Dirty lies: how the auto industry has hidden the truth about diesel emissions | Environment

John German was not trying to make a splash when he had ordered a review of the pollution by diesel cars in 2013. The review compared what came out of their exhausts, during laboratory tests required by law, with emissions on the road according to actual driving conditions. German and his colleagues at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) in the United States simply wanted to summarize the final points of a big report and thought the research would give them something positive to say about diesel. They might even be able to give advice to Europe, based on the US experience of having dirty fuel to run a little cleaner.

But that's not what happened. They chose a Volkswagen Jetta as the first test subject, then a VW Pbadat. California regulators have agreed to take the routine certification test for them. The council hired researchers from the University of West Virginia to drive the same cars in cities, highways, and mountains, using equipment that tests emissions directly from exhaust gases.

It was clear right away that something was wrong. At first, German wondered if the cars might not work properly and asked if a dashboard light was on. It does not really make sense, cars have just pbaded the test of California regulators. His partners thought that there might be a problem with their equipment and they recalibrated it again and again. But the results have not changed. Pollution from the exhaust pipes of the Jetta caused 15 times more pollution by nitrogen oxides (NOx) than it reached 35 times under certain conditions; the Pbadat ranged between five and twenty times the limit. German had spent all his life in the auto industry. He had a pretty good idea of ​​what was going on. It had to be a "device of defeat" – a deliberate effort to evade the rules.

"It was so outrageous. If they were three to five times higher than the standards, you could say, "Oh, maybe they have much higher NOx emissions because of high loads," or some other external factor. "But when it's 15 to 30 times the standards, there's no other explanation," he says. "It's a malfunction or a failure device. There is nothing else that can really come close. "

The German was not ready to launch such a serious accusation against a big company like Volkswagen. So he stayed silent while the search went on. Much later, his boss was surprised to learn what time he suspected the truth. He said, "Did you know that there was a device of defeat? Why did not you tell me? The answer was simple. "We are an $ 8 million organization. VW could have crushed us like an insect. "

German and his colleagues continued their work and, once the study was over, they put it online. It was in May 2014. He was still nervous. The board did not issue a press release, nor did the report name the manufacturer. As a courtesy, he sent a copy to a friend of Volkswagen whom he knew, noting "by the way, vehicles A and B are yours". The German group also reported the results to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (Carb). "We were really scared. We wanted EPA and Carb to take over. After the publication of the results, he sent an email to the agencies from time to time. Nobody responded, and after spending more than 13 years at the EPA, he knew what that meant.

Regulators were investigating. And while they were trying to determine what was causing the discrepancy between pollution in the lab and on the road, Volkswagen executives quietly discussed their next move. After months of dragging its feet, Volkswagen has promised to address this problem, which it blames for a technical problem. He started recalling cars and updating the software for hundreds of thousands of people.

A few months later, California ran new tests. Emissions were still well above the limit. Now regulators wanted the software to control vehicle pollution systems. And they made an extraordinary threat to get it: if Volkswagen did not deliver the code, it would not get the approvals needed to sell cars in California and in a dozen states that were applying its standards. The EPA has threatened to deny certification to the entire US market. "That's it," said German, "that's when VW became clean."

Dieselgate, as it is known, exploded in one of the biggest corporate scandals in history. Volkswagen has recognized, in almost ten years, have integrated devices defeat in 11 million cars, mainly in Europe, but about 600 000 in the United States. The software detected when emissions tests were performed and pollution controls – engine components that reduce emissions, sometimes to the detriment of performance or fuel consumption – worked well in these circumstances. But outside the lab, the controls have been turned off or lowered and NOx levels have risen up to 40 times the legal limit. Volkswagen even used the software update it had been forced to make to improve the cars' ability to detect when they were tested.

And it turned out that Volkswagen was not the only one to evade the law. Less blatantly, but in the same sense, the vast majority of diesel cars made fun of the emissions rules. Following the US revelations, European governments have also tested other major brands. In Germany, the testers found that all but three models exceeded the NOx limits, the worst by a factor of 18. In London, the testing company Emissions Analytics found that 97% of the more than 250 models diesel were in violation; a quarter produces NOx at six times the limit. "As the data kept coming, our jaws kept falling. Because it's so systematic and widespread, "says German. "VW is not even in the worst half of the builders", with a few exceptions, "everyone does it".

---

IIn the United States, where only 2% of cars are diesel, non-compliance has had an impact. But the health consequences have been far worse in Europe, where drivers have been encouraged for years to buy diesel cars – when the scandal broke, they accounted for more than half of sales. In 2015 alone, one study showed that non-compliance caused 6,800 early deaths. To put it more clearly, tens of thousands of people have died because car manufacturers have felt so free, for so long, to flout the law.

