11 ms·
So does this mean all those zero emission Tesla’s are actually generating lots of emissions but just via another manufacturer?
by jonplackett 7y ago
So does this mean all those zero emission Tesla’s are actually generating lots of emissions but just via another manufacturer?
- rcMgD2BwE72F 7y agoNo.
- dwrowe 7y agoI’d assume it’s an “offset” right? So not making things “better” - just not as “bad”
- adventured 7y agoIt's making things better by directly funding the killing of the ICE vehicle industry. That money is coming out of the pockets of the ICE automakers and being injected into Tesla, which is actively trying to replace the ICE approach. It's helping to enable the build-up of EVs and replacement of the ICE auto industry. It has a rather considerable roll-on effect when you consider the sprawling consequences, such as helping to fund Tesla's ability to build a global charging network which can then enable it to more easily appeal to consumers to sell more EVs and on it goes in dozens of other ways.
- dwrowe 7y agoMaybe, I haven't reviewed the numbers in detail - but the need for GM/others to purchase the credits at the rate they do, enables them to continue pushing the ICE autos - possibly increasing the overall market supply, which in turn is just as bad / worse? Something to watch, for sure.
- gwbas1c 7y agoNo, it means that the polluters end up subsidizing development of cleaner vehicles. Otherwise, Teslas would be more expensive.
- DeonPenny 7y agoNo because that would assume they would make those cars without tesla. The more obvious future without tesla would they'd still produce the cars. There'd be no big america EV company. And they'd lobby to lower the tax burdent citing the inability to hit emission target. You can't for consumers to want Evs from thse companies.
- whenchamenia 7y agoYup. Thts how carbon credits work. None of the 'no' zelots care to explin themselves.