> The raids come a day after Toyota chairman Akio Toyoda apologised to customers and car enthusiasts.
He bowed deeply and held the position for a few seconds, which is customary in Japan when companies apologise for wrongdoing.
Slightly better than just "taking full responsibility" in an email written by PR team. But where's the sword?
My favorite time seeing this was when they raised the price of Garigari-kun from 70 yen to 80 yen then bowed deeply to apologize for making snacks less affordable for children.
Considering this is the second round of controversy stemming from an earlier round last year, and the LDP and Kishida administration are facing an almost certain wipe out in the next general election, I suspect the book thrown will be heavy and sharp.
The fascinating thing is that regulators responded at all.
Think about it. Automobile manufacturing is Japan's last halo industry -- the crown jewel of their declining economy. The past few years have not been easy, as they're up against increasingly stiff competition from China (going exponential) and rising US protectionism, and they're not well positioned for a global pivot to electric vehicles.
This is pretty much the worst possible time for a scandal -- and to me it's surprising that Japanese regulators are allowed to pursue and publicize these raids and sanctions in the teeth of their own national interest.
They're well positioned if that global pivot to EV flops and populist politicians undo all the "EVs mandatory by 20XX" laws. This seems to be what they're betting on.
The problem for that scenario is that running your cars with electricity seems to be getting cheaper relative to ICE?
Even without demand from electric cars, battery technology will keep improving (perhaps slightly slower) because of all the demand from mobile computing gadgets. Aren't batteries the main cost disadvantage of electric cars compared to ICE?
So even without misguided mandates, electric cars might be here to stay.
(I explicitly call the mandates misguided, because the Right Way is to tax what you don't like, eg carbon emissions, and let people figure out by themselves how they want to solve it. Electric cars might be one way. Or moving closer to work, so you only have to drive half as much might be another way to react; and is just as good in terms of emisions as getting a car that's twice as efficient.)
> I explicitly call the mandates misguided, because the Right Way is to tax what you don't like, eg carbon emissions, and let people figure out by themselves how they want to solve it. Electric cars might be one way. Or moving closer to work, so you only have to drive half as much might be another way to react; and is just as good in terms of emisions as getting a car that's twice as efficient.
This is only if the thing "you don't like" doesn't have serious (like deadly) externalities. Just taxing leaded fuel more wouldn't have made the transition as quick; just taxing ICEs more won't force manufacturers to switch to electric and hybrid models quick enough. The threat of a ban will.
> Just taxing leaded fuel more wouldn't have made the transition as quick; [..]
What makes you think so?
You don't have to get rid of leaded fuel completely to get most of the benefits. If you get rid of 99.99% of leaded fuel, you reap approximately 99.99% of the benefits.
And in fact, leaded fuels aren't banned for all applications. So whatever benefits we have gained, we have gained with some leaded fuels still being in use.
Btw, we allow deadly externalities all the time. Driving your car, whether ICE or electric, at all is a stochastically deadly externality for pedestrians and cyclists and other drivers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program for a successful program of trading in externalities.
Why is lead or CO2 from cars special? We still allow lead from some other engines, and we allow lead in eg solder and other applications. Wouldn't it be more efficient to have a uniform tax on its emission into the environment, instead of a ad-hoc patchwork of bans?
> [...] just taxing ICEs more won't force manufacturers to switch to electric and hybrid models quick enough. The threat of a ban will.
How quick is quick enough? And why wouldn't a high enough tax do that? If you tax carbon emissions high enough that ICEs effectively cost an extra millions dollars to run, wouldn't that effectively have the same effects as a ban? (A handfull of billionaires might still run some ICEs for fun, even at those punitive taxes. But they are a rounding error.)
In any case, my point was more aimed at making the life of polluters harder, instead of giving subsidies to electric cars. In my view, a tax on emissions is best, but a ban on ICEs is still better than a subsidy or an explicit mandate for electric cars. That way you don't distort the decisions between riding your pushbike vs moving close to work vs riding an electric car.
The problem with lead is not that it's poisonous, but that it affects the brain. Especially in children. No amount lead is good and the other uses should be banned as well but due to rich people (those who can afford to fly private planes) it's still allowed.
That might be true, but has basically no bearing on the ban vs tax debate at all.
