Should the government implement stricter emissions standards for diesel vehicles?

No

No, provide incentives instead of penalties to create fuel alternatives

No, and eliminate the EPA

No, diesel vehicles are already heavily regulated

No, because diesel engines are already heavily regulated, emissions equipment has a dramatic negative effect on reliability, and emissions equipment dramatically reduces fuel efficiency. Further restricting diesel emissions may hurt fuel economy enough that overall emissions are increased.

No, however there should be more of an incentive to encourage those who are currently using more wasteful vehicles to switch to more enviormentally friendly alternitives.

No, the government should keep their noses out of the people's vehicles. The EPA should be disbanded.

The government shouldn't restrict certain diesel engines, but there should be a standard baseline for the harsh emissions.

yes but i understand the opponents argument and maybe we should see if we could find a way to reduce cost

The federal government cannot and should not implement On emission producing vehicles. It is mostly because these vehicles are the most easily accessible and most reliable for people who cannot afford other means of more energy, efficient transportation, or not wish to use the public transportation system. The federal government should find a way to combat the emissions from diesel vehicles, but they should not ban them out right, they could also reduce the presence of these vehicles in cities by imposing attacks upon vehicles in cities, but not upon vehicles in the suburbs or the country

Yes, but it should be a gradual process, allowing manufacturers to implement new technology at an affordable cost.

Encourage higher standards of fuel to energy conversion, we use only about 30-40 of diesel's potential energy when burning it, and using things like EGR (Exaust Gas Recirculation) causes further burning of fuel which is wasteful.

Diesel emmits less parts per million (PPM) than gasoline does and should be regulated less than Gasoline.

Less for those that are used commercially. Personal use trucks should not be allowed exemptions. Trucks should have same standards as passenger cars. Too many diesel trucks poluting through the removal of DPF and devices. Billowing Black smoke more than 100 Volkswagen passenger cars.

It’s messed up when diesel vehicles run coal on pedestrians as a joke. There is a victim in the situation therefore there should be some sort of regulation against doing that. Running coal is when you accelerate a diesel engine and the exhaust blows out thick black smoke

There are already too many strict emissions on diesel vehicles, this leads me to a funny story, I knew someone who saw the government and a truck company doing emission deletes on new trucks and since it's "the government" they apparently don't have to all of the sudden and it was a loop hole. If everyone has to follow these emissions legally (while most choose not to follow the law) there is no way that this should become more strict if the government doesn't even follow that law.

No, because it adds more funds into manufacturing and if the car prices go up it will make it less affordible for people

It's hard because we need truckers to get all of our products to us, but I would have to say that we should look for alternatives.

No, diesels are actually very clean with the current regulations put in place, they are only dirty during heavy modifications

on personal use cars but not on semi's that we use for shipping because then that would drive the shipping cost up because the trucks would cost so much more

Diesel vehicles do produce lots of harmful emissions, and also, I think that these vehicles should use less fuel, with a better filtering system for the exhaust fumes.

Yes, but allow companies a grace period for transition on vehicles. Provide tax subsidies to said companies as well.

I think that they should but stop using DEF systems but make a way that they emit safer emissions. WITHOUT needing to buy a box of DEF every day or so. make it built in to the system

Yes, but implement restrictions on large corporations that impact carbon emission more than the average American

No, provide incentives to alternatives and more economical processes, like rail instead of OTR Trucking.

Yes, just improve the process so that it is less harmful to the planet and adjust the cost and prices so that everyone can afford it.

no because trucks need to be able to haul and if your putting stricter emissions on trucks then the power goes down and then one day they wont be able to haul anymore

help with emissons testing to make it safe, but do not put more restrictions on diesel vehicles itself.

Yes, but within reason as many people rely on this for their source of income, e.g. truckers, farmers, etc.

without the transportation it would be heavily be loss of connection of business and customers. but in any certain cases yes its also bad because its not eco friendly and not much likely to be used in a good resourceful reasons.

yes but only for commercial vehicle flets of more then 25-50 vehicle depending on how mutch farm land is in the area they opperate in

Yes, for newly manufactured vehicles, as long as citizens and companies still have the choice to buy older diesel vehicles that do not meet the new standards.

I believe that they could definitely reduce it and should, they could easily change the way trucks gas intake works having them be a regular gas efficient vehicle as that is not as harmful to our environment

This question doesnt add to the fact that private planes cancel out most of peoples electric cars, planes should have a minimum flight distance

No, for the sake of low diesel prices, low inflation, a good supply chain, a good GDP, good trade, freedom, federalism, weak government, and checks and balances.

