Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday December 08 2018, @04:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the What-harm-could-a-lie-do dept.

After VW was outed for falsifying environmental data in its cars hundreds of thousand of VW vehicles were taken off the road now sitting in storage sites. Hundreds of thousands of cars now lie in lots in the Mojave Desert, a shuttered suburban Detroit football stadium, and a former Minnesota paper mill in America alone. These vehicles are now in the open slowly breaking down with pollutants entering the environment. Is the the modern cost of corporate greed? What can we do to ensure this never happens again?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 08 2018, @05:02PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 08 2018, @05:02PM (#771574)

    They could have fined car companies the cost of the pollution times a punitive multiplier, and left the purchased cars on the road.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 08 2018, @05:26PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 08 2018, @05:26PM (#771582)

    How do you determine this multiplier when we don't know how long these cars would remain on the road?

    I have a better idea: fine them out of existence. What, you don't like government overreach? I don't like breathing in polluted air. I guess there could be a compromise. How about the government tells the car companies how much pollution is acceptable and the car companies stay within those limits? If they can't stay within those limits then they can't sell in that market. And if no one can stay within those limits then no one can sell into that market, which will result in the government reevaluating and adjusting the limits.

    The "no car company could meet the requirements" argument to justify cheating is bullshit. If no company could meet the requirements then the requirements would have to change. By cheating these companies not only broke the law, and poisoned the environment, but they enabled the unrealistic limits to remain in force.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday December 08 2018, @06:34PM (6 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 08 2018, @06:34PM (#771613) Journal

      And if no one can stay within those limits then no one can sell into that market, which will result in the government reevaluating and adjusting the limits.

      Another example of this is the destruction of the hemp industry after the Second World War due to anti-marijuana regulations. The US didn't "reevaluate and adjust" the limits. They just destroyed the industry.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 08 2018, @06:41PM (5 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 08 2018, @06:41PM (#771616) Journal

        Some perspective on the destruction of the hemp industry. In a word, nylon. Or, in a name, DuPont. The DuPont family had a lot of monetary reasons to push for outlawing hemp, because their nylon was going to replace hemp in everything from rope, to sails, to clothing.

        These are the same DuPonts who would later enjoy protection from first the French, then the US governments in Vietnam.

        In a more sane, rational world, hemp would never have been outlawed. In this crazy world in which we live, the DuPont family offered a replacement for hemp, so gubbermint proceeded to pursue it's insane agenda.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NewNic on Saturday December 08 2018, @07:51PM (3 children)

          by NewNic (6420) on Saturday December 08 2018, @07:51PM (#771634) Journal

          Some perspective on the destruction of the hemp industry. In a word, nylon. Or, in a name, DuPont. The DuPont family had a lot of monetary reasons to push for outlawing hemp, because their nylon was going to replace hemp in everything from rope, to sails, to clothing.

          If nylon was going to replace hemp anyway, what benefit is there in outlawing it?

          Hemp used for sails and rope was mostly replaced by terylene (Dacron) not nylon -- ICI, not DuPont. Unless you are talking about spinnakers, which must be a tiny market. It's possible that there was a a short transition period, but nylon isn't really suitable for most sails or ropes.

          --
          lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 08 2018, @08:07PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 08 2018, @08:07PM (#771638) Journal

            That's just it - nylon may or may not have eventually replaced hemp. Nylon does have advantages over hemp, but hemp also has advantages over nylon. The advantages were never really tested, especially by the Navy, because the hemp was simply removed. No head-to-head competition was permitted, and commander's personal preferences were never given any consideration.

            Personally, I have never used a dacron rope. Nylon is pretty much all I ever used in the Navy. Since my Navy days, I've used a lot of polyethylene and a lot of nylon rope, no dacron.

            Keep in mind that hemp was not obsoleted, it was outlawed instead.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 08 2018, @08:49PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 08 2018, @08:49PM (#771652)

              We know what you're really getting at. Damn kids these days and their reefer madness!

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 08 2018, @11:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 08 2018, @11:37PM (#771701)

            Not that synthetics might not have gotten a benefit, but the taxation on hemp started much earlier and was due to the southern cotton/textile industry not wanting hemp, which could be grown with less labor, poorer soil, and in harsher northern climates to take away from its financial position. Hemp was actually illegal before WW1 due to tax stamps and only exempted due to the demand for ropes and uniforms during WW1/2 before having tax stamps denied after the war causing all the farmers who had produced hemp to stop since they couldn't renew the necessary tax stamps to continue farming hemp.

            Source: Conservative Independent Businessman family member.

        • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday December 08 2018, @11:56PM

          by deimtee (3272) on Saturday December 08 2018, @11:56PM (#771705) Journal

          It wasn't just DuPont. Hearst had huge timber investments that he could use for paper if hemp was outlawed, and the tobacco companies didn't like hemp competing with tobacco.

          --
          If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday December 09 2018, @04:31AM

    by sjames (2882) on Sunday December 09 2018, @04:31AM (#771804) Journal

    They could flash the ECUs and put them back on the road right now, fullt compliant with the law.