21 ms·
Singapore Says Musk's Electric Cars Are About 'Lifestyle,' Not Climate
- clouddrover 7y ago> “What Elon Musk wants to produce is a lifestyle,” Zulkifli said Wednesday when asked about the entrepreneur’s comments. It sounds more like he wants to turn Tesla into a taxi service: https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/22/tesla-plans-to-launch-a-robotaxi-network-in-2020/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/22/tesla-plans-to-launch-a-ro...
- Neil44 7y agoIt seems his thoughts apply to any EV's not just Tesla's, but invoking Elon's name in there gives the statement media wings.
- flixic 7y agoOne of the most annoying aspects of media. See also: Apple, Zuckerberg.
- input_sh 7y agoMaybe that's because Elon directly criticized Singapore's government a few months ago? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1080829741056159744 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1080829741056159744 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1080888452256657408 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1080888452256657408
- martythemaniak 7y ago"Singapore has enough area to switch to solar/battery & be energy-independent" How does something so mild get labeled as criticism?
- simisimiailah 7y agoSingapore has always been super anti personal vehicle... they have a big excise tax on personal vehicles. Far removed from the context of America where everyone has a car
- ptah 7y agopossibly to do with their deeply socialist ethos
- CaptainZapp 7y agopossibly to do with their deeply socialist ethos No, it has to do with the fact that Singapore is a small place, which would completely choke if they would not restrict the use of private cars via heavy levies. And regarding socialist ethos: Singapore is, arguably, the most capitalist and business friendly place in the world.
- ptah 7y agosocialism is not business unfriendly. china is super business friendly
- cmrdporcupine 7y agoYou're confusing socialism with 'government involvement' -- admittedly a mistake many Americans seem to make. 'Socialism' in the classical sense is definitely business unfriendly. Its foundation is a critique of private ownership of factories, workplaces, and other 'means of production' Socialism means social management of the economy. That need not involve the state at all. And it may not describe China at all, depending on your definition of 'social', regardless of what the Communist Party says about itself. "Socialist" certainly does not describe Singapore, which neither calls itself socialist, nor acts socialist.
- H4t5YVm4aP 7y ago"Socialism is when the government does things"
- imtringued 7y agoChina took off as soon as they added capitalistic laws.
- ptah 7y ago
- brosinante 7y agoWell, he ain't wrong. Nothing like a 35k base cost to show off that sweet startup money.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y agoIn Singapore, a Toyota Corolla costs you around $100k. (Seriously.) A parallel import Tesla S via Hong Kong is over $400k. https://mothership.sg/2018/06/tesla-cars-for-sale-singapore-price/ https://mothership.sg/2018/06/tesla-cars-for-sale-singapore-...
- ulfw 7y agoI'll just leave this here to add a bit more background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_industry_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_industry_in_Singapore
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoFrom the article: City-state is pushing people to choose trains, buses over cars
- coldtea 7y agoNot really relevant. Singapore itself has huge financial disincentives to car ownership to begin with, they actively discourage it with huge fines. That's for gas using cars, and has been the case since decades. It's also not that they worried that the insignificant market share of Tesla globally would live them without international buyers for their oil (which is a mere 5% of their much diverse economy). Besides, the dispute with Musk was over domestic use. They are truly against cars, and in favor of buses and subway (which are both excellent in Singapore, which is also quite bike friendly).
- lewisj489 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_in_the_United_States
- filleduchaos 7y agoIt might be a good idea to read the article before attempting to add background to it.
- dragonsh 7y agoIn Singapore they have monopoly on car servicing and distribution. C&C takes care of Benz and Performance motor for BMW. Then Japanese and Korean cars are also by single distributor entities. They control the price and the market. Also Oil and Gas is core industry for Singapore economy. So when anyone fills gas it helps government revenues and generate jobs. Climate is not the primary concern given the small footprint of Singapore. Also if Tesla comes in Singapore as it is perfect place for its range BMW, Benz which are the primary brands will suffer heavily. Also thousands of jobs repairing gasoline engine, oils, filters will be lost. Since electrical car do not have as many mechanical moving parts as traditional gasoline car it will reduce maintenance costs and car servicing and parts related business. So Singapore won't let Tesla setup up easily. It will be taxed higher than other electrical car companies which works on fringes and do not threaten the oil and gas related automobile jobs and taxes.
