5 ms·

Sarcasm, presumably, but unless they're caught rolling coal[1] again, they can't be re-arrested as they've been pardoned for the previous cases. It's a tacky cr

Sarcasm, presumably, but unless they're caught rolling coal[1] again, they can't be re-arrested as they've been pardoned for the previous cases. It's a tacky crime, hardly the most serious, but that makes a presidential pardon seem especially absurd here. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

jdboyd 2mo ago
I thought that most of them were in for selling/commercially installing defeat devices so that others could roll coal or do other things with defeated pollution controls. I assume that would likely be easier to identify than just hoping to someday catching them rolling coal would be.
OutOfHere 2mo ago
It is a serious crime. Diesel fumes are very damaging to the lungs and heart. Imagine a pregnant woman being exposed to them. There is no logical way to make light of it. From your link: > the practice can increase nitrogen oxide emissions as much as 310 times, non-methane hydrocarbons 1,400 times, and carbon monoxide 120 times
- pinkmuffinere 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - DangitBobby 2mo ago
    They weren't arrested for rolling coal.
    - pinkmuffinere 2mo ago
      Oh oops, I should have read tfa. You’re right, this is much worse.
  - OutOfHere 2mo ago
    The crime was offering a commercial service to tamper with devices of others cars to roll coal. You won't understand until one day your lungs struggle to breathe due to pollution.
    - pinkmuffinere 2mo ago
      You’re right, that’s much worse. I should have read tfa before posting.
- g7r 2mo ago
  It's car manufacturers who should be held responsible for this. I used to be the owner of a diesel car. Diesel cars used to be really reliable. And then, in a moment, they got that ecology thing. They leaped from 500k+ kilometers until the first major expenses to just 100k+. From a consumer point of view, you were just buying the next version of the same diesel car. But in reality you get nothing even close. If that's not a deception, then I don't know what a deception is. Many modern diesel cars require very expensive replacement parts after just 100k kilometers. I mean really expensive. I had Fiat Tipo and the particle filter would cost me €5000+. Which is more or less half the car market price. After trying "cheaper" approaches that mounted to the same €5k over the 1.5 years, without resolving the problem, I decided to sell the car. On the other hand, this is just an ecology thing. Your car can perfectly live without it. You can turn it off for a fraction of that cost. After a year of trying different approaches, my mechanic even offered to do it for free. The temptation is very strong. You didn't plan financially for this kind of repair costs when you were buying a diesel car. You need your car to keep going for another 2-3 years at the very least to make the purchase feasible. Of course, you can call it a customer mistake. After all, the manufacturer didn't provide a warranty beyond 100k kilometers. But nobody tells you that the car takes €5000+ in repairs per 100k kilometers. I'm all hands for the ecology. Don't get me wrong. I didn't accept the offer to remove the insides of the particle filter. However, if I didn't have the money to buy a new car, I would certainly do that. With my conscience being clear, because I'm 100% sure that the manufacturer is the one who is responsible for this. And the governments who allowed this manufacturer to behave like that. I'm OK with paying the "ecology tax", but it should be clearly stated in the papers, and not shadily emerge after 100k kilometers.
SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
I'm not being sarcastic at all. I think it's obvious that most or all of these men will interpret the pardon as permission to violate the Clean Air Act, and it's absolutely essential to the rule of law that they be punished harshly for doing so. They must understand that they are not above the law. Perhaps some of them have learned the error of their ways, and won't be rolling coal ever again; if so I wish them well. Note that at least one of the men, Jonathan Achtemeier, was caught doing much more than "rolling coal" himself. He led a nationwide conspiracy to "roll coal", charging money to help hundreds of people do it although he knew it was a crime. Career criminals like Mr. Achtemeier rarely stop when they get caught the first time.
- blacksmith_tb 2mo ago
  Ah, sorry to have imputed sarcasm then - and I agree that helping hundreds of monster-truck owners to roll coal is more serious and polluting than the individual yahoos doing it, so more deserving of doing time (eventually, maybe).
anonymousiam 2mo ago
[flagged]
- DangitBobby 2mo ago
  What was absurd about the arrest? Were clown costumes involved somehow?
- t0mas88 2mo ago
  Did you read the article? This was not a case of "fixing their car" this was a 4 million dollar business selling illegal services to disable emission controls. They absolutely deserved to be prosecuted.
  - anonymousiam 2mo ago
    I read the article, and I've read about these cases over the past few years. Many of the emission control components degrade engine performance, decrease gas mileage, and decrease reliability. The EPA kept moving the goalposts and went beyond the limits of practicality. Congress did not set the limits, so the EPA was basically making it a federal crime to circumvent their rules (not laws). Who do you turn to when the vehicle for which you've paid upwards of $100k doesn't work right, and cannot be made to work right as designed?
qalmakka 2mo ago
It is a serious crime. Diesel exhaust is s IARC type 1 carcinogen. Somehow people go nuts when companies pollute water but not when they pollute the air they breathe
- greenavocado 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tim333 2mo ago
    I'm in central London where there were problems with that and the new diesels are hugely better. Used to be black smoke and layers of the stuff. Now not noticable. I'm not sure the figures but 10x or 100x? Google AI has: Modern diesel engines are dramatically cleaner than older vehicles, emitting up to 95-99% fewer nitrogen oxides (NOx) and capturing up to 99% of harmful particulate matter (soot). I quite cycling around 2006 because I got smokers cough from the clouds of smoke coming out of the busses and similar. Now it's fine. Both the new diesels being better and things going electric.
  - Peanuts99 2mo ago
    Buses can carry 100 people at a time so have a far larger social utility. Besides, most are going electric.
  - qalmakka 2mo ago
    If those buses use DEF, have a anti particulate filter and are well maintained, their emissions should in theory be extremely low, with no heavy compounds. I hope local municipal authorities don't remove filters from their buses. Even then, most if not the new buses in my town are either electric or CNG/electric hybrids

jdboyd 2mo ago

I thought that most of them were in for selling/commercially installing defeat devices so that others could roll coal or do other things with defeated pollution controls. I assume that would likely be easier to identify than just hoping to someday catching them rolling coal would be.

