Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tesla, Inc.' started by Reciprocity, Jun 5, 2017.
I can recite the alphabet backwards while standing in one leg and tapping my nose. Does that count?
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.
He probably does, but he has proven he is brain dead.
Oh good one bro, did you vote yet?
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?
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.
The poll is the first thing people see and this is a discussion forum.
How exactly is redistribution of wealth to the poor going help clean the environment when the wealthiest countries are the biggest polluters? So you are saying, take 100B a year from rich countries and distribute it to poor countries and hope they don't buy ice cars? Sounds like a great solution.
So if I'm living in a a poor country where people are starving, we are going to make them get solar panels? I'm confused as to how this redistribution of wealth is going to help the environment. Please inform?
I know exactly what Elon would do with the money. Build 30 or so gigafactories to output a million cars each, a million 5kw solar systems and battery packs reach year, until the end of time. And return all $100B back to the investors with interest or more accurately massive returns. This massive amount of production will drive the cost down as low as they can go due to the limits of physics. If the government's of the world want to further incentivize with there investment income from Tesla, more power to them, but it won't be necessary.
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.
Telsa cannot do everything by itself and it doesn't have to, Tesla is also driving competition to introduce EVs and a crazy rate, some 40 models by 2020, which never would have happened without Tesla pushing the envelope. What Tesla can do is continue to become more and more efficient and expand capacity as much as possible to reduce costs so that more people can afford it. 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. What kinda carbon footprint does someone who makes $700 a year have? Ok, so he rides the bus. Telsa bus. He wars cloths that are delivered by a Tesla Semi. Hrm.. He shops at a grocery store that has Telsa solar panels on the roof. The UN isnt going to build any of that. Maybe the money will go to buy cheap Chinese panels made by basically slave labor in very dangerous factories where no one cares about employee safety.
Here is a good example of how impactful the model 3 alone can be:
To that end. if India would invest $10B in Tesla, in 10 years their investment would be worth $100B and Tesla would be introducing a car for the Indian market that costs $10000. The India government can take their profits and incentives the purchase of the car. Now put that into the table above and now include FSD and your poor $700 a year person can afford to ride share with his country men instead of riding his bicycle.
Again, what is this persons carbon footprint that you are trying to offset? How much is India contributing and how much has India agred to cut their emissions over the next 5 years?
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.
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
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 are getting the funding, and in particular why Tesla and its billionaire head was getting this money. No doubt there would be negative fall out and push back ... enough to possibly negate the positives -- ie conflict and war.
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.
Its not naive at all. The power is in your hands and the hands of everyone who is crying about the US departing the Paris accord which includes people around the world, no government meddling needed. It is however naive to think that the UN will be efficient with the money and it will not be used to buy cheap polluting Chinese solar:
Solar power in China - Wikipedia
Edit: Everyone should take the profits from their $TSLA stock and buy a Model 3 or Model Y and Tesla solar with a PW2 for good measure. Thanks and good day.
Factory deaths in China. I guess choking on the air isnt fast enough:
Annual Chinese Factory Deaths: 147,036 and Counting?
UN Greenfund will go to fund more of this and more pollution as China is not agreeing to reduce emissions much less other forms of pollution.
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
$1 of US money decarbonizes 50,000 kWh of energy, or about 500 kWh per penny
Your turn: estimate the cost of mitigation and disaster response. Even you should realize the bargain of the century when you see it. This is not subtle.
Yes, Trump wants to direct the UN Greenfund money to Elon. Then my work is done, because he has that power.
BTW, the Greenfund wont have any US money and no one else was funding their share and even if they did, the UN would find a way to have it get lost in the process of distributing it.
Developing countries pollute a huge amount while making their panels and dont have an EPA there. They might be able to breath one day, but everything else will be dead from the other factory pollution. It appears that you only care about being green when if fits your narrative, which as far as I can tell is only that Trump is evil and anything he does, take the opposite side.
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.
I really was not being serious and never thought any governments would give their tax payers money to Elon. The point was to get people to think about how things get done and how they can help even if they arnt in government.
And it is about the money, the US has been lowering its emissions for decades and will continue to do so. Unless you are saying that the US intends to ratchet up its emissions and that is why they got out of the Paris accord? Many of the biggest polluters committed to the accord do not commit to doing anything for years and they are still in the accord, so if they want to reduce their emissions then they will. The accord has no repercussions if they do nothing or even pollute more. There are no repercussions if they dont contribute what they committed to to. This is why the accord is a bad idea.
I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, that is not the point of the poll. It is however the point of the poll to make people see that there is more then one way to contribute to an end goal. What is sad is that some took shots at Tesla and at least one person called me a nazi for even suggesting that capitalism could have some answers.
I for one am glad that we are no longer in the Paris climate accord, but I also intend to do what I can help support clean air and clean water and a better future for everyone by buying electric cars, solar and investing in Tesla. To each their own. But not in this society, you are a nazi if you disagree with someone else's beliefs. Crazy.
Oh well.. I hope I opened some minds.
Thanks for the open mindedness:
Here is an article that shows Elon's response to the report. Specifically that he wants all injuries reported directly to him and that he will go down to the line and do the job of the injured worker to determine how to make sure it does not ever occur again. He directs his managers to do the same.
ELON MUSK: Tesla factory injuries 'break my heart'