Elon Musk: Volkswagen’s Diesel Scandal Is “Obviously Bad,” But Bigger Issue Is Carbon Dioxide Emissions


Tesla CEO Elon Musk has chimed in on the Volkswagen diesel scandal.

While in Berlin, Musk spoke to an audience at a seminar organized by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy.

According to Automotive News, Musk stated that VW cheating on diesel emissions tests is “obviously bad,” but he suggested that there are other more pressing issues that we should be focused on:

“It’s very important that we take action today to recognize that we are making a very significant change to the chemical constituency of the atmosphere and the oceans. It’s very important that we do something.”

According to Musk, Germany does “really great” with sustainable power generation, but isn’t so good with sustainable power consumption.

Musk stated:

“Transport is still very much petrol and diesel. So hopefully that’s something that will change.”

Obvciously, Musk is implying that transport should change to electric.

Source: Automotive News

Categories: Tesla, Volkswagen

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

80 Comments on "Elon Musk: Volkswagen’s Diesel Scandal Is “Obviously Bad,” But Bigger Issue Is Carbon Dioxide Emissions"

newest oldest most voted


Not a big believer in the carbon footprint problem. However I worry about other pollutants, and energy security. Would be interesting to see Trump vs Musk.

Trumps rebuttal would be: “I’d be so good at making the air clean people would get tired of the air being so clean.”


I have the best people working on the issue. The BEST people. The air will be FABULOUS. I love clean air. I cherish clean air. The air will be so clean it will make your head spin.

It would be really easy to make a Trumpbot.

That’s the good thing about science, the fact that you believe it or not does not matter.



Exactly this.

Your response is sufficient.

However, it does not convey the sick feeling I get in the pit of my stomach when I hear people say that they are “not a strong believer” of something supported by the best available science, statistics, or mathematics.

I can understand if people have reasonable doubts supported by facts, research, or even identifiable sources of uncertainty in a dataset, but to simply say that one does not believe makes me question a lot of things about that person.

How many times in your lifetime has a claim supported by the “best available science, statistics, or mathematics” been proven to be wrong later on. Too many times for me to count.

Scientists can be whores who will say anything for a buck. For example, the scientific experts for the opposing parties in any court case almost always give completely opposite analysis based on the same evidence. If they had applied the scientific method they should have reached the same conclusion, but instead they have dollar signs in their eyes.

Getting back to the topic at hand, 97% of scientists here must just be only “money hungry” and ignoring the scientific method by stating what they’ve determined about, what, human made climate change? Come on!! Right. Let’s just ask NASA…

And why would anyone trust NASA, because they make so much money from bashing humans about their climate effects. And what do they know anyway, they only put the first man on the moon, fifty years ago!! So passé, they might as well get hired by lawyers.

The Donald’s carbon footprint must be huge because of the vast amount of hot air he produces.

One’s beliefs have no effect on facts.

The good news about renewable energy is that it doesn’t pollute, and doesn’t depend on a foreign country – and it doesn’t worsen the climate, either.

It does when people over-estimate how quickly we are adopting it, and get choosey about which carbon-free energy we preserve.


“Not a big believer in the carbon footprint problem.”

Is it a matter of belief? Is it like religion? Seems to me when you have concensus from the Scientific community it stops being a “belief”.

Why is it so hard to accept? I can’t understand homo sapiens resistance to it?

I suppose it is much like when a dying person gets told he has a terminal disease. Anger and denial are the first reactions.

Actually the Pope is right–climate change is a religious issue. Mexico and Venezuela as good Catholic nations need to stop producing oil and American Catholics need to start riding bikes. This is a Crusade for modern day Catholics!

Let’s not conflate the issue, please?

Climate change is scientifically proven. But the solution is morally driven. Science and the pope are both right on climate change.

Exactly right, George.

In the short term NOx is killing many more people than elevated carbon dioxide levels are. The potential for devastation, long term, is greater from carbon dioxide. Both are important, but people will survive both.

