Slashdot Mirror
Nearly All New Diesel Cars Exceed Official Pollution Limits (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Guardian, citing a comprehensive set of data, reports that 97% of all modern diesel cars emit more toxic nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution on the road than the official limit. A quarter of this voluminous number emits at least six times more than the limit. From the report, "Surprisingly, the tiny number of models that did not exceed the standard were mostly Volkswagens, the carmaker whose cheating of diesel emissions tests emerged last year sparked the scandal. Experts said the new results show that clean diesel cars can be made but that virtually all manufacturers have failed to do so. The new data, from testing industry leader Emissions Analytics (EA), follows the publication this week by the Department for Transport of emissions results for 37 vehicles, all of which emitted more NOx on the road than the official limit. But the new data covers more than 250 vehicles in more stringently standardised road conditions. EA found that just one of 201 Euro 5 diesels, the EU standard from 2009, did not exceed the limit, while only seven of 62 Euro 6 diesels, the stricter standard since 2014, did so. Diesel cars must meet an official EU limit for NOx but are only tested in a laboratory under fixed conditions. All vehicles sold pass this regulation but, when taken out on to real roads, almost all emit far more pollution. There is no suggestion that any of the cars tested broke the law on emissions limits or used any cheat devices. Mayoral candidates in London, the city with the worst air quality in Britain, have seized on the DfT data to call for tighter controls on polluting traffic -- including a ban on diesel cars."Caroline Pidgeon, the Lib Dem mayoral candidate, said: "The figures are exactly the reason why we need to speed up the introduction of the ultra-low emission zone so that it starts in 2018. Ultimately we will need to ban diesel vehicles from much of London and we need a mayor prepared to take these tough decisions and work with people to make these changes happen."
I have a right to pollute the air by burning whatever I please. It's freedom, the air is free, so I'm free to do whatever I want with it.
Why must you steal my liberty?
Limits must be defined in terms of the condition of the test. If testing is done outside those defined conditions, the limits are hard to apply and enforce. Seems like the regulators need to re-define the limits and testing method.
It doesn't matter how many are cheating now. VW is the one people will remember.
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that clean diesel is just another totally meaningless advertising slogan!
The cars only have to pass a laboratory test. If that test bears no resemblance to the real world (which the EU one doesn't) then thats the fault of the people who devised it.
The main problem with emissions is if you want good fuel economy and hence lower CO2 per km then you need a high burn temp. The trouble with that is a high burn temp gives high NOx. Take your pick.
The only serious solution to NOx is a urea system such as adblue as used in trucks but thats more equipment, more complexity and more expense.
what's next, cpu benchmarks doesn't necessarily say how fast a cpu is in some realworld application?
Caroline Pidgeon is an idiot, if the cars don't truthfully report their emissions then changing the fake number helps nothing. They already don't meet the legal standard.
What needs to happen is ALL makers of ALL cars (including Petrol) need to have their emissions tested PROPERLY and INDEPENDENTLY. Because we've got a Tour de France situation going here, where the only way to win is to cheat like the rest of the cyclists. The fix for that is random drug testing and banning of cheats.
The exact same thing needs to happen with cars.
Programmers write code that's bug free in test conditions, not in real world applications.
Every field tends to work to succeed at what they're explicitly judged for, ignoring what they're not.
You fucking idiot, you make every story and every post an excuse to shill your hollow philosophy in hopes that repetition will gain you new cult members.
Before this fact was just used for public shaming of one german manufacturer... Believe me, they did this purposefully to force Germany to agree to secret ISDS courts (aka "this wouldnt happen with ISDS courts, look how badly VW is doing").
Paranoid conspiracy in four posts!
Not quite a record, but an achievement nonetheless. You should get some mod points.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
...work with people to make these changes happen.
Speaking as someone who really wants stinky deisel engines off the road, the only way this is going to be fair is if the manufacturers buy the cars back at their current market value + inconvenience money... that's separately from any fines they have for fucking the world and increasing everyone's chances of lung cancer significantly.
What it actually means is slightly less dirty diesel.
Even if new diesel cars did pass this test they'd still start blowing black soot and other crap after a number of years have passed and the car has reached owner number 3 who isn't bothering to do anything other than basic maintainance to keep it on the road until it falls apart.
The Internet is full of enlightening Europeans heaping scorn upon lowly Americans for not using their awesome "clean diesel" technology. Silly Americans still driving non-diesels!
Is this a rhetorical question?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Why aren't there independent labs doing the validation of their claims? Expecting these companies to not fudge their numbers is wishful thinking.
