7 ms·

"Unlike other parts of the world, European nations incentivised the use of diesel vehicles over the last 20 years because they emit less carbon dioxide per mile

by _yosefk 10y ago

"Unlike other parts of the world, European nations incentivised the use of diesel vehicles over the last 20 years because they emit less carbon dioxide per mile than petrol cars. Governments thought stricter regulation would sharply reduce NOx emissions, but carmakers found ways around the rules and governments failed to clamp down on the practices." How typical in so many ways (I particularly like the claim that governments "failed" without either suggesting to strip the governments of those powers which they failed to use so consistently throughout all of Europe, or charging government officials with criminal incompetence or fraud.)

halviti 10y ago
Governments 'failing' in this scenario seems to be referring to not acting quickly enough. If you're going to strip governments of power for this, there would be no more governments left in the world.
- _yosefk 10y ago
  Not acting quickly enough?.. VW's "defeat device" wasn't uncovered by the government, and it's been deployed for years. I'm not sure what would make governments do anything about this at any future point in time if the issue wasn't reported by a non-government entity. The article also elaborates the measures governments are taking to let perpetrators get away with this into the future (and another source reported how governments keep postponing random checks of cars on actual roads.) There are at least three reasons for governments to side with the perpetrators - campaign contributions or outright bribes to politicians, concerns about the economy/employment, and a revolving door between car makers and regulatory agencies, all this is true for any big business regulated by the government. The belief that fraud is conducted on this scale but the regulator is not to blame is stunning to me (same with banking fraud etc.) I didn't say governments should necessarily be stripped of this power, just that if they all fail so miserably at something, you ought to either suggest that they cannot ever succeed (and if so of course you'll want to strip them of this power) or that people currently employed by governments to oversee this should be investigated, in the hope that eventually the governments can be trained to find competent people to fill these roles, and find some mechanism that prevents corrupting these people. Meeting extreme government incompetence with complete understanding ("they just didn't act quickly enough") and zero penalties, however, is IMO perpetuating the problem.
walshemj 10y ago
I rember at the time when the push for diesel Mrs Thatcher as an ex chemist queried this - asking why not lean burn petrol engines. This is just another example of Politicians and civil servants making poor judgement on technical matters and a lack of common sense. The fiasco that is the eu cookie law is another example
leoc 10y ago
What the Guardian neglects to add is that (IIRC) the German auto industry had placed a big bet on diesel engines as far back as the early '80s, and that the German government has enormous clout in the EU and seems to love German export industries with the same fervour that the US and UK governments adore their national financial sectors.
- riffraff 10y ago
  Are you sure this is the case? AFAIK all modern diesels are based on electronically controlled common rail which was originally designed by FIAT, even if it ended up being licensed to Bosch. What I mean is, probably all the european auto industry invested in diesel at a time when gasoline was considered a lot worse than diesel in terms of pollution, and taxation greatly favoured diesel vs gasoline in terms of fuel price.
  - leoc 10y ago
    Hmm. Of course now I can't find my original source. :/ According to this article https://ranwhenparked.net/2013/07/22/30-years-ago-bmw-launches-first-diesel-engine/ https://ranwhenparked.net/2013/07/22/30-years-ago-bmw-launch... Mercedes' and BMW's interest in car diesel engines goes back to the 1970s, though Peugeot was there too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_diesel_car&oldid=702948984#1990s_and_the_present https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_di... is oddly written and fairly uncited, but it does state "The diesel car markets are the same ones who pioneered various developments (Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Peugeot/Citroën, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Volkswagen Group)". Moving towards the politics, Rüdiger K. W. Wurzel's Environmental policy-making in Britain, Germany and the European Union's Chapter 5, "The catalytic converter versus the lean-burn engine controversy" seems very informative. Particularly the section "The diesel engine", which contains this: "In America and Japan, diesel cars almost disappeared from the market in the 1970s after the adoption of stringent limit values for carcinogenic particulates, although this was disputed by the car industry. The EU introduced relatively lenient particulate limit values in the late 1980s. The German government demanded the [Best Available Technology] option for both petrol and diesel cars. However, after heavy lobbying from Mercedes and Volkswagen, fiscal incentives were granted not only for the three-way catalytic converter but for diesel cars which met the lenient EU particulate limits." (Seen through Google Books at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0719073340 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0719073340 ) Industry and Politics in West Germany: Toward the Third Republic by Peter J. Katzenstein (seen at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0801495954 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0801495954 ) adds "Moreover, since diesel engines get the same break, the European regulation also favours those German producers who are leaders in diesel technology, especially Daimler Benz and VW." However, Wurzel clearly asserts that the move towards US-style catalytic converters on petrol cars in Europe (which is apparently what first made diesels attractive as a regulatory end-run) was initiated by Germany in the teeth of opposition from German car makers (especially Volkswagen): there was a perception in the UK government that Germany was obliging its automakers in this, but it was wrong. Also, http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-25-15 http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715... says that tax incentives for dieselisation in the domestic German market are relatively modest (and that there was a small tax penalty for buying a diesel until 2009, though not after actual fuel costs were taken into account) (2.3.6, 2.3.7). Interestingly, it also suggests that a supply glut of fuel oil (which can be converted into diesel) was the original incentive for the European diesel boom (2.3.1) . Then again, further on down the road it seems clear that the EU's lenient approach to diesel emissions had the effect of advantaging European automakers collectively against competition from the Japanese, who had bet on hybrids instead (2.3.6). In summary, TIL.
joosters 10y ago
Without the governments' attempts at controlling pollution, do you really believe that the car companies would voluntarily be restricting their cars' emissions?
- _yosefk 10y ago
  If the government did nothing at all in the matter, I believe car companies wouldn't care less about emissions (though perhaps it would result in higher CO2 emissions but lower NOx emissions and perhaps that would have been a net benefit to society - but I'm not sure about that, so I wouldn't make an argument hinging on this being true.) Personally I would not advocate stripping the government of the power to regulate emissions (though I'm not at all sure how to get them to do their job properly), on the theory that with all the unintended consequences of regulation including higher NOx emissions, it's still better than nothing. But I have a feeling that jailing regulators is a promising approach to improving future regulators' performance, and this approach seems underrepresented in public discourse, perhaps because most people prefer to either abolish regulation altogether or to always blame the regulated industry. The main reason I mentioned stripping regulators of their power is that this is the logical conclusion of the assumption that we should expect competent, honest regulators to fail to detect fraud at such a huge scale.