That only assumes you’re not including disasters caused by warming temperatures, such as heat waves (which killed 10-15,000 people in Europe), hurricanes (loss of life and property), forest fires, and droughts.

You have to offset that with missing cold snaps that would have killed people. It’s a judgment call, but I don’t think global warming is killing many people yet.

Great point, Europe is in their current mess with smog because they had the same position as Musk in 1997. Musk’s kids live in LA where they have taken smog seriously but kids in Paris are now more likely to have asthma because of attitudes like Musk’s.

Do you really think Elon Musk exists to get NOx regulation right?

Really, if we simplify why he said what he did, it is because NOx can, in fact, be taken down. The only way to meet the upcoming CO2 regs will be with some blend of electrics.

Any simple business guy would say the same thing of his product. You may have heard “NOx regulation isn’t important.” Not what he said.

What he said was the modern day equivalent of “let them eat cake”. The reality is smog is a much more pressing issue for 80% of the people on the planet.

His comment is also extremely dismissive of the engineers in Japan and Detroit that have made amazing strides in combating smog and hopefully the rest of the world will soon be able to ECONOMICALLY adopt the technologies that have helped clear the air in LA where Musk’s children live!!!

I don’t disagree, but to sell electric cars, appreciate why he’d go the way of CO2. Both power plants and cars have the technology to nearly eliminate NOx, as it contributes to smog.

I’ll use NRDC, as reference:
That report basically shows coal getting down to about the same rate as the diesel regs (about .1 gram / mile, assuming 3mp kwh and an electric mix of about 30% coal.) Tier 2 bin 5 is something like .07gr/mi, or .09.

These are very low numbers, from where they were. Both energy sources have succeeded at not only technologically mitigating them, but they have also significantly deployed this technology. Back to CO2, Musk was right to cite it as the big bear, because neither the tech nor the economies exist unless broad substitution takes place. A much harder task, not to take away from the realities of smog.

Paul said: “That only assumes you’re not including disasters caused by warming temperatures, such as heat waves (which killed 10-15,000 people in Europe), hurricanes (loss of life and property), forest fires, and droughts.” It’s statements like this which are a big part of why 52% of Americans say they don’t believe in global warming. Because none of that has anything to do with global warming. We have always had droughts. Droughts brought down the Mayan empire, and caused the collapse of Ancient Egypt in one era. Were those caused by human pollution? Of course not. And there is a very clear consensus of hurricane experts that “global warming” does not, repeat not, cause more hurricanes. In fact, that is one of the few areas where the IPCC finally and grudgingly admitted its climate change alarmism was, quite simply, wrong. Let’s remember that storm systems are atmospheric heat engines, running on the difference in temperature between hotter and colder areas. Making the entire planet hotter won’t increase the difference in temperature between hotter and colder areas. Anyone who claims otherwise has a basic lack of scientific understanding. Those who want to change public opinion about pollution emissions should stick to issues… Read more »

Still so uninformed you are Lensman. your wall of text diatribe just makes me laugh

Getting that CO2 into atmosphere is always linked with getting other harmful substances into air. Burning gas? NOx. Burning coal? Mercury. etc. Limiting CO2 thus is also beneficial for someone who just want to get rid of other pollutants. Not that CO2 of itself is harmless. It is changing climate on the global scale. Such change happened before… Never with such speed. Nature wont simply have time to adjust. So we are in for extinction of quite a lot of species more compared to natural “hot age”. Lets not forget that coastlines are most densely populated areas everywhere. Rising water can harmfully impact billions of people. Again. Nothing threatening existence of human race… but still having far reaching repercussions if happening too fast. It is happening too fast! In 50y, millions will have to relocate simply because see will move inland. Massive disruption. A bit more drought or a bit less drought is nothing compared to that. Good news is that we can do a lot to prevent acceleration of such events. Each such action would not only help us long term, but also meaningfully impact our quality of life. (Did I mentioned those poisonous substances released to air ALWAYS… Read more »
przemo_li said: “Limiting CO2 thus is also beneficial for someone who just want to get rid of other pollutants.” I agree that CO2 emissions are a useful, if perhaps overly simplistic, yardstick for actual pollution emissions. It would help reduce pointless arguments if that was emphasized. “Such change happened before… Never with such speed. Nature wont simply have time to adjust. So we are in for extinction of quite a lot of species more compared to natural ‘hot age’.” Probably not true, even within the period our species has been around. Many climatologists now think that the onset of an ice age has in the past happened in as little as 100 years. Now, if you want to read up on a really rapid climate change, albeit a short-term one, read up on what happened in “The Year Without a Summer”. “Lets not forget that coastlines are most densely populated areas everywhere. Rising water can harmfully impact billions of people.” Nope. Consider the speed: About 6 inches of rise per century. Buildings decay and get torn down and rebuilt faster than that. We can just rebuild a bit further inland over the centuries, assuming the current warming trend continues that… Read more »