Your ideas intrigue me and I want to subscribe to your newsletter.
But I'm curious how interstate regulation didn't apply to interstate rail traffic.
Thanks, and I'll listen to my answer off the air.
I guess you need to learn quite a bit there. Interstate rail traffic was private, government could not withhold any funds from a State to make it comply, does that make it clearer for you?
You can't handle the truth.
1. What formally defines "Clean Diesel". "Euro 6" is spectacularly uninformative.
2. How badly the standard was blown: a few percentage point, or orders of magnitude ?
3. Some historical data. For instance, what did emissions look like before ANY emission controls were put in place.
Furthermore, the Guardian article offers zero actual numbers. As an engineer, I'm always skeptical of any claim when no specific numbers are mentioned. Gee, real-world conditions aren't well-replicated in testing environments ? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you, to hear it. But I suspect a real-world testing regime for all vehicles would be both costly and cumbersome, and probably non even cost-effective. . ..
Diesel cars must meet an official EU limit for NOx but are only tested in a laboratory under fixed conditions. All vehicles sold pass this regulation but, when taken out on to real roads, almost all emit far more pollution...Mayoral candidates in London...call for tighter controls on polluting traffic -- including a ban on diesel cars."
Here's another idea: how about we do not limit emission tests to only laboratory settings? That would send the message to all manufacturers that they can no longer cheat, but it doesn't deprive individuals of the choice to drive Diesel.
Just like a politician...kiss the babies to get elected, then promise to throw them out with the bathwater once in office.
Independent unfortunately in this world has the same trustworthy merit and reliability as those independent financial rating agencies.
It was clear from the very beginning that all must be doing this, and that all knew about the others doing this. Otherwise they would not have dared to run such a scam and those that could not make clean diesel engines would either have licensed the technology from the competition or exited that market. But instead of exposing the first ones that did it, like a true anti-market cabal they all decided to keep silent and defraud the customer and cause significant harm to the population in general.
Wat would need to happen here is top management behind bars. Even if it cannot be proven that they knew (and they will have known and hence made very sure proving so will be very hard), they bear full responsibility for not effectively monitoring what went on in their company. In a position of responsibility, looking away is about as bad as knowing about it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The way things are going, electric cars will get huge boost and eventual dominance when cities will start banning all non-zero emission vehicles from driving within city limits.
And all the emissions will be shifted to countryside where power plants can pollute to their heart desire because population density (and associated health problems) over there are close to nil.
Expecting "independent" labs to actually be independent is not much better. Remember that it was a Swiss academic lab that found the original problem, because no German lab could be found that was willing to make these measurements on a German car. They all had a lot of business to lose and probably had reason to expect that the measurements would show massive problems. As soon as enough money is involved, the whole complex becomes corrupt. And, just as with the financial crisis of 2008, I predict that nobody will go behind bars for this, or at best some lowly scapegoats.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You should look up sarcasm in the English Common law library. Hopefully, you find it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
sarcasm aside, this is how many people actually think.
Have the mfrs do a recall of all diesel cars produced over the last 20 years or so. Problem solved.
You should look up sarchasm in the English Common law library. Hopefully, you find it.
SARCHASM: The gulf between the author of wit and its intended recipient (ATTRIB: Someone on the internet)
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
I love the challenge to the environmentalists here. Lower MPG and lower emissions (NOx) or Raise MPG and raise NOx? It's the perfect catch 22. Diesel cars and trucks are some of the best vehicles out there. The engines are built to last longer due to the compression/ignition needs and there's more energy per liter stored than gasoline. Accept the NOx and build more fuel variety vehicles. Why don't we have more Natgas vehicles?
Like smokers
Unfortunately, yes. And that is what eventually kills a society: Too many self-centered fucks that do not care about anything except themselves.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
There's very little info on the tests, they need a graph showing how much it was over the limit for how long. It's not clear if the index is based on the peak value or an average over time.
Would you rather a D rated car that is only over for 10% of the time, or a B rated car that is over 90% of the time, it's not clear.
I see they're also only rating based on NOx, but that's not the only pollution that's possible. You can easily rig the NOx test by excessive DEF usage, but then you get large amounts of ammonia slip. They should also take into account P25 and P10 emissions, and ensure the test route is sufficient to take into account a reasonable number of DPF regens.
It's been a while since I was last in a London Black Cab, but I'm pretty sure it was a diesel. Are they suggesting getting rid of them all? Good luck with that.
