By on November 8, 2015

2015 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel HFE

Government agencies from the United States, Canada and Germany will be testing diesel vehicles from automakers other than Volkswagen to check their compliance with emission laws.

According to The New York Times, regulators in North America “are significantly expanding their on-the-road emissions tests to cover all makes and models of diesel cars.” The same on-road tests found 3-liter V-6 diesel engines to emit more NOx than they did in EPA testing.

The EPA had already notified General Motors that its new Colorado and Canyon diesel pickups would undergo increased scrutiny.

The new on-road testing initiative is expected to take “several weeks,” reported The New York Times.

Regulators in Germany are expanding “strict checks” to diesel vehicles from automakers other than Volkswagen, reported Reuters.

“We are currently carrying out strict checks on diesel vehicles from other manufacturers including foreign ones,” Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt told Bild on Saturday. The details of those strict checks were not disclosed.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

70 Comments on “US, Canada, Germany to Expand Testing for All Diesel Vehicles, Not Just Volkswagen...”

  • avatar

    Let’s talk about the Antarctic ice expansion!

    • 0 avatar

      That’s just the bi-product of squirting urine into the exhaust stream on diesel trucks. A mini-ice age can now commence.

      I also helped do away with open flame heaters. I used to pee in every wall heater I found at gas station restrooms. And now they’re gone.

      Peeing into truck exhausts will soon do away with global warming.

      • 0 avatar

        @WhiskeyRiver But when they switch to electric heaters, what are you going to do in order to do away with them?

      • 0 avatar

        It is having up to date policies that reduce Pollution. Forbes listing of the cleanest cities on the Globe, 5 in the US, 5 in Canada, but 11 in Europe

    • 0 avatar

      “Let’s talk about the Antarctic ice expansion!”

      Sure, let’s talk about it.

      First, you need to make the fundamental distinction between Antarctica’s sea ice and land ice. The sea ice extent is increasing, thought to be partly due to the water containing less salt as the ocean around Antarctica is diluted by fresh water melting off the land ice. As you know, fresh water freezes at higher temperatures than salty water. The hole in the ozone layer is also contributing to this change. Melting or freezing sea ice doesn’t change ocean levels much, because it’s floating.

      Antarctica’s land ice, on the other hand, is losing huge amounts of mass (melting). And this is despite higher temperatures resulting in increased snowfall over the interior. This loss of ice directly affects ocean levels. You can further educate yourself beyond simpleton statements on this subject. For instance:

    • 0 avatar

      @BTSR –

      “The paradoxical phenomenon is thought to be caused by relatively cold plumes of fresh water derived from melting beneath the Antarctic ice shelves.

      This melt water has a relatively low density, so it accumulates in the top layer of the ocean.

      The cool surface waters then re-freeze more easily during Autumn and Winter.

      This explains the observed peak in sea ice during these seasons, a team from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) in De Bilt says in its peer-reviewed paper.

      Climate scientists have been intrigued by observations that Antarctic sea ice shows a small but statistically significant expansion of about 1.9% per decade since 1985, while sea ice in the Arctic has been shrinking over past decades.

      The researchers from the KNMI suggest the “negative feedback” effect outlined in their study is expected to continue into the future.

      They tried to reproduce the observed changes in a computer-based climate model.

      The sea ice expanded during Southern Hemisphere autumn and winter in response to the development of a fresh, cool surface water layer, which floated on the denser, warmer salty sea water below.

      This fresh water is ultimately derived from enhanced melting at the base of the Antarctic ice shelves.”
      Now – Let’s talk about the Arctic!

      Russia unlike Western countries isn’t hung up on political correctness.

      Why is Russia militarizing the Arctic?

      “”Military troops deployment in Chukotka will make it possible to enhance safety of the Northern Sea Route’s traffic and respond timely to potential military threats in the area,” Shoigu said according to Tass.
      Ultimately, Russia is positioning itself to take advantage of the increased trade and natural resources from a melting Arctic. Shipping along the Northern Sea Route through the Arctic would cut transit time from Asia to Europe by almost two weeks.”

      @BTSR – Better luck next time.

  • avatar

    + 1 BTSR, it’s becoming politically incorrect to be a producer or a consumer, climate change was here before the internal combustion engine and will be here after the demise of the ICE.

    • 0 avatar

      Your statement leaves open the question of whether you like your climate change with billions of fingers pushing on the “warming” side of the scale, or if you prefer your climate change au natural?

      • 0 avatar

        j.grif isn’t going to understand what you said.

      • 0 avatar

        @Big Al – there are those here who consider themselves to be among the B&B (I am not one of them who does), who will argue that a 25% tax will have no effect on sales or availability, since if people want something they will by it anyway, and that the total price will have no effect on either supply or demand. I won’t mention his name and give him more publicity, but one of them claims that anyone who argues that the chicken tax has an effect on production of small pickup trucks is wearing a tinfoil hat or should be.