Yes, so long as it does not jeopardise shipping and transportation costs for hard to reach locations

Yes, but do not completely ban them. be lenient but consistent. Offering cheap replacements for diesel could be an option.

No, for the sake of low diesel prices, low inflation, a good GDP, good trade, low unemployment, a good supply chain, freedom, capitalism, weak government, checks and balances, and federalism.

no i think we should incentisive research into making diesel vehicles more emissions freiendly as diesel goes through less refinemnt.

The government should subsidize all kinds of EVs instead of trying to pursue relatively tiny reductions on ICE-based cars' emissions. I weakly say no to this.

This is purely a profit stance for smog shop owners to continue to profit from those driving high-emission vehicles. Outside of this, then no, there should not be stricter standards.

Yes, because it will force automotive manufacturers to innovate and release technologies that will improve the efficiency of the diesel motors, and possibly making diesel cheaper.

no the emissions kill that engine it makes them suck all of the sout in the engine and eventually the engine will blow up

I believe that people who use diesel trucks for their intended purposes (Such as for hauling large loads and equipment) should not have to give up their trucks; however, those who only own diesel trucks only to never use them for their intended purpose need to be restricted.

Yes, and I would also “sunset” diesel vehicles, ending their sale in 25 years, and removing them from the road in 50 years.

yes and no I think it depends on the vehicle year because newer engines don't nearly release the same amount of c02

I think that rather than limiting emissions, alternative ways to transport goods and packages should be created, thus lowering the need for diesel vehicular use.

This should require context on all accounts as diesel itself is more efficient than petroleum aka gasoline. They used to be more common til Big Corpos decide to dictate the market and social construct the minds of individuals on what is good for them based on trend and class.

Diesel vehicles are the only ones strong enough to handle long distance heavy traveling, but we should look into other fuel sources so we can find a way to reduce the use of diesel.

No they should actually get rid of most of them because they are not helping the environment they are just taking all the emissions and harmful pollutants to the environment and they collect them all and release them at the very end which causes more harm to the environment.

yes, because it helps reduce pollution and health risks making a healthier environment and population.

No! This is an enemy and disrespect of capitalism, freedom, weak government, federalism, and checks and balances.

No, instead build these devices that can capture carbon along the roads especially the busiest and most used roads to capture carbon emissions and use it for energy production.

no becuase it does more harm to engines which can hurt falmies and diesel engines do not relase enough bad fumes to do damage

No, powerful diesel vehicles will produce more emmisions due to their engines being built to provide much more power to said vehicle.

Yes, governments should implement stricter emissions standards for diesel vehicles, as they are significant contributors to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, leading to negative health and environmental impacts.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Why Stricter Standards are Needed:
Health Impacts:
Diesel exhaust contains harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), which contribute to respiratory problems, cardiovascular disease, and other health issues.
Air Pollution:
Diesel vehicles are a major source of smog and ground-level ozone, which can…  Read more damage human health and the environment.
Climate Change:
Diesel engines emit greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), which contribute to climate change.
Technological Advancements:
There are technologies available to significantly reduce emissions from diesel vehicles, making stricter standards achievable.
Economic Benefits:
While there may be initial costs for manufacturers and fleet owners, the long-term benefits of cleaner air and reduced health costs can outweigh the investment.
Examples of Stricter Standards:
California's Advanced Clean Fleet Rule:
California has taken a leadership role in setting aggressive standards for zero-emission trucks and buses.
EPA's Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Rule:
The EPA has finalized standards for heavy-duty vehicles, including trucks and buses, for model years 2027 through 2032 and beyond.
Focus on NOx and PM:
Stricter standards often focus on reducing NOx and PM emissions, which are particularly harmful to human health.
Potential Challenges and Considerations:
Industry Costs:
Meeting stricter standards may require manufacturers to invest in new technologies and trucking companies to upgrade their fleets.
Fuel Efficiency:
Some argue that stricter standards could lead to reduced fuel efficiency, but advancements in engine technology can mitigate this.
Transition to Electric Vehicles:
As electric vehicles become more prevalent, the transition from dies

No, but there should be large tax incentives for companies that do implement stricter emission standards

No, but there should be higher punishment for people that modify their cars to save running cost and release more pollution as a by-product.

