Excellent. Diesel brothers fined $850K plus $1.2m in fees.

In reply to A 401 CJ :

I don't know if I should be mad, or just laugh until I cry. A pet peeve of mine is people who "almost" served.

"I almost joined the Marines"

Yeah, and I almost got elected as the next president of the United States...

Curtis73 said:

My concern with emissions (diesel or anything) is the pick-and-choose nature of it.

They monitor NOx, CO, CO2, HC, and PM from vehicles, but give different allowances to ships, oil refineries, etc.

I would rather see a comprehensive and logical approach.  Right now you can make a vehicle with relative impunity.  You can dispose of a vehicle by sticking the whole thing in a shredder.  We (the consumer, not necessarily the EPA) focuses so hard on what happens while we own something that it feels like we just don't give a crap about all the other impact.

We use a plastic cup and feel warm and fuzzy when we recycle it, but most of us don't care what it took to make and distribute the cup, nor do we want to hear that no one is doing anything with our recyclables anymore.  China and other countries stopped taking them, there isn't enough infrastructure to sort it, so most of it just goes to the landfill anyway.

Even things like appliances.  There is that EnergyGuide with a clear pictoral representation of how much energy you can expect to use, but it doesn't say anything about the energy it took to make it, or the energy it will consume to dispose of it.  

+1 to all of this.

And its not as simple as establishing a 'Carbon' value for everything.  There are smog concerns, climate change concerns, material extraction concerns, disposal/landfill concerns, etc.  Now for most vehicles, the fuel they burn is still probably the largest impact on the environment (especially immediate impact), but the other stuff is still super important.  I'd love to see the other stuff get more exposure.

This goes for houses as well, which have a gigantic environmental impact, but its not highlighted by society.  <-- I could rant about this all day long.

In reply to Recon1342 :

I never understood this pet peeve. Usually people are just trying to be nice and connect with whoever is in uniform. 

Curtis73 said:

My concern with emissions (diesel or anything) is the pick-and-choose nature of it.

They monitor NOx, CO, CO2, HC, and PM from vehicles, but give different allowances to ships, oil refineries, etc.

I agree with your overall point that a more holistic, cradle to grave viewpoint should be considered when discussing environmental impacts of consumerism. But there's a point in your post that I'd like to discuss.

The reason they are so stringent with tailpipe emissions, is that they have an outsized impact on human health compared to ships, oil refineries, etc which operate in places with fewer people in close proximity. It's the biggest reason why off-road equipment and on-road vehicles have different standards. The on-road stuff tends to operate more, and in more populous places, than the off-road stuff, so it's regulated to a higher standard. That's why a Cummins 6.7L in a Ram truck or city bus will have more strict regulations than a Cummins 6.7L in a Kubota tractor.

People tend to think that emissions regulations are all about the environment, and often overlook the human health impact. Reality is that most emissions regulations (in the US anyway) are written with the primary concern of improving impact on human health, and improving the environment as a secondary motivator. When diesel emissions were first regulated fuel economy actually decreased for almost everybody, which increased the carbon footprint. There was a known tradeoff, where increases in environmentally damaging CO2 were acceptable in order to limit human damaging NOx and PM. And now, as NOx and PM have been reduced so significantly and the human health factor as been greatly improved, they'll move toward reducing the carbon footprint and the emissions that are primarily an envionrmental factor rather than a human health threat. I think that's the biggest reason that this lawsuit against the Diesel Bros was upheld. "The Environment" is a pretty nebulous, impersonal thing that many people can't fully grasp. But framing breaking emissions laws as a way of harming people makes a more compelling victim, which leads to more punishment.

Curtis73 said:

My concern with emissions (diesel or anything) is the pick-and-choose nature of it.

They monitor NOx, CO, CO2, HC, and PM from vehicles, but give different allowances to ships, oil refineries, etc.

There are some pretty tight restrictions on ships these days.  Five years ago, the US rules changed, and ships had to meet specific requirements within a zone of the US.  Now, you will see ships doing this same thing all of the time.  Actually more- back in 2014, ships just had to run low sulfur fuel in the ECA zone, not they have to do that and run scrubbers at the same time.

Even better, this arrangement has been negotiated world wide.  Not all ships meet the rules right now, but more and more they will be.

In reply to ebonyandivory :

Looks like Box head answered this already, but I'll chime in again.  YEs I was using an extreme example, but an example I see on the roads still, especially in bad weather when emergency stopping is more likely.  I'll give you an example I see not infrequently in this state that I never saw once in the UK.  It's not infrequent, like a a few time a year, to see a car by the side of the road, and frequently in an intersection, where a ball joint has failed and one corder has come completely adrift from the control arm and is stuck.  Something like that never happens in the UK as once a car is three years old it's checked every year.  There are many more examples like that.  Also in the UK they issues advisories as well.  Something is exhibiting the first signs of wear, but not at a failure point yet will be called out, giving the owner plenty of forewarning they will need to fic it.