        Obviously, from where he sits, all the renowned economists of the world are a bunch of conspiracy theorists with tinfoil hats. Talk about ignoring evidence…

        And my wager is that at least one out of four people on this site know who I am talking about. But like I said, I am tired of giving him publicity for his unfounded theories.

      • 0 avatar

        And your statement, @Luke42, leaves open the question of why a journalistic investigation that revealed systematic rewriting of temp readings over the last several decades, to lower them in the earlier periods and to raise them more recently, has been systematically ignored and suppressed by those who claim that the evidence is irrefutable.

        No, only the doctored data indicates what is claimed, and the fact that the data has been tampered with is irrefutable.

        • 0 avatar

          Here is a link to some of the results of an investigation conducted by the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph.

          Read for yourself how net declines in temperature systematically get adjusted upwards to show net increases, a swing over a few decades from a net loss of more than one degree centigrade to more than two degrees increase, all strictly on the basis that the data needed adjusting, without any justification whatsoever for imposing such adjustments, other than to create the appearance of global warming.

          A little additional research will show that there was as much or more warming in the early nineteenth century, and that most arguments for global warming like to focus on a start date around 1980, as it was at a cyclical low at that time, after having been higher before, as well as after that time.

          Maybe it is time to start asking why anyone who questions why this is being done needs to be shouted down, rather than their arguments being considered based on their merits, and the evidence, as shown by raw data.

          • 0 avatar

            “Investigation” is hardly the term to apply to the under-researched ramblings of one Christopher Booker at the Daily Telegraph. The man also claims that asbestos is safe, thus one can safely dismiss his “facts”, because he has had an agenda for years.

            So, whether one relies on some twit who writes on every subject known and claims authoritative expertise in all of them, or finds out what axe he has to grind, it might be wise to investigate his background. And this is from 2011, where he was already well in the pockets of the 1%.


            I suppose for all the climate change deniers out there, rubbish like Booker’s is comforting. Doesn’t change the big picture just because these people cannot wrap their heads around the real facts.

          • 0 avatar

            @wmba I was not aware of Booker’s position on asbestos. But I would tend to think that given who will benefit the most from global carbon dioxide rationing, that those who support global warming theories are more likely to be on the payroll of the one percent, and those who oppose it, to be considered enemies of what is primarily an elitist agenda.

            But I have seen other sources that show raw temp data vs adjusted data, and data that uses a different start point to measure.

            Raw data seems to trend downward, adjusted upward. The explanation is that the equipment causes readings to vary over time, but I find it hard to believe that hundreds of stations predominantly begin reading lower, and I haven’t seen the agencies that do this show any evidence of any programs that they have to take independent measurements and to use them to validate their adjustment factors.

            In advanced HS physics, we used to call such adjustments fudge factors, when the data had to tortured to get a clear picture of what the theory predicts. That is what the process of scrubbing raw data looks like to me and will continue to do so until such time as government auditors stop accepting such statements about the reason for adjustments at face value, and start auditing and validating or refuting the adjustment techniques that are used.

            FWIW I also found an article from about 1980 in which a top climate scientist asserted that global melting was happening so rapidly that much of the East Coast would be under water by 2016.

            Unless there is a months-long tsunami on the horizon, there is just no way that that expert prediction is going to be supported by reality.

            Another climate expert study from the last century (latter half) claimed that CO2 is near to a saturation point and that even 100 times as much C02 would only cause a 2.5 degree temp raise from their levels forty or fifty years ago. That with 100 times the C02 level.

            Certainly not the runaway global warming that the alarmists predict to support the formation of new multibillion, even multitrillion dollar markets for carbon credits.

            And guess who will set them up, run them and profit from them. And guess who will suffer with much higher energy bills, decreased standards of living, etc.

            FWIW, I also in my reading travels saw an article that says that the US is no longer one of the ten most prosperous countries in the world. No surprise that fact, just confirmation of how elitist programs like NAFTA have adversely affected the average American. And if some of the politicians and elitists have their way, they will make it worse, on some limousine liberal concept of egalitarianism.


    • 0 avatar

      Exactly, since human beings are biologically net CO2 producer, it’s politically incorrect just to be born.

      • 0 avatar

        @wsn there are liberal elitists who would contend just that, that since human beings produce CO2, we need to get rid of a lot of them to protect the environment, coincidentally improving (their) earnings.

        For example, where has Al Gore gotten all his wealth from? His daddy didn’t get THAT rich in Congress. But he has certainly joined the ultrawealthy by flogging his agenda. Hardly the mark of an altruist, I’d say.

      • 0 avatar

        And, according to the Pope and his corrupt little organization, simply attempting to conceive is a sin, especially without the permission of the local man in a white dress, and coming into existence is in itself a very bad thing to have done. (Buggering young hoys, though, just gets swept under the rug and Padre O’Malley gets transferred to another parish.)

