What is Digg?76 Comments
- jmpeagle, on 10/15/2007, -1/+35who does any business oppose more regulation????
One of their best selling vehicles now is the Toyota Tundra. None of the large companies are green. Some are just greener than others. A green transportation company is called a bicycle company. - masterm1nd, on 10/15/2007, -2/+17It's so funny. You do know that 99% of these "green" products and services are scamming you, right? Can you say carbon credit, where can I buy some.... Ohh Al Gore! If they aren't completely scamming you, they are only using it as a marketing strategy.
- mtcool1988, on 10/13/2007, -5/+17"Raise average fuel economy standards fleet-wide to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020" - We'll all be dead if it takes that long to get to 35MPG...
- dolbyac3, on 10/13/2007, -1/+10Since when did they ever have a "green image"? When I think Toyota I think of a car that lasts a long time with little trouble. /shrug
- inactive, on 10/13/2007, -0/+8People choose to buy trucks, the companies would be stupid to not accommodate.
- darnit, on 10/13/2007, -0/+7You got the dates wrong, it's 2020 and 2022 respectively.
- nathan1313us, on 10/16/2007, -7/+14So tell me why we need laws that require more efficient vehicles? If people want them they will buy them. The customer does seem to care thats why "green" things sell. Don't waste gov't time on this. I want my tax dollars back for the massive amount of time wasted dealing with this *****. Hell if I did I might be able to buy one of these "green" cars.
- Humptydank, on 10/13/2007, -0/+7One free refill of your Diet Coke with every bowl of Haagen-Daz...
- AgmLauncher, on 10/15/2007, -6/+11The first bill (35mpg by 2010) is obviously some environmentalist daydreamer's idea. I can't stand it when environmentalists suggest things that are simply not practical or economical, or even FAIR. You cannot expect that kind of technology to be delivered that quickly. Engineering programs and the research needed for each iterative evolution of technology is 2 years at a MINIMUM. Let alone the actual implementation and roll out of such new technology.
I can't stand pipe dream thinking by green thinkings who know DICK about engineering/business management and what is practical and what isn't practical. It's really actually very annoying. There is a balance between hell bent forward progress and practicality, which is exactly what the 2nd bill is (32mpg by 2012). That is far more realistic and doesn't pull the carpet out from under the feet of these manufacturers.
Moreover, I believe the first bill is also completely, and utterly ignorant of reality. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't provide for emission standards based on vehicle classifications. It holds a full size SUV to the same standards as it holds a sub compact car. That's TOTALLY unreasonable, and whoever proposed it either has no understanding of the laws of physics (more mass requires more energy to overcome inertia), or they are so wrapped up in their own green ideologies that they simply do not care about the laws of physics.
Either way, it's pathetic, and it illustrates that "green thinking" can be just as ignorant as what the green thinkers claim the auto makers to be. - Error601, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7I guess they don't think a 100hp Lexus will sell well.
- Misaiato, on 10/13/2007, -0/+5Diggers - companies opposing government regulation is like, oh, I don't know - Capitalism? Laissez faire? Anyone? Bueller?
- inactive, on 10/13/2007, -0/+5"Toyota is no more green that Chrysler Group, GM, or Ford. They have simply tricked people into thinking that so that they can sell more cars."
What a sad cop-out. Toyota didn't trick anyone - people tricked themselves into believing it.
If anyone deserves to be criticized, it's the big detroit auto makers. - RyeBrye, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4My 1996 Nissa altima gives me 31mpg. 35 doesn't seem too hard, although I don't agree with the government regulating it...
- inactive, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5I've seen a lot of this anti-Toyota crap on Digg in the last few days. Don't fall for corporate propaganda.
- daviddiaz, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4I also think that it's illogical for people to expect toyota to welcome such legislation with open arms. No one wants to be regulated. Especially if the regulations mean that the performance and ability to compete of your flagship product is in jeopardy.
- abcdefghij, on 10/13/2007, -1/+5who the hell are these dumasses trying to be smartasses?
A green automobile company is a company that actually has taken steps TOWARDS greener products. Toyota Prius, Honda Hybrids are actual mass-produced cars that are manufactured (and bought) as an attempt to curb pollution, this makes them a Green company. Of course they are still producing regular cars, and the regulation will affect their cost or profit from the regular cars. That's why they are burdened with any new environmental regulation.
The bottomline is: Toyota is trying to go green. That is much better than AM General or GM. - quomen, on 10/15/2007, -3/+6"Well...it looks like the backlash has begun. Toyota, you made yourself into a green brand, and now you either have to live up to your shiny new image, or get pwned."
I stopped reading there. - MacEnvy, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3For Nissan, you're absolutely correct. Nissan makes some of the *least* fuel efficient vehicles on the market. The Titan is a gas-guzzling monstrosity compared to many other similarly-sized trucks. They're barely keeping up with Dodge in the fuel efficiency department.
- joegibes, on 10/13/2007, -1/+4Since the Prius.
- n8f8, on 10/13/2007, -1/+4Some day you will realize the stupidity of wasting 30% more energy to produce the mere "appearance" of helping the environment. In a rational world we wouldn't be driving around in 2 tons of steel to transport 200 pounds of mass. Mopeds.
- brotherfranciz, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3Wow, that's a first: a Nissan fanboy on Digg!
- inactive, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4You're a paid shill.
- TheGuin, on 10/13/2007, -4/+6Toyota is no more green that Chrysler Group, GM, or Ford. They have simply tricked people into thinking that so that they can sell more cars. The Toyota executives don't give a crap about the environment they just make it seem like they do so they can get more money so that they can destroy the environment. The same goes for Honda and Nissan.