That’s the whole problem. People have always believed that CO2 was harmless. Now we are telling them it is harmful and they don’t believe.

Sticking to the fact?
Very well, as a matter of fact or facts, it appear that most of what I read about climate change have conceivable relation to the ecosystem and carbon dioxide.
Plant, animal, and all organic things being carbon bases is something that link them to the amount of carbon surrounding them.
So your assumption to split every climate event from the carbon dioxide don’t seems to be based on any scientific fact or observation.
Contrary to just about every scientific research about it.
BTW the climate change that happened million years ago have in fact decimated many species, but not human being as they were nonexistent at those time.
From other scientific theory, it might have triggered the proliferation of small mammals and eventually big ones like human being that have appeared about 65 million years ago.
So contrary to your comment, climate change have probably, nobody is certain, help our apparition.
Why then rule out that it might as well eliminate it as it has most probably done with other’s species, dinosaur like or else?

Djoni said:

“BTW the climate change that happened million years ago have in fact decimated many species, but not human being as they were nonexistent at those time.
From other scientific theory, it might have triggered the proliferation of small mammals and eventually big ones like human being that have appeared about 65 million years ago.”

You’re comparing mega-extinction events triggered by cataclysmic global catastrophes, such as the impact of large comets or asteroids, to the piffling little two degree warming trend which has occurred over the past couple of centuries?

Ummm… No. This isn’t climate change on anywhere near that scale. Not in the ballpark.

Now, the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere certainly is causing a major extinction event, and it may be that we’re headed for what might be described as a mega-extinction event, if what we see happening to the coral reefs is any indication. But that’s not “climate change”, it’s a change to the Earth’s atmospheric composition. Let us please stick to real science here, and not degrade the discussion with AGW alarmist tropes.

I tend to agree with PP in the sense that whether you like it or not, the general public still has some mistrust as to whether AGW is real or not.

In terms of direct observable environmental impact, if we would let go of the tendency to blame everything on GHG and instead focus on non-debatable impacts (e.g. effects of NOx from combustion, land degradation from tar sands, etc), we (as a species) could potentially move forward a lot quicker, rather than spending a lot of money and effort on trying to prove one way or another that GHG is linked to AWG or not.

Let’s just skip the whole argument by moving to renewables and EVs because of their undisputed benefits.

Consider: Musk says he would terraform Mars ‘quickly’ by dropping nukes on the poles.

The extra energy being added to the earth system because of the added mined fuel CO2 is equal to 6000 1 MegaTon warheads going off every single day.

You could describe the warming of the Earth every day from sunrise to noon in similar terms — melodramatic, alarmist terms — and use bigger numbers too. But it would be every bit as irrelevant. * * * * * Nobody seems to object to the global warming which occurred from about 1830 to 1930. From about 1400 until 1814 there were occasional winters in which their were “frost fairs” on the river Thames, when you could go ice skating, an the ice was so thick that once an elephant walked across. But then things got a bit warmer, but nobody seems alarmed by the fact that the climate warmed a bit after that. Yet we’re supposed to be alarmed and think there’s something “wrong” when about the same amount of warming has occurred from about 1930-2010. Personally, I’m not alarmed. Some places that were uncomfortably cold have now warmed up slightly to a pleasant temperature; some places which were on the edge of being too hot have slightly warmed and now actually are too hot for humans to live there comfortably. It’s a trade-off, not a “disaster”. Our species gained dominance over other species by adapting to climate change… Read more »

If you could think of a natural change that compared to what we are doing that isn’t rare and terrifying, you would.

