Much Ado About Nothing
- Thread starter 1854sailor
- Start date
VeeDubTDI
Wanderluster, Traveler, TDIClub Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2000
- Location
- Springfield, VA
- TDI
- ‘18 Tesla Model 3D+, ‘14 Cadillac ELR, ‘13 Fiat 500e
I don't place much faith in what is published by Breitbart. Still an interesting read.
flee
Veteran Member
Yes, interesting in that Breitbart's goes beyond mere VW whitewashing and
whitewashes the NOx pollution itself.
whitewashes the NOx pollution itself.
bird67
Veteran Member
EPA starts regulating air quality. Air quality improves. Air quality is healthy. Therefore, EPA regulations are unnecessary. - Breitbart.
Tdijarhead
Top Post Dawg
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2013
- Location
- Lawrenceville PA
- TDI
- 2003 TDI Jetta Daughters Car, 2001 TDI Beetle, Wife’s car, 2005 Golf TDI Mine, all 5 spds
Let me fix this for you.
EPA starts regulating air quality. Air quality improves. Air quality is healthy. Therefore, with the problem solved or at least under control EPA has to justify its continued existence. More and tighter air quality regulations, and an excuse to increase control over every facet of life.
flee
Veteran Member
May you never have to breathe the L.A. basin's air from before CARB existed.
fxk
Veteran Member
Like any bureaucracy, CARB's primary goal is self survival - while they may have been necessary once, their value decreases as goals are met.May you never have to breathe the L.A. basin's air from before CARB existed.
Now, with VW, California, thanks to CARB, is getting a big payday - far and away the greatest payout from the lawsuit. And on it goes, and on it goes.
bizzle
Veteran Member
Air quality isn't something that can be "fixed" or set and forget about. You keep talking about it like the pollution problems in the past have been addressed so the EPA and CARB have to justify their existence.
Their existence is justified every day increasing amounts of vehicles are put into service. They have to make the standards more stringent to account for that increased pollution. Some of the standards are compromises because they allowed the more stringent requirements to be phased in over a period of years so the car manufacturers could switch without being hit too hard financially.
The standards have input from car manufacturers and what they expect is reasonable. They aren't blindsided by any of these numbers.
Their existence is justified every day increasing amounts of vehicles are put into service. They have to make the standards more stringent to account for that increased pollution. Some of the standards are compromises because they allowed the more stringent requirements to be phased in over a period of years so the car manufacturers could switch without being hit too hard financially.
The standards have input from car manufacturers and what they expect is reasonable. They aren't blindsided by any of these numbers.
bird67
Veteran Member
That's where you, and Breitbart, miss the target.
Air quality used to be terrible. We, the people, through our government, created CARB/EPA. CARB/EPA created rules that are equal for every carmaker. Air quality has improved. Those of us who don't have emphysema and lung cancer say "thank you, CARB/EPA." Those of us who hate government in every fiber of our being say "damn you, CARB/EPA, stop overregulating us."
A baseball example to lighten things up. All-Star Victor Warner (VW) steps to the plate. VW connects on a pitch. The ball drives past the infield, a clear base hit. VW runs, directly to third. No first or second. He's now on third base. VW declares he hit a triple! The outfielder throws the ball to first base, the first baseman steps on the bag, VW's declared 'out.' VW and his many fans cry "unfair!" because the umpire was enforcing arbitrary rules that make no sense. They say the umpire only called VW out in order to justify his existence.
Last edited:
Tdijarhead
Top Post Dawg
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2013
- Location
- Lawrenceville PA
- TDI
- 2003 TDI Jetta Daughters Car, 2001 TDI Beetle, Wife’s car, 2005 Golf TDI Mine, all 5 spds
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
I think the whole deal is blown out of proportion, in that it seems to get way too political. I think it is more (much more) about rules being dodged and chicanery at work rather than clean air. Because if it were just about clean air, I do not think they'd be hammering so hard on the issue, because there are FAR bigger issues to deal with.
I liken it to a public swimming pool. People pee in pools. They just do. It's gross, and obviously not everyone does. But as any woman who has had children will tell you, it is not always easy to keep your urine contained... but even beyond that, you know there is some guy that every day pees in the public pool.
