Et Tu, Tom Friedman!

Et Tu, Tom Friedman!

In his October 3 column entitled “Et Tu, Toyota?” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman expresses his shock and utter dismay that his beloved Toyota is siding with Detroit automakers in what he calls a Michigan-style “assisted suicide” –- opposing stringent fuel-economy standards proposed by the Senate.

In previous columns, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Friedman advocated Toyota take over General Motors and rule the automotive universe on the basis of its pioneering leadership in fuel-efficiency as expressed through a single model, the Toyota Prius hybrid.

Now, Friedman is disappointed and stunned: Toyota, along with GM, Ford and Chrysler, is opposing the tough mileage standards in the U.S. Senate’s draft version of the energy bill, and are lobbying for another bill that is more stringent and separates cars and trucks.

Toyota wasted no time in responding to Friedman's column. General Motors has as well. And so have other industry watchers, including columnists from Motor Trend and Fortune magazines

What He Said

Friedman blasts Michigan congressmen and senators, led by U.S. Rep John Dingell, as “doing their best imitations of Jack Kevorkian” by trying to water down Congressional efforts to legislate improved mileage standards as part of “pork-barrel politics” to protect its auto industry.

“What I don’t get is empty-barrel politics — Michigan lawmakers year after year shielding Detroit from pressure to innovate on higher mileage standards, even though Detroit’s failure to sell more energy-efficient vehicles has clearly contributed to its brush with bankruptcy, its loss of market share to Toyota and Honda — whose fleets beat all U.S. automakers in fuel economy in 2007 — and its loss of jobs.”

(He also writes that last year Toyota overtook GM as the world’s biggest automaker – which is not true, by the way. That has yet to happen.)

He writes that “assisting Detroit’s suicide” is contagious, with Toyota now catching it.

He ponders, in shock: “Now why would Toyota, which has used the Prius to brand itself as the greenest car company, pull such a stunt? Is it because Toyota wants to slow down innovation in Detroit on more energy efficient vehicles, which Toyota already dominates, while also keeping mileage room to build giant pickup trucks, like the Toyota Tundra, at the gas-guzzler end of the U.S. market?”

Friedman quotes Deron Lovaas of the Natural Resources Defense Council who notes Toyota wants to retain its green halo and beat GM in big trucks too. Indeed, auto industry observers have watched as Toyota attempted to have it both ways. In the end, in the end, Toyota is a corporation like any other looking to make a buck. Follow the money, Friedman. The money is in big vehicles, not money-losing hybrids.

“As the world’s largest automaker and inventor of the best-selling hybrid car, Toyota has a responsibility to lead, follow or get out of the way as Congress debates the first substantial fuel-economy boost in decades,” Lovaas tells Friedman. “Shamefully, Toyota has joined forces with older automakers that are getting their lunch handed to them in the marketplace, in part because they’ve consistently shunned fuel efficiency.”

Friedman talks about Japan and Europe having “better mileage standards for their auto fleets.” Wrong. Japan and Europe, unlike the U.S., have no minimum fuel economy standards. Instead, in contrast to the U.S., they use economics as incentive to encourage consumers to opt for more fuel-efficient vehicles. In those markets, gas is expensive and is heavily taxed. In some countries, vehicles are taxed based on size and, more specifically, engine size, providing an incentive that the U.S. does not have for consumers to buy fuel-sipping vehicles. Friedman further ignores the extremely different driving situations in Japan and Europe compared to the U.S. that encourage consumers to choose smaller vehicles.

Friedman quotes Rep. Edward Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, as warning that Toyota will shock Prius and Camry hybrid buyers when they discover Toyota is lobbying against the highest fuel-economy standards.

Remember, it was Rep. Markey who earned AutoObserver’s stupid comment of the week this summer when he insisted: “Innovations such as the plug-in hybrids should not have been sitting on the shelf for so long. After all, this isn’t rocket science; it is auto mechanics.”

Even Toyota doesn’t have such innovations on the shelf. It is, indeed, rocket science, that’s why the U.S. national labs are working on the science behind higher fuel efficiency vehicles.

Friedman concludes: “Sad. If Toyota were to take the lead on this front, it could enhance its own reputation and spur the whole U.S. auto industry to become more globally competitive. Hey, Toyota, if you are going to become the biggest U.S. automaker, could you at least bring to America your best practices — the ones that made you the world leader — instead of prolonging our worst practices? We have enough people helping us commit suicide.”

