6 ms·

Until you tell them how easy it makes it to bypass emissions restrictions. My tractor was shipped with a screw turned down to <25hp to bypass emissions control

Until you tell them how easy it makes it to bypass emissions restrictions. My tractor was shipped with a screw turned down to <25hp to bypass emissions controls. I could turn that screw back up and have a ~35hp tractor, but of course, that would be illegal and make lots of environmentalists cry. Opening up John Deere tractors for right to repair virtually assures they will ~all be doing emissions deletes. Part of their lock-down was profit seeking, but the other half is that different vendors had different ideas interpretations of the law about how locked down the system had to be to prevent emissions tampering, and domestic companies more subject to US law were generally far more paranoid about it.

triceratops 3mo ago
I don't understand, are 35hp tractors illegal under emissions rules? Then why even manufacture them and cripple them?
- mothballed 3mo ago
  Tractors are legal above 25hp but it requires DPF, and at I want to say about 75, possibly more than that. Farmers generally hate DPF systems and will disable them the microsecond they get the right to repair. >Then why even manufacture them and cripple them? They cripple them because they know people want bigger tractor without emission control so they sell it as a less powerful tractor and then just expect people to break the law and turn the screw, and everybody is happy. ========= re: below due to throttling ======== >Thankfully, it's not illegal to own a screwdriver and nothing changes there. There's absolutely no relevance between right to repair (not right to break emission laws!) and the situation you describe. There is because on the John Deere tractors you can't set the "screw" unless you have right to repair the engine system. John Deere has no screw because they're in the US and they're too afraid of US regulators.
  - ori_b 3mo ago
    I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is this prevented today or not by the denial of the right to repair? It sounds like you are saying everyone is doing it today, so denying the right to repair doesn't affect the situation.
    - mothballed 3mo ago
      If you're a US company the vagueness of emissions law likely prevents a US company from hazarding doing it and instead locking down the repair of their power trains to ensure emission compliance. Korean companies get away with it because they don't give much a shit if they're banned from import, it can always be washed through another foreign company. John Deere can't try that sort of thing since being a household-name US company is their bread and butter for commanding a premium in the first place. ======= re: below due to throttling ======== >You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines. Everyone is doing it on the import tractors with the screws. They are not doing it with John Deere tractors, which are locked down for emission compliance. John Deere is handicapped by the fact they're located in the US and regulators have more leverage on them to prevent the sort of right-to-repair which would enable emission bypassing. >Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair? What is happening today is people with John Deere are not able to unlock their tractor for repair and turn the "screw" like they can with import tractors. The very first thing they will do once they can "repair" is delete emissions controls. That's a big part of what the farmers were pissed about and why they wanted right to repair, they couldn't "repair" their tractor to not use DPF, etc on their domestic tractors.
      - ori_b 3mo ago
        Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair? You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines. Is that wrong?
        mothballed 3mo ago
        >Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair? What is happening today is that it's of greater difficulty to bypass emissions on repair-locked tractors like John Deere and very easy to do on tractors like mine (mostly imports). >You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines. Is that wrong? "Everyone" is bypassing it on the repairable tractors. Once John Deere are repairable, they will do it on those too.
  - spaqin 3mo ago
    Thankfully, it's not illegal to own a screwdriver and nothing changes there. There's absolutely no relevance between right to repair (not right to break emission laws!) and the situation you describe.
    - WarmWash 3mo ago
      Well, then there also must not be much relevance between lax guns laws and school shooters? I get what you are (trying) to say, but lets be real here. Right to repair people (myself included) just need to own that it will have some downsides.
      - atoav 3mo ago
        If you want people not to have out of spec tractors that is a regulation and oversight issue, not an issue of locking down tech. Right to repair argues the tech should not be locked down, it doesn't argue you should be free to break the law. You are also free to remove the handrails on a set of stairs using a simple wrench, but if a building inspector shows up or someone falls because of it there will likely be consequences. The argument here is that the simple wrench isn't the problem nor is your potential ability to remove handrails. In fact removing them may be necessary in some situations. The argument here is, you should be able to decide when it is necessary, while also facing consequences if tou do so in a way that is potentially harmful to others and the environment. If you worry about the environmental impact of people turning a screw in a tractor you need heftier fines and more random unannounced controls. This is btw. how gun law works in countries where they make sense. Own a gun? No you don't unless you store it correctly and have documentation of ammunition spent etc.