Volkswagen is the guy that has been found peeing in the pool. There is no detectable within reason harm coming to this, but he has been caught. Now, what should have been done is he (this one guy) should have been removed from the pool, perhaps fined, perhaps a pool membership suspension, perhaps a lifetime ban from the pool, whatever. But the rest of the pool goers are in no danger. Nevermind the methods of detection, but let's say you were swimming in a pool when this pee perp was caught. Would you suddenly lunge from the pool and run away? I wouldn't. I'd just continue to swim as normal, and probably not invite that guy to my house. And I'd trust that the overwhelming majority of people who are not blatantly peeing in the pool along with the pools filtering and chemical treatments etc. would continue to work just the same as they always have.
But the EPA has taken a different approach. They've got the pee perp out. They've proceeded to kick and beat him on the pool deck, they've removed everyone from the pool, they've drained the pool, they've filled it with bleach (the whole neighborhood stinks now), they've erected a fence around the pool, and they've pushed for filling the pool in with concrete.
I think it is a little extreme. Particularly when we already know these cars have already been on the road this whole time (most of them anyways), and there have not been any huge outbreaks of NOx plumes over any major US city, and that the actual tonnage of crap spewed into the atmosphere as a whole is actually going to be LESS with these cars than it would otherwise. Look at the stats! The NMS Passat alone for instance had its CO output go from the regulated maximum output of .2 to .013, and the HC go from .002 to .00002! I mean come on!
And for the VAST majority every CR TDI that is removed from the road, it will be replaced with either a car that uses MORE fuel or replaced with an older one that is "dirtier". I really don't think people who own these cars are going to start riding bikes.
I liken it to a public swimming pool. People pee in pools. They just do. It's gross, and obviously not everyone does. But as any woman who has had children will tell you, it is not always easy to keep your urine contained... but even beyond that, you know there is some guy that every day pees in the public pool.
Volkswagen is the guy that has been found peeing in the pool. There is no detectable within reason harm coming to this, but he has been caught. Now, what should have been done is he (this one guy) should have been removed from the pool, perhaps fined, perhaps a pool membership suspension, perhaps a lifetime ban from the pool, whatever. But the rest of the pool goers are in no danger. Nevermind the methods of detection, but let's say you were swimming in a pool when this pee perp was caught. Would you suddenly lunge from the pool and run away? I wouldn't. I'd just continue to swim as normal, and probably not invite that guy to my house. And I'd trust that the overwhelming majority of people who are not blatantly peeing in the pool along with the pools filtering and chemical treatments etc. would continue to work just the same as they always have.
But the EPA has taken a different approach. They've got the pee perp out. They've proceeded to kick and beat him on the pool deck, they've removed everyone from the pool, they've drained the pool, they've filled it with bleach (the whole neighborhood stinks now), they've erected a fence around the pool, and they've pushed for filling the pool in with concrete.
I think it is a little extreme. Particularly when we already know these cars have already been on the road this whole time (most of them anyways), and there have not been any huge outbreaks of NOx plumes over any major US city, and that the actual tonnage of crap spewed into the atmosphere as a whole is actually going to be LESS with these cars than it would otherwise. Look at the stats! The NMS Passat alone for instance had its CO output go from the regulated maximum output of .2 to .013, and the HC go from .002 to .00002! I mean come on!
And for the VAST majority every CR TDI that is removed from the road, it will be replaced with either a car that uses MORE fuel or replaced with an older one that is "dirtier". I really don't think people who own these cars are going to start riding bikes.
Last edited:
MBfrontier
Member
Using the baseball analogy, what if the umpires decide they want to get rid of leather in all of the equipment players use to play baseball like leather baseball gloves and leather ball coverings? Is that realistic? They decide they want to make sure no animals are hurt and no animal parts are used in baseball equipment. Perhaps they implement rules where they are able to fine any players and/or teams where leather equipment is found. The revenue from fines are used to fund more projects and research to create more regulations and fines where they see fit. See where this is going? Who oversees the umpires to make sure the game can still be played by the time they are done? By the way leather in this example is a metaphor for diesel.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for clean air. However, who's in charge of overseeing the EPA to make sure their regulations are reasonable and achievable? Our cars continue to have increasing emissions control devices every model year adding to the cost and complexity. When will it be enough? Will it be before we can no longer burn fossil fuel? When the auto manufacturers can no longer meet unrealistic EPA regulations do they quit manufacturing cars? The courts have recently ruled the EPA must begin addressing cost and complexity while coming up with regulations going forward.
