понедельник, 5 октября 2015 г.

uWhy Did Volkswagen Only Rig Emissions Systems On Diesel Cars?r


4 4 4 9
  • (PROEric Arnold)

    Volkswagen has admitted to rigging the emissions control systems on 11 million diesel cars over the last seven years, but those only represent a fraction of all the vehicles produced by VW during that time. Why did the carmaker only choose to tinker with its diesel vehicles instead of the larger number of gasoline cars? And how do we know VW didn’t mess with these vehicles?

    These are questions that Consumerist reader Dick has been wondering since the VW emissions scandal first broke on Sept. 18.

    “In other words, we already know that they cheat,” he says. “Why do we seem to think they cheat only with their diesels?”

    First of all, the Environmental Protection Agency, the agency that took action against VW, says it isn’t excluding the possibility that unleaded vehicles could be skirting emission standards.

    “Computer controls on modern vehicles can be used for efficient, effective emission control – but they can also be used to only look like effective emission control,” the agency said in a statement to Consumerist. “This is true for both diesel and gas engines. EPA will be reviewing our compliance protocols in light of the VW case.”

    The agency, which previously announced it would overhaul emissions tests to catch defeat devices – software used to trick emissions tests as a way to evade standards for certain pollutants – says the new compliance processes will apply to both diesel and unleaded gas engines.

    So why has much of the focus surrounding the VW scandal been squarely placed on diesel engine cars?

    Jake Fisher, director of auto testing for our colleagues at Consumer Reports, hypothesizes that it could be the fact that diesel vehicles have generally created more pollutants than unleaded gas engines, and controlling those emissions can be costly for automakers.

    Historically, that’s often been the trade-off for buying a diesel vehicle: higher fuel efficiency but more pollutants.

    Diesel vehicles burn fuel more efficiently because their cycle produces less heat, meaning these vehicles often get better gas mileage, Fisher says.

    On average, diesel-fueled cars are 33% more fuel-efficient than gasoline when it comes to mileage, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

    But the on the flip side, Fisher says, these vehicles release more “nasty” pollutants, such as NOx (nitrogen oxides), into the air than their unleaded gasoline counterparts. In fact, the EPA found the affected VW diesel-engine vehicles produce 40-times the allowable EPA standard for NOx.

    “It’s more difficult to make diesel vehicles that meet emissions standards than it is for unleaded cars,” he says of aftermarket treatments needed to reduce pollutants. “Not only is it more difficult, but it’s more costly in terms of treatments. So there might be more incentive to defeat the system if you can build a [diesel] car at a lower cost.”

    Omitting a system that lowers NOx concentration in diesel exhaust could have saved nearly $300/car, Fisher theorizes, based on his knowledge of the VW case.

    Since every other manufacturer has put in that sort of system, he says it’s possible that the VW cars would not have passed emissions tests without defeat devices installed.

    Still, Fisher says that while it’s more plausible that diesel vehicles would have more use for a defeat device, it’s possible that some gasoline-powered vehicles contain similar emission-skirting software.

     



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uCostco Shrink Rays Bins Of Detergent Pods Ever So Slightlyr


4 4 4 9
  • kirkland_podsThe Grocery Shrink Ray stealthily takes away small portions of all kinds of consumer products: food, beverages, personal care items, and cleaning supplies. Even the super-sized containers at Costco aren’t immune: 130 loads of laundry since his last purchase, Ed noticed that his newest container has fewer detergent pods in it than the last one.

    His photo doesn’t show whether the two jars are the exact same size. If they are, that means Costco is using the opaque jars, first instituted for safety reasons, to mask how the jars are now 10 pods less full. That would have been more obvious back when the containers were made from clear plastic.



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uPepsi Selling “Pepsi Perfect” Collectible Soda On The Date Marty McFly Visited 2015 In ‘Back To The Future: Part II’r


4 4 4 9
  • (PepsiCo)
    As it turns out, having your product featured in a major motion picture doesn’t only pay off when the movie first heads to theaters, but it can reap promotional gold for years to come, if you play it right. To that end, Pepsi announced it’s offering a limited quantity of Pepsi Perfect on the day Marty McFly orders a Pepsi in Back to the Future: Part II — Oct. 21, 2015.

    The collectible bottles will be filled with Pepsi made with real sugar, the company said in a press release, and will sell for $20.15 (get it?) per 16.9-oz bottle. But hey, it comes with a “special collectible case,” so there’s that. There will only be 6,500 available online to people in the U.S., which means fans will likely have to hover carefully over their computers/mobile devices for the moment the clock strikes midnight on that day.

