NRDC slams Toyota for Greenwashing and supporting Hill-Terry
For most of this decade, Toyota has been the darling of the environmentalists (if such a thing is possible for a car company) due primarily to the Prius and the addition of the company's hybrid system to their other models. That honeymoon seems to be rapidly coming to an end. Increasingly in recent months, people have been critical of Toyota's bigger, more powerful hybrids, in particular the new LS600h. And then there is the Tundra. Toyota themselves over the past month have been sounding increasingly defensive in speeches by executives and on the company's corporate blog. Now the Natural Resources Defense Council has even come out and accused the company of hypocrisy and greenwashing. They are not happy about Toyota coming out in support of the Hill-Terry bill that calls for substantially less aggressive fuel economy standards than the Senate bill that was passed last spring. The NRDC and others are starting to realize that Toyota is just another big car company and they are not special. NRDC has now launched an on-line petition to Shigeru Hayakawa, president and CEO of Toyota expressing their disappointment in their support of Hill-Terry. Most recently Tom Friedman (no fan of Detroit himself) has jumped on the Toyota-bashing bandwagon, accusing them of playing Kevorkian to the Detroit Three so that they can grab big truck market share.
General Motors might want to take note of this backlash against Toyota and back off on hyping the Volt until they are a little closer to production. It's clear that the top edge of the fence is pretty sharp and if you're not completely on the green side, you can get cut up pretty badly.
[Source: Natural Resources Defense Council, thanks to Apollo for the tip]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rgseidl 3:21PM (10/03/2007)
The entire auto industry is still trying to wrap its head around the idea that environmentally conscious buyers want the whole brand to go green rather than just buy a green model. For them, greenery is a philosophy, not a feature. With their purchase, these consumers want to encourage the sale of similar vehicles to others, something traditional customers don't much care about.
Simply knowing that the Tundra wears the same badge may keep some - by no means all - environmentally conscious customers out of Toyota's showrooms altogether. That doesn't mean ToMoCo is prepared not to compete in the full-size pick-up segment.
This customer focus on brand image means that green vehicles will eventually be hived off into separate eco-only brands. Sub-brands like VW's BlueMotion and Saturn's GreenLine are already emerging.
Citroen and BMW are busy putting their stop-start technology in many models, which is changing consumer perception of these brands in Europe. However, they too will find their new eco-cred to be short-lived if they also stick their badges onto too many gas guzzler models.
Reply
Henry 3:49PM (10/03/2007)
Japanese are the strongest communist based country around. They believe they are the best and deserve the most power as a people rather then as individuals in capitalist countries.
In 1941 they tricked us. In 2007, they beat us in the auto industry. Way before 2022 they will takeover all auto sales in America because they were ready since 2008 with fuel-efficient cars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Reply
Chris M 3:57PM (10/03/2007)
We should also realize that there is a limit to how "green" any company is willing to go. Being "totally green" is no help if the company goes bankrupt, leaving the market to a "not at all green" competitor. Profit is still important.
We should support corporate green efforts with purchases and praise, in proportion to the degree of "greenness".
Reply
Chris M 4:13PM (10/03/2007)
Henry, it is obvious from your inane post that you do not understand either Japan or communism. It is also obvious that you either didn't read or didn't understand the article you linked to.
Oh, and various Japanese companies have been making and selling various models of "fuel efficient" autos for well over 50 years... They certainly did not wait til 2008!
Reply
UH2L 4:26PM (10/03/2007)
Environmentally conscious buyers do want a green product that they can feel good about buying, but I don't think they care about the whole company's offerings. If they did, they wouldn't be able to buy any hybrids since they are a new, relatively unprofitable offering. A company that didn't sell less efficient vehicles, (for which there is a much larger market), could not afford to develop and sell hybrids.
And then there are many buyers who just want a hybrid to feel green, regardless of how wasteful and performance-oriented the vehicle is, (like the Lexus performance-oriented ones).
The jury is still out on the eco-only sub-brands, but they have to stay true to the cause and not be watered down or risk losing credibility as you say.
Atul
http://www.thingsivenoticed.com
Reply
Henry 5:14PM (10/03/2007)
You're correct Chris,
I should linked directly to my source
Autopia
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/10/toyota-joins-bi.html
Communism has long gone from Japanese politics but it is still in the Japanese hearts and minds.
