Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Winston Churchill famously defined an appeaser as someone who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. In the debate about global warming, business, especially large corporations, is the largest sector of appeasers and some, like Volkswagen, are now, rightfully, paying the price.
Churchill was talking about Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement with Adolf Hitler. In a classic example of the claim that fact is stranger than fiction, it was Adolf Hitler who sketched the design for the first Volkswagen (Figure1).
Volkswagen was caught programming their performance monitoring computers to give lower readings on exhaust emissions when subjected to government testing. The rest of the time the program was set to provide optimum fuel performance for the driver. They deserve every admonition, fines, and loss of sales, for a totally self-inflicted wound. It’s what happens when you try to serve two masters. A few heads will roll, but the German government has already essentially determined that Volkswagen is too big to fail and is using the public purse to bail the fail. In a further addition of insult to injury and with a clear demonstration that they don’t know what they are doing, Chancellor Angela Merkel is providing assistance with incentives to produce electric cars.
Sir Walter Scott (1771 – 1832) wrote,
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!
Volkswagen’s deception was a self-deception because with some of the best engineers and scientists, they chose to accept the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Clearly they did not look at the IPCC reports because if they had they would discover what Klaus-Eckart Puls discovered.
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.” ”Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”
If they looked at the IPCC Reports and didn’t reach the same conclusion, then they are grossly incompetent, or the corporation took a political decision with their tacit approval.
They, like all automotive producers chose to pursue CO2 reduction as a marketing tool rather than examine the science and make the proper decision. Figure 2 shows their, now laughable, attempt to exploit the marketing opportunity.
Volkswagen was not alone in the decision to capitulate to the green lobby and government deception about climate change. Almost all industry chose to cow and beg forgiveness for their sin of using fossil fuels. It was precisely what Maurice Strong and the other creators of Agenda 21 and the IPCC wanted. Chapter 30 of Agenda 21 titled Strengthening The Role of Business and Industry tells them their role and obligations.
Business and industry, including transnational corporations, play a crucial role in the social and economic development of a country. A stable policy regime enables and encourages business and industry to operate responsibly and efficiently and to implement longer-term policies.
Business and industry, including transnational corporations, and their representative organizations should be full participants in the implementation and evaluation of activities related to Agenda 21.
Maurice Strong knew business would capitulate to such moral suasion. He knew from his business activities how to exploit the seams between business and government. As Neil Hrab explained
Mainly using his prodigious skills as a networker over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups, Strong has honed his networking abilities to perfection.
The lack of involvement of the business community is a combination of Strong knowing they would capitulate and then not providing the opportunity for input. Look at the participation list for the 2009 Conference of the Parties 15 held in Copenhagen. Business is placed in the Observer Organizations group as a Non-Government Organization (NGO) as follows.
The NGOs represent a broad spectrum of interests, and embrace representatives from business and industry, environmental groups, farming and agriculture, indigenous populations, local governments and municipal authorities, research and academic institutes, labour unions, women and gender and youth groups.
This does not equate with the statement in Chapter 30 that business plays “a crucial role in the social and economic development of a country.”
Business and industry were marginalized and then chose to exploit that position, as Strong knew they would. They surrendered to the eco-bullying even promoting what they had to know, or could easily discover, was bad science. They abjectly backed away despite simple and plausible options – they became appeasers. Like all appeasers, they only created bigger problems for themselves and society.
The crocodile is now eating them. Consider the case of Exxon. They totally surrendered to the ridiculous charge that they spent $16 million on climate change research. A simple comparison with government spending on climate research offsets the charge of bias as Joanne Nova so ably exposed. Couple this with the legitimate argument that understanding climate and climate change is basic research and development essential for any energy company. No sensible investor would put money into a company that was not doing such research. Now compare Exxon’s behavior with that of the insurance industry. They spend millions, to great praise, funding documentaries and promoting and exploiting severe weather threats for the sole purpose of selling more products.
On the back cover of Chris Horner’s book The Politically Correct Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Richard Lindzen wrote,
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”
It is beyond ironic that a major contributor to this bemusement is the scientists, engineers, and corporations that promoted and benefitted from the industrial age. In their criminality, Volkswagen is guilty as an accessory before and after the fact.
In this age of control by extremist fringe groups, Heywood Broun’s (1888-1939) comment about appeaser’s is likely more appropriate than Churchill’s.
“Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian.”
Vegetarians are part of the NGO group at the COPs right alongside business. The tail always wagged the dog, now the flea on the hair on the tail, is wagging the dog. Onward to Paris!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
With some 40000 delegates and with vegetarians representing some 5% of western populations there would likely be some one or two thousand vegetarians there. Do you consider them some evil ‘fringe group?’ what a strange ending to your narrative.
Tonyb
In the context of carnivorous tigers, the term “vegetarian” is a metaphor for appeaser or dinner. It does not refer to a narrow connotation of humans that shun meat products.
In Mongolia, chicken is a vegetable.
And in the rest of the world, everything that is Meat but not Pork or Beef tastes like chicken
In our house, beer is a vegetable…….
Do you consider them some evil ‘fringe group?’ More then you can imagine.
