Featured California to boycott Toyota products

First of all YOU don't get to dictate what the conversation is ALL about. With all due respect, it's not your or my conversation alone.
I think the best answers takes in to account Toyota's past, what is happening now, and what might happen in the future. And I try to include this perspective in my opinion.

Toyota is one of the most powerful automakers in the world.
As far as the future goes?
I think you're underestimating the quality of the talent they have, the quality of talent they can hire, and how quickly they could strongly enter the full electric vehicle market if and when they decide it's in their best interest as a mass market producing auto giant.

If you want a card playing analogy?
Toyota IMO is wise to fold, and not invest a lot into the pot yet. They can play a future hand and win.
To paint the absence of a mass marketed Toyota EV as being detrimental to either the present of Toyota or the future I think is simply wrong.

You're insulting insistence that I'm wearing a Toyota "Fan Boy" hat is misguided at the least. It really has nothing to do with my opinion. It's just childish insult.
My statements are simply my opinion about the situation as it exists. If in 5-10 years Toyota is struggling to stay in business because they don't have a viable EV automaking infrastructure? I'll say I was wrong. BUT...I STRONGLY doubt that is going to happen.
While I have always and long respected Prius, and Toyota as an automaker, I don't think I'm a Toyota Fan Boy, as I don't even own a Toyota at the moment. And whether I'm talking about GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda or anyone, I try to keep my evaluation as objective as possible.

I could make childish accusations of you being a EV fan boy and being blinded by this reality. But I won't.
You have your perspective on Toyota's present and possible future, and I have mine. They may be counter, and I may disagree, but I'll respect your differing opinion.

Ultimately this is just individual opinion and hopefully civil discussion and debate.

 

@bisco is correct. The 15 manufacturers are actually joining the lawsuit or actively interfering. Their biggest problem may be if the other 13 CARB states join the boycott. They (the Gov’t and the car manufacturers) are hoping if California folds or loses the lawsuit, the other 13 states will fold. Should be interesting if the other CARB states respond in kind.


iPad ? Pro

 

I wouldn't feign to disbelieve bisco. I'm not saying bisco is incorrect.

But in every disagreement I would say there are AT LEAST two perspectives if not many more.
From one perspective automaker joining in a lawsuit against California is "actively interfering" with California trying to implement the standards they are advancing as the State of California.

From the opposite viewpoint, California is trying to enforce standards on automakers that aren't applied to how they build and sell vehicles to the majority of the masses. Standards that yes,- they may not yet want to embrace.

I don't take it lightly when either big corporations file lawsuits against States. OR when states advocate boycotts of what are fundamental businesses that provide income and employment for a lot of people. It's not good for anyone.

For example, Prius Chat has a long time participant, Dianne Whitmire who sells Prius out of a Southern California Toyota dealership. When you say..Boycott Toyota that directly affects her livelihood, and it affects countless others that work for Toyota and all dealerships and manufacturers involved.

I think "we" need to NOT advance solution based on our own idealistic notions of what we would like the immediate future of auto sales, and manufacturing to be, but more on the realism of what it is. With respect that boycotts against these large companies, do affect the lives of many, many people.

There should be a compromise that makes the State of California happy, and allows Toyota and other automakers to continue to build and sell vehicles in California and all CARB states.
This IMO shouldn't be approached as an end game death match, from either side.

 

How many Toyota vehicles are actually state vehicles to begin with?

As a frequent driver on the California freeways, there are more fords and Chevys anyway.

Let em boycott as it is a small percentage anyway.

 

prior purchase numbers are available, i forget exactly. GM is another big one.

ford is on cali's side, so they may do well with the fallout sales. if some toyota people lose business or jobs, they'll put some pressure on toyota, and others will get that business in the meantime.

one mans trash is another mans treasure.

 

I have no opinion on whether California should, or should not, be permitted to make its own regulations on automobile emissions or fuel economy.

The state’s proposed boycott of certain automakers, however—about which the California Department of General Services has issued a press release but apparently not published any details—would seem, however, to contravene some important principles: open and fair competition in the procurement of goods and services for government use, and the constitutionally protected right to petition for redress of grievances.

It’s proper for the state to set specifications for the cars and trucks it buys, of course, including limits on their emissions, which could be stricter than the regulatory limits that apply to vehicles in general. As long as the vehicles offered to the state meet those specifications, the fact that their manufacturers have asked a court to determine what the law is, with respect to regulations that would apply to other vehicles to be sold to other buyers in the future, is irrelevant, and to consider it would put the state in a precarious position.

 

You have just as much right as I to dictate what the conversation is all about... To suggest I'm the one who gets to do that is flattering but inaccurate.

To be clear, the conversation is regarding California, a top 10 national economy in the world even though it's only a state, is boycotting Toyota products because in long term planning California has worked hard to reduce emissions and create an agreement with all major automakers because manufacturing cars that comply with California state requirements is way less expensive than making the same car everywhere that has to be made differently to comply with California's, which is a huge market.

But now that's being challenged by the US federal government who has traditionally taken a back seat to California leadership because it's a bad look to be an advocate for more air pollution rather than less. This move also creates way more investment uncertainty which can harm auto maker profitability by creating too many different jurisdictions that not only require multiple designs for the same vehicle, but can change unexpectedly based on the latest court ruling. Key phrase here is "long-term." And when it comes to long term planning car makers want as much certainty as possible in that kind of speculative investment.