        WarmWash 3mo ago
        >Own a gun? No you don't unless you store it correctly and have documentation of ammunition spent etc. So we will have right to repair but it's only legal if you document all repairs, keep records of parts ordered, only use verified vendors for those parts....etc etc. Right to repair laws shouldn't be onerous, and people should be able to (illegally) remove emissions controls, and we should recognize that as a bad thing that comes with the territory. Don't freak out, things have downsides, it's actually admirable to be able to handle nuance, own it.
  - lettergram 3mo ago
    As a tractor owner. Two things, the DPF & SCR (>=75hp) on a tractor is not a great idea -- 1) Tractors are typically owned by low margin businesses (i.e. farmers) that need to be repaired in the field AND need to be repaired quickly, else you loose a crop. Adding complexity to tractors literally can cost the farm. 2) The actual emissions reduced is questionable. Tractors run significantly less than a truck, like 50-100x less often. Further there are at least 2x more trucks sold per year 3) To run the SCR system, the engine had to run hot for like 20 minutes burning extra fuel and required DEF (yet more input costs) 3) The emissions they are trying to reduce with the these are likely not excessively harmful from a tractor; largely because most tractors who need an SCR system is >75hp, which also means they're typically used on a large farm (100+ acres). Which dissipates the risks substantially. For reference my 2022 Kubota tractor repeatedly had issues with the DPF / SCR system, mostly the software to enforce environmental rules. This lost us ~$20k one year due to the tractor being knocked out for a week (I was mid-cut for 140 acre hay, rained & rotted in the field post-cut). For reference, I was very much ready to bypass the SCR system, but decided against it to keep the warranty. It had nothing to do about "right to repair", I figured out exactly how to bypass it.
    - thijson 3mo ago
      I've watched youtube videos where the farmer is complaining that his million dollar combine has to do a regen cycle. Each hour that machine is running is costing the farm hundreds of dollars in depreciation.
    - 27183 3mo ago
      > For reference my 2022 Kubota tractor repeatedly had issues with the DPF / SCR system, mostly the software to enforce environmental rules. This lost us ~$20k one year due to the tractor being knocked out for a week (I was mid-cut for 140 acre hay, rained & rotted in the field post-cut). That's infuriating. This kind of thing is why I specifically sought out a late '90s-early '00s Kubota, which has been great. Granted, I'm not doing anything commercial with it, and it hasn't been completely without issues. I had to make some compromises up front, I was initially looking for an L3710 DT but settled on an L3010 HST because the price was right and it was local. Added rear remote hydraulics last year, welded up some rust in the floor pan and repainted the bodywork. This year I will have to tear it all down again and split it to fix a hydraulic leak coming from the clutch housing (suspect front driveshaft seal). Still need to fabricate some brackets to hang the backhoe subframe. Need to put new ends on the tie rods because they're rattling like crazy. So it's not maintenance free, but the tradeoff I made is that there isn't anything on this machine that I cannot repair. Everything can be rebuilt, parts are available. In retrospect, would an older, simpler machine be a good tradeoff in your situation? So far I probably have 50hr/yr invested in tractor maintenance, but that includes some big ticket items so maybe over time that'll average out to ~10hr/yr. I could see how this might factor in the tradeoff.
snypher 3mo ago
If we could get our operators to just run regen when they should, it wouldn't be an issue. They don't mind filling DEF and we don't mind paying for it.
- trollbridge 3mo ago
  The bigger problem is when the DPF system stops functioning properly. This happens quite frequently, and is (by design) not a user-serviceable system. Then you can't "run the regen when you should". All of this to reduce "particulate" which is not the actual polluting part of diesel emissions, even though it is the part you can see. The polluting part is what you can't see. The EPA changed its rules a year ago to allow measuring NOx emissions (which makes sense) instead of just measuring DEF consumption (which does not make much sense) before forcing an engine into "limp" mode, and in particular retrofitting a system to measure NOx and reflash the computer (including aftermarket solutions to do so) is no longer considered emissions tampering. This should have been done a long time ago.
- pc86 3mo ago
  Any argument that includes "they should just" isn't even worth typing or considering as a real policy. They won't just. Nobody will just.
hatsix 3mo ago
Right to repair doesn't change any of that. Farmers were adjusting that screw anyways, that was the entire point. I'm not mad at farmers for doing it, I'm mad at John Deere at cheating the system.