“Do you consider them some evil ‘fringe group?’ More then you can imagine.” It’s a free world and people are free to do what they want. The problem is when 5% of the population want the same for the rest of the population?
“A rising mass movement attracts and holds a following not by its doctrine and promises but by the refuge it offers from the anxieties, barrenness and meaninglessness of an individual existence”
Hoffer, The True Believer
In plain ole english … it gives the frustrated something to belong to
Give also plants “rights” and this whole debate will quickly “die” out?
Those who merely chose for themselves aren’t a problem.
The problem arises when some within that movement seek to use govt power to force others to live the same lifestyle.
I dispute your 5% number.
Vegetarianism by country as listed by wikepedia, which is NOT always most reliable source of information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country
Hard to know who is and who is t a vegetarian.
Some think only vegans get this appellation.
Some so-called vegetarians eat milk, eggs, butter, and even fish, which last time I checked was the flesh of an animal.
Eating eggs and calling yourself a vegetarian is likewise pretty eyebrow raising…you only eat the unborn young of a species of animal?
Until someone can tell me with any credibility what part of the animal the sausage comes from I consider sausage eaters to be vegetarians.
I know some “vegetarians” who eat chicken!
Vegetarian can mean anything from no cow to no flesh.
Me nicholas says, “Eating eggs and calling yourself a vegetarian is likewise pretty eyebrow raising…you only eat the unborn young of a species of animal?”
Perhaps I can put your mind at ease about eggs. Hens lay eggs roughly two out of three days of the year. Unless there is a rooster, none of the eggs are fertilized. If you ate a fertilized egg you would know the difference right away. Vegetarians should eat eggs because of the superior proteins; also, amost all of the vitamins and minerals are found in them. It really is a superfood.
“gnome
November 22, 2015 at 3:34 pm”
I’ve made them before…you don’t want to know. Google the Simpsons episode about the meatloaf.
Obviously there are a number of reasons for being a vegetarian, or vegan; one is not wishing to kill animals.
Fish are obviously animals for this purpose, but eggs are not fertilized and are therefore not the unborn young. Milk does not involve the killing of animals, ditto butter, and there are many cheeses that are vegetarian, ie., do not use the by products of killed animals in their manufacture.
Menicholas, most eggs sold in supermarkets aren’t fertilized.
I’m a Level 5 Vegan. I don’t eat anything that casts a shadow (H/T Simpsons)
well then you either only eat at night with the lights off or you don’t eat because, in light, EVERYTHING casts a shadow
I spotted the vegetarian!
(Sorry, important internet meme, had to be done!)
Never seen a Spotted Vegetarian…Similar to a Spotted Hyena I would imagine
It has been said, to original Native Americans, the word “vegetarian” means: “bad hunter’. Maybe in this context, it means “bad scientist”.
Some truth in that, Tom. A good few years back I was working in the sub-Arctic and we were living in a rented house in an Inuit community. Somebody (can’t remember who) had hired an Inuit young woman to cook for us, to ease the confusion of having 6 people cooking for themselves (or each other, which was even worse). When I explained to the cook that I did not eat meat, she just stared at me, mouth open, unable to find words to voice her incomprehension at such bizarre behaviour. Right enough, there’s not much edible vegetation up there.
She probably thought you were suicidal!
Vegetables and Climate Scientists are in fact very similar in that, to adequately survive, both require Sunlight, water, and a big helping of BS
vegetarians are not the same as Vegetarians.
vegatarians eat vegetables. Vegetarians want everybody to eat vegetables.
If a vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?
Oh the Hugh Manatee
What do native peoples everywhere call white vegans and vegetarians?
Lousy hunters. so I guess they’re not too bright at science generally.
What a strange interpretation of his final comment. He made no such inference. Vegetarians that will be there, will be promoting the idea that if we were all vegetarian, so-called global warming would cease. They are therefore part of the mix that are creating huge amounts of CO2 in order to tell us to amend our lifestyles. If there were no CO2 bogy, if we cancelled all fossil fueled energy tomorrow, these conferences would not now stop, they are part of the global conference merry go round.
To me, the above comments look like a bad case of ‘Look a squirrel!’
Not evil, just ill-informed and gullible.
“Not evil, just ill-informed and gullible.”
And trying to force their insane ideas onto others.
Vegetarian t-bone steak, rump steak, chicken wings,/legs all made from veg. Its like buying an electric car and lifting the hood and finding a 900h gasoline hot rod delight, thank God its only 5%
The point………………………………………………………………………………………………….,,..,.,,,.,you
With some 40000 delegates and with vegetarians representing some 5% of western populations there would likely be some one or two thousand vegetarians there. Do you consider them some evil ‘fringe group?’ what a strange ending to your narrative. …
When they start talking about banning meat then yes they have become an oppressive fringe group. No group that has such a small following should even think about imposing their wishes on the majority.
“No group that has such a small following should even think about imposing their wishes on the majority.”
+1
And yet they do, by the way.
Sturgis Hooper…Cntrl PrtScn
Not so much as a decision to capitulate, but simply obeying EU law.
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars/index_en.htm
The whole issue of what “EU Law” means and how it came to overtake “UK Law” is touched on here.
