[engineer]

"GM draws fire for plans to boost sales of its Hummer SUV brand, while Toyota, the longtime darling of the environmental movement, takes flak for the attention paid to its new Tundra fullsize pickup at the North American International Auto Show here."

"The campaign, backed by groups such as the Rainforest Action Network, cannot afford to 'give Toyota a free pass,' a spokeswoman says."

http://wardsauto.com/ar/green_target_tundra/

 

[Chipper57]

well it will be a very thirsty truck

 

[RningOnFumes]

well....durr!~ it's a damn full sized truck.

 

[ECHOKnight2000]

Its good that Toyota is enviromentally conscience or has goals towards it...but it is a buisness so...also I think the market dictates the full-sized truck than the auto maker meaning obviously Toyota or any other company wouldn't produce it if there is no market or demand. I'm all for being "green" but at this point there is limited technology for full-sized trucks to become less thirsty but I'm sure Toyota will be working on that, like a possible desiel hybrid or something. Personally I'm partial to enviromental agencies, I support them somewhat but at other points I'm like wow you're extreme. Enough of my rant.:thumbup:

 

[Corona67]

As much as I like Toyota, I agree with the criticism. It's unfortunate that much of Toyota's recent gains have come as a result of their larger, less-efficient vehicle sales, eventually including the new Tundra.

However, manufacturing vehicles consumes a phenomenal amount of energy, and since Toyotas last longer than others, at least people won't have to buy so many over a lifetime. Also, Toyota and others are working on the diesels and hybrids like Echo mentioned; a good thing.

C

 

[Rada]

IMO, the criticism is misguided. It is a truck, a working machine, which is supposed to be quite powerful to be useful. It's not as if Toyota suddenly put 400 hp V8 in our Camrys and Corollas.

And as Corona67 pointed out, longevity of Toyota's products itself is huge environmental plus, because it takes enormous amounts of energy and raw materials to make a car or a truck (I read it somewhere, and I intend to drive my Corolla for at least 15 years). So, if a Tundra replaces an F-150 or a Silverado, it will result in better environment.

 

[05MonteSSSC]

It is great to see Toyota has finally stoppped gettin a free pass, and is being help accountable like the media has been doing to GM all these years.

 

[RAV4EVR]

It is great to see Toyota has finally stoppped gettin a free pass, and is being help accountable like the media has been doing to GM all these years.

Who cares about not getting a free pass, as long as Toyota is doing everything possible to kick GM's ass as time goes on.

 

[engineer]

IMO, the criticism is misguided. It is a truck, a working machine, which is supposed to be quite powerful to be useful. It's not as if Toyota suddenly put 400 hp V8 in our Camrys and Corollas.

And as Corona67 pointed out, longevity of Toyota's products itself is huge environmental plus, because it takes enormous amounts of energy and raw materials to make a car or a truck (I read it somewhere, and I intend to drive my Corolla for at least 15 years). So, if a Tundra replaces an F-150 or a Silverado, it will result in better environment.

Actually, if you think about it, a car lasting 10+ years is the WORST thing for the environment. Here in the US, the average length of time a person owns a vehicle is less than 3 years. With this trend, car companies are not going to stop manufacturing cars anytime soon, so the plants and raw materials are still going to be cranking out new cars. With that being said, the least a person can do is own a car that is 1) fuel efficient 2) has the latest technology incorporated into the cars emissions systems and 3) well maintained, and running in "like new" condition. The most effective way to accomplish all of these is to by a new car. After all, the manufacture is still going to build them. . .

 

[GLsToyAuto]

I was going to get a Tundra until I discovered that they were not atomic powered and you didn't fill the tanks with water from the garden hose and get 200 mpg. then I woke up from my dream and bought a Matrix.

But even if they were water powered, the greenies could then correctly complain about the water vapor emissions harming the environment. Because water vapor is about 17000 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 in terms of absorbing infrared radiation and trapping heat. But then we all knew that already, right?

 

[CarGuyLee]

Who cares about not getting a free pass, as long as Toyota is doing everything possible to kick GM's ass as time goes on.

Wow, the Hate....I think you missed the point of the article. :disappoin

 

[Rada]

Actually, if you think about it, a car lasting 10+ years is the WORST thing for the environment. Here in the US, the average length of time a person owns a vehicle is less than 3 years. With this trend, car companies are not going to stop manufacturing cars anytime soon, so the plants and raw materials are still going to be cranking out new cars. With that being said, the least a person can do is own a car that is 1) fuel efficient 2) has the latest technology incorporated into the cars emissions systems and 3) well maintained, and running in "like new" condition. The most effective way to accomplish all of these is to by a new car. After all, the manufacture is still going to build them. . .

Isn't what you described called "the Tragedy of the Commons"? In the sense that the cost of an individual (marginal) decision is small, but the cost of the aggregate of such decisions is large.

 

[97gs500e]

well....durr!~ it's a damn full sized truck.

+1

 

[91MR2quickNA]

I have managed to get 15mpg in my MR2 at one time. Almost any vehicle can be thirsty. But I guess if I drove the Tundra in the same manner, I'd probably be filling up half way down the street.