No Impact Man posts about an alternative American dream, quoting a passage from Segal’s Graceful Simplicity and asking what would happen if the passage turned into reality:

“The point of an economy, even a dynamic economy, is not to have more and more; it is to liberate us from the economic–to provide a material platform from which we may go on to build the good life. That’s the alternative American dream.”

Great, except that Segal’s absolutely wrong.  The point of an economy, especially a capitalist economy, is to promote the transfer of goods.  Yes, even a dynamic economy.  The economy is not the problem.  It’s not even close.

Why is the economy not the problem?  Because, as much as people badmouth it, they overlook something crucial: culture plays as much, if not far more of a role in determining how a society behaves.  We have a materialist culture, not a materialist economy, that promotes the constant accumulation of goods and services.  Even those like No Impact Man fall victim to this culture to a certain extent, and to a certain extent, I would argue this cannot be negated.  The exchange of basic goods – food, water, shelter – is materialistic and highly tied to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.  You cannot change economic reality – that’s been around for far too long, and the culture far longer.

But it’s the culture we grow tired of.  It’s the culture that No Impact Man rallies against when he decides to minimalize his impact, not our economy.  Change the culture.

The New York Times wrote recently on conflict between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minerals Management Service.  In brief, these two agencies plan to implement two different policies that will impact the polar bear population.  The Fish and Wildlife service intends to list the polar bear population as endangered, while the Minerals Management Service intends to open up potentially vital habitat for the polar bear to oil companies.  The energy problems surrounding this notwithstanding, this is a beautiful example of how two kinds of sustainability come into direct conflict with one another.  Which is more important – energy or saving world species?

This is where value judgements enter quite strongly into play, and, much as we might like to ignore the fact, sustainability is in fact a value – more specifically, it’s a personal value rather than a cultural value, since the culture of the United States as a whole has yet to embrace the idea.  Economists would say that sustainability is also a part of a person’s utility, since doing things to assure sustainability increases a person’s well-being.  When that’s the case and sustainability is not prevalent enough on a cultural level, which way do you swing the pendulum?  Do you declare the species endangered to protect their habitat, or do you attempt to increase our energy independence by allowing drilling operations?  Doing both is certainly entirely possible, but one act makes the other inherently more complicated.

I’m not sure there is a right answer here, but there is certainly a more correct answer given the direction of the economy and the overall political environment: declare polar bears endangered and protect their habitat, but allow for drilling elsewhere if it is feasible and can be done in a reasonably low-impact manner.  I acknowledge the relative absurdity of the previous statement, since by definition, no drilling is low-impact, ever, and the likelihood of such drilling occurring anywhere within the lower 48 states is likely to be met with extreme resistance by concerned citizens.  The debate over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and drilling rights there notwithstanding, Alaska is, plain and simple, an easier state to drill in, since much of its population is concentrated.

One hopes that we can arrive at a sustainable solution for both the problem of habitat and energy independence; indeed, it’s the only thing we can reasonably attempt as a nation.

I got the following response from Toyota fairly quickly:

We want to thank you for taking the time to write us here at Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

We are sorry you heard of the inaccurate assertion that we are actively lobbying against increased fuel economy standards, and we want you to be aware of our company’s position supporting increased fuel economy.

There are various bills before Congress that would mandate a new target of 35 mpg by 2020 and require both cars and trucks to meet that standard. Our engineers tell us the requirements specified by these proposed measures are beyond what is possible. Toyota spends $23 million every day on research and development but, at this point, the technology to meet such stringent standards by 2020 does not exist.

Toyota has long supported an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards. Moreover, Toyota has always exceeded federal fuel economy requirements. We are continuously striving to improve our fuel economy, regardless of federal mandates.

Toyota currently supports a proposal known as the Hill-Terry bill, HR 2927, that would set a new standard of up to 35 mpg by 2022 (up to a 40% increase) and maintain separate categories for cars and light trucks. Although this won’t be easy, we believe it is achievable.

To learn more, please visit our blog "A Call to Action-Let’s Move Forward on Fuel Economy" at: http://blog.toyota.com.

You may also want to review the testimony given on March 14th, before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Energy and Commerce Committee by Jim Press, President of Toyota Motor North America, regarding Toyota’s plans and goals regarding increased fuel efficiency and lower vehicle emissions.

Toyota remains committed to the environment and the goal of sustainable mobility and we appreciate you taking the time to contact us.

Toyota Customer Experience

So where does Friedman get his information? There is no disclosure of sources in the article. Further, responding directly to this e-mail, how do Toyota engineers deem that "the requirements specified by these proposed measures are beyond what is possible" when they have cars and technologies that do this already, with vast improvements rumored for the next generation of their Hybrid Synergy Drive technology? I’ve been told by Toyota salespeople personally — not that I ever trust salespeople farther than I can throw them — that Toyota intended to hybridize its fleet by 2010. If the technology exists, despite that this assertion is an all-out lie, why not?

Why is Toyota so reluctant to step up to the plate? They disprove themselves when they state that it’s impossible. If what they mean is that the demand for vehicles with hybrid drives outstrips the supply of parts to manufacture those drives, why not say that rather than sidestepping the issue?

I decided to reply to the message Toyota sent in an effort to perhaps get some clarification:

I find your argument that the technology doesn’t exist to be highly vexing, and, quite frankly, misleading. I drive a Toyota car – the Prius – that proves that technology does exist to support higher vehicle mileage. The Hybrid Synergy Drive system was built for the purpose of increasing mileage on vehicles, and is in active use on several Toyota models. Does Toyota mean to say that the demand for hybrid drives outstrips Toyota’s ability to manufacture such drives in large enough quantities to support the market? If that’s the case, then come out and say it. Hiding behind such blatantly wrong statements to the effect of “the technology doesn’t exist” doesn’t make sense. Of course it exists – Toyota invented it!

Thomas Friedman in the New York Times today set off a stink bomb when he claimed that Toyota has been backing American automakers in resisting higher fuel economy standards. The Union of Concerned Scientists responded with a campaign almost immediately – below is the text of my submission for that campaign. The first and third paragraphs are the automatically generated default drivel used by the system, the second is my own:

President, Toyota North America Shigeru Hayakawa

Dear Mr. Hayakawa,

I am writing to express my deep concern that your company has decided to actively oppose the Senate-passed increase to U.S. fuel economy standards. Toyota already complies with Japanese fuel economy standards aimed at reaching approximately 46 miles per gallon (U.S.) by 2010. Why are you denying American consumers the access to fuel efficient choices that both hybrid and conventional technologies can deliver in all vehicle classes?

As a current Prius owner, I am deeply disturbed by Toyota’s reluctance to set the standard. While I laud Toyota’s work on establishing one of the highest MPG automotive fleets anywhere, I am distressed that Toyota feels the need to continue the status quo, which, as you should well know by now, only damages the very environment Toyota claims to care about. Put your mouth where your money is, sir, and push for higher fuel economy standards in the United States.

I ask that you reverse your current course of action and declare publicly that Toyota can and will comply with the Senate fuel economy standards of 35 miles per gallon. You have the power to help Americans meet their varied driving needs while reducing oil dependence and global warming pollution.

I look forward to your reply.

Update (4:48PM): The Union of Concerned Scientists campaign is available here.

Living in Seattle at the moment is both weird and a bit scary. Scary because the Washington State Department of Transportation is currently ramping up to a major shutdown of a portion of Interstate 5 just south of downtown Seattle for major repair work between the 10th and 29th of this month. This is being billed as one of their biggest projects ever. Weird because, the way I look at it, it’s sort of a traffic armageddon, but it’s also a major opportunity for the City of Seattle that’s being grossly neglected.

Businesses are responding by trying to make it far easier for employees to get to work by offering telecommute or shared commute options, even promoting use of transit via our local transit agencies (Metro, Sound, and Pierce Transit, specifically). Metro, rather glaringly, doesn’t have any extra capacity to add in case it gets slammed, while other agencies seem to have some surplus. But this is truly strange in that, despite exhortations from the Department of Transportation to avoid commuting through that particular stretch of I-5, nobody seems to see this as a prime opportunity to rethink the way that Seattle itself is organized.

We have a number of major traffic arterials that are slowly aging and will be in desperate need of replacement within the next 20 years. One of the biggest is the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which is way over capacity; another is the Highway 520 floating bridge, and Interstate 5 ranks high in that list. Political fisticuffs have been flying around the subject of replacing both the Viaduct and the floating bridge, with people arguing quite vocally about construction methods and timeline. These are vital infrastructure – or so we think. I can’t argue that the floating bridge doesn’t provide a major west/east corridor – of course it does. But what if we sat down and re-visioned the idea of Seattle and the communities surrounding it? What if we decided that, instead of expending our mental energy and our physical resources on reconstructing these resources, we increase population density in Seattle’s downtown core, massively improve transit presence throughout Seattle, and offer disincentives to drive downtown (imitating London and cities in Germany)?

The problem is, we sit around debating. Some of the most drastic rethinking of what it means to be in a city comes from politicians that take immediate action without allowing time for debate. Yes, Interstate 5 is being repaired, and it will undoubtedly be a mess. So why are we ignoring the chance to rethink what it means to live here rather than simply saying “things will get worse, deal with it”? Why do we push this off until the Viaduct closes and we are faced with much the same problem?

It seems like people miss the point entirely when they worry that companies selling bottled water don’t make it clear where that water comes from. The problem isn’t really the source – the problem is that they’re selling bottled water in the first place. There’s a huge difference between water bottles that are typically bought and used once and, say, my trusty Nalgene bottle that follows me all over the place and always has fresh water in it.

Not that I’m not guilty of buying bottled items – I do occasionally indulge in a Nantucket Nectar or two, which are sold in glass, not plastic, bottles. I’ve also been known to make a hapless coffee cup go on a nice, long journey to the landfill. But there’s something about bottled water that just seems somewhat redundant. The fact that it puts tons of plastic into the waste stream is a very large drawback, but the fact that major brands may simply be purifying municipal water sources and shipping it elsewhere has its own set of problems – the energy used in bottling and transportation alone greatly outweigh just drinking from the tap in the first place. You can always get a water purification system, though these systems are problems in and of themselves.

Update (August 1, 2007): The New York Times makes a slightly stronger case on this issue than I do.