Wasn’t really a fan as such, but I also though as far as billionaires go he’s at least useful to humanity.
He should have kept to what he was good at - marketing big ideas. Unfortunately narcissists don’t work that way.
as far as billionaires go he’s at least useful to humanity.
There’s a good argument that this is still true (PS: in historical terms) despite everything. Without China the green-tech revolution would be decades behind schedule, and it took Tesla to make China move.
Really? So where are all its peer competitors? This person has obviously gone off the rails but was once extremely good at making seemingly impossible things happen.
Yeah, all those losers born in Soweto in 1971 who haven’t used their enormous wealth to fund a bunch of different business ventures. What are they even doing?
The charismatic guy at the top may always get all the credit, but hundreds of other people played a role in Tesla’s success. He wasn’t even a founder of the company. All we can really say is that he bought in at the right time, but we don’t know how much of Tesla’s success was down to his personal decisions. If anything, it seems like Tesla’s decline really started when Musk started using the company more and more for his personal pet projects (Cybertruck, Teslabots etc) rather than the cars that people actually want.
Tesla maybe helped boosting Chinas EV industry … but very little for green-tech in general. And EVs are not a particular green or revolutionary technology in the first place.
So no, I don’t think he did much for humanity here.
And EVs are not a particular green or revolutionary technology in the first place.
I think most agree that, at least, EVs are needed to evolve away from the CO2 generated from petroleum consumption used in cars and trucks. Yes yes, “public transportation better for moving people” but that doesn’t work for all countries especially those with lower density population areas. Further “public transporation” does nothing for the “last mile” delivery of goods with regard to logistics.
In almost every situation an EV is better than an ICE vehicle in respect to being “green” and vehicles are what our current systems are designed around.
No, I really don’t agree. Like, at all. The problem is largely that geometry of vehicles creates those highly-destructive, resource-intensive, low-density population areas, and that’s the problem that we need to address. In that respect, EVs are just like any other vehicle. Same streets, same highways, same parking lots, same garages, same bi-weekly grocery runs to the store 5 miles away. We can start to address those problems (zoning, building codes, environmental regulations, land-use, tax structures, and such) now, and it won’t be any easier after 20 years of further automobile-oriented development while we transition the fleet to EVs. It’ll just be 20 years more entrenched. Yeah, EVs help somewhat, but the way we’re approaching them now, they’re like treating 10% of your cancer.
(I take that back if the EVs we’re talking about here are e-bikes and micromobility devices.)
You’re talking about trying to fix a multi-generational problem. In many places the things you’re asking to change have been in place for hundreds years. The politics and land ownership laws and implications are immense! That is NOT a fast problem to fix. If you’re taking EVs off the table, then that means you’re committing to 30-50 years of ICE vehicles pumping out CO2 all of that time.
How can you consider non-EVs a greener solution in your scenario?
(I take that back if the EVs we’re talking about here are e-bikes and micromobility devices.)
Its simply not possible to deliver 2000kg or 2000lbs of cargo to a business for last mile delivery in a timely fashion without a much larger vehicle than an e-bike. Why on Earth would you want a belching diesel vehicle doing that for decades on end when an EV could it with zero CO2 emissions?
It’s a multi-generational problem, so we should start fixing it now. Why is it going to be easier to solve 30-50 years from now? Why should we wait until we’ve transitioned to EVs to start the process? What is it about EVs is going to make that easier?
It’s a multi-generational problem, so we should start fixing it now.
First, sure we can try, but we don’t live in a monolithic place. We have to convince others and come up with plans on how to do it. That’s going to take time. We can start, but ending is a long long way from now.
What is it about EVs is going to make that easier?
I’ve already said it many times, EVs don’t put out CO2 while we’re working on transitioning.
Further, we still have no answer for last mile non-EV green delivery . I notice you ignored that last point.
EVs don’t put out tailpipe emissions while in operation, sure, but that’s an highly reductive view of the system. The latest numbers I’ve found show that an EV car has about 30% of the total lifecycle CO2 emissions as an ICE vehicle. That’s production, operation, maintenance, and disposal. A lot better, so if we drastically cut back on the number of vehicle miles traveled, that’d be a win. But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, the profusion of cheap EVs in China means that more people can afford them, there will be more vehicles on the road, we double down on automobile infrastructure and lifestyles, and the environment, human health, and long-term sustainability will take a hit. It’s the Jevons Paradox, which says that if we find a way to use a resource more efficiently, we use more of it.
