Toyota joins fight against increased CAFE standard
08-01-2007, 09:28 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Philly
Posts: 2,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toyota joins fight against increased CAFE standard
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...E/70730006/1024
Andrew
Toyota joins Detroit 3 in CAFE fight
Helping hand also supports its move to pickups, SUVs
By HARRY STOFFER | AUTOMOTIVE NEWS
AutoWeek | Updated: 07/30/07, 9:39 am et
WASHINGTON -- At RFK Stadium, a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol, a big red Toyota sign adorns the outfield wall.
It's garish, perhaps, but mostly unremarkable. Toyota has worked hard for decades to fit in, to be as much a part of the American landscape as baseball.
Up the street on Capitol Hill, though, the sight of Toyota lobbyists working with the Detroit 3 to defeat the toughest fuel economy proposals is raising eyebrows.
The campaign comes at a time when Toyota is relying increasingly on the sale of full-sized SUVs and pickups.
"It's deeply disappointing that Toyota has joined in the lie-and-threaten game," says Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global-warming program. Becker and other environmental leaders reject industry claims that far higher fuel economy standards would jeopardize some companies and some vehicles, especially trucks.
Toyota's work for milder increases in fuel economy includes an array of lobbying activities. It is sending executives to lawmakers' offices. It is asking its employees to contact members of Congress. It is bringing dealers to Washington. It is helping to fund advertising campaigns.
Toyota executives explain their cooperation with the Detroit 3 on the lobbying effort by saying they want to compete relentlessly, but not ruthlessly.
"We don't want to see our competitors in any worse financial shape," says Josephine Cooper, group vice president for government and industry affairs at Toyota Motor North America Inc.
Unlike Toyota, Nissan and Honda are not joining the Detroit 3's lobbying campaign. Honda is "quietly working" with lawmakers on a middle-ground proposal, says Ed Cohen, vice president of government and industry relations for Honda North America Inc.
Nissan North America Inc. is lobbying independently for a new fuel economy program. The company seeks a simplified structure with an aggressive long-term target for cutting fuel consumption, says Tracy Woodard, Nissan's director of government affairs.
Toyota likes trucks
A key reason for Toyota's lobbying stance: The company has made big investments to add full-sized SUVs and pickups to its U.S. lineup. The toughest fuel economy standards could constrain sales of luxury cars and large pickups and SUVs, including Toyota's, some industry obser-vers say.
"That's where they are making their money," not on fuel-efficient hybrids, says Jim Johnston, who headed General Motors' Washington office for nearly 20 years before he retired in 1994. Since then, Johnston has researched industry issues for a Washington think tank.
Toyota's decision to lobby alongside the Detroit 3 goes back to 1998, when the automakers formed the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The group now has nine members. Honda and Nissan are not members.
Toyota also has retained its membership in the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers.
A new alliance ad campaign aims to persuade policymakers more than consumers. The Sierra Club's Becker calls Toyota's strategy -- portraying itself as a green automaker while lobbying with the Detroit 3 -- "risky business."
Applause for Toyota
But other observers say Toyota's positioning benefits the industry.
Tim MacCarthy, who retired last year as president of the international automakers association after more than 30 years of Washington lobbying, says he believes Toyota helped end the industry's just-say-no attitude toward increases in fuel economy standards.
An industry-backed bill nearing a vote in the House still would challenge the companies, MacCarthy and others say. It would require a fuel economy improvement of 30 to 40 percent within 15 years.
The UAW has sharp differences with Toyota on labor issues. But the union applauds Toyota's position on corporate average fuel economy legislation.
Says Alan Reuther, the UAW's legislative director: "It's important that (Toyota) is part of the coalition. It indicates the broad swath of industry that feels this way. Sometimes some people are under the misperception that, 'Oh, it's just Detroit that's behind the curve.' "
But efforts to distinguish Toyota from the Detroit 3 on fuel economy persist. Over Toyota's opposition, the Senate voted last month to raise the combined car-truck standards to 35 mpg by 2020.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, said he was "pained" that U.S. automakers resist change while Toyota already has put a million fuel-efficient Priuses on the roads.
Helping hand also supports its move to pickups, SUVs
By HARRY STOFFER | AUTOMOTIVE NEWS
AutoWeek | Updated: 07/30/07, 9:39 am et
WASHINGTON -- At RFK Stadium, a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol, a big red Toyota sign adorns the outfield wall.
It's garish, perhaps, but mostly unremarkable. Toyota has worked hard for decades to fit in, to be as much a part of the American landscape as baseball.
