[blakeyrat]

Note: they mean exceeding in the bad direction, not the good direction. At first I thought this was some kind of spoof article, or Chrysler marketing effort. It should probably read "exceeding limits" not "exceeding standards".

EDIT: actually the press release doesn't even say that really. It says Fiat Chrysler installed software that could impact emissions testing but didn't tell the EPA about it, which is considered a violation of the Clean Air Act. It doesn't say the software cheats on tests.

[dsp1234]

FTA:

"This testing revealed that the FCA vehicle models in question produce increased NOx emissions under conditions that would be encountered in normal operation and use."

[djrogers]

Still seems like they go out of their way to not say that the increase in emissions exceeded any limits. The violation is specifically that the specific software was not disclosed.

[blakeyrat]

Wow. Someone needs to tell the EPA about the inverted pyramid.

You can't blame me for missing that when they bury the lede in the very last paragraph.

That aside, the headline here still says the opposite of what it means to say. Exceeding the standard is a good thing. Exceeding the emissions limit is a bad thing.

[munificent]

This is the subtitle of the article:

    > FCA allegedly installed and failed to disclose software
    > that increases air pollution from vehicles

Second sentence of the first paragraph:

    > The undisclosed software results in increased
    > emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the vehicles.

What more do you want?

[blakeyrat]

I need more random people on the internet to tell me how stupid and illiterate I am, I guess. Thanks, that's really helpful.

[avn2109]

For automotive scandals like e.g this one and Dieselgate it's always surprising how much outrage people muster.

If an automaker sells N cars exceeding some emissions limit by 100%, people get out the pitchforks.

But if that same automaker sells 2N conforming cars, it's widely heralded as a Good Thing.

However, to a first approximation, the environmental impact is equivalent in each case (or arguably worse in the latter case, because of increased energy and materials consumption).

[_yosefk]

But... but! If you sell N cars exceeding the limit, someone else will sell the other N cars of the 2N in your "2N conforming cars" in the other possibility, and they'd emit, too! Or does selling N cars exceeding the limit somehow eliminates the demand for the other N?

I mean you can say that the limit is too low, but I don't understand this N/2N argument at all.

Also, I dunno about pitchforks, but if I park illegally, I'll get a ticket, even though maybe the parking restrictions are wrong in some important sense, and I'd sorta like it if law applied to corporations. If that's a pitchfork then it's a pitchfork to fine me for how I park my car.

[schwarrrtz]

I think the outrage is justified; how can we possibly coordinate an effort to reduce our environmental impact without respecting the relevant regulations? To extend your example, suppose new regulations are introduced that reduce emissions limits by 50%. An automaker that respects the regulations would likely modify their products in order to remain in compliance, thereby reducing their environmental impact by 50%. On the other hand, an automaker that disregards the regulations would likely take no action and the environmental damage would continue.

[fattire]

schwarrrtz is right on. But also, you have to consider that the new, conforming cars are very likely to be replacing cars that were much more harmful in terms of pollution.

You can argue about the balance of increased energy and materials consumption of a new car vs continued operation of a more polluting older car, but given the march of time, the older car's replacement is inevitable. So then it's a question of WHICH new car is going to replace the shitty old one-- is it going to be an (a) efficient, compliant vehicle, (b) a gas-guzzler and pollutant emitter, or (c) a car that pretends to be compliant but is a horrible emitter.

The outrage comes when people think they're replacing their crappy old car with (a) but end up with (c).

[tomc1985]

Seconded, the headline is misleading

[sctb]

We reverted the submission title to that of the article from “E.P.A. Accuses Fiat Chrysler of Secretly Exceeding Emissions Standards”.

[cocoa19]

Someone "accuses" you of wrongdoing (negative direction). Exceeding standards usually means better than the standard (positive direction). I agree with you. Title needs an update.

[alphabettsy]

Exceeding the speed limit is illegal, but I understand what you're saying.