What’s more, the transition to EVs won’t even stop the CO2 emissions. The emissions will just come from a new source. World-wide, we have a fully-functioning fossil fuel extraction industry. Petrochemicals are the energy and raw material input for so many industrial processes (including the production of EVs), it’s not going to shut down. If we stop using it for fuel in our vehicles, the law of supply and demand means it’ll get cheaper for other uses, which will ramp up. Indeed, our total global CO2 emissions keep rising.
What’s necessary is to re-design our societal systems to solve a bunch of problems, like the ecological catastrophe of habitat destruction and collapsing insect and bird populations, or the looming fresh water shortages, which don’t get much press because of the climate change issue. Drastically reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled to 10% of the current level would have a much greater impact, even if all of those miles were all done in ICE vehicles, compared to maintaining the current VMT but doing them in EVs. That’s why I don’t agree that EVs are necessary to lower CO2 emissions from ICE vehicles. It would be really great if we drastically reduced VMT, and did those miles in EVs, but that’s not at all what’s happening.
(I’ve ignored the last-mile logistics issue because it’s small potatoes by comparison.)
I agree that Ellen was significant in the race to EVs, but that is definitely in the past. As far as present tense goes, nah.
The tenses are a bit murky “I used to think ‘he’s useful…’” “this still true…” could kinda go either way, but it sounds like you’re saying it applies today, and nah.
Just read what I write, rather than what you think I might be trying to say.
I can’t find it now but there was an analysis a few days ago by a reputable source, maybe in The Atlantic, which said basically what I just said. It’s not scandalous. The guy has an impressive record as a business leader. Perhaps not as a product specialist, or even an engineer, but as force for making things happen at the company level.
Anyway, apparently there’s not much willingness to engage in nuanced debate here so that’s all I have to say.
Wasn’t really a fan as such, but I also though as far as billionaires go he’s at least useful to humanity.
He should have kept to what he was good at - marketing big ideas. Unfortunately narcissists don’t work that way.
There’s a good argument that this is still true (PS: in historical terms) despite everything. Without China the green-tech revolution would be decades behind schedule, and it took Tesla to make China move.
Maybe so, but I’m not sure whether Tesla really needed Elon Musk.
Really? So where are all its peer competitors? This person has obviously gone off the rails but was once extremely good at making seemingly impossible things happen.
Yeah, all those losers born in Soweto in 1971 who haven’t used their enormous wealth to fund a bunch of different business ventures. What are they even doing?
The charismatic guy at the top may always get all the credit, but hundreds of other people played a role in Tesla’s success. He wasn’t even a founder of the company. All we can really say is that he bought in at the right time, but we don’t know how much of Tesla’s success was down to his personal decisions. If anything, it seems like Tesla’s decline really started when Musk started using the company more and more for his personal pet projects (Cybertruck, Teslabots etc) rather than the cars that people actually want.
What did he do?
Seeing them land the Starship booster on the chopsticks - I’d say that he still is.
Tesla maybe helped boosting Chinas EV industry … but very little for green-tech in general. And EVs are not a particular green or revolutionary technology in the first place.
So no, I don’t think he did much for humanity here.
in fact EVS uses rare earth metals which are not mined in a ecofriendly way. the best way is to ride buses and fund mass transportation.
I think most agree that, at least, EVs are needed to evolve away from the CO2 generated from petroleum consumption used in cars and trucks. Yes yes, “public transportation better for moving people” but that doesn’t work for all countries especially those with lower density population areas. Further “public transporation” does nothing for the “last mile” delivery of goods with regard to logistics.
In almost every situation an EV is better than an ICE vehicle in respect to being “green” and vehicles are what our current systems are designed around.
