prius hybrid car in America seven years ago, Detroit laughed it off. With gas prices at $1.50 a gallon, they argued, no one would buy it. But Dan Becker embraced the little mileage miser. Then head of the Sierra Club's global-warming project, Becker invented an award to give Toyota: the Sierra Club Award for Excellence in Environmental Design. Then he took the Prius on a 50-city promotional tour. Finally, Becker paid Toyota the ultimate compliment; he bought a Prius. Today, Becker is still driving the car, but he's no longer praising Toyota. Instead, he now calls the automaker a "hypocrite" for siding with Detroit in opposition to tougher new gas-mileage laws. "It's embarrassing to have applauded Toyota for the Prius," says Becker, "and now to see them acting so irresponsibly."

The environmental community has turned on Toyota. First, it quietly castigated the carmaker for joining the Detroit Three in a lawsuit against California over legislation to reduce global-warming gases from cars by 30 percent within a decade, which would require cars to get up to 43 miles per gallon. Opposition increased when Toyota—in contrast to Honda and Nissan—sided with Detroit to try to block legislation currently before Congress to boost fuel economy for all new vehicles to 35mpg by 2020, up from 25mpg today. Toyota, in a familiar Motown refrain, says achieving such a hard target is not technologically feasible. It is pushing softer legislation that gives automakers until 2022 to improve fuel economy and continues giving breaks to big trucks and SUVs. "We haven't changed what we're doing to reduce our environmental footprint," says Toyota's top lobbyist, Josephine Cooper. "But our engineers are scratching their heads, saying, 'How will we get there?' Those are big numbers to achieve."

To the green crowd, though, Toyota is a turncoat. Their cries are reaching a wider audience as oil soars toward $100 a barrel and gas prices top $3 a gallon. Several environmental groups have launched a "How Green Is Toyota?" publicity blitz, which includes a letter-writing campaign they say has clogged the inbox of Toyota's top U.S. exec with more than 100,000 e-mails. In Detroit last month, eco-warriors stormed a Toyota dealership and draped it with a banner showing flag-wrapped coffins beside the slogan "Driving War and Warming." "Is Toyota really committed to being green, or are they just green scamming?" asks Rob Perks of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

How did Toyota go from paragon to pariah so quickly? The fuel-economy debate has laid bare Toyota's broader product strategy, which includes a big new Tundra pickup that gets 14mpg in the city. The 48mpg Prius remains the green standard, controlling half the hybrid market, but it doesn't make money for Toyota, analysts say, because of its complicated and costly gas-electric propulsion system. The Tundra, however, could eventually contribute $10,000 per truck to the bottom line. More important, offering a full lineup of cars, trucks and SUVs is critical to Toyota's goal of becoming the world's No. 1 automaker. (The race is neck and neck: General Motors leads with 7.06 million vehicles sold worldwide so far this year to Toyota's 7.05 million.)

To defend its green street cred, Toyota last week rolled out its most extensive corporate-image ad campaign ever. The centerpiece commercial features a kind of mud-hut Prius being assembled out of twigs, earth and grass by a group of rugged campers. Against a moody mountain backdrop, the Prius slowly disintegrates back into the land, while an announcer says, "Can a car company grow in harmony with the environment? Why not? At Toyota, we're not only working toward cars with zero emissions. We're also striving for zero waste in everything else we do." Toyota execs insist the ad is not a reaction to their critics. "We're part of the greening of America," says Toyota group vice president Steve Sturm. "We want to make America more conscious of that." Ad Age critic Bob Garfield panned the ad, warning, "If the Prius mythology comes to stand not for environmental consciousness but for facile corporate PR, the campaign's irrational exuberance will pop the image bubble."

The ads might already be backfiring. This week at the Los Angeles Auto Show, eco-activists from Freedom From Oil tell NEWSWEEK they are planning to target Toyota by playing off the ads' "Why not?" slogan. With banners strung from the L.A. Convention Center or waved in a Toyota press conference, the protesters say they will ask the automaker "Why not?" drop the lawsuit against California's global-warming law. Toyota's sharpest Congressional critic, Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, also is working the slogan into his broadsides. "They're saying they can't meet the 35mpg standard by 2020," Markey says, "and the American people are asking Toyota, 'Why not?' " Like so many of Toyota's critics these days, Markey is also a customer: He drives a Camry hybrid. But as friends turn into foes, Toyota is discovering it isn't easy being green while going for the green.