We've already seen where coal plants have been shut down via regulation while electric vehicles are being promoted even before that technology is mature enough to be a reasonable alternative. In addition, no nuclear power plants have sprung up to power the void. How's that gonna work? Perhaps walking will be cleaner?
I'm happy Breitbart is reporting on this. More reporting on what the government is doing to us with our tax dollars is a good thing. After all, when will the government be big enough?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for clean air. However, who's in charge of overseeing the EPA to make sure their regulations are reasonable and achievable? Our cars continue to have increasing emissions control devices every model year adding to the cost and complexity. When will it be enough? Will it be before we can no longer burn fossil fuel? When the auto manufacturers can no longer meet unrealistic EPA regulations do they quit manufacturing cars? The courts have recently ruled the EPA must begin addressing cost and complexity while coming up with regulations going forward.
We've already seen where coal plants have been shut down via regulation while electric vehicles are being promoted even before that technology is mature enough to be a reasonable alternative. In addition, no nuclear power plants have sprung up to power the void. How's that gonna work? Perhaps walking will be cleaner?
I'm happy Breitbart is reporting on this. More reporting on what the government is doing to us with our tax dollars is a good thing. After all, when will the government be big enough?
Tdijarhead
Top Post Dawg
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2013
- Location
- Lawrenceville PA
- TDI
- 2003 TDI Jetta Daughters Car, 2001 TDI Beetle, Wife’s car, 2005 Golf TDI Mine, all 5 spds
Thanks Oilhammer, love that analogy. Very well stated.
I was in LA , 79-80 I remember breathing the orange haze. How many times has that happened since? CARB to their credit has helped put regulations in place that have helped air quality tremendously. When will the ever tightening regulations be enough? When we all walk or bike and live like the Amish?
I was in LA , 79-80 I remember breathing the orange haze. How many times has that happened since? CARB to their credit has helped put regulations in place that have helped air quality tremendously. When will the ever tightening regulations be enough? When we all walk or bike and live like the Amish?
STLTDI
Veteran Member
Yep...hope the EPA enjoys my Passat TDI being replaced with a Dodge Charger R/T with Scat Pack...6.4L V8 for you EPA!I think the whole deal is blown out of proportion, in that it seems to get way too political. I think it is more (much more) about rules being dodged and chicanery at work rather than clean air. Because if it were just about clean air, I do not think they'd be hammering so hard on the issue, because there are FAR bigger issues to deal with.
I liken it to a public swimming pool. People pee in pools. They just do. It's gross, and obviously not everyone does. But as any woman who has had children will tell you, it is not always easy to keep your urine contained... but even beyond that, you know there is some guy that every day pees in the public pool.
Volkswagen is the guy that has been found peeing in the pool. There is no detectable within reason harm coming to this, but he has been caught. Now, what should have been done is he (this one guy) should have been removed from the pool, perhaps fined, perhaps a pool membership suspension, perhaps a lifetime ban from the pool, whatever. But the rest of the pool goers are in no danger. Nevermind the methods of detection, but let's say you were swimming in a pool when this pee perp was caught. Would you suddenly lunge from the pool and run away? I wouldn't. I'd just continue to swim as normal, and probably not invite that guy to my house. And I'd trust that the overwhelming majority of people who are not blatantly peeing in the pool along with the pools filtering and chemical treatments etc. would continue to work just the same as they always have.
But the EPA has taken a different approach. They've got the pee perp out. They've proceeded to kick and beat him on the pool deck, they've removed everyone from the pool, they've drained the pool, they've filled it with bleach (the whole neighborhood stinks now), they've erected a fence around the pool, and they've pushed for filling the pool in with concrete.
I think it is a little extreme. Particularly when we already know these cars have already been on the road this whole time (most of them anyways), and there have not been any huge outbreaks of NOx plumes over any major US city, and that the actual tonnage of crap spewed into the atmosphere as a whole is actually going to be LESS with these cars than it would otherwise. Look at the stats! The NMS Passat alone for instance had its CO output go from the regulated maximum output of .2 to .013, and the HC go from .002 to .00002! I mean come on!
