3 ms·

Giving the middle finger to the people that helped build your brand probably isn’t a great way to inspire repeat customers, especially with so many compelling a

Giving the middle finger to the people that helped build your brand probably isn’t a great way to inspire repeat customers, especially with so many compelling apolitical alternatives.

schiffern 1y ago
>so many compelling alternatives With the recent news BYD has been cooking their books, are there any alternatives left that aren't being sold at a huge loss? If the alternatives depend on subsidies from gas car sales, it would seem the automotive industry has not actually solved the problems (both technical and economic) necessary to transition the world off fossil fuels. Doesn't sound like much of an alternative (for the planet), really. Legacy auto talks a big game about the entire industry electrifying, but their actions say they're flushing money on compliance cars and stalling until they can kill EV mandates or kill Tesla or (preferably) both.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- roscas 1y ago
  Yes, the brand is Tesla. They receive money from other brands to buy fake "carbon" credits, they receive money from the state and from their shareholders. So US pays for Tesla like China does for some brands. It's the same. And an electric car is not an alternative for gas cars. A zero km electric car has already tons and tons of CO2 on it's back because mostly of the battery. It's not being "green". It's just make polution to be produced in another location.
  - schiffern 1y ago
    Wow, "long tailpipe" myth is a blast from the past... >receive money from other brands to buy fake "carbon" credits Also smog credits, and kids' developing lungs can assure you urban smog is very real. This kinda proves my point. If other automakers don't want to buy smog/ carbon credits from Tesla then make zero emission vehicles. Companies that can't make the vehicles of the future cease to exist, part of "creative destruction" which is an explicit goal in such market-based pollution policies. We decided those are the rules of the game (because pollution sucks). Can't get offended at the players just because the rules of the game did exactly what we intended. >they receive money from the state and from their shareholders Equally (or more) true for the other majors, so that doesn't explain how Tesla makes money on EVs and others can't.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    > And an electric car is not an alternative for gas cars. A zero km electric car has already tons and tons of CO2 on it's back because mostly of the battery. This is factually inaccurate. https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/no-doubt-about-it-evs-really-are-cleaner-than-gas-cars/ https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/no-doubt-abo... > As electric vehicles become a bigger part of the global car fleet, a contrarian take seems to surface every few months: are electric vehicles really that clean? > When it comes to lifecycle emissions, the answer is a resounding yes. According to a new report by BloombergNEF, in all analyzed cases, EVs have lower lifecycle emissions than gas cars. Just how much lower depends on how far they are driven, and the cleanliness of the grid where they charge.
  - baggachipz 1y ago
    >And an electric car is not an alternative for gas cars. A zero km electric car has already tons and tons of CO2 on it's back because mostly of the battery. >It's not being "green". It's just make polution to be produced in another location. I get very tired of hearing/reading this fallacy. Yes, producing EVs creates carbon emissions, just like ICE cars. The difference, though, is that EVs offset those CO2 emissions after a few years of use. And some would say that the most "environmentally friendly" car choice is a used car, that is the case on a net-zero basis. Over time, that used car's emissions will surpass the cost to produce and operate an EV. Usually, the fallacy described above is bundled with "but an EV uses electricity, mostly created by coal. So your car burns coal!" Even if this were the case (it's not [1]), energy production on a large scale is so much more efficient than using a small gasoline engine that it would still be much better from a carbon emissions standpoint. [1] Coal is only 15% of the energy mix, I asked ChatGPT and burned lots of energy in the process.
  - saturn_vk 1y ago
    > It's just make polution to be produced in another location. So you prefer to have locally sourced pollution then?

Giving the middle finger to the people that helped build your brand probably isn’t a great way to inspire repeat customers, especially with so many compelling apolitical alternatives.

schiffern 1y ago

>so many compelling alternatives With the recent news BYD has been cooking their books, are there any alternatives left that aren't being sold at a huge loss? If the alternatives depend on subsidies from gas car sales, it would seem the automotive industry has not actually solved the problems (both technical and economic) necessary to transition the world off fossil fuels. Doesn't sound like much of an alternative (for the planet), really. Legacy auto talks a big game about the entire industry electrifying, but their actions say they're flushing money on compliance cars and stalling until they can kill EV mandates or kill Tesla or (preferably) both.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
roscas 1y ago
Yes, the brand is Tesla. They receive money from other brands to buy fake "carbon" credits, they receive money from the state and from their shareholders. So US pays for Tesla like China does for some brands. It's the same. And an electric car is not an alternative for gas cars. A zero km electric car has already tons and tons of CO2 on it's back because mostly of the battery. It's not being "green". It's just make polution to be produced in another location.
- schiffern 1y ago
  Wow, "long tailpipe" myth is a blast from the past... >receive money from other brands to buy fake "carbon" credits Also smog credits, and kids' developing lungs can assure you urban smog is very real. This kinda proves my point. If other automakers don't want to buy smog/ carbon credits from Tesla then make zero emission vehicles. Companies that can't make the vehicles of the future cease to exist, part of "creative destruction" which is an explicit goal in such market-based pollution policies. We decided those are the rules of the game (because pollution sucks). Can't get offended at the players just because the rules of the game did exactly what we intended. >they receive money from the state and from their shareholders Equally (or more) true for the other majors, so that doesn't explain how Tesla makes money on EVs and others can't.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  > And an electric car is not an alternative for gas cars. A zero km electric car has already tons and tons of CO2 on it's back because mostly of the battery. This is factually inaccurate. https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/no-doubt-about-it-evs-really-are-cleaner-than-gas-cars/ https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/no-doubt-abo... > As electric vehicles become a bigger part of the global car fleet, a contrarian take seems to surface every few months: are electric vehicles really that clean? > When it comes to lifecycle emissions, the answer is a resounding yes. According to a new report by BloombergNEF, in all analyzed cases, EVs have lower lifecycle emissions than gas cars. Just how much lower depends on how far they are driven, and the cleanliness of the grid where they charge.
- baggachipz 1y ago
  >And an electric car is not an alternative for gas cars. A zero km electric car has already tons and tons of CO2 on it's back because mostly of the battery. >It's not being "green". It's just make polution to be produced in another location. I get very tired of hearing/reading this fallacy. Yes, producing EVs creates carbon emissions, just like ICE cars. The difference, though, is that EVs offset those CO2 emissions after a few years of use. And some would say that the most "environmentally friendly" car choice is a used car, that is the case on a net-zero basis. Over time, that used car's emissions will surpass the cost to produce and operate an EV. Usually, the fallacy described above is bundled with "but an EV uses electricity, mostly created by coal. So your car burns coal!" Even if this were the case (it's not [1]), energy production on a large scale is so much more efficient than using a small gasoline engine that it would still be much better from a carbon emissions standpoint. [1] Coal is only 15% of the energy mix, I asked ChatGPT and burned lots of energy in the process.
- saturn_vk 1y ago
  > It's just make polution to be produced in another location. So you prefer to have locally sourced pollution then?