I don't think anyone made an argument one way or another _how_ lead is bad: all the arguments so far works just as well whether lead is 'poisonous' or bad for the brain in some special way.
You are right that private planes are mostly used by rich people. But that's not true of all products that contain lead, or processes that emit lead into the environment. (For example, there's lead in some batteries and there's lead in some solders. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Applications for more.)
The harm of lead is finite, and thus a finite tax would be a reasonable way to deal with it.
In practice, we already tax/fine companies for killing people.
So I'll bite the bullet, and say: yes, of course. Ideally, a large part of that tax would go towards (the estate of) the victims. That's more productive than locking people up: that's just a straight up loss for society.
We also already tax stochastically-killing people; or in some cases, we don't even tax it and just allow dangerous activities. Eg we allow people to drive cars and we allow people to run coal-fired power plants.
Going from a small percentage chance to a larger percentage chance (nothing is certain) is not a qualitative difference, only a quantitative one.
The really rich people all have jet planes which burn jet fuel (no lead.) It's the upper middle class that have lead burning piston prop planes. Dentists and doctors, not billionaires.
Anyway, unleaded fuel is now approved for those planes so the transition should be pretty quick now.
Yes, it's somewhat funny. Our commenter consp almost suggested that people with private planes _want_ to burn leaded fuel, when unleaded fuel wasn't even legal to burn in them.
> The problem for that scenario is that running your cars with electricity seems to be getting cheaper relative to ICE?
Currently for me it's cheaper to buy gas than drive electric.
It's only cheaper if you are well off, have you own drive lane and can charge off solar panels, might even be cheaper without the solar panels but if you can afford your own drive lane or parking spot you have those as well. Here in NW Europe that's a minority and the vast majority does not have this advantage.
I don’t know how you made your calculation but in France using grid electricity without optimization (like night pricing) EV cars costs at least 1/2 less to run (17kWh/100 km at 0,25€/kWh, compared to typical ICE 5l/100km at 1,95€/l). And then you have all the savings on maintenance.
There really isn't savings on maintenance, all the cost is frontloaded and backloaded. It costs almost as much as the car itself to replace the batteries at the end of their life and EVs are pretty much universally more expensive to purchase in the first place for this same reason.
Also Europe has more expensive petrol prices than the US in general, that calculation is aggressively region-dependent.
The real kicker is GP is correct, mostly. You don't have to do much for optimization for the day-to-day operating costs to be less, but you do have to generally be wealthy enough to own your own home with a garage to install a charger in (or be super lucky and have one at an apartment, which is quite uncommon still).
And as I suggested, batteries are getting better and cheaper.
So the electric cars will keep improving their position relative to ICE. (I don't want to express any opinion on whether they are better or worse at the moment than ICE already.)
Oh, I agree that they'll get better and cheaper (some of the solid-state battery tech is very exciting even!) but I think it's a bit longer off than many think. My perspective in the Midwest US is quite different from the average SV tech bro that makes up a sizeable chunk of this sites userbase.
I think convienence, depreciation and longevity are the main killers of EV popularity. Hybrids (plugin or traditional) win on convienence while having great operating costs. And for depreciation and longevity, it's hard to beat buying a Japanese car and driving it for 20 years before selling it still in great working condition. That tanks any operating cost savings you might hope to get from a EV.
For example, I bought my last car, a 2002 Honda Accord, slightly used in 2004 for $4k. I sold it for the same this year. Obviously it lost value when you factor in inflation, but even so that almost rivals bicycles in affordability. Operating costs were negligible even with the cost of gas being what it is, certainly not enough to tip the scale for EVs.
Most consumers aren't interested in EVs, despite all the looming mandates and all the touted benefits. In light of evident public opinion, a populist backlash against mandates seems like a decent bet.
Lol EVs are a joke, and politicians will be forced to admit it. Toyota knows exactly what they are doing, and it is to provide us with cars that meet our needs. They also make what is arguably the most reliable and well-tested hybrid, the Prius, and they could make EVs. Toyota's CEO has said that EVs can only serve 30% of consumers, and he's right.
I think the joke is not facing how we are going to get oil in the future.
