The issue is that the pollution from these VW cars isn't that bad, it is perhaps better than the cars they replaced.
What concerns me more are the 10-20 year old clunkers on the road that pollute like crazy. Get 1 of those off the road and it may well cut pollution by more than a dozen VW cars would.
How do you figure they have killed thousands of people?
If that is so, then perhaps you should call CNN right now, that would be big news.
Serious response.
All pollution is harmful, some more than others. The amounts here are "bad", but there are worse sources that we continue to allow, so you can't blame it all on these cars.
As I drive down the road, I see plenty of cars and trucks spewing crap out of their tailpipes probably a thousand times worse than what these VW cars put out, but no one says a thing.
If you're going to have emissions controls, perhaps they should apply to all cars and trucks, regardless of age.
If every home had a car or two with a battery that could be tapped for grid supplementation
That is a MASSIVE 'IF"... And you're assuming I WANT my car battery to take wear and tear to balance the grid...
The barriers here are only political.
You may have a different idea of what "only" means than I do... those are some of the biggest barriers that exist, they don't go away just because you wave your hand and say "politics be gone!".
A new nuclear power plant takes decades to plan and construct.
Then perhaps that is the problem that needs fixing. We designed, invented, built, and used nuclear power and weapons from scratch in less time than it takes to build one plant. When no one knew how to use them.
Perhaps the problem is not with nuclear power, but with the politics?:)
While that sounds nice, the issue there would be, "then we should build lots and lots of natural gas and coal power plants, since they cost less than solar and wind do.
I live in Texas, we make more wind power than any other state. We have the right to buy our power from any of dozens of different companies.
Wind power costs more than coal power does, when you get the bill. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does.
The question I would ask in response is why is nuclear so expensive?
At its core, it shouldn't be. It is simply heat decay of radioactive materials heating a liquid to run steam turbines, it is simple stuff in concept, but seems to be insanely expensive in practice. One of the challenges is that we have never allowed economies of scale into nuclear, every plant is a one-off build and they are spaced too far apart to really develop. It is like hand building cars vs. Ford's assembly line. Wind and solar are made on assembly lines, so it is hard to compare them. Get nuclear up to 50% of the world's power generation and it may well get cheap.
The other issue is that if price alone determined what we build, then coal, oil, and natural gas would continue to make sense.
Finally, keep in mind that we like a dependable power grid. Wind and solar vary from place to place, and while the idea of "the wind is always blowing somewhere" sounds nice, it often isn't blowing where you need it.
We would need a whole new power grid to really make wind and solar work like people want it to, and that would change the economics of both options.
1. I believe that nuclear energy must be part of our nation's power supply. Wind and solar should as well, but they alone won't do it, we need nuclear to get off coal, oil, and natural gas.
2. I believe that anyone running a nuclear plant needs to be responsible for the total end to end costs of it, from site prep to site clean when the place is shut down.
3. I believe we must repeal the restrictions and bans on various types of reactors. We need new designs, the ability to build breeder reactors, run them on plutonium, and develop newer safer designs.
Nuclear waste is a concern, but keep in mind that waste that is highly radioactive generally has a short half-life and waste that is long lasting is generally not very radioactive to begin with, or isn't after a short while.
---
As a side note, I'm always reluctant to say "more government anything", however it is possible that nuclear reactors are just not something that for-profit companies should run, since the temptation to shortcut safety is always present. The US Navy has used nuclear power for years with very few problems, perhaps we should simply have the Navy run our reactors and sell the power.
Does VW not have a compliance dept separate from all other dept that report directly to the CEO/Board of Directors?
If not, they should. How else is the boss supposed to know if he is being lied to?
Of course, I'm silly that way, if I were CEO of Ford tomorrow, I would consider it my personal responsibility to actually know what was going on, and given the size of Ford, you can only do that with a separate compliance dept that does nothing but check this stuff.
I've never been in charge of that much, but I have had 20 employees at one time, and I can tell you they lie to the boss all the time. Not always meaning harm, more "tell the boss what he wants to hear so we can get back to work without hassles".