Of course, the painful light of the scandal did not only reveal the wrongdoings of the companies. It also made visible an equally painful failure. Throughout Europe, including Great Britain, the governments responsible for law enforcement and the protection of the health of their citizens had totally neglected to do so. The German explanation explained to me that European air quality regulators have neither the power nor the resources that their US counterparts have long had. European countries have never put in place the necessary capacity to enforce the rules on pollution. Governments, he said, "do not seem to be able to do anything, in most cases do not even seem to want to do anything".

While the United States is, in many ways, lagging behind Europe in terms of environmental standards, air quality is a glaring exception. Over the years, the EPA has accumulated considerable legal and technical expertise. At least until its evisceration in the Trump years, the EPA was known for its diligence in supplementing regulations with circulars and notices defining each term with precision, clarifying ambiguities and stating what was allowed and which was not it. The result was a system that, if it was not waterproof, was much less permeable than elsewhere. In Europe, although the rules may seem similar, nobody bother to specify what they mean, so polluters give their own interpretations. Its atrocious air is a warning that those who undermine US regulations would do well to be taken into account.

I have been living in London for 18 years, breathing the diesel fumes that pollute the city's air. I can feel the emissions when I'm shopping. After a few minutes on a busy road, I often have a headache. The German has allowed me to understand the pollution that has obsessed, exasperated and terrified me all this time. I see now that the blame is not only attributable to the erroneous decision taken at the turn of the century to push the drivers to diesel. Nor only with the non-respect of the rules of the car manufacturers. The failure of so many governments to enforce the law is the third missing piece of this puzzle. What I understand now is that the people to whom we entrusted the power to protect us basically decided not to bother. Instead, they allowed the builders to throw up whatever they want in our air.

It is basically an explanation of the dirt that leaves sand on the teeth and a bitter taste in the mouth, and exposes my family and neighbors to a risk of heart disease, dementia and premature death. many forms. Together, error, cheating and neglect are the reasons why the streets we walk through every day in London are tainted by noxious fumes.

---

HHow could this have happened in countries that are among the richest in the world, on a continent whose name is synonymous elsewhere with environmental progressivism? Shortly after meeting John German, I was in Berlin at the European office of the ICCT – the American arm for which Germany works – to see his colleague Peter Mock.

As Mock spoke, I began to badimilate the details of European failure. It starts with an execution structure that seems almost designed to let offenders through. The European Commission sets the rules on the amount of pollution that a car is allowed to produce. But the task of enforcing them is not the responsibility of Brussels, but of national governments. And a car company that is preparing to launch a new model can choose the country that certifies it. each EU country must then respect the approval. A savvy automaker opts for a place where it provides many jobs, where public servants are likely to be flexible.

National anti-fraud agencies, on the other hand, are generally understaffed, poorly funded and lack technical expertise. Great Britain is an exception, but in most countries these weak agencies do not even test the cars themselves. About a dozen vehicles need to be checked before a new model is approved, and testing is often done by external contractors. When they are done, the manufacturers hand over the documents to the regulators, and the results, says Mock, are generally accepted without much question.

In addition, the details of the tests – speed, acceleration, etc. – are accessible to the public. Thus, a builder can build his cars so as to produce little pollution in these particular conditions and much more the rest of the time. This is the key to a question that is harbading me. I know that many diesel brands, not just Volkswagen, exceed emissions limits. Yet most companies do not have any legal problems with VW.

These companies are moving in another direction: programming antipollution devices to turn off in very hot or cold weather, when a car has just started, accelerates or slows down, or climbs a hill – conditions that they describe as extraordinary, but counts for a large part of the driving time. In case of dispute, companies can cite a legal loophole, saying that deactivation is necessary to protect engines.

Now, finally, European regulators have begun to demand that cars be tested on the road, not just in the laboratory. But the real problem, in my opinion, is even greater: it seems clear that loopholes in the application of the laws of European nations are more fundamental than the peculiarities of a single test method. The problem is the system itself, which is riddled with weaknesses and ripe for abuse. Politicians have begun, after Dieselgate, to tighten it, but it remains a system designed under the scrutiny – and pressure of lobbying – of a powerful industry.