The Federal government should implement stricter standards on diesel vehicles proportional to the amount of emissions they produce.

It depends how much is being used. If like billions of emissions are causing an issue to the climate then yes

Yes, but if companies want to produce higher emission vehicles both them and the consumers should expect to pay more in taxes for their choice in vehicles

Large diesel vehicles like boats and industry machinery should have stricter emissions standards because they contribute to a larger proportion of emissions

Absolutely NOT. the more emission systems you add to a diesel the less power and reliable it is. and the more likelihood for it to go into regen mode or limp mode

While it helps the ecosystem, we need semis to transport goods. I think that diesel pickup trucks should be limited and have stricter emissions, but not semis

Yes, but only if the standards would have a minimal effect on the prices of goods carried by diesel vehicles.

Yes, but we should also incentivize alternative sources and the creation and promotion of public transportation.

Yes, but only if the government offers incentives for industries requiring these vehicles to upgrade to a more environmentally sustainable vehicle

If the data shows that everything is getting worse (e.g. emissions, air quality) then yes there should be stricter standards for diesel vehicles. However, if everything is scientifically proven to be fine as is (e.g. emissions, air quality) then there shouldn't be any need for stricter standards.

No. Private corporations pollute infinitely more than any single car can. Diesel cars should have relatively strict emissions standards from factory, but the state shouldn't prevent me from being able to remove my catalytic converter or roll coal if I so please.

Stricter emission standards would be favorable, but current technology recycles emissions through the engine and destroys the engine. Not an economical system.

the restrictions should more so apply to larger vehicles that require more diesel fuel rather than smaller vehicles.

Buses and other commercial vehicles that require diesel should be more hybrid of electric to save on diesel fuel

Yes, there is no need for a diesel vehicle gasoline and electric are perfectly fine and producing this other fuel because you want to be loud is not okay.

Yes, but the exact point of enforcement is important. A person buying diesel fuel or a used truck is in the worst position to negotiate that fee/fine from the government, where refineries and auto manufacturers are in the best position to do so.

No. The government's stricter fuel efficiency standards are causing manufacturers to build less reliable engines. Junk engines everywhere are worse than the emissions that cars produce.

no they dont need to be more strict they are already making people use special exhaust parts that are very expensive to reduce the harmful diesel emissions

Pickup trucks and other vehicles should have more restrictions if they are diesel, however commercial semi-trucks, box trucks, etc. should be mostly excluded.

While it would be beneficial, the government's focus should not be on regulating vehicle efficiency but rather on industrial/production GHG emissions

our country runs off of diesel vehicles so until we find a proper solution for it there is nothing we could do.

Driving is a very important part of human life and limiting it could just decrease our life's way of transportation.

Yes, but they should not be penalized if they are not given equal opportunities to afford what is expected oft them due to high prices.

Pursue more efficient environmental policies that include everyone's interests. Emission standards are not enough and violate people's freedoms, and they have turned people against environmentalism.

To be able to do that they would need to change all the cars, but the solution that I see at first glance to avoid causing pollution by using fossil fuels is regulation, and also total and strict management by the authorities to not allow a vehicle to circulate that has a broken spare part, or that does not have an engine check, in this way pollution can be controlled.

The government should impose stricter rules on diesel, but not overly strict, because diesel is a powerful source.

No the digging it takes to get the materials to make the batteries makes them equally as bad for the enviorment

Yes, but more exemptions are necessary for Public Safety agencies who rely on this equipment to work without restrictive emissions standards

No, because it will make it to where none of our diesel running trucks and vehicles that transports all of our goods will be able to transport goods because now they can't afford fuel.

The standards are already ok, and in reality we should incentivise consumers and manufacturers to not get diesel unless needed

I think they should talk about it more, but if they were to cut off all diesel vehicles, give people time, or make them pay a fee where the money goes to a cause helping decrease greenhouse gasses.

depends on what the vehicle is used for for example it should be less strict on a person that uses a trailer to haul necessity's then for a person that just buys a diesel truck just because they want it.

Popular movements should hold car production companies accountable directly for standards on diesel vehicles

No, because defensive people will take pride in diesel, if there were SAME MODELS of the new eco-friendly emissions then it would be better.

Maybe, but it would require some action and engineering from car manufacturers. I don’t think the driving time of people should be limited, I think car emissions should be altered to emit less harmful gases and smog.