7 ms·

there'd be no incentive to lie if the EPA wasn't forcing these "standards" on them. Now, there's no reason to innovate because someone spends big bucks to actu

there'd be no incentive to lie if the EPA wasn't forcing these "standards" on them. Now, there's no reason to innovate because someone spends big bucks to actually do what everyone else is lying about. This isn't damming of private industry - it's damming of the regulation. (Er, to me. Obviously you might come to a different conclusion. Just wanted to throw in how this article can be read both ways.)

saulrh 10y ago
Without the regulation they wouldn't be doing anything, because any attempt at limiting emissions is more expensive than none at all. Regulations aren't perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good enough.
- TylerE 10y ago
  The standards escalated way too fast though. They were asking for essentially multiple orders of magnitude improvement in a single generation. Even the dirtiest of the cheating VWs would have passed the previous standards (from not that many years ago) with flying colors.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >>The standards escalated way too fast though. Um, no. The EPA didn't pull the numbers out of their asses. They worked with the auto industry to come up with requirements that were stringent but realistic. Government agencies are commonly criticized for regulating industries that they have no expertise in. In reality though, things don't work that way. Either the regulators themselves have industry experience (what is commonly referred to as "revolving doors") or they consult experts.
    - wcunning 10y ago
      The 2025 CAFE standards seem to be a dramatic rise in requirement in a short time period wherein the industry attempted to provide alternative advise and was soundly rebuffed, even outright ignored. The EPA may have once listened, but they don't seem to anymore.
      - enraged_camel 10y ago
        If you can provide hard evidence that support your perception, I'd be interested in looking at it.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    The urea injected Diesel engines meet the standards.
    - TylerE 10y ago
      No, they don't. I own one that's about to get bought back.
      - stevehawk 10y ago
        which one is that? (serious question because I feel like the one thing I've noticed is that the companies getting nailed are the ones not using DEF)
        TylerE 10y ago
        2015 Golf TDI.
gautamnarula 10y ago
I'd say it's more damning of the enforcement of the regulations than the regulations themselves. If car manufacturers fudging numbers were quickly discovered and made to pay hefty fines to the regulator and refunds to customers, and potentially prison time for executives (depending on how serious the violation is, of course), you can bet the manufacturers would quickly learn it makes prudent business sense to be honest.
xenadu02 10y ago
If standards weren't forced on them we'd be living in smog-choked cities. Markets can't efficiently deal with tragedy-of-the-commons situations because the air belongs to everyone and there is no way to do price discovery. Even a manufacturer could advertise based on being eco-friendly the effects would be minuscule thus consumers would have little reason to prioritize such features. You're essentially claiming we should abolish all regulations period because some people will cheat. The actual solution is to heavily punish cheaters. We don't have to guess and argue about this; go visit China then come back here and regale us about how horrible the EPA is and how we should eliminate pollution regulations. The technology may not exist yet but government standards can be a forcing function that makes manufacturers invest in creating it and bringing the cost down. In fact government has had a huge hand in many forms of innovation; the trans-continental railroad was only made possible by government backing. The internet could not have been created by private companies from scratch, but government investment made bootstrapping possible.
- wonder_er 10y ago
  I feel like there are more differences between China and the USA than just the EPA, and that's not at all what I was arguing. What did you read my argument as? Can you restate my argument? Either I spoke unclearly, or you read poorly. So, let me figure this out.
  - ch4s3 10y ago
    >Now, there's no reason to innovate because someone spends big bucks to actually do what everyone else is lying about. This statement just doesn't make sense. If we punish actors who cheat the incentive is to innovate towards meeting the goal. If there's no mandate, and no punishment then there's no reason to innovate in a direction that protects the commons. There's simply no market mechanism for protecting the commons that works in practice.
mikeash 10y ago
We'd all have health problems and shortened lifespans from air pollution, but hey, at least automakers wouldn't be lying to us.
bit_logic 10y ago
The technology to meet and even exceed EPA regulations already exists: hybrid cars. At this point there should not be a single gas only new car on the market, all models and all trim levels should be hybrid as a starting point. If they did this, mass production would reduce the current extra hybrid cost to nothing. Instead they are lying on emissions tests and want to maximize profit off hybrids. EPA must punish such behavior.
- Gibbon1 10y ago
  Yep, no one talks about this but hybrids are far less polluting than non hybrids. It isn't even close.

saulrh 10y ago

Without the regulation they wouldn't be doing anything, because any attempt at limiting emissions is more expensive than none at all. Regulations aren't perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good enough.