If we avoid lab conditions, you bring in random factors. So some heavy polluting car could just get lucky and have no sharp stops and quick speed ups, which is where it happens to heavily pollute, so it passes.
We need lab conditions to ensure a fair comparison between different cars.
It is assumed that all cars vary from real life to lab conditions in roughly the same manner. That is, that a car that does best in the lab conditions will also do best in real world conditions, even if the real use pollutes far more heavily.
In addition, we assume that the lab is similar enough to real world so that we know how much we are polluting.
If either of those assumptions are false, it indicates a bad lab condition set up which needs to be fixed. But that is not the fault of the car companies, but instead the fault of the politicians and scientists that designed the lab. (Yes, it is often designed by politics, not scientists.)
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I'll bite:
There are less now and they are making more cars that are cleaner AND safer AND cheaper AND faster.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
1. Woosh.
2. The Bill of Rights was not meant to enumerate specific rights, but rather raise the bar so high on restricting or revoking those rights as to make it legally impossible.
So you've been wrong twice now.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
There is no difference between benchmarks or regulations to engineers. Engineers will design to beat milestones in specific conditions, be they laid down in benchmarks or regulations, yet this does not guarantee how the design will perform in other conditions. That would depend more on the benchmarks or regulations being representative of such other conditions. However, as it is impossible that benchmarks or regulations represent the universe of conditions, in the past and in the future, but only a limited set, there really is nothing to see here, much less to accuse. Move along.
Prior to the Act, any transport on rail that was entirely within a single State was free of regulation by Congress; it was not INTERstate, it was INTRAstate. With the creation of the Interstate system, all commerce was thus classified as Interstate, even if entirely within one State, on the claim that because it was using a Federally funded Interstate system, it must affect other Interstate traffic (even if by simple schedule management) and thus is actually an Interstate act and therefore subject to regulation.
Much like Wickard v. Filburn, this is a political-agenda driven perversion of the Constitution. Claiming that intrastate transit is actually Interstate (because it may - not does, but may - impact Interstate transit), or that growing food for your own consumption will affect the price of that same food in another State and this is Interstate commerce, has essentially given the US Federal Government unlimited power to regulate and control everything that anyone does at any time.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
This story is about pollutants observed in Europe, and the regulations and testing in Europe. And diesel passenger vehicles commonly found in Europe.
Another fail, Anonymous Coward.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The main problem with emissions is if you want good fuel economy and hence lower CO2 per km then you need a high burn temp. The trouble with that is a high burn temp gives high NOx. Take your pick.
But that's the NOx coming out of the exhaust port. What matters is the NOx coming out of the exhaust PIPE. That's what catalytic converters are about.
A triple-acting catalytic converter pulls the oxygen off NOx, leaving N2, and uses it to burn CO into CO2 and UHC into CO2 and H2O.
Keep the air/fuel ratio carefully adjusted and it it balances out. Too much fuel, you have UHC and CO left over, too little and you have NOx left over. That's the job of the engine control computer, its sensors (especially the exhaust oxygen sensor), and sometimes an exhaust air injection system.
The optimal mix for big-three pollutant minimization is not the best for fuel efficiency. But it's pretty close. The lost power shows up as heat in the catalytic converter - which is part of what drives the reactions - mainly by kicking the reaction over the energy hump and the products off the catalyst so it can get on with more work. (That's also why the vehicles are allowed to warm up for a limited time before the regulations get tight.)
The issue with "cheating" is whether the engine control has been hacked to recognize the standard testing regime and work differently while being tested than it does most of the time on the road.
I'm not sure how it works in the EU. But here in the US (at least when I was working on auto emission testing) the laws don't put any requirements on what the vehicles emit on the road. They just require they meet a set of limits on a set of standardized tests.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Nearly All New Diesel Cars Exceed Official Pollution Limits" while this is true i would suspect that "Nearly All New Cars Exceed Official Pollution Limits" Ok maybe not electric cars but gas cars to performe good in lab and not so good in real life. I know that the data for my 2013 gas car is made up. 0,55l /100km higway And 0,75 L / 100km city. Im happy if i get 0,75 l / 100km highway maybe they can manage to get those numbers in a lab but never in real life
Why did it take so long to figure out diesels are very pollutive and why is this surprising? Diesel fuel is less refined and dirtier than regular gas. Diesels also don't pass the simple visual or olfactory test (they give off black soot and smell bad).
Gambling at Ricks? I had no idea.
So what was an open secret to every diesel mechanic in the U.S. and Europe, that the diesels didn't ever pass the emissions tests in the real world, didn't get noticed by anyone in a position of power in Europe or anyone in the the U.S. Department of Transportation, any state DOT, anyone in the general press or anyone in the specialized automotive press. Do we really believe that? Or are we witnessing a breakdown in both government and press accountability?
Part of the problem is bad regs (under certain heavy load conditions diesels really can never meet the requirements). But that is no excuse for allowing VW and the others to get a total "pass" on all pollution control regs in Europe. This is a totally open secret, just like the computer tweaking all manufacturers use so they can claim the magic "40 MPG!". The shift point programmed in make the car burp and barely accelerate so AFTER the certification runs the manufactures issue "software updates" that drop the mileage a bit but make the cars run properly. Now this is an open secret. It is probably illegal (fair trade laws, EPA regs, etc).
I'd like to propose an experiment. There is clearly an important story here. I'll bet that many of the readers here are members of the press or government employees; they are honorable people who know a lot. They tried to report this stuff and were rebuffed. They are rightfully afraid to send the info to Slashdot. In modern America you will be punished or fired for publishing documents that show what is going on so, regretfully, you must learn to think and act like a Soviet or Chinese dissident. This is the only way to publish the often embarrassing truth and still stay under the radar.. ,
The key is a Gmail/hotmail account that is not traceable One way is get a throw-away computer and use wifi at coffee shops. NEVER use the computer for any other purpose except browsing and spreading the word and NEVER leave the battery in while not using the computer. All email is traceable. A second way is use the throwaway computer and a "borrowed" untraceable email address- and that means if you have ever cell-phoned or emailed the person with the account you are traceable. I'd suggest that you use your brother-in-law's or grandma's name to open a gmail account using their computer (with their permission) and report what you know to Slashdot.
And remember on the "how to get the documents" side, if you open, download or copy documents using your work credentials they will trace the leak back.
So folks, if you are an insider, give it some thought. Find a way to get a copy of the documents that matter. Photograph them with a throwaway camera (pay cash at Walmart). Load them on a "safe" computer at the coffeeshop and drop them as a comment here under 'anon coward"- you need to stay "anon" but it is about time you stopped acting like cowards.
2. The Bill of Rights was not meant to enumerate specific rights, but rather raise the bar so high on restricting or revoking those rights as to make it legally impossible
It was meant to enumerate specific rights AND to set the bar high enough that restricting or revoking those rights is difficult, not impossible.
Not sure how it is in the EU. But here in the US it was NOT the auto industry. The testing regime was completely defined by a government agency.
At the time I was working on engineering emissions testing programs as a consultant, one of the auto company engineers claimed it had been designed like this:
- The EPA put recording instruments on a car (notably the bike-wheel odometer/tachometer).
- Then they parked behind cars in a "typical" city (Denver Colorado, if I recall correctly) and waited for the owner to come out and drive somewhere.
- The timed how long (if at all) the target warmed the engine before pulling out.
- Then they followed the target to its destination, doing their best to drive their instrumented car the same way as the target.
- From among the recorded trips they picked one that looked representative and contained about an average mix of city and highway driving. That became the test cycle the manufacturers must use.
Emissions test measurements (the fancy ones the engineers have to run at the companies, not the surveillance ones applied to car owners) measure enough about engine exhaust gasses and vehicle forces and motions that the mileage can be computed from the carbon balance, without extra gadgetry. So the government mandated it be computed and printed on the price stickers. It thus became glaringly obvious that (of course):
- (Of course) The chosen test cycle was not what all people drove all the time.
- (Not of course) The chosen test cycle happened to be somewhat more fuel efficient that the typical driver's average use of his vehicle.
Thus was born "Your Mileage May Vary (and will probably be lower)"
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Your example might be more pertinent if the railroads had not themselves existed under federal regulation and subsidy, and if the US didn't have even more freight rail capacity than ever as a result of that development. The number of private lines was minimal, and even most of those had state-based controls.
Besides, when it has come to pollution, it's actually the growth in passenger vehicles that made the biggest change, not freight, though it's human consumption that drives it all. Besides wars between nation states are becoming nearly non-existent, most conflict, such as it is, is between unorganized entities that can barely convert a used Toyota Hilux, so your contention there is without merit.
But a hardcore Marxist anarcho-communist traveler like you present yourself to be wouldn't want to admit that. Either you really believe your own delusions, or you're secretly in service to the Corporate Secretariat of the Oligarchy.
Doesn't matter how much of an asshole I am, Jesus luvs me and I am forgiven. So fuck anybody else.
