Tell Toyota to Walk the Walk on Fuel Economy
by Union of Concerned Scientists on 10.11.07
The Union of Concerned Scientists and a number of other groups have been blasting Toyota for failing to endorse a strong boost to U.S. fuel economy standards. Instead, the company, which invests heavily in marketing itself as green, backs a loophole-ridden bill that would deliver significantly less cuts to global warming pollution.
Treehugger has already coveredTom Friedman’s column on this subject in the New York Times.
The Senate provision Toyota is fighting against would cut U.S. oil consumption by 1.2 million barrels a day, 140 percent more than the watered-down legislation it supports. The stronger provision also would save Americans $14 billion more than the weaker one and cut 242 percent more global warming pollution.
Toyota should follow the lead of Nissan, which supports the stronger fuel economy provision.
Take a minute and tell Toyota USA president Shigeru Hayakawa what you think about Toyota’s backward position on fuel economy.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, has a page / form letter that is sent to Toyota, that you can personalize before sending.
I sent Toyota such an email. More info below :
Dear Mark,
Thank you for using the Union of Concerned Scientists Action
Center. Your action urging Toyota USA to support sensible fuel
economy standards will make a valuable difference.
Please take a moment to tell friends, family, and co-workers
that you think would be interested in this action.
http://ucsaction.org/campaign/toyota_fuel_economy_standards/forward
Be sure to let us know if you receive a response to your letter.
You can forward the message to ucsaction@ucsusa.org.
To learn more about the Union of Concerned Scientists, visit our
website at http://www.ucsusa.org
Trucks are heavy and need to be to do things like tow heavy loads. Some of you city slickers may not believe this, but some people ACTUALLY USE TRUCKS AS TRUCKS. I know, it's had to believe. When you are towing a heavy load on the highway, a hybrid system is not only useless, but the extra weight hurts instead of helps on the highway. And what's does a replacement battery that size cost? 15k?
Truck suspension must be heavy for that logger to take the abuse in the bush, so he can cut down trees to build your new green homes, or so you can hand out those flyers that say 'save the forests'. A light built, light duty truck that wears out in half the time makes a lot more polution when you have to build a new truck instead of using your existing one.
Weight = crappy fuel economy. Most of todays fuel economy advances are coming from puting cars on a diet.
What do we do? Discourage joe average from driving his super duty F350 to the office. Introduce a rule, allowing his insurance to work on a second, smaller vehicle or motorcycle. Perhaps a removable license plate with a key, it goes on the truck when you need it, or goes on the bike when you don't.
Some may see owning 2 vehicles as expensive, but I already pay 2 insurances so I can put 22k a year on my bike and 6k on my van. The fuel makes up for the extra maintenance costs. If it was cheaper for everyone to do that, everyone would do it. (Make sure the second vehicle meets a certain MPG rating). I buy used, broken vehicles and fix them up. It's the only way I could afford to do it. Make it cheaper for the masses!!!
And while I"m on a rant... Building new roads does not cause urban expansion. City planning and zoning bylaws cause urban expansion. Deal with it, send your local politician a letter.
Truth is CAFE is stupid anyway and does little to change peoples behavior. Tax the gas, tax carbon by taxing the gas. You'll see people driving less and picking higher MPG vehicles. Spend some of the money on public transportation. How about also increasing guzzler taxes on lower MPG vehicles. And for those that call this a regressive tax on the poor or something like that maybe we can have a tax credit for them although I don't know how you'd work it.
Count me in on a Toyota hybrid when they become more transparent: 1. Harm done to the environment from mining minerals in Canada for their batteries. 2. Carbon footprint of their vehicles. 3. EMF's produced the the electric motors in their cars.
Hi - I'm the guy at UCS who posted this.
Thanks to everyone who took action and sent Toyota an e-mail. I also wanted to clarify two points.
First, higher CAFE standards would encourage automakers to put better conventional technology into their cars AND trucks. So CAFE would help make larger vehicles like trucks and SUVs more fuel efficient.
UCS has even designed an SUV that gets significantly more fuel economy without sacrificing performance:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_pickups_suvs/building-a-better-suv.html
Second, CAFE increases have worked in the past to reduce oil consumption. While other policies like gas taxes, carbon taxes, and feebate systems for new cars might deliver some benefits and work alongside fuel economy standards, boosting CAFE requirements is the most efficient thing that can be done right now to reduce oil dependence and global warming pollution.
Thanks,
Aaron