Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

How to deal with anti-EV biased friends and their propaganda?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
"Don't call me Surly."

- - - Updated - - -

Surly you must agree that using this sentence structure, by definition you don't agree by default.
BOOM! Nailed!
I'm having trouble parsing (not a grammar or spelling nitpick), but I think you're assuming that "not agreeing by default" is the same as "disagreeing by default". I don't agree with that assumption.

My original point was/is simply that language such as "surely you must agree" is almost always followed by a wild and/or contentious assumption that is pivotal to the subsequent argument. It's kind of like "I probably shouldn't be saying this but" and "no offense but" where the language itself cues an instinctual reaction.
 
I'd have to agree that I've only gotten enthusiastic reactions to the car. Worst comment is that it is "beautiful". :biggrin:

Several times I've heard, "Too bad the company isn't doing well." To which I respond, "You're thinking of Fisker. Tesla is doing great - their stock has quadrupled!" "Oh... right... wrong car."
 
Also: Didn’t you just put up solar panels on your roof? Was there really no environmental concern whatsoever behind that decision?

Just a quick comment, but I have looked on and off at solar, and it has nothing to do with environmental considerations. Here in Ontario, Canada we have a Feed In Tariff program that will pay me 54.9 cents /kWh for solar generation (it was 80.2 cents last year), and these are 20-year contracts. The cost of grid power is sub 10 cents, so for me it is an economic decision.
 
Surely you must agree that ...
No matter what you put for the rest of the sentence, by definition I don't agree by default.
Perhaps you can try and rephrase it in a way you can read then? Just a suggestion.
I wasn't "arguing" anything. I was pointing out what I saw as an unproductive jab that doesn't really help the discussion.
Since I’m unable to read your mind, thanks for clarifying.
If you can't find printed and internet examples of this regarding the people and groups you mention in your "[1]" then you're not looking hard enough.
I’m not going to look for that.
It's a bit uncomfortable that you like to make assumptions about why other people think and do what they do so aggressively. It makes me not interested in sharing information at all, frankly.
And making it a debate about the debate is productive?

As for the rest, I’m too tired. It all just seems like one big meta-diversion. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
One thing that would be useful (perhaps it already exists) would be a sticky FAQ listing the top twenty anti-EV and anti-Tesla talking points (which can pretty easily be collected by reading the online comments on any Tesla or EV-related article), along with a good response, backed up with high-quality references and links.

Some anti-EV people might be swayed by evidence, but quite a few won't care what the facts are. It would be more valuable as a resource for us, when somebody throws one of those talking points at you.
 
I have many friends that are anti-EV biased. I am sure that if they tested the Roadster and the Model S they would change their mind. Quality is the key. Any other points based on climate change and global warming don't work at all with them.

I think if you can move the conversation away from the environmental aspects and just talk about the Model S (or EVs in general) on their own merits as "cars" it would help. Although I haven't experienced it personally, the haters seem to group around the government grant/incentives aspects or the "it really doesn't help the environment when you consider...." arguments.

People still love to bash certain brands for different reasons (Apple vs. PC, Ford vs. Chevy etc) so you'll never completely get away from it, but I think focussing on the car and not what is supposedly does or doesn't do for the environment is the key.
 
So, what liberal "dogma" specifically are you pointing at?
I'll take a swing at one example. Even if not necessarily "dogma", it's easy to find people on these boards that blindly advocate cutting carbon emissions without considering the cost. I can agree that the consequences of not cutting carbon emissions is terrible, but if one is unwilling to weigh the cost of cutting carbon emissions, the argument becomes silly.

At the moment, the marginal cost of cutting carbon emissions seems extremely small compared to the consequences of not doing it, so I can agree with the liberals that we should reduce emissions. but if we were in a world where we had already cut all of the easy to cut emissions, and CO2 levels were still rising (e.g., we were still flying jet fuel airplanes), I'd be willing to say "so be it". To me, the ability to fly airplanes is worth a 0.001°C/yr rise (or whatever airplanes contribute).

When considering whether I should buy my Tesla, ideologues on this site implied that if I could buy a Model S, not buying the Model S was morally irresponsible. I find that logic ridiculous.
What is the difference in utility to me between a Model S and a competitive car?
What is the value in the emissions that the Tesla will save?
Those are logical questions. Saying everyone that can afford a particular BEV should buy that BEV is dogmatic lunacy.