OK so brother works as a heavy duty (diesel) mechanic, has done so for about 36 years. The new "Clean Diesel" engines are shit. Some of the "Super clean" ideas that they have include putting exhaust gasses back into the intake for reburning. You say "Doesn't that clog the hell out of everything and just make it all worse?" And the reply is "Yes" (or in his words "God Yeah"). Injector nozzles failing prematurely because we want to be green. Intakes clogged with either corrosion or carbon or both. Premature engine failure. And this is how they are designed. The politician may say "Oh look, its green". But the mechanic looks at it, having failed after 30,000 hours (and normal longevity for diesel engines is usually at least 250,000 hours, with 320,000 hours not being uncommon). Exhaust gasses fed back to intake air is a recipe for disaster (what was burned originally might end up reburned, but the new fuel burned while reburning burns much less efficiently, resulting in even dirtier reburn gasses. At some point, the entire point of the engine is lost due to all the environmental crap you have to add to it to make it clean. You might be able to scrub NOX out of the engine, but its just stupid to send the exhaust gas to the intake.
Vehicle emission testing is done in a lab because unless the test conditions are controlled the results aren't comparable to anything. There are, however, roadside testing setups that can get glimpses of what's happening in the real world, and there are labs that use alternative test cycles that perhaps better replicate real-world driving. The roaside stuff can only, really, identify the gross polluters - malfunctioning or with emission control gear removed/disabled - and flag them for closer inspection. The alternative test cycles can be informative, but need to be done along with the official cycles so results can be compared. And yes, the numbers and/or suitable publication references (I don't think The Guardian is a peer-reviewed journal) are needed so everything can be verified.
Jesus said that assholes aren't allowed in his Kingdom. So it's more a matter of, "Babe, I still love you, but I'm going to start dating this other guy. Let's just be friends, ok?"
There is no suggestion that any of the cars tested broke the law on emissions limits or used any cheat devices
Isn't that exactly what this article is doing? Suggesting that the cars broke the law on emissions or used a cheat?
What a subtle attempt to gloss over the entire issue.
...before too much longer, a decade or two most likely, the vast majority of the vehicles on the road will be electric anyway. Technology has a way of rendering these issues moot rather thoroughly. This is one we can see coming well in advance.
The driving-to-pollution coupling will be at the power plants, not at the vehicle. It'll be much easier to control as a direct result. And of course, far more efficient in the first place.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I will be happy to fight for your right to "roll coal" as much as you want in the privacy of your own garage... with the doors closed, of course.
In fact, I encourage such behavior.
=Smidge=
Not sure if trolling or not, so I'll just suggest reading a high school civics text.
Urea is a waste. There are only 3 oxides of nitrogen, while at the other end of the temperature spectrum (under partially burned hydrocarbons) we have volatile organics, which represents a smorgasbord of health claims. NOx's are thuse going to be easier to both understand and control. there's also the added benefit of completely burning the fuel and thus getting maximum energy.
All the NOx's that are "bad" are water soluble.
1) NO2 (primary component of smog and acid rain) is very water soluble. Bubble that exhaust through a water tank and you get nitric acid. But wait there's more! If you do some more work to make concentrated nitric acid, you can reach that with your fuel's alcohol and ketone leaving groups to get nitrated fuel. More energy and less oxygen needed!
2) NO. Not as water soluble as NO2, but still soluble. Forms nitrous acid vs. nitric acid, follows same chemistry chain as NO2.
3) N2O. Not water soluble. recycle into intake air for light nitrous boost or release into atmosphere or a happier populace.
The problem is of course the weight of the equipment and the performance hit of forcing exhaust through a water tank. But it does 100% work without urea!
Government. Just like the MPG tests, the emissions tests are created and regulated by government agencies (EPA in the USA). Recently there was somewhat of a scandal involving Hyundai goosing the mileage figures; http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-ec...
But it took the EPA 2 years, even after hundreds of consumer complaints, to respond to it. And the EPA allows the car companies to conduct their own tests using EPA guidelines. So the agency set up to provide government oversight is providing basically no oversight.
Look back at every major oil spill over the past 20 years and in each and every case the government regulators charged with providing oversight failed to do so in a timely and effective manner. The same holds true in the Financials markets. Banks were able to get away with things because irregularities were either not detected or not acted upon.
The moral of the story? Government - with few exceptions - is the problem not the solution.