- mothballed 3mo ago
  It's not John Deere that was doing that, just some Korean companies exploring the opportunity and importing to the US. John Deere is located in the US and too afraid of the whimsical interpretations of regulators to try something like that, I think. There was no "screw" for the commercial John Deere tractors with emissions controls, that I know of, as that was locked down to prevent "repair."
  - javawizard 3mo ago
    Lot of armchair quarterbacking going on, on both sides. I'd love to hear an actual farmer weigh in on this. Anyone in the room care to volunteer?
    - mothballed 3mo ago
      tractorbynet is one of the better forums for info on opinions on tractors by people that use them regularly
    - bumby 3mo ago
      I did talk to a corn/soybean farmer on this recently and they weren’t nearly as concerned as I would have thought. They said they pay JD to maintain their equipment anyway. The equipment is apparently so expensive and sophisticated that people are wrenching on it much themselves (similar to the trend in road vehicles).
- Manuel_D 3mo ago
  The point is that when the firmware was locked down, it was vastly more difficult to bypass emissions restrictions. I'm not sure what you mean when you say John Deere was cheating the system. Arguably they were taking compliance more strictly before this ruling.
q3k 3mo ago
Doing that is already illegal and should be enforced using appropriate tools. We shouldn't be relying on unrelated technical measures to enforce laws.
notamario 3mo ago
So replacing a part requires DRM but defeating environmental protections is as easy as turning a screw? Surely I can’t be understanding that correctly given your overall position.
xgulfie 3mo ago
Right to repair doesn't mean they'll get the ability to install custom firmware for example, it just means they'll get the ability to flash it with the signed, official firmware. It doesn't mean they can DPF delete, it means they can install a new one if the old one cracks.
atoav 3mo ago
Yes? But if you want to solve that issue locking down the tech is not the solution. The solution is to have an inspector show up unannounced and give you a hefty fine if that screw is set incorrect. So if that is really an issue, apply the correct fix and don't push the blame on environmentalists.
- bumby 3mo ago
  I think I disagree. I think the administrative overhead makes for additional problems and is certainly imperfect at mitigating the risk. Risk mitigation (where the risk defined here is emissions outside some acceptable threshold) usually follow this hierarchy from most preferrable to least: - remove the hazard (make it impossible for emissions to exceed the limit, even by altering the operation) - install an engineering mitigation (filters, def, altered fuel mapping etc.) - administrative mitigation (training, inspections) - protective equipment (?? make everyone in society wear a mask?) In this framework, a technological solution is preferrable to an administrative one.
tancop 3mo ago
tractor emissions are nothing compared to all the normal cars and planes. the long term solution is scaling up synthetic fuels or solid state batteries but its just not a big deal today. i think everyone outside of the most hardcore greens will agree that consumer rights are more important than making emissions rules that are still in force harder to bypass.
yason 3mo ago
Emission controls are the best scapegoat for Deere and others to lock down systems as tight as possible for profit. They don't care about emissions, the farmers don't care about emissions, the emissions happen on a fscking large field out of nowhere instead of rush hour city traffic, and tractors usually run at high power which makes a cleaner combustion with less soot (but higher nox): all in all, the world doesn't become a better place because of farm equipment DPF/SCR filtering. But emissions are the perfect mandate for manufacturers to make it impossible for the owners to own the equipment.
- criddell 3mo ago
  Judging by what I've seen on Reddit lately, lots and lots of people have stopped caring about their personal impact on the environment. Why should we set the AC to 80 or be diligent about turning off lights when billionaires are flying in a private jet to go watch a football game and datacenters are popping up like Starbucks? How can anybody tell a farmer they should probably care more about emissions?
  - throwaway27448 3mo ago
    Expecting individuals to care about anything is likely not going to end well. Large issues should be tackled in collectivized, centralized manner if you actually want to make a dent.
  - bumby 3mo ago
    See: The Prisoners Dilemma. In some collective action problems, if everyone acts in their own individual self interest it results in worse outcomes for everyone. In those cases, it requires some central coordination.
  - esarbe 3mo ago
    I find this a very reasonable frame of mind. Systemic issues and failures cannot be fixed or addressed by individual action. They have to be addressed in a systemic way. It's good that people are catching up to this.
Cthulhu_ 3mo ago
Tractors (and farms) should be subject to regular emissions checks anyway, just like cars etc. Both to check for intentional tampering and wear & tear issues causing excess emissions. The party making the change is responsible for the violation. ...which has a neat overlap with e.g. chat control and online age verification.
fleroviumna 3mo ago
[dead]

