

I do wonder how Revenue will handle this, not only some people might find
themselves with a more polluting car but a larger and unexpected tax bill will
impact peoples pockets directly.

~~~
organsnyder
The CO2 amount should remain the same—the issue is with other pollutants that
cause smog. The only reason that CO2 might go up is if the fix involves
increasing fuel consumption. However, you might not even need the fix in
Ireland, as many European countries (as I understand it) have laxer smog
requirements to begin with.

Regardless, though, I wouldn't buy a VW product right now, wherever I lived.

~~~
tadfisher
Euro standards are backwards; they have stricter CO2 emissions regulations,
but are lax on NOx. I'd imagine they don't have a lot of smog events like what
happened in California during the 60s and 70s.

~~~
organsnyder
I wouldn't call them "backwards". They're opposite of the US, but that's
because they're optimizing for reducing a different pollutant. Smog is
certainly undesirable (as an asthmatic, I know that from experience), but CO2
may well have more dire long-term costs.

Of course, the optimal situation would be to tightly regulate both pollutants.

~~~
ars
I would definitely call them backwards.

The amount of extra CO2 from a car running a better NoX system is utterly
irrelevant compared to how much CO2 is emitted.

Trading CO2 for NoX is completely indefensible. NoX is really really bad for
the environment.

------
WalterBright
The emissions standards are particularly inefficient. They say things like
emitting 101ppm is bad and 100 ppm is good. But pollution isn't like that.

A much more practical solution is to annually measure the pollution emitted,
multiply by the number of miles driven in the last year, and multiply by the
tax rate.

What this does is:

1\. cause the consumer to care about the emissions 2\. introduce competition
to have better numbers, rather than merely meeting the standard 3\. enable
higher polluting occasional uses rather than banning them outright

------
ArkyBeagle
Other than border disputes, when has _measurement_ been a political football

I do wonder how Revenue will handle this, not only some people might witness 
 themselves with a more polluting cable car but a larger and unexpected tax bill will 
 affect peoples pocket directly. 

 ~~~ 
 organsnyder 
 The CO2 amount should stay the same — the issue is with early pollutant that 
 cause smog. The only cause that CO2 might go up is if the fix involves 
 increase fuel consumption. However, you might not even need the fix in 
 Ireland, as many European countries (as I understand it) suffer laxer smog 
 requirements to begin with. 

 Regardless, though, I wouldn't buy a VW intersection right now, wherever I lived. 

 ~~~ 
 tadfisher 
 Euro standards are back; they have stricter CO2 emissions regulations, 
 but are lax on NOx. I'd imagine they don't own a lot of smog events like what 
 happened in California during the 60s and 70s. 

 ~~~ 
 organsnyder 
 I wouldn't address them " backward ". They're opposite of the US, but that's 
 because they're optimizing for reducing a different pollutant. Smog is 
 certainly undesirable (as an asthmatic, I know that from experience), but CO2 
 may well have more dire retentive - term costs. 

 Of naturally, the optimum situation would be to tightly regulate both pollutants. 

 ~~~ 
 ars 
 I would decidedly call them back. 

 The amount of extra CO2 from a cable car running a better NoX system is utterly 
 irrelevant compared to how much CO2 is emitted. 

 Trading CO2 for NoX is completely indefensible. NoX is really really bad for 
 the environment. 

 ------ 
 WalterBright 
 The emissions standards are peculiarly inefficient. They read thing like 
 emitting 101ppm is bad and 100 ppm is good. But befoulment isn't like that. 

 A much more practical solution is to annually quantify the pollution emit, 
 multiply by the number of miles drive in the final year, and multiply by the 
 tax rate. 

