Hybrid Watchdog: "The California global warming regulations would provide a major boon to the hybrid market, and Toyota, Honda, and Ford have all admitted the need to reduce global warming emissions. Yet they are all willing to send their lawyers to court to block progress on the issue rather than fire up hybrid vehicle production or make the cost-effective, off-the-shelf adjustments to their conventional vehicles needed to obey the law and take advantage of the expanded clean car market." Hybrid Fact: "The U.S. auto industry could gain over 40,000 new jobs in 2015 if we increased fuel economy to 40 mpg over the next decade." http://www.hybridcenter.org/automakers-kil...rid-market.html (See Hybrid Action box to support cleaner vehicles vs diesel subsidies)
As far as I know Toyota's arguement has always been against patchwork (CARB Type) standards, not against standards. They want the US to set a standard for pollution, and they're happy to meet it. What they don't want is to have to support two or more sets of standards with the concommitant engineering, cost and support headaches. Having to design multiple types of emissions control only increases cost and decreases reliability for everyone. And, before you say "Well, they could just sell the low emissions cars everywhere", no they couldn't. As long as there are places with lower standards, everyone will have to produce two-tier (or more) car lines because the higher standard cars wouldn't be competitive in the low standard markets due to cost, complexity, maintenance, etc etc. It's a lot like the fuel additive regulations we now have. The fact that there are a multitude of competing fuel forumlation laws across the US means that lots of special batches have to be produced, and they can only be sold in finite areas. This increases cost for everyone, and leads to artificial shortages and surpluses where the surplus can't be used where the shortage exists. It's just stupid. And, I agree with Toyota. If you want better mileage and lower emissions in cars, get the Federal Government off the dime. But I think it's disingenuous to go around shouting that manufacturers are resisting conservation when in fact they are only using common sense and advocating what would be best for everyone, consumers and manufacturers alike.
Detroit has been too comfortable feeding at the trough for too long. They find it difficult to raise their heads and look around. The Rocky Mountain Institute has repeatedly shown Detroit working constructive alternatives (lighter mass vehicles, better safety construction, 100 to 150 mpg vehicles). Detroit just keeps its head down and keeps feeding in the trough. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Denial and inertia are wonderfull things for short-term thinking.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Nov 9 2006, 12:13 PM) [snapback]346351[/snapback]</div> The proactive attitude of the past has been lost. Now they wait until reaction is required. Being a victim of not planning ahead is a self-destructive path, yet they follow it anyway. That's sad.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Nov 9 2006, 02:13 PM) [snapback]346351[/snapback]</div> Is it only American manufacturers (Detroit) that haven't incorporated all these wonderful things from the Rocky Mountain Institute? Where can I buy one of these lower mass vehicles or 100 to 150 MPG vehicles of which you speak? Surely all the non-American manufacturers, that presumably you believe haven't kept their head down feeding in the trough, must have these cars available in large numbers by now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Nov 9 2006, 10:51 AM) [snapback]346384[/snapback]</div> You would think someone would notice and make an effort to be first out of the box and glean the easy profit. Here is the RMI Hypercar Chronology: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid414.php
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Nov 9 2006, 12:29 PM) [snapback]346324[/snapback]</div> Sure it would be great if the Feds would make the tough decisions to increase CAFE standards and toughen the air pollution laws but until they do I applaud the states for taking an active role in protecting their citizens. California has a right to make a tougher standard if the federal standard is not adequate to protect our health. And I think it's shameful that Toyota won't step up and be a leader in producing clean cars for all Americans. There are some in the country who would pick a cleaner Toyota over a dirty competitor if they had the choice so I don't think your point about the economics of it all is the only issue to consider. We've put up with dirty air for long enough... if the technology is there to make cleaner cars, and the car makers won't do it because it's too 'expensive' then a regulation needs to be created. Our health is too important. -Peter B