Link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/69534

Edited November 12, 2007 by Pontiac Custom-S

[balthazar]

>>"How did Toyota go from paragon to pariah so quickly? "<<

Simple; they never were a 'green' company- as usual, the media overhyped the prius and broad-brushed the company with that perception, when in fact toyo is no different than all other full-line manufacturers- driven by profit, not an environmental consciousness. Now than gas/oil/energy costs is so much in the forefront, along with ever-increasing attention to the environment, that perception is being shredded by the Cheese Grater of Reality.

[Drew Dowdell]

>>"How did Toyota go from paragon to pariah so quickly? "<<

Simple; they never were a 'green' company- as usual, the media overhyped the prius and broad-brushed the company with that perception, when in fact toyo is no different than all other full-line manufacturers- driven by profit, not an environmental consciousness. Now than gas/oil/energy costs is so much in the forefront, along with ever-increasing attention to the environment, that perception is being shredded by the Cheese Grater of Reality.

aaaand.... end of thread.

[siegen]

new Tundra pickup that gets 14mpg in the city.

Toyota is a hypocrite for bringing a 5.7L Tundra (and 5.7L LX) to market without any attempt at new innovation to improve its fuel economy, efficiency, or usability. Then turning around and prancing about in their green tights with commercials like these. The fact that the Tundra has more horsepower and worse fuel economy than every Silverado except for the 6.0L 2wd, shows where Toyota's priorities reside.

in opposition to tougher new gas-mileage laws

We don't need gas-mileage laws, we need emissions laws. The last thing we want to do is make it cheaper for people to drive around, cause then they'll do it more; and that's exactly what increasing car's mpg will do.

[VenSeattle]

Ad Age critic Bob Garfield panned the ad, warning, "If the Prius mythology comes to stand not for environmental consciousness but for facile corporate PR, the campaign's irrational exuberance will pop the image bubble."

Wow... has he been reading C&G? We've been saying this (against some Toyo-proponents) for years...

[Drew Dowdell]

We don't need gas-mileage laws, we need emissions laws. The last thing we want to do is make it cheaper for people to drive around, cause then they'll do it more; and that's exactly what increasing car's mpg will do.

Here Here! Years ago, just before Ford bought Volvo, Volvo came up with a coating that acted as a catalyst that would break up certain harmful compounds as air passed over it. They were going to coat the radiators of their cars with it so it would act as a mobile air filter. I don't know what ever happened to that technology, but when it comes to controlling emissions, few have the auto industry beat for inventiveness.

We need to focus on the larger picture of emissions. Of all the combustion processes we use today, modern automobiles have to be on the cleanest end of the spectrum. With all the development money thrown at cars to reduce emissions, think about the following:

1. Construction equipment: All those bulldozers, steam rollers, back hoes have virtually no emissions control at all. They usually just have a muffler sticking up out of the engine compartment. I walk by a construction site for a skyscraper downtown and every day there is a diesel generator there running with just a pipe sticking out for the exhaust.

2. Lawn equipment: Every week millions of lawnmowers are fired up trim the nation's lawns. I'm going to bet that 98% of those are flatheads with no emissions control at all. Only recently have push behind lawn mowers moved to OHV <I have one> and OHC <Honda of course>. While they still have no emissions control the OHC and OHV engines are at least slightly better than the flatheads.

3. Coal and oil fired power plants: Sure they're cleaner than years ago, but what is that orangy red smoke coming out? Sulfer usually. Just go visit one and look at the stacks... just don't stay too long or they'll call DHS.

4. Old furnaces in poorly insulated houses: Gas is cleaner than oil, but what does it matter if you're heating the neighborhood. Those of you with electric heat don't get a free pass, see item 3.

