Market politics

[Norbert]

That's correct and it's because of increased economic activity.

This is the fundamental problem we have in the Western world. China and India are responsible for much of the new CO2 over the last 20 years but it also coincided with moving billions out of poverty.

India's emissions are actually smaller in total, and blaming China doesn't make much sense as long as per-person emissions in the US are about twice as high.

What's the right answer? The world's economy runs on energy and much of it is fossil fuels.

I think that will start changing soon, and the question for the US is what role it wants to play in the changing world. Too much is taken for granted.

 

[dmunjal]

India's emissions are actually smaller in total, and blaming China doesn't make much sense as long as per-person emissions in the US are about twice as high.



I think that will start changing soon, and the question for the US is what role it wants to play in the changing world. Too much is taken for granted.

I don't think per-person emissions is the right way to measure it because it's about total emissions and the direction it's headed.

The right way to do this not by government force but like we solve many problems, innovation. Because I don't see China and India responding to coercion. We can't even agree on tariffs.

The US has a role. It can export its EVs, its natural gas (LNG), and even Gen4 nuclear power. We can show the world how to do it. Just like we do for technology, pharmaceuticals, and other innovations.

 

[wdolson]

Yes, we have been exporting emissions to China.

If all the manufacturing is done in China, obviously the emissions will be mostly in China. We should start counting at the emissions embedded in the imports.

As well as the fuel to transport the goods to market. One of the reasons Elon wanted to build the GigaFactory was to reduce all the transportation steps involved in conventional manufacturing today.

That's correct and it's because of increased economic activity.

This is the fundamental problem we have in the Western world. China and India are responsible for much of the new CO2 over the last 20 years but it also coincided with moving billions out of poverty.

What's the right answer? The world's economy runs on energy and much of it is fossil fuels.

The world economy runs on fossil fuels today. Advances a society that involves and increase in energy usage involves burning them. Even work on alternatives consumes fossil fuels right now too. Every Tesla delivered to a customer has a fossil fuel footprint. Tesla is working to shrink that footprint, but it will be a while before it's zero.

 

[Singuy]

HA HA HA HA. That video is GREAT. It's the PERFECT illustration about why it is important to read the original literature, and ignore what the media actually focuses on in their rhetoric.

Did you read the original material or did you just took a 4 min video at face value and ran with it like how you claimed what others have done with the media?

Looking at the agreement myself, China's Co2 Peak emission latest by 2030 with carbon intensity reduction of 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020, while replacing billions of trees. It's actually not bad vs the misleading video that "China will still increase emission until 2030". Yeah no *sugar* sherlock..it's what happened to an economy that's growing with more and more people being about to afford more therefore having more waste. Ever wonder why the U.S uses so much energy per capita? Probably has something to do with that standard of living....

Also isn't a 'pledge" just whatever you want to throw in to accomplish a goal? You pledge x, I'll pledge y. So the criticism is the pledges are not standardized so F this I'm going home with no pledge?

 

[Norbert]

I don't think per-person emissions is the right way to measure it because it's about total emissions and the direction it's headed.

The right way to do this not by government force but like we solve many problems, innovation. Because I don't see China and India responding to coercion. We can't even agree on tariffs.

The US has a role. It can export its EVs, its natural gas (LNG), and even Gen4 nuclear power. We can show the world how to do it. Just like we do for technology, pharmaceuticals, and other innovations.

So what is your projected timeline for CO2 emissions in the US, assuming like-minded administrations in the future?

How are emissions going to develop, and why? Then let's check in a few years, if we are both still here.

 

[bhtooefr]

Out of main:

That's funny. Are people really that spoiled? Because the job I had for most of my working years required me to get on a 58' boat and navigate my "home" for the next 3 months through sometimes treacherous seas for thousands of miles, away from my family. Not once but each and every year. If I wanted to make a living.

Nobody is owed a job and you will have to excuse me if I don't find moving across the country, when the company you work for fails, to be too adventurous or disruptive! Particularly when the union bosses you elected to represent you, actively lobby the company to NOT do the very thing that could have saved your job!