triceratops 3mo ago

I don't understand, are 35hp tractors illegal under emissions rules? Then why even manufacture them and cripple them?

mothballed 3mo ago
Tractors are legal above 25hp but it requires DPF, and at I want to say about 75, possibly more than that. Farmers generally hate DPF systems and will disable them the microsecond they get the right to repair. >Then why even manufacture them and cripple them? They cripple them because they know people want bigger tractor without emission control so they sell it as a less powerful tractor and then just expect people to break the law and turn the screw, and everybody is happy. ========= re: below due to throttling ======== >Thankfully, it's not illegal to own a screwdriver and nothing changes there. There's absolutely no relevance between right to repair (not right to break emission laws!) and the situation you describe. There is because on the John Deere tractors you can't set the "screw" unless you have right to repair the engine system. John Deere has no screw because they're in the US and they're too afraid of US regulators.
- ori_b 3mo ago
  I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is this prevented today or not by the denial of the right to repair? It sounds like you are saying everyone is doing it today, so denying the right to repair doesn't affect the situation.
  - mothballed 3mo ago
    If you're a US company the vagueness of emissions law likely prevents a US company from hazarding doing it and instead locking down the repair of their power trains to ensure emission compliance. Korean companies get away with it because they don't give much a shit if they're banned from import, it can always be washed through another foreign company. John Deere can't try that sort of thing since being a household-name US company is their bread and butter for commanding a premium in the first place. ======= re: below due to throttling ======== >You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines. Everyone is doing it on the import tractors with the screws. They are not doing it with John Deere tractors, which are locked down for emission compliance. John Deere is handicapped by the fact they're located in the US and regulators have more leverage on them to prevent the sort of right-to-repair which would enable emission bypassing. >Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair? What is happening today is people with John Deere are not able to unlock their tractor for repair and turn the "screw" like they can with import tractors. The very first thing they will do once they can "repair" is delete emissions controls. That's a big part of what the farmers were pissed about and why they wanted right to repair, they couldn't "repair" their tractor to not use DPF, etc on their domestic tractors.
    - ori_b 3mo ago
      Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair? You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines. Is that wrong?
      - mothballed 3mo ago
        >Do what? What is not happening today that you think would happen if people were given the right to repair? What is happening today is that it's of greater difficulty to bypass emissions on repair-locked tractors like John Deere and very easy to do on tractors like mine (mostly imports). >You pretty clearly said everyone is currently bypassing this, otherwise companies would not be putting in larger engines. Is that wrong? "Everyone" is bypassing it on the repairable tractors. Once John Deere are repairable, they will do it on those too.
- spaqin 3mo ago
  Thankfully, it's not illegal to own a screwdriver and nothing changes there. There's absolutely no relevance between right to repair (not right to break emission laws!) and the situation you describe.
  - WarmWash 3mo ago
    Well, then there also must not be much relevance between lax guns laws and school shooters? I get what you are (trying) to say, but lets be real here. Right to repair people (myself included) just need to own that it will have some downsides.
    - atoav 3mo ago