Up the street on Capitol Hill, though, the sight of Toyota lobbyists working with the Detroit 3 to defeat the toughest fuel economy proposals is raising eyebrows.
The campaign comes at a time when Toyota is relying increasingly on the sale of full-sized SUVs and pickups.
"It's deeply disappointing that Toyota has joined in the lie-and-threaten game," says Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global-warming program. Becker and other environmental leaders reject industry claims that far higher fuel economy standards would jeopardize some companies and some vehicles, especially trucks.
Toyota's work for milder increases in fuel economy includes an array of lobbying activities. It is sending executives to lawmakers' offices. It is asking its employees to contact members of Congress. It is bringing dealers to Washington. It is helping to fund advertising campaigns.
Toyota executives explain their cooperation with the Detroit 3 on the lobbying effort by saying they want to compete relentlessly, but not ruthlessly.
"We don't want to see our competitors in any worse financial shape," says Josephine Cooper, group vice president for government and industry affairs at Toyota Motor North America Inc.
Unlike Toyota, Nissan and Honda are not joining the Detroit 3's lobbying campaign. Honda is "quietly working" with lawmakers on a middle-ground proposal, says Ed Cohen, vice president of government and industry relations for Honda North America Inc.
Nissan North America Inc. is lobbying independently for a new fuel economy program. The company seeks a simplified structure with an aggressive long-term target for cutting fuel consumption, says Tracy Woodard, Nissan's director of government affairs.
Toyota likes trucks
A key reason for Toyota's lobbying stance: The company has made big investments to add full-sized SUVs and pickups to its U.S. lineup. The toughest fuel economy standards could constrain sales of luxury cars and large pickups and SUVs, including Toyota's, some industry obser-vers say.
"That's where they are making their money," not on fuel-efficient hybrids, says Jim Johnston, who headed General Motors' Washington office for nearly 20 years before he retired in 1994. Since then, Johnston has researched industry issues for a Washington think tank.
Toyota's decision to lobby alongside the Detroit 3 goes back to 1998, when the automakers formed the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The group now has nine members. Honda and Nissan are not members.
Toyota also has retained its membership in the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers.
A new alliance ad campaign aims to persuade policymakers more than consumers. The Sierra Club's Becker calls Toyota's strategy -- portraying itself as a green automaker while lobbying with the Detroit 3 -- "risky business."
Applause for Toyota
But other observers say Toyota's positioning benefits the industry.
Tim MacCarthy, who retired last year as president of the international automakers association after more than 30 years of Washington lobbying, says he believes Toyota helped end the industry's just-say-no attitude toward increases in fuel economy standards.
An industry-backed bill nearing a vote in the House still would challenge the companies, MacCarthy and others say. It would require a fuel economy improvement of 30 to 40 percent within 15 years.
The UAW has sharp differences with Toyota on labor issues. But the union applauds Toyota's position on corporate average fuel economy legislation.
Says Alan Reuther, the UAW's legislative director: "It's important that (Toyota) is part of the coalition. It indicates the broad swath of industry that feels this way. Sometimes some people are under the misperception that, 'Oh, it's just Detroit that's behind the curve.' "
But efforts to distinguish Toyota from the Detroit 3 on fuel economy persist. Over Toyota's opposition, the Senate voted last month to raise the combined car-truck standards to 35 mpg by 2020.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, said he was "pained" that U.S. automakers resist change while Toyota already has put a million fuel-efficient Priuses on the roads.
08-02-2007, 08:28 AM
#2
i like how they quoted honda"quietly working in the background". Its a shame that toyota has the best selling hybrid and always conveys it on their commercials and advertisements yet theyre lobbying AGAINST better fuel standards. Dam hypocrites.
08-02-2007, 09:16 AM
#3
I could have guessed the reason. Why back better CAFE when you just released a BFT. Big Farging Truck.
I still think CAFE needs to be increased. If it hurts Toyota's profit margin, boo hoo.
I still think CAFE needs to be increased. If it hurts Toyota's profit margin, boo hoo.
08-02-2007, 09:45 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saki GT,Aug 2 2007, 09:24 AM
CAFE is ridiculous to begin with, imo it should be done away with - their are better ways to promote fuel efficiency in cars.
Maybe you agree to give greenies HOV access, money for buying one, or free transportation? These examples cost the taxpayers. We need cooperations to be responsible if they want to do business, not through our tax money.