90% of the energy is going into the ocean. Do you know what that will do?

The amount of ice melted and not restored to the Greenland and Antarctica land ice sheets since 2002 is equivalent to the 230 Comet 67Ps (if it was made of JUST ICE).

We force so much mined fuel into the atmosphere that we create 4000 cubic miles of CO2 per year from it. That’s 3% on top of the entire natural cycle. As completely expected, this increases the CO2 content of the ocean and atmosphere by that amount. How long can we do that? I don’t know. Do you?

Alarmism? What about recklessness on the level of misanthropy and self-loathing? Be gone!

Plant trees. Problem solved.

Not so easy. We are instead deforesting the planet to plant crops, raise cattle, and grow biofuels.

And nobody is even talking about global population control.

Yeah. It drives me crazy how, for example, Nat Geo has articles and documentaries which have the title of something related to climate change, but when you actually read the article or consider what the underlying causes are, it has a lot more to do with human overpopulation than how much pollution human activities emit. If there were a lot fewer people, we wouldn’t be destroying all the rain forests with slash-and-burn deforestation, we wouldn’t be depleting groundwater supplies by pumping it all out to use for irrigating crops in arid areas like southern California, we wouldn’t be emitting so much CO2 that it’s acidifying the oceans, we wouldn’t be emitting so much air pollution that people in Bejing and other large Chinese cities have to wear breathing masks every time they venture outdoors… In short, if we could reduce human population to a sane number, then Earth’s ecosystem could easily deal with the pollution we emit, the forests could easily regrow all the trees we need to cut down every year for lumber and paper, we wouldn’t be depleting groundwater faster than Mother Nature replenishes it, and we wouldn’t be pumping CO2 into the atmosphere so fast that it’s… Read more »

And what are you proposing to reduce the human population to sustainable level?
Never mind!
We eat less than 50% of what we fish and the rest are dump in garbage, just as an example.
So I think there is spare to feed more.
But there’s much that could be done in many, many area.
We just have a waste based economy and illusion of perpetual growth.

Djoni asked:

“And what are you proposing to reduce the human population to sustainable level?”

Well, they say: If you don’t control events, events will control you.

We can use education and birth control to reduce population. Or we can let things continue as they are, in which case famine, war, and epidemic disease will “naturally” reduce the population to a sustainable level, altho that will leave us living in a land depleted of resources. Haiti is a perfect horrible example of just that happening.

Hopefully it’s not necessary to point out that all three of those “natural” methods of population control are already happening in certain areas of the world, and in nearly every case it’s directly attributable to overpopulation, although the news media generally ignores that reality. Overpopulation in the Mideast is also the root cause of the current refugee crisis in Europe.

Personally, I’d prefer population control be planned. It’s less disruptive, less traumatic for everyone, and would leave us in a world that still has enough natural resources to be a nice place to live.

I’d prefer not to live in a place like Haiti. I suspect most people would agree.

The religious people go nuts if you talk about population. Fortunately, most people have taken matters into their own hands.

Only because it tends to come along with talk of eugenics and the general devaluation of the dignity of human life.

Yes, the Catholic Church has yet to come to terms with the truth that the Biblical admonition “Be fruitful, and multiply” is a commandment which has been fulfilled. In fact, not merely fulfilled, but wildly exceeded.

Empower women, It will then take care of itself.

When you give women control over their futility and destiny, the birth rate drops below replacement rate.

Futility or fertility? Probably an auto-correct error. 😀

You will need to plant 50 trees just to cover your own footprint. How many have you planted so far this year?

Great point! I plant 1100 trees a month through contributions to Arbor Day, Plant a Billion, and Sustainable Harvest.org. We need to strive to be not only carbon neutral but carbon negative to reverse previous environmental damage. 50 trees which will sequester 125,000 pounds of CO2 after years of growing is just the very first step.