by _yosefk 10y ago

halviti 10y ago

Governments 'failing' in this scenario seems to be referring to not acting quickly enough. If you're going to strip governments of power for this, there would be no more governments left in the world.

_yosefk 10y ago
Not acting quickly enough?.. VW's "defeat device" wasn't uncovered by the government, and it's been deployed for years. I'm not sure what would make governments do anything about this at any future point in time if the issue wasn't reported by a non-government entity. The article also elaborates the measures governments are taking to let perpetrators get away with this into the future (and another source reported how governments keep postponing random checks of cars on actual roads.) There are at least three reasons for governments to side with the perpetrators - campaign contributions or outright bribes to politicians, concerns about the economy/employment, and a revolving door between car makers and regulatory agencies, all this is true for any big business regulated by the government. The belief that fraud is conducted on this scale but the regulator is not to blame is stunning to me (same with banking fraud etc.) I didn't say governments should necessarily be stripped of this power, just that if they all fail so miserably at something, you ought to either suggest that they cannot ever succeed (and if so of course you'll want to strip them of this power) or that people currently employed by governments to oversee this should be investigated, in the hope that eventually the governments can be trained to find competent people to fill these roles, and find some mechanism that prevents corrupting these people. Meeting extreme government incompetence with complete understanding ("they just didn't act quickly enough") and zero penalties, however, is IMO perpetuating the problem.

walshemj 10y ago

I rember at the time when the push for diesel Mrs Thatcher as an ex chemist queried this - asking why not lean burn petrol engines. This is just another example of Politicians and civil servants making poor judgement on technical matters and a lack of common sense. The fiasco that is the eu cookie law is another example

leoc 10y ago

What the Guardian neglects to add is that (IIRC) the German auto industry had placed a big bet on diesel engines as far back as the early '80s, and that the German government has enormous clout in the EU and seems to love German export industries with the same fervour that the US and UK governments adore their national financial sectors.