        • 0 avatar

          @RHD You obviously have an axe to grind but getting some facts right doesn’t excuse the fact that you are completely wrong about other. The Roman Catholic Church, which you are obviously referring to, does not and has never considered coming into existence a bad thing to do. (Or to “have done” if you wish to embellish your writing. Still doesn’t make it right).

          And FWIW I am not now and have never been Roman Catholic. Just someone who believes on calling BS on BS.

          You weaken your argument when you add falsehoods to it. You need to do your homework before you open your mouth.

          Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove that you are.

        • 0 avatar

          I’m not a Catholic but I played one in my youth.

          RHD merely phrased “attempting to f*ck” a trifle euphemistically. And he’s dead right, Catholicism absolutely demonized (in my day, anyway) any f*cking outside hetero Catholic marriage and then solely for procreation.

          And I suspect the “coming into existence..” phrase is a reference to Original Sin, the most utterly repugnant dogma any religion has ever inflicted upon its victims outside islam.

          Sick, sadistic and absolute emotional control over its ever fearful and violently frustrated minions for the global furtherance of the Holy See’s avaricious agenda is what Catholicism has always been about.

          But it’s still been an improvement over islam, especially for women.

          • 0 avatar

            @RideHeight But RHD does not even allow for approval of sex within marriage, just that supposedly it is not as egregious as sex outside of marriage.

            And the Catholic church considers prevention of procreation to be a sin, and clearly says so, so how can it simultaneously be opposed to it?

            RHD owes you a thank you though for trying to save him from looking like he completely missed the boat, regarding logic. He did, but you made him look like he almost made it, which he did not.

            Which is why I say it sounds more like a diatribe than a philosophical view of the religion.

          • 0 avatar

            The Roman Catholic church is trying to shift away from its past doctrine under Pope Francis.
            There are over 100,000 Christian denominations so I’m sure there is one out their that will align with someone’s views. If not there is Islam or Judaism. If you aren’t into any Abrahamic religions then I’m sure the Far East might have something for you.

            If that doesn’t work then one can be an Atheist or put a bullet into one’s skull.
            There is an answer for everyone :)

        • 0 avatar

          “And, according to the Pope and his corrupt little organization, simply attempting to conceive is a sin”

          True. However, the Christian Church has become less aggressive over the years. You can practically ignore them without being harmed.

          The Climate Change Church became more aggressive and wants to charge tax on CO2. And that is to be enforced by lethal weapons.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    This should go beyond just diesel fueled vehicles.

    I’d like to see the “real” figures for gasoline engines as well. This should be for FE, CO2, etc.

    Regulations should only be necessary to protect the consumer, not industry.

    All of the vehicle manufacturers really need to be audited. The auto industry whines and cries when regulatory measures are not in place to protect and promote uncompetitive business.

    But, when they flout regulations they should be held more to account. Another way to resolve the problem is to reduce the uncompetitive technical trade barriers every time a manufacturer screws up.

    Sooner or later the manufacturers will have to sink or swim. That is real business. Not penalise the chicken take out with a 25% tax, then give the hamburger takeout added protection by having unfair regulations biased towards the hamburger joint.

    • 0 avatar

      @BAF0 – If your half baked, stup!d theories were correct, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Subaru, Mazda, Kia, VW, Volvo, Fiat, Mitsu, etc, would be at the forefront of whining/crying to keep competition out.

    • 0 avatar

      @Big Al From Oz
      As iI posted on this forum,,the VW issue will open a Pandora’s Box. VW admitted their maybe problems with the Co2 Emissions on its Gas engines

      • 0 avatar

        I’m not the biggest fan of epa regulations but even I have to admit that they’ve done a lot of good. In my youth on a hot summer day you couldn’t see the LA skyline so it’s done some real measurable good.

        My own feeling is that if you’re a foreign automaker and you want to do business here, you should be held to a higher standard.

        I can hear the dissenters before I click the send button.

        Yeah, the competition has improved our US automakers. We have better cars because of it. But I’d use those foreign automakers as an example were I in charge of the EPA. Higher standards. They’ll comply or pull away. When they do comply and prove they can do it then I’d raise standards on our own automakers. As it is, we’ve created a system where everybody is going to have to cheat at some point. Why should be put our own at peril?

        • 0 avatar

          The London and Paris skylines are like Los Angeles’ 30+ years ago on a hot day. Their weak emissions regs are too easily skirted. Europe first mandated catalytic converters in 1992, or “EU One”.

          • 0 avatar

            “London and Paris Skylines are like LA 30yrs ago”
            LMAO Funniest thing ever posted on this site. Are you a stand up comedian?
            LA competes with the Chinese Cities in having the most polluted City on the Globe

          • 0 avatar

            The air quality in LA has gotten better.