No, I really don’t agree. Like, at all. The problem is largely that geometry of vehicles creates those highly-destructive, resource-intensive, low-density population areas, and that’s the problem that we need to address. In that respect, EVs are just like any other vehicle. Same streets, same highways, same parking lots, same garages, same bi-weekly grocery runs to the store 5 miles away. We can start to address those problems (zoning, building codes, environmental regulations, land-use, tax structures, and such) now, and it won’t be any easier after 20 years of further automobile-oriented development while we transition the fleet to EVs. It’ll just be 20 years more entrenched. Yeah, EVs help somewhat, but the way we’re approaching them now, they’re like treating 10% of your cancer.
(I take that back if the EVs we’re talking about here are e-bikes and micromobility devices.)
You’re talking about trying to fix a multi-generational problem. In many places the things you’re asking to change have been in place for hundreds years. The politics and land ownership laws and implications are immense! That is NOT a fast problem to fix. If you’re taking EVs off the table, then that means you’re committing to 30-50 years of ICE vehicles pumping out CO2 all of that time.
How can you consider non-EVs a greener solution in your scenario?
Its simply not possible to deliver 2000kg or 2000lbs of cargo to a business for last mile delivery in a timely fashion without a much larger vehicle than an e-bike. Why on Earth would you want a belching diesel vehicle doing that for decades on end when an EV could it with zero CO2 emissions?
It’s a multi-generational problem, so we should start fixing it now. Why is it going to be easier to solve 30-50 years from now? Why should we wait until we’ve transitioned to EVs to start the process? What is it about EVs is going to make that easier?
First, sure we can try, but we don’t live in a monolithic place. We have to convince others and come up with plans on how to do it. That’s going to take time. We can start, but ending is a long long way from now.
I’ve already said it many times, EVs don’t put out CO2 while we’re working on transitioning.
Further, we still have no answer for last mile non-EV green delivery . I notice you ignored that last point.
EVs don’t put out tailpipe emissions while in operation, sure, but that’s an highly reductive view of the system. The latest numbers I’ve found show that an EV car has about 30% of the total lifecycle CO2 emissions as an ICE vehicle. That’s production, operation, maintenance, and disposal. A lot better, so if we drastically cut back on the number of vehicle miles traveled, that’d be a win. But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, the profusion of cheap EVs in China means that more people can afford them, there will be more vehicles on the road, we double down on automobile infrastructure and lifestyles, and the environment, human health, and long-term sustainability will take a hit. It’s the Jevons Paradox, which says that if we find a way to use a resource more efficiently, we use more of it.
What’s more, the transition to EVs won’t even stop the CO2 emissions. The emissions will just come from a new source. World-wide, we have a fully-functioning fossil fuel extraction industry. Petrochemicals are the energy and raw material input for so many industrial processes (including the production of EVs), it’s not going to shut down. If we stop using it for fuel in our vehicles, the law of supply and demand means it’ll get cheaper for other uses, which will ramp up. Indeed, our total global CO2 emissions keep rising.
What’s necessary is to re-design our societal systems to solve a bunch of problems, like the ecological catastrophe of habitat destruction and collapsing insect and bird populations, or the looming fresh water shortages, which don’t get much press because of the climate change issue. Drastically reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled to 10% of the current level would have a much greater impact, even if all of those miles were all done in ICE vehicles, compared to maintaining the current VMT but doing them in EVs. That’s why I don’t agree that EVs are necessary to lower CO2 emissions from ICE vehicles. It would be really great if we drastically reduced VMT, and did those miles in EVs, but that’s not at all what’s happening.
(I’ve ignored the last-mile logistics issue because it’s small potatoes by comparison.)
I agree that Ellen was significant in the race to EVs, but that is definitely in the past. As far as present tense goes, nah.
The tenses are a bit murky “I used to think ‘he’s useful…’” “this still true…” could kinda go either way, but it sounds like you’re saying it applies today, and nah.
Just read what I write, rather than what you think I might be trying to say.
I can’t find it now but there was an analysis a few days ago by a reputable source, maybe in The Atlantic, which said basically what I just said. It’s not scandalous. The guy has an impressive record as a business leader. Perhaps not as a product specialist, or even an engineer, but as force for making things happen at the company level.
Anyway, apparently there’s not much willingness to engage in nuanced debate here so that’s all I have to say.