Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[uscbucsfan]

Longer quote on the same topic from Elon:

"We are all taking billions, eventually trillions of tonnes of carbon and transferring it to the atmosphere and oceans … if you do that for long enough, eventually, you will get climate change. I think it is exaggerated in the short-term … it is not going to destroy humanity, but it will create hardship if you change the climate over many decades,"

He's not saying Climate Change is fake.

 

[Usain]

And as I've said recently, the unfortunate fact that we haven't quite got the climate problem licked is really bullish for Tesla. The worse things get, the more governments will be willing to spend on Tesla's solutions.

I expect subsidies to be huge part of Tesla's business in the next ten years. Not only will Tesla grow and be in a position to qualify for a larger magnitude of subsidies, the subsidies themselves are going to grow as governments pour an even larger share of GDP into solving the problem.

 

[EQC_]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1654324102415482880

He also said it on JRE.

Elon's quote: "Global warming risk is overblown in the short term, but significant in the long term"

Many ways to read/interpret...but it *can* be pretty reasonable.

Short term: global warming-related problems we face today aren't likely to be noticeably worse tomorrow, next month, or even next year. Likewise, anything we do today to try to prevent worsening isn't going to make noticeable global benefit tomorrow or next year.

But, among the anti-science/right wing/fossil fuels/etc. crowd, the "overblown" part is a straw man. They speak of "global warming alarmists", but that is a boogie man...nobody is saying the world is going to be destroyed tomorrow or next year because of what we do today. They say we need to *act* today (and tomorrow, and next year...) to lessen the impact in 10, 50, or 100 years. Even the most emotional folks demanding action today know that in the short term, the observed consequences will be small...it's not the short term consequences thst are an emergency, but thr emergency is in needing to act today for thr sake of the
longer-term. Because:

Long term: we darn well better be doing things today, or problems will be terrible in 10, 50, or 100 years (for people who actually care about what happens to their kids and grandkids after their own life is over).

In my view, the people complaining of global warming alarmists are the exact opposite sort of alarmist themselves...screaming about how we can't change anything, because of some imagined devastating economic impact if we change anything about the status quo. They want to delay the transition as much as possible, rather than letting it happen. These anti-action alarmists will make all consequences so much worse in the end...with worse environmental results and more catastrophic impacts to businesses thar don't transition.

It would be much more honest for them, instead of sewing doubt about the science or economics, to just say "I don't care about global warming, because I'll be dead before it gets real bad, and I don't care about anybody or anything after that. I just want profits maximizes for old businesses today."

 

[ggies07]

Guys, climate change is happening NOW. Quit the "it's going to be ok" short term nonsense.

Heard the term "lost winter"?

Summary of whats going on just in the US: TikTok - Make Your Day

 

[EQC_]

...
So, I think there's a chance that Elon's statement in this regard is deliberately conservative simply to avoid having make ecologically and responsible decisions look like "crying wolf". Quite frankly, saying we have to spend $2trillion a year for the next 25 yrs is going to spawn some knee jerk reactions.

...

It's funny how the anti-transition folks weigh the cost of the transition against zero cost for keeping the status quo...

Oil demand alone is (roughly) 100 million barrels per day. Even at $50 per barrel, that's $5 billion per day, and nearly $2 trillion per year. Even ignoring the environmental costs, once you add in coal and natural gas, the financial cost just to buy the fossil fuels is way higher than the projected cost of the transition.

Of course, those trillions per year are flowing from consumers to entrenched businesses. It's the poor consumers who pay for the fuels in the end, and it's okay for them to suffer if it means big businesses can keep doing what they're doing instead of investing in something better....

 

[Dreadnought]

And as I've said recently, the unfortunate fact that we haven't quite got the climate problem licked is really bullish for Tesla. The worse things get, the more governments will be willing to spend on Tesla's solutions.

I expect subsidies to be huge part of Tesla's business in the next ten years. Not only will Tesla grow and be in a position to qualify for a larger magnitude of subsidies, the subsidies themselves are going to grow as governments pour an even larger share of GDP into solving the problem.

Agree, and the reason is that climate change costs money. There is direct damage from extreme weather events, indirect economic impact resulting from destroyed infrastructure and loss of life, which unfortunately can be measured in dollars and euros, too. The global costs of extreme weather that are attributable to climate change - Nature Communications is a good article about the cost of global warming that goes quite deep to explain the assumptions, methods used and limitations.

Some nonlinear terms in the equations are worrying. Still, I remain optimistic that once it has become obvious that it's cheaper to fix the climate than to keep on burning fossil fuels at a price does not account for all associated costs, the investments will quickly shift towards sustainable energy.

 

[replicant]

The worse things get, the more governments will be willing to spend on Tesla's solutions.

I strongly believe the contrary: as things will go bad, governments will have less and less resources for long-term projects and will be too busy handling critically urgent things (helping people in distress).