I’d like you to delve into that a bit further and see how hard that solution really is. Of course, plant trees. But if you don’t think energy revolution isn’t the biggest (of many) thing we can do, you haven’t looked hard enough.

It’s really, really hard to draw down carbon in the biome nowadays, what with microbes able to break down wood–like they weren’t able to during the (10-or-so-million year) period a quarter billion years ago that coal was formed. It happens, but it’s always like freakishly special circumstances.

Actually, bringing back native grasslands would be a bigger carbon sink. And we need to make biochar and add that to the soil – it multiplies the fertility, retains water, and we do not need artificial chemical fertilizers.

We simply have to stop using fossil fuels. 4/5ths of the known reserves have to stay in the ground.

I’m not convinced that a piffling little two degrees or so of global warming is significant. Temperature swings between ice ages and interglacial periods average about 10 degrees, and obviously our species has survive multiple such swings.

But the increase of atmospheric CO2 has caused and is causing acidification of the oceans. Anyone who understands how that’s killing off coral reefs all over the world — not just here or there — can’t dismiss how much damage we’re doing to the environment by continuing to pour massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

So Elon is right; the sooner we stop burning fossil fuels for nothing more than our daily transportation needs, the better for every human, the better for every animal and plant, the better for Mother Earth which is home to us all.

Petroleum should be saved for better uses, such as lubricants and making plastics. Burning it just to power our vehicles is something which future generations will consider both insane and enormously wasteful.

We should all be able to agree on that, whether or not we consider “global warming” to be anything worth worrying about.

Its not about how much. Its about how fast. Evolution wont happen over night. Quite a lot of species will die. (Example coral reefs, are ding right now when water is only so little warmer on average. That means less fish that live in them. That means less food for other bigger fish. That means less food for bigger predators in see. …) With naturally occurring cold and hot ages change was so gradual, that evolution could substitute species for emerging/emptying niches. Disasters that forced change quickly on the other hand always meant long periods (counted in milions of years) of lesser diversity, and eventual shift in ecology. On top of that 2C will mean higher see levels, and changed ocean dynamic, and changed climates, and most importantly to humans smaller yields in agronomy. Lots of bad impactors. If happening too fast, we may not be able to solve them. Even now we get nation-wide famines in some 3rd world countries when overpopulation sets in. Imagine that on whole world scale, just because crops cant handle peak temperatures! (Btw, its peak temps that affect most, most plants. Higher average will have less of an impact, but those few more very… Read more »
Translate software? I get what you’re saying. Sea Level: -IPCC has .97 meter upper bound, by 2100 -NOAA says up to 2 feet, by 2050 -James Hansen’s big thing is to say we have no clue how sensitive the ice-melt feedback will be, and that it could be 10-15 feet by 2100. We measure the air PPMs first, the sea-level second. All effects of a glide path that exceeds 1,000 gigatons, over the next several decades. Leave renewables off, or leave nuclear off, and we get there 10+ years faster. The “~50Y” becomes 40, at 20-30 gigatons each. The people who say “Gotta close that nuclear plant” need to be held accountable for what they cause. That was part of Musk’s message. We’re going to think we’re superstars at solar generation, but distract ourselves from what we still consume and emit. Lately, Americian policy is designed to help us do this. A CO2 policy, became a “Clean” policy, that favors natural gas, solar, and wind. It favors a narrow definition of carbon intensity, and neglects mass emissions (except through an option). It’s all there, including how EPA really aims to take us from 2.0Gt today, to 1.8Gt, in 15 years.… Read more »

przemo_li said:

“Example coral reefs, are ding right now when water is only so little warmer on average.”

Regardless of what many AGW alarmists claim, it’s not reasonable to think that coral reefs are dying off because of a piffling little two degree rise in global temperatures. Coral reefs have had to put up with much greater temperature changes in the past, and the fossil record indicates sometimes those changes are fairly sudden.

