So we can't invest in equities to fund our retirements, nor properties, nor banks (no interest to speak of anyway)- what do we invest in? I invested a large sum in a pension and it went t*ts up so I got vey little anyway. Gold goes up and down. Diamonds maybe. Futures no way. Property in France no way either. Selling arms maybe quite profitable......
Mike,
Companies also employ people so that they can buy food, & many products of companies create wealth for people who are not shareholders, too. Don't be too harsh on them!
Rich kids in pushchairs are at the same level as poor ones & it is their parents who are more likely to own a polluting car & park it in their own territory. Let's not get too carried away with this class thing.
Joe,
BP merged with Amoco in '98 with BP shareholders getting 60% of the equity & Amoco 40%. I am not sure of the nationality of the shareholders though.
It may be they have opened a can of worms that is going to complicate things for a few years. If so, then the oil industry is going to be hit hardest and the likes of the hybrid engineers must be rubbing their hands in delight. The USA has been the one country not making real advances in hybrid technology, now perhaps they will wake up. Not, I must admit, that I am convinced by hybrids personally.
In that case, Americans should be careful what they aim at. BP 40% owned by British interests & 42% owned by American interests (many pension funds). Also, was it really just VW? I hope so, but American car makers operate in the same market, under the same pressures. I think, at least for a while, testing will be very accurate. As a consumer, it’s nice to know what I’m buying!
Your last sentence: that is the bottom line, irrespective of all else.
It isn't that complicated. Companies are machines for creating wealth for shareholders. They will do whatever they can to make their products attractive to customers. Government agencies are there to make sure they do as little harm as possible to the general population. Clearly, the American testing regime was not fit for purpose. To their credit, VW held their hands up as soon as they were found out.
I suspect that this is just one more instance of the USA crucifying a foreign company that was doing too well on their territory, like Concorde, BP, etc.
Interesting to note that it is the children of the poor who suffer most. Diesel emissions are pumped out exactly at pushchair level. But what's new?
The legislation which ended the famous London fogs of the 1950’s was from a pre-green era, which demonstrated the direction we all wanted to go in. I don’t think anyone wants to live in a sewer, if they can avoid it. Back then, the poluters definitely had the ear of government and routinely understated their role in our lives. Now, the boot is on the other foot (at least in Europe/US) and we automatically take measures to protect the environment, regardless of how effective they are, or consider any other options. To some of us, the modern green movement is beginning to look and feel like the old cabal of heavy industry poluters they are busy replacing! They are only interested in science which supports them and are more likely to deploy insults (denier) than independently generated scienctific arguments. Over my life, I’ve noticed science fact is not constant. ‘Every day we know more’, I’m told. But what’s true today may not be tomorrow. Add politicians and research fund grants to this and science fact becomes very subjective!
As for prosecuting the guilty, we can only hope. I did believe that car manufactures figures were on the right side of the law, especially VW. I remember the tail pipes of cars, from when I was a child, and I definitely don’t want to go back to that. To me, ‘don’t do it again’, should not be an option. Unfortunately, after seeing what happened to the bankers after the recent Wall Street crash, I fear you maybe right!
One law for them, another for everyone else.
Amount is meant in terms of density of particular particulates that are harmful. I remember the sulphurous smogs in London in the 1950s and how quickly coke burning was banned by most boroughs, eventually the famous 'smoke free zones' came. Whilst I agree the environmental movement is an industry, so is just about everything in one sense or another and I have even made that accusation of the academic world whilst I was still one foot in it, from whence much of the science emanates. Nobody is neutral, we all lean one way or the other and fence sitters will usually 'fall' one way or another in the fullness of time. I know how subjective all science is, although I say I am not a scientist, some people would say that I am, but I am not in physical or natural sciences such as chemistry, physics, engineering, the environment or any other. Thus I need to be certain that I understand before I believe what I see or hear and to that extent the scientists who have been critical of emissions happen to be on the one hand top in their field and not manipulated by any political or economic incentives whereas the ones who say 'no harm' have often had political sponsorship and funding or close association with industry. Even then, the climate and environment change scientists need to remain open to scrutiny and frequent re-examination of their work. Thus far the evidence weighs in favour of what they are saying about the harm caused by emissions. Diesel, which I drive but know is not what the motor industry claimed, was proven greener and cleaner from within the automotive industries and not by independent scientists. However, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place since neither petrol nor diesel does the atmosphere a lot of good and still the number of vehicles in use increases although even politicians are reluctantly admitting that. VW has tried to convince their buyers and users that they were somehow better than competitors. No doubt given how the automotive industry watches each other we shall soon he hearing about which other companies have done it, perhaps the one(s) who have not will eventually make news for being different.