Toyota had a huge success with the Prius and then just slept on it for almost two decades. I had a 2nd generation, loved it but Toyota had nothing suitable on their lineup when I wanted to replace it. The newer Prius were just too little, too late.
In colder climates I cannot see EVs being relied upon by people. The kind of places you still need the electricity to keep the engine from freezing overnight would destroy a battery’s capacity and from what energy that’s left you’d be wasting a bunch of it on heating the cabin.
I think the bigger joke is not facing for how you'll get electricity in the future, or how much it will cost. About 80% of electricity in the US is produced with fossil fuels. And this demand is expected to skyrocket with AI and EV demand. There will be no carbon reduction with EVs, at least for probably a hundred years (if ever) because of how much infrastructure has to be replaced and upgraded to support the dream of zero carbon. We're talking about hundreds of nuclear power plants, distribution hubs, upgraded roads and parking structures, not to mention replacing all the cars with much heavier and resource-intensive EVs. Heavy equipment and trucks won't make sense to convert to EVs, notwithstanding some huge battery breakthroughs that we don't foresee.
I do think oil scarcity could be a major problem, but if that starts to happen in our lifetimes then electric vehicles won't need to be mandated. They will be the more economical choice naturally at some point.
EV mandates are a scam. Powering them off coal and natural gas does nothing for carbon. We would need hundreds of new nuclear power plants in the US alone to go net zero. We need like 50% more electricity production to just go all-electric, not counting the excess needed to handle spikes in demand.
"Powering them off coal and natural gas does nothing for carbon" - This is actually not true. Most of the time your grid is less than 100% coal, and because of the efficiency of EVs in total the CO2 emitted is still less. See here for example:
Now keep in mind, we need lots more electricity to power even a modest shift to EVs. Will your efficiency stats for EVs account for the energy used in building EVs to replace prematurely discarded gasoline vehicles, and building massive infrastructure everywhere to support EVs? Of course not. The officials pushing these impractical vehicles don't want you to think about all that.
Siemens (multiple entities of it), Merck, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, DHL, Infineon, Adidas and Puma, Bayer, Rheinmetall, Airbus, Continental, ThyssenKrupp, Bosch, Zeiss. Just a random selection off the top of my head.
What's more, Germany mostly "exports" to neighboring EU countries, which is a low friction and more stable proposition. Japan's exports are mostly to the US, China, and South Korea; its top export destination is China (+ Hong Kong).
Last week two proxy advisory firms, Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, recommended against re-electing Akio Toyoda as chairman. [1] I’m not sure what percentage of shares they control, but seems there is a chance he will be ousted or step down after all of the scandals at Daihatsu and now Toyota - much of which occurred when he was president and CEO at Toyota.
I was light on money but blessed with practicality, so I bought a used Corolla with over 200k miles and I drove it to over 350k miles. And I sold it for not that much less than I paid for it (if you exclude inflation).
No scandal is going to change the lived experience. Toyota produces cars that last forever with the smallest amount of issues. I owned a Chevy for a brief amount of time and it was the worst car I ever had, the entire thing felt like it was held together with cheap glue. I've owned many Toyotas and their quality is exceptional.
That's just a report on EV-fication of car companies. Looks like that's the biggest factor in whether a car company is considered to be taking action against climate change. I can assure you that Ford and GM couldn't give less of a damn about it and are only above Toyota because they want a piece of that sweet high EV price pie.
And the Toyota owners who are told that they were not breaking properly when the car accelerated and crashed are also going to have their "lived experience"
Note that this scandal practically encompasses the entire Japanese car industry at this point and probably a bit more.
This latest round involves five companies: Toyota, Mazda, Honda, Suzuki, and Yamaha. An earlier round involved Daihatsu, Subaru, and I think Mitsubishi if I'm remembering correctly.
When traditional car makers are potentially facing existential crises, this really should not have happened and in Japan no less.
Subaru was affected by the Daihatsu scandal because they sell a couple models that Daihatsu produces under the Subaru brand. The Daihatsu Tanto, for example, is also sold by Subaru as the Chiffon.
Corporation breaks the law to increase profits, gets caught, makes a PR stunt "apologizing" and gets off with a slap on the wrist.
Where have I read that before? Oh, everywhere.
