In article <pKLqc.77600$Fl5.10731@okepread04>, "Keith E. Loyd" <nospam@dagnamit.com> wrote:
>I have been told, and would like confirmation, that there is a turf war
>between environmental researchers in the US and Europe.

Don't know if there is a "turf war", but yes, traditionally the
environmental advocates in the US have stressed pollutants (NOx,
SOx, CO, particulates, non-methane hydrocarbons) whereas Europe
has stressed greenhouse gases (CO2). Diesel, being more
efficient, releases considerably less CO2 per mile driven. But it
has higher NOx and particulate emissions. Some of these can be
addressed with more expensive aftertreatment (something akin to
cat converters used in gasoline engines), but some of that
requires cleaner diesel. Even with that, they might not meet the
upcoming emission req'ts.

California regulators had been very anti-diesel since they were
more concerned with local emissions such as causing LA basin smog.
But lately they seem to be opening the door to considering
diesels. The auto companies are also, to varying degree,
considering diesels. Probably in part due to their huge
popularity (~40% market share?) in Europe.

Honda was late to the diesel game. In fact, they bought GM/Isuzu
diesels as a stop gap. They now have their first home-grown
(AFAIK) diesel in the euro Accord.