In reply to A 401 CJ :

Here's the actual quote 

Both of our dads, grandpas, everybody served in some capacity. It’s kind of bittersweet to see the legacy kind of end with us because we didn’t serve.

So it's not bittersweet they didn't serve. It's bittersweet that legacy ended. Bittersweet about not serving is my Dad who wanted to get in during the Vietnam era but failed medical because of hearing loss from a childhood accident. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with someone not serving but a Patriot doesn't need to go proclaiming that everywhere. 

Those guys are as patriotic as the Duck Dynasty guys are backwood hicks.

Adrian_Thompson said:

In reply to ebonyandivory :

Looks like Box head answered this already, but I'll chime in again.  YEs I was using an extreme example, but an example I see on the roads still, especially in bad weather when emergency stopping is more likely.  I'll give you an example I see not infrequently in this state that I never saw once in the UK.  It's not infrequent, like a a few time a year, to see a car by the side of the road, and frequently in an intersection, where a ball joint has failed and one corder has come completely adrift from the control arm and is stuck.  Something like that never happens in the UK as once a car is three years old it's checked every year.  There are many more examples like that.  Also in the UK they issues advisories as well.  Something is exhibiting the first signs of wear, but not at a failure point yet will be called out, giving the owner plenty of forewarning they will need to fic it.

but I want the freedom to drive a death trap...  It's only endangering me and when I become incapacitated by my poor actions the public wont be paying for my life support.....  ohh wait a minute..

also.. saw an chevy blow a ball joint the other day..   

If you want to serve, it's as easy as walking into the recruitment office and putting your money where your mouth is.  It's a volunteer force...

Recon1342 said:

In reply to A 401 CJ :

I don't know if I should be mad, or just laugh until I cry. A pet peeve of mine is people who "almost" served.

"I almost joined the Marines"

Yeah, and I almost got elected as the next president of the United States...

That's a peeve of mine as well. Similar to flying in a plane and claiming "I was almost a sky diver".

Its ok to just thank God for actual soldiers.

TurboFocus said:

In reply to Recon1342 :

I never understood this pet peeve. Usually people are just trying to be nice and connect with whoever is in uniform. 

Maybe. I know I've said things like "I wish I had the guts to join" or something similar. I can't help but feel a bit of chest-thumping (just a little) when I hear "I almost joined X."

Here I am leading the conversation off-topic again.

i think this thread has run its course..

ProDarwin said:

Curtis73 said:

My concern with emissions (diesel or anything) is the pick-and-choose nature of it.

They monitor NOx, CO, CO2, HC, and PM from vehicles, but give different allowances to ships, oil refineries, etc.

I would rather see a comprehensive and logical approach.  Right now you can make a vehicle with relative impunity.  You can dispose of a vehicle by sticking the whole thing in a shredder.  We (the consumer, not necessarily the EPA) focuses so hard on what happens while we own something that it feels like we just don't give a crap about all the other impact.

We use a plastic cup and feel warm and fuzzy when we recycle it, but most of us don't care what it took to make and distribute the cup, nor do we want to hear that no one is doing anything with our recyclables anymore.  China and other countries stopped taking them, there isn't enough infrastructure to sort it, so most of it just goes to the landfill anyway.

Even things like appliances.  There is that EnergyGuide with a clear pictoral representation of how much energy you can expect to use, but it doesn't say anything about the energy it took to make it, or the energy it will consume to dispose of it.  

+1 to all of this.

And its not as simple as establishing a 'Carbon' value for everything.  There are smog concerns, climate change concerns, material extraction concerns, disposal/landfill concerns, etc.  Now for most vehicles, the fuel they burn is still probably the largest impact on the environment (especially immediate impact), but the other stuff is still super important.  I'd love to see the other stuff get more exposure.

This goes for houses as well, which have a gigantic environmental impact, but its not highlighted by society.  <-- I could rant about this all day long.

Exactly.  I was talking with a friend about this the other day and came up with this wild example that has no real world application, but...

Imagine you are a tree hugger trying to decide on the purchase of two things and can only afford one:  The first is a running and driving all-original 68 Buick that pukes NOx and HC like a frat boy.  The second is a carved ivory sculpture and inside it there is a chunk of lead that houses a little chunk of the Hiroshima bomb.  The first one will pollute a lot while you drive it, the second one has zero environmental impact while you own it.

Buick:
manufacturing - meh, pretty much washed away by the 60 years
using - huge impact
disposal - meh, not a huge deal

Sculpture:
manufacturing - pretty important to the elephant and the dude who died collecting the radioactive material
using - zero
disposal - hmmm... lead and Plutonium.  Pretty big deal

Too many times people focus on the "using" part.  That's why I want to see the inception-to-grave concept.  I think a lot fewer people would buy new "green" cars.

TurboFocus said:

In reply to Recon1342 :

I never understood this pet peeve. Usually people are just trying to be nice and connect with whoever is in uniform. 

I understand the need/want to connect; the message is just being sent wrong. 
 

In the military, there is no almost. There is did, and did not. 