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that you've worked for 20-25 years at a company, your house is paid for, your kids are in the local university, and now you're asked to move to a place where you'll have to take a minimum of a $100K mortgage (probably more) with no guarantee you'll be working there for more than a year. There's no money to be saved by the company because you'll be in an office cubical rather than working from home, and the type of work is such that you're remote from the equipment you're working on.

And there's some strong arguments that the mentality of "just move" is what destroys communities, as well.

Nobody's entitled to a job, and some jobs should be ended. But, that's what the welfare state is for, as well as some manifestations of pork barrel politics.

 

[dmunjal]

So what is your projected timeline for CO2 emissions in the US, assuming like-minded administrations in the future?

How are emissions going to develop, and why? Then let's check in a few years, if we are both still here.

I don't think the president really has as much power as you think they do on this topic. Obama was probably our most green president yet he governed during a fracking boom. Trump seems very anti green but he will govern during a boom of EVs and renewables. The private sector is more powerful than government not because government can't solve problems but because they can't seem to get out of their own way.

 

[Norbert]

I don't think the president really has as much power as you think they do on this topic. Obama was probably our most green president yet he governed during a fracking boom. Trump seems very anti green but he will govern during a boom of EVs and renewables. The private sector is more powerful than government not because government can't solve problems but because they can't seem to get out of their own way.

With "they", you mean congress? Congress in general, or the current one?

 

[dmunjal]

With "they", you mean congress? Congress in general, or the current one?

All government, all the time. With the exception of WW2 and NASA, government over the last few decades has the best intentions but usually makes things worse. I think the rise of corruption and the influence of money in politics is most responsible for this.

 

[JRP3]

Trump seems very anti green but he will govern during a boom of EVs and renewables.

Which was created in a large part to previous administrations incentives and investments.

 

[dmunjal]

Which was created in a large part to previous administrations incentives and investments.

You give too much credit to government. Elon Musk has said as much. Tesla would have happened with or without EV subsidies. Solar and battery technology developed on its own and would be in the same place today without those policies. And natural gas and fracking boomed under Obama despite the rhetoric. Didn't Bush start the EV subsidy anyway?

 

[JRP3]

You're kidding, right? Solar has had government support from the beginning, as did fracking. Battery research has also had government support.

 

[JRP3]

"You can't cut it" ... "You can cut anything"
Stable genius at work

 

[dmunjal]

You're kidding, right? Solar has had government support from the beginning, as did fracking. Battery research has also had government support.

I'm not kidding. I believe Tesla would have happened with or without government support. You do a huge disservice to all the hard work that Musk and Tesla employees have done over the last decade when you do.

This is no different than when talking about the Internet. Many like to claim the Internet was created by the government and in many ways they did under ARPA. But again, it was the private sector that scaled it and made is possible to take it to the masses in a profitable and sustainable way.

Fracking was invented in the private sector with government funds, I believe.

 

[JRP3]

Government support made Tesla vehicles more affordable, which meant they could charge more. That helped. Government funding and support helped drive advances in lithium battery development. Government support made solar technology improve and made it cheaper, there is still a 30% federal incentive for solar. Fracking had huge government support and incentives. Probably every significant technological advance has had significant government support.

 

[dmunjal]

Government support made Tesla vehicles more affordable, which meant they could charge more. That helped. Government funding and support helped drive advances in lithium battery development. Government support made solar technology improve and made it cheaper, there is still a 30% federal incentive for solar. Fracking had huge government support and incentives. Probably every significant technological advance has had significant government support.

As I said, I'll give you that. But they would have gone nowhere without the private sector taking to the market. Also, government support isn't the only kind of financing available. The private sector also finances quite a bit of innovation, too. In the end, the government policies you describe are not much more than being a VC.

 

[bkp_duke]

NHS Key Statistics: England, October 2019 - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament

Oops, so much for one of those socialized medicine models that everyone is saying we should model after.

The above UK report (from the governing UK entity) is abismal.

80% or so of patients able to see a specialist within 2 months? When I was practicing if my staff didn't get a referral in within 2 weeks, heads would roll.

The report on cancer treatment is abysmal.

This is a supply and demand problem, and it is amazing how hard those are to deal with when you hamstring the free market.

 

[Norbert]

As I said, I'll give you that. But they would have gone nowhere without the private sector taking to the market. Also, government support isn't the only kind of financing available. The private sector also finances quite a bit of innovation, too. In the end, the government policies you describe are not much more than being a VC.

The fact remains that goverment support helped a lot, and made things happen much faster than they would have otherwise, and surely also helped with a few things that would have not happened at all, otherwise. Elon Musk also said that Tesla was close to failing more than once. And it wasn't difficult for goverment to provide that help. I'm not sure that much would have happened in the solar area without goverment support. Even so, both EVs and solar are still small percentages, far too small, and it is easy to see how government help would improve things a lot. It is really, really easy to see. Super easy. And it needs to be done only for the transition, for a limited time.

 

[dmunjal]

The fact remains that goverment support helped a lot, and made things happen much faster than they would have otherwise, and surely also helped with a few things that would have not happened at all, otherwise. Elon Musk also said that Tesla was close to failing more than once. And it wasn't difficult for goverment to provide that help. I'm not sure that much would have happened in the solar area without goverment support. Even so, both EVs and solar are still small percentages, far too small, and it is easy to see how government help would improve things a lot. It is really, really easy to see. Super easy. And it needs to be done only for the transition, for a limited time.

Mercedes saved Tesla when it was close to failure, not the government.

I'll give you another example of where a disruptive company is doing everything that Tesla is doing and has the same benefits but through their private financial partners.

Uber.

Uber does not get government support but it still benefits from financial support that allows them to charge less than the market and run losses longer (over $1b loss this quarter) than most companies could.

They get this benefit from the private sector just like EVs and renewables get this benefit from government. Tesla also benefits from its core investors who tolerate losses, too.

Yes, government can actually change laws like outlawing (coal) or taxing (carbon) the competition but more often than not, that changes with new Congress and Presidents. It's also invites corruption as lobbyists get to pick winners and losers.

IMO, government intervention brings more trouble than help in these disruptive examples.

I've worked in Silicon Valley for over 30 years and my experience backs this up.

 

[wdolson]

Mercedes saved Tesla when it was close to failure, not the government.

I'll give you another example of where a disruptive company is doing everything that Tesla is doing and has the same benefits but through their private financial partners.

Uber.

Uber does not get government support but it still benefits from financial support that allows them to charge less than the market and run losses longer (over $1b loss this quarter) than most companies could.

They get this benefit from the private sector just like EVs and renewables get this benefit from government. Tesla also benefits from its core investors who tolerate losses, too.

Yes, government can actually change laws like outlawing (coal) or taxing (carbon) the competition but more often than not, that changes with new Congress and Presidents. It's also invites corruption as lobbyists get to pick winners and losers.

IMO, government intervention brings more trouble than help in these disruptive examples.

I've worked in Silicon Valley for over 30 years and my experience backs this up.

Tesla also got a loan from the US government to help set up Model S production.

Government incentives helped Tesla get off the ground. Most of the states that had strong early adoption of Teslas also had some kind of state level incentive.

Government money thrown at long range research keeps that kind of research going. Private money is available for research into tech that might go to market in a few years, but private money is sparse for longer term research. Especially for ideas that may advance our knowledge of how the world and universe works, but is unlikely to apply directly to anything commercial. Though most of this sort of research does eventually lead to improvements in some kind of tech down the line, it isn't always a direct contribution or obvious from the start.

The tech industry is the biggest success story of industry with little outside help. The industry is heavy on intellectual property and light on the need for heavy industry support. Many of Silicon Valley's biggest companies make little or no hardware and turnaround from idea to production is based on how fast the developers can work.

Heavy industry works differently and the large manufacturing footprint requires time and effort to set up. Many of Tesla's manufacturing screw ups were due to not appreciating the difficulties in both setting up manufacturing and making manufacturing efficient.