      If you want people not to have out of spec tractors that is a regulation and oversight issue, not an issue of locking down tech. Right to repair argues the tech should not be locked down, it doesn't argue you should be free to break the law. You are also free to remove the handrails on a set of stairs using a simple wrench, but if a building inspector shows up or someone falls because of it there will likely be consequences. The argument here is that the simple wrench isn't the problem nor is your potential ability to remove handrails. In fact removing them may be necessary in some situations. The argument here is, you should be able to decide when it is necessary, while also facing consequences if tou do so in a way that is potentially harmful to others and the environment. If you worry about the environmental impact of people turning a screw in a tractor you need heftier fines and more random unannounced controls. This is btw. how gun law works in countries where they make sense. Own a gun? No you don't unless you store it correctly and have documentation of ammunition spent etc.
      - WarmWash 3mo ago
        >Own a gun? No you don't unless you store it correctly and have documentation of ammunition spent etc. So we will have right to repair but it's only legal if you document all repairs, keep records of parts ordered, only use verified vendors for those parts....etc etc. Right to repair laws shouldn't be onerous, and people should be able to (illegally) remove emissions controls, and we should recognize that as a bad thing that comes with the territory. Don't freak out, things have downsides, it's actually admirable to be able to handle nuance, own it.
- lettergram 3mo ago
  As a tractor owner. Two things, the DPF & SCR (>=75hp) on a tractor is not a great idea -- 1) Tractors are typically owned by low margin businesses (i.e. farmers) that need to be repaired in the field AND need to be repaired quickly, else you loose a crop. Adding complexity to tractors literally can cost the farm. 2) The actual emissions reduced is questionable. Tractors run significantly less than a truck, like 50-100x less often. Further there are at least 2x more trucks sold per year 3) To run the SCR system, the engine had to run hot for like 20 minutes burning extra fuel and required DEF (yet more input costs) 3) The emissions they are trying to reduce with the these are likely not excessively harmful from a tractor; largely because most tractors who need an SCR system is >75hp, which also means they're typically used on a large farm (100+ acres). Which dissipates the risks substantially. For reference my 2022 Kubota tractor repeatedly had issues with the DPF / SCR system, mostly the software to enforce environmental rules. This lost us ~$20k one year due to the tractor being knocked out for a week (I was mid-cut for 140 acre hay, rained & rotted in the field post-cut). For reference, I was very much ready to bypass the SCR system, but decided against it to keep the warranty. It had nothing to do about "right to repair", I figured out exactly how to bypass it.
  - thijson 3mo ago
    I've watched youtube videos where the farmer is complaining that his million dollar combine has to do a regen cycle. Each hour that machine is running is costing the farm hundreds of dollars in depreciation.
  - 27183 3mo ago
    > For reference my 2022 Kubota tractor repeatedly had issues with the DPF / SCR system, mostly the software to enforce environmental rules. This lost us ~$20k one year due to the tractor being knocked out for a week (I was mid-cut for 140 acre hay, rained & rotted in the field post-cut). That's infuriating. This kind of thing is why I specifically sought out a late '90s-early '00s Kubota, which has been great. Granted, I'm not doing anything commercial with it, and it hasn't been completely without issues. I had to make some compromises up front, I was initially looking for an L3710 DT but settled on an L3010 HST because the price was right and it was local. Added rear remote hydraulics last year, welded up some rust in the floor pan and repainted the bodywork. This year I will have to tear it all down again and split it to fix a hydraulic leak coming from the clutch housing (suspect front driveshaft seal). Still need to fabricate some brackets to hang the backhoe subframe. Need to put new ends on the tie rods because they're rattling like crazy. So it's not maintenance free, but the tradeoff I made is that there isn't anything on this machine that I cannot repair. Everything can be rebuilt, parts are available. In retrospect, would an older, simpler machine be a good tradeoff in your situation? So far I probably have 50hr/yr invested in tractor maintenance, but that includes some big ticket items so maybe over time that'll average out to ~10hr/yr. I could see how this might factor in the tradeoff.

