TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Tesla only 8th greenest automaker, BMW is best, says Newsweek

Discussion in 'News' started by pinguhk, Jun 18, 2015.

  1. pinguhk

    pinguhk Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    Messages:
    296
    Location:
    hong kong
  2. YBT

    YBT Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Australia
    Once Tesla begins to start converting Superchargers to Solar power in earnest I would imagine this number will improve. The company's goal is not to be the greenest - it is to accelerate the transition to sustainable transport. Overlaps between efforts in this direction and the criteria used to gain these rankings is likely to be incidental.
     
  3. tomas

    tomas Traded in 9 rep bars for M3, used to be somebody!

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,109
    Location:
    Chicago/Montecito
    I seriously doubt calcs take into account lifetime energy consumption of the product, where tesla could excell, probably only footprint of the manufacturer. I don't know if giga plant will help or hurt ranking. Regardless, I agree this is not the shade of green that is tesla's target.
     
  4. Jackl1956

    Jackl1956 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Messages:
    993
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I would like to see how the companies on that list fall on Newsweek advertising (dollars spent) list.
     
  5. Jaff

    Jaff Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,007
    Location:
    Grimsby, Canada
    From their methodology, it appears they are speaking about Tesla "the company", not Tesla's "products"...appears to me that the author's failure to adequately explain this was intentional (to grab headlines)...:rolleyes:
     
  6. tomas

    tomas Traded in 9 rep bars for M3, used to be somebody!

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,109
    Location:
    Chicago/Montecito
    Or ignorance. Many reporters are 1 millimeter deep but with mile long antennas. I doubt author read the criteria or understood the difference. "tesla" is a top 10 trigger, they saw an angle, and went for it. Next up: amazing jellyfish whose sting causes weight loss - wealthy Chinese are keeping tanks of them.
     
  7. mspohr

    mspohr Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,798
    Location:
    California
    If you don't count all the nasty stuff coming out of the tailpipe for the next 20 years.
     
  8. artsci

    artsci Sponsor

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    4,683
    Location:
    Timonium, Maryland
    Newsweek is a rag, along with Time, etc. I gave up reading that crap when I gave up diapers:)
     
  9. apacheguy

    apacheguy Sig 255, VIN 320

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    3,722
    Location:
    So Cal
    This. Anyone who claims that BMW (or Ford or GM) is doing more than Tesla to positively impact the planet isn't considering the lifetime footprint and must be incredibly naive.
     
  10. dgpcolorado

    dgpcolorado Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages:
    703
    Location:
    The Western Slope, Colorado
    I believe that the giga factory is intended to be powered by renewable energy, so that ought to help. Although I haven't a clue how the raw materials used in battery making would affect the ranking.

    As others have pointed out, the whole exercise is pretty silly if one doesn't count the products made.
     
  11. trils0n

    trils0n 2013 P85

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,295
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #11 trils0n, Jun 18, 2015
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2015
    All that matters is total GHG emissions. Any model that tries to rank "green-ness" that involves revenue is deeply flawed. The climate doesn't care if when carbon is emitted it made 1 cent or 1 dollar. It's effect on the climate is the same. Revenue / GHG emissions gives a pretty much useless/confounding number of carbon intensity per dollar of product sold. Lower is better, but still bad. Zero is the number that counts. Making more money per unit of carbon emitted doesn't make a company or product greener. Emitting less total GHGs does that. Revenue has no factor in it.

    Studies like these that try to rank greenness are basically an attempt to commodify environmental friendly-ness without actually being environmentally friendly. This particular one seems to give points for environmentally friendly products, but doesn't subtract points for polluting products. They even give points for linking executive pay to corporate environmental performance.

    Lots of weird metrics that miss the issue. The issue is total carbon emitted -- it doesn't matter how it gets there, or how much revenue it generated, or how the CEO was compensated.
     
  12. JohnSnowNW

    JohnSnowNW Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2015
    Messages:
    1,407
    Location:
    Minnesota
    If they were to consider raw materials in the battery, but exclude those going into an ICE, that would be pretty short-sighted. For instance, nickel is a common material in many ICE specific components.
     
  13. Robert.Boston

    Robert.Boston Model S VIN P01536

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,842
    Location:
    Portland, Maine, USA
    I disagree. Without scaling emissions to something, you'd (uselessly) conclude that the greenest companies in the world are street vendors selling lemonade or something. Likewise, I'm sure that Tesla's overall GHG footprint is smaller than BMW's, but BMW makes a whole lot more cars. Doesn't it make more sense to ask, what's the GHG generated per car? And how then would you compare Tesla to, say, General Electric? Comparing product-to-product isn't possible, so the author used a reasonable proxy, comparing GHG/dollar of sales.

    I agree with others above who note that metric is incomplete because it doesn't consider the downstream GHG emissions from use of the product. That's very tricky to do, though, across different kinds of products. GE's jet turbines create tremendous amounts of GHGs when used (as do all airplane turbines), but it's still reasonable to want the turbines made in the most environmentally responsible way possible. And GE would also credit for all the wind turbines it makes, which arguably generate net negative GHGs (by displacing fossil generation). So, going downstream would get complicated, fast.
     
  14. Zextraterrestrial

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Messages:
    3,636
    Location:
    Humboldt/Los Altos
    news is ...entertainment. period!
    wrapped up in diapers is where most of it belongs
     
  15. evme

    evme Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2013
    Messages:
    616
    Location:
    NY
    Not only is the methodology flawed. According to them, they give a score of 0 if the company does not respond to their partner's requests.

    Tesla did not respond:

    Results - Company Responses


    So they got a score of 0 in many categories.
     
  16. S'toon

    S'toon Knows where his towel is

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    1,979
    Location:
    SK
    These "green" standards can be quite flawed. They're in the eyes in the beholder. I remember years ago an "ethical" mutual funds company was investing in the worst clear cutting polluting logging company in the world. Why? They had set up a paper recycling plan in their head office. Another time they were investing in a gold company that had planned to destroy a glacier that fed indigenous villages water. Why? They had promised to destroy the glacier SUSTAINABLY. I asked "How can you destroy a glacier sustainably?"
     
  17. brucet999

    brucet999 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,314
    Location:
    Huntington Beach, CA
    They do not consider lifetime energy consumption of product. In fact, 20% of the score is "Green Revenue Score" defined as % of revenue derived from products that "contribute positively to environmental sustainability and societal health". Tesla should score very high there, but the kicker is that they use values assigned to the industrial classification into which the company falls, not the individual company's products, so Tesla is stuck with the rating of the "consumer discretionary" sector, not EV manufacturing.
    If they considered lifetime GHG production, major oil companies would have ranked last, but they are all in the top 3 quintiles.
    - - - Updated - - -

    Notably, all of the major oil companies ranked in the top 3 quintiles, whereas Tesla ranked in the last quintile.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I don't get the relevance of this. Newsweek says that they used publicly available info and notified the companies so they could make any info available. I don't see any mention of CDP in their methodology.
     
  18. Canuck

    Canuck Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Location:
    South Surrey, BC
  19. evme

    evme Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2013
    Messages:
    616
    Location:
    NY
    It is right there in their FAQ:

    http://www.newsweek.com.nyud.net:8080//2015-newsweek-green-rankings-faq-338193

     
  20. brucet999

    brucet999 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,314
    Location:
    Huntington Beach, CA

Share This Page