Featured California to boycott Toyota products

Toyota is being stressed here because it is Priuschat. Reports I've seen on California's action listed all the companies joining the feds in the case. Toyota may have been listed first, or mentioned in the headline, but them being the largest company of the group likely was the reason for that.

There was an agreement in place. A review period had come up, and the other party held the White House. Saying more will lead this to the politics section. An indepth article may have already have been posted there on the subject.

 

Not exactly.
According to the article this is what is being said:

" California’s Department of General Services announced it will require state agencies, starting on January 1, 2020, to “only purchase vehicles from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) that recognize the California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s authority to set greenhouse gas and zero emission vehicle standards, and which have committed to continuing stringent emissions reduction goals for their fleets.”

And what my Grandpappy use to say?
If'n the people ain't buyin' you ain't a sellin.

 

huh?

i know i'm thick, but i dont see the difference between z's position and the quote from the article

 

especially since Cali purchasing of Toyotas (not counting %of fuel cell car fleet) is pretty dismal.
.

 

Depends on do you think taking a 5% hit to make a point/push behavior is worthwhile. For example, if buying American was 5% higher price, do you or not? Honda Insight vs Prius is ~5% hit in fuel economy.

If you told me the Toyota Prius is a CARB compliance car, and would not exist but for the prior CARB rule iterations, I'd find it believable.
Every Prius sale enables another Sequoia sale with less struggle to meet CAFE standards (whether by the modified CARB agreement with Honda et al, or the slowed/rolled back Trump plan). Even if the state not buying Priuses it means less Sequoia sales only in CA, or bigger subsidies/lower margins by Toyota for the more efficient cars to get the right sales balance in the state, still a net win (state transfer of $ to "good" actors, transfer of bad actor $ to consumers via incentives/lower margins for efficient cars, or lower allowable sales for guzzlers).

Moving "green" car buyers elsewhere to makers with less investment/sales in the guzzler range does move towards the main goal, because there can be fewer easy/comfortable guzzler sales.

Toyota could have sat this out by not trying to push either side, just waiting it out. They chose not to, thus made it a fight against THEM.

 

What major car company hasn't chosen a side?

Phrasing the order to buy from those companies that agree with California being able to set their own standard works out as not buying from those that sided against it.

 

ugh - if only that push for secession had worked this thread wouldn't even be here.

California-Peoples-Republic by dubit posted Nov 30, 2019 at 3:53 AM

 

I think Daimler decided to just stay the heck out of this?

 

Still leaves the 22 states and some cities siding with them to contend with.

You're right. I misremembered that.

 

At least Cali would be out of the mix though and that's a win for everyone.

 

why should MB care about taking sides... after all - being a German company, under the purview of the EU's strict CO2 think ... they're already ahead of the curve, so they'd have nothing to gain, but negative PR.
.

 

I am going from my knoweldge of chemistry, and knowledge of what EPA has been doing to gasoiline quality in recent years (going to zero sulfur), and the fact that sulfur is catalyst poison, and in recent years gaso sulfur is almost now zero vs. thousands of ppms in the past years. The cat converters just gotta be kicking butt, and they are. The only reason to remove sulfur from gaso is to make the cat converters sing as loudly as possible. Of course, Cali has had the lower gaso sulfur for many years I think, that is now more nation-wide.

Recently another skeptic poster here posted an article supporting my view, he said I was apparently correct. I try to find it.

Maybe the fact that gaso sulfur is lower nation-wide now is why it no longer makes as much sense for automakers to make CARB and cheaper non-CARB cars. Now that sulfiur is very low, presumably non-CARB sates can achieve CARB-emission standards without as much trouble. So 50-states cars are apparently the trend.

 

But they didn't sign the CARB agreement with VW and BMW.

Higher sulfur in the fuel also means higher particulates and sulfur oxides. Europe switched to ULSD years before requiring extra exhaust treatment beyond the two-way catalytic converter. For the three-way cat on gas cars, the lower sulfur allows more effective ones to be installed. It doesn't make the current ones work better beyond slowing their degradation.

EPA and CARB regulations had already been lined up; the non-CARB cars weren't going to be cheaper before this. The automakers were hoping to lower the targets for CAFE a bit in the review so they could make more profit with SUV sales. The administration surprised them by essentially ditching the original agreement, which is why several back pedaled their stance when that announcement was made.

 

if todays gassers aren't causing pollution and climate change, what are we concerned about?

 

They're still making lots of CO2. The difference is that they are no longer making a lot of CO2 plus a bunch of other garbage.

 

thanks. so sog is no longer an automobile issue, just cc. interesting

 

Here is an interesting video on an individual who was affected by Carb regulations testifying before the California government. Sometimes the affect of regulations on people and families is not discussed.

This video discusses the effect of some regulations and culture changes are having on the state.

Both videos were interesting and thought I would share.

 

and yet, real estate prices keep going up. i want to move there, but i cant afford it.

 

We cater to the homeless .

A retired Taxachussettan should be in better shape.

 

Pollution from ICE's is far from solved. Consider that California alone has nearly 15 million vehicles which produce over 100 million tons of greenhouse gasses a year.

Fueleconomy.gov website listed emissions from my two vehicles:
08 Odyssey, using EPA average 20 mpg in 15,000 miles it would consume 750 gallons of gas and contributes 7.3 tons of GHG per year. Add emissions from the refinery and it generates 8.9 tons of GHG/year.

15 Prius V, using EPA average 41 mpg in 15,000 miles it would consume 365 gallons of gas and contributes 3.6 tons of GHG per year. Add emission from the refinery and it generates 4.4 tons of GHG/year.

The fueleconomy.gov website considers primary Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) to be CO2, NOx and methane.

The catalytic converter needs to be at 500 deg F to become effective so all vehicle emit the most pollution during warm-up. Prius actually enriches the fuel mixture and retards the idle speed ignition timing from 5 deg btc to 5 deg atc during warmup. These changes result in a hotter exhaust stream to warm up the catalyst faster but emissions are unchecked during most of that time.

I agree that vapors are released at filling stations. Putting 20 gallons of fuel in a tank forces that volume of vapor to escape to the atmosphere. California requires a vacuum collection system on the fuel nozzles at their filling stations to recover this.

Ozone is another problem due to vehicles emissions. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. Ozone forms when nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight.

I believe that we have found the enemy and he is us.