08-02-2007, 10:11 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raising the price of gas would be the most economically efficient means to reducing fuel consumption. It's the only method that actually goes after the consumption of GAS rather than the potential to consume gas. Someone who buys a pickup to use it only say 5,000 miles a year for towing should not be penalized like someone who buys one for commuting. Supply side changes would penalize both buyers equally.
Someone commuting 25,000 miles/year in a Civic should not be considered better than someone driving a truck 5,000 miles/year.
Fuel costs encourage conservation at all levels of fuel consumption. CAFE is like a drug law. It tells the sellers to sell something other than what the market wants.
Someone commuting 25,000 miles/year in a Civic should not be considered better than someone driving a truck 5,000 miles/year.
Fuel costs encourage conservation at all levels of fuel consumption. CAFE is like a drug law. It tells the sellers to sell something other than what the market wants.
08-02-2007, 11:41 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rockville,Aug 2 2007, 10:11 AM
Raising the price of gas would be the most economically efficient means to reducing fuel consumption. It's the only method that actually goes after the consumption of GAS rather than the potential to consume gas. Someone who buys a pickup to use it only say 5,000 miles a year for towing should not be penalized like someone who buys one for commuting. Supply side changes would penalize both buyers equally.
Someone commuting 25,000 miles/year in a Civic should not be considered better than someone driving a truck 5,000 miles/year.
Fuel costs encourage conservation at all levels of fuel consumption. CAFE is like a drug law. It tells the sellers to sell something other than what the market wants.
Someone commuting 25,000 miles/year in a Civic should not be considered better than someone driving a truck 5,000 miles/year.
Fuel costs encourage conservation at all levels of fuel consumption. CAFE is like a drug law. It tells the sellers to sell something other than what the market wants.
By doing taxes like this will have more harm for business or create inflation than slowing down the gazzler agenda.
Trending Topics
08-02-2007, 12:05 PM
#8
I am fine with raising the gas tax for better fuel economy. We could use the money. We just had this bridge fall down.
However, this country is too affluent for ten cents a gallon to do anything without cafe. The price flutuates 30 cents a week and nobody changes behavior.
The auto industry fought seatbelts and airbags too. Too expensive. We don't need them. Anybody want to buy a new car without them?
However, this country is too affluent for ten cents a gallon to do anything without cafe. The price flutuates 30 cents a week and nobody changes behavior.
The auto industry fought seatbelts and airbags too. Too expensive. We don't need them. Anybody want to buy a new car without them?
08-02-2007, 12:53 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by marthafokker,Aug 2 2007, 11:41 AM
I like this idea for a long time. However, your gallon of milk will probably cost you $8 instead of $4. Your loaf of bread will cost you $5 instead of $2.50.
By doing taxes like this will have more harm for business or create inflation than slowing down the gazzler agenda.
By doing taxes like this will have more harm for business or create inflation than slowing down the gazzler agenda.
Many companies are reexamining their fleet cars and how they use them. UPS has worked to reduce it's fuel consumption because it saves them money. Companies that buy a lot of shipping services from UPS will figure out how to increase their shipping efficiency because UPS is passing some of that additional fuel cost on to their customers.
That is economic efficiency at work. This method will save the most gas while spreading the economic impact over the parts of the economy that use the most gas. That's a much better method than trying to tell the car companies to sell something the buying public isn't asking for.
08-02-2007, 12:55 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with rockville, if you want to reduce fuel consumption and promote fuel efficiency then increase the price of fuel through a larger gas tax.
Here was an interesting article from C&D:
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/12936/...m-b.html?al=128
some of the highlights from the article on why CAFE doesn't work:
- only applies to new cars, not the existing 240 million already on the road
- encourages driving because $/mile is cheaper
- does not promote public transportation
- puts burden of fuel and carbon emissions on cars and ignores all other sources (airlines, home, industry...etc)
- CAFE has loopholes so that cars like the PT cruiser and Dodge magnum are classified as trucks. Similar loopholes exist for very heavy vehicles.
Here was an interesting article from C&D:
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/12936/...m-b.html?al=128
some of the highlights from the article on why CAFE doesn't work:
- only applies to new cars, not the existing 240 million already on the road
- encourages driving because $/mile is cheaper
- does not promote public transportation
- puts burden of fuel and carbon emissions on cars and ignores all other sources (airlines, home, industry...etc)
- CAFE has loopholes so that cars like the PT cruiser and Dodge magnum are classified as trucks. Similar loopholes exist for very heavy vehicles.