- agent008t 7y ago>Climate is not the primary concern given the small footprint of Singapore. I would have thought that given its geographical location, climate would in fact be a primary concern of Singapore. So why is it not? One could hardly accuse Singaporean government of short-sightedness.
- dragonsh 7y agoCar in Singapore is already more expensive than a house in USA. So numbers are already limited. So emissions produced by them is not as bad as other large cities in Asia. One more point is that majority of the cars are discarded when they finish 10 years. So newer car with better technology produce lesser emissions. Singapore government is far sighted that's the reason they focus more on public transportation.
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoThe cars are not really discarded after 10 years, they just wind up in Malaysia or Indonesia. That impact should be considered as well.
- 7y ago
- jordanbeiber 7y agoJust thinking about the headline. Turning EVs into a rich persons lifestyle is a good way to start a boom down the line. The rich people will often be positioned to put pressure on politics and businesses as well, and they want to be able to charge their shiny toy, right? Suddenly everyone wants a big screen in an EV cause’ it’s cool; ”Oh, look at this rich, happy dude in his awesome toy on insta!” Queue really, really cheap long range model 3... cough Changing an already put in place lifestyle where needed (US? Europe). I personally can’t tell yet if EV is the way to go, but at least it’s something. Musk is obviously convinced. So, what I’m saying is that Elon might very well be going for climate/environment, not to say there’s better ways. Awesome public transit for example.
- rolltiide 7y agoArticle says Singapore is already uniquely positioned to do 100% EV but has no solution on where to put enough charging stations So when the solutions arent obvious, reality is: rich people will have the charging stations. Thats more what the article is about. Regarding your point, isnt that already whats happening? People want shiny cars, people want expensive things, they want to attract mates with those particular material goods, and enough of the leanest and attractive mates still come out the woodwork for shiny expensive cars and also like environmentally conscious activities. So that part is already working. Mass proliferation is not.
- jordanbeiber 7y agoSo, _they_ are in in fact not the “target” of Musks crusade maybe? Many other places are in my opinion. Around where I am people are looking for a silver bullet. They might actuallyneed a car, but they want one that gives them 100% of the trips, not 99.99. Many are not willing to compromise, even a tiny bit, with the lifestyle. The car must fit in, not the other way around. Personally I choose to compromise.
- lazylizard 7y agoBut it left out the bit that says car ownership is maybe 20% of households. The electricity is generated from fossil fuels anyway..a tesla is like a lpg car with storage n conversion losses in singapore. Moreover the bigger concern is congestion..theres really not much point encouraging a few rich people to switch from a bmw to a tesla. The goal is to not have so many cars.
- ggm 7y agoIf SG moved directly to EV share cars, and did some structural planning around them, We really would be living in the future. The french can keep jetpacks, I want a land based transport system which keeps roads as public utility value.
- lota-putty 7y agoBicycling to work everyday is about Climate. Edit: http://www.globalstewards.org/reduce-carbon-footprint.htm http://www.globalstewards.org/reduce-carbon-footprint.htm
- C1sc0cat 7y agoIn Singapore :-) you do know what sort of climate they have there. One of my co-workers went out there (on a full ride expat job) and had to give it up as the climate affected his asthma to much.
- pornel 7y agoThey're not wrong. Buses, trains and cycling don't have the appeal of a sporty private car, but in a dense city they're much much more efficient.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y agoThey are not wrong at all. It’s a little funny coming from the Air Conditioned City though. Singapore uses an amazing amount of power. If you ever have the chance to their their two giant botanical gardens, I highly recommend it. Just one tiny example of their commitment to use as much energy as possible for their size.
- refurb 7y agoNot sure how critical I’d be of the air conditioning. It’s like Las Vegas during the summer, but year around - without AC it’s bordering uninhabitable.
- rootusrootus 7y agoIt could be worse. They could be cold and using heat instead.