Of course we, the punters, will one way or another carry the bill, we always do and it is easier to simply be fatalistic and accept that. However, in terms of the morality of VW's actions thus far and the fact that very few hard facts have as yet been released for us all to examine if we wish, a lot remains to be desired. If the German prosecutors are simply going after the form CEO then that is not enough, it is the company itself that should be under investigation and if no other solution is possible and although we will not see a brass tack back at least heavily penalise the VW group to the equivalent of above the earnings made since they have been cheating, even if it bankrupts them. I hardly think it likely if any of us committed a major fraud we would get off with a legal censure and a 'don't do it again' warning which is very highly likely. We would be cooling off in one of somebody's penal institutions for a while.
I didn’t say amount, but I suspect that’s what Volkswagen fiddled. My point was that VW is not the only industry here. The environmental movement is an industry in itself and we (motorists/taxpayers) get to pay for it. Like most things in life, you get more attention/money if you overstate your case than understate it. Your use of the phrase ‘in denial’ suggests you’re not as neutral as you believe. As for what science tells us, he who pays the piper, calls the tune. Scietific truth is more subjective than you think, until recently diesel was considered green.
VW has at some level decided that this sort of deception is a perfectly legitimate way of conducting their business, I wonder what else they lie about? Also, I’m a little more worried that some of their competitors may also see this as a reasonable way to conduct business. This could make future car purchases much more interesting.
Ultimately standards will be tightened, regardless of the effects (good or bad), and we’ll get to pay for it. VW will take an enormous financial hit from lake of customer confidence, that will far outweigh any benefits they received. As I write this, the German government is considering criminal prosecution, which I fully support!
I’m just feed up being used as an cash cow by environmental interests who permanently occupy the moral high ground and label anyone who dares question their sanctity ‘in denial’.
Very true. BBC world service radio had an article last night about the terrible pollution in Chinese cities which has largely arisen because the West had an insatiable desire or cheaper and cheaper goods. A friend of mine in the UK is a timber dealer. He buys oak in France and sends it China for production into laminated flooring which is then sent back to Europe. Laminated flooring in itself has a much shorter life span than the old solid wood floors that we used to use. Second hand timber flooring has no second hand value to speak of and goes to landfill or if it's luck to make pellets for central heating boilers. Environmental requires for noise and thermal insulation (in the latter case to save energy) have created this demand. It's kinda crazy and another byproduct is marine pollution. (I live very near the Breton coast and we know all about that),
This is not about the amount of pollution, in which case you are to an extent correct, but the nature of pollution, namely its contents. As for alleging it is anything to do with any special interest group, then read all of the reports again and see how and by whom it was discovered which may be a clue to the real consequences of the revelations that are considerably more than sound bites. I am neither a 'green' in that sense nor a scientist with a particular axe to grind but I also do not live in denial of what science tells us.
I don’t think this is really about pollution. We’re probably living in on of the cleanest times since the industrial revolution. What you have here is another special interest group in action. From the green lobbyists, government supplied university research grants, green focuses industries, civil servants and their political masters. There’s a lot of people employed or subsidised by our taxes to introduce ever tighter requirements, regardless of any consequences. Any industries inconvenienced by this will probably relocate somewhere like China, where they just pay lip service to environmental concerns (more jobs lost).
As usual, the motorist is a soft touch and is believed to have more money than sense. Greenpeace are unlikely to take an interest in the environmental inefficiencies of the motorist’s supply chain, what comes out of the tailpipe is far more emotive and makes for much better sound bites! If they made all cars with zero emissions, the cabal would pursue us for something else. It is their raison d’etre. Don’t expect this to end anytime soon.
Same thing applies to buildings. Perfectly acceptable old buildings (often with much more charcter than any replacement) are needlessly demolished, the majority of materials going to landfill (heavily taxed). Work on new construction generally attracts less tax than refurbishment so the incentive is to demolish. New buildings are now so cost engineered that their life is designed only to be about 25 years before very major refurbishment or complete re-enveloping. 35 year leases are being signed on buildings the cladding of which only has a projected 25 year life span. Many building materials are being imported rather than being locally sources (example Chine granite being used for street paving in Brittany). Complete reconstruction requires more miles of deliveries and removals, causing road congestion, bike accidents and air pollution. The cyclists in London want to ban construction lorries. The WHOLE equation needs to be looked at. In addition we may end up with some rather nicer places rather than all the towns looking the same.
What did VW do? They deliberately made their cars so that they would be good at passing emissions tests. A bit like schoolteachers who teach children how to be good at passing exams, without caring too much about whether they are getting a good education. But surely that is what all manufacturers do. NASA subcontractors manufacture components that match the specification without worrying too much about astronauts' lives depending on what they do. Food manufacturers tell us about all good things their products will do for us, while conveniently forgetting to mention the possible harm they might cause, such as obesity and rotten teeth.