Reply
Domenick 7:40PM (10/03/2007)
Japan was communist? ばか Maybe you should work for the Whitehouse. They're always looking for folks completely out of touch with reality.
Anyway...so why is it people keep confusing Toyota with Greenpeace? Toyota is a company. They sell products to make them money. If part of the market wants fuel efficient cars, they'll make them if they can make a profit doing it. If part of the market wants big ass trucks they'll make those too.
Any claim of caring by any for-profit company about anything other than making money is marketing. That's the reality of the world we live in.If you don't want Toyota to make big ass trucks that will hasten Florida turning into part of the ocean, don't buy big ass trucks.
Thank you.
ドメニク
Reply
mike 8:28PM (10/03/2007)
Yes, but, it's not just Toyota.
It's the whole industry. These guys have scientists that work for them. I'm sure this "global warming" thing didn't just come up Last Week. Yet, they rolled out Increased Horsepower ACROSS THE BOARD in 2008. And even Toyota, has pretty much CANCELLED OUT ALL BENEFIT from the Prius, with the additional 50HP in All the Lux models.
Does "free market" capitalism, and democracy buyable by the highest bidder mean we will suffer the same fate as the Easter Island natives( environmental damage by deforestation ), and lose 7/8's of the culture's population?
Reply
Chris M 8:53PM (10/03/2007)
Well I checked that link, Henry, and not a commie to be found anywhere. To get a better understanding of communism, try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
To be sure, Toyota is manuvering to get an advantage over other auto makers, but so is Ford, GM and Chrysler. You may not like it, but that is one of those things that happen constantly in the capitalist economies, like those in North America, Japan, and Europe.
Reply
ryan 9:46AM (10/04/2007)
Domenick makes some good points. I will add that, at least in America, it is illegal to do anything that would lose money for the stockholders. Yes, you read that correctly. Companies exist, at least in a legal sense, for one sole purpose. To make money for the shareholders. Companies can have lawsuits brought against them (and this does happen) if they do something, especially on purpose with knowledge of what they are doing, and it loses money for the shareholders. In other words, if Toyota were to completely scrap all truck segments, and make their whole fleet of car offerings 40mpg+, that would probably end up losing them money, and, at least in the US, would get them sued to oblivion.
Reply
UH2L 9:09AM (10/04/2007)
We need a green non-profit car company. Anybody want to start one?
Reply
Irv Miller 10:57AM (10/04/2007)
In his October third column (Et Tu, Toyota?), Thomas Friedman takes Toyota to task for backing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards proposed in the Hill-Terry Bill before the House of Representatives instead of more stringent increases favored by the Senate. The author questioned why Toyota, which he cites as a fuel-economy and environmental-technology leader that popularized hybrid technology with the wildly successful Prius, opposes the most aggressive increases in CAFE.
The question is fair, but overlooks a more obvious question for a business in the fiercely competitive automotive market. To use a metaphor from track and field, why would a competitor leading the field not want to put them at an even greater disadvantage by raising the high-jump bar as high as it could go? After all, if indeed Toyota has a head start in fuel-efficient technologies such as hybrids, advanced gasoline powertrains, plug-in hybrids and other high-mpg vehicles, why wouldn’t it want to make others work even harder to catch up?
The answer is simple: It’s because there’s a point at which the bar is set too high for all competitors.
Like other major automakers, Toyota is in the business of offering a full lineup of cars and trucks to meet the needs of American motorists. Its success is the result of listening to customers and offering products they want. Those who point to average fuel economy levels in Europe or Japan overlook the real reasons these markets are different: higher fuel prices, steep fuel and vehicle taxes, different driving conditions, smaller vehicles and dramatically different customer tastes. There are no mandated minimum fleet standards comparable to our CAFE requirements.
Like it or not, Americans will continue to need and want variety, including pickups and SUVs. Nobody forces cars and trucks on consumers. They vote with their wallets.
There are those who attach a variety of ulterior motives to Toyota’s position, are unhappy that we sell pickup trucks and SUVs, or distrust that we are working with other automakers to help set industry environmental direction.