            Where it hasn’t gotten better is in cities like Paris and London due to the move to what was thought to be “clean” diesel.

            Even before the VW fiasco, there was growing clamor to address the the amount of particulate matter in the air from diesel exhaust which is more harmful than the particulates that come from gas engines.

          • 0 avatar

            It has improved in London and Paris, but LA is a basket case. Like the Chinese cities,geographic locations disappear and the air is lethal on bad days.
            Pollution ” clouds” are not so obvious anymore in LA,but outside of that the air quality is appalling.
            How anyone can tolerate this is beyond me
            Particulates are worse with new direct injection gas engines

          • 0 avatar


            As usual, you are wrong. Completely 100% diametrically wrong. Just as you have been on all GM V6s being manufactured in Australia, insurance availability in the UK for LHD cars, no truck driving in the EU on weekends, etc. etc.

            I have never known you to be correct! A record.

            You are the biggest nitwit I’ve come across, and belligerent with it. You have apparently slept through all the recent reports of intolerable smog in both London and Paris. And LA was unlivable in the late 1950s, whereas now it is tolerable despite vast population increase.

            Give RR a fact and he will claim the opposite.

          • 0 avatar

            I call BS on @RobertRyan, and agree with you @DenverMike, and others who say that London and Paris are like LA 30 yrs ago.

            I don’t have a dog in this fight, and it is hard to get apples to apples pollution comparisons, but PM10, large particulate matter, is one of the benchmarks of smog-like pollution.

            According to some google pages I found, LA tends to be around 30 parts/cubic meter, while London is around 50, and Paris around 100.

            So to say that LA today is for worse than Paris or London is patently false. Unless you can come up with some better data and not just a statement of opinion @RobertRyan

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          WhiskeyRiver, I’d argue that one of the good things about the US was the idea that the law would apply equally to everyone. I believe that all auto manufacturers game the system to some extent, but Volkswagen went beyond bending the rules NASCAR-style and did something explicitly not allowed.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          I’ll second this. I lived in Southern California followed by a time in Europe. Something to take into account also is that LA is among the more notoriously dirty cities in the US with respect to air but by the 90’s it was not bad and certainly on par with London and cleaner than say Paris. Trouble is, those are Clean European cities. I spent a good amount of time in Naples Italy. Think LA circa 1973 if nobody bothered to pick up the garbage. I had a 90’s Alfa Romeo. No cat, and ran on leaded fuel which you could purchase there until around 2000 or so.

    • 0 avatar

      @Robert Ryan – The actual situation is the emissions performance on European streets *Today* is basically somewhere around the level of the standards that were set in Euro 1. This was btw, in 1992! Oops!!

      Paris and London are virtual disaster areas in terms of respiratory disease. It hasn’t helped that EU diesel cars have lived by a 2nd, lesser standard, while the US treats diesel autos AND gas engine autos with the same degree of emissions standards. Euro 6 may correct this for Europe, but that remains to be seen..

      The problem too is the Euro tests which are done in the laboratory do not correspond to the actual performance on European streets. That absolutely needs to be fixed… Like decades ago!

      • 0 avatar

        Seems that 138 Milion Americans already live in areas where very dangerous pollution is present. It includes Ozone and Particulates. Not exactly a clean bill of health. That would make up a fair bit of the European population. Supposedly Los Angeles is one of the least polluted!
        Seems it is not getting any better

        • 0 avatar

          @RobertRyan The fact that there are a large number of people in the US who live in polluted areas, even if they outnumber the people in London and Paris, does not in any way prove that LA is more polluted than the European cities.

          You are trying to draw a red herring across the trail to try to lead us away from looking at actual pollution levels in LA compared to Paris and London. The latter have clearly more pollution than LA today.

          So if you think LA is bad, well then Europe is worse, a point you refuse to acknowledge.

          Since you don’t have the facts on your side, what is the basis for your biased view?

          • 0 avatar

            This is a study done this year and gets as close as possible
            If you are going to criticise have some references
            This is a general ranking and many European Cities do very well. Coming from this part of the world we do very well
            Do you have current data?
            On that last ranking Los Angeles is 107th most polluted,Paris France 122nd
            Would hate to live in Houston, 97th most polluted
            Here is the actual list

          • 0 avatar

            @Robert Ryan – European authorities are now acknowledging they F’d up ROYALLY, by blindly chasing higher mpg and lower C02 emissions with diesel *technology*.

            Now the EU is slowly backing way from diesels after 2+ decades of pushing/promoting/subsidizing diesels, so now 50 to 60% of all cars in the EU are diesels! And not the “good” kind like TDI diesels either. Most are pre emissions. What a fukking disaster!!