snypher 3mo ago

If we could get our operators to just run regen when they should, it wouldn't be an issue. They don't mind filling DEF and we don't mind paying for it.

trollbridge 3mo ago
The bigger problem is when the DPF system stops functioning properly. This happens quite frequently, and is (by design) not a user-serviceable system. Then you can't "run the regen when you should". All of this to reduce "particulate" which is not the actual polluting part of diesel emissions, even though it is the part you can see. The polluting part is what you can't see. The EPA changed its rules a year ago to allow measuring NOx emissions (which makes sense) instead of just measuring DEF consumption (which does not make much sense) before forcing an engine into "limp" mode, and in particular retrofitting a system to measure NOx and reflash the computer (including aftermarket solutions to do so) is no longer considered emissions tampering. This should have been done a long time ago.
pc86 3mo ago
Any argument that includes "they should just" isn't even worth typing or considering as a real policy. They won't just. Nobody will just.

hatsix 3mo ago

Right to repair doesn't change any of that. Farmers were adjusting that screw anyways, that was the entire point. I'm not mad at farmers for doing it, I'm mad at John Deere at cheating the system.

mothballed 3mo ago
It's not John Deere that was doing that, just some Korean companies exploring the opportunity and importing to the US. John Deere is located in the US and too afraid of the whimsical interpretations of regulators to try something like that, I think. There was no "screw" for the commercial John Deere tractors with emissions controls, that I know of, as that was locked down to prevent "repair."
- javawizard 3mo ago
  Lot of armchair quarterbacking going on, on both sides. I'd love to hear an actual farmer weigh in on this. Anyone in the room care to volunteer?
  - mothballed 3mo ago
    tractorbynet is one of the better forums for info on opinions on tractors by people that use them regularly
  - bumby 3mo ago
    I did talk to a corn/soybean farmer on this recently and they weren’t nearly as concerned as I would have thought. They said they pay JD to maintain their equipment anyway. The equipment is apparently so expensive and sophisticated that people are wrenching on it much themselves (similar to the trend in road vehicles).
Manuel_D 3mo ago
The point is that when the firmware was locked down, it was vastly more difficult to bypass emissions restrictions. I'm not sure what you mean when you say John Deere was cheating the system. Arguably they were taking compliance more strictly before this ruling.

q3k 3mo ago

Doing that is already illegal and should be enforced using appropriate tools. We shouldn't be relying on unrelated technical measures to enforce laws.

notamario 3mo ago

So replacing a part requires DRM but defeating environmental protections is as easy as turning a screw? Surely I can’t be understanding that correctly given your overall position.

xgulfie 3mo ago

Right to repair doesn't mean they'll get the ability to install custom firmware for example, it just means they'll get the ability to flash it with the signed, official firmware. It doesn't mean they can DPF delete, it means they can install a new one if the old one cracks.

atoav 3mo ago

Yes? But if you want to solve that issue locking down the tech is not the solution. The solution is to have an inspector show up unannounced and give you a hefty fine if that screw is set incorrect. So if that is really an issue, apply the correct fix and don't push the blame on environmentalists.

bumby 3mo ago
I think I disagree. I think the administrative overhead makes for additional problems and is certainly imperfect at mitigating the risk. Risk mitigation (where the risk defined here is emissions outside some acceptable threshold) usually follow this hierarchy from most preferrable to least: - remove the hazard (make it impossible for emissions to exceed the limit, even by altering the operation) - install an engineering mitigation (filters, def, altered fuel mapping etc.) - administrative mitigation (training, inspections) - protective equipment (?? make everyone in society wear a mask?) In this framework, a technological solution is preferrable to an administrative one.

tancop 3mo ago

tractor emissions are nothing compared to all the normal cars and planes. the long term solution is scaling up synthetic fuels or solid state batteries but its just not a big deal today. i think everyone outside of the most hardcore greens will agree that consumer rights are more important than making emissions rules that are still in force harder to bypass.

yason 3mo ago

Emission controls are the best scapegoat for Deere and others to lock down systems as tight as possible for profit. They don't care about emissions, the farmers don't care about emissions, the emissions happen on a fscking large field out of nowhere instead of rush hour city traffic, and tractors usually run at high power which makes a cleaner combustion with less soot (but higher nox): all in all, the world doesn't become a better place because of farm equipment DPF/SCR filtering. But emissions are the perfect mandate for manufacturers to make it impossible for the owners to own the equipment.

criddell 3mo ago
Judging by what I've seen on Reddit lately, lots and lots of people have stopped caring about their personal impact on the environment. Why should we set the AC to 80 or be diligent about turning off lights when billionaires are flying in a private jet to go watch a football game and datacenters are popping up like Starbucks? How can anybody tell a farmer they should probably care more about emissions?
- throwaway27448 3mo ago
  Expecting individuals to care about anything is likely not going to end well. Large issues should be tackled in collectivized, centralized manner if you actually want to make a dent.
- bumby 3mo ago
  See: The Prisoners Dilemma. In some collective action problems, if everyone acts in their own individual self interest it results in worse outcomes for everyone. In those cases, it requires some central coordination.
- esarbe 3mo ago
  I find this a very reasonable frame of mind. Systemic issues and failures cannot be fixed or addressed by individual action. They have to be addressed in a systemic way. It's good that people are catching up to this.

Cthulhu_ 3mo ago

Tractors (and farms) should be subject to regular emissions checks anyway, just like cars etc. Both to check for intentional tampering and wear & tear issues causing excess emissions. The party making the change is responsible for the violation. ...which has a neat overlap with e.g. chat control and online age verification.

fleroviumna 3mo ago

[dead]