But the real problem with cars is that the industry is simply producing what the customer wants. If they make more economical engines, many customers take advantage of this by buying a bigger car. And then they drive as if they are taking part in a race or are late for an important appointment. Over use of accelerator and brakes creates more pollution than is saved by advances in manufacture.
We are all responsible for pollution, but we salve our consciences by finding convenient scapegoats to take the blame. Nothing will change unless we all resolve to to leave only shallow footprints to mark our short stay on the Planet.
Brian is correct in that we do not have all the facts out in the open regarding the emissions "cheating" issue. It would be interesting to see exactly what the car emissions legislation actually says. If the law is defined solely by the results obtained in a clearly defined test procedure then VW have not broken the letter of the law but clearly have broken the spirit of it. Who knows whether or not the legislators who framed the law in the first place realised it could be circumvented thus showing public concern for air quality without damaging the the industry which provides s much employment.
The automotive industry is a large consumer of energy and we collectively are complicit partners in this by replacing vehicles for more often than is necessary. We are manipulated all the time and over the last few years have been encouraged to buy cars with stupidly large wheels and low profile tyres which increase rolling resistance,wear out much faster and are very expensive to replace. The ultimate stupidity being to fit such wheels to 4 wheel drive "Chelsea tractors".
So who is going to pay us back all the money they have been taking off us as 'green taxes' which allegedly contribute to the science that enables such things? Oh well, silly question... we know exactly who will not be giving us a brass button let alone the rest of it.
The exhaust emission concern has been batted about for years with no real change. Smoke encountered at most fires consists of a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide gases, finely divided carbon particles (soot), and a miscellaneous assortment of products that have been released from the material involved. Scientists seem to change their minds about what bit is worse for the environment. Not long ago diesels were better than petrol cars but now they are worse.
Many of today's diesels have a clean exhaust because they have a particle filter in them - a FAP system. It filters any soot out so no nasty black bits. So where does the soot go? The engine is still producing them, after all. Well, the car monitors the amount of times the fuel is added using a sensor round the filler & every now & then, while you are driving on a main road & the engine is nice & warm the filter is superheated & the soot is burned off & leaves via the exhaust. Some cars rely on a special (very carcenogenic) fluid which is added to the fuel during this process. God knows what the exhaust consists of during this burn!It is like the person who smokes in his car & always uses the ash tray, never flicking anything out of the window, waiting instead until he is in a car park to surreptitiously empty the lot on the ground! The fag ends still end up lying around...
So the dirt still gets released into the air, but in a lump not a bit at a time, but when measured at a test - clean as a whistle!
Some cars never get hot enough for long enough for this system to work so the filter clogs. Your car will go into "safe" mode & often a message will appear "anti pollution fault". Your wallet will be relieved of any excess euros & a new filter will be fitted.
So these new cars are no cleaner than the old ones - just like VWs then!
It has been very interesting watching this story develop and how it has turned a devious corner to be more concerned with one CEO falling on his sword and somebody from the same group becoming the new CEO plus personnel being dismissed. Then the possible million tonnes extra pollution perhaps caused and the legal actions that might begin, people queueing either for compensation or to buy a VW group car heavily discounted. In fact I thought something is wrong here. I am not technical, my limit is that I went on a community basic car maintenance course. End of. However, not a lot has actually been revealed about the technical detail. The public is not having it spelled out. Also the rest of the industry is being uncannily quiet. One might assume that with the engineers and scientists they employ that just about every company must have seen what was happened and we might speculate that they have copied it so that sooner or later the balloon will go up and we will find out the global truth.
It simply strikes me that some very rich industrial concerns, some of which have fingers in many more pots than just the motor industry, are pulling a few strings. I am not sure what is going on but my stomach seems to tell me it is the consumers, those of us who drive just about any vehicle in fact, who are ultimately going to get the worst deal out of this. So yes Mark, where are Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other environmental groups when they should be capitalising on this scandal? They should be demanding the details be spelled out in clear, simple language, all the implication and consequences and what, apart from throwing an impressively large sum of money that is probably inadequate at it, will those responsible stand up and properly accept the blame then do something about it instead of appointing a new board, making excuses and pulling wool over people's eyes.
It reminds me of an article in either Car or Evo many years ago when they were looking at markets for ‘older cars’. They found examples of the Peugeot 504 still going strong in North Africa well after they were retired from a lifetime being uses as Paris taxis. They pointed out that the greatest pollution came from the manufacture of the cars, not running them so therefore these ancient diesel Oeugeots were some of the most environmentally friendly vehicles in the world. They also joked that a ‘dodgy’ MOT certificate might also be green.
Over the years more and more garages have stopped employing mechanics with an understanding of the problems that they are facing and have preferred to use spare parts fitters who, as you say, are used to replace whole systems when simple repairs are possible and would be often much cheaper in both financial and environmental terms.