            *Luckily* the extra dose of diesel NOx CARCINOGEN added to the air Europeans are forced breathe, kills at an alarming rate, or the health care costs would be unbearable…

            Seriously European citizens/survivors should sue their government for damages from such a STUPID oversight.

            The European Union admitted, late 2013, their emissions policies have been an ineffective JOKE for more than 2 decades!

            Euro 1 to Euro 5, or anything pre Euro 6 has been an emissions FREE RIDE for Euro diesels.

            All this would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad!!! What a F’ing mess…

          • 0 avatar

            No,they are pushing Diesels as much as before. They do not want the US pollution problems. They certainly did not screw up. So how did the US Authorities who are supposedly “meticulously” checking,miss this?
            The whole EPA thing is looking like a joke and I wonder if Ford, Toyota , GM and FCA have not done something similar

          • 0 avatar

            @RobertRyan I will give you credit for trying.

            But I am concerned that most of the data is survey data from readers of the website only, and for the part that attempts to quantify the amount of pollution, there is no indication of where they got their data from, and they do not say that they have their own monitoring program, so while I appreciate your putting up a link, I don’t find its numbers convincing, absent something that can verify their source and accuracy.

          • 0 avatar

            No @RobertRyan, the Europeans are pushing the imaginary diesel that appeared as the result of VW faked tests, diesels that do not exist, and for which there is no evidence that they ever will be able to exist.

            So how are diesels that have the real world numbers of VW going to help fix Euro pollution?

            And why does that show a superior approach to that of the US.

            It sounds to more like you are convinced that those smart Olde Worlde politicians are much more effective at changing for the modern world than the supposedly blind, stupid, malicious or misguided US Government is.

            I am certainly no big fan of the US Government’s ability to fix things, but I don’t see any indication here that the Euros are on a better track to the future than we are.

          • 0 avatar

            @Robert Ryan – Does the following sound like the continued subsidizing of diesels, despite known health/death risks to European citizens?

            “In France, we have long favoured the diesel engine. This was a [grave] mistake, and we will progressively undo that, intelligently and pragmatically,” Prime Minister Manual Valls said, November 2014.


          • 0 avatar

            @Robert Ryan

            “Paris mayor announces plans to ban diesel cars from French capital by 2020”

            Do you want to continue? Even BAFO is slowly backing away from your ignorant stance.

            “The mayor of Paris announced radical plans to ban diesel cars from the French capital by 2020 as part of an anti-pollution drive.”

            “The mayors of all major European cities, including London, are grappling with how to tackle pollution emitted by diesel fumes, whose tiny particles and nitrogen oxides are harmful to health…”


          • 0 avatar

            Have you any Current Data, that supports your assertions? The Europeans will be now testing everyone Gas or Diesel as a result of the VW fiasco.
            So I assume it will not be just VW going to the naughty corner
            Paris is banning older Gas and Diesel engines

          • 0 avatar

            Are those Diesels imaginary? That is why the EU wants tests on ALL types of engines to see if they comply.
            I am more concerned about the lack of testing in the US, as it appears the EPA is not doing its job

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Here’s a fantastic interactive map.

            Also, the discussion regarding the pollution between EU cities and US cities overall is quite interesting.

            First up, France and the EU have NOT decided that diesel was a poor choice as a fuel. It has been found diesel engines EuroV and above are emitting less particlates.

            Paris is no more polluted than many cities in the US.

            I presented an interesting piece regarding how why some cities appear to be more polluted than others regarding air pollution.

            It found that in Paris the many narrow roads and lack of green spaces does hold the pollutants.

            But, Paris is no more polluted than most and modern Western city.

            Just look at the interactive map.

            I’m waiting for DenverMike to state that V8 pickup pollutants are good for your health and 4 cylinder pollutants are bad, especially Japanese or EU gas engines.


  • avatar

    This kind of makes me happy here in Alberta.

    We are surrounded by Albertards driving modified diesel pickups, you know them, the one’s that leave giant clouds of black smoke every time the dude wearing the bill tears away from the stoplight.

    Any form of testing to get these things either legal or off the road is going to be a major win.

    • 0 avatar

      This won’t do a thing about that. They are not saying that they will start requiring testing of all vehicles. They are saying that they will test a sample of each vehicle.

      Even if they were to implement vehicle testing the vehicles you mention “roll coal” because of a custom tune. A few minutes with the tuner and the vehicle will be returned to stock so it will pass. Then once the test is passed put the coal rolling tune back in. It is done everyday on both gas and diesel powered vehicles.

    • 0 avatar

      This needs to be made illegal, with vehicle confiscation for the perps and business license removal for anyone on the commercial side of it. For good measure, crush the vehicles with no compensation to the morons.

    • 0 avatar

      The problem is that (at least in my experience) brodozers are often registered for off-road use through some loophole or another, meaning certain emissions regs don’t apply. Other regs still do, though.

