3 ms·

is it FUD though? were do you draw the line between legal and illegal. right or wrong? I think it’s absolutely expected for Toyota to attempt to protect their

is it FUD though? were do you draw the line between legal and illegal. right or wrong? I think it’s absolutely expected for Toyota to attempt to protect their financial interests.

ashtonkem 5y ago
It’s legal for them to do so, I just think they’re bad people for doing it. Attempting to slow down the de-carbonization of our transit because your company bet wrong is just evil, no way around it.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  i agree with you in principle, but (there’s always a but) there are other more impactful things that can be done to cut down carbon emissions (modern cars are already stupid-efficient). Who has the mora authority to declare that Toyota should roll over and die to attain some goal that may or may not be achievable?
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > Who has the mora authority to declare that Toyota should roll over and die to attain some goal that may or may not be achievable? False dilemma. Toyota could start making EVs instead. If they decide to (stupidly) refuse to do that, then their death would be the result of their own stubbornness, not a declared death sentence from someone else. And as far as who has the moral authority? Anyone who stands to face the harms of global warming and not profit off it.
    - rantwasp 5y ago
      lol no. business decisions are driven by economic incentives. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but that’s the way the world works today. you have the authority to decide only to the point of electing politicians that push what you consider to be the right thing. This takes time. How would you feel if you would personally be targeted in an effort to reduce global warming? While at the same time other actors (that basically do the same thing and/or are protected by regulations do way worse? https://thedigitalmomentum.com/the-top-five-co2-emitting-industries-in-the-globe/ https://thedigitalmomentum.com/the-top-five-co2-emitting-ind...) That EV you dream of as stopping global warming may overall be responsible for more CO2 emission that my “normal” car depending on how the power you use has been generated.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        > you have the authority to decide only to the point of electing politicians that push what you consider to be the right thing. This takes time. Funny, a few posts ago you were talking about moral authority. Oh how the goal posts move! Also, as a society we’ve already decided to use our legal authority to incentivize EVs, that’s what Toyota is whining about! They have lost both the political and the social (“hearts and minds”) argument, and are trying to use bribes to get their way again. > How would you feel if you would personally be targeted in an effort to reduce global warming? Drawing a parallel between a person being “targeted” (loaded word) and a corporation making the wrong decisions is extremely weird. Toyota was not targeted, they failed to take advantage of the incentives available to them. Ford, Hyundai, VW, Porsche, and Tesla all took advantage of the programs available to them, Toyota did not. That’s less “targeted” and more “made a mistake”. > That EV you dream of as stopping global warming may overall be responsible for more CO2 emission that my “normal” car depending on how the power you use has been generated. This is actually oil industry propaganda, good to see that it still has legs. EPA estimates show that an EV is marginally cleaner than a gasoline car for a pure coal powered grid for total emissions. Of course you have to live in West Virginia before “100% coal power” is anywhere close to an accurate approximation of what your power grid looks like. Also, it’s not a stretch to say that Toyota’s fuel cells are powered by oil. The primary source of commercial Hydrogen is from natural gas.
        rantwasp 5y ago
        the question about the moral authority was a rhetorical one. Apologies if it came across as a genuine question. I think you’re missing the point: Toyota made their decisions (which they probably had more data then you have for) and now they are making the most out of it, while also trying to extract the most value possible. Does this, in retrospect, look like a mistake? Maybe, but most of the times decisions like this are made with imperfect information and there is a good dose of guessing involved. Again, I’m not saying that what they did or are doing is good/bad right/wrong. I’m saying that it’s totally understandable and as long as this is within the law I don’t have a problem with it. Also, research a bit the solid state battery work that Toyota has allegedly done. I’m not saying it’s going to pan out, but they definitely did not sit around twiddling their fingers and plotting on how to lobby more effectively. Here: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html Also factor in the carbon emissions for manufacturing the battery: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/may/11/viral-image/producing-electric-cars-battery-does-not-emit-same/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/may/11/viral-imag... And depending where your battery is produced you need to use your EV anywhere between 2-5 years before you can say that you emitted less than an equivalent gas powered car. This totally ignores PZEV cars btw. It also ignores the environmental impact of the battery after it no longer works. Also, here is a bulletproof way of reducing carbon emissions and reducing impact on environment: buy less stuff. Including but not limited to buying a new car less often. I’m gonna bet you real money that the impact my SUV has on the environment if own it for 12 years instead of 5 is lower, per year than if I buy an EV every 5 years. So I’m not sure that you can claim EVs are much much better, but if you have any credible sources I’m open to changing my mind.