Also: Didn’t you just put up solar panels on your roof? Was there really no environmental concern whatsoever behind that decision?
While that question wasn't directed at me, I did put solar panels on my roof. Cost was pretty much the only factor. With a large house to air condition, a swimming pool, and a BEV, filling my roof with solar panels in CA pays me back in about 4 years. The environmental benefit might make me feel good, but the 4 year payback gets me on the phone with installers.

[regarding buying an EV:] other points based on climate change and global warming don't work at all with [some].
and it doesn't work with me, either.
Here's the thing: with a $66/year donation to carbonfund.org or terrapass.com, I could offset all of the CO2 emissions from a BMW M5. Let's say I own a car for 8 years, that means that the CO2 emission savings of my Tesla is worth about $500. $0.5k worth of CO2 emissions isn't going to swing me to buy one $100k vehicle over another.

I'll be happy to vote for a carbon tax to make a real difference in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, but my emissions are essentially irrelevant. I'm not about to change my way of life to cut emissions (e.g., not run my air conditioners) unless others are required to do that also. and if everybody had that attitude ("I'll willing to change if and only if the rest of the country is required to change"), the world would be way way better off than it is now (where 60% have the attitude of "Let our kids deal with the consequences of our emissions." and 1% has the attitude of "I'll make a change regardless of what the rest of you are willing to do.").
 
When considering whether I should buy my Tesla, ideologues on this site implied that if I could buy a Model S, not buying the Model S was morally irresponsible. I find that logic ridiculous.
What is the difference in utility to me between a Model S and a competitive car?
What is the value in the emissions that the Tesla will save?
Those are logical questions. Saying everyone that can afford a particular BEV should buy that BEV is dogmatic lunacy.

Derekt75: I'm pretty sure you're referring to my comment a couple of weeks ago (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...gers-and-other-stupid-things-people-say/page5), in which I said "If you are in the market for a car and can afford a Tesla, it is a moral imperative to buy one."

I agree that it's important to factor in your "logical questions." Obviously, if the car isn't a good fit for someone's needs, it doesn't make sense for them to buy one. Perhaps what I should have said is "If you're in the market for a car, and the Model S fits your needs and your budget, it is a moral imperative to buy one."

I also agree with you that buying one Model S isn't going to change the world on its own -- and you're probably right that buying a less-expensive car and carbon offsets to go with it is going to be less pricey overall and likely do just as much good with regard to CO2 emissions for that one vehicle.

My original comment was also made in the context of Mike_Schlechter's being criticized for buying a Model S instead of giving more to charity. Considering that the Model S (and X) is fueling the growth of the company so that the Gen III can/will be produced (which will be produced in far larger quantities and have a greater positive environmental impact), every Model S that is purchased helps advance the adoption of EVs in a way no other EV so far seems to be able to do... which basically makes buying a Model S a sort of charity. (In my original comment, I also called it a Mitzvah, or good deed.)

That's why I think it's a moral decision. But then again, I also think that reducing CO2 emissions and doing everything we can to mitigate climate change is a moral decision. If that makes me an idealogue, so be it.

Hopefully that clarified my original statement and my thinking. Or perhaps I'm just not able to express myself in written form well enough, and I'm going to come across as a "dogmatic lunatic," no matter what. Sigh.
 
In terms of AGW it's important not to lose perspective. I upgraded to a P85 from a Jetta TDI that I tried very hard to fuel with cooking oil. So my switch to an EV had a very minimal effect on my "carbon footprint". However we can't ALL drive on cooking oil for obvious supply reasons... Elon's vision is for SUSTAINABLE transport and I wanted to be a part of that shift. My decision was based more on "WE" than on "ME".

AGW has been described as being a problem seemingly designed that humanity cannot solve. No single individual has any significant impact but individuals failing to act will probably cause a significant problem. Classic "Tragedy of the commons" NO DROP OF RAIN THINKS IT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FLOOD.....
 
Everybody has different motivations for why they bought their Tesla Model S. Here are mine, in order:

1. High performance
2. Supporting Elon Musk's vision of the future
3. Advanced technology and features
4. Environmental concerns
5. Annoying conservatives by having a practical, high-performance EV

Ditto.

- - - Updated - - -

The closest thing to a "negative" comment I've received was along the lines of "it's a great car if you're willing to deal with the compromises".

Funny how those "compromises" evaporate after you drive one!
 