I learned to my amazement that some in power were aware of the consequences. I spoke by telephone to Martin Schmied, head of the German Federal Agency for the Environment. His department, he said, drove cars on the road for 25 years to measure emissions – and publish the results. Year after year, they found diesels producing NOx higher than the legal maximum; six times, in a recent test. I asked him to clarify: the German government and anyone who reads its public reports have known for decades that car manufacturers are flouting the rules? Schmied replied that as emissions dwindled when limits were tightened, his department was not worried that they were several times higher than those allowed. "We publish this data," he said. "In principle, this is not new."

So, Germany knew. Maybe other governments have done it too. Many of its inhabitants did not do it. I certainly did not do it. Neither the buyers of millions of diesel cars. Neither do the hundreds of millions of people who breathe the air they stain, having so long trusted companies to abide by the law – and governments would capture them if they did not. David King, Tony Blair's scientific advisor, told me he supported the tax changes that would allow many diesel cars to run on British roads because he thought they would meet emission limits.

The scandal of cheating diesel is somehow a failure of innovation – this is another symptom of automakers' desire to stick to what they know, with cars generating reliable profits. This caution is certainly at the root of why European automakers pushed governments looking to reduce their carbon footprint towards diesel instead of hybrids like those that Honda and Toyota had already installed on the roads. in the late 1990s. With their vast resources and marketing power to bring consumers, who knows what Volkswagen and others could have proposed. We all paid the price for their decision not to try.

---

TNowadays, glimmers of a different future come as electric cars begin to evolve from one niche to another. There are certainly some challenges: the need for better batteries, more charging points and enough power to power cars. But these are obstacles that can be overcome and the technology is advancing rapidly.

The stakes are more important than ever. Today's cars – gasoline, if not diesel – are, by some measures, 99 percent cleaner than the barely regulated cars of 1970. But, while governments have tackled the pollutants that damage our bodies, they have just begun to target the one that is warming our planet: until recently, no self-regulation was trying to reduce carbon dioxide. It has therefore increased with the number of cars on the road, the kilometers traveled and the liters of fuel consumed.

Today, electric vehicles seem to be the best way to reduce both types of pollution, another place where the goals of a healthy climate and a healthy body converge. The electricity in itself is not a guarantee of respect for the environment. But it is a necessary precondition for feeding cars from clean sources such as wind and solar energy.

Electric cars are not a panacea. Although they do not create exhaust emissions, their brakes and tires emit tiny toxic particles as they go. The energy needed to manufacture them, as well as the raw materials used in their bodies and batteries, will not be sustainable if the number of car owners continues to grow.

For the moment, this incessant ascent frames everything. The number of vehicles in the United States has more than tripled since 1960; In the UK, there is a car for two people. And the fastest growth is now in developing countries such as India and China. If they follow the path we have taken, the world could go from about a billion cars today to over 3 billion by 2050. What we really need, this is not just a slowdown in growth, but a decrease in the number of cars. This goal is achievable if we reorganize the places where we live to be denser, more pedestrian friendly and bicycle friendly, thanks to public transportation – and new options such as carpooling – that are convenient and convenient. affordable.

Nevertheless, cleaning the vehicles we drive is crucial. As in the past, the best hope comes from companies willing to invest the necessary financial resources. And, as always, many powerful actors are deeply invested in old ways of doing things, so progress has sometimes been frustrating.

But this time, important new forces are at work. One of the most important is China. The country's leaders have recognized the urgency of solving their pollution problem and are eager to dominate the industries needed to achieve it, including electric cars.

China's thirst for clean cars – as well as its willingness to invest a lot of money in its top priorities – is transforming the industry in ways that will affect us all. It is by far the world's largest car market, and its demand for electric cars is growing rapidly. It is now the biggest buyer of these cars. The government aims to put millions of people on the roads, offer discounts to drivers who buy electricity and tell major multinational automakers that they want to do business. in China, they must achieve ambitious targets for zero-emission models. This aggressive push will not fail to accelerate the trends already underway worldwide: lower prices and technological progress, particularly more powerful batteries that increase the autonomy and speed of loading.

In the United States, California is leading, pushing millions of cars to zero emissions on the roads. Norway is another leader and Europe is also more interested in electric cars – because of the drivers' anger at the diesel scandal, the increased understanding of the threats of air pollution and the need to do more. facing climate change.

---

IIt seems to me that, to get a glimpse of a cleaner future, I have to borrow a crowded highway at the end of one rush hour from Northern California, with energy-hungry SUVs and big trucks current diesel. I was heading to the Tesla factory in Fremont, near Silicon Valley. In fact, it is as much a technological operation as a traditional manufacturing company, not the post-industrial industry, but post-fossil energy. The vast building, one and a half kilometers long, is surrounded by several acres of parking. I was asked to allow at least 15 minutes to find a place, which is a wise suggestion. Apart from a few plug-ins at the front, almost all cars shown here are of the traditional type.

