General Motors joins Toyota and jumps into the Friedman fray
In the past New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has made his disdain for the US Domestic auto industry clearly known and the other day the pro-globalization writer fired off a salvo at Toyota for their current stance on new fuel economy regulations. Toyota's Irv Miller was quick to return fire last night and now General Motors has joined the fire fight as well. Tom Wilkinson has "penned" a response on the company's FYI blog reiterating many of the same points as Miller and rebutting Friedman's simplistic notions. The consistent problem with much of Friedman's writing is that he tends to spout easy-to-digest but nutrition-free ideas. The continuing ignorance of the fact that high fuel taxes and the resulting end-user cost are a major part of the reason for greater efficiency overseas is pointed out again by Wilkinson. As a columnist, Friedman has every right to his own opinion and has the right to express it. However if a writer can't recognize that just because the world may be flat it doesn't mean it's level then his credibility is severely damaged.
Related:
[Source: GM FYI Blog]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
detroit9000 11:56AM (10/04/2007)
Speaking of nutrition free ideas....
The United States is a federalized democracy. We've had, and continue to suffer from an inability to monitor the monetary influences which are applied to our federal representatives (i.e. anyone of rank in DC).
GM and Toyota both draw a lot of water in the US, and they redirect a lot of water toward their interests. If their interest is to not invest in capital expenditure to make more fuel efficient cars in the name of maintaining healthy margins on large cars, they will lobby to that end. Friedman isn't wrong. His ideas aren't weak. In fact, he's dead on. If anyone things the Prius is some altruistic expression, they're off their rocker. The Prius is a tool to improve engineering skill and to buy time so Toyota can continue to make money of the, what, 6 or 7 trucks in their line-up? Do you have any idea how big the margins are for those trucks?
No, you don't. Because this is an automotive blog!
Look, if you can prove that GM and Toyota aren't lobbying DC to stall environmental reforms, then I strongly urge you to do so. Tell John McCain and Russ Feingold how you did it too, so they can pass a bill that's more effective than the one they penned.
Reply
small-wee-wee 12:11PM (10/04/2007)
I applaud Detroit9000 for his comment. I could not have said it any better myself.
Reply
Tom 12:31PM (10/04/2007)
GM and Toyota are the two largest carmakers in the world, and sell in every market, developed and emerging. As GM chairman Rick Wagoner has said time and again, we realize that the very future of our business depends on developing more efficient vehicles and new sources of energy. We are on record as supporting a signficant increase in CAFE, and we are making a massive investment in new technologies. We will continue to stay engaged in the policy discussions and to advocate for solutions that we think will actually work.
Reply
TacomaGreen 1:16PM (10/04/2007)
Sam Abuelsamid, why are you defending GM and Toyota?
Is it what Thom says NOT true? I believe he is dead on as detroit9000 states.
Just because the tax laws in the US do not tax fuel to pay for things like healthcare costs attributable to auto exhaust or alleviating congestion is no excuse. There have been many examples throughout history of industry fighting laws stating that they will adversely affect profits only to be debunked once the law takes effect and profits are up.
Green building is one of these areas. Companies that go "Green" with their buildings make money from these efforts. Ask Ford.
It is strange to read these word from you on a "Green" website. It appears that your corporate slip is showing.
Reply
Mik_Cal 1:47PM (10/04/2007)
Detroit's big Three have been managed quite poorly over the past 35 years, essentially ever since the Oil Crisis of the early 70's. I think this is especially true in their recruitment of innovators, engineering and business-strategic talent. Despite their size, they have not been planning for the inevitable environmental and resource restrictions that were foreseeable from the late 1960's if not earlier. By contrast the Japanese and to a lesser extent the European automakers have been somewhat stronger in these departments. But the automakers are right to point out this is largely because of a FUEL TAX over there as well as the general energy resource scarcity in Japan and Western Europe as compared to the US.
The problem with CAFE is that it is an attempt to legislate to Detroit that it manage itself better and with greater regard for externalities and the future, ignoring the pressure of sectors of its market (the people who wittingly or unwittingly by inefficient or polluting vehicles) to continue business as usual. GM and Ford market very different vehicles in Europe where gas is much more expensive.
I think the automakers are galled by CAFE because it is asking them to be "better than" their market or to lead their market. I'm afraid their management and talent is not deep enough to be able to do that and still make money. A fuel tax is going to be much more effective because then demand is going to drive efficiency rather than a rule than can be manipulated.
Furthermore, the focus on CAFE and holding the automakers responsible among environmentalists is a sign of weakness...they do not want to be unpopular by telling people that they have to pay more for fuel. A carbon tax, which is not aimed only at fuel, may be a way to sidestep a direct confrontation over the price of gas.