      As much as I dislike brodozers, I would not recommend crushing them after taking them off the road. Doing so would accomplish very little besides enraging the owners (many of whom probably have firearms). Returning the machines to stock would be better IMO.

      • 0 avatar

        CARB has been fining fining aftermarket tuner companies but I do not know if it has happened federally. In BC where I live Vancouver has mandatory vehicle testing but not the rest of the province.

  • avatar

    The World Health Organization considers fine particulate matter pollution levels higher than 10 micrograms per cubic meter to be unsafe. The majority of American cities are in the safe zone, with the average pollution level at 9.6. Thirty-three percent of cities are above the W.H.O. standard. Those cities tend to be geographically dispersed throughout the United States, but are predictably cities with heavy industry and driving, like Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Outside of the W.H.O., the United States has its own particulate matter standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter. The pollution in 13 percent of American cities is higher than that.

    Europe is a different story. The average European city has pollution levels that are double what the W.H.O. considers safe, at 21.7 micrograms per cubic meter. In total, 93 percent of Europe’s cities have unsafe levels of pollution when measured against the W.H.O.’s standards. The E.U.’s standard, against which member countries base their regulations, is much more lax than both the W.H.O. and the American standards, at 25 micrograms per cubic meter. Only a quarter of the E.U.’s cities fail to meet that standard. In the United States, only Fresno, Calif., would.


    Well, that was easy. Now please be quiet.

    • 0 avatar

      Kudos @pch101 for bringing something solid this time. I agree with you completely on this one.

      @RobertRyan The statement made by the EU that they will begin testing other cars and trucks cannot have any effect on historical pollution, which you were asserting was higher in LA than in London and Paris. Apparently it is higher at present in Europe.

      And there is no mention made yet of what the EU will do when and if they find other car and truck manufacturers who have gamed the testing.

      It is quite likely though that they might conclude that foreign (from their perspective) manufacturers pollute more than VW, and that VW will be given a grace period of years to come into compliance. They could even use higher non-EU results, if found, as an excuse to set up trade barriers, to, in effect, protect VW, their manufacturer.

      • 0 avatar

        No pollution is not higher in Europe, going by Forbes 5 US Cities are very clean as against 11 European Cities.
        What this testing regime will do is call out the Manufactuers who thought they could escape getting noticed, I suspect it will cast doubt on the US EPA’s ” rigorous ” testing regime, as they did not find the errant VW’s. How many US vehicles actually comply to US regulations?
        If everyone is found to be culpable in some way, then the penalties will be watered down.

        • 0 avatar

          I don’t know if you think you are being clever by trying to mangle my screenname VolandoBajo into Volandjaro, or just have trouble transcribing ten or twelve characters, but what you did is akin to me doing something like that with your name @RobberyTryin.


          I don’t care to play a game of intellectual tag, following you all over the map to try to rebut every new variant of smog in the US vs. in the EU, but your original callout had to do ONLY WITH THE SMOG LEVELS IN LA VS IN PARIS AND LONDON.

          These are two entirely different metrics, and the data I have found seem to support that large particulate matter, one of the main components of hazy, smoggy skylines, seems to be worse at the present time in those two European cities than it is in LA, thus contradicting your original statement that pollution in LA was noticeably much worse than in Paris or London.

          I have written your new assertion and your original one in ALL CAPS in order to make it easier to see the difference between the two assertions.

          But by and large it is irrelevant as to the city count of clean cities. The original statement you took exception to was the assertion that LA has cleaned up its pollution to a large extent, when compared to POLLUTION LEVELS in LONDON and PARIS, nothing more or less…not the number of cities, not the situation in the last century, or whatever.

          Your latest tack is like trying to show that a WRX is faster than a LaFerrari, and when someone shows you that the LaFerrari has better lap and accel times, your rebuttal is that there are more WRX’s than there LaFerraris.

          If you think something is one way, and someone else posts some DATA that suggests otherwise, you have a few intellectually honest options: admit you were misguided in your earlier perception, demonstrate why the data that was offered my have some flaws, or offer up other data you feel is from a reputable source and that you can show demonstrates your point, not the other persons.

          But rewording the argument when your original assertion is challenged with an offering of data is either a cheap sleight-of-hand, or a demonstration of the fact that you are unable to see any difference between your statements, and think that you have won the argument by finding another statement about the topic that is either true, or that people don’t feel like continuing to rebut, since you seem to have abandoned your original assertion about current smog levels in LA being greater than in Paris and London, which the only data I have seen so far completely rebuts.

          Do you want to try proving something about the smog levels in those cities today? If so, I will continue to play the game and if you can show some good data I might even admit that your data looks more reliable than mine. But until that time I continue to believe that your original assertion is unproved and I think anyone on here who is impartial would have to agree.