- lordigor, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3I think a lot of people aren't understanding what congress wants.
they don't want every car the company puts out to get 35 mpg, they want the average mpg of every car the company puts out to be 35. so say i produce a car that gets 40 mpg and one that gets 30 mpg. that would be fine because it averages out to 35.
the part of this that toyota doesn't like isn't the mpg, but the timeframe that the bill wants. it's not easy getting it done in that short a time.
also, keep in mind that not every pickup truck and SUV are driven by people who could just as well have bought a sedan. there are many reasons (contractors, construction companies, etc.) for buying large vehicles with low gas mileage. - PH4GE, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2The Union of Concerned Scientists is a bullsh** organization. Nothing to do with science or concern.
- chazzy, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2Not quite available in showrooms, but they're out there. Problem is still where to get hydrogen fills. For now, only certain high-profile individuals are being offered them for marketing purposes (marketing for BMW as much as hydrogen power). Consider how instrumental Hollywood celebrities like Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio were to making the Prius successful in the early days.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/18/jay-leno-a ... - SD70MACMAN, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2My 1988 Volvo wagon gets 32MPG. Granted, it has 119hp and weighs 3200lbs (gutless), but it gets me to work and back just fine, w/ plenty of room in the back to put junk and can pull a 1000lb trailer. I don't believe the car companies for a second when they say we can't get to 35MPG average in ten ***** year. If we nearly had the technology in NINETEEN EIGHTY-EIGHT, we sure has ***** have the technology 19 years later and especially 34 years later. As for mass and *****, why don't people drive a smaller car? A heavier car =/= safer. Why can't people just sacrifice their image for something a little more reasonable?
- harksaw, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3Toyota doesn't want the regulation because it would force GM and Ford to make cars people would want to buy. Thus, taking away Toyota's market share.
- nogami, on 10/16/2007, -2/+4Wasn't this posted by some BS special interest group yesterday?
It was BS then, and still BS now. All of the auto manufacturers are in there, not just Toyota... - LeeTXJD, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Union of Concerned Scientists??? A mere activist group. Buried, Inaccurate.
- carpespasm, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2indeed, trust me, i know many people that do construction work, and aside from those with some penis envy complex, most of them would rather drive something that gets better mileage. but when you have to haul around a few tons of material, trailer, and heavy equipment to a site, you need enough ooph to get it there, and it kidna sucks.
- ijustam, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Toyota is a company.
Companies like to make money.
A lot of Americans like trucks.
Toyota will sell trucks.
Seems like a good business model to me. - ijustam, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Because Toyota doesn't give a *****. Toyota sells what people want. It's not their problem if people buy trucks, they just want to make money and anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot.
- gjmcnamee, on 11/12/2007, -0/+1They are doing a lot better then Ford or GM.
- heystoopid, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Why ? , considering the negatives of these vehicles far out weigh the positives in every aspect of daily use outside the normal commercial use these vehicles were originally designed for !
- kaskoosek, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1I agree with your thinking and have dug you up. What I disagree with is that if its beneficial to GM and Ford to make more efficient cars, then they do not need to be forced to do so. This assumes that these companies are dumb.
- inactive, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1what's with writing pwned in the article?? make the author sound like a ***** moron not worthy of being taken seriously.... buried for the lame writing of the article
- res8qr6m, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1It still seems much less than what the standard European car can do today. 35mpg can be easily attained within a few months, not years, especially if we can get the fuel efficient models from Japan or Europe.
- harksaw, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1They are dumb. If you haven't noticed, the American auto industry has been going downhill for decades.
- Nickbc87, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Yeah, but emissions of those cars are ridiculous. Wasn't there some Indian scientist a couple years back that invented some groove design in the engine to increase mileage?
- Humptydank, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I think Prius is Latin for "lip service."
- fluxion, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1the point is ford and gm, american car makers in general, have caught alot of ***** for opposing fuel efficiency laws, yet toyota is right up there with them.
i havent researched this, but ill put money on Honda being fully prepared to meet the demand of new fuel efficiency laws. i wouldve thought toyota would be right there with them. - dolbyac3, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Maybe I'm being too picky on the wording of the title but I wouldn't call the Prius the Image of Toyota.
- joegibes, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Dude, it is for me.
- fluxion, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1oh, my bad. apparently everyone thinks its reasonable.
there's actually 2 bills, one for 32mpg average by 2020, the other for 35mpg by 2020. GM, Ford, Chrysler, AND Toyota all support the 32mpg goal.
its just the 35mpg goal they oppose. that's not so bad. Still though, I dont see Honda opposing any fuel efficiency bills, i would think Toyota wouldve been up to the task as well. - videographer, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2Can anyone say...ulterior motive?
Of course Toyota doesn't want Detroit to have to hit high MPG targets. Even if it is mandated, Detroit would cry, piss and moan about it, and when the House goes GOP again they will get it repealed, because it's much easier to buy congress-people that to actually innovate.
In the meantime, Toyota will be producing cars that can meet and exceed the targets, and by doing so pluck the last turkey feather off the fat ass of Motown and put it handily in their cap. Makes perfect sense, and I applaud them for it. - kittensteak, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1For the majority of vehicles increasing fuel economy would be incredibly simple. But the trade off would be a sacrifice of horsepower.
- kgrandia, on 10/13/2007, -5/+5You bet the backlash is on! Been a long time coming! http://digg.com/environment/National_Environmental ...
- inactive, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0When someone uses the term "pwned" more than once in an article, I tend to start twitching too.
- fluxion, on 10/13/2007, -1/+132mpg by >2020
you dont think that reasonable? -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is