TylerE 10y ago
The standards escalated way too fast though. They were asking for essentially multiple orders of magnitude improvement in a single generation. Even the dirtiest of the cheating VWs would have passed the previous standards (from not that many years ago) with flying colors.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>The standards escalated way too fast though. Um, no. The EPA didn't pull the numbers out of their asses. They worked with the auto industry to come up with requirements that were stringent but realistic. Government agencies are commonly criticized for regulating industries that they have no expertise in. In reality though, things don't work that way. Either the regulators themselves have industry experience (what is commonly referred to as "revolving doors") or they consult experts.
  - wcunning 10y ago
    The 2025 CAFE standards seem to be a dramatic rise in requirement in a short time period wherein the industry attempted to provide alternative advise and was soundly rebuffed, even outright ignored. The EPA may have once listened, but they don't seem to anymore.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      If you can provide hard evidence that support your perception, I'd be interested in looking at it.
- woofyman 10y ago
  The urea injected Diesel engines meet the standards.
  - TylerE 10y ago
    No, they don't. I own one that's about to get bought back.
    - stevehawk 10y ago
      which one is that? (serious question because I feel like the one thing I've noticed is that the companies getting nailed are the ones not using DEF)
      - TylerE 10y ago
        2015 Golf TDI.

gautamnarula 10y ago

I'd say it's more damning of the enforcement of the regulations than the regulations themselves. If car manufacturers fudging numbers were quickly discovered and made to pay hefty fines to the regulator and refunds to customers, and potentially prison time for executives (depending on how serious the violation is, of course), you can bet the manufacturers would quickly learn it makes prudent business sense to be honest.

xenadu02 10y ago

If standards weren't forced on them we'd be living in smog-choked cities. Markets can't efficiently deal with tragedy-of-the-commons situations because the air belongs to everyone and there is no way to do price discovery. Even a manufacturer could advertise based on being eco-friendly the effects would be minuscule thus consumers would have little reason to prioritize such features. You're essentially claiming we should abolish all regulations period because some people will cheat. The actual solution is to heavily punish cheaters. We don't have to guess and argue about this; go visit China then come back here and regale us about how horrible the EPA is and how we should eliminate pollution regulations. The technology may not exist yet but government standards can be a forcing function that makes manufacturers invest in creating it and bringing the cost down. In fact government has had a huge hand in many forms of innovation; the trans-continental railroad was only made possible by government backing. The internet could not have been created by private companies from scratch, but government investment made bootstrapping possible.

wonder_er 10y ago
I feel like there are more differences between China and the USA than just the EPA, and that's not at all what I was arguing. What did you read my argument as? Can you restate my argument? Either I spoke unclearly, or you read poorly. So, let me figure this out.
- ch4s3 10y ago
  >Now, there's no reason to innovate because someone spends big bucks to actually do what everyone else is lying about. This statement just doesn't make sense. If we punish actors who cheat the incentive is to innovate towards meeting the goal. If there's no mandate, and no punishment then there's no reason to innovate in a direction that protects the commons. There's simply no market mechanism for protecting the commons that works in practice.

mikeash 10y ago

We'd all have health problems and shortened lifespans from air pollution, but hey, at least automakers wouldn't be lying to us.

bit_logic 10y ago

The technology to meet and even exceed EPA regulations already exists: hybrid cars. At this point there should not be a single gas only new car on the market, all models and all trim levels should be hybrid as a starting point. If they did this, mass production would reduce the current extra hybrid cost to nothing. Instead they are lying on emissions tests and want to maximize profit off hybrids. EPA must punish such behavior.

Gibbon1 10y ago
Yep, no one talks about this but hybrids are far less polluting than non hybrids. It isn't even close.