This will never change while profits are the sole reason companies exist. No amount of regulation will stop corruption and/or incompetence from the regulator's side. It also won't change the fact that regulators directly or indirectly have incentives to turn a blind eye, so huge corporations can, you guessed it: keep profiting.
People die because of these kinds of shenanigans, but nobody seems to f*** care as long as profits continue to roll in.
I know I'll now never buy a Toyota, not that it matters at all to their bottom line.
That's another big issue. Everyone loves to repeat "vote with your wallet" but what do you do when it's all bad?
I don't know.
It's not feasible for many to not own a car and even if it was, the few that "vote with their wallet" suffer while companies could not care less about individuals. It only matters if enough people do it, which actually affects their bottom line.
Once again we're f*** by monopolies. It's an oligopoly where all options are bad in different ways and we have no recourse. It's not like we can build our own cars or new companies will actually get into the market. Even if they do, they'll start with the same shady practices because, well, the numbers must go up!
Personally I don't see a solution within our current society.
What are the car platforms/skateboards that are affected? Does it matter? I would assume the platform provides a big part of the rigidity, etc. aspects that matter in collision/safety tests. If so, the other models that use the same platforms will also be affected?
This seems to be a continuation of the whole Daihatsu bullshit storm, and doesn't effect us Americans, and from what I can tell, doesn't effect domestic Japanese models either.
From the article: "Japanese carmakers Honda, Mazda and Suzuki are also due to be inspected by the authorities over the same issue."; those are all major Daihatsu customers pre-Toyota acquisition.
Toyota is essentially being forced to fall on a sword they acquired and no actual corporate wrongdoing (by American standards) seem to have occurred by Toyota executives; all the fault seems to lie entirely at Daihatsu's feet.
Sucks, because a lot of people are going to shy away from what is probably the best car brand in the US, and the only major car company left manufacturing US market cars in the US.
(Why do I specifically phrase it that way? The Big 3 sell most of their US-made cars in Europe with the only actually notable exception being some members of the F150 series; almost all of the Toyota cars sold in the NA market are US and Canadian made.)
I highly doubt many people will even hear about stuff like this, much less care about it. I know I would be just as likely to buy a toyota tomorrow after reading this story, because I've owned them before and they tend to make great cars for a decent price.
Domestic Japanese cars currently sold, from what I can tell, do not use engines produced by Daihatsu. They seem to have moved entirely away from them about a decade ago.
Where Toyota still uses them are export models and models made domestically in Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Under Japanese law, Toyota is guilty because Japanese plants made engines that do not comply with Japanese laws, but the engines are not to be used in Japan. Japanese corporate culture is very different than America's, and they consider this a form of wrongdoing.
Although Toyota has been a long term investor in Daihatsu (starting in 1967 and crossing the 50% threshold in 1998; they were approached by Daihatsu's lenders and the Japanese government to help strengthen the post-war car industry to make this investment), they remained an independent company until 2016.
All of Daihatsu's apparent crimes all point to being pre-2016.
This controversy involves Toyota and others falsifying collision safety data, noise data, among many others tested during government certification.
Among the models implicated are Toyota's Corolla, by far one of their most popular models. Honda has twenty two models suspected of falsifying data, the most out of the five manufacturers implicated.
Daihatsu engines aren't even the tip of the iceberg at this point.
If you're correct, then we're looking at the repeat of the whole VW diesel-gate.
Unfortunately, VW is still in business. Something like $30-40B? globally in fines, they still sell diesel and ICE cars, people aren't lining up to buy electric cars (thanks to Elon fucking over the entire industry with his ridiculous bullshit).
Japan didn't blow the lid off the real estate scam in the 1980s, leading to what started as the "lost decade" and is now becoming the "lost generation", I doubt they're torpedo one of their largest export industries and it's just going to push them further into Great Depression-levels of kicking the can down the road until its too late to fix it.
Akio Toyoda and his apparent co-conspirators across the industry won't be fired, won't see jail time, although it may lead to a shuffle in the executive positions to appease the government.
The only thing in question is how much of this was simple neglect, forced out of practicality (deadlines!), or actually malicious. That the falsifications happened and goes well beyond Daihatsu's shenanigans isn't in doubt.
NHK has been spamming their news programs with this controversy, it shouldn't be too hard to read/watch up on it.
