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.
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?
Sounds like they got themselves a PR firm to try and change that.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
That's a nice idea, but the car companies don't have that much money.
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.
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.
It's OK, the Federal Government will bail out the automakers to cover the fines that the automakers need to pay the Federal Government!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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
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
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.
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.
"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!
Or even the amendments in question. Starting with the 9th, which explicitly proves him false.
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?
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.
What a stupid bloody comment -- in each case you cite, are you suggesting that absent a government regulator, companies would have behaved *better*? You yourself used phrases like "banks were able to get away with things" suggesting you understand that people will often behave venally and what is required is a decent regulator.
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.
No - exactly the opposite. I'm suggesting that effective government oversight IS needed. Many people, when left to their own devices, will cheat. Its human nature. The problem is that the oversight is NOT effective. The problem is that these government bunglers are NOT doing their jobs. And don't tell me that they are underfunded and if only we had more money.....etc, etc, etc.
I'm not suggesting either that the bankers and car makers and oil people are without blame here. Obviously they are largely to blame. That's why we have government regulators.....oh, but they aren't doing their job. But that's ok we'll just throw more money at it...then everything will be fine. Except that we keep trying that for every other failed government initiative and they don't get any better either.
Why did it take so long to figure out diesels are very pollutive and why is this surprising?
They are not very pollutive. The article is about the fact that they produce more of one type of exhaust gas on the road than they do in tests. It says nothing about how polluting a car overall is.
Diesel fuel is less refined and dirtier than regular gas.
This is nonsense. Diesel is made from a different fraction of the crude oil components. It is not "less refined", but it does need fewer additives, as diesel engines require the fuel to ignite by compression rather than resisting such behaviour (like in a petrol engine).
Diesels also don't pass the simple visual or olfactory test (they give off black soot and smell bad).
Well, unless they happen to be manufactured after 1985 or so.
Particulates: caused by poor burning of the diesel. Large particulates are soot. Particulates are smaller with modern engine design, and allegedly removed by a filter if fitted (they don't necessarily work well, and people often removed them). Older engines did not have filters. Unfortunately, smaller particulates are invisible, but much more dangerous.
NOx: Caused by running the engine hot - which improves fuel efficiency, and reduces CO2 emissions. Newer engines run hot, but try to reduce NOx by Urea injection (SCR). This works in the lab, but there is no data as to whether it actually works on the road.
If it were down to me, I say ban the hot diesel engines, and fit particulate filters to the rest.
The politicians have already banned the cool burning engines from London.
Maybe the SCR does not work in the real world, and we are all stuffed (except European politicians getting backhanders from Urea vendors).
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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.
You said, and I quote: "Government - with few exceptions - is the problem not the solution"
You now say: "effective government oversight IS needed".
Presumably you mean something like: "effective government oversight is needed, but in practice we not only don't have it, we never get it, and spending more doesn't seem to improve things".
Your handle implies you are an erp consultant. Perhaps you could take a leaf out of McKinsey's book, and put together a decent problem statement and an issue tree for how this challenge could be solved. No point just moaning. For my own part, I will say that some regulators are clearly more effective than other regulators; that adequate funding is necessary but not sufficient; that many texts have been written on effective regulation and there's a reasonable corpus of knowledge built up; and that *disproportionate* naysaying itself damages the effectiveness of regulators.
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
Ok I'm going to slow it down for you so you can follow....
"Effective government oversight IS needed" - The key word here is effective. We have plenty of government oversight (too much in the eyes of small, but I digress). The problem is that they are not effective.
Which leads us to...."Government - with few exceptions - is the problem not the solution". And why are they the problem, you might ask? Because the government KNOWS that the regulators are ineffective and yet nothing substantial is done to address it. Every time something like this happens they parade all the corporate fat cats in front of Congress and make a spectacle of it. All the while knowing that they (the government) is at least partly to blame for these messes.
Again, effective regulation IS necessary. The question is who is going to provide it?
I did realize that effective was the operative word, and you'd have to misread my post quite thoroughly to think otherwise. My question was, what are you proposing should be done to achieve more effective regulation, given the world as we know it, ms/mr erp consultant?
I don't think a single thing you said is actually correct.
OK - now we're getting somewhere. I think it all boils down to accountability. If regulators are not doing their job then they need to be held accountable for it. In instances where there appears to be misconduct then an investigation should be held and appropriate steps taken. Maybe the regulator is just doing what their boss told them to do. Fine. Then the boss takes the hit.
In short, if they are not doing their job they should be suspended or fired. Just like, you know, a real job. If one of my clients doesn't think I'm getting it done then my ass is out the door. Why should it be any different for government employees? It is this lack of accountability that fosters a climate of apathy. Believe me, I have done plenty of work for government clients and sadly this is the prevailing attitude. Sure there are some dedicated hard working civil servants. I just haven't seen many. The good ones get fed up and leave and the other ones don't give a shit.
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.
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.
I'm wary of any single point solutions. They generally imply a lack of full engagement with the issues and too high a reliance on a personal perspective. For example, a focus on the behavior of regulators as individuals means ignoring systemic effects, funding, toothlessness written into law, conflicting objectives, tools and methodologies, innovation, and arms race effects, to name just seven potential; factors off the top of my head. If you are indeed a consultant, you really ought to be doing more to define, structure, prioritise and analyze the problem. Even in a Slashdot discussion. Just for reasons of professional pride.
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
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!