5. Jetliners: Jetliners have actually become much cleaner in recent years... it's a shame the Airlines haven't updated their fleets much. American and Delta, two of the largest fleets in the US, have average ages of around 13 years old. The fleets sizes are 699 and 434 respectively. The youngest fleet is also one of the smallest. Jetblue has a babyfaced 97 airliners with an average age of 2.8 years. Why is this so important? Jet liners deliver the pollution directly to the upper atmosphere. When 9-11 occurred and all jets were grounded for about a week there was a measurable change in atmospheric pollution.

How about we direct our spite at some of the larger offenders in the pollution problem today?

[regfootball]

Here Here! Years ago, just before Ford bought Volvo, Volvo came up with a coating that acted as a catalyst that would break up certain harmful compounds as air passed over it. They were going to coat the radiators of their cars with it so it would act as a mobile air filter. I don't know what ever happened to that technology, but when it comes to controlling emissions, few have the auto industry beat for inventiveness.

We need to focus on the larger picture of emissions. Of all the combustion processes we use today, modern automobiles have to be on the cleanest end of the spectrum. With all the development money thrown at cars to reduce emissions, think about the following:

1. Construction equipment: All those bulldozers, steam rollers, back hoes have virtually no emissions control at all. They usually just have a muffler sticking up out of the engine compartment. I walk by a construction site for a skyscraper downtown and every day there is a diesel generator there running with just a pipe sticking out for the exhaust.

2. Lawn equipment: Every week millions of lawnmowers are fired up trim the nation's lawns. I'm going to bet that 98% of those are flatheads with no emissions control at all. Only recently have push behind lawn mowers moved to OHV <I have one> and OHC <Honda of course>. While they still have no emissions control the OHC and OHV engines are at least slightly better than the flatheads.

3. Coal and oil fired power plants: Sure they're cleaner than years ago, but what is that orangy red smoke coming out? Sulfer usually. Just go visit one and look at the stacks... just don't stay too long or they'll call DHS.

4. Old furnaces in poorly insulated houses: Gas is cleaner than oil, but what does it matter if you're heating the neighborhood. Those of you with electric heat don't get a free pass, see item 3.

5. Jetliners: Jetliners have actually become much cleaner in recent years... it's a shame the Airlines haven't updated their fleets much. American and Delta, two of the largest fleets in the US, have average ages of around 13 years old. The fleets sizes are 699 and 434 respectively. The youngest fleet is also one of the smallest. Jetblue has a babyfaced 97 airliners with an average age of 2.8 years. Why is this so important? Jet liners deliver the pollution directly to the upper atmosphere. When 9-11 occurred and all jets were grounded for about a week there was a measurable change in atmospheric pollution.

How about we direct our spite at some of the larger offenders in the pollution problem today?

you rock.

[siegen]

On a side note, on the way to work this morning I was driving behind a semi-truck hauling some trees (timber now I suppose it would be) and he was shooting tons of black smoke out the exhaust pipes every shift (looked like a very old model semi-truck). I snickered, this truck's probably putting out more pollution than 10-20 cars, and he's got chopped down trees in the back! Lol, I wonder what an environmental activist would do if they saw that.... probably have a stroke.

[pow]

Here Here! Years ago, just before Ford bought Volvo, Volvo came up with a coating that acted as a catalyst that would break up certain harmful compounds as air passed over it. They were going to coat the radiators of their cars with it so it would act as a mobile air filter. I don't know what ever happened to that technology, but when it comes to controlling emissions, few have the auto industry beat for inventiveness.

We need to focus on the larger picture of emissions. Of all the combustion processes we use today, modern automobiles have to be on the cleanest end of the spectrum. With all the development money thrown at cars to reduce emissions, think about the following:

1. Construction equipment: All those bulldozers, steam rollers, back hoes have virtually no emissions control at all. They usually just have a muffler sticking up out of the engine compartment. I walk by a construction site for a skyscraper downtown and every day there is a diesel generator there running with just a pipe sticking out for the exhaust.

2. Lawn equipment: Every week millions of lawnmowers are fired up trim the nation's lawns. I'm going to bet that 98% of those are flatheads with no emissions control at all. Only recently have push behind lawn mowers moved to OHV <I have one> and OHC <Honda of course>. While they still have no emissions control the OHC and OHV engines are at least slightly better than the flatheads.