That is fine, until it is legal or safety related, then the boss really needs to know.
I guess you've never heard the saying, "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip".
You can try and claw some of it back, and the big fish are perhaps worth going after. But that money may have changed hands multiple times, it may have been spent elsewhere, etc.
It also depends on why it was spent. If I sell my house to Tom Petters with no knowledge of who he is (it was listed on the open market, via an agent, sold to the highest bidder), you might be able to take the house away from him, but you can't ask me for the money, I traded the house for it (the money), and I don't want the house back now.
If Tom Petters walks into a car dealership and buys a car, you can't then go ask the car dealership for the money back. You can take the car, if Tom still has it, but the dealership wasn't party to the fraud.
"Yet, Volkswagen is relatively immune to stock market pressure because only 12 percent of its voting shares are traded. Porsche Automobil Holding, controlled by members of the Porsche family, holds a slight majority. The German state of Lower Saxony owns 20 percent, and the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar owns 17 percent."
Consider for a min that they aren't likely to just hand over their shares, and if you fine and sue them into oblivion, they'll spend every last cent the company has fighting you, so that when they finally go bankrupt, there is nothing left to take.
If you make reasonable offers and ask for something less than everything, the shareholders might give it to you. If you demand everything, they may simply spend it before you can get it.
---
Finally, I'm not sure that shares in VW would really make a lot of the owners happy, or whole. To get cash they'd have to sell them running the price into the ground. If you doubled the number of shares, cutting the current owners to 50% of the company (probably the least they would be willing to live with), then you cut the price in half, handing over paper to the owners of cars who would rather have cash.
It is a nice idea, but not a very practical one IMHO...
everyone gets what you are saying about the economic ramifications, but simply letting them get away with it isn't something that society should let happen. there's a greater good to be had beyond the immediate hardships to VW stockholders and employees. you nip this on the bud, and show to VW and the greater industry that cheating doesn't pay. and yes, corporations do respond to fines. they exist to maximize profits and they simply won't participate in cheating if it doesn't maximize their profits.
The same argument was made regarding the harsh punishments given to Germany after WWI. The very same "we have to set an example and punish them" nonsense.
Cheating does pay, and it always will so long as enforcement and checking remains lax.
This is just human nature at work. Your ideas of "nipping this in the bud" are just delusions of grandeur... If that worked, then Enron's destruction would have made a difference and in that case, executives DID go to prison. But it doesn't matter...
If monitoring and enforcement is not in place before the cheating happens, then it always will.
I don't count hybrids in the EV dept unless they are plug in, have decent all electric range, and are really meant to be EV 90% of the time.
Chevy Volt is an EV in my book, since it is really meant to be EV. The standard Prius is not, since it is meant to be EV only very limited.
The single biggest challenge beyond cost for EVs is range. I think the cost issue is easier to solve than the range issue. Larger battery factories will only bring that cost down over time. Range however is the part that will hold them back. I can fill up 500 miles of range in 5-10 min in my truck. The challenges of giving me 500 miles of range via battery is much greater.
I'm not saying it isn't solvable, I'm saying it will take far more time to solve and I'm not convinced that a great number of people care that much.
Also, the 50% EV car number that you think we'll hit in 30 years runs into a snag when you consider all the non-homeowners who don't have a garage to put charging equipment into. All the single family homes, etc.
Would I be willing, given similar cost, to have my second vehicle be EV tomorrow? Sure. Would I be willing, regardless of price, to replace my primary vehicle with an EV? No. I need the ability to refuel in 5-10 min. The charging times for EVs are not acceptable. That might change, but not for awhile.
And of course, we don't really have a full size EV SUV, making it a moot point. What do you think the cost of a Yukon XL Denali EV with 500 miles of range would cost today? If I had to guess... $250k...
RICO might well apply, and I think most people would agree that anyone who was responsible for the decision to do this should be charged with a crime.
Regarding payback, often times they do go after money, but they can't take what has been already spent and there often isn't as much to get as one would like.
The issue of course is that punishing people doesn't seem to stop this type of thing, and a more useful conversation might be "why?".