Thanks Adam . . glad someone has their eye on the ball . .
It, this sordid industrial stitch-up by a massive German corporation holds a mirror up, to the ocean going and mendacious deceit that is the very embodiment of the
Brussels mafiaEU formative Soviet superstate.The EU and the green agenda, a very unhealthy symbiosis – where, peddling mythical doom laden scenarios and linked about a life giving harmless gas namely CO₂, is finessed, promulgated to nauseous lengths…and when you go down that path, anything goes, absolutely…….. anything.
Claiming that, diesel exhaust emissions; “are cleaner and better for the environment” in comparison to those of petrol vehicular emissions…….honestly? CO₂ – was made out to be that much of boogie man! Be not in any doubt: Politicians [Brussels apparatchiks] really are scumbags of the first order.
Oh NO!……………….. then when the tests are reading too many poisonous emissions – yes that’s right – they cheated their own tests – let me tell you – that’s just how the EU works.
Athelstan, the engines emitted nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollutants up to 40 times above what is allowed in the US. Not CO2. Catalytic converters never stopped CO2 to my knowledge. Although I think they have found CO2 irregularities since, probably from burning more fuel, more power, when not in safe mode.
An excellent piece. Thanks.
Volkswagen researched what people cared about.
Mileage and being Green both scored highly.
Put the two together and reducing CO2 emissions is the priority to boost sales.
That reducing CO2 emissions has little to do with saving the environment is irrelevant.
The Media has sold the public that fairy-tale.
It’s not in Volkswagen’s interest to try and correct the Media.
They just exploit it.
Not anymore.
100% agreed. This is by far the worst Dr. Ball essay I’ve read, it’s horrible. VW simply found a way to pass the absurd EPA emission tests and provided to the customer exactly what they wanted.
You want to take an issue with them using gimmicks to up sales?! Take issue with just about every business that has ever sold anything then why don’t you.
Besides, they advertised their low CO2 emissions and very high fuel economy, not that their vehicles produced very little NOx. The level of NOx emissions was necessarily faked on tests, which led to real world fuel economy and CO2 emissions being LOWER than test results. So you see, they accurately advertised their cars to the public and duped the EPA, good for them.
The real question here is, since most of the science out there shows that volatile organic compounds are the limiting factor for ground level ozone, why has the EPA chosen to restrict the emissions of NOx much more than VOCs? I’ll contemplate this illogical reasoning by the EPA while I drive home with my EPA-approved 15 mpg 5.6 L V8.
“That reducing CO2 emissions has little to do with saving the environment is irrelevant. The Media has sold the public that fairy-tale. It’s not in Volkswagen’s interest to try and correct the Media. They just exploit it.”
Bingo. This was no “self-deception” as the article’s author put it. This was a deliberate attempt to literally capitalize upon the public’s state of mind & situational awareness. Beyond a few scapegoats shoved out the door with silver parachutes, it doesn’t appear they’ll suffer much for it either… certainly not enough to prevent them from trying something like this in the future.
If you want to punish wrong-doing, then rather than using Steuern das Geld des Volkes to bail out Volkwagon, they ought to make the company provide 5 shares on the NYSE to each & every one of the German people and be done with it.
Why should Volkswagen give anything to the German people? They weren’t the ones being harmed by Volkswagen’s deception.
“Why should Volkswagen give anything to the German people? They weren’t the ones being harmed by Volkswagen’s deception.”
@ur momisugly Mark W: If the corporation broke the law, then it should be punished in a way that those who lead said corporation will most appreciate. What better way for a government to punish a corporation than by critically devaluing its stock while simultaneously
buying votesshowing the people how magnanimous they are by giving the “fine” directly back to the people theyrulerepresent?The original issue was not CO2 emissions, but NOx and diesel particulate emissions. VW did exactly what I have done in the past when putting my own personal vehicles through testing programs, use a testing map to get through with very clean results and then go back to the scenario which works best on the road. The two are not the same.
Unfortunately nobody seems to be asking whether such stringent emissions standards in the US are even appropriate, and whether their (IMO frankly ridiculous) EPA rules are costing everybody. Tuning for emissions standards compromises power and fuel economy, simple as that. VW’s mistake was indeed marketing, as it gives buyers an excuse to claim they have been ripped off in some way and seek compensation. In reality VW provided them with a better vehicle through their supposed “cheating”.
+1….or cost analysis said it’s cheaper to get caught than to try and make a car live up to those expectations
Indeed it was NOx. Still seems like a case of the conmen finding they’re the subject of a con. Some appreciate the irony. Who is conning who? Where does it end?
Remember flying into LA in 70’s, until the last minute there was little evidence of land visible through the photo-chemical smog generate with massive levels of NOx.
so as bad as these modern cars are said to be they are a stunning improvement over the past. Is this a bit of the old protectionism? When you look at the unbelievable actions of many US Car producers in the past. 4 wheel drives with incorrectly inflated tires, killed hundreds for a start.
VW have been very silly but casting stones at others can bring unwelcome scrutiny.
The problem of course is that there is real pollution, and real ecological impact.