And for the VAST majority every CR TDI that is removed from the road, it will be replaced with either a car that uses MORE fuel or replaced with an older one that is "dirtier". I really don't think people who own these cars are going to start riding bikes.
bird67
Veteran Member
I love the creativity of this analogy! Takes a bit of the seriousness off. Let me challenge your premise. There is an important distinction between VW and your hypothetical leaky swimmer. The leaky swimmer is not in competition with his fellow swimmers and gains no competitive advantage over them by peeing in the pool. VW, by "peeing in the pool" with its cheating, gained a competitive advantage over other automakers, selling at least some vehicles it would not otherwise have sold if it had played by the rules.
Here's another analogy: Rosie Ruiz "won" the Boston Marathon by jumping onto the course late in the race without running the full course. She "won", just as VW "won" sales, by not following the rules. Rosie Ruiz was outed, shamed and stripped of her unfairly gained crown. VW has been outed, shamed and is being stripped of its unfairly gained profits.
bird67
Veteran Member
I'm not sure I'd call what Breitbart is doing as "reporting." I'd say he's advocating a viewpoint. Either way, though, you're right - monitoring government is a vitally important part of democracy. I don't share his view in this instance but I am glad he has a forum and freedom to express it.
As to your other points:
1. Umpires don't make changes to baseball. Umpires enforce the rules that exist. A good example is happening right now - there is a push in Major League Baseball to shrink the strike zone. Umpires don't like that. They don't have a choice. If the definition of "strike" changes, even if it's a bad idea, the umpires must enforce it. So, too, must EPA and CARB enforce the rules that exist. Other automakers may not have liked the rules either, but they adapted to them. VW chose not to adapt to them.
2. Who's in charge of overseeing the EPA to make sure their regulations are reasonable and achievable? You are. Me too. So is VW, GM, and every other automaker with the power to lobby. It works - as you point out, CARB/EPA may have to increase the importance of cost-benefit analysis for regulation. That development hasn't happened in a vacuum.
MBfrontier
Member
Hey, bird67. This is a fun discussion. Who knew we'd be analyzing baseball and peeing in public pools as a result of dieselgate?
Regarding the EPA, they make the regulations and enforce "umpire" them. Furthermore, they are imposing fines on those they deem to be in non-compliance and use some of the funds to further their agenda. In this case it's safe to say ideology. I watched the news conference thinking it would be VW at the news conference. It wasn't. It was the Justice Dept. and the head of the EPA. They were gleeful and bragging about how this settlement is unprecedented regarding the amount of money that they are getting from VW and would use to fund EPA projects in many states and research cleaning up other diesel vehicles such as trucking. I heard little or nothing about the VW customers that purchased TDI vehicles from VW.
The head of the EPA is an appointed position and reports to the President. They do not report to the people of the United States. It is true that a change in President may result in a change of the EPA Director. In addition, they write regulations that are not required to be approved by officials we elect such as Congress.
When the EPA creates a regulation which exceeds reason businesses may be negatively effected to the point of going out of business. It has been happening and is happening now. The only recourse is litigation which could take years. By that time it may be too late for those so negatively effected they have had to close their doors.
Anyway, it's been fun reading this thread. Thankfully, I don't swim in public pools and I'm too old to play baseball. Also, I apologize to MLB for using them in an analogy comparing them to the EPA.
Regarding the EPA, they make the regulations and enforce "umpire" them. Furthermore, they are imposing fines on those they deem to be in non-compliance and use some of the funds to further their agenda. In this case it's safe to say ideology. I watched the news conference thinking it would be VW at the news conference. It wasn't. It was the Justice Dept. and the head of the EPA. They were gleeful and bragging about how this settlement is unprecedented regarding the amount of money that they are getting from VW and would use to fund EPA projects in many states and research cleaning up other diesel vehicles such as trucking. I heard little or nothing about the VW customers that purchased TDI vehicles from VW.
The head of the EPA is an appointed position and reports to the President. They do not report to the people of the United States. It is true that a change in President may result in a change of the EPA Director. In addition, they write regulations that are not required to be approved by officials we elect such as Congress.
