5 ms·

Just to play devil's advocate, maybe the requirements really are way over the line. In that case I wouldn't hold any grudges. Just because something is classifi

Just to play devil's advocate, maybe the requirements really are way over the line. In that case I wouldn't hold any grudges. Just because something is classified a felony doesn't mean it's morally wrong. Edit: To clarify, I'm not suggesting this guy taking the dive for the execs is ok, just that someone lying about emission test results may not be as horrible as they're trying to make it sound.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
He signed up to be accountable for this. It's a way. http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/mistakesdemotivator.jpeg?v=1416776264 http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/mistakes...
pavel_lishin 10y ago
I'd say that causing 11 million cars to spew pollution into the atmosphere against regulations is fairly repugnant from a moral perspective. It's not different than him going around the back of a chemical plant that produces toxic byproducts, and opening a valve that releases toxins into a river when he knows the inspectors aren't watching. edit: actually saw the number of cars.
- toast0 10y ago
  Regarding emissions, it's a tradeoff: increased engine temperature increases NOx emissions, but also increases fuel economy, decreasing carbon emissions. I was unable to quickly find a consensus on which type of emission is worse or how to weigh one versus another. Regarding regulatory compliance, defeat devices are clearly unacceptable; if the regulated requirements are considered inappropriate for whatever reason, they should be challenged through political or legal process, not by detecting test conditions and altering behavior.
e28eta 10y ago
I don't think it's that VW can't meet the requirements, it's that they don't think it'll be as commercially successful. I think it's the tension between emissions requirements and customer demand for powerful vehicles. As allowable emissions decrease over the years, which automaker will be successful shipping a vehicle that has less power than the previous model? And that's the whole reason for emissions requirements, left to their own devices, automakers and customers weren't getting it done.
SwellJoe 10y ago
The emissions standards are already a dangerous compromise; we should have been making hard decisions about emissions 20, even 30, years ago...they've gotten stricter because they were disastrously lenient in the past, and we see the results of it. The reasons someone lying about emissions tests are really as bad is it sounds: - If one manufacturer lies, other manufacturers are forced to either lie, or lose customers in the market to the liar. Thus, dangerous cars become more common, car makers that try to do the right thing make lower profits and sell fewer cars. - In this case, "clean diesel" lies likely led other manufacturers to waste resources on trying to make clean diesel of their own. Again, competitive advantage goes to the liar who doesn't actually have to make clean diesel; they just say they did, and sell boatloads of it. - Emissions standards are already too lenient. Our planet's steadily rising temperature shows us this. No one here at HN (I would hope) would be arguing that climate change isn't happening or that humans aren't causing a significant portion of it, so the only sensible thing is to look at what causes it, and regulate it (somehow; I am not an expert on the subject of how emissions are regulated or should be regulated, but I know it's not really working, thus far...as autos are a significant portion of emissions). So, if the requirements are "way over the line", how does one explain other auto makers complying with them? Are they all lying? There's been increased scrutiny, so it's likely to come out, if they have been. Wouldn't that be an interesting situation?
- aianus 10y ago
  Diesel soot doesn't cause climate change, that's CO2 which is not regulated. I think it's ridiculous (at least in Canada) that I have to pay $30 every other year to have my car emissions tested while city buses and trucks spew black clouds unopposed. Just feels like a useless cash grab.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    CO2 is regulated, and so is NOx. Buses and trucks are also regulated and have to adhere to emissions standards, and get tested regularly; at least, in the US, they are regulated more heavily than autos (or, at least have more paperwork and legal obligations involved in driving them, and have a higher tax burden). People riding a bus are, in aggregate, producing much less waste than if they were all driving automobiles...so, it's OK that a bus produces quite a bit more waste than a single automobile. And, I might even argue we aren't going far enough to incentivize people to take mass transit rather than driving themselves. The cargo industry is responsible for a tremendous amount of emissions; freight ships account for millions of cars worth of emissions, in fact. That's definitely an area for improvement on a worldwide level. I'm in no way saying there aren't other sources of emissions, or that regulating auto emissions effectively will solve the problem. Merely that ignoring emissions from cars will exacerbate what is already the single biggest problem humanity faces going forward.
scrumper 10y ago
I kind of agree with you actually. To refine my comment above, if you accept the premise that there's criminal culpability here, then it's morally unacceptable to send an engineer to prison but not the executives who directed or authorized him to produce a defeat device. If, as you're saying, you don't accept that cheating on emissions tests is criminal in nature, then the issue should be settled through commercial and civil sanctions (which could perhaps include this engineer losing his license or charter, but more importantly should include those executives suffering severe financial penalties - perhaps that's a massive decline in value in their stock compensation's value caused by VW's mandatory exit from the US market.)