Remember the adage, Think Globally, Act Locally? Buying your one Model S may just change your neighborhood which can change the world. As a Roadster owner I know very well the effect that driving the car around has to change the minds of people who would not have considered an EV before. While in California, Tesla may be well known; in other places owning and driving a Model S regularly can turn enough heads and minds to make a difference. It's important to see and be seen!

I also agree with you that buying one Model S isn't going to change the world on its own -- and you're probably right that buying a less-expensive car and carbon offsets to go with it is going to be less pricey overall and likely do just as much good with regard to CO2 emissions for that one vehicle.
 
Last edited:
...My original point was/is simply that language such as "surely you must agree" is almost always followed by a wild and/or contentious assumption that is pivotal to the subsequent argument. It's kind of like "I probably shouldn't be saying this but" and "no offense but" where the language itself cues an instinctual reaction.

Reminds me of "Some people say"

Watch from 3:47, point starts at 8:40. [video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-[/video]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if not necessarily "dogma", it's easy to find people on these boards that blindly advocate cutting carbon emissions without considering the cost. I can agree that the consequences of not cutting carbon emissions is terrible, but if one is unwilling to weigh the cost of cutting carbon emissions, the argument becomes silly.

At the moment, the marginal cost of cutting carbon emissions seems extremely small compared to the consequences of not doing it, so I can agree with the liberals that we should reduce emissions. but if we were in a world where we had already cut all of the easy to cut emissions, and CO2 levels were still rising (e.g., we were still flying jet fuel airplanes), I'd be willing to say "so be it". To me, the ability to fly airplanes is worth a 0.001°C/yr rise (or whatever airplanes contribute)
First, FWIW thanks to Andrew, nwdiver and jaanton for pitching in.

Since I’ve only really studied science up till age nineteen my understanding of AGW overall is likely somewhat limited …But you and I have already had this discussion once before. In this thread starting from post #60:

Can't decide between Model S or Audi S6 - Page 6

Who knows. Maybe you remember?

And in the end you bought the Model S instead of the S6… :redface:

And as I remember it I read a post somewhere not that long ago where you laid out your ownership experience, and on the whole, you did not regret buying the Model S at that time.

I also however remember reading about issue’s you have had with the car, and FWIW I of course really, really wish that your ownership experience could have been one long happy honeymoon…, but hopefully your overall sentiment (as referenced above) hasn’t changed.

But back to this post in this thread.

I guess my basic understanding of AGW hasn’t evolved that much since the thread above. But since then tough, I have thanks to this forum on TMC been made aware of this site:

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

…which for example debunks all the so called arguments against AGW from the science deniers and their FUD-machine. And the debunking is both easy to understand and thoroughly comprehensive at the same time IMHO.

One way of looking at AGW though, that I use instead of your “0.001°C/yr rise”- example, is acknowledging the current amount of CO2 in our atmosphere: Currently around 400 ppm. According to best scientist on the planet we must go back till 350 ppm CO2 as soon as possible, and we passed 350 ppm in 1988. And as one of the results the sea level has risen nine to ten inches in NY in the last 100 years…

When considering whether I should buy my Tesla, ideologues on this site implied that if I could buy a Model S, not buying the Model S was morally irresponsible. I find that logic ridiculous.
What is the difference in utility to me between a Model S and a competitive car?
What is the value in the emissions that the Tesla will save?
Those are logical questions. Saying everyone that can afford a particular BEV should buy that BEV is dogmatic lunacy.
My reasoning is basically the same as Andrew’s and jaanton’s above.

I also second nwdiver’s thinking about emphasizing “WE” over “ME” and not loosing sight of the “Tragedy of the Commons”-description.

But also: Another valid argument IMHO was stated by Norbert in post #135 in the original thread above:
If you still feel like your argument wasn't addressed:

It sounds like you are confusing a cost calculation based on your personal preferences (in this thread you already acknowledged that the S7 would "probably" be a better comparison to the Model S than the S6) with a more general argument about the environmental efficiency of buying an electric car.

First of all, if you buy an electric car which is, let's say, $8k more expensive (and get back the difference in gasoline savings), it's not just the $8k which work for supporting electric cars, but the whole price of the car. And, in a sense, twice that, since not only will there be that much more support for electric cars, but also that much less support for ICEs. (If you would otherwise buy an ICE, that is). So those $8k actually work maybe $180k in favor of electric cars.

Then, if everyone argued the same way as you, and similarly compared a Prius to the Leaf, and a Cruze to the Volt, there'd be no more electric cars. [My underline.]

