Beware MM. The one hand knoweth not... And what I said is specific to what happens on Planet Japan, if it related at all to what happens on Planet Earth it could simply be a coincidence. I doubt that Toyota USA has a similar attitude to ExxonMobil et al as the domestic company would have to the petroleum majors here. This for several reasons. The most powerful group here is the Keidanren, the big-business "club", the current chairman of which is the head of Toyota. That might not put Toyota itself at the top of the pile in the political world, and both those things might not reflect directly on its position in the business world, or at any rate not as one might expect. From what very little I know of the Keidanren, the ins and outs of who supports whom and why, of who depends on whose support for their position, would be byzantine. That people, groups, corporations, would not want to confront the petroleum majors could have much more to do with this than with what in other countries might be far more weighty realities. So it might not be an example of anything, apart from what I used it for in a discussion we had last night with some friends, which concluded that Japan does not have a real policy on anything, domestic or foreign, just these highly unaccountable top-level favour banks. Sure, you could say that about most countries, if not all, but it's a matter of degree.
I can see you'll need some proof of that. Try these - not proof, indeed, but some support anyway, and an interesting read: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EF11Dh06.html Asia Times Jun 11, 2003 COMMENTARY Japan: An autocracy ruled by bureaucrats By Katsuo Hiizumi http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_44/b3705125.htm ECONOMICS Japan Explained Author Karel van Wolferen's insights are appreciated by the Japanese themselves OCTOBER 30, 2000 Last night someone said that you encounter grey areas in Japan when you try to separate government, big business and the Yakuza, organised crime. Again, true in many or most countries, and who knows how that might or might not apply in this particular case, but it brings in the idea of territories, and I think that's important. Certainly it's important to the bureaucrats, as Hiizumi's article above shows. And big business, for all their cant about competitiveness, doesn't like competing, they're not interested in "playing fields", certainly not "level" ones. What they want is control. They tend to divide things up among themselves into fiefdoms where they're in control. As does the mafia. As do bureaucrats. This is not a scene where upsetting people's applecarts is a good idea, and sod mere details like the good of the country and whether there's a hole in the sky or not. Thus in Hiizumi's piece Tanaka doesn't even get his wrist slapped for his extraordinary behaviour, though Koizumi's no pussycat. So Toyota won't challenge the fuel majors here, nor the DieselNo! campaign, but they'll put huge resources into developing super-clean diesels for Europe - but not for Japan. And not for the US either - a whole other set of applecarts there. In the US they market SUV gas-guzzlers, but not in Europe, nor here, or not much. They're pragmatic. I'm sure that by the same token there'd be areas where the fuel majors would not challenge Toyota. So, please, caution in transposing what I was told to another context. That's not to say I disagree with your outline below. It's very interesting, and I do rather agree with it. I get the idea that there's a lot of horse-trading going on behind the scenes, complicated negotiations along with the mutual back-scratchings. This rather than raw "edicts", implied or not - deals, followed by renegotiations, and some sort of movement, though slow and painful, and that more so in some places than others (Eu vs US, eg). In the US the EPA's just announced that overall fuel efficiency's the same this year as it was last year. Does that mean Detroit is doing what it's told, or should one look for the concessions Big Oil would have had to make for that? (Or maybe this isn't the right year for that!) Does Ford's new "super-green" plant at Rouge that they say is a model all their plants will follow perhaps reduce the fossil-fuel inputs of vehicle manufacture to any considerable extent? I don't know, just trying to paint a picture. This is the kind of deal I mean - not a "good" example but perhaps an apt one - this was a previous message to you, you'll probably remember it, but I think I'll repost it anyway, it's worth another read: >Hi MM > >> >"The primary focus of this contract will be to test and develop >> >high-efficiency engines with low emissions rates," said Gary >> >Stecklein, director of SwRI's Vehicle and Driveline Research >> >Department. "We will test and optimize advanced technology engines, >> >powertrains and hydraulic pump