is it FUD though? were do you draw the line between legal and illegal. right or wrong? I think it’s absolutely expected for Toyota to attempt to protect their financial interests.

ashtonkem 5y ago

It’s legal for them to do so, I just think they’re bad people for doing it. Attempting to slow down the de-carbonization of our transit because your company bet wrong is just evil, no way around it.

rantwasp 5y ago
i agree with you in principle, but (there’s always a but) there are other more impactful things that can be done to cut down carbon emissions (modern cars are already stupid-efficient). Who has the mora authority to declare that Toyota should roll over and die to attain some goal that may or may not be achievable?
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > Who has the mora authority to declare that Toyota should roll over and die to attain some goal that may or may not be achievable? False dilemma. Toyota could start making EVs instead. If they decide to (stupidly) refuse to do that, then their death would be the result of their own stubbornness, not a declared death sentence from someone else. And as far as who has the moral authority? Anyone who stands to face the harms of global warming and not profit off it.
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    lol no. business decisions are driven by economic incentives. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but that’s the way the world works today. you have the authority to decide only to the point of electing politicians that push what you consider to be the right thing. This takes time. How would you feel if you would personally be targeted in an effort to reduce global warming? While at the same time other actors (that basically do the same thing and/or are protected by regulations do way worse? https://thedigitalmomentum.com/the-top-five-co2-emitting-industries-in-the-globe/ https://thedigitalmomentum.com/the-top-five-co2-emitting-ind...) That EV you dream of as stopping global warming may overall be responsible for more CO2 emission that my “normal” car depending on how the power you use has been generated.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      > you have the authority to decide only to the point of electing politicians that push what you consider to be the right thing. This takes time. Funny, a few posts ago you were talking about moral authority. Oh how the goal posts move! Also, as a society we’ve already decided to use our legal authority to incentivize EVs, that’s what Toyota is whining about! They have lost both the political and the social (“hearts and minds”) argument, and are trying to use bribes to get their way again. > How would you feel if you would personally be targeted in an effort to reduce global warming? Drawing a parallel between a person being “targeted” (loaded word) and a corporation making the wrong decisions is extremely weird. Toyota was not targeted, they failed to take advantage of the incentives available to them. Ford, Hyundai, VW, Porsche, and Tesla all took advantage of the programs available to them, Toyota did not. That’s less “targeted” and more “made a mistake”. > That EV you dream of as stopping global warming may overall be responsible for more CO2 emission that my “normal” car depending on how the power you use has been generated. This is actually oil industry propaganda, good to see that it still has legs. EPA estimates show that an EV is marginally cleaner than a gasoline car for a pure coal powered grid for total emissions. Of course you have to live in West Virginia before “100% coal power” is anywhere close to an accurate approximation of what your power grid looks like. Also, it’s not a stretch to say that Toyota’s fuel cells are powered by oil. The primary source of commercial Hydrogen is from natural gas.
      - rantwasp 5y ago
        the question about the moral authority was a rhetorical one. Apologies if it came across as a genuine question. I think you’re missing the point: Toyota made their decisions (which they probably had more data then you have for) and now they are making the most out of it, while also trying to extract the most value possible. Does this, in retrospect, look like a mistake? Maybe, but most of the times decisions like this are made with imperfect information and there is a good dose of guessing involved. Again, I’m not saying that what they did or are doing is good/bad right/wrong. I’m saying that it’s totally understandable and as long as this is within the law I don’t have a problem with it. Also, research a bit the solid state battery work that Toyota has allegedly done. I’m not saying it’s going to pan out, but they definitely did not sit around twiddling their fingers and plotting on how to lobby more effectively. Here: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html Also factor in the carbon emissions for manufacturing the battery: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/may/11/viral-image/producing-electric-cars-battery-does-not-emit-same/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/may/11/viral-imag... And depending where your battery is produced you need to use your EV anywhere between 2-5 years before you can say that you emitted less than an equivalent gas powered car. This totally ignores PZEV cars btw. It also ignores the environmental impact of the battery after it no longer works. Also, here is a bulletproof way of reducing carbon emissions and reducing impact on environment: buy less stuff. Including but not limited to buying a new car less often. I’m gonna bet you real money that the impact my SUV has on the environment if own it for 12 years instead of 5 is lower, per year than if I buy an EV every 5 years. So I’m not sure that you can claim EVs are much much better, but if you have any credible sources I’m open to changing my mind.