Bernie Madoff will spend the rest of his life behind bars, but that won't stop someone else from doing the same thing. They just don't think they'll be caught.
Yes it does. It forces the corporation and management to take measures to ensure something like this does not happen again.
Except, that it doesn't...
Do you honestly think McDonald's is changing anything they do based on this? How about Coke? Apple? John Deere? Bank of America?
The situations are too far removed to have any real effect. Maybe, if you're REALLY lucky, Ford and Toyota will care and double check their cars, but then life moves on.
In cases like this the economic fallout even if the company wasn't punished at all would mean that innocent people are going to lose their jobs. It's unavoidable. There is no solution to this problem that does not involved economic pain to some people that don't really deserve it.
Sure, that is true... but my point is that some people are screaming for over the top destructive punishments that do nothing but put millions of people out of work.
Should VW have to fix the cars so they comply? Yes.
Should VW have to buy back every car at full price, even when they are 5 years old? No.
---
Flashing the ECU to be in "test mode" all the time might be one option, but even that solution needs to be tested and checked. There might be a middle ground solution for the ECU as well, where it is cleaner than it has been, but not all the way to test mode.
It might even be cheaper to simply replace the engines outright with gas motors, which also likely makes more sense than buying them back.
Well, if a company is a legal entity with free speech and the ability to buy politicians...
Well there is the first problem, that should not be the case.
If I commit a crime nobody gives a damn about destroying me financially or incarcerating me.
I do... the "war on crime" has been horrible to a lot of people. Putting people into prison for 20 years, then expecting them to be useful to society when let out is, frankly, a crime against humanity.
It is evil and I don't support that either. Any punishment that "destroys you financially or incarcerates you for enough time to destroy you", is immoral.
In my opinion.
So, from the people who paid a premium for these cars, or now have lower resale value, or the simple fact that a lot more pollution was generated than claimed... this crap needs some punishments of significance.
Sure, but against whom? I would suggest it should be against the specific people who actually committed the crime. A corporation is just a piece of paper, you can tear it up and make a new one, it is meaningless.
I don't think anyone would argue that VW shouldn't pay anything, but destroying the company out of some sense of "justice" is just stupid. It is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Lord, have you even bothered to learn anything about what this whole thing is about?
The cars are rigged to PASS inspections... that is the whole point of this!
You also claim these cars can't be repaired to pass the tests. That is also not true, their ECU can simply be flashed to run in "pass" mode all the time.
It'll hurt fuel economy and reduce power, but then they'll pass all the time.
My Mother has now owned three RX SUVs from Lexus, each one has been less reliable than the last. Her new one purchased January of this year (a 2015 model) has been back to the dealership twice for minor issues.
I've owned Ford and GM cars and trucks for the past 20 years and have seen massive improvements to quality in that time.
Just anecdotal information of course, not data, but it is what I've seen.
From looking at reliability surveys, it appears that the gaps have largely closed. Even brands that used to be made fun of, like Hyundai are now well built, all things considered.
Would I buy a Toyota tomorrow? Yes I would, if they sold what I wanted to buy. But I'd also buy a Ford, or a GM, or a Honda.
Slashdot Mirror
For all the snorting over Windows 10 and privacy... it is nothing compared to this nonsense...
And some people think, "oh, but I run Linux, so I'm safe!"
Yep, sure you are... :)
Right, but that wasn't the point...
The issue is that the pollution from these VW cars isn't that bad, it is perhaps better than the cars they replaced.
What concerns me more are the 10-20 year old clunkers on the road that pollute like crazy. Get 1 of those off the road and it may well cut pollution by more than a dozen VW cars would.
How do you figure they have killed thousands of people?
If that is so, then perhaps you should call CNN right now, that would be big news.
Serious response.
All pollution is harmful, some more than others. The amounts here are "bad", but there are worse sources that we continue to allow, so you can't blame it all on these cars.
As I drive down the road, I see plenty of cars and trucks spewing crap out of their tailpipes probably a thousand times worse than what these VW cars put out, but no one says a thing.
If you're going to have emissions controls, perhaps they should apply to all cars and trucks, regardless of age.
