ABG: German cities can ban older diesel cars immediately Hamburg will start enforcing new rules by the end of the month

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
LeftieBiker said:
Rather than raise my blood pressure and wear out my fingers, I'll just point you in the right direction.

Ah yes. Even after I've pointed out quite clearly that studies can be produced to support anything, your response is to point to studies you found on Google. How very productive.

My main point is that people here are eager to recklessly punish those who aren't part of the EV faith. Sadly, you think I'm trying to rationalize and defend the automotive industry. I'm merely pointing out the very serious flaws in punishing the wrong target. Target the car makers, not the innocent consumers. I guess I used too much sarcasm in my posts and some have difficulty understanding that form of communication. If you would think it through rationally, you would appreciate that punishing innocent people isn't the solution.

If you still think punishing innocent people is appropriate, then please replace your EV with a FCV as you have contributed to child slavery and also need to be punished. (Sadly, owning a FCV is likely very severe punishment.) Until then, you are just doing the double-standard two step.

In case you have missed it despite being stated multiple times, I do oppose diesel cars and think they should be removed. Just don't do it in a knee-jerk, irrational manner driven by bad-study induced hysteria and cause a political disaster that will set environmentally friendly policies back. Villifying innocent people and punishing them is never a good idea. And when they are a really large group, it gets to be a really bad idea pretty fast. If we do it to diesel owners on the environment issue, they can very easily do it back to us on the social justice issue. (Edit: And sadly, they probably outnumber us at the voting booth.)
 
LeftieBiker said:
Why is the fact that shoddy studies can be produced being used by you to assume that studies by reputable groups are therefore shoddy? Are you really going to just deny solid epidemiological research? If so, I've just lost much respect for you...

I'm guessing you must not be reading the full posts. Sorry that some of them are a bit long and wordy.

So again, I will state: "Now, there are no doubt very sound studies that conclude car exhaust is a contributing factor in x% of deaths in areas with high air pollution. But to grab those and then make claims that diesel car owners are killing people is rather absurd."

I'm not saying that diesel cars shouldn't be removed. I'm saying don't use 'studies' to make bogus claims about diesel owners being killers. Always treat the consumer with respect. Doing otherwise will alienate them and damage the cause. Focus on the real target - the car companies that pulled this fast one on Europe.
 
I realize the car companies are very powerful and hard to really punish for this. But that political reality should not result in scape-goating the consumers who got duped by them. That is just re-victimizing the victim. Doing that will not win friends in the next election.
 
You keep saying that we are claiming that diesel owners are killers. I have been claiming that diesel engines are killers, and that the companies manufacturing and selling them under false pretenses are killers. Either you are reading into what we write things that aren't there, or you are just engaging in another form of denial. Maybe someone in this thread wrote something that you can construe as meaning what you claim, but that isn't what this is about. It's about not dealing with a large-scale crime against human (and non-human) health with delays and obfuscations that allow the crime to continue to result in tens of thousands of preventable human deaths.
 
SageBrush said:
And honestly ? Diesel buyers are not exactly victims in this mess. They bought the cars to save a few pennies on petrol and enjoy the diesel torque and were happy to swallow the manufacturer swill about "clean diesel" -- if they cared about pollution at all. I'm not going to lose any sleep over any forced contribution to clean up the mess,

Perhaps you are right that I'm over-reacting to this aspect.

But the news story in the first post is a move that will distinctly impact the consumer, not the automaker. This is the wrong target. I tried to point that out and got jumped on and everyone is claiming that yes, we must punish the consumer now because the matter is so hysterically urgent. We can't wait for more appropriate fixes that don't punish innocent people. I think the rushed fix on the backs of the consumer would be a very bad mistake.

Part of the confusion is likely due to the fact that 2 different users started posting in opposition to my posts in which the concept is to not punish the consumer.
 
In summary, I think we are mostly on the same page on a number of aspects.
1. The environment needs our help.
2. Diesels aren't helping but are hurting.
3. Therefore, diesels need to be replaced.
4. We'd all love for the burden to be born by the automakers that pulled this fast one.

Our main deviation is that I don't think doing a well-intentioned, but misdirected 'something' that hits innocent consumers is the correct solution. The counter posts to my posts seem to suggest that the situation is so urgent that it justifies the means. On this point, we may have to agree to disagree.