The greens of course usually fail to spot the real causes for concern.
NOx is a far worse pollutant than CO2.
But it is somewhat the result of driving down CO and hydrocarbon emissions.
Spot on, except that particulate matter is not the issue, just NOx.
NOx IS a real pollutant, but it doesn’t become ground level ozone without volatile organic compounds, which gasoline engines happen to emit more of. The EPA emission standards are skewed towards making it harder for diesel engines to pass. Diesel cars at the heart of the issue make up about 35% of the EU consumer vehicle fleet and only comprise something like 3% of the U.S. fleet, yet trends in ground level ozone are the same for Europe and North America. There is no correlation to the ratio of light duty diesel:gasoline vehicles on the road and ground level ozone.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/historical-and-projected-trends-in/gmt10_fig1_ozone.png/image_original
When BMW first got serious in the U.S. I bought a BMW 2002 in 1968. It was a wonderful, sporty car and more fun to drive than any car I’ve had since. The only problem was that it had early stage pollution controls like an air pump. No catalytic converter. The lovely OHC BMW four cylinder ran rough and awful with the smog controls. I yanked everything off and turned the engine into sweet and smooth for almost 100K. Put all the junk parts back on when I sold it. Never felt a twinge of guilt.
The most fun I had driving a car was when I too young to know better. Honestly though, it wasn’t the car (that I still fondly remember) it was the age.
Pete.
[trimmed. And future nostril comments will be trimmed as well. .mod]
I love low CO2 cars, road tax in the UK is now based on grams emitted per km, and is essentially zero for the lowest emitting cars, much less than in the previous scheme. This is probably the only financial advantage of the current CO2 hysteria for consumers (plenty of advantages of course for the climate priesthood, and providers of “clean” energy).
Something is not right here.
While there were variations in Nox emissions across a range of manufacturers, Volkswagen was not a shining beacon a league in front of all the other manufacturers. So if VW was falsifying the test results, then surely the other manufacturers were too.
This report says that the lowest Nox emissions:
On average, the nitrogen oxides emission level in the new test cycle was more than double the Euro 6 limit value …. The highest emission levels in WLTC were found for a Volvo (14.6 times the limit), a Renault (8.8 times the limit) and a Hyundai (6.9 times the limit) vehicle. A BMW model had the lowest emission level (70 percent below the Euro 6 limit).
So if BMW had better figures than VW, then what were BMW doing? And if other manufacturers were fiddling figures, then why is VW not screaming ‘victimisation’?
R
Sorry, there is the link to the report:
http://www.theicct.org/news/press-release-vehicle-tests-show-dramatic-variation-nox-emissions-modern-diesel-cars-new-eu
Other car companies add horse piss to the exhaust to clean up the NOx
Very apt description.
So did VW add ‘horse piss’. Even my Citroen has this added to the exhaust.
So again, why all the attention on VW, and not on the other manufacturers with low emissions claims. They must have been doing something similar.
R
They did to some models, not the models in question.
It is quite simple: in the case of diesel motors there is an offset between fuel use / CO2 emissions and NOx emissions. Lower fuel use means a leaner mixture and/or a higher compression factor. That gives higher temperatures and more NOx in a diesel motor, which has mostly an overshoot of air, except at full load.
The only way out is the use of de-NOx catalysts (depleted uranium?) and ammonia (horse piss may be a source, but I hadn’t heard that one before)… But such a catalyst and/or particulate filters are an appreciable cost for small cars in a crowded market, so both the French and German car makers have got that out of the way for years for the smaller cars with less than 2 liter motors by lobbying the European Commission…
Yup – I drive a 2011 Dodge Dually when pulling equipment and I plan to keep it because other makers of that year and all newer models require “horse piss” as most folks around here call it. I can do the 80 mph speed limit on Utah Freeways (130 kph) hauling 13,000 pounds and I get passed by big diesel rigs doing 100. Unlikely I will need to trade up in my lifetime as these modern rigs last a long time. Mind you, I still have a 1975 Jeep Cherokee in running order in the driveway though it has a bit of cancer. ( The air pump and associated performance killing and fuel guzzling equipment was removed 30 years ago. If you calculated the saving in emissions by running a more efficient engine back then, the Pollution Control stuff didn’t make any sense. But I guess you have to start somewhere.) Love those old V8’s. 😉
Clearly, you reduce the compression, run it richer, reduce the wear and tear, and shade it back to more CO2 emission. CO2 is the natural dominant combustion byproduct of higher Carbon (and higher energy) diesel. The particulates are the real problem. Filters clog up way too fast. Like putting a potato in the exhaust pipe. Maybe a fluidized bed afterburner???
Thank you
That was a fine article concerning the appeasement of the con artist.
Oh what tangled web we weave.
While I clearly see the con of CAGW, I am also an advocate of reducing the cost of transportation.
I drive a diesel. Sentimentally, I love the rumble of the engine which probably comes from a lifetime of being around sea faring vessels and machinery. I am also always interested in keeping dough in my pocket and reducing my costs. I’ve tried a neighbor’s biodiesel and it works just swell in the warmer months. It’s cheap and a fine option.
