RAN Stumps Toyota: Why Not?
Blogging late after a great day of cloak and dagger infiltration at the LA Auto Show. Here’s what the AP had to say about incident in this video:
After the Sequoia was introduced Wednesday, an environmental activist with a video camera approached Toyota’s general manager for U.S. sales, Bob Carter, and asked why the company won’t withdraw from a lawsuit against California, which has sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish tougher fuel economy rules.
Carter refused to answer and knocked the camera out of Brent Olson’s hands. Olson, of San Francisco-based Rainforest Action Network, was eventually led away by two policemen.
Thanks Bob.
16 Responses to “RAN Stumps Toyota: Why Not?”
Leave a Reply
All comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed. Valid email addresses are required. (RAN respects your privacy; we will not use, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)
November 15th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Bravo, Brant.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Well it says on the article that Toyota supports a more comprehensive federal level regulations instead of having these kinds of decisions being taken at the state level. I think this makes sense given the global nature of the company. Just wandering if the RAN people took that into consideration before raising up the noise
November 15th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Advocating a federal approach means a advocating a delay and probably looser restrictions; Toyota is well aware of this. Eleven states follow California’s standards, and more often than not, CA proves the viability of better policy for federal adoption.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Hmmm… doing something because California thinks it’s a good idea… that doesn’t sound like a very good plan.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Jeff: Reducing emissions is a good idea. If California does it, that’s good. If other states follow suit, even better.
Is there a problem with that logic?
November 15th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
No… environmentalists are always logical.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
[…] RAN Stumps Toyota: Why Not? Published by lizveazey, November 15th, 2007 Business , Clean Cars , Corporate Responsibility , Direct Action , Interviews , News and Media , Oil , Video this is great! cross-posted from Rainforest Action Network’s Understory Blog: […]
November 15th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Jeff: . . . and anti-environmentalists are always illogical - there! And so what was accomplished by this kind of thinking? The action and thinking here on this blog is about quickly and efficiently reducing vehicle emissions - stay focused on the message!
November 15th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Unreal…doubletalk by facets.
Kudos for pissing off corporate-speak moral neophytes. The correct answer by Toyota would have been to discuss it later. Not some punk brash emotional reaction, which only makes him look guilty of something. And perhaps he is.
What’s worse is that this comments page is peppered with seasoned messaging folks. THE QUESTION IS NOT, “IS THIS LOGICAL?” and “DOES THIS ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION?”
THE QUESTION IS ABOUT DOING THE RIGHT THING. It is very simple what that is.
The greater moral imperative here is action. Not waiting for federal, or anyone else. Not suing over a law which cuts into your profit margins. Politics is about who gets what when where and how.
Toyota is not the red cross either. Toyota wants to make money. Do they see the suit as harmful to that objective? Yes. But they are, to date, one of the only car companies really pushing hybrid technology. So what does that say about the industry itself? Not too unlike the stereotype of a car salesman from the looks of it. I applaud RAN - if anything this is a form of real journalism - which should arouse issues, debate and expose nefarious pretenses. You need this kind of extremism to continue to bring the message into the mainstream. To do better. To improve. To bring to light. Good luck PR guys. Freedom is the right to be wrong, not to do wrong. So who is doing wrong here on a greater level?
November 16th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Toyota is a money grubbing company. Buy a car from them is like supporting the third reich as they try to overtake Europe. Toyota only makes the Prius for the money.
On the CA debate, I suppose those that support the CA proposal can afford the extra $3k-$10k/vehicle it will take to make them more efficient. I, for one, am worried about what all the Li, NmH, etc will be doing to our planet. You there will be hillbillies just dumping their dead batteries into ravines and rivers.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
[…] Brant blogged about his run in with Toyota executive Bob Carter at the LA Auto Show and included a nice video of the […]
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Good job! Keep up the good work. At least the US doesn’t have to wage war or even violate anyone’s rights to get biodiesel (with oil they do)
December 5th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Nice work Brent - speaks volumes for where the real motives lie. You know the Toyota PR guys have something to hide when they totally blank on the answer to a simple question. It’s fantastic to expose that sort of thing, amazing. Couple other thoughts - 3k-10k a car increase is for hybrids - a simple MPG increase can happen overnight without hybrid technology. It’s a matter of having the will to do so. Toyota clearly doesn’t have that will, so yes, new regulations need to be put in place. The federal government, under the leadership of W and Rep. Dingell (Democrat) of Detroit, has dragged their heels on increasing CAFE standards for YEARS. If California wants to dictate a higher mpg standard in order to allow companies to compete in their massive market, they should be allowed to do so. There’s nothing liberal or conservative about it.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I guess car manufacturers are right we must be happy with their products because they are selling. Clear message to the public. Starting january 1st 2008 don’t buy any new cars until we get 100+ miles to the gallon hybride or all electric cars period. We will see how long they can go on with ZERO sales. Lets see if they continue to ignore what we demand because its possible. How many car manufacturers will still be in business in three months or six months. The car racketiers will be at the mercy of the clients sooner or later. The clock is ticking…. … What are you going to do with obsolete inventory and no money to build what we want. hahahahahahahaha
December 6th, 2007 at 9:23 am
“On the CA debate, I suppose those that support the CA proposal can afford the extra $3k-$10k/vehicle it will take to make them more efficient.”
How ’bout we get rid of the leather seats, CD changers, GPS, wireless IPOD sync-ups, voice command, Air-conditioning, power-everything-and-then-some, and just boost mpg and probably pay less than we do now.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Well the problem also is the governments red tape. Why do they put this “get better gas mileage” bill reality years away from now….if they wanted it to happen now it would …..they can make cars get better gas mileage just about overnight with all the engineers the car manufacturers hire, but the government makes so much tax money off gas and oil I’m sure that they are in no hurry at all to make any effort in a “better gas mileage” for any vehicle…..
I’ve got a feeling the car companies get some kind of kick back for not making a very fuel efficient auto.
If a car company went totally green wonder what would happen to all the tax incentives and so on from the government for that company ? I would see that as not being friendly to the government…the people would like it but not the Feds….they’d be losing so much tax money….. its all about the gas tax.