[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).