As I understand it, the real problem is acidification of the oceans. And that, again as I understand it, is directly caused by the significant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s the real problem affecting coral reefs and other sea life, not the gentle and very mild warming trend of the past two centuries.

przemo_li, I take it that you are not a global warming denier, in which case I must point out to you and others commenting here that also accept the scientific consensus, that the mere mention of “Carbon Dioxide Emissions” was bound to attract the trolls. As for those regulars who are deniers, they are unfortunately, victims of a very well organized, highly targeted PR campaign, financed largely by Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil and their ilk, designed to manufacture doubt in the minds of the public about the scientific consensus. I believe the strategy is to introduce into the comments sections of any article that contains certain key words, comments that give the impression that there is some legitimate, scientific, countervailing view about global warming. I should point out that one weakness in this strategy is that, the campaign seems focused on English language searches resulting in global warming denial being much more noticeable in English speaking countries. Outside of the US, the Uk, Australia and other English speaking countries, global warming denial is a fringe belief but, within the US in particular, the fossil fuel interests with the aid of Murdoch owned media have had a significant impact in creating… Read more »

Limiting the rise to 2 degrees is the goal. But right now, we are on track for 4 to 8 degrees of temp increase.

That must be in Celsius.

Celsius, Fahrenheit, who cares?

2 degrees is the goal or 2 degrees to try to keep it to, or 2 degrees is the result we will see over x years on the current path we are on? Who cares about important distinctions like that either.

What is important is you type long replies. Not just one, more than one, and repeat most of the information. Then throw in some adjectives like “piffling” and “little”. Make sure to say piffling 3 times. That will make up for any inaccuracies your’e making in the number. That is how you communicate concisely instead of just annoy people.

It would help if you could provide some actual facts to back up your argument.

Sorry you don’t like the word “piffling”. It’s much shorter than saying “an amount of temperature change the average person wouldn’t even notice.”

Now, I do agree with you on the Fahrenheit vs. Celsius question. I find it odd that so many articles on climate change describe global warming as “1.5 degrees” or “2 degrees” without specifying which scale. But if those who say it’s not even something the average person would notice are right, then I suppose it’s Fahrenheit. I think most people would notice a 2 degree Celsius temperature change.

>>”It would help if you could provide some actual facts to back up your argument.”

Nice try to try to spin this around on others. You sound like a 1st grader saying “I know you are, but what am I”.

Instead of degree I always use K, unless it’s one of the rare times I am actually talking about Farenhiet. I mean Farhenhiet. Er, I mean Fahrenheit? It’s too hard to spell.

It’s 2 degree Celsius. We have already past the half point. 2014 was the warmest year on record, and 2015 will blow the gasket. There is no end in sight, with at least another 30 years of warming in the pipeline (should emission stop tomorrow) and much more to expect. People are not getting the concept of inertia. Humanity is facing many problems, but this one will sweep them all to the side.

And no one really expects us to stop at 2 K. If we try really hard we might stop by 3 K.

This is just because you have an american angle to it.
In the rest of the world fanrenheit doesn’t mean anything.
The world consensus is celcius and only “murican” and some english country still use Farenheit.
It’s just a matter of time and you’ll get there also.

That’s true. I just think it is best to indicate which one you are using.

Musk speaks the truth…VW needs to make a 240 mile Jetta BEV for a discounted price of $25,000 before federal tax credit in lieu of fines by EPA.

The EPA has done similar things before, so you aren’t that far off base. For example, when Pep Boys autoparts store sold a bunch of imported generators, go-karts, scooters, and mini-bikes that failed EPA standards, the EPA made them sell electric mowers at deeply discounted prices. They were forced to do this to essentially net-eliminate all of the pollution that their junk engine generated. The EPA should total up all of the emissions damages that all these non-compliant VW engines caused, and then force VW to sell enough deeply discounted vehicles to net-compensate for the pollution that was generated. Fairly simple math, actually: 1) Calculate the amount of pollution per mile the computer hack caused that is above the limit. 2) Calculate the number of cars sold, and the number of miles they would have driven since they were sold based upon a typical driver going 15,000 miles per year. Keep calculating the amount of over-pollution until VW fixes all the cars. 3) Calculate the amount of pollution that a BEV and/or PHEV would offset per vehicle over the expected life of the vehicle. Require VW to sell that number of vehicles at a steep discount until they net-eliminate all… Read more »

Its an interesting idea though. Fine the company because of big boys ‘evil’ plans & failed testing procedures… OR have VW spend that money on Breaking Good and get VW to develop & sell proper EV’s with discount until the imposed fine is settled.

