Slashdot Mirror
Volkswagen To Pay $10.2 Billion In Emissions Lawsuit (bbc.co.uk)
Reader Khashishi writes: Slashdot has been following the story of Volkswagen manipulating diesel emissions tests for some time now. The control software contained algorithms which reduced emissions during testing but not during normal driving. Well, now Volkswagen has agreed to pay $10.2 billion (alternate source: BBC) to settle the case, according to Associated Press. This is higher than the $430 million damages estimated in this story. It appears that vehicle owners will have the choice of fixing their cars or selling them back. Most of the money will go towards fixing the cars, buying them back, and compensating owners.
They brought the smoke-filled room to the consumer. Hope they choke on their fine.
When they cheat, we're all defrauded out of our right to clean air. Obviously you're part of the problem.
Straight money costs to companies are wrong. They effect the economic viability of companies and put jobs, and economies at risk while costing consumers.
A better approach would be a forced share dilution of significant proportion, 10,25 or 50% or more. This would not impact the economic viability of the company and would affect the value held by those supposedly actually in control of the company, the shareholders and the executives with share values.
It would then be up to the government who then owned the new shares to decide to immediately sell and drop the share price or hold on for higher value later.
The government would get money. There would be a punishment on the company, but the basic operation of the company would be lower.
Ahh, would modern vehicles weigh a mere three-quarters ton. Try closer to 3 tons. And that's before she gets into the car!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Better to just dump that $10 billion dollars in to a non profit electric car research institute.
How much better batteries can you design on a $10 billion dollar budget?
The Tesla gigafactory cost $5 billion, for an idea of how much $10.5 billion dollars in research would buy you.
moox. for a new generation.
Does a diesel which gets nearly 50 MPG cause more pollution than a soccer mom and her 3/4 ton grocery getter does?
Apparently it does if it's a Volkswagen.
If any cars are bought back by VW, I'd bet most of them will show up in sub-Saharan Africa, driven by folks wearing Golden State 2016 NBA Champs t-shirts.
Can't wait for these cars to be "recycled" through the Pre-Owned market with no warranty of any kind, but sold for a third of what they should be.
I love the TDI engine, who cares if it pollutes? I have no kids and I'm over 50 -- I ain't living forever.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
So a few months ago, because I could not find the information anywhere on the entire internet, I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation to estimate how much more polluted the air in the U.S. is as a result of the VW emissions cheat. The answer is that the air is about zero percent more polluted because of that cheat.
The reason for that is that baseline emissions of diesel exhaust pollutants in the U.S. is so enormous. Commercial diesel tractor trailers emit pollutants at a much higher rate than do VW cars because the engines are so much larger and consume fuel at higher rates. The trucks run many more miles per years than the cars. There are many more diesel trucks than diesel cars. (There a lot of trucks and VW diesel cars are not huge sellers in the U.S.) So the net percentage increase in pollution because of that cheat calculates out to about zero.
VW is worth a lot of money and has not much political clout in the U.S. so this turned into feeding frenzy for lawyers. Penalties of this size are entirely unjustified by the degree of harm.
There should be a price for polluting, based strictly on the types and volumes of pollutants, and it should be applied to all, regardless of the type of vehicle or its nation of origin, or its owner. The right solution here is to tax vehicle exhaust emissions at a single universal rate and let manufacturers and buyers decide what to make and what to buy.
What we have instead is sanctioned pillaging.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I'd wager that these VW vehicles would still comply with the the emission limits of, say, five years ago. Yet, baby seals weren't jettisoned out of the earth towards the sun then.
Yes - depending on what kind of pollution you are referring to. A diesel which burns hot will reduce local air quality and generate particulates that result in acid rain. If you are referring to CO2 - then no, the diesel will be much better.
BP payed more... but not much more for doing far more damage!
Wasn't their settlement about $20 billion?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Needs -1 Asshole mod.
Do you eat red meat, steak or otherwise use livestock derived products?
The EPA even says that livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
Focussing on cars in the face of livestock pollution seems like a silly waste of resources. /btw, I heart meat
World War II already paid for for the US in the 1950s, if that's what you're wondering.
Ezekiel 23:20