Jesus also said that people who don't make a killing on the stock market aren't welcome in daddy's kingdom (parable of the talents). Yeah, I know, I'm not exactly a scholar but I'm not a Christian so I get to approach the writings from the perspective that these are historical documents and mythologies, and I get that's probably not what the parable of the talents means. I like the Message version where instead of talents or whatever ancient world currency it just flat out says that it's about money by saying that the master gives one guy like $1,000 or so, the other guy $500, and the guy who buries his money in the sand $100. Even then, it should be blindingly obvious that that parable is about something other than making a killing on the stock market or flipping cars/houses/RVs/etc.
Nevertheless, Protestants really read the parable of the talents to mean that it's more important they make killing in the stock market and flip enough cars/houses/RVs/boats/whatever if they want in heaven. The thing about camels and needles is lost on Protestants or at least interpreted strangely enough to be compatible with this "I've got mine/I 'worked hard' for it/fuck you" attitude.
"All new diesel cars meet or exceed the official pollution limits". What they fail to meet is unofficial pollution limits.
Diesel everything is bad. In my city I see diesel buses and trucks all the time that spew out insane amounts of soot into the air. If you are unlucky enough to get stuck behind one while bicycling/walking/running up a hill behind one of these things, prepare to get gassed out. Even the United States Postal Service's fleet of mail trucks are diesel and spew out huge amounts of noxious gas.
I think its time to wake up and just ditch diesel. Perhaps the only acceptable use of it is for train locomotives.
Where did you go to school?
The USA Constitution says that the rights of the Federal Government are severely restricted, that is, they are listed in the USA Constitution.
The rights of the people (individuals as 1 or a group such as a State) have severely UNrestricted rights.
The Bill of Rights ONLY lists some of the unrestricted rights of the individual or states. The fact that the Bill of Rights does not address a particular right that an individual has does not mean the individual does not have that right. To the contrary, the individual, under the USA Constitution, has the vast majority of rights and these rights need not be listed for the individual to have those rights.
History shows that the USA Federal Government has continually and constantly disregarded and restricted the rights of the individual as often as the Federal Government can. And without regard to what is Constitutional, legal or illegal.
The USA Supreme Court has limited the rights of the local and state Governments in most cases that it has ruled on. The local and state Governments do not have unrestricted rights.
This is what you should have been taught in the Government Schools (I was).
The is what you should have read, the USA Constitution, in the Government Schools (I did).
This is what you should know to pass a citizenship test.
Please try to keep up!
Uhh... you've failed by semester constitutional law class in high school. If this makes me a wacko, then please get out of my beloved country because you have no idea how our government is supposed to work.
9th and 10th amendment specifically state that the people retain rights not enumerated. The powers of congress are explicitly limited. The 14th amendment and supporting supreme court precedents effectively apply the bill of rights, including the 9th amendment, and other enumerations of rights to the governments of the several states.
What you're describing is the reality we live in today where the people regularly demand the federal government and to a lesser part state governments to way overstep their bounds. Now I'm not saying some of the things the federal government does today that I do not think have a real legal basis for the federal government to do except "Ok, chief justice so-and-so said so in opinion somebody v. somebody else" aren't best done by the federal government.
The EPA is a good example. Somebody slap an amendment on the constitution authorizing congress to create and fund such concerns. Another go-to example is the FDA. If anybody argues that the FDA isn't a good idea even if it may have questionable constitutionality today, then you have a wacko. Somebody slap another amendment on the constitution and make it official.
The problem is, of course, the people are cattle and have the attitude that attempting to understand the framework for a government (with example code) the founders gave us is just too fucking nerdy.
Footnote: Barron v. Baltimore is an 1833 decision. The 14th amendment was adopted 1868.
You'd be believable if not for the Ripley Plan way predating FDR being elected to federal office.
Or even the amendments in question. Starting with the 9th, which explicitly proves him false.
Only measures NOx instead of being a value for multiple pollutants. A singular focus on only one pollutant (CO2) is how they ended up with the NOx mess in the first place. Stupid.
The key is a Gmail/hotmail account that is not traceable...
I recently tried to open a Gmail account for throwaway purposes, but couldn't do it without supplying a telephone number "for verification purposes".
The Constitution was written to mean, if this doesn't say they can do it then they can't do it.
It now means, if this doesn't specifically disallow it, they're good to go.
That is not a distinction without difference. In fact, it's pretty much backwards from the intent. There's a line in there that I like but people like to pretend it doesn't exist. Now, I'm not some fancy Constitutional Scholar or anything but I'm pretty sure it mentions something about those rights not granted by the document are reserved for the individual or the State. I might be reading it wrong and listening to the wrong people but I'm pretty sure that means they should have a hell of a lot less regulatory power than they do have.