If every home had a car or two with a battery that could be tapped for grid supplementation
That is a MASSIVE 'IF"... And you're assuming I WANT my car battery to take wear and tear to balance the grid...
The barriers here are only political.
You may have a different idea of what "only" means than I do... those are some of the biggest barriers that exist, they don't go away just because you wave your hand and say "politics be gone!".
A new nuclear power plant takes decades to plan and construct.
Then perhaps that is the problem that needs fixing. We designed, invented, built, and used nuclear power and weapons from scratch in less time than it takes to build one plant. When no one knew how to use them.
Perhaps the problem is not with nuclear power, but with the politics? :)
While that sounds nice, the issue there would be, "then we should build lots and lots of natural gas and coal power plants, since they cost less than solar and wind do.
I live in Texas, we make more wind power than any other state. We have the right to buy our power from any of dozens of different companies.
Wind power costs more than coal power does, when you get the bill. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does.
The question I would ask in response is why is nuclear so expensive?
At its core, it shouldn't be. It is simply heat decay of radioactive materials heating a liquid to run steam turbines, it is simple stuff in concept, but seems to be insanely expensive in practice. One of the challenges is that we have never allowed economies of scale into nuclear, every plant is a one-off build and they are spaced too far apart to really develop. It is like hand building cars vs. Ford's assembly line. Wind and solar are made on assembly lines, so it is hard to compare them. Get nuclear up to 50% of the world's power generation and it may well get cheap.
The other issue is that if price alone determined what we build, then coal, oil, and natural gas would continue to make sense.
Finally, keep in mind that we like a dependable power grid. Wind and solar vary from place to place, and while the idea of "the wind is always blowing somewhere" sounds nice, it often isn't blowing where you need it.
We would need a whole new power grid to really make wind and solar work like people want it to, and that would change the economics of both options.
Citation on the number of deaths per terawatt?
The few accidents have been very localized and killed very few people.
Coal, oil, and natural gas on the other hand, have harmed everyone.
3 points...
1. I believe that nuclear energy must be part of our nation's power supply. Wind and solar should as well, but they alone won't do it, we need nuclear to get off coal, oil, and natural gas.
2. I believe that anyone running a nuclear plant needs to be responsible for the total end to end costs of it, from site prep to site clean when the place is shut down.
3. I believe we must repeal the restrictions and bans on various types of reactors. We need new designs, the ability to build breeder reactors, run them on plutonium, and develop newer safer designs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nuclear waste is a concern, but keep in mind that waste that is highly radioactive generally has a short half-life and waste that is long lasting is generally not very radioactive to begin with, or isn't after a short while.
---
As a side note, I'm always reluctant to say "more government anything", however it is possible that nuclear reactors are just not something that for-profit companies should run, since the temptation to shortcut safety is always present. The US Navy has used nuclear power for years with very few problems, perhaps we should simply have the Navy run our reactors and sell the power.
Yep, you're right, I read that too.. $66 million was the figure I read, or 60 million Euro, something like that...
Does VW not have a compliance dept separate from all other dept that report directly to the CEO/Board of Directors?
If not, they should. How else is the boss supposed to know if he is being lied to?
Of course, I'm silly that way, if I were CEO of Ford tomorrow, I would consider it my personal responsibility to actually know what was going on, and given the size of Ford, you can only do that with a separate compliance dept that does nothing but check this stuff.
I've never been in charge of that much, but I have had 20 employees at one time, and I can tell you they lie to the boss all the time. Not always meaning harm, more "tell the boss what he wants to hear so we can get back to work without hassles".
That is fine, until it is legal or safety related, then the boss really needs to know.
I guess you've never heard the saying, "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip".
You can try and claw some of it back, and the big fish are perhaps worth going after. But that money may have changed hands multiple times, it may have been spent elsewhere, etc.
It also depends on why it was spent. If I sell my house to Tom Petters with no knowledge of who he is (it was listed on the open market, via an agent, sold to the highest bidder), you might be able to take the house away from him, but you can't ask me for the money, I traded the house for it (the money), and I don't want the house back now.