          /s/ VolandoBajo, Castilian Spanish for “Flying Low”

          • 0 avatar

            I do not know where you are getting your supposed facts,but you give no references at all. So your assertions mean nothng
            Forbes last time I looked is a US website and even they agree, the US much more polluted than Europe..
            OK, What Data? No references ?

          • 0 avatar

            Your long winded replies mean nothing with no references .Must be joking about particulates, references,references

          • 0 avatar

            @RobertRyan No, not joking. I thought I had included the websites where I got the numbers that for the last year Paris had about 100 particlers/cubid meter, London 50 and LA 30.

            But I happen to just be up for a midnight snack now, and have an important meeting.

            However I will endeavor to find some links to credible data and post them in the next couple of days.

            I do admit however, that the data I found was just the result of a quick and dirty Google scan that seemed to indicate that the situation was the reverse of what you had claimed.

            Air quality is actually a composite of a number of different variables, and I only look at the most obvious, large particulates.

            But debating points aside, it is a serious question that may very well make some difference, depending on what the real, broad picture is.

            I would also welcome an opportunity to review any credible data on air quality measurements especially those with regard to LA vs Paris vs London.

            All I am confident in asserting until I do more research is that LA has made a lot of improvements in the last thirty to fifty years, as have many other US cities. But by and large, so has at least London.

            Several hundred deaths were attributed to pollution during one bad bout of smog in the 50’s in London. However bad it is today, it is not that bad.

            Also, taking a couple of smaller cities, Chattanooga TN used to be covered in a haze every time I was there thirty or forty years ago, but about a decade a go, it seemed at least an order of magnitude better.

            Ditto for Philadelphia, where the air isn’t ideal, but is nowhere the disaster it was year round twenty or twenty five years ago.

            I am very skeptical of the need to adjust temperature readings that show a net decline in temps in the raw data, as I find it hard to believe that almost all data collection equipment has skewed downward in their readings, especially when many of them now have buildings, runways, etc, that dump heat out within a hundred yards or so.

            But I do not dispute at all that (a) air quality has improved over the past decades in most major cities in developed countries and (b) air quality has declined severely in developing nations, due to rapid industrialization, lack of environmental controls, and the widespread use of charcoal as an energy source.

            So if you want to expand the discussion beyond the three cities, that is fine and deserves attention.

            But your original assertion was about London, Paris and LA and I would also like to find current data to see if there is a significant difference, and which way the scales tip.

          • 0 avatar

            Looking forward to it. Have a lot of data on countries and Cities pollution

          • 0 avatar

            @Robert Ryan – Funny I didn’t catch your “Forbes” link, of which you keep bringing up its “25 Cleanest Cities” report. So I looked it up.

            *Shockingly* the “clean” Forbes studied has very little, to nothing to do with the topic here.

            “…To be ‘clean’ means organizing what is done with waste. Landfills are being closed or filled up. Recycling is…”

            “In addition a city has to look closely at its transportation infrastructure…”

            “Bush’s advocacy of ethanol is a step towards cleaner fuel and directly related to the food supply chain…”

            “Taken all together as with clean energy generation……”

            So is this some silly game you and BAFO play?


            Again, thanks for nothing.

    • 0 avatar


      Nice info.


      Not to change the subject too much but:

      “A new WHO guideline recommends adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. A further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (6 teaspoons) per day would provide additional health benefits.”

      “Here in the United States, the average person consumes more than 126 grams of sugar per day, which is slightly more than three 12-ounce cans of Coca-Cola. That’s more than twice the average sugar intake of all 54 countries observed by Euromonitor. It’s also more than twice what the World Health Organization recommends for daily intake, which is roughly 50 grams of sugar for someone of normal weight.”

      So the avg US consumption is 3x more and 5x more than ideal with what W.H.O. recommends in March 2015.

      Which is more dangerous per capita, sugar or NOx?

      • 0 avatar

        Less NOx, less particulate matter and less sugar would be a good thing. It’s not an either-or universe.

        It would also be good if we could get some of the other posters to do less typing. They are placing far too many demands on my scrolling finger.

        • 0 avatar

          @pch101 Well if your scrolling finger stays busy, at least it might prevent you from raising another finger in a one-finger salute. :-)

          This list of good things to do could go on and on:

          Exercise more.

          Take daily walks.

          Reduce carbohydrates.

          Cut down on caffeine.

          Eat more fiber in your diet.

          Don’t worry, be happy. (Anyone remember Meher Baba?).

          Not really very auto related, but not a real harmful thing either. Though if people among the B&B want to recommend what they think is good for people, I personally don’t think that it is too much for James Walker to post a one-liner about his favorite non-profit automotive charity. Just a side note.

          @RobertRyan I enjoy debating, but am not so much interested in winning debates as I am in discovering what the truth is, on the topic at hand, when in this case seems to be, narrowly defined, air pollution levels at the present time in the cities of LA, Paris and London. (Not necessarily just today, but in a current time interval).