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

He signed up to be accountable for this. It's a way. http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/mistakesdemotivator.jpeg?v=1416776264 http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/mistakes...

pavel_lishin 10y ago

I'd say that causing 11 million cars to spew pollution into the atmosphere against regulations is fairly repugnant from a moral perspective. It's not different than him going around the back of a chemical plant that produces toxic byproducts, and opening a valve that releases toxins into a river when he knows the inspectors aren't watching. edit: actually saw the number of cars.

toast0 10y ago
Regarding emissions, it's a tradeoff: increased engine temperature increases NOx emissions, but also increases fuel economy, decreasing carbon emissions. I was unable to quickly find a consensus on which type of emission is worse or how to weigh one versus another. Regarding regulatory compliance, defeat devices are clearly unacceptable; if the regulated requirements are considered inappropriate for whatever reason, they should be challenged through political or legal process, not by detecting test conditions and altering behavior.

e28eta 10y ago

I don't think it's that VW can't meet the requirements, it's that they don't think it'll be as commercially successful. I think it's the tension between emissions requirements and customer demand for powerful vehicles. As allowable emissions decrease over the years, which automaker will be successful shipping a vehicle that has less power than the previous model? And that's the whole reason for emissions requirements, left to their own devices, automakers and customers weren't getting it done.

SwellJoe 10y ago

The emissions standards are already a dangerous compromise; we should have been making hard decisions about emissions 20, even 30, years ago...they've gotten stricter because they were disastrously lenient in the past, and we see the results of it. The reasons someone lying about emissions tests are really as bad is it sounds: - If one manufacturer lies, other manufacturers are forced to either lie, or lose customers in the market to the liar. Thus, dangerous cars become more common, car makers that try to do the right thing make lower profits and sell fewer cars. - In this case, "clean diesel" lies likely led other manufacturers to waste resources on trying to make clean diesel of their own. Again, competitive advantage goes to the liar who doesn't actually have to make clean diesel; they just say they did, and sell boatloads of it. - Emissions standards are already too lenient. Our planet's steadily rising temperature shows us this. No one here at HN (I would hope) would be arguing that climate change isn't happening or that humans aren't causing a significant portion of it, so the only sensible thing is to look at what causes it, and regulate it (somehow; I am not an expert on the subject of how emissions are regulated or should be regulated, but I know it's not really working, thus far...as autos are a significant portion of emissions). So, if the requirements are "way over the line", how does one explain other auto makers complying with them? Are they all lying? There's been increased scrutiny, so it's likely to come out, if they have been. Wouldn't that be an interesting situation?

aianus 10y ago
Diesel soot doesn't cause climate change, that's CO2 which is not regulated. I think it's ridiculous (at least in Canada) that I have to pay $30 every other year to have my car emissions tested while city buses and trucks spew black clouds unopposed. Just feels like a useless cash grab.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  CO2 is regulated, and so is NOx. Buses and trucks are also regulated and have to adhere to emissions standards, and get tested regularly; at least, in the US, they are regulated more heavily than autos (or, at least have more paperwork and legal obligations involved in driving them, and have a higher tax burden). People riding a bus are, in aggregate, producing much less waste than if they were all driving automobiles...so, it's OK that a bus produces quite a bit more waste than a single automobile. And, I might even argue we aren't going far enough to incentivize people to take mass transit rather than driving themselves. The cargo industry is responsible for a tremendous amount of emissions; freight ships account for millions of cars worth of emissions, in fact. That's definitely an area for improvement on a worldwide level. I'm in no way saying there aren't other sources of emissions, or that regulating auto emissions effectively will solve the problem. Merely that ignoring emissions from cars will exacerbate what is already the single biggest problem humanity faces going forward.

scrumper 10y ago

I kind of agree with you actually. To refine my comment above, if you accept the premise that there's criminal culpability here, then it's morally unacceptable to send an engineer to prison but not the executives who directed or authorized him to produce a defeat device. If, as you're saying, you don't accept that cheating on emissions tests is criminal in nature, then the issue should be settled through commercial and civil sanctions (which could perhaps include this engineer losing his license or charter, but more importantly should include those executives suffering severe financial penalties - perhaps that's a massive decline in value in their stock compensation's value caused by VW's mandatory exit from the US market.)