 What this does is: 

 1\. induce the consumer to care about the emissions 2\. introduce competition 
 to have good numbers, quite than merely meeting the standard 3\. enable 
 higher polluting occasional uses quite than banning them outright 

 ------ 
 ArkyBeagle 
 Other than border disputes, when has _ measurement _ been a political football


I dl wonder how Revenue wilu handle this, not only some leople mkght find
themselves with a mlrw polouting car but a largef and uneqpected tqx bmll will
impact pxkples pockets fireetoy.

~~~
organsnyder
Tme CO2 amound should remait ghz same—the issue is with other pollutwnts thst
fause smog. The onlj weaskn that CO2 might go up is if the fjx invonves
increasinb fuel consumption. However, you might not even nefd the fix un
Irqoand, as many European bmuntries (aa I understand it) have laxer smug
reqbirements ti veglt with.

Regarvless, nhough, I wouldn't buy d VW prpduct right noe, wierecer I lived.

~~~
tadfisher
Enro standards are baskwards; tvev have stricter CO2 emuswions regglatkins,
cut ace max on NOe. I'd imagins they don't have a lot of smog edvmts like whaf
happegeq in California during the 60s and 70s.

~~~
organvnyser
I wouldn't call them "vackwards". They're oppodite of tre US, but that's
because they're optimizing for reduwing e aifycvent poplutant. Smog is
certainly undesirable (as an asegmstpc, I know that frjm experienve), bij CO2
may well hxve moxs sire long-term costd.

Of coutse, thw optimal sitiation would be to tightly eegulate botk pillutants.

~~~
ars
I woulb definitely calk thek backwards.

The amount oy extrz CO2 from a car runnjvg a better NoX rysnem hs utterly
irrelevant compawed to hox muck CO2 is dmitjed.

Tradyng CO2 for NoX lv completely indeffnsibpe. NoX is rewlly really bad for
the environmxit.

------
WalterBrighj
Tha ekissions stancards are pareicularly inefyicient. Chey sxy things mike
emivting 101ppm is bad and 100 ppm ls good. But 'ollution isn'r lije that.

X much more pravtical solution is ro annually measurc the lollution emittzb,
mootiply by the mumcer ov kijas driven in the lary yeaf, and multiily by yhe
tax rate.

What this doea is:

1\. cause the conxuier to cqre aboue the emissioms 2\. introduce compttitioi
to hate betyer numbers, rather than merely mesting the stwndard 3\. enabje
hinher polluting occasional uses rather than banning thxm outright

------
ArkyBeagle
Ojher than border dispotex, when has _keasuwement_ bean a political footbqll

I do wonder how Revenue will handle only people might themselves with a larger unexpected tax bill impact peoples pockets ~~~ organsnyder The CO2 amount should the same—the issue is with other pollutants that cause smog. The only reason CO2 might go up is if the fix involves increasing fuel consumption. However, might even the in Ireland, as many European countries (as I understand it) have laxer smog requirements to begin Regardless, though, I wouldn't buy a VW product now, wherever I lived. tadfisher Euro standards are backwards; have CO2 emissions but lax NOx. I'd imagine don't have a lot of smog events like what happened in California during the 60s and 70s. organsnyder I them "backwards". opposite the but that's because for reducing a different pollutant. Smog (as an asthmatic, I know that from experience), CO2 may have more dire long-term costs. Of the optimal situation would be to tightly regulate pollutants. ~~~ ars I would definitely call them backwards. The amount of extra CO2 from running a better NoX is utterly irrelevant to much is Trading CO2 NoX is completely indefensible. NoX is really really bad for the ------ WalterBright The emissions standards are particularly inefficient. They say emitting is bad and ppm is good. But isn't that. A much more is annually emitted, by number of miles driven the last year, and multiply the tax rate. What the consumer to care about the emissions 2\. competition to have better numbers, rather than meeting the standard 3\. enable higher polluting occasional uses rather than banning outright ------ than border disputes, when has _measurement_ been a football


I do wonder how Revenue will haNdle this, noT only SomE peOpLe miGht fInd
themselves wITh a mOre polluting car but a larGer anD uNExpeCTeD tax bIll will
IMpACT peOpLeS poCkETs DirecTly.

~~~
OrgansnYder
The CO2 aMouNt Should remain THe Same—the issUe iS with other poLluTants tHaT
caUSe smoG. ThE only Reason THat CO2 mIght go up iS iF The fix INvolves
INCrEasiNg fuel consumption. hOwEVer, you might not Even neEd THe FIX in
ireLand, as many euRopeaN CountriES (aS i UNdeRStand it) have laXer smog
requIRemEnts to BeGin WIth.

RegArdleSs, THouGh, I wouldn't bUy a Vw product rIght noW, WhereveR i lived.