I recently started reading about solar paint that acts just like a solar panel.
http://www.nanoflexpower.com/automotive
Would love a fact check on this if anyone out there is smart on the subject.
Bad on VW for either being incompetent or an appeaser.
Give me a vehicle (and/or a dwelling) that is a hybrid with fuel I can make on my own and even semi powered by the sun and I’d be pretty happy. And, I bet there would be quite the market for like minded knuckle draggers.
It’s only another green concept trying to sucker you for money !!!!
21 Nov: Toronto Sun: Lorrie Goldstein: Climate hypocrisy in Paris
The United Nations will tell us to consume less, while leaving behind a carbon footprint that could choke a horse
While Europe portrays itself — and will again in Paris — as the global leader in reducing GHG emissions, the only reason it can make that claim is through smoke and mirrors.
That’s because Europe crafted the 1997 Kyoto accord — which expired in 2012 — to recognize 1990 as the base year for reducing GHG emissions.
By using 1990, a year before the Soviet Union disintegrated and its industrial GHG emissions dramatically dropped because its economy collapsed, Europe was able to claim much of this emissions drop for itself, as major parts of the former Soviet empire were absorbed by European countries.
It was an accounting trick. Nothing more…
Then the more than 80 world leaders scheduled to attend — including Trudeau — will return home and pretend to implement whatever it is they agreed to, without actually lowering GHG emissions…
That’s why, if Trudeau was to implement Canada’s current GHG reduction plan that has been submitted to the UN, he’d have to shut down the equivalent of 58% of Canada’s oil and gas sector by 2020 and 100% by 2030.
Which is a good illustration of the ***fantasy world the UN lives in when it comes to climate change.
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/21/climate-hypocrisy-in-paris
***”fantasy” no more!?
22 Nov: Financial Post: Geoffrey Morgan: Anyone who pollutes will pay, Alberta says as it releases tough climate change policies
CALGARY – Alberta will be coal-power emissions-free by 2030 and will impose a $30 per tonne carbon tax on all emissions – including emissions from cars and furnaces – by 2018…
Previously, Alberta only charged large emitters, companies that produce more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon per year, a carbon levy. Now, anyone who pollutes will pay…
A document outlining policy recommendations to the government also shows proposed carbon levies rising every year to 2030, when the recommended price would be $100 per tonne…
The province estimates the changes will increase the average cost of gasoline, natural gas and electricity by $500 per household in 2018, rising to $900 in 2030…
Electricity prices are also expected to increase with the retirement of coal-fired electricity…
The policy is also calling for “transition funding for displaced workers and affected communities.”…
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/anyone-who-pollutes-will-pay-alberta-says-as-it-releases-tough-climate-change-policies
Canada should immediately stop coal and oil recovery and export. Trying to make a buck by selling these planet killers to the world makes them no better than the drug cartels.
/sarc or /snark?
Shut down the fossil fuel industry, layoff thousands, get the domino effect going across the country and then maybe people would wake-up.
Sarc off.
There its a better way, snark on.
In a couple of years Alberta will overthrow the accidentally elected NDP and their cadre of out of town looters.
Then they will solve Canada’s emissions problems, by joining Saskatchewan, Northern British Columbia and separating from the confederation.
Easy peasy Canada no longer has a greenhouse gas problem.
But they may have one hell of a problem finding fresh suckers to loot and having to pay full market value for oil and gas, should finish bankrupting eastern Canada.
Sorry John but we have to wait 4 years for the Alberta Socialist mandate to expire and 5 for Trudeaumania2 to dissipate. And then what will the other parties look like? Give it 30 years.
But Wayne, it is an emergency.
The only way Canada can meet the Goals set out by our Liberal Overlords, is if The Oil producing parts of canada are removed.
Notley will understand this, it is a national emergency for the good of the countries image.
As for that mandate, democracy is mob rule, a mandate to govern is only as durable as the patience of the misgoverned mob..
I’m going to start billing farmers for every ton of CO2 I emit.
Agw…… alleged global warming. It drives me nouts reading about gw as if it is a fact. It is not. It is a political bs
There’s an aspect alongside appeasement – big, established corporations suffer less, proportionally, from regulatory burdens than small or startup businesses.
Regulation has an anti-competitive component that is studiously ignored in policy because A) it makes it easier to get big corps (see oil and insurance for specific examples) to accept or even support regulations (so bureaucrats like it), and B) corps can reduce competition (so they like it – though only up to a point).
Lies and ignorance, as usual, distort markets *and* regulation.
The historical record is littered with this behaviour as a standard for large multi-national organizations.
E.g. IBM supported Hitler in WW2 with card punches/readers and know-how to run the German war machine and process Jews and others genocides (IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation-Expanded Edition http://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation-Expanded/dp/0914153277).
I don’t see how they could do business on a global scale without appeasement.
An interesting dilemma.
And so too did Ford. All profits from sales of Fords in Germany went to Hitler.
It’s a dilemma.
If I invest in your company and you promise a greater rate of return than an alternative would I be happy if you failed because you chose to not play along with an intellectually corrupt principle (ie CAGW).
