3 ms·

We alway like to reference the EU as regulatory example. But in this case despite the : - Ample evidence of health hazard (with seeping of PFAS into ground wat

We alway like to reference the EU as regulatory example. But in this case despite the : - Ample evidence of health hazard (with seeping of PFAS into ground water) - Temporary shutdowns - Environmental fines both 3M factories are still very much in operation: Zwijndrecht, Belgium Dordrecht, Netherlands

yrgulation 4y ago
EU regulation is mainly a means to protect the eu’s internal market. For instance you cant buy vehicles made in america due to prohibitive duties because they dont meet euro requirements. But you can buy highly polluting german vehicles, no problem. Easiest way to restrict goods without explicitly doing so.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  I disagree, the regulations were/are fairly strictly on diesel emissions for all vehicles not just US. What happened with 'dieselgate' was that many manufacturers got caught in what amounts to very blatant fraud, faking that they were compliant with the environmental standards for tailpipe emissions when they were in fact completely off the charts.
  - formerly_proven 4y ago
    Off the charts indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#/media/File:Nitrogen_oxide_on-road_emissions_by_manufacturer_and_capacity.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#/medi... Red is the legal limit!
    - fomine3 4y ago
      You miss context. It's partially fail of regulation (except VW/Bosch-like gate). Test in lab is far from real usage. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_15_5945 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_15_...
      - formerly_proven 4y ago
        If you take "partially fail of regulation" to mean stuff like "a defeat device switching emissions controls off if more than two wheels are spinning is not legally a defeat device", then sure. Otherwise, there are of course issues with testing methodology. At the same time, pretty much the entire car industry used defeat devices on their diesel cars.
      - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
        No, there is no context to be had in this case. Manufacturers had firmware that detected if the vehicle was in a test chamber (front axis moving but no G forces), if that was true then engine management would enable full emissions control and limit engine performance. If that was false the emissions control would be dropped and you would have all the horse power and acceleration that customers so dearly love. I will say it explicitly: Whenever you see in the media the discussion on 'defeat devices', what it means is that manufacturers performed large scale fraud, _by_design_. I think people really fail to appreciate how severe this was. The 'discrepancy' they discuss in the press release you link is just a euphemism to say, we don't want to go bankrupt and disrupt German GDP but we can't sell a car that complies with emissions regulation (i.e. not killing people ahead of time with air pollution) without making it have the engine performance/acceleration of a dead mouse.
        fomine3 4y ago
        I stand corrected that many manufacturers (than I remembered) had cheat program like VW/Bosh, but is it all manufacturers? Volvo and Mazda?
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  EU emissions standards are usually more tolerant than USA standards. The problem with American cars sold to Europe is that the EU has stricter pedestrian protection requirements which would require redesigns of American models. It makes sense not to implement those when designing a car for a country where crossing a road is illegal in many places, but inside most of the EU that's unacceptable. Other safety standards have also been lower in the USA but I'm not sure if that still holds up today. There's also the space problem: many American cars have trouble fitting onto European roads and parking spaces because the USA has dedicated a lot more space for cars as a result of city design often practically forcing you to own a car. The EU has its SUVs but most of them are small in comparison to the unimportable American ones,

yrgulation 4y ago

EU regulation is mainly a means to protect the eu’s internal market. For instance you cant buy vehicles made in america due to prohibitive duties because they dont meet euro requirements. But you can buy highly polluting german vehicles, no problem. Easiest way to restrict goods without explicitly doing so.

DoingIsLearning 4y ago
I disagree, the regulations were/are fairly strictly on diesel emissions for all vehicles not just US. What happened with 'dieselgate' was that many manufacturers got caught in what amounts to very blatant fraud, faking that they were compliant with the environmental standards for tailpipe emissions when they were in fact completely off the charts.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  Off the charts indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#/media/File:Nitrogen_oxide_on-road_emissions_by_manufacturer_and_capacity.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#/medi... Red is the legal limit!
  - fomine3 4y ago
    You miss context. It's partially fail of regulation (except VW/Bosch-like gate). Test in lab is far from real usage. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_15_5945 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_15_...
    - formerly_proven 4y ago
      If you take "partially fail of regulation" to mean stuff like "a defeat device switching emissions controls off if more than two wheels are spinning is not legally a defeat device", then sure. Otherwise, there are of course issues with testing methodology. At the same time, pretty much the entire car industry used defeat devices on their diesel cars.
    - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
      No, there is no context to be had in this case. Manufacturers had firmware that detected if the vehicle was in a test chamber (front axis moving but no G forces), if that was true then engine management would enable full emissions control and limit engine performance. If that was false the emissions control would be dropped and you would have all the horse power and acceleration that customers so dearly love. I will say it explicitly: Whenever you see in the media the discussion on 'defeat devices', what it means is that manufacturers performed large scale fraud, _by_design_. I think people really fail to appreciate how severe this was. The 'discrepancy' they discuss in the press release you link is just a euphemism to say, we don't want to go bankrupt and disrupt German GDP but we can't sell a car that complies with emissions regulation (i.e. not killing people ahead of time with air pollution) without making it have the engine performance/acceleration of a dead mouse.
      - fomine3 4y ago
        I stand corrected that many manufacturers (than I remembered) had cheat program like VW/Bosh, but is it all manufacturers? Volvo and Mazda?
jeroenhd 4y ago
EU emissions standards are usually more tolerant than USA standards. The problem with American cars sold to Europe is that the EU has stricter pedestrian protection requirements which would require redesigns of American models. It makes sense not to implement those when designing a car for a country where crossing a road is illegal in many places, but inside most of the EU that's unacceptable. Other safety standards have also been lower in the USA but I'm not sure if that still holds up today. There's also the space problem: many American cars have trouble fitting onto European roads and parking spaces because the USA has dedicated a lot more space for cars as a result of city design often practically forcing you to own a car. The EU has its SUVs but most of them are small in comparison to the unimportable American ones,