Inside, a pouch Tesla enthusiasts had gathered for this morning's tour. While our guide, Kim, in black trousers and t-shirt, her long, relaxed gray hair, led us to the factory, she started a well-crafted draft, mixing facts and figures with jokes and slogans to other owners of You're here. . His enthusiasm seemed genuine. "Every day you drive your Tesla, every kilometer you help save the world," she told us.

In a small demonstration area, Kim circulated some of the materials used to make these vehicles. First, a small cylindrical battery, the size of two or three AA batteries; About 7,000 of them, she explained, are packed together in the pale green, flat-bottomed briefcase that made up the chbadis of a nearby demonstration car. Then come a metal ingot, then a tray of black plastic beads that remind me of those more colorful than my artistic girl organizes in heart shapes and stars so that I can melt with an iron. When we got into a long cart, Kim put on a helmet and got into driving.

While Kim was driving and talking, I watched a sea of ​​metal pieces stacked on shelves in rows several hundred feet long. Some were recognizable as wings or doors; others had forms whose meaning I did not understand.

A press as big as a small building turned gigantic rolls of aluminum into body panels; Kim said his foundation extends over three floors. Several workers were inspecting parts when they emerged on a treadmill. At many stations there was no one – there were only red robotic arms, which slid silently back and forth, up and down, whirling and turning and lifting, riveting. and soldered. But while the employees were scattered, there were many, all things considered. Many were sitting or standing in front of computers in groups of desks and tables looking like desks that opened on the largest work floor. We pbaded by a cafeteria with a salad bar and a coffee counter; it was open on the floor of the factory and was filled with workers discussing and eating.

As we went along, I began to see the shells of cars, lined up by dozens. In the "suspension zone", doors have been installed and seats stacked nearby. The tires too, then the car bodies freshly repainted. While Kim was saying goodbye to us ("I hope I showed a lot of magic and mystery around your car," she said), I finally realized what was missing – the part I had not seen so familiar that she took me until now time his absence. There are no exhaust pipes on these cars.

Tesla – with his sleek style and grand ambitions, his well-known problems, and his CEO, Elon Musk, whom a columnist called "the identity of technology" – adopted an excessive symbolism as a representative of an industry that hopes to break out from early childhood to adolescence and beyond. Its cars run smoothly, require little maintenance and are filled with clever little touches, such as door handles that open to the driver's approach and large touch screens instead of dashboard controls. 'Ancient. Teslas's interest in and hype around its cars stems from buyers' belief that they offer not only a replacement for traditional cars, but something much better. The company struggled to manufacture fast enough to keep its promises, and financial problems sometimes made it uncertain. But he has clearly succeeded in providing a proof of concept, resolving once and for all the question of whether electric cars can be both reliable and elegant, or capable of giving drivers what they need and what they want. In doing so, he encouraged others to follow. And overall, it's much more than the fortune of this company.

Musk is an impetuous South African immigrant who embodies, in many ways, what the United States has always imagined: bold and tough at the wheel, ready to dream big and take risks. He is sometimes compared to Apple's Steve Jobs, but, with the conviction of the world of technology, Musk considers his mission is more ambitious than making beautiful gadgets: he wants to put technology at the service of solving problems more pressing of humanity. He has made more progress than expected. SolarCity is its attempt to expand the use of clean energy, Powerwall its boost for batteries that make renewable energy reliable. With Tesla, he wants to remake the transport, and he is betting – rightly – that he could beat a vast but moribund industry.

Coming out of the factory, I saw an oversized American flag floating off. Next door, another banner bore the familiar red and blue logo of the oil giant Chevron. It is not necessary to look far from the Tesla bubble to see that the fossil fuel economy continues to grow. And in case I need to remember that electric cars are still a tiny point in a huge gas and diesel sea, a truck carrying half a dozen brilliant Teslas stopped behind me as I headed to the highway. Despite its cargo, the truck was of the traditional type, dirty and heavy, almost certainly diesel.

So there is still a long way to go before technology can deliver on its promise on a scale sufficient to be important. But Tesla and others who take up the challenge they have launched take a look at what is possible. Less important than this future being delivered by Silicon Valley or Detroit, Beijing or Wolfsburg, is that it gets up quickly. Innovation today offers the hope of a revolution that will finally take us where we need to go.

This is an excerpt from Chokes: The Age of Air Pollution and the Struggle for a Cleaner Future of Beth Gardiner, published by Granta on March 28 and available at guardianbookshop.com

• Follow the long read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up for the weekly email here.