- einpoklum 7y agoAbout the appeal - it depends on your cultural background. Here are some other ways people from different backgrounds think about this (not necessarily consistent with each other): * A private car is bulky and noisy, bicycles and pedestrians aren't. * Lazy people drive in cars, healthy people walk or cycle. * A private car removes you from society, while using public transport/walking puts you with a group of peers, and cycling is a bit more singular but you're still surrounded by your peers with no physical barrier. So using a private car is somewhat disdainful towards the rest of society. * A car is either a truck for people who need it to move things around, or if its a private car - it's probably some young man wasting his money to feel macho.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoThe cultural background you're describing isn't a "background", it's an attitude/viewpoint (I'm not sure what to call it) that is only popular among people mostly of/above a certain wealth threshold (poor people wish they could have cars) living in certain urban areas (the ones that have a high cost of car ownership and good alternative options) mostly located in the US and Europe. For everyone else in the world driving around in a luxury car in the city is a symbol of wealth. There is also no "back" to it. If you traveled back in time to the 90s with that opinion you'd be lucky to encounter anyone other than the most die hard public transit proponents sharing it even in the aforementioned urban areas. Just because you and the people around you hold an opinion today does not make it a cultural background. Edit: Is my opinion wrong or have I just struck a nerve?
- davnicwil 7y agoIsn't that the commonly understood strategy of Tesla? You can't start with the environmental benefits as the main selling point, it has to be a good car. Especially when Tesla started, the base cost of EV tech was extremely high, so the only market-competitive 'good' car you could build on top of it was a luxury car focused on optimising performance, comfort, brand, etc, with a very high price tag. Obviously as the price of the base tech falls, a mass market car will emerge that's actually good, and sells, bringing the environmental benefits along with it not as a primary thing but a secondary one. That's the way it has to work (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective). Also seems that's exactly what Tesla is doing, I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
- nothis 7y agoWhat I don't get is how the two are mutually exclusive. Singapore still has cars, right?
- Sharlin 7y agoAs other commenters have mentioned, personal car ownership is very much dis-incentivized in Singapore. It's a city-state so walking, biking, and transit are where it's at.
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoMore transit. It is a tropical city state, so walking and biking any amount of distance outside isn’t very pleasant during the daytime (and will require a shower and change of clothes if going to work).
- maeln 7y agoSingapore really disincentives the usages of cars. Which is understandable when you have to cram 5 millions peoples on 722km2. Car, and especially car infrastructure take a lot of space. It is something you can afford when you have the space of the US or Canada, but when you are a small city states, public transportation makes a lot more senses.
- 7y ago
- raaaaraaaa2 7y agoif you have 'clean' electricity mix e.g. France (dominant nuclear), Norway (dominant hydro) then I consider electric car as 'ecologic' (after few years lower CO2 than conventional car). For other places around the world where electricity is more 'dirty' just drive some small car with combustion engine and maintain it as long as possible. Small car needs less energy for transport then heavy electric vehicles.
- maeln 7y agoJust the battery production can take 2-4 years to offset compare to a gasoline car[1]. Then you also have to take into account that battery have to be replaced regularly and the overall production of the car pollution. It would be more ecological friendly to just use you gasoline car until it die and then only make the switch to electric. And even then, buying a used car and also running it until it dies might still be more ecological. The technology will get better, on production level and on the car level. But right now, its very far from a clear cut to say if electric car are more 'green' than gazoline car (that are already produced). Overall, the main issue is personal transportation. If you really want to be ecological, you should use mass transportation (excluding planes for short travel) whenever possible and use car sharing when you really need a personal transportation. The idea of all having a car sitting idle 90% of the time is fundamentally incompatible with ecology and electric car won't solve this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_aspects_of_the_electric_car#Environmental_impact_of_manufacturing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_aspects_of_the_e...
- raaaaraaaa2 7y agoI am sure we have enough time for discussion as there's : ~ 1.2 billion cars in the world ~ and only 5.6milion electric cars Even if US and EU will be fast in adoption there's still a lot of work ahead.