If I held onto my coal investments I’d be broke. If I invested in any of the solar shams I’d be riding in high cotton.
20% of the first tier nation populace are chasing ROR. Does what they chose drive the lie or are they just …. appeasing.
It is a dilemma.
And yet another great post Dr. Ball. Thanks for your efforts.
It is a crying shame that grown men and women still believe that CO2 can warm the planet in spite of all evidence pointing the other way. Someday, this delusion will be taught in schools along with the tulip bubble.
Diabetes, Obesity, High Blood Pressure, Heart Condition. This is what Gov., wants Pharmaceutical Co.,making Big Bucks Plus Health Care Cost that becomes a political issue. Go to the 26 Min of the attached Video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRe9z32NZHY
Thanks Dr. Ball. Great post.
+ 10
VW demonstrated that emission test methodologies used by the Government were deeply flawed in the first place.
And blame for that falls on the Government, not VW.
I tend to agree that it is Governments who are most at fault in this, and it is because Governments are signed up to the Climate Change sc*m, not because the likes of VW are signed up to it, but obviously big industry has to do what big Government tells it to do.
I would expect a car manufacturer to make a car as good as possible that complies with the government test. If there are weaknesses in that test then I would expect the car manufacturer to exploit those weaknesses so that it makes the best car for the public which slips through the testing regime.
It is up to the Government to formulate the required tests, and to make sure that there are no loop holes. If I had been VW, I would have gone on the offensive and claimed that the cars fully complied with the relevant test, and that is all that matters. If governments wish to rewrite the tests then they can do so.
In the UK, the Government was well aware that diesel cars produce harmful particulates and decided that it preferred to reduce CO2 at the expense of increasing particulate material/emissions in cities. The department of transport was aware of the competing issues, and chose CO2 reduction so as to safe guard the health and wellbeing of our children’s children, rather than to safeguard the health of the citizen of today. Crazy when particulate emission was known to be harmful, whereas CO2 emission was only thought to be harmful. Shows how little common sense Government departments have.
“I would expect a car manufacturer to make a car as good as possible that complies with the government test.”
Do you seriously think the German government would shut down VW if they just said ‘no, we’ll keep building the cars our customers want’?
&% of the Germans work for VW
Just like the ban on Freon 12 and chemical companies, there are a lot of engine companies making big profits on engine emission regulations. Everyone else pays.
I looked over the EPA’s regulations for testing cars(which is done and certified by the automakers under the aegis of the EPA). They have very specific regulations for doing the testing which is done on a dynamometer/test setup using two very specific sets of test parameters for warmup, acceleration, steady cruise, etc.
The mfg. reports the test and certifies that they were done properly.
I found no mention of doing any additional on-the-road testing. The EPA was supposed to be doing on-the-road testing and spot checks but apparently never did.
So I have a fair amount of sympathy for VW. They did as they were directed to do by regulation. They installed an adaptive computer system that met the directed tests and optimized performance for the customer. I think this mostly shows the incompetence of the EPA and the legislators that wrote the law.
By coincidence, my daughter bought a Golf with the 2L turbodiesel shortly before this hit the fan and loves it.
“They installed an adaptive computer system that met the directed tests and optimized performance for the customer.” ~Phil Cartier
I think Phil is right in his counterpoint. While Dr. Ball makes a case that the offending company should be punished with fees and its bones thrown out to the condors, it is interesting that despite increasing cafe standards in the industry, VW did not destroy value for the customer. A car is a major purchase for most homes and the buyers and drivers of the car should be first on the minds of the sellers. Under the new system, the demands of molecule-counting bureaucrats and environmentalists will be the only customer.
In fact, I am afraid to look at what kind of example was made of VW. But if not, it is significant that this is a German maker.
The story is far from over and it’s worth remembering that VW went heavy into contrition mode when the scandal finally surfaced; it had been brewing for many months before it hit the news.
I don’t expect they’ll be trying to argue that it was all fair play after all their apologies.
VW lied to the EPA but they also lied to their customers by misrepresenting the vehicles’ performance stats. It might be that re-sale value of those cars is not yet drastically affected but that’s probably because the regulators’ response to the situation is still not clear; if it turns out that you can’t license your car until it passes the new and improved emissions test, then the car is not as valuable.
From what I’ve seen, the Passat and the Jetta have, respectively, a lean NOx trap and Urea injection equipment installed, but programmed to be by-passed when the steering wheel is inactive and when the non-driving wheels are not turning (amongst other things).
As I recall, unofficial mobile testing of those cars in non-cheat mode reduced the acceleration by a modest amount and around 5 mpg. I’m surprised VW thought it was worth the risk for that kind of an edge.
As for BMW, the car that West Virginia University tested at the same time as the Passat and Jetta passed the test that the others failed.
VW continues to incrementally reveal additional vehicles that cheat.
Mebbe, I appreciate the perspective you offered. Let me have the honor of being the first to disagree entirely with what you have said.
When standards are set by the EPA or some consortium of states, the standards may be destructive, or useless, or couterproductive. This is axiomatic. These standards are often made in harmony with international agreements and foreign interests, and not with the knowledge or consent of the buyers and voters. The EPA standards for light trucks, for example, were outrageous and practically impossible to reach, without changing the whole function, performance, and design of the light trucks.