I can't even count the number of times that I've heard people say that it's okay because the Constitution doesn't prohibit it. That one makes me kind of scratch my head. It's said so frequently that it is I who must be mistaken.
Like you, I'm kind of glad there's an EPA and FDA. I do think they should have actually gotten out a pen and made that sort of thing official. I'd like to see the individual States actually have the stones to make the feds listen. We kind of stomped that idea into the pavement back when we decided that those States weren't allowed to leave the Union.
But no... I am not one of those there fancy Constitutional Scholars so I'm probably missing something and wrong. While I do hold my doctorate, it sure as hell isn't in anything important like Political Science or even one of those Social Sciences. Yeah, I got a stupid degree in Applied Mathematics. I'm not smart enough to study the social sciences. I've never even taken a course in underwater basket weaving!
At any rate, I'm sure that someone's convinced that it's me who has it all wrong and that... Let me check, I happen to have one in my pocket - right now...
Hmm... My pocket version seems to have all of the words but it might be missing a few. They also used some of that fancy Roman Numeral stuff. Still, I looked at #9 and #10 and gave them a quick read, just to make sure I was on the right track and not thinking of some other country's Constitution. I dunno, they looked to be pretty plain English to me. It almost looks like they were written in such a manner so that they can't be easily misinterpreted. It's almost like they felt it was important so didn't want to be mistaken.
Yeah, it's gotta be me. Anyhow, I'm busy again today and may not get the chance to return and reply. :/ I'm preparing to head back home. It's getting too hot down here.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Please read the 10th amendment. Then read it again. And once more. Then realize how what you wrote is completely incorrect.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Seriously, if CA was to join the Netherlands in banning new gas/diesel cars by 2025, then all car makers would quickly stop producing these and switch to EVs, or SOMETHING else. Those that did not, can just fail. With this approach, it will cause car makers and buyers to clean up their act very quickly and drop emissions fast.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Or are we witnessing a breakdown in both government and press accountability?"
Please don't take this the wrong way, but...
Were you born yesterday?
Please never post anything about US Law, the Constitution or it's amendments, or civil rights again. You don't even have the basic understanding of a 9th grader.
Here's a hint: read the 9th amendment that specifically says "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
James Madison just owned you, and he's been dead 200 years.
And the 14th Amendment which completely invalidates his citation of a Supreme Court case:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Equal Protection clause throws out his whole argument.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Banning diesel cars is a farcical thing to do in a two year timescale. 5-10 years at best.
If my local city council ban diesel cars then I'll have to buy a different car to commute to work. I'll make sure it's a 20 year old petrol burner with horrific fuel economy and no catalytic converter. Maybe make one cylinder misfire too.
It's the cheapest way for me to acquire a second car. Far less wasteful and polluting to let me use the one I've already bought, but that wouldn't meet the demands of the fucking nazi council.
Given all the special treatment and regulation of the railroads by the Federal government, it wouldn't surprise me if Congressional regulation via the Interstate Commerce Clause wasn't just an eventuality anyway, regardless of the Interstate Highway system.
All manufacturers use a "thermal window": exhaust gas recirculation is reduced or stopped altogether below a certain temperature. This is allowed by regulations if it is used to protect engine components. However, some manufacturers (e.g. General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, Ford and Renault-Nissan) have set the lower limit at 17-18 degrees centigrade. This massively increases tailpipe NOx emissions in realilistic driving conditions during most of the year, but it increases fuel economy slightly and it reduces engine wear.
The verdict is not yet out whether this is legal, but it is certainly not the way the regulations were intended. The German Federal Motor Vehicle Agency (KBA) has forced the manufacturers with a German type approval to 'voluntarily' recall the affected cars and expand the thermal window as much as possible. Renault has agreed to do the same in France. However, only the country that has granted the type approval can demand such recalls.
The parable of the talents is not about making material gains for yourself.
It is about taking what God gives you, and putting it to use in a way that pleases God, not hiding it.
Your analysis of some who claim 'Christian' and 'camels and needles' is quite insightful.
Jesus calls for us to look after the interests of others in addition to our own
He calls on us to share with others, to help others.
emt 377 emt 4
Jesus also said that people who don't make a killing on the stock market aren't welcome in daddy's kingdom (parable of the talents). Yeah, I know, I'm not exactly a scholar but I'm not a Christian so I get to approach the writings from the perspective that these are historical documents and mythologies, and I get that's probably not what the parable of the talents means. I like the Message version where instead of talents or whatever ancient world currency it just flat out says that it's about money by saying that the master gives one guy like $1,000 or so, the other guy $500, and the guy who buries his money in the sand $100. Even then, it should be blindingly obvious that that parable is about something other than making a killing on the stock market or flipping cars/houses/RVs/etc.