Most of the rest is the result of my statements to that end being picked apart and then defending those statements. Granted I did engage in counter-picking apart. :oops:
 
I'm guessing that you don't suffer from any ailment that is made worse by high NOx levels, and don't have any loved ones in that position, either. There is nothing "hysterical" about wanting to stop an ongoing crime that is killing large numbers of people and that can be stopped with relative ease, without costing any more lives. Your concern is for people who will lose money on their automobiles. Mine is for those who will lose their lives if the diesel manufacturers are allowed to keep stalling and lying. You claim that financial assistance for old diesel owners is unlikely in the somewhat socialist EU. I find that ironic, considering the fact that socialism-hating America successfully implemented the Cash for Clunkers program.
 
DarthPuppy said:
SageBrush said:
All you have demonstrated is a profound ignorance of epidemiology and the role of autopsies.

That is what you got from this exercise? So you fail to comprehend that someone can produce a shody study to advocate whatever stance they want to? Even after I've pointed out quite clearly how it can be done? Wow.
Shoddy arguments are a dime a mega-dozen. Yours are a good example; the garbage coming out of the White House these days are another.

Try to not confuse them with high quality, peer reviewed literature published in tier 1 scientific journals. And before you blithely discount ¨so called scientists," I suggest you get published in a reputable, peer reviewed journal first. It will probably take you 10 years of difficult University studies and another 5 - 10 years of pain-staking research but your opinions will likely be more considered and worth reading.
 
Wow, it's pretty clear we disagree on only one real point and still so much bashing on the fluff. My points have been pretty clearly made and yet so much failure to understand and need to attack. I'm guessing you are only reading parts of my posts without understanding what I'm saying and then jumping to respond. So let's make this real simple.

1. Punishing innocent people = bad.
2. Urgent situations (do not =) justification to do bad.
3. Urgent situations = need to do good solutions.
4. Bad actions (see #1) (do not =) good solutions.

There. Now can you see you are in an ethical dilemma?

All I'm saying is the solution put forward is not the right one. Punish the automakers, not some group of consumers who just happen to be a little different than you. Can't you comprehend and respect that?

Are you folks really so angry at innocent diesel owners you will gladly throw them under the bus as an easy solution rather than fight for a real solution?

I'm guessing it boils down to you folks believing that I'm wrong on #2. Do you believe the ends or the good intentions justify the means?

Or is it #4? Do you think bad actions are likely to produce good outcomes?


P.S. - Anybody know how to get the symbol for 'not equal' onto a post?
 
1. Punishing innocent people = bad.
2. Urgent situations (do not =) justification to do bad.
3. Urgent situations = need to do good solutions.
4. Bad actions (see #1) (do not =) good solutions.

If you choose to define causing moderate financial harm to diesel owners in order to save the lives of tens of thousands of people with asthma, heart disease, etc as "bad" then of course the rest makes sense. This first principle does not make sense to me, however, or to many others. You seem to have a libertarian mindset: any action that restricts the freedoms or finances of others is "bad," while many actions that cause death are not, because they are done in the service of personal freedom and wealth. This is not my idea of a useful or ethical worldview.
 
LeftieBiker said:
If you choose to define causing moderate financial harm to diesel owners in order to save the lives of tens of thousands of people with asthma, heart disease, etc as "bad" then of course the rest makes sense.

Causing harm to diesel owners isn't the only solution!

I can appreciate the desire to stop the harmful health effects. If that is truly happening, then the governments should have no problem funding the replacements of the cars. If the problem is as bad as you say, the savings in their socialized health plans will offset the cost pretty quick. I don't believe a sub group of the population should be singled out to bear the burden.

We would all prefer the automakers who created the problem to bear the burden. Absent that political will, taxpayers. Perhaps if that isn't feasible then a gofundme can set up a non-profit that will replace the cars. Certainly if the problem is as bad and urgent, this will get well funded pretty quick. If you are so set on these being that bad, then go buy the diesels and destroy them yourself. But re-victimizing victims isn't the right solution.

Gee, world hunger is a real problem. Hey I know. Let's have the EV owners pay enough money to solve that problem. We can't wait for a fair solution, people are dying right now. And EV owners obviously have spare cash living their first world lifestyle. After all, causing moderate financial harm to EV owners in order to save people from dying of starvation makes sense. Now can you understand the concept?

