I bet a lot have worse opinions too, they literally conspired with oil companies to avoid fixing climate change and certain companies like vw actively put in measures to cheat emissions tests.
@SpaceCowboy@return2ozma ~60% of Tesla’s profits come from the sale of carbon credits, which enable other massive vehicles that run on fossil fuels to be built. E-cars are not about “saving the planet” they are pure Greenwash which is saving the motor industry.
That’s more of a problem with how carbon credits are being regulated. Sure Tesla are being assholes for doing this, but it’s a corporation, I don’t expect them to be good guys.
But none of that changes the fact that some meathead buying a Cybertruck instead of the equivalent fossil fuel monstrosity is reducing CO2 emissions in a direct way. Spray paint the sign a Tesla corporate HQ, don’t damage a vehicle which will only have the result of someone driving a fossil fuel vehicle a little longer while the damage is being fixed.
You’re assuming unscrupulous companies wouldn’t find another loophole or just pay a fine for going over the limit.
Don’t get me wrong, Tesla is shit for helping with the loophole, but it’s a degrees of bad kind of thing. Getting fossil fuel vehicles off the road does reduce carbon emissions, but Tesla was exaggerating their numbers. They should be punished for doing this, but doubling up their numbers only works if the number isn’t zero.
But this is all getting away from the fact that damaging these vehicles has the net effect of people driving fossil fuel vehicles longer. It’s a net harm to everyone.
Unscrupulous companies in this case referring to every car manufacturer, they wouldn’t have a systemic incentive to foster an EV monopoly that is anti-consumer and actively stymies the growth of the local EV sector.
Even carbon credit companies that do their best aren’t always (are often?) not great. e.g. trees may be planted, but:
locals’ may have been misappropriated for the purpose
you might go back five years later and find all the trees were cut down
It seems like there is some progress with that technology that… throws gravel onto beaches or something, to be broken down by waves. Really hope it’s not total BS.
This is dumb. Sure Elon Musk is a dickhead. And sure Cybertruck is a dumb vehicle that only dickheads would want to have.
But I’d rather the dickheads be driving a Cybertruck than some other massive vehicle that runs on fossil fuels.
All car companies are run by evil dickheads. Most of them just make less noise than Elon.
I bet a lot have worse opinions too, they literally conspired with oil companies to avoid fixing climate change and certain companies like vw actively put in measures to cheat emissions tests.
If you think spacex and starlink are making the environment a better place, I think you might be in for a surprise.
@Peppycito @VirtualOdour OK, so you either haven’t heard about how Starlink Could Pose New Threat to the Ozone Layer https://www.sciencealert.com/satellites-like-starlink-could-pose-new-threat-to-our-healing-ozone-layer or you believe that Unicorns are real. Which is it? Nothing the Mellon Husk does is making the “environment a better place”
You misinterpreted my comment
big fucking cap
All private cars, regardless of the fuel source, are climate disasters.
Giant metal boxes with 1.2 people on average
deleted by creator
@SpaceCowboy @return2ozma ~60% of Tesla’s profits come from the sale of carbon credits, which enable other massive vehicles that run on fossil fuels to be built. E-cars are not about “saving the planet” they are pure Greenwash which is saving the motor industry.
That’s more of a problem with how carbon credits are being regulated. Sure Tesla are being assholes for doing this, but it’s a corporation, I don’t expect them to be good guys.
But none of that changes the fact that some meathead buying a Cybertruck instead of the equivalent fossil fuel monstrosity is reducing CO2 emissions in a direct way. Spray paint the sign a Tesla corporate HQ, don’t damage a vehicle which will only have the result of someone driving a fossil fuel vehicle a little longer while the damage is being fixed.
If somehow murder became not illegal, it wouldn’t make all the corpses not murderer’s problem.
Literally the state of California would have lower CO2 emissions today if Tesla didn’t exist.
You’re assuming unscrupulous companies wouldn’t find another loophole or just pay a fine for going over the limit.
Don’t get me wrong, Tesla is shit for helping with the loophole, but it’s a degrees of bad kind of thing. Getting fossil fuel vehicles off the road does reduce carbon emissions, but Tesla was exaggerating their numbers. They should be punished for doing this, but doubling up their numbers only works if the number isn’t zero.
But this is all getting away from the fact that damaging these vehicles has the net effect of people driving fossil fuel vehicles longer. It’s a net harm to everyone.
Unscrupulous companies in this case referring to every car manufacturer, they wouldn’t have a systemic incentive to foster an EV monopoly that is anti-consumer and actively stymies the growth of the local EV sector.
No way, that is positively enormous.
Even carbon credit companies that do their best aren’t always (are often?) not great. e.g. trees may be planted, but:
It seems like there is some progress with that technology that… throws gravel onto beaches or something, to be broken down by waves. Really hope it’s not total BS.
Tesla is synonymous with climate destruction and if you believe otherwise demonstrates that you have grossly bought into their propaganda.
I agree wholeheartedly