Nevertheless, Protestants really read the parable of the talents to mean that it's more important they make killing in the stock market and flip enough cars/houses/RVs/boats/whatever if they want in heaven. The thing about camels and needles is lost on Protestants or at least interpreted strangely enough to be compatible with this "I've got mine/I 'worked hard' for it/fuck you" attitude.
So it's actually a really early endorsement of Keynes?
I don't think a single thing you said is actually correct.
That includes the right to elect legislators, and to have them pass various laws that the people desire. Turns out the 9th and 10th amendments don't add up to much. But they were important phrasings at the time, that had a lot of support; often they had support from people with completely opposite ideas of what it meant. Oh, that is still true.
I'll stop smoking my cigarettes when you stop driving your car. An internal combustion engine of any kind emits more noxious and carcinogenic pollution than my cigarette ever will. You haters are just doing what you do best- hating
Then why is it usually the Christians who are bitching about us liberals trying to nosey around in their business when all we're doing is trying to help our fellow man? Oh let me guess, it doesn't please god right. Bunch of hypocrites you guys are....
Sigh. Can't refute the argument so just call someone stupid. You realize the curriculum for those civics classes are written by the same conservatives that he's bitching about right? Of course the definition is not going to be the same!
Absolutely not! All of the states have laws abridging driving which most agree is a privilege. That is expressly forbidden in the very first sentence! You guys that often drop these "knowledge bombs" don't even bother reading your supporting evidence. That's why we think you're dumb!
Interesting factoid:
Everyone says this, but you know actual rules your ass actually has to obey or your ass will go to fucking jail? Every single Right that will be recognized in Courts is one of the enumerated ones. Even when given a very easy case (ie: that abortions by pill are protected as Rights under the 9th Amendment), the Courts will insist on using one of the explicit Amendments rather then the 9th (ie: that somehow stoping you from taking said pill is a "search" or seizure").
Don't confuse original intent with the travesty of it's modern implementation. I was responding to the intent.
I agree that the modern courts and legislator make a mockery of it.
Have you ever been in an elevator with an internal combustion engine?
The word 'talent' has two different meanings. The current one is an ability. The historical one is money.
So the moral of the story actually is all about doing your best to get more money, and giving it to your master.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Yes -- people. (What would an external combustion animal look like?)
The rights of the people (individuals as 1 or a group such as a State) have severely UNrestricted rights.
Correct with respect to the individual, not entirely correct with respect to a State.
The right to ethical practice of law is certainly an universal and inalienable right in any society based on the rule of law. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when possible.
As lawyers can be expected to be heavily involved in the writing of laws, in the judging of law, in bringing cases under the law, in aiding clients with advice regarding the law, and in lobbying related to laws, it follows that the right to ethical practice of law necessarily constrains what can be in the law at ANY level of government.
If the states had severely unrestricted rights, then the legal profession could arrange for a scary, complex, and confusing legal system, which would create an artificial long term demand for the services of legal professionals.
Hence, the states are in fact much more restricted then the individual in their ability to assert rights.
Any statement to the contrary is equivalent to the statement that unethical practice of law is acceptable, which is clearly false. Getting the lawyers to acknowledge this is of course a difficult problem in practical politics, which has on occasion required a Civil War or a massive, multi-decade Civil Rights Movement: freedom is not free. Extremely serious ethics problems taint US law (at all levels: federal, state, and local) to this day, and are at the core of many of the big issues of the day.
The conclusion that the states are more restricted in their assertion of rights than the individual can also be shown using a technique of logic known as a 'proof by contradiction' (Euclid), which I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
Hint: would an overly complex or overly broad legal system interfere with the ability of the people to assert rights 'retained by them' (9th Amendment) or 'reserved to them' (10th Amendment)? What are the implications of that?
Your statement regarding unrestricted rights of groups is also not entirely correct. There can be more significant limitations on groups then on the individual, this follows from the writings of the key Founding Fathers, who were well acquainted with the potential dangers posed to a free society by organized groups such as religions (they were intimately familiar with this issue, from the histories of Rome and Britain, both of which educated people in those days studied at length). They were also well acquainted with the dangers posed by corporations (such as the East India Company), which had been a well documented problem in British law and government since at least Elizabethan times, and - again - an issue educated people were quite familiar with.
Hate? I love that you're going to die of cancer and stop polluting whether you like it or not.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!