> people aren't lining up to buy electric cars (thanks to Elon fucking over the entire industry with his ridiculous bullshit).
Elon's bullshit is far down the list of reasons people aren't buying electric cars. Practical and economic concerns dominate car purchasing decisions, not the politics and antics of car manufacturer executives. Elon talking shit on twitter isn't the reason all electric cars depreciate like milk left on the counter.
Maybe not net negative yet but he's doing his best to undo prior gains in public opinion
For a variety of reasons, over the last few years, general public reaction has shifted from "Ooh! A Tesla!" to "Ew, a Tesla"
FSD promises not met, failure to evolve vehicle designs, the range scandal stuff, the debacle that is the Cybertruck...and yes, also Elon's frequent inability to control his impulses and keep his mouth shut
Well there's your problem, you're thinking about Tesla owners.
People who already own a Tesla already have an electric vehicle. They might replace it at some point, and it may or may not be replaced by another Tesla. But they're already a member of the electric vehicle owning population. They don't need to be convinced to buy an electric vehicle.
I'm talking more about people who own ICE cars today, and their opinions when they see a Tesla, a friend/relative/colleague talks about their Tesla, etc.
Elon's behavior and some of Tesla's corporate actions have impacted the brand image of Tesla. Tesla has, through their prior successes, established itself as the face of the electric vehicle industry. As the Tesla brand image degrades, there is a knock-on effect on how electric vehicles are generally seen by people who are not yet electric vehicle owners.
i know many that have been considering a tesla as next car(currently on diesel/gasoline), and havent heard anyone that expressed they are upset with elon so might not, most are still very eager on tesla, a few are considering smaller mini EVs
I kinda liked the Yaris Cross (from the outside, haven't even considered a test drive yet). Anyone can summarize what was so wrong with it that they stopped manufacturing for now?
> The Big 3 sell most of their US-made cars in Europe with the only actually notable exception being some members of the F150 series; almost all of the Toyota cars sold in the NA market are US and Canadian made
What? First, one of the "US big 3" is Stellantis, which is an European company with significant holdings and market share in the US (Fiat having bought Chrysler, and the two of them later merged with PSA (Peugeot, Citroen, Opel/Vauxhall)). They sell most of their vehicles in Europe because that's where most of their brands and customers and manufacturing is. Funnily last time I was in the US I saw a surprising number Ram vans which are just rebadged Fiat Ducato/Peugeot Boxer/Citroen Jumper.
Second, General Motors doesn't really operate in Europe anymore after selling Opel to PSA, only a few niche sport models.
The third "big three", Ford, has a completely different lineup in Europe because Ford Europe operates quite separately, and was the origin of most smaller than a massive pickup truck Ford designs (Focus, Fiesta, Kuga, Ka etc.), some of which Ford imported to sell to the US market, but none of which were successful. Ford US sells trucks, Ford Europe sells normal cars, compact SUVs and small vans (Ford Transit Connect, which is better than trucks at 90% of what trucks supposedly are for).
> This seems to be a continuation of the whole Daihatsu bullshit storm, and doesn't effect us Americans, and from what I can tell, doesn't effect domestic Japanese models either.
Minor complaint: Affect, not effect, is the correct word here.
efin corporations - It's sad when you see so many cheat regulations and then ask for forgiveness. There should be a concrete impact when similar manipulations are found. From batteries to car's performance...
...same old story. It will keep happening until the penalty outweighs the benefits.
Make a law that if corporate wrongdoing gives a director a financial benefit, then if caught the director has to return that money to the company. No deals with shareholders, you have to return your bonus. Fines and sanctions can come afterwards. Then see if they are so keen... what do we think of that?
I don’t think that is anymore disincentive at the individual level. What’s lacking is high enough fine at corporate level so the corporate will more sufficiently monitor itself. Right now there’s little incentive not to cheat, much like the fight club ford quote.
I don't really understand how executives get away with big compensation. Shareholders/Owners should be getting the returns.
I understand you need smart people with vision, but I imagine you could go to the executive board of any nearly company and get someone for 500k/yr and they will have similar odds of success.
Slightly better than just "taking full responsibility" in an email written by PR team. But where's the sword?