Which might not be that much of a difference in the short-term, if everyone gave the money to "TerraPass" instead. But by the time much of our electricity is generated from sustainable sources, we'd still have this huge fleet of ICEs producing CO2 and smog and consuming oil. [My underline.]

Whereas if we ignore the kind of thinking which you are promoting above, then we'd have a huge fleet of electric cars by then, therefore fresh air, and *much less* CO2 production and oil consumption. [My underline.]

Of course, you could always contribute to "TerraPass" additionally. :)
Here's the thing: with a $66/year donation to carbonfund.org or terrapass.com, I could offset all of the CO2 emissions from a BMW M5. Let's say I own a car for 8 years, that means that the CO2 emission savings of my Tesla is worth about $500. $0.5k worth of CO2 emissions isn't going to swing me to buy one $100k vehicle over another.

I'll be happy to vote for a carbon tax to make a real difference in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, but my emissions are essentially irrelevant. I'm not about to change my way of life to cut emissions (e.g., not run my air conditioners) unless others are required to do that also. and if everybody had that attitude ("I'll willing to change if and only if the rest of the country is required to change"), the world would be way way better off than it is now (where 60% have the attitude of "Let our kids deal with the consequences of our emissions." and 1% has the attitude of "I'll make a change regardless of what the rest of you are willing to do.").
See my previous answer above.

And also: Considering that we are at 400 ppm CO2 these things that NGO’s like carbonfund.org and terrapass.com are doing are really things that governments IMHO opinion should see to is taken care of immediately. The reason this isn’t happening is because people keep electing completely uninformed/misinformed/[insert other reason(s) here] representatives, that just don’t address the “Tragedy of the commons”-problem that is AGW. If you want to spread your time and money around on other things than Teslas and solar panels in order to have an impact on AGW, influencing the political process in the right direction is probably the only chance we have to prevent devastating global warming (IMHO).
 
Last edited:
the current amount of CO2 in our atmosphere: Currently around 400 ppm. According to best scientist on the planet we must go back till 350 ppm CO2 as soon as possible, and we passed 350 ppm in 1988.

This would be very good but the trend now is CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increasing at a rate of 3 ppm per year. It means that the efforts that are being done to decrease CO2 emissions are not enough.

I would like the target of 350 ppm for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere be formalized at a global level as a goal to be achieved in 15 years.
 
…My original point was/is simply that language such as "surely you must agree" is almost always followed by a wild and/or contentious assumption that is pivotal to the subsequent argument. It's kind of like "I probably shouldn't be saying this but" and "no offense but" where the language itself cues an instinctual reaction.
Reminds me of "Some people say"

Watch from 3:47, point starts at 8:40. [video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-[/video]
So…

Why did I write “Surely you must agree”?

Perhaps because 97% of the worlds climate scientists that get their research published in peer-reviewed magazines clearly back AGW!

Perhaps because English is only my second language – if starting a sentence with “Surely you must agree” really is such a terrible thing to do (!)

Or maybe because unfortunately I’m not perfect – if (again) starting a sentence with “Surely you must agree” really is such a terrible thing to do (!)

So what do you want me to do now? Apologize?

Fine! I couldn’t care less!

[Kneeling]

– Please, please … Can you please forgive me for starting a sentence with “Surely you must agree”?

– Please, dearest sir!

If you want to disagree with the merits of my argument, then fine!

But can I now ask of you in return, that you in that case argue on the merits?


Sincerely,

Claes
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This would be very good but the trend now is CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increasing at a rate of 3 ppm per year. It means that the efforts that are being done to decrease CO2 emissions are not enough.

I would like the target of 350 ppm for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere be formalized at a global level as a goal to be achieved in 15 years.

but how can you possibly get to 350 ppm?
That would mean you'd need to immediately stop burning nearly all fossil fuels (e.g., no more plane flights. no more gasoline trucks. Developing countries stop developing. First world countries turn into third world countries.)
You'd also need to spend a lot of money to remove the CO2 we've already pumped into the atmosphere. How can you pay for that when you just collapsed the global economy (which relies on fossil fuels), and you can't ship anything anywhere?

This would all be crazy costly, and without some game changing technology that I'm unaware of, I would be strongly opposed to pursuing such costly efforts.

This is the crux of the problem: we have no realistic way to lower the CO2 number.

On the other hand, we have plenty of inexpensive ways to reduce the rate at which we're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
All it would take is an act of Congress to make a difference (e.g., carbon tax). Sadly, there's no realistic way to even do that. :-(