Reply
wmaclough 2:57PM (10/04/2007)
The reality is that CAFE does little positive, except give the folks in Washington DC a way to promote their "green" credentials while screwing up the marketplace. The new Euro CO2 limits are a much more effective and direct way to help the environment, but no one in Washington will act to impose those sorts of limits because it would basically force all of you into Golf/Focus/Astra sized diesel powered cars. Further, looking solely to cars to fix our environmental issues is like putting makeup on the back end of a mule and thinking it looks like Heidi Klum. We need a world wide, comprehensive approach to carbon emissions, without bypasses for growing countries like China and India that have just bypassed the US and Europe combined as carbon polluters. To place the burden on automakers who sell in the US only by way of CAFE makes no sense either environmentally or economically.
Reply
akatsuki 3:43PM (10/04/2007)
I would have no problem with eliminating CAFE if gas was priced appropriately, but given the subsidies to oil (e.g. the Iraq war, the lack of requiring an equal amount of CO2 and other emissions scrubbed from the air as it produces, other externalities, restoring of ecological habitats), this won't happen. If gas was $8/gallon, I guarantee there would be no need for CAFE.
Reply
rt66er 3:41PM (10/04/2007)
Yeah, and while we're at it, let's stop making XXX size clothes. That way there would be no overweight people.
Reply
Tim Russell 3:58PM (10/04/2007)
This article here sums things up: http://tinyurl.com/2nsuvf
Reply
philmcneal 5:21PM (10/04/2007)
well said #9 and #1
Reply
Henry 6:15PM (10/04/2007)
The only reason people are buying these huge SUVs doing 15 MPG is because they feel safer in them.
If the government prohibited truck bumpers to be 1 feet above regular bumpers at least on the highways (Or have them equiped with runover barriers that keep them from crushing a car) then everyone could buy a normal sized fuel-efficient car.
Reply
mike 10:44PM (10/04/2007)
Sam, with all due respect, and you do a good job on the site, you really need to read your own blog:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/04/consumer-reports-rightly-ponders-specific-fuel-consumption/
Once you cross the 200hp mark, you are in INSANE hp territory.
Henry,
SUV's are safe sure, but, does GM's "hybrid" have to be attached to a 300 hp V8? Why is horsepower still climbing upward with 3 years of gas price increases?
Why isn't ExxonMobile paying for those 3 aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea? Why is that coming out of My Taxes.
Reply
mike 10:48PM (10/04/2007)
Mik_Cal,
Do you really think they want higher gas prices?
Hint: No. They want things to stay Just as They Are for as LONG as Possible.
Higher Gas Prices could easily reach a critical mass tipping point where GM and FORD sell NOTHING. This CAFE argument is merely as STALLING Tactic.
Reply
mike 10:50PM (10/04/2007)
In other words CAFE is the best thing for the auto industry.
A quick high increase in GAS TAXES could kill the industry.
The DEMOCRATS are Right about this.
The auto industry NEEDS CAFE and CO2 limits.
Reply
mike 10:59PM (10/04/2007)
I'd just like to point out, Across the Board for 2008 the Auto Industry continued to pump out Bigger Engines with Higher Horsepower. Meanwhile, the Arctic melt is accelerating. And today it's OCTOBER 4th and 85 degrees in Philadelphia. Does GREED make you STUPID?
Reply
ksmith 8:22AM (10/05/2007)
Tom Friedman is a total douche. He sits in his posh NY apartment and doles out this total BS. His reality is far from what the rest of America sees. What an asshat. That retard has me so pissed off that I can't even formulate a cohesive rebuttle, yet I can't help but to rant. Not that I need to argue against him, his thoughts are so out of whack that anyone with a third of a brain should be able to see through his crap. This is one pompus ass that needs to STFU.
Reply
gsolman6 9:24AM (10/05/2007)
This just isn't about CAFE and fuel taxes its also about the $39B (almost $200/driver/year) of subsidies, "royalty relief", oil security and transport that U.S. taxpayers pay indirectly, i.e. not at the pump. If you revoked these subsidies and royalty deals and passed on the cost of security and transport at the pump like it should you would see a marked change in peoples behavior. One of the recent energy bills (2005?) and the Royalty Relief Act of 1998 have skewed the market towards greater consumption and needless waste.
Reply
Henry 11:02AM (10/05/2007)
Even with 3$ a gallon Americans buy trucks..."
No kidding. You could sell a gun in Iraq for huge profits.
America buys trucks for protection from other SUVs since 40000 people a year are dying on the road.
Car companies the new War Lords and yet they are so humble about it.
Reply
michael e. v. knight 2:01AM (10/07/2007)
Here are some videos with Friedman and RMI
http://rmi.org/sitepages/pid41.php
Reply