OutOfHere 2mo ago

It is a serious crime. Diesel fumes are very damaging to the lungs and heart. Imagine a pregnant woman being exposed to them. There is no logical way to make light of it. From your link: > the practice can increase nitrogen oxide emissions as much as 310 times, non-methane hydrocarbons 1,400 times, and carbon monoxide 120 times

pinkmuffinere 2mo ago
[flagged]
- DangitBobby 2mo ago
  They weren't arrested for rolling coal.
  - pinkmuffinere 2mo ago
    Oh oops, I should have read tfa. You’re right, this is much worse.
- OutOfHere 2mo ago
  The crime was offering a commercial service to tamper with devices of others cars to roll coal. You won't understand until one day your lungs struggle to breathe due to pollution.
  - pinkmuffinere 2mo ago
    You’re right, that’s much worse. I should have read tfa before posting.
g7r 2mo ago
It's car manufacturers who should be held responsible for this. I used to be the owner of a diesel car. Diesel cars used to be really reliable. And then, in a moment, they got that ecology thing. They leaped from 500k+ kilometers until the first major expenses to just 100k+. From a consumer point of view, you were just buying the next version of the same diesel car. But in reality you get nothing even close. If that's not a deception, then I don't know what a deception is. Many modern diesel cars require very expensive replacement parts after just 100k kilometers. I mean really expensive. I had Fiat Tipo and the particle filter would cost me €5000+. Which is more or less half the car market price. After trying "cheaper" approaches that mounted to the same €5k over the 1.5 years, without resolving the problem, I decided to sell the car. On the other hand, this is just an ecology thing. Your car can perfectly live without it. You can turn it off for a fraction of that cost. After a year of trying different approaches, my mechanic even offered to do it for free. The temptation is very strong. You didn't plan financially for this kind of repair costs when you were buying a diesel car. You need your car to keep going for another 2-3 years at the very least to make the purchase feasible. Of course, you can call it a customer mistake. After all, the manufacturer didn't provide a warranty beyond 100k kilometers. But nobody tells you that the car takes €5000+ in repairs per 100k kilometers. I'm all hands for the ecology. Don't get me wrong. I didn't accept the offer to remove the insides of the particle filter. However, if I didn't have the money to buy a new car, I would certainly do that. With my conscience being clear, because I'm 100% sure that the manufacturer is the one who is responsible for this. And the governments who allowed this manufacturer to behave like that. I'm OK with paying the "ecology tax", but it should be clearly stated in the papers, and not shadily emerge after 100k kilometers.

SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago

I'm not being sarcastic at all. I think it's obvious that most or all of these men will interpret the pardon as permission to violate the Clean Air Act, and it's absolutely essential to the rule of law that they be punished harshly for doing so. They must understand that they are not above the law. Perhaps some of them have learned the error of their ways, and won't be rolling coal ever again; if so I wish them well. Note that at least one of the men, Jonathan Achtemeier, was caught doing much more than "rolling coal" himself. He led a nationwide conspiracy to "roll coal", charging money to help hundreds of people do it although he knew it was a crime. Career criminals like Mr. Achtemeier rarely stop when they get caught the first time.

blacksmith_tb 2mo ago
Ah, sorry to have imputed sarcasm then - and I agree that helping hundreds of monster-truck owners to roll coal is more serious and polluting than the individual yahoos doing it, so more deserving of doing time (eventually, maybe).

anonymousiam 2mo ago

[flagged]

DangitBobby 2mo ago
What was absurd about the arrest? Were clown costumes involved somehow?
t0mas88 2mo ago
Did you read the article? This was not a case of "fixing their car" this was a 4 million dollar business selling illegal services to disable emission controls. They absolutely deserved to be prosecuted.
- anonymousiam 2mo ago
  I read the article, and I've read about these cases over the past few years. Many of the emission control components degrade engine performance, decrease gas mileage, and decrease reliability. The EPA kept moving the goalposts and went beyond the limits of practicality. Congress did not set the limits, so the EPA was basically making it a federal crime to circumvent their rules (not laws). Who do you turn to when the vehicle for which you've paid upwards of $100k doesn't work right, and cannot be made to work right as designed?

qalmakka 2mo ago

It is a serious crime. Diesel exhaust is s IARC type 1 carcinogen. Somehow people go nuts when companies pollute water but not when they pollute the air they breathe

greenavocado 2mo ago
[flagged]
- tim333 2mo ago
  I'm in central London where there were problems with that and the new diesels are hugely better. Used to be black smoke and layers of the stuff. Now not noticable. I'm not sure the figures but 10x or 100x? Google AI has: Modern diesel engines are dramatically cleaner than older vehicles, emitting up to 95-99% fewer nitrogen oxides (NOx) and capturing up to 99% of harmful particulate matter (soot). I quite cycling around 2006 because I got smokers cough from the clouds of smoke coming out of the busses and similar. Now it's fine. Both the new diesels being better and things going electric.
- Peanuts99 2mo ago
  Buses can carry 100 people at a time so have a far larger social utility. Besides, most are going electric.
- qalmakka 2mo ago
  If those buses use DEF, have a anti particulate filter and are well maintained, their emissions should in theory be extremely low, with no heavy compounds. I hope local municipal authorities don't remove filters from their buses. Even then, most if not the new buses in my town are either electric or CNG/electric hybrids