Thanks for posting this. When I get some free time, I will watch those talks so that I can understand the details better.

I find it interesting that the cover article repeats what that other libertarian article said:



I agree that gaming the tests is still wrong when you're talking about our planet's climate. But maybe the people who design the tests are also partially to blame here: The tests should not be so easy to game. I hope that this scandal has given them a wake up call, and has made them start working on improving the tests.

There are plenty of examples in other aspects of our legal system where people game the system. In most of those cases, we either applaud them for "sticking it to the man", or we shrug our shoulders. For instance, the way large corporations weasel out of paying taxes: When they follow the letter of the law and successfully get out of paying the taxes, we don't fine them for breaking the law, we complain at our lawmakers for having the loopholes in the tax code. Why are we treating the emissions tests differently?

Laws are often inconsistent and complicated, and as long as the lawbreakers still have an incentive to skirt the law and exploit loopholes, they will do so. There should be as many protections as possible to plug loopholes. We make prisons escape-proof because the inmates have an incentive to break out, so a lot of technology has gone into that. Since cheating on an emissions test is something serious (arguably more serious than an inmate breaking out of prison), then we should apply some technology in that direction too.