When the EPA creates a regulation which exceeds reason businesses may be negatively effected to the point of going out of business. It has been happening and is happening now. The only recourse is litigation which could take years. By that time it may be too late for those so negatively effected they have had to close their doors.
Anyway, it's been fun reading this thread. Thankfully, I don't swim in public pools and I'm too old to play baseball. Also, I apologize to MLB for using them in an analogy comparing them to the EPA.
Last edited:
DanB36
Veteran Member
There is at least one other avenue of recourse, and that's legislation. An agency can only promulgate regulations within what Congress allows, though historically that's been pretty broad. If there's enough public outcry, though, that legislative permission can be narrowed.
For example, in 1980/81 the NHTSA promulgated regulations requiring a seat belt ignition interlock--your car wouldn't start unless the driver's seat belt was fastened. After considerable public outcry, Congress swiftly amended the NHTSA's enabling legislation to prevent them from doing that. The owner's manual for my '81 Jetta talked about that device, but my car didn't have it.
bird67
Veteran Member
Well said, countering the prevailing premise that CARB/EPA ascended to power by coup d'Etat and are above the law. We the People have spoken. We like clean air. We can have great legitimate discussions about all the human activity that pollute worse than TDIs that CARB/EPA should have been (over)regulating, but the law is the law. Every auto maker chose its course on diesels based on that law. VW's choice was to cheat.
turbocharged798
Veteran Member
Just because its the law doesn't mean it makes sense. Weed is not legal but it does not stop people from using it. CARBs NOx requirements were ridiculously low for diesels and they were just asking for cheating. Makes stupid laws, expect them to get broken.
I also like transportation and having obnoxious emission laws that blocks me from buying a new diesel car is absurd considering how little the emissions actually help the environment.
I also like transportation and having obnoxious emission laws that blocks me from buying a new diesel car is absurd considering how little the emissions actually help the environment.
bizzle
Veteran Member
Sure. Now if only weed consumers had input into the narcotics regulations you'd have an appropriate analogy.
The laws were drafted with manufacturers input, all other manufacturers have been found to be compliant, and there are plenty of options if you want to buy a diesel.
What you can't buy is a VW diesel because VW was too cheap to implement proper controls. Not even going to bother responding to the claim that emissions regulations don't help the environment since it's as baseless as the claim that the EPA/CARB regulations were borne out of some underhanded agenda to drive diesel out of NA.
The laws were drafted with manufacturers input, all other manufacturers have been found to be compliant, and there are plenty of options if you want to buy a diesel.
What you can't buy is a VW diesel because VW was too cheap to implement proper controls. Not even going to bother responding to the claim that emissions regulations don't help the environment since it's as baseless as the claim that the EPA/CARB regulations were borne out of some underhanded agenda to drive diesel out of NA.
nwdiver
Veteran Member
By that logic the police department should have been disbanded after they caught the bank robber...
You need an organization to ensure compliance with existing laws.... and yes, as technology improves further reduce emissions.
Last edited:
bird67
Veteran Member
This is right. Now, back to analyzing consumer demand for more and higher buyback payments. We consumers were harmed, I suppose, but indirectly, by the cheating. The real victims here are VW's competitors who played by the rules, did not bring in diesels to compete with VW, and lost sales - and therefore money - to VW. The other real victims are VW's dealers who, so far as I can tell, had no idea they were the front lines of a cheating-vehicle delivery system.
Don't get me wrong, if I had my 2.0 still I'd be seeking the highest buyback payment possible. Doing otherwise would be like paying higher taxes because you consider certain tax loopholes immoral or inappropriate. If the 3.0 results in a similar buyback I'll be joining the chorus of those seeking buyback based on retail and not trade-in value, for example. I don't feel "victimized" because my vehicle emits more NOx than it's supposed to, I feel "victimized" only because VW's cheating created uncertainty around my ownership of a vehicle that, otherwise, has been a pleasure to own and drive.
I put "victimized' in quotes because the concept has no meaning in a world in which terrorists run innocents over with trucks in the streets of Nice. Focusing on VW's cheating in this context is a means of escapism for me, a fortunate among those of us fortunates who live in the global 1% - which is, to say, America.
