It's not like the car is outputting 5% more pollution that it was supposed to, the article said it was 3500%-5000% more.

People bought a car they thought was relatively clean (it wasn't), that got a certain MPG and performed at a certain level. Now they know it's NOT clean and the software fix will probably lower the MPG and performance to hit the correct emissions levels.

Would you like to have your car nerfed, or not be able to legally drive it? That's the choice these people may get stuck with.

I hear where you're coming from, but you can't make that blanket statement.

If you are a social care worker for people in rural areas, or you have a job in the city (roving IT support for schools, private house appraiser, Meals on Wheels volunteer, etc.) then you cannot relocate closer, you cannot walk, and cannot easily do any of the other options you suggested.

The infrastructure is such that buying a more efficient vehicle is an affordable stop-gap remedy, and doable now. Changing to another way of living is much harder, and takes a lot longer.

You're totally missing the point of the comment and twisting it in your brain. People go out of their way to buy a car that is environmentally friendly. I don't use a car to commute but would still look at emissions when picking a car that I might require for non commute purposes.

Moving is not always the best option. For example, you could have more than one person that work and commute, and the house is between the workplaces. Or perhaps there's not acceptable housing near their workplace. Or perhaps they don't want to move and disrupt their children's social development by having them lose all their friends. And moving is often simply much more trouble than spending a little more to get a more environmentally-friendly automobile.

> If they have that much money to blow

A Jetta is 'money to blow?'

For the majority of the US, sadly yes.

in Europe its very advantageous from both tax and cost to run diesel