4 ms·
I commend Toyota. I don't know to what degree this is greenwashing, but I suspect it's... less than average. I may be biased, but I think they're responsible st
by smolder 2y ago
I commend Toyota. I don't know to what degree this is greenwashing, but I suspect it's... less than average. I may be biased, but I think they're responsible stewards of their market share. They seem to be huge for the right reasons: concentration on quality and doing right by customers, and investment in technology that raises the bar for what to expect from cars and automakers, going back decades. HFC vehicles might not be the [near] future but I can't complain that they've tried.
- christkv 2y agoI mean considering this. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1wwj1p2wdyo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1wwj1p2wdyo I don't know about responsible stewards.
- smolder 2y agoI sort expected a reply like this or something about their faulty ECU code and unexpected accelerations. I can't really argue these points effectively, so I'll just say: maybe I'm wrong.
- christkv 2y agoFunny thing is they are still my preferred brand just from reliability and the low cost of ownership
- belorn 2y agoThe goal of matching 45% of its purchased power with renewable electricity (in 2035) seems fairly average of what the typical grid user will likely get in 10 years. The word "matching" is what carries the implications. They could be saying that during optimal weather conditions when solar/wind is flooding the grid and the prices are at the lowest, they will pay an additional to 45% of their purchased power, in order to "compensate" during periods of suboptimal weather when gas, goal and oil is the primary energy (which also mean when the power supply is low and prices are high).
- lorax 2y agoAccording to the article, it is matching 45% with renewable by 2026, not 2035. 2035 is the goal for net zero.
- belorn 2y agoYep, I got the year qualifier for that part wrong. To give some more context, Texas has already started to curtail around 10% of solar production because of overproduction. That brings an other aspects to the question if we are getting net zero if a company match solar energy production to their fossil fuel consumption. Do we get fossil fuel displacement by producing energy that no one is willing to buy at even zero cost? To be fair it is likely a non-zero number, but it seems logical that as overproduction increases that numbers get closer to zero. I will add this study (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1451 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1451) as a additional data point with this quote: "Here, I show that the average pattern across most nations of the world over the past fifty years is one where each unit of total national energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-quarter of a unit of fossil-fuel energy use and, focusing specifically on electricity, each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity"
- esalman 2y agoSome of their HFC vehicles are net zero emission. Same cannot be said about EVs. But like you mentioned, the main reason why they try to do right by customers more than the others.
- xandrius 2y agoGiven their "electrified vehicles" BS, I don't buy it. They just greenwash literally anything just to keep the money flowing. Or their Beyond Zero campaign. Look into Climate Town videos on Toyota's practices regarding this topic.
- tim333 2y agoWhat is their '"electrified vehicles" BS"? I actually looked at Climate Town Toyota but the guy just seems to be waffling about politics.
- locallost 2y agoI don't think it's green washing, I think they just got a really good price. Solar's advantage is the price.