3. Coal and oil fired power plants: Sure they're cleaner than years ago, but what is that orangy red smoke coming out? Sulfer usually. Just go visit one and look at the stacks... just don't stay too long or they'll call DHS.

4. Old furnaces in poorly insulated houses: Gas is cleaner than oil, but what does it matter if you're heating the neighborhood. Those of you with electric heat don't get a free pass, see item 3.

5. Jetliners: Jetliners have actually become much cleaner in recent years... it's a shame the Airlines haven't updated their fleets much. American and Delta, two of the largest fleets in the US, have average ages of around 13 years old. The fleets sizes are 699 and 434 respectively. The youngest fleet is also one of the smallest. Jetblue has a babyfaced 97 airliners with an average age of 2.8 years. Why is this so important? Jet liners deliver the pollution directly to the upper atmosphere. When 9-11 occurred and all jets were grounded for about a week there was a measurable change in atmospheric pollution.

How about we direct our spite at some of the larger offenders in the pollution problem today?

Here in LA the goods movement industry is the largest contributor to pollution. Unregulated ships from China idle endlessly at docks burning unrefined bunker fuel. Semis, which have no emissions standards (apart from when they were manufactured, but most are 10+ years old) or smog checks, also idle forever, literally in people's backyards, as truckers wait for shipping containers to be mounted.

These polluting semis then clog the 710 freeway running from the port (largest in the US) to the railyards, in spite of the newish Alameda (train) Corridor, posing a health and safety risk for both commuters and residents. Rushed and fatigued truckers, paid per container as opposed to per hour, rollover their semis on busy on-ramps. Schools, parks, and houses in low-income and working-class communities run alongside and underneath the 710, and kids are discouraged from outdoor activities for fear of lung disease, cancer, pneumonia, or birth defects.

One in five Long Beach children have asthma. Organizers are pushing for port emissions regulations and more terminals that allow ships to plug-in to local electricity (as opposed to idling), like the current China Shipping terminal, but corporations say they are bound by international, not local, laws. A few are voluntarily using lower-sulfur fuel. There are existing laws against truck idling, but they're not heeded because truckers want A/C. New, expensive trucks have smaller generators for accessory power.

As LA industries transitioned from mfg to shipping, workers have seen a downgrade in jobs and quality of life, in the form of lower wages and drive-by development. Now there's the issue of health. What should be done, and what the city is slowly moving towards...

- replace the fleet of old trucks with new ones

- retrofit existing trucks to incorporate catalytic converters and particulate filters

- pressure trucking companies to purchase these trucks and hire drivers

- provide financial incentives for independent truck owners to upgrade

- build a greater number of plug-in terminals

- create incentives for cleaner burning low-sulfur fuels used by ships

- pressure big box retailers to utilize the Alameda corridor

- discourage adding more lanes to the 710

- continue aiding the Alameda Corridor East Project

- eventually retrofit for electric locomotives (initially the plan for the Alameda Corridor)

- assist and develop local industries

- encourage the purchase of domestic and locally-made goods

[thegriffon]

He probably can't afford to upgrade to a new Tier II diesel. It's normal practice—truck buyers buy up big just before new regulations increase the cost of new vehicles with better emissions. You should see the amount of soot that accumulates on the cartons that arrive at your local supermarket or discount department store. Railroads in some states have incentives to trade older locomotives for new tier II and low-emission models (fueling a boom for hybrid and genset switchers), truckers as far as I know don't get that incentive to upgrade.

If Green groups are serious about lowering fuel use and CO2, they should be lobbying for full funding for high-speed intercity rail in all metropolitan corridors, and major increases in funding for commuter rail, so people don't have to drive anywhere near as much. Where is the hue and cry about NH refusing to fund the Downeaster (OK so it mainly channels commuters, shoppers and tourists to work and spend money in Maine, which is going to fund the train), or about the loss of federal funding? I like to drive, but sitting in traffic for two hours or more everyday burning fuel is not my idea of fun.