Back in the day when auto makers were bringing a knife to a knife fight, Toyota brought a hybrid knife capable of 50mpg. Then when the oil racketers got prices up way over $100 a barrel and then $13 trillion in home equity was robbed from US homeowners and massive layoffs and foreclosures in the US helped tank the global economy, most auto makers went broke and got slashed to bits in the knife fight that Toyota won due to its reliance on long term hybrid knife investments that were paying off brilliantly as all their competitors bled out.

So here we are a decade later and California is working with all automakers to plan long term technology investments and they're all realizing guns rather than hybrid knives is going to be the weapon of choice in the next economic fight to the death... And this time around Toyota is a lot like the dumb guys who lost during the last economic downturn because the profits from previous investments weren't worth turning away from just yet.

And for all you who think California has done something wrong by no longer buying from a company is now in a lawsuit against them... How often do you continue to buy goods or services from a company who files a lawsuit against you?

Of course if you're a fanboy and you're not the one being sued it's easier to discount. And what's key to remember that's being challenged here is not just some rogue state being too strict, it's actually the state who has been a leader in reducing automobile air pollution for 50 years because it's notorious reliance on cars made it the first state to experience a health emergency via smog alerts and banning outdoor activities on windless days due to leaded gas and a lack of pollution control devices on vehicles.

And so now after 50 years we solved lots of those far more easier air pollution challenges in the golden state and the rest of the world for the most part went along with it...

But now the stakes are way higher and the science is clear on atmospheric C02 pollution and what happens when temperatures rise and yet again California is facing a disastrous health crisis with almost all of the top 10 most catastrophic wildfires in the state's history in less than a handful of years and it's destroying 10's of thousands of houses and hundreds killed directly and millions are made ill by the air pollution of wildfire smoke indirectly.

This is not just a simple crisis... We're talking about Butte County a year ago losing 10% of its entire housing inventory... The city of Santa Rosa the year before lost 5% of its entire housing inventory. With numbers like that we're looking at an end to homeowner's insurance coverage for fire, as well as bankrupting PG&E whose outdated power grid has started many of the fires. In short the whole state is on fire and the whole planet's climate is heading in that direction as well.

And how many of you in this discussion have even considered all this in that context? It's almost like you'd rather have your own children grow up with a holocaust of a future / no future at all, rather than modify your lifestyle a little bit to address air pollution. So if you want to talk about who's being childish, that's where we need to start. The willingness to defend our current lifestyle and not given an inch no matter how terrible the damage and loss over time. You really can't get more childish than that.

 

Keep in mind Toyota agreed to these standards and was well positioned to handle them... then the big loser who's all bluster and no bite makes them think they'd be better off reneging on the agreement and joining a lawsuit against the agreement instead. The court system works very slowly and only time will tell if they made the wrong decision or not.

 

Only in the Peoples Republic of California.

 

Keep some perspective. The cars California buys for its State agencies & stewardship activities are the little stick.

The cars California allows to be sold to its residents is the big stick.

 

agreed.
dealers arent being closed down, and toyota will be able to sell cars there, if they maintain the emmisions standard.
which would mean building one car for cali, and another for 35 to 49 other states.

otoh, there are a good number of california car buyers who may react to the little stick by boycotting toyota themselves. more fun for tesla!

i for one, hope massachusetts sticks with cali.

as i said, good entertainment.

 

We have a royal mess and it is interesting to watch.
Wonder if the Dems, if they get the White House, try to reign in the anarchy, or continue to let progressive states to do whatever they want.

 

probably try to make it 50 state mandatory

 

Industry leader in building the most reliable cars in the world....

 

Oddly enough, state’s rights are normally a Republican Party plank.
I fully support that a state should be able to decide which products the state is going to buy.

Toyota is the only manufacturer whose fleet average mpg has been going down.
Yes, the Prius is phenomenal for efficiency. But as a percentage Toyota’s sales of trucks and gas hogs is overwhelming their efficient models.

I applaud their history, but won’t support the current actions.

‘For reference: Highlights of the Automotive Trends Report | The EPA Automotive Trends Report | US EPA

 

Toyota Truck sales are way behind Ford, GM and Dodge? But look on the bright side we can all buy the cybersuck soon!

 

or - one can understand how little our individual guesses, opinions, & hopes, expressed to others here, really amount to, because we all pick transportation that works best for us, weather based on ego, political ideologies, finances, or other motives.

most here don't consider they are in any kind of fight - much less would even want to be in a fight. Sometimes people are just bored, because they have such an easy life, then due to said boredom - have to concoct reasons to be in a fight - so they have a given source of purpose. So it's a bit of an irony when someone starts bashing those who are at least here because they like the money saving and economical benefits of a hybrid. We all drive whatever form of efficient, money-saving vehicle that we can, or want to.

My high school civics class reminds me that - but for the fact that (2½ centuries ago) the feds offered up great individual state rights, we wouldn't have even been a nation.
.

 

You should know better than to pass along debunked claims like that. The statistic you are referring to is 2 years old. Much has happened since then, increasing MPG average for the fleet. That doesn't include the upcoming next-gen Highlander hybrid or RAV4 Prime either.

 

Right now I'm not sure they can get it back with the crew they have up there on stage.

 

In the 1980s there were California compliant and non-compliant cars. So go CARB and non-CARB models.

Bob Wilson