motors." >> > >> >Since 1994, the Vehicle and Driveline Research Department has >> >supported the EPA on improving vehicle and engine designs. >> >>That's funny. I thought this was a pro-free-market administration > >That's what the sign says, and what they bully other people about, >but they're very protectionist. And... oh well, here's another one: > >'Free Trade' is a Real Misnomer >http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1228-01.htm > >>and that the >>giant auto companies in Detroit and elsewhere needed the breathing room to be >>responsive to "consumer demand" and not be forced into making unwanted >>technologies that were a waste of money. And I thought they didn't need this >>sort of government handout (I mean: assistance). Sheesh. > >SwRI isn't quite Detroit, and $14 million isn't the billions of >PNGV, but do you remember this? > >>Jack Doyle [author of Taken for A Ride: Detroit's Big Three and the >>Politics of Pollution]: When the Partnership for a New Generation >>of Vehicles, which is called PNGV, when that was created in 1993, >>[then Vice-President] Al Gore was the chief architect. He looked at >>it as a solution to getting the United States to [achieve] its >>global warming obligations, to cut back on CO2, in particular. >> >>The auto industry had come to Clinton and Gore just after the >>election and said, 'We understand that you need some help on health >>care and trade issues. We're willing to help you on those fronts if >>you will back off on fuel economy.' It was never put in quite those >>terms, but they had gone to Arkansas, during the transition, after >>Clinton and Gore were elected, and a quid pro quo -- a deal was >>cut, basically -- that said, 'Okay. We create this venture to get >>to an 80 mile-per-gallon car, fuel efficiency -- and you assure us >>that you won't enact fuel-economy standards through Congress,' >>known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, the acronym. This >>was, as I think Clinton put it at the time, 'a moonshot for fuel >>economy. >-- From: Driving In Circles >http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm?ID=4959 > >And also this? > >>Bush's proposal to provide for clean cars -- which is laudable on >>its face -- is but the latest in a long line of Detroit-White House >>"partnerships" dating to the Nixon-era that only provide diversion >>and political cover, not actual clean cars. >> >>During the annual parade of auto shows in 2002, General Motors, a >>company which has lost 25 points of market share since the '50s, >>rolled out a futuristic-looking automotive underbody "skateboard" >>called Autonomy. Someday -- GM didn't say exactly when -- Autonomy >>would be crammed full of hydrogen-powered fuel cells and computers, >>and smog would end. A few days after GM's show, U.S. Energy >>Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, and Sen. Carl Levin >>(D-Mich.), were on hand with GM and DaimlerChrysler to announce the >>death of one federal "supercar" program and the creation of >>another. Being terminated was a Clinton-era program -- a 10-year >>joint venture with Detroit known as the "Partnership for a New >>Generation of Vehicles" (PNGV) that was supposed to produce an 80 >>mpg family car. In its place, the Bush administration substituted a >>program focused not on fuel-efficiency but on hydrogen fuel-cell >>technology, "Freedom Car." However, most of these ventures go >>nowhere, as Clinton's "supercar" program shows. >> >>At its September 1993 White House unveiling, Bill Clinton compared >>the PNGV to the Apollo project that put a man on the moon. GM's CEO >>at the time, Jack Smith, said the efficiency gains to come from the >>new venture would amount to "nothing less than a major, even >>radical, breakthrough." A whole new class of car would follow, he >>assured his listeners. Sold to Congress as a way to make the Big >>Three competitive with the Japanese, PNGV became the perfect >>political tool to keep Congress from moving to improve fuel >>economy, to tout as the industry's global warming fighter, and to >>help undermine California's electric vehicle program. >> >>Meanwhile, as Detroit and Washington became comfortable in their >>new, 10-year research venture, the Japanese were making real >>improvements... >-- From: Fool Cells - How Detroit Plays Americans For A Bunch Of Suckers >http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7210 > >There's also this: > >>PNGV funds were available only to American companies. Recipients >>agreed to unveil a concept car by 2000, a preproduction prototype >>by 2004 and be in full production by 2010. All three, Ford, GM and >>DaimlerChrysler introduced concept cars in early 2000. And there >>development stopped. Why? Because the American car companies >>refused to commercialize a car they would initially lose money on, >>even if the losses would be