- 1122904369 7y agoExcerpt from the source parent cites [1]: Full life cycle assessment (well-to-wheels) comparison of four different power train technologies for production and usage. It is unclear if the usage value includes replacements and recycling. Values are in tonnes CO2 equivalent. Sorted from most to least CO2e consumed. Battery is second! Standard gasoline engine: 5.6 + 24 = 29.6 Battery electric vehicle 8.8 + 19 = 27.8 Hybrid: 6,5 + 21 = 27.5 Plug-In Hybrid 6.7 + 19 = 25.7 edit: formatting
- TheDreamBotcher 7y agoFew things to ponder on like is CO2 used just to gain hegemony over the planet? If you demonize CO2 you can dictate who can use energy freely and who pays a penalty for it. Has the global temperature been as high before? Yes. About 7-8 times before every ice age according to the Vostok ice core samples. Is CO2 raise related to temperature? Yes. It raises around 1000 years AFTER the temperature raises Have sea levels risen before? Yes. After every ice age. Does man made CO2 dictate the climate change? It is odorless, colorless and non-toxic gas that all life on this planets depends on. It is a poor greenhouse gas because of its reflective band and humans create 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. So suddenly 5% dictate what this gas does to the climate?!? So yes Tesla is about lifestyle and giving a "statement" that you care about the climate even if the whole CO2 hysteria is just a scam. IPCC throws the "97,5% consensus" at people's faces and when this study was ripped apart 64 out of 12000 papers actually said that man made CO2 causes the climate change. I would say it is just scam to keep other nations back in production and R&D, because limiting energy usage would be suspicious. Limiting the consequence of energy usage is just climate awareness... Hold Germany back once again and this time don't go to war over it. Russia and US never sign any treaties
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- s_Hogg 7y agoI really love the pragmatism of the Singaporean Government sometimes. Other countries are nowhere near as pushed for resources and consequently don't do anywhere near as good a job as them of facing big, gnarly problems like this. Kind of a pity, really.
- ahartmetz 7y agoDictatorship works great if you have a benevolent, emotionally stable, intelligent dictator. Although some of Singapore's laws are very draconian.
- asdff 7y agoIf you smoke weed they throw you in jail and beat you.
- s_Hogg 7y agoI'm aware of that. I was talking about their pragmatic streak that enables actually doing something about climate change, rather than their authoritarian one that thinks corporal punishment is fine.
- Reason077 7y ago> "it would be difficult to develop adequate charging stations with 85% of the population living in high-density, government-supported housing." This is a common fallacy. If there is already somewhere to park the car, then you already have somewhere to install charging. In a highly developed city like Singapore, the electric grid already extends almost everywhere. > "hydrogen is a better long-term solution than electric vehicles for decarbonizing transportation, in part because of the carbon footprint from mining the metals needed to produce car batteries and the issues around their eventual disposal." Batteries aren't free, but neither are electrolizers and fuel cells (limited life span, large quantities of platinum and rare earth metals needed for catalysts, etc). The lifecycle efficiency of battery electric vehicles is much better than for hydrogen fuel cells, and the infrastructure requirements are much more managable.
- raaaaraaaa2 7y agoThere's serious engineering problem - you need CHEAP material which will be able to handle: 1) very high pressure 2) ultra precise sealing 3) material needs to be resistant againist hydrogen embrittlement (problem for all metal materials) ...in order to build cheap vehicle which will lasts at least 10 years.
- Dumblydorr 7y agoBatteries will get greener over time. Their main components, lithium, steel,aluminum, carbon, water, these are not dirty materials. Cobalt and other rare metals, yes those must be minimized, which may be why Tesla bought Maxwell which has non cobalt cathode tech, and which has supercapacitor tech that may supplement the battery. In short, EVs will get cleaner over time, let's not throw them out or slow adoption. We desperately need a cleaner atmosphere and they will somewhat help with that by replacing ICEs.
- Digit-Al 7y agoI found the last paragraph particularly interesting. I have a friend who is a real car enthusiast; he owns several classic cars which he maintains himself and takes to car shows. A few weeks ago he said that he believed that hydrogen fuel cells were the future, not electric cars. I don't know enough about hfc's to have an opinion but I followed the link they gave and it looks like they could still be a way off in terms of practicality. Anyone here have an informed opinion they'd be willing to share?
- protomyth 7y agoHave they overcome the problems that Honda was having in colder climates?
- clouddrover 7y agoFuel cell cars exist and you can buy them. Examples: - Hyundai Nexo: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/nexo/index.aspx https://www.hyundaiusa.com/nexo/index.aspx - Toyota Mirai: https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/fcv.html https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/fcv.html - Honda Clarity: https://automobiles.honda.com/clarity-fuel-cell https://automobiles.honda.com/clarity-fuel-cell - Lexus LS next year: https://www.motor1.com/news/362598/lexus-ls-fuel-cell-spied/ https://www.motor1.com/news/362598/lexus-ls-fuel-cell-spied/ They're practical realities today. They have fast fueling with good range.
- eigenloss 7y agoIn California. They are completely unfuelable elsewhere!
- clouddrover 7y agoThey can be refueled in - South Korea: http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/south-korea/ http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/south-korea/ - Japan: http://hydrogen-navi.jp/en/index.html http://hydrogen-navi.jp/en/index.html - China: https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-06-07/chinas-largest-hydrogen-fueling-station-opens-in-shanghai-101424532.html https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-06-07/chinas-largest-hydro... - Europe: https://h2.live/en https://h2.live/en
- RickJWagner 7y agoYeah, there's some truth in that. The newest Chevy Bolt has more range than a base Tesla, btw. Progress moves on.
- xiaodai 7y agoIn Singapore, every car is about Lifestyle and status.
- smiley1437 7y agoAny time you see an article promoting hydrogen as fuel, be suspicious - it's likely being promoted by the oil industry. As of 2000, 95% of hydrogen production is sourced from 'steam reforming', basically breaking off hydrogen gas from fossil fuels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Steam_reforming Sure, everyone knows you can get hydrogen from nice clean electrolysis but it's not nearly as cheap (energetically) as getting it from fossil fuels. Anyways, the oil industry would be relatively happy to a move to hydrogen so they could continue being the primary suppler of fuel.
- apo 7y ago> “What Elon Musk wants to produce is a lifestyle,” Zulkifli said Wednesday when asked about the entrepreneur’s comments. “We are not interested in a lifestyle. We are interested in proper solutions that will address climate problems.” Electric cars are poor, even counterproductive stand-ins for long term solutions such as public transportation and the elimination of the suburban commuter lifestyle. They hide a multitude of externalities forced on the public and not paid for directly by owners or manufacturers. Climate change aside, it's not hard to imagine a country as densely populated as Singapore opposing electric cars.
- Bizarro 7y ago...and the elimination of the suburban commuter lifestyle How are the central planners planning that one?
- CydeWeys 7y agoIf you correctly price in the negative externalities of burning gasoline, then the suburbs suddenly get a lot more expensive, and it makes more sense to densify.
- Bizarro 7y agoAll your solution does is hurt middle-class and poor people.
- Scoundreller 7y agoWrite them a cheque. Or increase the amount of income you can earn before income tax is paid. Then they get all the benefits of conservation without being poorer, while particularly punishing those that don’t rearrange their lifestyles.
- selimthegrim 7y agoDoesn’t Canada do this?
- mensetmanusman 7y agoI would love to visit a city that is only populated by e-busses and EVs. Why? To listen...
- mensetmanusman 7y agoSingapore is in an interesting position, because anything they do to mitigate air pollution pales in comparison to the Malaysian fires that annually fill their air. It’s hopeless until the situation with their geographical neighbors change.
- stunt 7y agoSingapore is in a unique position. It makes sense that they have public transport as the number one priority.
- freewizard 7y agoThe debate should be public transportation vs cars for those mega cities, not against Tesla.
- somesortofsystm 7y agoElectric cars may be a lifestyle, but electric mopeds are a solution. They reduce congestion, consume far less energy per mile traveled, and are generally a greater way to get around the city - especially if you join a club and share the devices among a group of people who are interested in maintaining them and using them effectively. So, all Tesla really needs to do is make an e-moped. I'd sign up immediately - I love my Unu, but it needs a bit of the Tesla flair...
- ptah 7y agoalso https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/22/electric_vehicles_wont_help_carbon_emissions_target_say_mps/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/22/electric_vehicles_w...
- bazooka_penguin 7y agoIt's about life styling over the peasants who cant afford a Tesla
- wayanon 7y agoElectric will make a huge difference when it takes diesel engines off the roads.
- sempron64 7y agoAccessibility and empowerment are important to liberal society. The fact is that there is high demand for motor vehicles even in large municipalities for children/families, the disabled, the elderly, or anyone moving large packages. This is a plurality of the populace, even in urban centers. Banning cars in favor of public transit will greatly reduce their mobility and their voice in society. Electric cars are a great way of serving this demand with a much smaller local and global environmental impact. The fact that the wealthy also enjoy the comfort of private vehicles doesn't make them immoral. Certainly we can use fewer, greener parking lots. Certainly we can use better public transport. Certainly the _majority_ of transit in Asian and European metros is public, and should be in America. But a plurality of transit even in the densest hubs is private. There are plenty of cars, and there is plenty of real need for them. Condemning cars is reductionist and elitist, and at the risk of an ad-hominem attack, usually advocated by those who can afford expensive taxis when they need them, and don't often need them since they are young and single. Maybe the dynamics will change with self-driving vehicles whose hiring will be more economical than ownership. But that is so far not a practical short- or medium-term reality.