Is Toyota conspiring to kill the planet?

[freebeard]

Once, in the 1970s, I was driving my 1957 Beetle East on 126 past Springfield, OR, and I saw the sun setting perfectly centered in the round rear-view mirror. I was thinking how picturesque it was. A minute later I realized it wasn't setting behind the Coast Range, but into the inversion layer.

[Xist]

I doubt that Toyota, GM, and Fiat-... well, I doubt that Toyota and GM want California pollution to get as bad as it was decades ago, so what is the deal?

[freebeard]

They claimed that seven whole people swore off Toyota forever because of this evil scheme.

You're easily swayed by opinion pieces someone wrote for a penny a word?

[Xist]

That is a particularly illogical conclusion.

[freebeard]

Mocking their assertion, not your reporting. Maybe this one?

Anyway, my phone also suggested an article about Toyota conspiring to kill the planet. Apparently Toyota and GM agree that California should not be able to define their own pollution standards. I do not know why...

Your phone is trying to reprogram you, but it's failing for lack of persuasion?

But...

Basically, those three want to make vehicles to one standard nationwide. The other manufacturers want to build to California's standards.

All that's needed is to bring the two standards into synchronization. There's an onus* here somewhere.

*not wut you thought

[Xist]

I shared another article from that site and someone (RedPoint?), said he avoided them completely. I thought the previous articles that I read by them were fine, but I may tell my phone to stop showing them.

It was horribly biased and I only read it and every other article that I found trying to find Toyota's reasoning. It also seemed bizarre that GM did the same thing that Toyota did, but they only mentioned it once. Everything else targeted Toyota. As I mentioned, some of the customers must have had GM vehicles, but they swore off Toyota?

California has its own standards. New York copies them, but I have always seen California emissions and 49-state emissions (although you cannot buy 49-state emission equipment in New York).

Apparently a dozen other states also copy California, but they must not have a large population.

Huh. Reagan created the California Air Resources Board when he was governor of California.

He has a better reputation than that guy who created the EPA.

Other states can and have joined CARB, including Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Washington D.C.

[One of those states is not a state] https://autoweek.com/article/green-c...s-smile-states

I just reread the original article (twice) and skimmed the others. I remember reading something like 14% of new cars on the road meet California standards, but I cannot find it.

You could average out the standards, proportional to the number of cars in CARB and non-CARB states. One might argue that it would balance out, but pollution in big cities in CARB states would get worse, while it would be negligibly cleaner in rural areas like here.

The keyword is "Government:" California bans government purchases of most gas-powered cars under Newsom climate order

The first article that I saw made it seem like Governor Newsom banned all sales of vehicles made by companies supporting EPA rollbacks, but it is just for the government fleet.

How often do you see government vehicles that are imports?

The original article linked Toyota's statement, quoted the first sentence, and then called them liars.

They make the case that they are committed to making their vehicles cleaner and more fuel-efficient than the previous year.

Toyota entered into this legal action not as a plaintiff or a defendant, and not to favor any political party. Toyota is intervening to impact how emissions standards are applied. We want to help forge a sustainable compromise for consumers and the environment. Without joining this legal action, we would have no ability to affect the outcome.

Toyota’s Statement Regarding Uniform National Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards

Multiple standards will result in higher vehicle prices. And if vehicle prices increase, consumers are more likely to keep older, less efficient cars longer. We can do more to reduce greenhouse gases by focusing on the 250 million vehicles already on the road today. We need to encourage consumers to trade in older, less efficient vehicles for newer vehicles that have higher fuel economy and therefore emit fewer greenhouse gases. We won’t be able to do that if prices are beyond what people are willing to or can afford.

It sounds like they do not want to sell CARB compliant vehicles nationwide because fewer people would trade in older vehicles for newer, cleaner, and more efficient ones because prices would be higher.

If all cars met CARB standards, they would be cheaper than California versions (depending on the precious metals market), but not as cheap as 49-state vehicles. If automakers could sell the same versions in California that they do everywhere else, California vehicles would be cheaper, they would be marginally cheaper everywhere else, and California would have a horrible pollution problem.

If California ended CARB, but required all cars to meet current standards, would that eliminate tens of millions of old cars that people need to get to and from work?

Would the air be at least as clean as continuing CARB?

Would the precious metals market be able to meet the supply of CARB vehicles nationwide?

[teoman]

Ecomodders get better FE from older cars

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by teoman

Ecomodders get better FE from older cars

Better mpg, easier and cheaper to fix, a fraction of the price of new, half to 1/3 the price to insure, $0 in finance charges if you buy the car and pay in full.

[Xist]

Old cars are bad for the economy!

If my brother and I stopped breaking my cars and I had a decent amount of clients, I would stop paying credit card interest, and start paying mortgage interest.

Is that equally good for the economy?

Is mortgage interest equally good for the economy as car payments and higher interest rates?

[freebeard]

Is mortgage interest equally good for the economy as car payments and higher interest rates?

They both support the existence of inflationary central banks.

Fuller posited in 1928 and again in 1947 that a house should cost no more than a car. Still true today. A 10x24 Summit Structures tiny house shell was quoted [locally] at $20K. (insulated, sheet rocked, vinyl windows, warrantied, maybe not delivered) So you have what? $10K for an Ikea build-out?

If I paid a quarter-million for a house (not unheard of [for others] for a house or a car) I'd want it to not only shelter me but also feed me and put money in my pocket. With electric window lifts and remote door locks.
________________

In another 22 days, this would go in the cl*m*t* ch*ng* thread, but it's really about pollution. Tesla and VW FTW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNfiCsCRP8s