[JPKab]

"So this is really lots of big US companies negotiating with themselves on how to screw over Europe."

Let me change this for you to something more accurate:

So this is really lots of big multinational corporations negotiating with themselves on how to screw over working people throughout the world.

When you start tuning this into "US companies screwing over Europe", you play right into their hands. As if there aren't dozens of European corporations screwing us all over right now. Until recently, I owned a diesel VW that spewed poison into the air every time I drove it, thanks to a bunch of German executives who valued profit over air quality. This goes beyond borders.

[tommyman]

Its both. Americans appear to have either give up years ago or agree with their representatives actions. Divided and conquered by squabbling over dem/rep smoke screens.

Europeans have fought harder to win and keep better social conditions, work conditions, health conditions, consumer protections, monopoly protection (great internets), environmental protection laws.

If you and a western european work same job for same company then you get a seriously raw deal compared to euros wrt benefits and conditions. I see ttip as a means for these companies to screw euros into US style conditions.

On euro side there are plenty of corrupt people (business, politicians, everything) that would love to screw either side to make some extra cash. The european commission are strongly behind it because all they see are dollar signs. Individual member states are going the other way from the look of it for one reason or another. Germans really won't budge on GM foods and US imports standards.

I expect europeans to fight the good fight and reject TTiP. I don't expect americans to do anything.

[scalio]

In the same vein, it seems to me that TTP and TTIP are one thing just sliced up geographically to make it appear less big, less of a one-stop solution for screwing the world. When in reality, these two "agreements" are giving western (though mostly american) companies far more power than they could possibly handle sensibly, seeing as they are already fucking up left and right in terms of, dunno, human rights, maybe (or just some basic decency).

[switch007]

Every internal combustion engine in history has and will spew poison in to the air. You just thought it was slightly less than it actually was.

[ekianjo]

Ever considered that internal combustion engines actually also saved lives (and made life possible in places where it was not) ? Let's not paint the world black and white.

[cmelbye]

Yes, but that has nothing to do with diesel fuel vs. others, which was the point of the previous two comments.

[soperj]

Honestly, where has it made life possible where it was not? Most places have been inhabited for eons, or settled before the invention of the internal combustion engine.

[tacos]

Honestly, please report back with a plan that gets the USA from 30 million people in 1860 to 300+ million people today without using the internal combustion engine.

[gumby]

or freed (cumulatively) billions from backbreaking labor.

[odonnellryan]

This is more important. Also, transporting people when they'd die/have horrible conditions otherwise.

I think it is a silly argument to say it helped people by helping them exist in the first place. It is a weird argument for a larger population, which probably isn't a great thing.

[soperj]

Yes, I was talking about that. But if you want an answer, many of the first cars were electric, if they went with the electric engine instead things wouldn't be exactly the same, but would have allowed the US to increase to 300+ million no problem.

[tacos]

I'm sure the electric planes, tanks and aircraft carriers would've made for some interesting historical footnotes in 1939. Assuming we hadn't already all starved due to the lack of food being produced by the electric farm tractors.

[harperlee]

(replying to soperj's sibling post)

> Honestly, where has it made life possible where it was not?

Antarctica!

But yeah, I think the parent was just making a point :P

[rorykoehler]

Hard drugs make the pain go away but they also slowly kill you.

[Grishnakh]

It wasn't "slightly less", it was many, many times less. And there was no reason for it; it was entirely possible to engineer the vehicles to use the proper amount of AdBlue to keep the emissions within spec, they just wouldn't have been able to go 10,000 miles between refills.

[Retric]

Sure they could, they just needed a larger tank.

[Grishnakh]

Well yes, but the question is just how large. In a small car, there probably simply wasn't enough room without completely changing the chassis design. But really, WhyTF do you need a 10k mile service interval? No one expects to drive 10k miles without refilling the fuel tank. No one even expects to drive 10k miles without refilling the windshield washer fluid tank! Car companies don't expect people to drive 10k miles and then take their car to the dealership to put more windshield washer fluid in for them; any moron can refill that tank with a $1.50/gallon bottle from Walmart. But somehow people aren't competent to refill their AdBlue tank and need ridiculously-long service intervals? But they can be trusted to refill their fuel tanks with a highly-flammable and toxic substance (one with poisonous fumes, no less) every week or two?

[PantaloonFlames]

> In a small car, there probably simply wasn't enough room without completely changing the chassis design.

I am not an expert, but based on my understanding, the issue was not chassis design, but cost. http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/30/vw-diesel-fix-would-have-...

The reclaiming system would add to the cost of the vehicle, and operating it properly would also decrease fuel economy. Both would tend to decrease sales. So this was strictly about profit for VW.

> WhyTF do you need a 10k mile service interval

Because people want their cars to support their lifestyle, not vice versa.

> But somehow people aren't competent to refill their AdBlue tank and need ridiculously-long service intervals? But they can be trusted to refill their fuel tanks with a highly-flammable and toxic substance

The issue is not one of consumer trust. It's practicality. Gasoline filling stations are everywhere. Now: where can a consumer buy AdBlue or whatever the brand of urea is required by VW? No one wants a car that implies more complexity in their life.

[Grishnakh]

Your link provides zero details and makes zero sense. What costs $300? They don't say.

The issue, according to everything I've read, is that they have an AdBlue system but they don't inject nearly enough of it to keep emissions down.

>The reclaiming system would add to the cost of the vehicle, and operating it properly would also decrease fuel economy.

They have a reclaiming system (DEF injection). It does not decrease fuel economy. DEF injects urea into the exhaust stream to catalyze NOx emissions into N2 and H2O.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid

>Because people want their cars to support their lifestyle, not vice versa.

Too bad. If they can be bothered to refuel their fuel and washer fluid tanks, they can be bothered to refuel a third tank too.

>The issue is not one of consumer trust. It's practicality. Gasoline filling stations are everywhere. Now: where can a consumer buy AdBlue or whatever the brand of urea is required by VW? No one wants a car that implies more complexity in their life.

BS. Go read the article. Lots of truck stops have AdBlue dispensers at the fuel pumps now. If consumers don't want to refill a second tank periodically, then they shouldn't buy a diesel vehicle.

[PantaloonFlames]

> you just thought it was slightly less than it actually was.

(where "slightly" = 40x)

[switch007]

Thanks. This site seems to indicate it was "up to" "nearly" 40x.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/internation...

An EU perspective (and EU rules) http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/21/all-top-sell... has results no where near 40x.

None of that of course is "slightly less", but that wasn't my point.

[woodpanel]

Funny you would mention the totally blown out of proportions emissions scandal. According to TTIPleaks it just happens to be one of the major threats the US made: 'Give in or we bully your car manufacturers.'