IF EPA wants a change, they would indeed rather have VW invest rather than pay up money.. I bet my hat its going to be waving its hands for money.

Nix, in a similar thought process, maybe they could require the Responsible Team at VW – to install 1,000’s of the CCS/CHAdeMO Chargers PLUS Partner with Tesla on the Supercharger Network Expansion to an additional 1,000 Supercharger Sites; As Well AS – making All Their fleet of vehicle to contain EV’s in each Category: Have the BEV’s (Cars, Buses/Vans, & Work Trucks) Quick Charge Capable on All 3 Standards! They could Also have them Buy Up Every EV Sitting on a Dealer lot, of Any Brand, Both BEV & PHEV, that has sat there more than 4 weeks, and swap them with the oldest Hacked Cars they sold that pollute more, and retrieve the polluting ones from their owners – and donate them to the various people that do EV Conversions around the Country/World, to convert to EV’s! As an even bigger embarrassment – they could be required to Actually order from the other PHEV and BEV Makers, including Tesla – some 11 Million EV’s (BEV & PHEV) to replace the 11 million Overly Polluting VW’s they sold (short of the number of EV’s they produce), and make them available for the current offending vehicles as a swap – car… Read more »

+ infinite
All good, but I’ll be glad if only 10% of what you are sugggesting get done.

That would be the most incredible out come. $38k over 480k cars is $18 billion. Why not make VW pay $10k point of sale rebate for every ev sold until the fine is paid off. I can bet VW would push their bev’s pretty hard in the states then.

“Why not make VW pay $10K point of sale rebate for every EV sold until the fine is paid off.” – Sounds like another great idea/option! Just so long as the Rebate is for the competitions cars [EV’s & PHEV’s]!! (Putting More Salt in their wounds!)

I wonder why VW has to schedule appointments to retrofit the diesel engines with the offending software that only turns on when the system detects it is being monitored.
Isn’t it just like turning off an if/else statement.

If we are being tested turn on all pollution controls/else turn them all off.

Into: If engine is running, turn on pollution controls.
(Then, people are pissed since their car now sucks.)
My parenthetical comment.

Tesla could fix it in a heartbeat with a software update, of course they don’t have that particular problem.

Apparently depending on the equipment, year the car was made the solution may be different.

We’re probably more likely to die / destroy the planet from terrorists and nut jobs in charge of oil producing countries/areas getting nukes than man made CO2 induced global warming. When US refineries use 60% of oil from imported sources (from EIA.gov), even a small percentage bought from ISIS is huge sum of money. Of course, they don’t list it as ISIS. But US imports oil from South Korea, a country that has 0 oil? Something is very fishy.


This is exactly why I urge everyone to get off oil dependency.
Every gallon you buy just feed your ennemy and add more problem to the world.
Nothing is free!

Totally agree with Musk,
however for really cold climate conditions maybe there is a use for fossil fuels…
in an optional heater ?

Ever since the shale oil “miracle” has ushered in the age of US energy independence with some quarters calling for the removal of the ban on oil exports from “Saudi America”, the idea of Peak Oil seems to have receded beyond the horizon. (Fact check: Net imports accounted for 27% of the petroleum consumed in the United States in 2014. Source:EIA FAQs)

Current low crude oil prices are having a devastating effect on shale oil operations since, fracking needs oil prices somewhere in the region of $70 to break even. Look for US production to start declining soon and prices to start to trend back up. The specter of Peak Oil is a good reason to electrify transport that is never mentioned for fairly obvious reasons.