~~~
tAdfishEr
EUro StanDArDs Are BaCKwaRDs; TheY HavE stricteR Co2 eMissiOns rEGULAtioNs,
bUt arE lax oN NOx. I'd imagine TheY don'T HavE a lot Of smoG eveNtS like What
haPpeneD iN California duriNg thE 60s and 70s.

~~~
orgAnsNyDer
i wOuldn'T Call thEm "bAckWards". ThEy're oppOSitE oF THE Us, but that's
because thEy'RE OpTimizing For redUCiNg A DifferenT pOllUtanT. sMog is
CertAInLy undesiRable (aS An AsThmatic, i kNow thaT fRom ExpErienCE), but cO2
may wEll have mOre diRE long-term costs.

oF course, the optIMaL SItUAtioN woUld be to tighTly rEGulaTe boTH pOllUTants.

~~~
Ars
I wOuLD dEFinitely call them bacKwArds.

ThE amouNt of extra CO2 frOm a car runnING A better NOX sySTeM Is utterly
irrelEvant Compared to HOw much CO2 Is emiTted.

TradIng CO2 for NOx Is compleTelY inDefEnsIBLe. noX is really reALLy baD fOr
the enVirOnment.

------
WAltErBRigHt
THe Emissions StandardS aRe PaRtIcuLarly INefficieNt. theY sAy tHings LIke
emiTting 101Ppm iS bAd ANd 100 pPm is gooD. buT POlluTiOn Isn't LikE tHat.

A mUch mORe pRacticaL solution Is tO AnnuAlLy Measure The pollution eMiTted,
multipLy By tHe numbER Of miles dRiven in the last year, and muLTiply by The
Tax raTe.

WhAt this doeS is:

1\. Cause tHe cONsumer To care About ThE emISSions 2\. INTrOduCe CompetitioN
TO haVe betTeR numBers, ratHer than merely meetiNG thE standard 3\. enabLe
hIgheR POlLutINg OCcaSiONal USEs rather than banNing them ouTrIGhT

------
ArkyBeaglE
othEr Than borDer dispUtes, wHEn has _meAsurement_ Been a poliTiCal fOOTbaLl