I believe there are emission regulations for lawnmowers and off-road vehicles etc., but of course people buy a new lawnmower only when the old one breaks down, not every 2-5 years like they do with cars. How often do people upgrade their furnace or A/C system? Almost never. It would be like buying a new engine, even though the old one works just fine.

[thegriffon]

There are probably no FRA compliant electric freight locomotives out there, so electrification is out. GE and EMD both built them many years ago, but the market dried up and the electrified lines have mostly been removed. Only passenger locomotives and EMUs operate n NA today, and many of them only because they run on dedicated light rail and don't need to be FRA compliant. BNSF and UP instead use new low-emission switchers the LA area, including hybrids and genset switchers (genset locomotives use two or three smaller, palletized engine modules instead of the single large engine of a road locomotive, which can be swapped out for easy maintenance and alternately shut down when not needed to reduce emissions and fuel bills).

[thegriffon]

There are probably no FRA compliant electric freight locomotives out there, so electrification is out. GE and EMD both built them many years ago, but the market dried up and the electrified lines have mostly been removed. Only passenger locomotives and EMUs operate n NA today, and many of them only because they run on dedicated light rail and don't need to be FRA compliant. BNSF and UP instead use new low-emission switchers the LA area, including hybrids and genset switchers (genset locomotives use two or three smaller, palletized engine modules instead of the single large engine of a road locomotive, which can be swapped out for easy maintenance and alternately shut down when not needed to reduce emissions and fuel bills).

[Drew Dowdell]

Emissions are an issue in so many areas of transportation *other* than cars it's really crazy to heap all this scorn on the automobile.

Big Rigs really didn't have much emission control equipment until very recently and most of it is aimed at the low sulfur diesel issue. Low sulfur diesel plays havoc with older diesel engine's fuel pumps and injectors.

Diesel Locomotives have essentially no emissions controls at all though are arguably the most efficient way to move commodities.

Boats of all sorts often don't even have a muffler. Know what the muffler is? The water.

and I already spoke about the airplane issue though the 787 looks promising in that not only does it use 20% less fuel it's engines are cleaner too.

[Drew Dowdell]

Interesting tidbit I found online:

The EPA estimates that the amount of pollution emitted by a lawn mower operating for

one hour equals the amount of pollution emitted by a car driven for about 360 miles (One

average hour of lawn mower use produces emissions of: 353 grams (0.78 lb) volatile

organic compounds; 1038 g (2.3 lb) carbon monoxide; 0.68 g (0.002 lb) nitrous oxide;

and 1950 g (4.3 lb) carbon dioxide).

And that's just a single cylinder pushmower. Imagine what the multiple cylinder diesels used at construction sites do to the air!

[Camino LS6]

Look also at all of the inefficient buildings: residential, commercial, and industrial. There are huge gains to be made in this area.

How about simple things like smart traffic lights that actually promote the efficient movement of traffic.

And, why do we still have the insanity of rush hour? Do we all really need to work the exact same hours? Idling in traffic is a consumate waste.

[regfootball]

Look also at all of the inefficient buildings: residential, commercial, and industrial. There are huge gains to be made in this area.

How about simple things like smart traffic lights that actually promote the efficient movement of traffic.

And, why do we still have the insanity of rush hour? Do we all really need to work the exact same hours? Idling in traffic is a consumate waste.

you speak the truth. i was email fighting with someone at work recently (i am an architect...hehe mustang got to see that). she was bitching that cars pollute and need to get better mileage.

i said emisssions have been cleaned up like 99% in the last 20 years or whatever. I said, do you see buildings have gotten 99% improved in that time?

my point was, stop ragging on cars.

today i saw there is an article....the founder of weather channel, a meteorologist, says global warming is a big sham.

Edited November 13, 2007 by regfootball

[pow]

Look also at all of the inefficient buildings: residential, commercial, and industrial. There are huge gains to be made in this area.

How about simple things like smart traffic lights that actually promote the efficient movement of traffic.

And, why do we still have the insanity of rush hour? Do we all really need to work the exact same hours? Idling in traffic is a consumate waste.

Agreed. Buildings are responsible for 38% of CO2 emissions in the US, far more than the 20% by personal transportation. It's just that increasing building efficiency, let alone getting LEED certification, is so damn costly.

