AutoblogGreen

Is Tom Friedman incompetent? I think any and all expansion of hybrids are a good thing.... Idiots like Tom that think we can force everyone to drive Prius type cars are fools. It's ok to have a hybrid that increases milage from 30 to 40mpg but on that increases from 15 to 22 is Evil? Please wake up and smell the coffee. The more the 15mpg cars are replaced with 22mpg cars the better. Maybe just the fact that Tom could get in the way of a hybrid Tacoma 4x4 is whats pissed me off the most. So Tom get off your high horse and face reality. While I want the best milage possible I think Tom is not focused on the whole picture. can the MPG of the bill be tuned up? sure and maybe it should. But overall I'm with Toyota on this one.

Oh and Sam what you refer to as, "trying to ride the existing tech as long as possible," its called ROI (Return On Investment) my friend. Toyota is trying to make it profitable. If Hybrid tech isn't profitable it doesn't exist. Maybe you can understand that. I'm not sure Tom is that competent.

Reply

Toyota like all other automakers are here to make money and they will fight the increase in the cafe standards. The government should be there looking out for the public not corporate profit. Increase the cafe standards or increase fuel taxes. Either or but something needs to get done. People need to understand that Toyota is just another giant company trying to make money not here to save the world as they are so hypocritically are portraying themselves.

Reply

Whaa? Tom "the sooner GM goes out of business and lets Toyota takes over the better it is for the U.S." Friedman's firing darts at his favorite son?

No surprise here for Toyota supporting Hill-Terry. Any or all companies are going to support government bills that result in the lowest investment requirements. It just makes economic sense. It's no different than taxpayers at election time voting for the least costliest millage proposals or electing an official that didn't or won't vote for a tax increase.

IMO most of the auto companies can and have been building really fuel efficient cars-unfortunately not for sale in the U.S. (I'm talking the high performance, high mileage, high tech, high $$$, teeny types.) This is due to the general public's willingness to pay for them. What these companies don't want to do is to sell a hundreds of them at a loss at the year's end just so they can meet CAFE.

The only viable way to convince the public to buy them is to hit them where they can't avoid the cost - and that is at the pump.

Reply

The "green" in autoblog green, for this post, means "clueless about life on the hill".

Reply

Thomas "flat like my head" Friedman....I dont like his economics...because it is so full of ......hole. He knows nothing about the car business or cars and it really shows.

Reply

Does anyone know if Honda is against the CAFE standard increases?

I haven't heard anything from Honda.

Reply

Randy, maybe you could take Economics 101 and pay attention to the "Externalites" section.

Like, gas is cheap because ExxonMobile isn't paying for those 3 Aircraft Carriers in the Arabian Sea. That comes out of my INCOME TAX. Transfer that cost to the GAS TAX and see how many SUV's and Heavy Duty Pickup Trucks get sold.
Hint: NONE.

Reply

Dear Sir,

Thomas Friedman is one of the smartest and most well informed columnists writing on issues of national security and the future.

Mr. Friedman finds himself at odds with "Auto Nation" because he is advancing the thought that the longer we deny the inevitability of the need for maximum auto fleet economy the sooner we will face exhaustion of the world's fossil fuel supply and the sooner we will be forced, along with the rest of the developing war, into armed conflict over these resources. He, through analysis and exchanging ideas with leaders around the world, has concluded increased vehicle efficiency is a necessary but painful step to avoiding such pain and conflict.

Ironically, Mr. Friedman's dust up with Toyota coincides with the airing of Ken Burns' latest documenary, The War, which chronicled events in the United States during WW II. That documentary shows a country united to defeat a common enemy and willing to sacfice material well being for a common cause. While the threat to our nation today may not seem so imperative and the need to sacrifice so immediate, one needs only ask themself why we have become so involved in the affairs of the Middle East, up to and including fighting two wars in a decade, if Mr. Friedman's basic thesis isn't true.

The issue of increasing auto/truck fleet efficiency reminds me of an old FRAM filter commercial theme....."you can pay me now, or pay me later!" The implication of the mechanic who said this classic ad line was that the cost of doing something now is going to be less painful than deferring the decision. So too is the issue of taking action to increase fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks.

Of course, we could all continue to believe the propogandists and apologists for the oil industry who keep telling us we are awash in a sea of oil and all we have to do is drill deeper, further and more frequently to escape the inevitable. Those are the people who now sell us $3 to $4 a gallon gasoline and who spend billions lobbying our Congress and President to "protect American interests abroad", shorthand for defending the Saudi oil fields and supporting corrupt and totalitarian regimes who allow American and Western European oil companies to continue drilling away.

I love the choices I have when I buy a car. I love the choices I have when I go to the supermarket, but, at some point, I have to be pragmatic enough to admit my choices have consequences. Mr. Friedman's call for maximum efficiency in autos is a way of reminding all of us that when we buy a car today we are locking ourselves into a pattern of consumption for a long period of time. The sooner we wake up and admit to ourselves a fleet of vehicles comprised in large part of V-8 powered SUVS is not in the interest of our national interests, the better.

Bottom line: we are all consumers, but we are all citizens, too. We need to begin striking a balance between the two.

Reply

Amen Robert.

I agrree on all points. Friedman is well worth the read folks, you might not agree with all of his positions, but he is certainly a highly regarded expert on Middle East affairs.

For anyone wishing to understand the complexity of the region, read "From Beirut to Jerusalem". You will never look at the map the same way.

Reply

The problem with CAFE standards is that they're economically inefficient. Consumers don't want to buy the cars that help the automakers meet the CAFE standards. In addition, there is no incentive to reduce fuel usage by driving less. The current situation, with higher mileage vehicles (thanks to CAFE) operating with cheap gas, creates an incentive for people to drive more because it costs so little.
A fuel tax is the most economically efficient way of not only boosting fuel economy of cars, but also encouraging people to drive less. The current situation does nothing to discourage the ever longer commutes (often 60 miles or more.) Many famous economists, such as Greg Makiw (Republican), have endorsed the idea of a fuel tax.

Reply

Duncan,
Be careful about what you wish for.
GM as well.
A rapid increase in a gas tax could put sales of SUV's over a tipping point, where they sell NOTHING.

I believe you need Both.
A CAFE standard, with predictable mpg increases AND a Slowly increasing Gas Tax, with a small Kickback at income tax time.

But, these guys don't want Either Actually, this is just Political Bull.

Reply

The way I look at it is that Toyota and GM may bleat "We still need to meet consumer demand and consumer demand is for large powerful vehicles" but aren't these the same companies that sold consumers on those ill handling overweight gas guzzlers by promoting them as manly and safe? If they can sell that to an idiot public, then surely they can sell smaller more fuel effcient cars, it just pains them to go against the crap they've been feeding us for the last 20 years.

Reply