There are other solutions that should be pursued. And yes, those can be fast tracked too. Singling out a sub group to punish because it is easier to do is not morally or ethically right.
 
LeftieBiker said:
You seem to have a libertarian mindset: any action that restricts the freedoms or finances of others is "bad," while many actions that cause death are not, because they are done in the service of personal freedom and wealth. This is not my idea of a useful or ethical worldview.
Again, you don't seem to read what I'm saying. I've never said that many actions that cause death are not bad. I concur there is a pollution problem that needs to be fixed.

The problem is you can't seem to understand that there can be more than one solution to a problem. And of those options, some are less ethical than others.
 
I was thinking about asbestos. For quite a while legal, and the choice of building owners who wanted cheap.
When the health effects became common knowledge, laws were passed to protect the public that required abatement.

In DP's world, the landlords are the victims and the tenants should pay.
At least in this country, the landlords typically footed the bill. Not because they were criminals, but because it was their property.
 
SageBrush said:
I was thinking about asbestos. For quite a while legal, and the choice of building owners who wanted cheap.
When the health effects became common knowledge, laws were passed to protect the public that required abatement.

Wow, another rewrite of history. The landlords are evil because they wanted cheap? Newsflash - that stuff was/is frickin' everywhere, including million dollar single family homes. That was how buildings were built during a certain period of time. Way to go at retroactively imputing knowledge. I guess there isn't much history extremists are willing to rewrite to justify targeting those they hate.
 
DarthPuppy said:
SageBrush said:
DarthPuppy said:
And honestly ? Diesel buyers are not exactly victims in this mess. They bought the cars to save a few pennies on petrol and enjoy the diesel torque and were happy to swallow the manufacturer swill about "clean diesel" -- if they cared about pollution at all. I'm not going to lose any sleep over any forced contribution to clean up the mess.

And by the same logic you and all EV drivers belong in prison for child slavery. Careful about assuming guilt of large groups of innocent consumers because you think they should have known something at the time.

"Happy to swallow?" Really? The information at the time, backed up by the EPA stickers and the government watchdogs allowing these cars to be sold, was supportive of these being 'clean diesel'. And it is very plausible argument to fall for. Diesels are well known to get more mpg. Fewer gallons burned should translate to less exhaust. Nice attempt to rewrite history and the motives of lots of people though. Keep drinking that cool-aid.
As a cyclist who had to breathe the stuff, I never bought into the “clean diesel” bullshit.
 
SageBrush said:
In DP's world, the landlords are the victims and the tenants should pay.
At least in this country, the landlords typically footed the bill. Not because they were criminals, but because it was their property.
Um no. Everyone in this situation is the victim. BTW - The companies selling that stuff are still paying on that, but probably not as much as they should be. Again you haven't understood hardly a thing I've posted.

At this point, it is clear either two scenarios are at play here.
1. Either I've disturbed a nest of environmental extremists who are blinded by their hate of diesel owners they can't recognize their favored solution might not be the best option. But hey, it's an opportunity to kick a group they hate, so in their mind, it is a good one. If this is the case, clearly no amount of logic will likely be productive here. Sorry for disturbing you in your echo chamber.
2. I'm being trolled. If so, well played.

Either way, I will now leave you two alone on this topic.
 
Nubo said:
As a cyclist who had to breathe the stuff, I never bought into the “clean diesel” bullshit.

Congrats on being ahead of the curve in realizing diesels weren't as clean as we were told.
 
I didn't think about it much, but when told here that all of that converter burnoff and urea injection stuff was obsolete, I didn't really believe it either. That kind of revolution in technology gets explained by scientists, not car manufacturer ads. I figured it was like the old Ford scandal, where the cars were equipped with pollution controls that worked ok for just as long as the warranty lasted, and then failed without the car dying.

Seriously, if you don't have Netflix folks, ask to watch "Hard NOx" at the house of someone who does. The journalist who made the documentary was one of the people burned by VW: he and his wife loved their VW diesel wagon, and thought they were helping the environment by driving a "clean diesel." Finding out that it was a rolling death machine was a real shock to them. And finding out what VW did to get the #1 car sales title was horrifying.

Darth, as you slowly fall back to a more defensible position, keep in mind that I've been suggesting manufacturer buybacks and payments. Banning diesels from urban areas isn't the same as confiscating the cars and laughing at the owners while denying them any compensation. That idea is largely of your own imagining.
 
Back
Top