After excorciating VW for lies lies misrepresentation and cheating, you get to the heart of the entire matter better than anyone else on the thread (which is why I always read your posts). You say, “…if it turns out that you can’t license your car until it passes the new and improved emissions test, then the car is not as valuable.”
Now we see the naked arm of brute force. And since we are dealling with such precise molecular readings for emmissions molecules, and also with such imprecise measurements as mpg, we know that these laws are the kind that are selectively applied. Very selectively applied. I will end by saying this is exactly like the creation of impossibly complex and cumbersome tax law, and then using public disdain for “lies and cheating” to go after citizens on tax violations. (–A trick all the more devilish when the government first runs up trillions of dollars in debt.)
I think Phil has touched on a question here that has bothered me about this kerfuffle. EXACTLY HOW ARE THE EMISSIONS REGULATIONS WRITTEN? If all they say is that manufacturers have to test the new designs in a certain way, and have to verify that their cars will pass the same tests after some mileage – they are saying NOTHING about how the car has to behave BETWEEN the tests. I’ll bet VW simply read the regulations and realized that they DID NOT PROHIBIT doing what VW then did. SO VW has done nothing wrong! The fault is with the government bureaucrats who make unwarranted assumptions about the way these controls can be implemented, and don’t realize that they’ve left a giant loophole. Fine the bureaucrats at EPA.
The regulation says that except during start-up and in case of emergency, the motor must behave the normal way, and no “defeat device” can be used to make the motor not normal during tests.
Your point is well taken, but it can be seen as a “spirit of the law” vs “letter of the law” thing. If in fact the law did not state that the vehicle had to run the same in between tests, then VW did not violate the letter of the law, but still violated the spirit of the law. And we should remember that we are talking about real pollutants that do impact air quality. Whether or not the requirements are considered too stringent by some, other car companies apparently designed their cars to meet the requirements all the time (not just when being tested). That is probably why the VW was so popular — it was the only car of that type that did not suffer the performance penalty due to the pollution control system.
simple-touriste– I think your post simply confirms that the regulations were poorly written. The EPA specified the tests and did not do the proper followup from the beginning. The motor control unit(mcu) has to measure and control the engine inputs and how it operates. The EPA tests are not “normal” operation. That’s a basic engineering mistake- specifying tests that don’t measure the results you actually want. They could simply have said : once the motor has reached operating temperature the exhaust gases must meet the following limits- NOx, CO, etc.
As bad as the EPA test cycle is, the European driving cycle is even worse. But back then when they implemented the regulations they had no mobile testing equipment that could test the car under actual driving conditions. Hence the defeat device. Now they can test while driving and that’s how they caught VW cheating.
They are now updating the regulatory regime. Coordinating this is also part of the drawn out negotiations for a Trans-Atlantic Trade Agreement. If we can agree on the same rules in a number of trade relevant areas it could make a lot of red tape go away for industry in general. Germany supports this but is fighting an uphill battle mainly against France. But the French are not the only ones, and there are split opinions in every country depending on the affected interest groups.
I have seen this before. 10 cfr50 appendix b or “you lied and I swore to it” created a priesthood of QA inspectors many of whom were unqualified to inspect…..and besides you can’t “inspect” quality into something. The upshot was that production recognized the reality was not quality but satisfying the stupidity of the quality construct. (Causing a failure in actual quality control.) In this case it appears the EPA created a stupid test VW engineers simply decided that you can’t fix stupid and addressed the requirement. It is not VW’s responsibility to admonish the priesthood but to submit. Now EPA confronted with the damning evidence of stupidity points the flashlight at VW for having complied explicitly with the stupidity. Personally I am enjoying this tempest.
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”
Nope at the rate we are going, future generations. like normal people in North Korea, will worship the largess of the UN, live in abject poverty and under iron despotic control and believe they are the wealthiest people in history.
Meanwhile their rulers will live like emperors.
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Big business and big government are symbiotic organisms. Big business collects the taxes that allow big government to pass crazy regulations that big business enforces.
A networked world has no need for big government, which only grew to its present size because it provided economies of scale in an industrial era. And a world where you can manufacture most things you need in your own town has little need for big businesses like Volkswagen. Why own a car that can drive hundreds of miles, if you can just rent a VR drone wherever you want to go? Why pay to ship a car to you from Mexico or Germany if you can build an electric car to your own design in your own garage with a 3D printer? Why send a third of your income to a government thousands of miles away, if you have pretty much everything you need within a hundred miles?
VW is among the walking dead, and just doesn’t realize yet. Telepresense and local manufacturing technologies are going to implode the industrial economy over the next few decades, particularly mass-produced transport. Neither big business nor big government will survive it.
The funny part is that those technologies will probably make CO2 usage decline much faster than anything the CAGW nutters can push through Western governments…
Freedom is scary and many give it up rather than face failure.
“In a classic example of the claim that fact is stranger than fiction, it was Adolf Hitler who sketched the design for the first Volkswagen (Figure1).”