riffraff 10y ago
Are you sure this is the case? AFAIK all modern diesels are based on electronically controlled common rail which was originally designed by FIAT, even if it ended up being licensed to Bosch. What I mean is, probably all the european auto industry invested in diesel at a time when gasoline was considered a lot worse than diesel in terms of pollution, and taxation greatly favoured diesel vs gasoline in terms of fuel price.
- leoc 10y ago
  Hmm. Of course now I can't find my original source. :/ According to this article https://ranwhenparked.net/2013/07/22/30-years-ago-bmw-launches-first-diesel-engine/ https://ranwhenparked.net/2013/07/22/30-years-ago-bmw-launch... Mercedes' and BMW's interest in car diesel engines goes back to the 1970s, though Peugeot was there too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_diesel_car&oldid=702948984#1990s_and_the_present https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_di... is oddly written and fairly uncited, but it does state "The diesel car markets are the same ones who pioneered various developments (Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Peugeot/Citroën, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Volkswagen Group)". Moving towards the politics, Rüdiger K. W. Wurzel's Environmental policy-making in Britain, Germany and the European Union's Chapter 5, "The catalytic converter versus the lean-burn engine controversy" seems very informative. Particularly the section "The diesel engine", which contains this: "In America and Japan, diesel cars almost disappeared from the market in the 1970s after the adoption of stringent limit values for carcinogenic particulates, although this was disputed by the car industry. The EU introduced relatively lenient particulate limit values in the late 1980s. The German government demanded the [Best Available Technology] option for both petrol and diesel cars. However, after heavy lobbying from Mercedes and Volkswagen, fiscal incentives were granted not only for the three-way catalytic converter but for diesel cars which met the lenient EU particulate limits." (Seen through Google Books at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0719073340 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0719073340 ) Industry and Politics in West Germany: Toward the Third Republic by Peter J. Katzenstein (seen at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0801495954 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0801495954 ) adds "Moreover, since diesel engines get the same break, the European regulation also favours those German producers who are leaders in diesel technology, especially Daimler Benz and VW." However, Wurzel clearly asserts that the move towards US-style catalytic converters on petrol cars in Europe (which is apparently what first made diesels attractive as a regulatory end-run) was initiated by Germany in the teeth of opposition from German car makers (especially Volkswagen): there was a perception in the UK government that Germany was obliging its automakers in this, but it was wrong. Also, http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-25-15 http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715... says that tax incentives for dieselisation in the domestic German market are relatively modest (and that there was a small tax penalty for buying a diesel until 2009, though not after actual fuel costs were taken into account) (2.3.6, 2.3.7). Interestingly, it also suggests that a supply glut of fuel oil (which can be converted into diesel) was the original incentive for the European diesel boom (2.3.1) . Then again, further on down the road it seems clear that the EU's lenient approach to diesel emissions had the effect of advantaging European automakers collectively against competition from the Japanese, who had bet on hybrids instead (2.3.6). In summary, TIL.

joosters 10y ago

Without the governments' attempts at controlling pollution, do you really believe that the car companies would voluntarily be restricting their cars' emissions?

_yosefk 10y ago
If the government did nothing at all in the matter, I believe car companies wouldn't care less about emissions (though perhaps it would result in higher CO2 emissions but lower NOx emissions and perhaps that would have been a net benefit to society - but I'm not sure about that, so I wouldn't make an argument hinging on this being true.) Personally I would not advocate stripping the government of the power to regulate emissions (though I'm not at all sure how to get them to do their job properly), on the theory that with all the unintended consequences of regulation including higher NOx emissions, it's still better than nothing. But I have a feeling that jailing regulators is a promising approach to improving future regulators' performance, and this approach seems underrepresented in public discourse, perhaps because most people prefer to either abolish regulation altogether or to always blame the regulated industry. The main reason I mentioned stripping regulators of their power is that this is the logical conclusion of the assumption that we should expect competent, honest regulators to fail to detect fraud at such a huge scale.