Friedman calls for Toyota to be a leader. We are leading. Toyota has endorsed higher CAFE standards for years. Recently the Union of Concerned Scientists noted that “Toyota is the only major automaker to consistently improve global warming performance since 2001, thanks to hybrids and better conventional technology.” And our passenger-car lineup has the highest CAFE rating in the industry.
As one of the few members of both industry trade organizations, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Toyota has worked behind the scenes to help gain unprecedented support among arch-rival companies for the best standards that can reasonably be met.
Automakers get it this time, calling for up to a 40% increase to 35 mpg by 2022, the first increase since 1985. In a business where product plans are set six, eight and even 10 years in advance, 2022 is closer than it would appear.
When was the last time any industry asked for a mandate requiring costly changes to product lineups going against the known buying habits of 16 million customers per year? Wouldn't it be great if the airline industry, our public utilities, railroads and trucking companies came to the table requesting low carbon emission mandates?
Automakers are now pulling in the same direction, and Toyota believes it has helped lead the industry in that very positive direction. But you can't bankrupt the industry if you want it to invest in our environmental future. When a leader such as Toyota says the bar has been set too high, it just might be set too high.
Irv Miller
Group Vice President, Corporate Communications
Toyota Motor Sales, Inc
Reply
Truckchamp 12:01PM (10/04/2007)
Well put Irv! I work for Toyota as well, and the things I've learned about the auto industry is money, money, and more money. But Toyota has helped substantialy in improving the quality of life. You can look across the board and see the difference in what emissions Toyota's lineup makes and what other Manufactuers make. Apple for Apple comparing. Toyota is by no means perfect, but as people have stated they are here to make money. Hopefully people can realize that.
Reply
Glenn Mercer 12:17PM (10/04/2007)
One thing saddens me about the green movement in the USA: it is wracked by internal warfare, and that weakens the whole movement. Should Toyota be criticized for the Tundra? Absolutely. Free speech must reign and all points of view must be made available to ensure that the citizenry is fully informed. But emotionally (not intellectually) I am saddened by the way the movement spends as much or more time tearing down factions within the movement as building up the whole movement's momentum. Thus battery enthusiasts attack fuel cells as pipe dreams, diesel fans think hybrids are idiotic, ethanol boosters are accused of being tools of Archer Daniels Midland, etc. I guess it all is part of the dialog, but remember one negative effect of all this: to the extent the movement chews itself up, it gives consumers and excuse not to buy green. Somebody on the fence about buying a Prius? Then they hear "Toyota greenwashes!" and they back off and buy a Malibu? Is that a good outcome? We all will be able to find something wrong with all our options, and maybe I am hopelessly naive in wishing we'd all just "play nice," but there is a cost to this sniping, and that is increasing cynicism in the general public about things green. Five years do we really want this whole movement is have the collective credibility of say the legal profession or our government? So, yeah, screw Toyota, those bastards make the Tundra, they must be evil, stick with your SUV, there is no point in switching to a Prius if the guy from NRDC who lives next door will sneer at you anyway....
Reply
mike 11:13PM (10/04/2007)
Irv makes some interesting points,
however, do you mean to tell me that the horsepower increases across the board in your auto and truck fleet made you More Competitive, or simply allowed you to burn your Gas Allocation from ExxonMobile at a faster pace.
See, in my state, gas isn't cheaper, traffic isn't lighter, and if I can only use 20% of 200 hp in my current vehicle, I won't be able to use more then 7.5% of the power of your 300 hp engines. But, that 300hp engine will burn MORE GAS because of the heavier engine, transmission, frame, suspension, wheels, tires, brakes and my fat ass behind the wheel.
Irv, the Arctic melt isn't slowing down waiting for Toyota to ACT.
Reply
GreyFlcn 5:12PM (10/20/2007)
==Like it or not, Americans will continue to need and want variety, including pickups and SUVs.
Nobody forces cars and trucks on consumers.
They vote with their wallets.==
Well certainly, they should vote with their wallets.
The catch being that Toyota and all car companies should NOT be allowed to externalize those costs, making Trucks disproportionately profitable due to a huge excess of unpaid externalities.
By all means, have people vote with their wallets.
Just make sure they are paying FULL PRICE.
Any less, and the premise that "the market has spoken" is absolute bullshit.
Reply