Fueled by Caffeine said:

i think this thread has run its course..

The thread has a longer incubation period than that, and will still be contagious for a long time after symptoms disappear

So, if i didnt serve in the military, i can't be a patriot?  I dont care why the dealership flies the flag, i like seeing it.  Reminds me that we are free to come here and give our opinions to each other about two dudes in Utah getting put out of business over something that millions of car, truck and poor people do without any grave financial consequences.

Remember, i live in Alabama, zero inspections ever.

In reply to Justjim75 :

Never said that at all. 

A 401 CJ said:

Stampie said:

Justjim75 said:

In reply to 06HHR :

they are HARDCORE patriots, at least on the outside.  

Unrelated to the topic but this is a pet peeve of mine. I see too many people wear patriotism on their sleeve. I remember driving down a street on September 12th 2001 and every mailbox had a flag on it. Where were those flags the day, week, month, or year before?  It's easy to say you're a patriot but are you electing people that take care of our veterans? One thing I hate to see is a car dealership with the huge American flag that you can see for miles. They aren't patriots.  They're just hoping it'll sell more cars. Ok off my soap box now. 

 

They are HARDCORE patriots.  So HARDCORE in fact that they described it as “bittersweet” that they didn’t actually serve.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/discoverys-diesel-brothers-star-heavy-d-talks-mormon-past

 

I was referring to this, as I'm not able to hear sarcsm (or not) by reading.

Justjim75 said:

So, if i didnt serve in the military, i can't be a patriot?  I dont care why the dealership flies the flag, i like seeing it.  Reminds me that we are free to come here and give our opinions to each other about two dudes in Utah getting put out of business over something that millions of car, truck and poor people do without any grave financial consequences.

Remember, i live in Alabama, zero inspections ever.

Please. We're complaining about how callous and dumb it sounds to "explain away" why someone didn't devote years of their life to something, not why someone didn't take a job offer. If anything, we're complaining about how our society has this F-political-word-I'm'not-gonna-say lean that makes men feel bad for not being apart of our volunteer military when it's really a very personal, multifaceted choice. Why can't you just say "its not for me?" Why did they feel compelled to claim how bad they felt about their choice? We all know the answer, but but that would shut the thread. Anyway...

In reply to Curtis73 :

Reminds me of the "100 miles" discussion of environmentalism, where you try to consume products made/produced only within 100 miles of where you live to reduce transportation cost. There's some videos of people who've made houses on that idea and it's really neat how they had to work around the restriction like this one, with obvious caveats when it comes to electrical boxes and solar.

ebonyandivory said:

As if that's a common occurrence. Meanwhile  my friend with tires that protrude a couple inches from his beautifully restored CJ-8 Scrambler fenders gets another $250.00 ticket...

 

One ticket? Complain while replacing the wheels or flaring the fenders. Two tickets? yeah, you lose your right to complain...

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

luckily andersen is within 100 miles of my house...  

ebonyandivory said:

TurboFocus said:

In reply to Recon1342 :

I never understood this pet peeve. Usually people are just trying to be nice and connect with whoever is in uniform. 

Maybe. I know I've said things like "I wish I had the guts to join" or something similar. I can't help but feel a bit of chest-thumping (just a little) when I hear "I almost joined X."

Here I am leading the conversation off-topic again.

I mean, its a forum, this is kinda to be expected... I don't think there is much conversation left about the diesel bros and where to draw the line for enthusiast emissions. This single thread could be two or three threads in an off topic section, where it belongs... oops

Other than trying to one-up or tout about how much cooler they are, I see no issue with it.
For many it's a big deal, even though the odds of getting into a firefight or dying from combat are extremely low and the odds of getting shot at is lower than 50% iirc, that isnt what people think of when they hear profession of arms. I can't blame anyone for that notion, the whole point of a military is to kill and destroy.
Back to the earlier point of it being a big deal to join the military, it is a big deal. Combat aside there are plenty of other things you give up, choosing where you live and for how long, some aspects of free speech, being forced to run and jump and stuff, etc etc etc
Someone wanting to share that they almost chose the same path should be taken as "I didn't think I could do it but you did do it" type of compliment. I'd even apply that to the a-holes who were too cool for school and "would punch the MTI in the face if he yelled at'em."

Recon1342 said:

TurboFocus said:

In reply to Recon1342 :

I never understood this pet peeve. Usually people are just trying to be nice and connect with whoever is in uniform. 

I understand the need/want to connect; the message is just being sent wrong. 
 

In the military, there is no almost. There is did, and did not. 

That might be digging too deep into it, unless its obvious that the person is being a jerk, it might be better to just give them the benefit of the doubt and take it as a comliment.

In reply to dculberson :

Yeah, you might be ok with getting a $250 ticket while driving the speed limit and obeying all traffic laws in a newly restored, clean running 80's Jeep whose only issue was larger than factory tires but I'm not. And after you spent ~$1,500 on new wheels and tires, you'd run right out and buy another set of new ones? 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

I thought it did 3 days ago..