What They Said

Toyota was quick to respond, via its blog entry written by Toyota Vice President of Communications Irv Miller.

Miller points out that the bar being set by the Senate proposal is too high for all competitors, including Toyota.

In addition, Miller notes appropriately that America is the land of choice; Friedman conveniently leaves out the consumer and the consumer’s choice of transportation in any of his column.

“Toyota is in the business of offering a full lineup of cars and trucks to meet the needs of American motorists. Its success is the result of listening to customers and offering products they want... Like it or not, Americans will continue to need and want variety, including pickups and SUVs. Nobody forces cars and trucks on consumers. They vote with their wallets.”

GM also responded on its blog Thursday. The automaker calls the CAFÉ provisions of the Senate bill bad environmental policy. “By putting cars and truck under a single average, the bill would damage full-line carmakers and eliminate some of today’s most popular vehicles. That’s why GM, Toyota and other industry leaders are backing an alternative that would substantially raise fuel economy standards, but do so in a balanced and reasonable way.”

GM, too, notes that Japan and Europe have smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles because fuel taxes are higher. “Much higher. Given Americans’ loathing for higher taxes, it is no surprise that Mr. Friedman omits this inconvenient truth,” GM’s blog states.

By the way, Rep. Dingell’s bill includes a 50-cent per gallon gas tax, exempting higher-efficiency diesel. (It also contains a $50 per-ton carbon tax on coal, petroleum and natural gas production and elimination of mortgage interest deduction on houses over 3,000 square feet.)

Undoubtedly, we haven’t heard the end of this topic from Friedman nor the automakers. Let’s hope the result is an intelligent and enlightened one that truly accomplishes the goal of energy independence and environment improvement.

What Others Are Saying

Alex Taylor of Fortune magazine sums it up best, pointing out the errors in the urban myths Friedman hauls out in his column.

One being that forcing higher fuel economy standards on American car buyers is what's needed to encourage more energy-efficient vehicles and make Detroit more competitive with its import competitors.

“That's wrong...and wrong,” writes Taylor. “Forcing people to buy more efficient cars by ordering car companies to make them is like forcing people to lose weight by banning food companies from selling Big Macs and pizzas. The reason Americans consume so much gasoline is that they like their big pickup trucks, SUVs, and V-8 engines. The reason the automakers make them is because people want to buy them.”

Another is that Detroit's failure to sell more energy-efficient vehicles has clearly contributed to its brush with bankruptcy. It “is baloney,” Fortune says. “Actually the opposite is true. Detroit is forced to sell small cars at a loss because the government already mandates stringent full economy standards. The automakers make a lot more money on big, gas-guzzling cars whose sales are unrestricted.”

Taylor suggests that the U.S. imitate Europe and Japan in gas prices, and buying habits will change.  “Start charging American drivers $8 a gallon and they'll switch to small cars in a New York minute.”

Taylor backs Toyota’s argument that it is successful because it delivers to the market vehicles customers want to buy. “Since American buyers want big trucks, Toyota makes them. It has left its Japanese competitor Honda in the dust precisely because Honda refuses to make a big truck or a V-8.”

On that note, Edmunds.com’s analysis of sales figures show in the first nine months of the year, Toyota sold more Tundra pickup trucks than it did Prius hybrids. Further, Toyota struggled in the early months of this year to move the Tundra. Why? It didn’t initially offer the potent 5.7-liter V8 engine preferred by customers. And by the way, this month sales of Toyota’s gas-sipping Yaris were dismal; Honda’s Civic hybrid sales were also down.

“American manufacturers DO build fuel-efficient cars but Americans don't buy them,” writes Taylor, noting all of the fuel-efficient vehicles offered by Ford and GM that they are heavily subsidizing now because no one wants to buy them. He points out GM brags about having more than 30 models – more than any manufacturer – that gets more than 30 miles per gallon “but it gets precious little credit for it in the marketplace.”

Indeed, Taylor seconds what Toyota says: force the industry to make more fuel-efficient vehicles that people don’t want to buy and they lose money on and you’ll have a bankrupt auto industry.

Taylor argues Friedman should use his pulpit to argue for a gasoline tax – as Rep. Dingell has proposed and, in fact, Friedman has mentioned in past column. “It would be a whole lot more effective than perpetuating the old myth about the ignorant luddites in Detroit who are withholding the small, fuel-sipping cars that Americans really want to buy,” Taylor concludes.

Michelle Krebs:  is Editor-in-Chief of AutoObserver.com. Follow @AutoObserver on Twitter.