    Movie fans who are in New York for Comic Con on Oct. 8 can also score a bottle of Pepsi Perfect in a variety of ways, one of which involves dressing up like Marty (puffy red vest or BTTF:PII jacket, blue jeans, white high-top sneakers, watch — required) and being one of the first 200 fans at the Pepsi Perfect Booth.

    “Fans have always been a little crazy about it,” says Lou Arbetter, PepsiCo’s senior director of marketing, told USA Today about the scene in the movie where a Pepsi Perfect is delivered to Marty via a pneumatic tube, “and so we wanted to take advantage of the fact that Marty travelled to the future, to this month, and wanted to actually come out with the product.”



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uBP Must Pay $20.8 Billion In Finalized Settlement With Feds, Five States For 2010 Gulf Disasterr


4 4 4 9
  • (Bob Reck)

    Three months after the Department of Justice and BP announced they had come to an agreement to put an end to the legal debacle related to the 2010 explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil well in the Gulf of Mexico that left eleven people dead and released millions of gallons of oil into the water, the deal has been finalized for $20.8 billion — about $1.3 billion more than the oil company estimated in July. 

    The Dept. of Justice today said that BP has agreed to pay $20.8 billion to put an end to five years of legal back-and-forth between the federal government, five Gulf Coast states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas — and the oil company.

    Under the finalized agreement [PDF], which represents the largest Dept. of Justice settlement with a single company, BP will pay the $20.8 billion tab in installments over a 20-year period, with the first payments occurring one year from today.

    The only major change to the settlement since it was first announced in July is a $1.3 billion increase in the amount of money earmarked for natural resource damages [NRD].

    Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Monday that the payout related to NRD increased because BP previously didn’t account for $1 billion in restoration work the company had previously agreed to pay.

    Representing the largest portion of the deal, the $8.1 billion in NRD funds will go toward federal and state efforts to repair these damages in the area of the spill.

    The payment schedule, minus the $1 billion previously agreed upon, is as follows:

    Screen Shot 2015-10-05 at 3.19.30 PM

    The NRD money will fund Gulf restoration projects focused on marine mammals, fish and water column invertebrates, sturgeon, submerged aquatic vegetation, oysters, sea turtles, birds and lost recreational use, among others.

    BP will also pay an additional $700 million, some of which is in the form of accrued interest, specifically to address any later-discovered natural resource conditions that were unknown at the time of the agreement and to assist in adaptive management needs, the Justice Department said in a statement about the settlement.

    Back in July, it was reported that payments related to restoration would cost BP $7.1 million, with $232 million set aside for additional claims.

    The company will also pay a $5.5 billion federal Clean Water Act penalty, plus interest.  Under the RESTORE Act, enacted in 2012 in response to the spill, 80% of the penalty will be allocated for environmental restoration, economic recovery projects, and tourism and seafood promotion in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

    The payment schedule is as follows:

    Screen Shot 2015-10-05 at 3.16.34 PM

    The settlement also stipulates that BP will pay $600 million for other claims, including those for the reimbursement of federal and state natural resource damage assessment costs and other unreimbursed federal expenses and to resolve a False Claims Act investigation due to this incident, the Dept. of Justice announced.

    Separately, the oil company has entered into agreements to pay $4.9 billion to Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas and up to $1 billion to hundreds of local governments to settle claims of economic damages stemming from the massive spill.

    “Building on prior actions against BP and its subsidiaries by the Department of Justice, this historic resolution is a strong and fitting response to the worst environmental disaster in American history,” Lynch said in a statement. “BP is receiving the punishment it deserves, while also providing critical compensation for the injuries it caused to the environment and the economy of the Gulf region.”

    The settlement will now be published in the Federal Register and will be available for public comment for the next 60 days.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uRetailers Prepare To Fight Holiday Shoppers And Each Other To Not Offer Discountsr


4 4 4 9
  • (Michael Holden)
    Retailers really, really want to wean American shoppers off our recession-era addiction to discounts. Will it be possible for them to resist the temptation to slap “40% off” signs everywhere to attract customers? Retail forecasts for this holiday season show that retailers want to avoid selling products at a discount, while consumers plan to make their shopping decisions according to price.