If Tom Petters walks into a car dealership and buys a car, you can't then go ask the car dealership for the money back. You can take the car, if Tom still has it, but the dealership wasn't party to the fraud.
Ok, I see what you're saying...
Of course, there is no system in place to do what you're suggesting, and you can't put it into place after the fact (ex post facto).
But if your suggestion is that it should be done for future cases... I'll toss one thought your way...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...
"Yet, Volkswagen is relatively immune to stock market pressure because only 12 percent of its voting shares are traded. Porsche Automobil Holding, controlled by members of the Porsche family, holds a slight majority. The German state of Lower Saxony owns 20 percent, and the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar owns 17 percent."
Consider for a min that they aren't likely to just hand over their shares, and if you fine and sue them into oblivion, they'll spend every last cent the company has fighting you, so that when they finally go bankrupt, there is nothing left to take.
If you make reasonable offers and ask for something less than everything, the shareholders might give it to you. If you demand everything, they may simply spend it before you can get it.
---
Finally, I'm not sure that shares in VW would really make a lot of the owners happy, or whole. To get cash they'd have to sell them running the price into the ground. If you doubled the number of shares, cutting the current owners to 50% of the company (probably the least they would be willing to live with), then you cut the price in half, handing over paper to the owners of cars who would rather have cash.
It is a nice idea, but not a very practical one IMHO...
They are way, way, way late switching to Android... that ship has sailed and it is just a flailing carcass waiting to die...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fo...
The CEO may get $66 million dollars for leaving...
I think you might have missed the point... :)
everyone gets what you are saying about the economic ramifications, but simply letting them get away with it isn't something that society should let happen. there's a greater good to be had beyond the immediate hardships to VW stockholders and employees. you nip this on the bud, and show to VW and the greater industry that cheating doesn't pay. and yes, corporations do respond to fines. they exist to maximize profits and they simply won't participate in cheating if it doesn't maximize their profits.
The same argument was made regarding the harsh punishments given to Germany after WWI. The very same "we have to set an example and punish them" nonsense.
Cheating does pay, and it always will so long as enforcement and checking remains lax.
This is just human nature at work. Your ideas of "nipping this in the bud" are just delusions of grandeur... If that worked, then Enron's destruction would have made a difference and in that case, executives DID go to prison. But it doesn't matter...
If monitoring and enforcement is not in place before the cheating happens, then it always will.
No, that isn't how you do it...
The way you stop cheating is via enforcement before the cheating happens, otherwise it always will, that is human nature.
Humans do whatever is in their own best interest, you should do some reading up on game theory.
Had the vehicles been properly inspected instead of the manufacture rigging the tests, this never would have happened.
Lax enforcement and checking of compliance is the real problem, without that, no amount of punishment or rules will ever make a difference.
You want to destroy much of the value of VW, break it up, and give the left overs to various creditors.
If you honestly think that is a better deal than working something out with the existing company, then... well, I can't help you...
Creditors often get pennies on the dollar, I think you have delusions of what this would net the average VW owner.
I don't count hybrids in the EV dept unless they are plug in, have decent all electric range, and are really meant to be EV 90% of the time.
Chevy Volt is an EV in my book, since it is really meant to be EV. The standard Prius is not, since it is meant to be EV only very limited.
The single biggest challenge beyond cost for EVs is range. I think the cost issue is easier to solve than the range issue. Larger battery factories will only bring that cost down over time. Range however is the part that will hold them back. I can fill up 500 miles of range in 5-10 min in my truck. The challenges of giving me 500 miles of range via battery is much greater.
I'm not saying it isn't solvable, I'm saying it will take far more time to solve and I'm not convinced that a great number of people care that much.
Also, the 50% EV car number that you think we'll hit in 30 years runs into a snag when you consider all the non-homeowners who don't have a garage to put charging equipment into. All the single family homes, etc.
Would I be willing, given similar cost, to have my second vehicle be EV tomorrow? Sure. Would I be willing, regardless of price, to replace my primary vehicle with an EV? No. I need the ability to refuel in 5-10 min. The charging times for EVs are not acceptable. That might change, but not for awhile.
And of course, we don't really have a full size EV SUV, making it a moot point. What do you think the cost of a Yukon XL Denali EV with 500 miles of range would cost today? If I had to guess... $250k...
Not even in the realm of reason... :)
RICO might well apply, and I think most people would agree that anyone who was responsible for the decision to do this should be charged with a crime.
Regarding payback, often times they do go after money, but they can't take what has been already spent and there often isn't as much to get as one would like.
The issue of course is that punishing people doesn't seem to stop this type of thing, and a more useful conversation might be "why?".
Bernie Madoff will spend the rest of his life behind bars, but that won't stop someone else from doing the same thing. They just don't think they'll be caught.
Perhaps, but "transferring ownership" in the way you describe is a moral hazard in its own right.
Don't make the cure as bad as the disease, that is never a good path to go down.
Cars do not lose half their value when you buy them. They generally don't even lose half their value after 3 years anymore.
Some of these cars are 5 years old, there comes a point where your idea is just not reasonable.
Should VW pay anything? Yes. Full purchase price for a 5 year old car? No.
Yes it does. It forces the corporation and management to take measures to ensure something like this does not happen again.
Except, that it doesn't...
Do you honestly think McDonald's is changing anything they do based on this? How about Coke? Apple? John Deere? Bank of America?
The situations are too far removed to have any real effect. Maybe, if you're REALLY lucky, Ford and Toyota will care and double check their cars, but then life moves on.
In cases like this the economic fallout even if the company wasn't punished at all would mean that innocent people are going to lose their jobs. It's unavoidable. There is no solution to this problem that does not involved economic pain to some people that don't really deserve it.
Sure, that is true... but my point is that some people are screaming for over the top destructive punishments that do nothing but put millions of people out of work.
Should VW have to fix the cars so they comply? Yes.
Should VW have to buy back every car at full price, even when they are 5 years old? No.
---
Flashing the ECU to be in "test mode" all the time might be one option, but even that solution needs to be tested and checked. There might be a middle ground solution for the ECU as well, where it is cleaner than it has been, but not all the way to test mode.
It might even be cheaper to simply replace the engines outright with gas motors, which also likely makes more sense than buying them back.
Well, if a company is a legal entity with free speech and the ability to buy politicians ...
Well there is the first problem, that should not be the case.
If I commit a crime nobody gives a damn about destroying me financially or incarcerating me.
I do... the "war on crime" has been horrible to a lot of people. Putting people into prison for 20 years, then expecting them to be useful to society when let out is, frankly, a crime against humanity.
It is evil and I don't support that either. Any punishment that "destroys you financially or incarcerates you for enough time to destroy you", is immoral.
In my opinion.
So, from the people who paid a premium for these cars, or now have lower resale value, or the simple fact that a lot more pollution was generated than claimed ... this crap needs some punishments of significance.
Sure, but against whom? I would suggest it should be against the specific people who actually committed the crime. A corporation is just a piece of paper, you can tear it up and make a new one, it is meaningless.
I don't think anyone would argue that VW shouldn't pay anything, but destroying the company out of some sense of "justice" is just stupid. It is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Lord, have you even bothered to learn anything about what this whole thing is about?
The cars are rigged to PASS inspections... that is the whole point of this!
You also claim these cars can't be repaired to pass the tests. That is also not true, their ECU can simply be flashed to run in "pass" mode all the time.
It'll hurt fuel economy and reduce power, but then they'll pass all the time.
My Mother has now owned three RX SUVs from Lexus, each one has been less reliable than the last. Her new one purchased January of this year (a 2015 model) has been back to the dealership twice for minor issues.
I've owned Ford and GM cars and trucks for the past 20 years and have seen massive improvements to quality in that time.
Just anecdotal information of course, not data, but it is what I've seen.
From looking at reliability surveys, it appears that the gaps have largely closed. Even brands that used to be made fun of, like Hyundai are now well built, all things considered.
Would I buy a Toyota tomorrow? Yes I would, if they sold what I wanted to buy. But I'd also buy a Ford, or a GM, or a Honda.