Sorry, it was a cached version.(was having dns issues)
Here is the direct link to the live:
http://www.newsweek.com/2015-newsweek-green-rankings-faq-338193
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Sorry, it was a cached version.(was having dns issues)
Here is the direct link to the live:
http://www.newsweek.com/2015-newsweek-green-rankings-faq-338193
Funny how defensive people here get when Tesla isn't the #1 in something. Yes we all know that EVs are for more efficient thus clearly greener. But when it comes to how much energy is needed to produce a car and how much toxic waste is produced, Tesla isn't #1. It's not a big deal. There might be many reasons. Aluminium requires a lot of energy to produce, so that's a negative. It does save energy later on in the car.
Germans are very critical when it comes to environmental issues and BMW, which has a lot of their production still in Germany, has been looking at every aspect of the production and made it efficient and reduced toxic substances. That's a good thing and worth pointing out as an example. No need to play it down and ridicule the article, the method and everything about it just because Tesla didn't win this one.
All car manufacturers have a huge business going with ICE cars. They won't just drop it all over night and only make EVs. Out of all, BMW at least started developing an EV from the ground up. People have different opinions about the i3 but it's developed from scratch as an EV. That's a lot more than almost all other car manufacturers have done. Producing a car with less energy and less toxic material isn't sexy and you can't show it off when driving, but it's a good thing for the environment.
Germans are very critical when it comes to environmental issues and BMW, which has a lot of their production still in Germany, has been looking at every aspect of the production and made it efficient and reduced toxic substances. That's a good thing and worth pointing out as an example. No need to play it down and ridicule the article, the method and everything about it just because Tesla didn't win this one.
All car manufacturers have a huge business going with ICE cars. They won't just drop it all over night and only make EVs. Out of all, BMW at least started developing an EV from the ground up. People have different opinions about the i3 but it's developed from scratch as an EV. That's a lot more than almost all other car manufacturers have done. Producing a car with less energy and less toxic material isn't sexy and you can't show it off when driving, but it's a good thing for the environment.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
The issue here is not about if Tesla is #1 or not, the issue here is with flawed methodology. For example, remember the LEED and Greencars.org incident? People were not upset that Tesla was not #1, what was upsetting was a gas Porsche sports car considered greener than a Tesla due to the flawed methodology. They fixed it a bit later and now the Tesla is LEED certified but is not #1, do you see anyone complaining?
The methodology they use does not factor in suppliers, so them using aluminum, steel, carbon fiber or pixie dust makes no difference on the score.
That said Aluminum energy use is over exaggerated as the process has become more efficient, and Tesla's supplier gets most of their electricity from renewable energy:
http://www.alcoa.com/sustainability/en/info_page/energy.asp
What hurts Tesla the most is the fact that they did not submit data to the CDP, so they got a score of 0 in many categories.
The problem here comes from them using stock value to judge a company rather than revenue. Tesla makes this list because their stock value puts them in the top 500. But in reality, Tesla is a smaller company in terms of revenue and would not make the top 500 on revenue.
How does this matter? Well companies like Ford, BMW and etc have been doing what they do for years, doing an environmental study on every nook of their business is simple enough. For Tesla, who can change pretty much almost everything within a year and has lower revenue to work with does not have time or money to run environmental studies. (That doesn't mean they are being irresponsible, they could be doing everything as clean as possible but they don't have the exact numbers)
Tesla should not have even been on this list to begin with, the list should have been based on revenue, not stock value. when their revenue grows large enough and their business becomes more same year to year, they can do these environmental studies. But as-is, they get a bunch of 0s by default.
Similar threads
