I voted for both proposals to support the move towards cruelty free products but honestly if I were offered an MX Signature upgrade I would take it with all the leather (and Alcantara which I really dislike) they put in it so I appreciate the investor view as well. I would still hope my vote could help move them in the direction of offering premium interiors without animal products instead of the cruel or nothing approach that only Leilani was able to circumvent.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Notice of 2015 Shareholder Meeting - June 9
- Thread starter Lump
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2015 meeting shareholder TSLA
I am firmly against proposal 3 for many reasons, and I would recommend that everybody votes against it. This is why:
1. The proposal wants to eliminate the use of leather in Tesla's cars, which takes away the right of people to chose what they want. If you believe that getting non-leather seats is a better alternative, go ahead, but do not force your views on others. Tesla's mission is to bring sustainable transport to the masses, and restricting their choices would only make the car less appealing.
2. Other performance luxury car owners already trash the Tesla for its not very opulent interior that lacks some luxury inserts and features that other cars have. Removing the leather option will reinforce this image and will probably significantly slow cannibalization of other ICE cars as buyers (especially in the premium markets and definitely in China) would opt for more opulent interiors. This is against Tesla's mission of achieving sustainable transport because it will prevent the necessary cannibalization of ICE products.
3. Many investors and consumers view Tesla as a niche producer for rich environmentalists and performance luxury car fans. Removing the leather option would encourage this view of Tesla as a niche producer, which directly goes against Tesla's goal of sustainable transport on a mass scale.
4. The leather industry is a byproduct of the beef industry, and Tesla is a VERY insignificant consumer of leather products in the market. It is absolutely silly to propose that Tesla's discontinuation of usage of leather products in its cars would offset any emissions from the beef (and the corn industry that feeds it) industry especially since any effect on livestock emissions, however tiny, would be immediately offset by people who opt to chose ICE cars rather than Tesla's cars because they lack leather.
5. The claim that livestock contributes more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than transport is erroneous. According to the EPA, agriculture made up 9% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the US, and transport made up 27%. Also, not all 9% of the GHG emissions come from livestock, some comes from other agricultural activities. Also according to the EPA, 14% of global GHG emissions come from agriculture (not all of that is from livestock), and 13% from transport.
6. The cherry picked reviews of other cars with non animal sourced interiors is incredibly misleading, as it talks about the Mercedes C-Class and E-Class which are entry level and mid level cars, while Tesla's Model S and upcoming Model X are very high end vehicles, where a lack of leather is not nearly as acceptable nor as common-place as in entry and mid level cars.
7. The alternatives to leather are also not very environmentally friendly, as most fake leathers contain plastic (which uses petroleum products) or PVC.
8. The forced use of completely non-animal leather products can potentially create further production constraints and can cause production to slow, which is also against Tesla's mission of bringing sustainable transport to the masses as soon as possible.
9. Its a slippery slope. How far do you go with the idea of minimizing GHG emissions and environmental impact? Should Tesla avoid production of such GHG intensive 2 ton metal boxes and instead opt to make bikes?
10. Finding other faux leather products will take time and research money, both resources are scarce and would be better allocated in investing into the company's future.
A more reasonable proposal would not ask for elimination of leather, but rather offering faux leather options and not penalizing customers who chose the cloth interior, but as it is worded, the 3rd proposal is extreme and will not accomplish its own goal of reducing environmental impact, will create more troubles for Tesla, and reinforce images of Tesla as a niche poor interior product. Vote against this proposal even if you support the notion of offering faux leather options (which I do as well), because it is simply to extreme of a measure.
1. The proposal wants to eliminate the use of leather in Tesla's cars, which takes away the right of people to chose what they want. If you believe that getting non-leather seats is a better alternative, go ahead, but do not force your views on others. Tesla's mission is to bring sustainable transport to the masses, and restricting their choices would only make the car less appealing.
2. Other performance luxury car owners already trash the Tesla for its not very opulent interior that lacks some luxury inserts and features that other cars have. Removing the leather option will reinforce this image and will probably significantly slow cannibalization of other ICE cars as buyers (especially in the premium markets and definitely in China) would opt for more opulent interiors. This is against Tesla's mission of achieving sustainable transport because it will prevent the necessary cannibalization of ICE products.
3. Many investors and consumers view Tesla as a niche producer for rich environmentalists and performance luxury car fans. Removing the leather option would encourage this view of Tesla as a niche producer, which directly goes against Tesla's goal of sustainable transport on a mass scale.
4. The leather industry is a byproduct of the beef industry, and Tesla is a VERY insignificant consumer of leather products in the market. It is absolutely silly to propose that Tesla's discontinuation of usage of leather products in its cars would offset any emissions from the beef (and the corn industry that feeds it) industry especially since any effect on livestock emissions, however tiny, would be immediately offset by people who opt to chose ICE cars rather than Tesla's cars because they lack leather.
5. The claim that livestock contributes more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than transport is erroneous. According to the EPA, agriculture made up 9% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the US, and transport made up 27%. Also, not all 9% of the GHG emissions come from livestock, some comes from other agricultural activities. Also according to the EPA, 14% of global GHG emissions come from agriculture (not all of that is from livestock), and 13% from transport.
6. The cherry picked reviews of other cars with non animal sourced interiors is incredibly misleading, as it talks about the Mercedes C-Class and E-Class which are entry level and mid level cars, while Tesla's Model S and upcoming Model X are very high end vehicles, where a lack of leather is not nearly as acceptable nor as common-place as in entry and mid level cars.
7. The alternatives to leather are also not very environmentally friendly, as most fake leathers contain plastic (which uses petroleum products) or PVC.
8. The forced use of completely non-animal leather products can potentially create further production constraints and can cause production to slow, which is also against Tesla's mission of bringing sustainable transport to the masses as soon as possible.
9. Its a slippery slope. How far do you go with the idea of minimizing GHG emissions and environmental impact? Should Tesla avoid production of such GHG intensive 2 ton metal boxes and instead opt to make bikes?
10. Finding other faux leather products will take time and research money, both resources are scarce and would be better allocated in investing into the company's future.
A more reasonable proposal would not ask for elimination of leather, but rather offering faux leather options and not penalizing customers who chose the cloth interior, but as it is worded, the 3rd proposal is extreme and will not accomplish its own goal of reducing environmental impact, will create more troubles for Tesla, and reinforce images of Tesla as a niche poor interior product. Vote against this proposal even if you support the notion of offering faux leather options (which I do as well), because it is simply to extreme of a measure.
I concur with this and others that suggest that leather shouldn't be a requirement for features such as Power Lift Gate.
Aww, glad you enjoyed it. I just logged in to say I would be coming back to CA for that whole week and was hoping we could have another group lunch, and was going to ask I should help organize again, and if the same restaurant would be good. (Advantage is location and safe free parking).
i will check to see if there is already a thread for this.
i will check to see if there is already a thread for this.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Disagree on all points. I'm quite certain Tesla will continue to sell all vehicles they can make even without leather interiors, and I'm quite certain they can use more environmentally benign materials.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
My thoughts on this are the same as with any new tech: come up with something better and it will sell.
The Tesla power train is better than petrol engines, and it is therefore a big selling point. If Tesla can develop environmentally friendlier seating that is better than leather, that would also be a selling point.
Right now I'm not sure what the best alternative is for leather. The Honda plant-based bio fabric I mentioned before is one possibility, but the perception of luxury = leather can be difficult to overcome.
benemac
Member
My husband and I are in. Another couple from Scottsdale are planning to be there as well.
Maybe another thread would be best to begin for the lunch discussion if you don't find it. I had started one about a meetup but it was combined into this one.
Maybe another thread would be best to begin for the lunch discussion if you don't find it. I had started one about a meetup but it was combined into this one.
benemac
Member
Question. Do they allow spouses into the meeting that are not on the brokerage account? I know a couple in this situation.
No, each person must have documentation that they are shareholder. (Proxy or account statement, and pictur ID). I had a friend last year who almost didn't get in because the shares were in her husband's work 401k, which did not have her name on the account. (She eventually got in because her husband needed help due to mobility issues).
I think it will be fine if both names are on the account, but I don't think just saying someone is your spouse if they aren't on the account will let them get in. In old-school days (before voting on Internet) these meetings were shareholder voting meetings, once you are in, you can vote, so guests are not allowed. It is a little obsolete now, since most vote online, and bulk of meeting is asking Elon questions, and that is another reason they limit attendance. If everyone could bring guests it would be huge, and probably become more of a media event for Elon fan base than shareholders meeting.
I think it will be fine if both names are on the account, but I don't think just saying someone is your spouse if they aren't on the account will let them get in. In old-school days (before voting on Internet) these meetings were shareholder voting meetings, once you are in, you can vote, so guests are not allowed. It is a little obsolete now, since most vote online, and bulk of meeting is asking Elon questions, and that is another reason they limit attendance. If everyone could bring guests it would be huge, and probably become more of a media event for Elon fan base than shareholders meeting.
benemac
Member
That's what I figured. She's checking into it and I hope they can go. I know he won't attend unless she can get in.
Thanks for the first-person account.
Thanks for the first-person account.
On the shareholder proposals- I'd really like to see Tesla offer a non-leather next generation seat (currently not available). Color choices for non leather seats in addition to the current one (black) option would also be nice to see. I think for now, asking Tesla to eliminate animal products all together might be going too far, though I've not made up my mind. I'd like to hear more details from Tesla on the challenges involved in eliminating animal products, and see if they'll reconsider whether there are some significant steps they can start with shortly. It might help if they released a list of all components with animal materials (though I can see the FUD headlines twisting such an initiative of transparency into false claims that Tesla's are the least animal friendly cars on the planet)
So I just want to make sure, it says it is at 2 pm, so does that mean the webcast starts then as well? It seems like this is later in the day for us in the central and Eastern parts of the US. I swear it was in the middle of the day last year....
May be headed down to the Bay Area for this one as I have the perfect work schedule for it - and finally became a shareholder this past year.
Curious though - since I'm making the trip down from Vancouver, I might as well get in a factory tour as I haven't been to the Bay area in a decade. Anyone that could help with this? Not likely to be a Model S owner by June 9th-11th when I'll be in town.
Curious though - since I'm making the trip down from Vancouver, I might as well get in a factory tour as I haven't been to the Bay area in a decade. Anyone that could help with this? Not likely to be a Model S owner by June 9th-11th when I'll be in town.
There once was a thread regarding leather and animal products but the responses were quite disappointing. There just doesn't seem to be that much of an interest which I find interesting as it would make a bold statement from Tesla offering a "vegan" car. Now THAT would be sustainable
Similar threads