[PurdueGuy]

Agreed. Buildings are responsible for 38% of CO2 emissions in the US, far more than the 20% by personal transportation. It's just that increasing building efficiency, let alone getting LEED certification, is so damn costly.

The kicker is that often times home upgrades (insulation, more efficient furnace & water heater, etc) pay for themselves in just a few years' time. The reasons people don't upgrade seem to include:

-apathy

-lack of money to invest in improvements

-lack of education about savings or how to upgrade (feel unsure, thus do nothing)

-an over use of an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality

I have a friend that has an old furnace, (I want to say Chrysler?) and just hates to spend the money, even though he would get it back. He bought a corn-burning stove that he installed in his livingroom, cutting a hole in the wall, just to find the price of corn went up, as well as having some problems with fumes. He took it back, has a hole in his wall, and still has his horribly inefficient furnace.

[regfootball]

first cost seems to rule in the USA

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Welcome to reality you bunch of dumbass enviro-freaks.

Seriously though, are these people so ignorant as to believe that Toyota is in it "for the good of the world" and furthermore are they so dumb that they can't see the engineering hurdles to building cars that get 55 MPG?!?! This isn't a Walgreens commercial.

To the green crowd, though, Toyota is a turncoat. Their cries are reaching a wider audience as oil soars toward $100 a barrel and gas prices top $3 a gallon. Several environmental groups have launched a "How Green Is Toyota?" publicity blitz, which includes a letter-writing campaign they say has clogged the inbox of Toyota's top U.S. exec with more than 100,000 e-mails. In Detroit last month, eco-warriors stormed a Toyota dealership and draped it with a banner showing flag-wrapped coffins beside the slogan "Driving War and Warming." "Is Toyota really committed to being green, or are they just green scamming?" asks Rob Perks of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

A letter writing campaign? Give me a break. And as much as I love the backlash against Toyota, that protest sound laughable at best.

To defend its green street cred, Toyota last week rolled out its most extensive campaign of lies

**FIXED**

The centerpiece commercial features a kind of mud-hut Prius being assembled out of twigs, earth and grass by a group of rugged campers. Against a moody mountain backdrop, the Prius slowly disintegrates back into the land, while an announcer says, "Can a car company grow in harmony with the environment? Why not? At Toyota, we're not only working toward cars with zero emissions. We're also striving for zero waste in everything else we do."

Or basically: "Buy the lie some more whilst we crank up Tundra output"

Toyota execs insist the ad is not a reaction to their critics. "We're part of the greening of America," says Toyota group vice president Steve Sturm. "We want to make America more conscious of that."

Oh what the f*** ever.

Ad Age critic Bob Garfield panned the ad, warning, "If the Prius mythology comes to stand not for environmental consciousness but for facile corporate PR, the campaign's irrational exuberance will pop the image bubble."

We don't need gas-mileage laws, we need emissions laws. The last thing we want to do is make it cheaper for people to drive around, cause then they'll do it more; and that's exactly what increasing car's mpg will do.

Yet again; freedom of choice...

Edited November 13, 2007 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Look also at all of the inefficient buildings: residential, commercial, and industrial. There are huge gains to be made in this area.

How about simple things like smart traffic lights that actually promote the efficient movement of traffic.

And, why do we still have the insanity of rush hour? Do we all really need to work the exact same hours? Idling in traffic is a consumate waste.

My GF and I were talking this over (She's an architecture student) and were amazed at how the automobile is regulated as opposed to inefficient buildings and building techniques. Even the "green" architecture movement is little more than a joke.

[Drew Dowdell]

Yet again; freedom of choice...

Yes there is the freedom of choice, but as discussed in this thread, this whole issue is really about mis-directed anger.

[Drew Dowdell]

Even the "green" architecture movement is little more than a joke in the US

In Europe, a lot of new construction focuses on enviromental efficiency. I did still see American style McMansion parks, but not nearly as often as here.

[regfootball]

i am currently email fighting a gain with someone who says the problem is all to do with cars.

[Drew Dowdell]

need help?