9 ms·

Tesla are no angels, but it is nice to see an example where a large company has an inherent financial incentive to behave in an a broadly pro-society manner. W

• seph-reed 5y ago
  I wonder if a carbon tax which subsidizes low emission alternatives could get across this way?
  • dreyfan 5y ago
    You've just described Tesla's entire business model. They sell carbon credits to enable polluters to keep polluting.
    • seph-reed 5y ago
      For anyone else who'd never heard of carbon credits: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2020/03/13/want-to-understand-carbon-credits-read-this/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2020/03/13... So, if these carbon credits exist, is it possible to coinify them and boost their value? Because it would seem the more valuable they are, the more financial incentive there would be to reduce carbon emissions.
    • MetaWhirledPeas 5y ago
      I don't know if you meant it this way, but your statement comes across very negatively. Just a reminder that the carbon credits are doing exactly what they're supposed to do: give a leg up to green companies.
      • seph-reed 5y ago
        My mind is spinning with these carbon credit things right now. You can trade them! Like a stock market! If /wallstreetbets started buying all these up (not sure of the supply right now), they could fleece dirty industries.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • chaboud 5y ago
          There's a cap on valuation. You can buy them from producers or pay the ceiling cost per credit from the state (e.g. California). Now, if the WallStreetBets folks want to go into clean mobility, I'll pop the popcorn and watch that show for a few days.
          • seph-reed 5y ago
            I couldn't find anything about a "cap on valuation" on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit) or (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=carbon%20credit%20valuation%20cap https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=carbon%20credit%20valu...) Would you mind pointing me in the way? Even if there is a cap, as long as the current price is below it, there's a market.
    • Voloskaya 5y ago
      That's quite a disingenuous way to describe the situation. Without ZEV credits, the polluters would keep on polluting. With ZEV credits, the polluters, for now, keep on polluting, but they have to subsidize the development of clean automotive tech, and fund their own competition. This is definitely a good thing, and give them a big incentive to stop polluting (as much) so they can stop paying for those ZEVs.
      • pyrale 5y ago
        > but they have to subsidize the development of clean automotive tech More like they subsidize bitcoin-created pollution.
  • gibolt 5y ago
    It absolutely would, and they've been pushing for that for ages. New taxes just aren't tenable in government right now, even if it means avoiding the worst of Climate Change which impacts everyone
    • dillondoyle 5y ago
      If I had to bet I would say we're >50% chance we get somewhere around $1T in Dem spending which will be close to 100% paid for with new taxes. BUT it doesn't look like there will be much in the way of hitting emitters. In fact it looks like we'll be giving the incumbents money to 'green' which I don't trust at all. Albeit with some penalties attached for accountability which is kind of a potential tax. I find the utility industry weird in that it's so regulated yet they are allowed to make profits sanctioned by govt agencies. Just nationalize it or regionalize it.
  • G3rn0ti 5y ago
    > carbon tax? No you want an emissions trading scheme instead of a carbon tax. Only this way the government can actually enforce strict upper limits on CO2 emissions („cap“) and allow economic subjects to sell their emission rights for profit („trade“). Compared to a carbon tax „cap and trade“ makes the regulation of carbon emissions more efficient both for all market participants and the government.
    • imtringued 5y ago
      In theory. Then the government gives free carbon credits to industries that are supposed to reduce their emissions.
  • mhh__ 5y ago
    Taxation does seem to be the best way to let the market do what it thinks is the best way to achieve the goal you set. Someone once retorted to me, "well won't some businesses go bust?" - to which I do not reply glibly since job losses are overreported but still important, but simply "That is the whole point".
  • bubleh 5y ago
    Only if it considers the total emissions required for making and using a particular vehicle. If I buy a 10 year old civic to drive for the next 5 years, I will be producing MUCH less emissions than what's released when building and using a brand new tesla. This will never happen though, because the virtue-signalling 'green' politicians and companies still have a bottom line which is MUCH more important for them than any real improvement.
    • farisjarrah 5y ago
      Engineering Explained youtube channel tackled this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k The verdict appears to be that the answer to this question is a bit more complicated then a blanket "Its better to buy a new car for the environment" but its highly dependent on gas milage and time of ownership, as well as new gas car vs new hybrid car vs new electric car. He does take into account carbon needed to build the cars too. It seems that in most cases a new EV will be better for the environment then your 10 year old honda in roughly 4 years. Skip to 6 minutes in the video for when he starts showing compiled data of when its better to buy a new car vs keep old.
      • bubleh 5y ago
        The CO2 emissions of 10400 kg for producing new tesla is taken directly from tesla's own marketing materials ('impact report') and arguably highly inaccurate as admitted by the author. I'm willing to accept his revised figure of 20800kg however. Next, moving on to the pollution and externalises (besides emissions) required to produce a tesla - he correctly points out that acquiring several of the metals involves human trafficking, pollution, release of toxic chemicals, etc (he gives no useful numbers). He then moves on to state that's not a big deal because the relative weight of these metals in one car is much smaller than the total weight of the car? What a bizarre argument. > It seems that in most cases a new EV will be better for the environment then your 10 year old honda in roughly 4 years. 2011, manual, 10 year old civic, gets 29mpg not 25mpg, which even based on the bullshit numbers from tesla's marketing pamphlet means it's better for the environment to buy a 10 year old civic and drive it for 5 years. If we use more realistic numbers you can probably buy 90% of 5-10 year old car models to drive to 5 years and emit less CO2 than a new tesla. Also, people buying 10 year old civics generally already have economy and frugality in mind and aren't loaded with cash, they often don't have the option of buying a tesla. Trying to economically punish them for this is just counterproductive.
• ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  It would be also nice if they made a repairable car, and not fill the landfills... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-tVM9lz4h4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-tVM9lz4h4
  • xedeon 5y ago
    Yeah, that video was primed for clickbait. The picture of the repair bill they showed was from 2019 for a completely different car. Both Rossman and Rich Rebuild’s channel are complicit. There’s always more to the story. https://twitter.com/petteri_bergius/status/1438452122526310401?s=21 https://twitter.com/petteri_bergius/status/14384521225263104...
    • barbazoo 5y ago
      There has been a follow up video by RichRebuilds where explains (and regrets) what he did. It doesn't change anything about Tesla's stance against 3rd party repairs and their reluctance to do anything other than a complete battery swap in that case.
      • judge2020 5y ago
        I mean, if a part isn't supposed to be opened up to be serviced, then them doing so would increase liability in case they botch the repair or it later catches on fire. If the part was on a smaller scale, say replacing a mosfet on the ADAS unit when the service techs are only allowed to replace the full ADAS unit, would it be the same story?
      • ajross 5y ago
        It may not change the individual fact, but it quite clearly doesn't support the ridiculous hyperbolic generalizations about a "non-repairable" car upthread either. Look, cars are complicated. Manufacturers write repair manuals and stock parts based on expected failures. Not every conceivable failure is going to be in those manuals. In this case there was a valve that was part of "The Battery Pack" as far as the manual was concerned, but that had a localized failure more that could have been repaired with a targetted replacement of a single part. And it wasn't in the manual. And yeah, that's sort of an engineering failure. They should have anticipated this low-hanging-fruit kind of repair (just as they do for other very common stuff like brake calipers or shocks or whatnot). And they didn't. Shame on them. But that's not a systemic failure. They just didn't write it up. What are you really asking for here? That Tesla empower its local service centers to do their own engineering work on a 400V electrical system and decide for themselves how to disassemble and reassemble the battery pack in a safe way just to save a handful[1] of battery replacements? Does that sound like a good idea? Seems like we'd be right back here with entirely different (and IMHO more justified) anti-Tesla safety flame wars. [1] So far as anyone can tell, this is in fact the only such valve that has failed on a wild Tesla. It's not like these things are dropping everywhere.
• fossuser 5y ago
  Some of my favorite aspects of capitalism are when incentives align people toward things that are also in the public interest in addition to the private interest of the company. Another historical example that comes to mind were some train companies lobbying to end segregation because they didn't want to run separate cars/routes for different groups. Another thing that isn't really an example of this are the bodegas in DC (often run by immigrants) selling both trump and hillary hats (or whatever current political battle is going on) to the public - arguably that could incentivize divisiveness, but for some reason seeing those stands meeting demand without caring about tribalism makes me smile. Tesla is kind of an outlier here though, in that Musk's motives were in the public interest more than the private interest at the start (accelerating adoption of alternative fuels) - so in this case the private interest is in service to the public one and not incidental. [Edit]: I know it's poor form to complain about downvotes, but what I assume must be politically motivated downvotes on this are lame.
  • wizardforhire 5y ago
    Yep. For all its evils and potential evils capitalism eventually trends towards net positive. We don’t have to like the way works but at least its something… and way better than the historical alternatives at scale.
    • kbenson 5y ago
      I would say it broadly trends that way as long as you keep some checks and balances around to keep it in track and from descending into a perverse local maxima (or minima, depending on how you want to phrase it). Labor unions and anti-trust legislation are around for a reason.
  • dash2 5y ago
    There's not much reason to expect this to happen systematically in the realm of regulation. As George Stigler put it, regulation is purchased by the industry for the benefit of the industry. This data fits that story.
    • 5y ago
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• throwaway894345 5y ago
  Generally I agree. I don't know why we expect companies to be angels either. Personally I'm okay with "fiduciary responsibility" and the role of government is to align incentives. Of course, morality and culture are still important (e.g., managers should still see themselves as providing good employment for their communities, etc), but without aligned incentives the former are swimming upstream.
• bubleh 5y ago
  > NHTSA issued a notice saying it could impose higher penalties for prior model years for automakers failing to meet fuel efficiency requirements. Pretty sure buying an average used ICE car will net MUCH less emissions than what's required for building and using a brand new tesla.
  • devname 5y ago
    ICE cars emit roughly their weight in CO2 every year. Within a few years the new Tesla is net negative. Compare your options.
    • bubleh 5y ago
      > ICE cars emit roughly their weight in CO2 every year. What a bizarrely arbitrary and useless metric. > Within a few years the new Tesla is net negative. What? Literally impossible. > Compare your options. Check your math.
    • aww_dang 5y ago
      How does a car become 'net negative'?
• kreeben 5y ago
  >> it is nice to see an example where a large company has an inherent financial incentive to behave in an a broadly pro-society manner I don't see how Tesla is "pro-society". Tesla batteries are very costly to the environment. For every x amount of batteries they need to blow up y amounts of mountain tops. We don't have infinite amount of those.
  • halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
    I think the goal with the Gigafactory and iterations on battery tech is to keep increasing energy density/efficiency so that the pros outweigh the cons. The same could be said for solar as well. AFAIK panels are a net negative until their efficiency outweighs the cost of making them. It's all a means to a noble end. Rather this than continuing to burn and release carbon?
    • kreeben 5y ago
      >> The same could be said for solar as well. Yes but we're talking about Tesla now, not solar. >> iterations on battery tech So at one point in time, Tesla _will_ be "good for society"? They are not there yet. But they pinky-swear that they _will_ be?
      • halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
        Tesla has an entire energy (solar) division via the SolarCity acquisition.
        • kreeben 5y ago
          Right, right, of course, thx for pointing that out. Now, how does that make Tesla "good for society"? I'm not saying they aren't. I'm simply asking, how is mining rare earth minerals (by blowing up one mountain top after the other) to produce solar panels or batteries "good for society"?
          • 5y ago
• mdasen 5y ago
  https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-consumption-epa-vs-edmunds.html https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons... I wonder if Tesla would be as into the government imposing penalties for exaggerating the range of their vehicles. Tesla seems to under-perform their range estimates pretty consistently across models while every other vehicle exceeds the estimate except for the Polestar. Sometimes Tesla is only under-performing the estimate by a small amount, but they're claiming 15.7% more range for their "Model 3 Long Range" than a "Mustang Mach-E CA Route 1" while only achieving 1 mile more in tested range. Tesla has often also pushed its own estimates over EPA cycle estimates claiming that their estimates (which are more generous to their cars) are better. Should a car company be able to make public claims about range based on their own models? As you noted, this is simply Tesla having a financial incentive. If competing manufacturers need to pay large penalties for prior years, it gives them less money to compete against Tesla. In some ways, this doesn't provide a pro-society incentive. Penalizing past bad acts doesn't alter a car company's incentives for the future beyond proving that you're serious about enforcing rules. A better incentive could be to announce that you will penalize companies for past failures, but allow them to get that penalty rebated back to them if they exceed requirements going forward. In the first case, you're penalizing them and getting a small amount of money while taking from the companies resources that they could use to invest in electric vehicles (or lobby against fuel economy standards). In the second case, you're proving that you're serious by imposing the penalty, but also providing a very strong incentive to exceed targets going forward. I think that many automakers like Hyundai/Kia, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, GM, VW, and Renault/Nissan are looking to make major investments in electric vehicles. I would rather incentivize them about the future (and punish them about the past if they don't reform). Maybe set a standard like getting 50% of the penalty back if X% of their cars sold in 2025 are electric with an MPGe of 100+ and getting back the other half of the penalty if Y% of their cars sold in 2028 are electric (with MPGe over 100). That would give them a concrete incentive to create efficient and popular models. It would also likely be palatable to them. GM has announced ambitious plans for its conversion to electric. If they're able to convert the majority of their car sales to electric in a short period of time, it seems less important to apply a retroactive penalty. If their plans are a green-washing campaign to keep getting sales for their ICE vehicles, they can say so-long to that cash. In the meantime, they can take out a loan to cover what they need for R&D if they're confident they'll meet their targets.