          Defined more broadly, the same subject matter, but for air pollution in the US vs the EU, taken as wholes.

          I really don’t have a lot of data, though I could try to find and comb through things like EPA, NOAA, NCAR, etc. data.

          But you mention that you have lots of data.

          In the spirit of trying to discover the truth, would you mind posting some links to the sources of some of that data, so others, and myself in particular, might comb through it to see if we arrive at the same conclusions that you have?

          I really don’t want to spend a ton of time on this, due to other commitments IRL, but I am willing to do a bit of digging, discussing and debating, if I can find some decent data.

          I am not too impressed with your numbeo data, as I don’t see any info about where it comes from or how it was collected, but if you can point me to something about where its numbers come from, I might develop more faith in them.

          And whoever mention that the Daily Telegraph guy thinks asbestos is harmless, I will withhold judgment until I have had a chance to research that further.

          But whether he is a kook or not, the one thing that troubles me about the current climate data debates is that raw data seems to point to declining temps, while data adjusted points to an increase.

          Two things bother me about this. It is claimed that they are adjusted for changes in equipment calibration over time, but they all seem to be upward adjustments, with NO explanation of why this would always be declining readings that require upward adjustments. And even though NOAA was requested by Congress in 2010 to explain the adjustment process, it took five years to respond, and when it did, it made no mention of how readings were calibrated to actual readings, in order to know how to adjust the data.

          So it is quite possible that rather than adjusting for any objectively obtained reading biases, they (NOAA and other climate data gatherers) may be adjusting solely by and for making a better fit of the data to the model.

          And that doesn’t make data accurate, nor does it validate the model. But the climate data issuers argue that this same data, quite possible adjusted precisely to match their models, somehow VALIDATES those models.

          If you look closely at what I just wrote, you can see that if that is the case, it would be circular reasoning, which would validate nothing.

          Or if that is not the basis for the adjustments, I would think the climate data agencies would be trotting out field calibration studies showing how the adjustment factors were carefully validated to reflect actual temps, as opposed to not only device readings, but also as opposed to model-only driven adjustments.

          This is where you get down in the weeds to see what is really going on. But when the booby traps are all buried down low, in the weeds, you have no choice but to get down in the weeds to look carefully and to see if there is hanky-panky going on there, or if the data is being validated to actual readings in an accurate and unbiased way.

          While I have a streak of the thing shown in the cartoon #386 “I can’t come to bed. I just found something WRONG on the Internet!” I try not to get too carried away with that. Nevertheless, sometimes things just start smelling so fishy, and the stench has the potential to affect so much, that I naturally want to get to the bottom of what is really being done, true hard science, or carefully constructed research and data collection design that is designed in such a way as to produce data that inevitably supports the model.

          The former demands that we address the matter, to see if we confirm the next stage of the argument, that such rises will have catastrophic results. In the past, climate scientists have argued that carbon dioxide saturation would occur in such a way as to limit the amount of temperature rise, rather than contribute to the dreaded “runaway temperature increases” that are being predicted.

          But even before we can, or need to, address the extent of future global warming, we need to, and have a right to, know how the data that shows a warming trend is actually being produced, or if the data “scrubbing” process is actually forcing the data to conclude temperature rises not shown by raw data.

          While this might seem like scientific trivia to some, megadollar decisions are being made for us by our leaders, based on these models, and the temperature data that may or may not show an upward trend, depending on the way the calibrations are computed.

          This is something I wish more people would look at more closely. But the absence of interest does not prove that it is irrelevant, just that there are a lot of people who stand to profit from that data being accepted as true.

          And before I am ready to do that, I want to know (a) if the raw data does show a downward temp trend, and (b) if it does, how are the adjustments developed that convert the raw data into a dataset that shows instead an upward trend.

          I am willing to look at any data that either validates the conclusions of global warming AND its supposed effects, or that calls it into question.

          I just want to see evidence of either accuracy, OR of guided research designed to prove a certain point, unencumbered by real world information.

  • avatar

    Here is a website that gives the basics. A lot more to pollution than just No2

    • 0 avatar


      Thanks for the link. Past my bedtime tonight and got to prepare for the first of a round of Thanksgiving dinners I am either making or invited to.

      But I will look into this more closely over the next several days, and depending on what I see, will likely have a comment.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Kruser: My grandmother had an early ’70s Imperial coupe. From my perspective, it had “nicer” (in...
  • bullnuke: Who is talking about Thai? I made a comment on infotainment displays. One should never eat anything while...
  • DenverMike: It’s not relevant. Screens can be a pain, but we’re talking an annoyance. Playing with them...
  • Ol Shel: But will Dodge’s electric muscle cars still be the go-to for driving into crowds?
  • Ol Shel: Humans seek convenience and disengagement, and we fiercely resist the removal of those conveniences. Deaths...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber