5 ms·

There's something bizarre about griping that they reached profitability from green credits. To clarify, these green credits were voluntarily paid by OTHER CAR C

There's something bizarre about griping that they reached profitability from green credits. To clarify, these green credits were voluntarily paid by OTHER CAR COMPANIES like Fiat who did not innovate enough to develop their own green cars. In essence, these credits work similarly to carbon credits or sulfur credits. They are NOT paid by taxpayers or by the government in any way. It was a capitalist regulation in California designed to provide financial incentives and produce more revenue for innovative green companies. Companies have the option to develop their own green cars, buy credits, or else cede the California market to competitors. Those incentives have been very successful. There are far more new models of low and zero emissions vehicles than ever before. Remember the popular Saturn EV-1 from fifteen years ago? It and other green vehicles were killed because California removed its regulations mandating production of low emissions vehicles.

Shivetya 13y ago
they are not free, they are paid by any consumer who directly or indirectly has a relationship with someone who purchases a vehicle from one of the makers who is paying these credits. Voluntary my ass. If they don't pay what happens? Your fined. Its a tax. It is paid by consumers because they buy cars. If anything its California's way of having people in other states fund their initiatives. I guess kudos can go to Musk for making sure his company is positioned physically and product wise to make the most from it. It is a disguised transfer from one company to another facilitated by the state. It is not voluntary if a fine results
- sageikosa 13y ago
  You must remember that when the government decrees that everyone must do something or else and everyone does it, it is considered voluntary.
  - jabits 13y ago
    Yes, because our government is there by our voluntary action. If we find our government is making us do things involuntarily, we can change it.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      That's a little simplistic, don't you think? What about, for example, the minorities who are made to do things involuntarily?
    - sageikosa 13y ago
      That's what the signers of the Declaration of Independence thought as well. However, my point wasn't about whether the government could be changed, how it could be changed, or what it could be changed to; but that its monopoly on the use of force doesn't make the actions people take based on its rules voluntary.
    - dreamdu5t 13y ago
      What action did I take that constitutes my volunteering of government's legitimacy?
      - toomuchtodo 13y ago
        Existing on its soil. You can always move.
- Lightbody 13y ago
  Ummm... no. The car companies have three choices: 1) buy credits, 2) pay fines, 3) make low emission cars that earn their own credits. These kind of policies that are designed to prevent the "tragedy of the commons" happen all the time in government. You still might not agree with this type of governing, but your basic facts are wrong.
  - SolarNet 13y ago
    Don't forget 4) they can leave the market. It's not something they are forced to do in anyway, it is a voluntary choice to continue serving that market.
    - hobs 13y ago
      This is the most important point. The government of California is not god, and generally cannot force a business to do anything if you don't do business there. All of the companies paying these credits are paying them because they choose to do business in that market.
- panacea 13y ago
  The government is setting a price on the previously unpaid externality of carbon emissions.
- EGreg 13y ago
  Voluntarily it would take a lot to resist making maximal short-term profits from gas guzzlers for long term unproven gains such as the ones Musk's company has been doing. Are you saying governments shouldn't institute any regulations, including carbon credit systems, and everything should be decided by the free market? Sure, it's not voluntary, but then again neither is most of the stuff that producers of things do. The consumer demand is the taskmaster, and thanks to government regulations, so is the public interest, in the form of policies designed to reduce carbon emissions and pollution. I think unqualified free market advocacy amounts to basically a wish for there to be consumer interest only, without any system for representing public interest that uses any signal other than money. But taken to its extreme, the absence of any system to balance the money signal can lead to things like buying up lakes to dump in, or buying up all the judges in a town, just because you can pay off enough people. In a completely free market, if you are rich enough, you can theoretically buy enough institutions and mercenaries and set up enough corrupt judges to let you kill people for fun.
  - benaiah 13y ago
    Don't confuse free market advocacy with anarchy. Buying up judges, bribing other officials, and other fraudulent transactions, including stuff like misrepresentation of goods and other deceptive business practices, are not necessarily okay in a free market. However, direct government interference is. I don't advocate for a completely dog-eat-dog, caveat emptor society, but I do advocate for one in which those in power cannot control the flow of private wealth (often to their own benefit).
    - sjwright 13y ago
      So then who is going to "interfere" on behalf of the society at large? On behalf of the environment? Will individual consumers do what's right for the common good, for the first time in ever? Look, everyone is part socialist, part capitalist, part communist, part fascist, part anarchist. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking your current favourite blend of these colours is the one true path. If there's one thing you learn looking around the world, there are many blends that have proven to work comparatively well. (And others that clearly don't.)
- glesica 13y ago
  But it is a perfectly, wonderfully in fact, appropriate example of the government playing the role it is supposed to play by setting the terms of competition in the marketplace. Just as the government says I can't break into your house and take your stuff (which would just be another aspect of market competition, if you really liked your stuff you would have had better locks). If I do, you call the cops and punishment results. This isn't a waste of money or some sort of evil coercion, it's the government setting the rules we play by in a way that benefits everyone. Does the government always do this perfectly? Fuck no! But don't gripe about it when the system actually works!
- simonh 13y ago
  The problem with this attitude is that pollution actually does have an economic, social and environmental cost. Putting in place regulations to ensure that the polluters pay that cost, instead of unfairly foisting it on everyone else, is perfectly sensible free market economics.
- mncolinlee 13y ago
  I suppose you would argue that we should all just pay all externalities created by the free market even if they would simply bankrupt or kill us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality For example, if HSBC knowingly funded murderous, criminal gangs around the world, they should be allowed to finance killing because it helps them pursue profit? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageo... Car companies had a clear choice. They could give up one profitable market or they could take appropriate actions contributing to the cause of reducing smog-related deaths in California. There is a very huge public cost for eliminating these regulations, as was PROVEN to everyone in the 1990s when most green cars were killed on the spot when earlier regulation ended.
  - JackFr 13y ago
    Two points. (1)The externalities are not caused by either the car makers or the oil producers. They are caused by drivers. Driving creates the emissions, and under a fair system drivers should bear the costs. (2) Mandating fuel efficient cars has the same effect on consumption as reducing the cost of gasoline.
    - mncolinlee 13y ago
      #1 is only partly true. California proved most pollution can be stopped by the car's factory-provided emission controls before the driver ever enters the vehicle. The car maker has a great macro effect in reducing pollution. This is hugely important to Los Angeles, which is located in a bowl and has suffered from a considerable number of smog-related deaths and health costs. #2 is incorrect. They did not mandate fuel efficient cars to reduce consumption. They mandated a certain percentage of zero and near zero emission cars. As an electric vehicle owner, I can reassure you that this does not automatically result in more miles traveled.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
damoncali 13y ago
People don't like that those credits are temporary, subject to the whim of the government, and the entire source of Tesla's current profitability. It's a pretty big asterisk - you can't blame people for pointing it out.
andrewtbham 13y ago
The concern is that as they sell more cars outside of the US and California where there are no credits, it will decrease their margin.
mempko 13y ago
How many emissions do you suppose get emitted by all the metal, plastic, and rare metals that get dug up to create a tesla. What exactly is green about it? Wouldn't it be more green for our society to pay for mass transit instead? But apparently the only way to get something done is through companies and the market...

Shivetya 13y ago

they are not free, they are paid by any consumer who directly or indirectly has a relationship with someone who purchases a vehicle from one of the makers who is paying these credits. Voluntary my ass. If they don't pay what happens? Your fined. Its a tax. It is paid by consumers because they buy cars. If anything its California's way of having people in other states fund their initiatives. I guess kudos can go to Musk for making sure his company is positioned physically and product wise to make the most from it. It is a disguised transfer from one company to another facilitated by the state. It is not voluntary if a fine results

sageikosa 13y ago
You must remember that when the government decrees that everyone must do something or else and everyone does it, it is considered voluntary.
- jabits 13y ago
  Yes, because our government is there by our voluntary action. If we find our government is making us do things involuntarily, we can change it.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    That's a little simplistic, don't you think? What about, for example, the minorities who are made to do things involuntarily?
  - sageikosa 13y ago
    That's what the signers of the Declaration of Independence thought as well. However, my point wasn't about whether the government could be changed, how it could be changed, or what it could be changed to; but that its monopoly on the use of force doesn't make the actions people take based on its rules voluntary.
  - dreamdu5t 13y ago
    What action did I take that constitutes my volunteering of government's legitimacy?
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      Existing on its soil. You can always move.
Lightbody 13y ago
Ummm... no. The car companies have three choices: 1) buy credits, 2) pay fines, 3) make low emission cars that earn their own credits. These kind of policies that are designed to prevent the "tragedy of the commons" happen all the time in government. You still might not agree with this type of governing, but your basic facts are wrong.
- SolarNet 13y ago
  Don't forget 4) they can leave the market. It's not something they are forced to do in anyway, it is a voluntary choice to continue serving that market.
  - hobs 13y ago
    This is the most important point. The government of California is not god, and generally cannot force a business to do anything if you don't do business there. All of the companies paying these credits are paying them because they choose to do business in that market.
panacea 13y ago
The government is setting a price on the previously unpaid externality of carbon emissions.
EGreg 13y ago
Voluntarily it would take a lot to resist making maximal short-term profits from gas guzzlers for long term unproven gains such as the ones Musk's company has been doing. Are you saying governments shouldn't institute any regulations, including carbon credit systems, and everything should be decided by the free market? Sure, it's not voluntary, but then again neither is most of the stuff that producers of things do. The consumer demand is the taskmaster, and thanks to government regulations, so is the public interest, in the form of policies designed to reduce carbon emissions and pollution. I think unqualified free market advocacy amounts to basically a wish for there to be consumer interest only, without any system for representing public interest that uses any signal other than money. But taken to its extreme, the absence of any system to balance the money signal can lead to things like buying up lakes to dump in, or buying up all the judges in a town, just because you can pay off enough people. In a completely free market, if you are rich enough, you can theoretically buy enough institutions and mercenaries and set up enough corrupt judges to let you kill people for fun.
- benaiah 13y ago
  Don't confuse free market advocacy with anarchy. Buying up judges, bribing other officials, and other fraudulent transactions, including stuff like misrepresentation of goods and other deceptive business practices, are not necessarily okay in a free market. However, direct government interference is. I don't advocate for a completely dog-eat-dog, caveat emptor society, but I do advocate for one in which those in power cannot control the flow of private wealth (often to their own benefit).
  - sjwright 13y ago
    So then who is going to "interfere" on behalf of the society at large? On behalf of the environment? Will individual consumers do what's right for the common good, for the first time in ever? Look, everyone is part socialist, part capitalist, part communist, part fascist, part anarchist. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking your current favourite blend of these colours is the one true path. If there's one thing you learn looking around the world, there are many blends that have proven to work comparatively well. (And others that clearly don't.)
glesica 13y ago
But it is a perfectly, wonderfully in fact, appropriate example of the government playing the role it is supposed to play by setting the terms of competition in the marketplace. Just as the government says I can't break into your house and take your stuff (which would just be another aspect of market competition, if you really liked your stuff you would have had better locks). If I do, you call the cops and punishment results. This isn't a waste of money or some sort of evil coercion, it's the government setting the rules we play by in a way that benefits everyone. Does the government always do this perfectly? Fuck no! But don't gripe about it when the system actually works!
simonh 13y ago
The problem with this attitude is that pollution actually does have an economic, social and environmental cost. Putting in place regulations to ensure that the polluters pay that cost, instead of unfairly foisting it on everyone else, is perfectly sensible free market economics.
mncolinlee 13y ago
I suppose you would argue that we should all just pay all externalities created by the free market even if they would simply bankrupt or kill us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality For example, if HSBC knowingly funded murderous, criminal gangs around the world, they should be allowed to finance killing because it helps them pursue profit? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageo... Car companies had a clear choice. They could give up one profitable market or they could take appropriate actions contributing to the cause of reducing smog-related deaths in California. There is a very huge public cost for eliminating these regulations, as was PROVEN to everyone in the 1990s when most green cars were killed on the spot when earlier regulation ended.
- JackFr 13y ago
  Two points. (1)The externalities are not caused by either the car makers or the oil producers. They are caused by drivers. Driving creates the emissions, and under a fair system drivers should bear the costs. (2) Mandating fuel efficient cars has the same effect on consumption as reducing the cost of gasoline.
  - mncolinlee 13y ago
    #1 is only partly true. California proved most pollution can be stopped by the car's factory-provided emission controls before the driver ever enters the vehicle. The car maker has a great macro effect in reducing pollution. This is hugely important to Los Angeles, which is located in a bowl and has suffered from a considerable number of smog-related deaths and health costs. #2 is incorrect. They did not mandate fuel efficient cars to reduce consumption. They mandated a certain percentage of zero and near zero emission cars. As an electric vehicle owner, I can reassure you that this does not automatically result in more miles traveled.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

damoncali 13y ago

People don't like that those credits are temporary, subject to the whim of the government, and the entire source of Tesla's current profitability. It's a pretty big asterisk - you can't blame people for pointing it out.

andrewtbham 13y ago

The concern is that as they sell more cars outside of the US and California where there are no credits, it will decrease their margin.

mempko 13y ago

How many emissions do you suppose get emitted by all the metal, plastic, and rare metals that get dug up to create a tesla. What exactly is green about it? Wouldn't it be more green for our society to pay for mass transit instead? But apparently the only way to get something done is through companies and the market...