Volks wagen means car for the folks. This is as opposed to the cars for the government.
http://www.motorward.com/wp-content/images/2014/02/Mercedes-Benz-W07.jpg
They had massive hoods.
So we are back to pre-WWII Germany and the activists are continually pushing for idiotic little “cars for the folks.”
I know a woman who thinks there are two ages in earth history. There is the stone age, before pick up trucks, and there is the modern age, after pick up trucks. And I agree with her.
All of you men who want to put her and all other women back in the stone age, and reduce her to the poverty of the women in the ME, please explain why.
http://assets.cobaltnitra.com/teams/repository/export/v/1/374/eb3005d4b100582cf00146efa6b30/374eb3005d4b100582cf00146efa6b30.jpg
I can assure you, she needs it to haul things.
But the Merc does look beautiful. Can anyone identify the model?
She says she does not know but she can fit 2 of them in the back of her pick up.
Nope, but I think it would have been dandy if I was conceived in the back of one of those Mercs.
It’s probably a version of the “Grand Mercedes”, the Type 770, also known as the W07
https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mercedes-benz/classic/the-pullman-saloon-a-cultural-history-of-elegance/
Don’t know about you, but it seems most of my day is spent circumventing things.
Then just when you thought you were done….more things !!
It keeps it interesting.
I have a Nissan Qashqai which has a feature whereby when the car stops, eg at lights, the engine will cut out and start again when another action is performed eg foot off brake, turn wheel etc. An indicator shows how much CO2 emission this feature has prevented. So far, after two years my car has prevented 2.0kg of CO2. This is about 1/20,000,000,000,000 of the annual world CO2 emissions due to human activity. Although not much of a selling point it gives me a lovely warm feeling (sorry about the pun) that I am doing my bit to save the planet.
Now my Subaru has an mpg display in the middle of the dash, I’ve noticed a big difference in fuel economy on my daily commute based on how many stop lights I hit on the way there. A stop/start system would probably save me a few gallons a year… though it would still be insignificant compared to the 30-40% increase in fuel consumption during the winter, where the engine doesn’t even warm up by the time I get home some days.
If you have a Subaru and it is “automagic” (Automatic AWD assuming MY 2003 models) then you can permanently turn your “4×4” in to a “2×4” simply by inserting a certain fuse in a certain slot marked “FWD” (FRONT wheel drive) in the fuse box in the engine bay. And to this day I still ask why! Why build a car that is “4×4”, carry the mass of a second axle/final drive…and NOT use it ALL THE TIME??? Subarus do understeer heavily, but one that is automatic and “AWD” is terrible in my experience. I have owned Subarus since 1996…the Legacy RS Turbo mainly (MANUAL). I think the one I have now, 2003 Imprezza, will be the last. Toyota took over Subaru in about 2000. Not been impressed since.
I believe they make that an option in case of a fault in the multi-plate clutch to the rear wheels, or if you have mismatched tires that would cause excessive wear in the clutch. That way, you can still drive the car to somewhere that can fix it.
As I understand it, they changed the AWD on the automatic cars a few years ago; seems it used to start out 90% FWD and push more power to the rear wheels if they needed it, whereas now it starts out 4WD and drops back to 90% FWD on the highway.
A Langley B.C. golf course is being appropriated as part of Agenda 21 right now :
“Sun, Nov 1: A rally will be held at Surrey City Hall tomorrow, to protest the city’s appropriation of the family-owned Riverside Golf Centre. It’s been expropriated as part of the city’s plan to create more green space. But as Jill Bennett reports, the owner says he needs better compensation.”
http://globalnews.ca/video/2312448/golf-course-appropriation-being-fought-in-surrey/
If you work the numbers on IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 you will discover that anthro C is partitioned 57/43 between natural sequestration and atmospheric retention. (555 – 240 = 315 PgC & 240/555) IMO this arbitrary partition was “assumed” in order to “prove” (i.e. make the numbers work) that anthro C was solely/90% responsible for the 112 ppmv atmos CO2 increase between 1750 – 2011. C is not CO2.
PgC * 3.67 = PgCO2 * 0.1291 = ppmv atmospheric CO2
IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1
…………………………………….PgC/y……ppmv/y
FF & Land Use Source…….8.9……….4.22
Ocean & Land Sink…………4.9……… 2.32
Net Source.……………….…..4.0……….1.90
If the anthro 8.9 Pg C/y (4.2 ppmv CO2/y) suddenly vanishes the natural cycle that remains would be a constant sink of 2.3 ppmv CO2/y. Reverse extrapolation (GCMs & RCPs apply forward extrapolation) calculates that 121 years in the past (278 ppmv CO2/2.3 ppmv CO2) or the year 1629 (1750-121) atmos CO2 would have been 0, zero, nadda, zip, nowhere to be found.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave!
The 8.9 Pg of anthro C simply vanishes in earth’s 45,000 plus Pg C cauldron of stores and fluxes. Mankind’s egoistic, egocentric, conceit means less than nothing to the earth, the solar system and the universe.
So add this little tidbit!
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=9FD8D819FFAAA666!25056&authkey=!ABo6gJe0qRt6kZo&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg