It’s not capitalism because it’s not the market magically fixing itself but China injecting a ton of money to prop up a sector the big companies have purposefully ignored, to avoid spending money on R&D. Plus all the incentives given here and there to push people towards EV.

And the concept of offer and demand is not exclusive to capitalism, no.

Did you even read my comment because I addressed this very point…

People seem so quick to parrot what they’ve read on social media but nobody can even make a coherent argument as to why Toyota would be against electrification when a majority of their vehicles are already halfway electrified and have been for far longer than most manufacturers. Stop spreading misinformation.

I’m on my phone so forgive the janky formatting.

How are hybrids and hydrogen stupid shit? I think you’re misunderstanding how the Mirai works as it doesn’t have an ICE engine but a fuel cell. It may not lead to anything, but what downside is there to test it out? It’s still a zero emission vehicle and is only sold in a couple states.

I looked through all those links and they make lots of claims but aren’t backing any of it up with actual evidence.

Electrek’s article: Why is Toyota so anti-EV?

Claim 1:

consistently lobbied against stricter emissions rules under Akio Toyoda’s leadership.

This was what I addressed above when I stated that this was a lobbying group that includes companies like Toyota, GM, Honda, Kia, Fiat/Chrysler, Nissan, Subaru and even battery companies like Panasonic. Their opposition here is to the proposed timelines of the mandates because we’re not ready and very little is being done outside of manufacturing the EVs themselves to prepare. No grid upgrades, no charging stations, no solutions for people in apartments and condos. Here are the statements made by Toyota’s NA executive that Electrek is using to make ridiculously biased claims such as “Toyota wants to kill more people with pollution”

“If we are to make dramatic progress in electrification, it will require overcoming tremendous challenges, including refueling infrastructure, battery availability, consumer acceptance, and affordability.”

while rivals have made aspirational statements, less than 2% of vehicles sold in the U.S. last year were battery electric. He will also note it took Toyota 20 years to sell more than 4 million U.S. gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles.”

Claim 2:

Although the long-time leader stepped down in January, the automaker’s anti-EV efforts continue.

The actual statements:

Right now, hybrid-electric vehicles are a better fit than BEVs for most consumers.”

BEVs make sense right now in places like Norway where most energy is renewable, and incomes are high,” adding, “But Australia is not Europe.”

All these statements sound pretty damned pragmatic and nobody pushing these “Toyota is anti-EV” claims seems to have an answer for any of the issues addressed.

Public Citizen.org claims:

Years of Anti-EV Policy at Toyota Generates Shareholder Backlash

Evidence: a simple statement from a Public Citizen employee on why Toyota should release more EVs. A big old nothingburger.

Teslarati claim: Toyota exec believes full-fledged EV push could be ‘wasted investment’

Actual statement:

Ogawa seems to believe that electric vehicle demand is not currently at a level that would match a full-fledged transitional effort from gas-powered and hybrid vehicles to electric cars. He explained this:

“…again, our starting point is what the customer demand should be. So, for example, 2030 regulations said the new-car market, more than half of ‘it should be BEV, but our current plan is like 30%.”

Ogawa also said that, despite the EPA reconsidering the EV regulations and potentially backtracking them slightly, it is likely a better idea from a business perspective to look at what customers want, which differs from what the agency wants:

“I know that EPA is now reconsidering what the regulation level should be…We are respecting the regulation, but more important is customer demand.”

More pragmatism. Look at the failures of companies like GM who wasted a ton of money developing shit like the Hummer EV while their real consumer EVs keep getting pulled from production due to issues.

The Observer article just outlines Toyotas attempt to release smaller more fuel efficient engines to supplement their hybrid vehicles. Again another attempt at an alternative to straight BEV vehicles but if it’s carbon neutral what’s the issue exactly? Are these journalists pushing for zero emissions or BEVs specifically? It sure seems like the latter and they never seem to account for the emissions related to generating the electricity to power BEVs. My state has mostly clean energy generation but too many states are still relying on coal and gas to generate power.

Lastly the EVA article, I won’t even bother to write much about this since none of their claims are even sourced and it’s written in a quite biased manner.

Nothing here is “Anti-EV” it’s just a bunch of zealots and self-serving individuals generating outrage and clickbait. Toyota thinks the deadlines (some as soon as 2030, 5 years from now) are too extreme and unachievable. Think of where we were in 2019 versus now and how little actual progress has been made in terms of infrastructure and markets hare. Do you honestly think in 5 more years it would be feasible to completely ban all ICE sales when EVs only make up 8 out of every 100 vehicles sold currently?

The politicians pushing these mandates have sat on their ass and done very little to actually push the country forward apart from some measly tax credit extensions. That’s like a 20-year-old claiming they’re going to be a millionaire by age 30 and proceeding to spend the next decade on their couch playing video games. It’s a lofty goal, but if they don’t actually do anything to achieve it, it ain’t gonna happen.

Rhymes with smunderpaid twerkers and flavory.

Government subsidy/tax breaks