Tdijarhead
Top Post Dawg
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2013
- Location
- Lawrenceville PA
- TDI
- 2003 TDI Jetta Daughters Car, 2001 TDI Beetle, Wife’s car, 2005 Golf TDI Mine, all 5 spds
Of course you need an organization to enforce compliance. However the police don't make the laws, they enforce them. The EPA while technically not making laws chooses what to enforce and how much. They reccomend additional laws as absolutely essential or the world will end. So in a sense the fox is guarding the henhouse.
Who fines the EPA when they turn a river orange?
nwdiver
Veteran Member
Blaming the EPA for that mine leak is like blaming the fire department for damaging your house trying to put out a fire... Mistakes were made but the real blame lies with the mining company.
wxman
Veteran Member
While I generally agree with the linked article in the OP, the main reason EPA and CARB are focused on NOx is because of the role of NOx as an ozone precursor. The article is correct, no area in the U.S. is currently in non-attainment with the NO2 NAAQS, and hasn't since the early 1990s, when gasoline cars had NOx emission rates of 2.3 g/mile, or about 50% higher than what the cheating TDIs averaged in the ICCT/WVU study, based on EPA emission factors. Ground-level ozone remains the main air quality issue in the U.S.
The main criticism I have of EPA appears to be based on how it is organized. There is one section that regulates emissions from stationary sources while another apparently independent section regulates emissions from mobile sources, and there doesn't appear to be much coordination between the two sections. Promulgating mobile source regulations that result in higher emissions from associated stationary sources is counterproductive IMHO.
The main criticism I have of EPA appears to be based on how it is organized. There is one section that regulates emissions from stationary sources while another apparently independent section regulates emissions from mobile sources, and there doesn't appear to be much coordination between the two sections. Promulgating mobile source regulations that result in higher emissions from associated stationary sources is counterproductive IMHO.
nwdiver
Veteran Member
Stationary sources of NOx inside cities have gradually been shutdown... perhaps a more productive position would be to ban all sources of NOx within city limits. This would significantly loosen emission requirements. This would be better than banning all cars as Paris is starting to do. You can drive a car that spews a lot of NOx... you just have to keep it in rural areas.
NOx has a short half-life... if the source is away from population centers the harm is very limited.
bird67
Veteran Member
The scientific analysis on this and other threads, offered in criticism of EPA/CARB, makes for interesting and informative reading. At the same time I keep thinking if you all knew so much science and believed EPA/CARB was out of control, were you informing your elected representatives? Were you lobbying for change? Or are you armchair quarterbacking? This is important because EPA/CARB are entities dependent upon budgets arrived upon by elected representatives. They are not independent fiefdoms. If EPA/CARB's standards for diesels was as unfair as you all (now) make it seem, I would have expected all the auto manufacturers to be pushing back on them. Instead, they all tried to comply and failed. All gave up, except VW...and we know how that turned out.
wxman
Veteran Member
Well, EPA itself has established damage cost factor of $5500/ton for directly-emitted NOx, and $5300/ton for NOx emitted from the fuel cycle. So there's some difference but not much.
Production of gasoline results in significantly higher emissions.than ULSD, including NOx, according to the GREET model.
bizzle
Veteran Member
The reality that seems to be left out of these discussions, either intentionally or just plain lack of awareness of the process, is that industry leaders have had significant impact on the regulations. The automotive industry and process industries are some of the most powerful lobbying blocs, and leaders from industry routinely move from their industry into politics into regulatory positions and back into industry positions.
Do a quick read of Browner's movement through these segments and personal connections for just a glimpse of how inter-related these segments all are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Browner#Business_career
(Browner was the EPA administrator during the time period we're discussing)
It's not accurate to claim that auto manufacturers tried to comply and failed. The regulations are tiered and timed to facilitate industries to ramp up design changes and implement them in a way that won't ruin them or hamper productivity. Numerous companies continued to produce diesel versions of their vehicles and they did just fine here. Only VW was found to run afoul of the law. I haven't followed other industries as closely as VW's shenanigans but presumably nothing on the order of this mess has occurred from them.
The irony with all this gnashing of teeth is that we wouldn't have the CR if not for the regulations pushing the technology forward.