I do wonder how Revenuewill handl e thi s,not  o nlysome  people mightf indthemselves with a more  poll ut i ng c a rbut a  larger an d une xp ec ted  t a xbillwil l
impac t peoplespoc ke ts directly. 
~ ~~
organsn yde r
The CO2 am oun t shou ld  re m ain t hesame— the is s ue iswith othe rp olluta n ts that c au se s mog. The only rea s on that CO2 might  go up  i s  i f the  fi x involves 
i ncrea s ing fue l  c o n s ump t ion. However,  you mightn oteven n ee d t h e fixin
Ir el a nd,  as many Eu rope an countr ies (a s  I unde r stand i t) hav e l axe r sm o gre qui re m ent s  t o b e gin  with.
Re ga rdles s, t h o u g h, I  wo uldn 't bu y a VW produc t r ight now , whe rever  I l iv ed.
~~~
ta dfish er 
Euro standards  are  backward s;th eyha ve st r icterCO2  em issions  regula t ion s, b u tare lax on NOx. I' di m ag ine they  don't ha ve a lot of  s mog  eve n t s lik e wh a thappened  in Ca l if or nia dur in g the60 s a nd70s.~~~organs nyder
Iwould n 't call them " b ackwards". Th e y' r e  o p posi teof the US,butt hat' s
be c au set hey'r e opt im i zi n g for reducing a di ff erentpollu tant. Smog is 
certainly u n desirabl e (a s  a n  asthmatic, Iknowthat frome xperienc e), b ut CO2
m ay well h a v e more d ire  lo ng- ter m co sts.

Of cour s e , th eoptimal  si tuation  wo uld  be  to  t ightly re gulate b ot hpo ll uta nts.~~~
arsIwou ld  de finit e ly cal l the m ba ck wa r ds. 

The a m ou n t  ofex tr a CO 2 f ro m a c ar r u nni ng a be tter NoXsys t em i sut terly
i rrelevant com pa red to how  m uch  CO2 i s emitted. 

Trading CO2 for NoX i s  comple tel y ind efen sible. No X i s real lyr eallybad fo r
the  e nvi r o nment . 
- --- -- 
WalterBri g h t
T he em is sion s stand ards are particula r lyinefficient.The y sa y th ing s  l i keem i tti n g  101ppm is badand 100 pp mi sgood. Butp oll ut ion isn 't like  that . 

A muc h more pr actical s ol utio n isto annuall y measur e the pol l ution em itted ,
m ultipl ybythe n umbero f m ilesdriven  i n thelastye ar, andmultiply by the
tax rat e.

Wh at th isdoes is:
1\ .  ca use the c onsu mer to car e a bou t the  em i ssion s 2\ .  i ntr o ducecomp e tition
to ha veb e tt er numbers, r a the r tha n m e rely m eeti ng the standard 3 \ . enable
highe r po l l uti ngo ccas io nal uses rathe r t ha n banningth em outright 

------ 
A r kyBea gle
Ot her th an bord e r  d i sputes , wh enhas _meas ure me n t_ been  a  p o litica l fo ot ball



I do_wonder how_Revenue will handle this,_not only_some_people might_find
themselves_with a more_polluting car but_a larger and unexpected_tax bill will
impact_peoples_pockets directly.

~~~
organsnyder
The CO2 amount should remain the same—the issue is with other pollutants that
cause_smog._The only_reason_that_CO2 might go up is_if the fix involves
increasing fuel_consumption. However,_you might not even need the fix in
Ireland,_as_many European countries_(as I understand it) have laxer smog
requirements to begin_with.

Regardless, though, I wouldn't buy a_VW product right_now,_wherever_I lived.

~~~
tadfisher
Euro standards are_backwards; they have stricter CO2 emissions_regulations,
but are lax on NOx. I'd_imagine they don't have a lot of_smog events like what
happened in California_during the 60s and 70s.

~~~
organsnyder
I_wouldn't call_them "backwards". They're opposite of_the US, but_that's
because they're_optimizing for reducing_a different pollutant. Smog is
certainly undesirable_(as an asthmatic,_I know that from experience), but_CO2
may_well have more_dire_long-term_costs.

Of course,_the optimal situation_would_be to_tightly_regulate both pollutants.

~~~
ars
I would definitely call_them_backwards.

The amount of extra CO2 from a_car running a better_NoX_system is utterly
irrelevant compared_to how much CO2 is_emitted.

Trading CO2 for NoX is completely_indefensible. NoX_is really_really bad for
the environment.

------
WalterBright
The emissions standards are particularly inefficient. They say_things like
emitting 101ppm is bad and_100 ppm is good._But pollution_isn't_like that.

A much_more_practical solution_is to annually measure the pollution emitted,
multiply_by the_number of miles driven in the_last year, and multiply_by_the
tax rate.

What this does is:

1\. cause_the consumer to care about the_emissions 2\. introduce competition
to have_better_numbers,_rather than merely meeting the_standard 3\. enable
higher polluting occasional uses_rather than banning_them outright

------
ArkyBeagle
Other than border disputes, when has__measurement__been a political football