temporary. >> >>Daimler/Chrysler, for example, announced in 2000 that it would not >>commercialize its diesel hybrid (ESX3) because it cost $7,500 more >>to make than their comparable gasoline powered car, a Dodge >>Intrepid. As late as April 2002 General Motors' CEO and President >>G. Richard Wagoner Jr. told Business Week, "How will the economics >>of hybrids ever match that of the internal combustion engine? We >>can't afford to subsidize them." >-- From: A Tale of Two Countries, by David Morris >http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17333 > >And this, from "Fool Cells": "Since 1973, oil imports have doubled, >rising from six million barrels per day (BPD) to nearly 12 million >BPD -- climbing to nearly 60 percent of supply. Cars and trucks >alone account for the lion's share of this dependency, about 8 >million BPD. Last year the nation paid $106 billion for imported oil >-- that works out to about $200,000 leaving the country every >minute. Since the '70s, America has sent more than one trillion >dollars to oil exporting countries -- money that might have gone to >new American businesses and new jobs." > >So who exactly is one to blame for that - OPEC (the usual American >choice) or Detroit? > >David Morris added this: "Today imports supply over half our oil, up >from a third in 1973. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham recently >informed Congress that by 2020 almost two-thirds of our oil could be >imported. In the 1990s we had a chance to break this deadly downward >spiral. The governments of both Japan and the United States embraced >policies to do so. But only in Japan did the private sector assume >that responsibility and accept that commitment. Years from now will >we remember the 1990s as our Decade of Infamy?" > >>GM, by their latest statements, wouldn't know the full value or importance of >>hybrid technology if it showed up as a firm order for 10,000,000 vehicles. > >:-) I thought you were going to say something else. By the way, I also have a higher opinion of Toyota than most, there's a lot to like about them, but they're a motor corporation, one mustn't expect them not to lie. I'd be more disappointed if they did it in a stupid way. Regards Keith >Thanks for passing on this anecdote relating the opinion of a person >at Toyota. I think it's of some use to try to piece together what >some executives at these companies are thinking and seeing. > >As I think this out, I'm not sure, but I think it may be the first >time I've ever seen any executive anywhere at an auto company verify, >even just fourth-hand, even just by incidental reference, that they >have a problem defying the wishes of the Oil industry. I mean: the >first time I've really seen this in writing. > >My take on Toyota, and some of the other companies such as Honda (the >first to introduce a hybrid to the U.S.), is that they have approached >some of these matters like this: they are ahead of many (not all, but >many), of the alt-fuel and better-mileage efforts of the other >companies. Therefore, so the reasoning goes, they can get away with >(for now) not pushing the envelope "too much" to the point where it >might violate any de facto (explicit or implicit) edicts they have >received from those who supply fuel for their products. > >Thus, for example, we see Toyota doing a pretty good EV, and knowing >that some of its customers in the U.S. want to keep it, and buy more >(such as the Utility SCE which has owned two or three hundred and >would be glad to keep many of them or buy more) but they hide behind >the usual... liability law concerns, supposed lack of demand, costs >too high... whatever excuses seem handy. > >Other tactics include I think preserving "plausible deniability" for >some executives... By this I mean that they may keep themselves >unaware that there is demand for alternatives. It seems to me I heard >of one incident where Greg Hansen, a California Activist for EVs, was >able to get this through, very slightly, at a meeting a few years ago >where a Toyota executive claimed that consumer demand had been poor >for the RAV4 EV (or something like that... it's been awhile since I >heard this story) and Hansen, in a particularly lucid exchange held >forth from the audience that the RAV4 EV HAD NEVER BEEN OFFERED TO >CONSUMERS in California. If I recall (and I might not be correct) it >had been offered as a lease (but not a purchase to fleet people). > >The Executive seemed unaware of this and soon thereafter Toyota did >allegedly make the RAV4 available to consumers not only by lease but >by purchase. > >But they only did it at 25 or so California dealerships, only in >limited numbers (that ended once they were all bought up), etc. > >Apologies if this story has inaccuracies... it's been awhile. > > >So, what we see here, is this idea of Toyota being slightly different, >a little bit ahead, but (after pushing the envelope a little) still >returning in the end to comply with the (apparently) worldwide >in-force rule against any major manufacturer making it possible for >consumers to *consider* buying a vehicle that does not push them into >using petroleum-industry fuel. > >Consumers are then inaccurately informed that they have allegedly >considered and rejected such vehicles. This is an addition of >insult-to-injury that we may be surprised to see honorable executives >at 'better' companies contribute to, but I think it "is what it is". >Many of us, myself included, are admirers of Toyota, above many other >companies, but when a friend or an admired person or an admired >company lies, sometimes we don't know what to say, except to point it >out. I'm sorry Toyota, but you're not telling the truth. Period. >You're fudging. Stop it. We've had it. > >This is not to say that your friend or acquaintance was lying... When >I talk about lying I mean that Toyota and a few others get away with >their real policy (adhering to fuel company wishes, for now) while >fudging things in public and stating a somewhat different set of >reasonings (i.e.: claiming that "nobody wants" thus-and-such vehicles, >or that the economics of mass production do not apply to certain >technologies, or that emissions are allegedly too much of a problem of >thus-and-such vehicle-and-fuel combination, or that PHEV vehicles are >not for now an idea worth pursuing, etc.) > >MM > > >On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:55:19 +0900, you wrote: > > >Yes, true. > > > >A couple of years ago Tokyo's populist mayor, a far rightwing buffoon > >named Ishihara, launched a cheap-vote-catching campaign against > >diesels, the DieselNo! campaign: cure the symptom instead of the > >disease. The main complaint is the usual one in such cases, NOx. > >Everyone's frightened of confronting the petroleum lobby, so that > >doesn't come into it, and the automakers decided to jump on the > >bandwagon for the sake of the short-term gains to be made from > >selling more new cars. So, there are more and more restrictions on > >diesels, especially diesel cars, and it's spreading beyond Tokyo. Not > >many Japanese seem to know that the Japanese automakers do make > >highly efficient, very clean, diesel cars, but only for export, to > >Europe, not for Japan. > > > >A Toyota executive who got interested in biofuels wrote to me and > >said this, among other things: "... our company would be afraid to > >introduce products which determinedly confronts not only petroleum > >major, but also grain major..." Amazing. The Clean Air campaigners > >told Midori the same thing. > > > >A silly story. Of which our friend Wada-san was a victim. He found > >himself being forced to spend many millions of yen on a new, > >gasoline-engined car that he didn't want and didn't need. And he > >loves his VW (94 Golf 3). It was fitted with a catalytic converter, > >which hardly worked at all because LSD fuel is still rare here (and > >only 50ppm), so too much sulphur, lots of black smoke. He had it > >cleaned up and started running on biodiesel (no sulphur) which he > >managed to buy from one of the very few outlets here (poor quality > >but better than nothing). He also rigged an electronic control for it > >(he works for IBM). He had to pay I think 300,000 yen to put the car > >through emissions tests to prove that it was within the DieselNo! > >limits. He used petro-diesel for the test (LSD), and the cat > >converter worked well because of the previous use of biodiesel. And > >it passed the test, for both NOx and PM. So now he drives his diesel > >in a DieselNo! area. Very interesting. Others will follow. > > > >There are also additives available which lower NOx emissions with biodiesel. > > > >Best > > > >Keith > > > > > > > >>True. > >> > >>Also true for SVO. > >> > >> biodiesel/SVO owners can add these if they wish to reduce emissions > >>even further. > >> > >>...just don't run any North American diesel in it if so fitted!! > >> > >>You could also conceivably add particle traps, since the particulate > >>emissions are usually reduced 30-50%. > >> > >> > >> > >>Edward Beggs > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>On Monday, May 10, 2004, at 07:35 PM, Andrew Lowe wrote: > >> > >> > Does my memory serve me correctly in that one of the "advertised > >> > benefits" of biodiesel is that it contains no sulphur hence diesels can > >> > be fitted with catalytic converters? The reason they aren't already is > >> > that the sulphur poisons the converter. If this is the case then won't > >> > the new requirements actually be good for biodiesel, assuming the > >> > engine > >> > companies do fit the catalytic converters? > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Andrew Lowe ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