    Reuters combined market research, consumer polls, and retailers’ own predictions to forecast how this shopping season will go down. Here’s the problem: 87% shoppers polled by PricewaterhouseCoopers said that they plan to use prices when making their shopping decisions. The problem is that retailers are determined to do the opposite, keeping prices high instead of resorting to sales to draw customers in.

    In fact, some analysts attribute Christmas creep to the anti-sale impulse: stores put out decorations for the various fall and winter holidays earlier and earlier every year, maybe hoping for additional sales before everyone else starts discounting. Of course, this escalates, and we end up with Christmas decorations for sale on Labor Day.

    Nordstrom has actually quantified their plans to offer fewer sales and made those plans public: the high-end department store wants to offer sales on 20% fewer days this coming year than last year, and 25% fewer the following year.

    Other retailers have their own strategies for keeping “SALE!” signs out of the windows: offering on-trend products in better quality is one goal, and better inventory management could mean being stuck with fewer items that need to be marked down before customers will buy them.

    Will it work? The problem is that it only takes one retailer to offer a sale before its competitors are forced to do the same to stay competitive. That would be great news for consumers, but retailers would be considerably less thrilled.

    Holiday shopping season forecast: consumers fight for deals [Reuters]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uGuy Arrested For Dumping Soda On Fellow Moviegoer Who Asked Him To Be Quietr


4 4 4 9
  • (Eric BEAUME)
    Though you might be tempted to lash out at someone asking you to please, quiet down in a movie theater, dumping soda on a fellow patron could get you arrested for battery. One theatergoer in Florida paid for his alleged movie rage with a trip to the county jail, after dumping a cup of soda on a fellow patron during a horror flick.

    Police say the suspect and his girlfriend were talking during a screening of The Green Inferno, when a man seated behind them asked them to “stop talking so they could watch the movie without interruption,” reports The Smoking Gun. A valid request, of course — but police say that after quieting down for a bit, the suspect started talking again.

    At that point, he allegedly got out of his seat and started to yell and curse at the other patron, and “took a large full soda and threw it onto” the man, an arrest affidavit says.

    The suspect and his girlfriend left the movie theater and drove away, but cops caught up with the vehicle. During questioning, the man claimed that he had been told to “shut the f–k up” during the movie, and that he’d simply tripped on his flips flops, causing him to spill soda on the other man.

    His girlfriend told another story, however, saying the suspect had thrown the soda on the man on purpose after being told to shut up.

    The suspect was arrested on a battery charge and later released after posting bond. He’s got a court date for Oct. 27 to respond to the misdemeanor count.

    Movie Rage Results In Man’s Battery Arrest [The Smoking Gun]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uTime Warner Cable Admits Its Customer Service Stinks. Pinky Swears To Do Betterr


4 4 4 9
  • If your TWC tech makes this face, he's probably trying to hold in some gas.
    Once again, a company is attempting the tactic of being honest about the public perception of its awfulness. This time, it’s Time Warner Cable, which really wants customers — most of whom have no other choice for broadband service — to believe it gives one little bit about their satisfaction.

    The company took out a full-page ad [PDF] over the weekend in the NY Times, in which it acknowledges that “We get it. We know how you feel about cable companies. We’ve seen where Time Warner Cable falls on customer satisfaction surveys and we know the ‘cable guy’ jokes by heart.”

    But since admitting you’re horrible is only the first step toward becoming not horrible, TWC outlines a number of ways it intends to do exactly what customers pay it to do, including offering one-hour arrival windows for service calls.

    Of course, it’s really easy to offer those windows. Anyone can make a promise. But will install/service techs be able to make those appointments and what happens when they don’t?

    Another promise is to have someone out to your house within 24 hours of losing service. Again, we’d like to know what accountability there is for this.

    TWC is also pledging to reduce on-hold times for calls. It’s also letting you schedule a time for the company to call you back; that’s if you trust them enough to call you.

    The best way to keep call times short is to keep people from calling, so TWC is pushing its My TWC app for paying bills and everyone’s favorite form of customer service — online chats with someone who is also chatting with a few dozen other angry customers.

    In addition to the in-print self-flagellation, TWC created some TV ads that poke fun of its image:

    In a blog post, TWC’s something something of corporate communications admits that “we know we have a long way to go to win your trust and respect. Funny commercials do not change that. What will change it is consistently delivering great products AND a great customer service experience. We are determined to do just that.”

    TWC is also determined to make its merger with Charter go, and polishing its public image may go some way toward making that deal a reality.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist