Have you got a pulse?
I can recite the alphabet backwards while standing in one leg and tapping my nose. Does that count?
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Have you got a pulse?
He probably does, but he has proven he is brain dead.Have you got a pulse?
He probably does, but he has proven he is brain dead.
Allow me to summarize:
The trump-garde are whining about $3B a year from around 300M Americans, or less than a dollar a month per person to mitigate the worse natural climate disaster to face the planet, and as ancillary benefits reduce oil addiction, stop the deluge of capita out of American to oil countries, invigorate the economy with PV and wind development, and reduce pollution.
If you're going to post a poll, how about you don't litter the thread with subjective arguments for one of the answers but let the people you are asking make their own minds up?
I voted for the UN because it will at the same time distribute wealth to those who will suffer the most from climate change that is already happening, not in 150 years from now, or whenever the changes we make in the next decades begin to work their way through the climate feedback system and make themselves felt. People are already having their homes and livelihoods washed away. What can Elon do about that?
Not to bash Elon or praise the UN to high heaven, but they have slightly different focuses. Elon is just about saving humanity in the long run in general. The UN wants to do that but also mitigate the effect of what has already happened and will inevitably happen to specific real people that are alive today and will be alive in 30 years.
Tesla sells cars, hopefully as cheap as $35,000 USD in the near future.One solution will end with a cleaner environment and less reliance on oil/coal and the other will be fraught with waste, corruption and abuse and zero accountability.
Tesla sells cars, hopefully as cheap as $35,000 USD in the near future.
Per capita income in India is under $700 a year, in part spent for electricity from coal but increasingly from PV as international financing infuses debt capital, in part facilitated by unsecured loans from public entities that reduce private loan risk.
Are you following ?
The Paris accord provides a few percent of the total investment required to decarbonize the world's grid. Tesla sells nice cars.
One thing I wanted to add to this analysis... I purposely left off the Tax Credit. This makes the model 3 competitive with the cheapest cars on the road over a 10 year period as long as you have solar which is compounded by having multiple Model 3s. Truly astounding.
This is already reality with the base Model 3 and people just dont realize it yet. Humor me a bit with this analysis:
If you take a 19,000 car and compare it to a 35,000 Model 3 over a 5 year loan period:
Cars Purchase Price Residual Value (1/3rd) 10 Year Residual (1/5th) Model 3 35,000 11,667(1/3) 7,000 Generic ICE 19,000 6,333 3,800 Difference 16,000 5,333 3,200 Gas Cost (15K M/Y x $2.50 x 30mpg) ICE 6,250 12,500 Electricity Cost (15K M/Y x 280Wh/M/1000 x 15c/KWh) EV 3,038 6,075 Electricity Cost (15K M/Y x 280Wh/M/1000 x 4c/KWh) EV + Solar 810 1,620 Maintenance (Oil + Brakes + Other ICE 1,500 3,500 Maintenance (12v) EV 150 300 Maint. Cost Difference - 1,350 3,200 Cost Difference - -771 (more expensive) 6,425 (savings) Cost Difference w/Solar 1,457 (savings) 10,880 (savings)
Lets not forget that Tesla had highest accident rates in the industry. Therefore, as a consumer I vote Elon but as a worker I would put my trust elsewhere.
Your proposal is naive. Giving $100B to Tesla would have huge political ramifications. In th US most prople would scream about subsidies. The rest of the world would wonder why the rich IS was getting funding, and in oarticular why Tedla and it billionaire head was getting this money.
Building EVs is only a partial solution, and, for example some would even argue part of the problem -- what we really need is public trsnsportation.
One cannot choose between your choices except on the most superficial basis.
If really is high time you take your head out of trump's arse.No one is going to be able to build an electric car that someone making $700 a year can afford. Nor an ICE far for that matter. Nor Solar, nor anything else.
If really is high time you take your head out of trump's arse.
Look up coal emissions in China and India. While China is moving away from coal at a rate faster than any other country in the world on their own dime, India has been displacing coal at an impressive rate with trivial assistance. I am not an economist, but I can help you estimate the leveraged environmental effect of the green fund proposed in the Paris accord:
Developing countries are able to build utility PV for a $1 a watt
A watt produces about 50 kWh of electricity over its lifetime
The Paris accord estimate of $3B per year from US taxpayers for 33 years decarbonizes the $100T world grid. This works out to a nice round 1000:1 leveraged effect
So....
$1 of US money decarbonizes 50,000 kWh of energy, or about 500 kWh per penny
That's a classic false dilemma. The $100B won't be going to Elon even if it doesn't go to the UN. The very same people who oppose the Paris accord also opposes the AVTM loans for Tesla and similar government programs for climate change. Not spending $100 billion doesn't mean they will funnel money to Elon for climate change purposes.It's $100B/year for 5 years and $300B/year for the next 5 years that won't be invested in companies like Tesla and instead will be given to a corrupt UN to distribute. And yes, people in other countries can invest in Tesla, they take all currencies.
One solution will end with a cleaner environment and less reliance on oil/coal and the other will be fraught with waste, corruption and abuse and zero accountability.
What's your vote?
FUD.
Why dont you pull some data on Chinese Solar sell manufactures, who will probably reap the most rewards from the UN slush fund.
Here is where your UN funds will go:
Solar power in China - Wikipedia
That's a classic false dilemma. The $100B won't be going to Elon even if it doesn't go to the UN. The very same people who oppose the Paris accord also opposes the AVTM loans for Tesla and similar government programs for climate change. Not spending $100 billion doesn't mean they will funnel money to Elon for climate change purposes.
The two are not mutually exclusive either. If for example Elon launches Tesla Energy and Tesla cars in those developing nations, the investment would count toward that $100B goal, given private pledges count too.
Also, focusing only on the $100 Billion misses the primarily part of the agreement, which are the emissions targets. With such emissions targets, it allows the governments to set various measures to reward or punish related to climate change. Staying is beneficial to Elon's goals as it means policies that counts the externality of GHG emissions better than before. Why do you think Elon left Trump's council in protest?
Overall a very misleading poll (that's putting aside the selection bias of posting that question in a Tesla forum).
I did say elsewhere,not UN.
I had much higher opinion about Tesla until accidents stats came out. Of course it is all relative and Tesla is still one of the best however they can do better and, if you trust Elon they will.
Tesla operations as a public US company is more transparent and accountable than UN would ever be so in the end Tesla would get my vote.