It's already becoming a reality in many countries, and with coming political turmoils (natural disasters, forced migrations, etc), it's possible governments will start to even fail managing emergencies and simply go bankrupt and simply fail to function or be socially accepted. Good luck trying to get government to set up subsidy programs then (especially for OEMs perceived as being premium / owned by rich people).

 

[dl003]

I can't stand that SMR guy. Extremely full of himself and constantly bashing on anything that isn't 100 % bullish on everything Musk or Tesla do. Is there any episode where he shows even a shred of humility or sensible analysis? I miss Rob Maurer.

He was calling chartists who said the trend was bearish on TSLA all kinds of names from $300 down to $100. Granted, a lot of chartists are clueless, but $300 to $100? Come on man. SMR's acted like he's been right all along. I'm all in on TSLA but he's not someone I'd listen to for financial advice. That's not to say I think any more highly of Gerber.

 

[Usain]

I strongly believe the contrary: as things will go bad, governments will have less and less resources for long-term projects and will be too busy handling critically urgent things (helping people in distress).

It's already becoming a reality in many countries, and with coming political turmoils (natural disasters, forced migrations, etc), it's possible governments will start to even fail managing emergencies and simply go bankrupt and simply fail to function or be socially accepted. Good luck trying to get government to set up subsidy programs then (especially for OEMs perceived as being premium / owned by rich people).

You may be right. If you are, we won't care about the price of $TSLA. We will have much bigger things to worry about.

 

[2daMoon]

Anyone who truly understands all the things that can and have affected climate changes on this planet should certainly be in favor of people doing what they can to avoid having their own negative impact. The deck is already stacked against us.

This should be balanced against everything else that has significantly altered climate without human involvement. Things like volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, solar cycles and Mother Nature just being in a mood for the occasional millennia or so.

I think Elon sees things this way too. He considers what has happened and what can happen and offers up what we can do in our short lifespans to make it better, rather than worse.

Preserving the fragile human consciousness by effecting behavioral changes to reduce carbon-related problems, establishing self-sustaining human outposts on other planetary bodies, and transitioning to sustainable (practically free) energy in such a grand way as to mitigate economic problems that have impeded human creativity are all parts of this.

These things do not require swift action, they only require steady progress to continue in the right direction.

Most people are so reactive. Mostly because they have been trained to be by the media's penchant for triggering inherited behavioral responses for fun and profit. So, a lot of people tend to think that if it isn't an emergency, it must not be important, right?

Elon gets this. This is why his approach is to offer alternatives that don't require sacrifice, nor carry any sense of urgency.

Buy an EV because it freakin' rocks!

Transition to renewable energy because is saves money to do so now, and over time it will provide "income" to sustain the entire world's population.

It is easier to get people motivated for the mission if you just keep the details to yourself, all the while making their lives easier for having participated in the necessary changes. Not because they think "they have to" but because it is fun, profitable, practical, easy, and any of a number of other reasons which anyone would find compelling enough to try out the latest disruption and ditch the old way.

Hey, HODL my beer and watch this!

 

[inconel]

Frankly I was blown away in 2012, but with autopilot and Inconel producing Ludicrous in 2015...

Did you call me?

 

[Singuy]

Wow, what happened to Ross Gerber? I had no idea he'd become so bitter against Elon, not like this:

If I was invested with Ross (I am not) I'd be a tad worried about that investment right now.

He's Jewish and his wife is from Ukraine. Not hard to figure out why he went crazy on Elon.

 

[Captkerosene]

OK thanks...

So he made that statement in the context of the post where the assertion was that it would take $50trillion to be carbon neutral by 2050... and that was being used to push back by a Senator on the energy secretary. The statement preceding the video by the OP was "Global warming is the largest scam in human history."

So, I think there's a chance that Elon's statement in this regard is deliberately conservative simply to avoid having make ecologically and responsible decisions look like "crying wolf". Quite frankly, saying we have to spend $2trillion a year for the next 25 yrs is going to spawn some knee jerk reactions.

It's one of the things Elon recognizes: You not only have to determine what to do, you have to make it attractive and economically feasible to turn it from a pipe dream into an actual possibility.

It's why he makes his cars cool and fast. It's why he drives down price, often at the expense of profit. It's why he aims to iteratively target the market segments making the biggest impact with vehicles that fit.

Or, Elon is just telling it like he sees it.

 

[unk45]

Agree, and the reason is that climate change costs money. There is direct damage from extreme weather events, indirect economic impact resulting from destroyed infrastructure and loss of life, which unfortunately can be measured in dollars and euros, too. The global costs of extreme weather that are attributable to climate change - Nature Communications is a good article about the cost of global warming that goes quite deep to explain the assumptions, methods used and limitations.

Some nonlinear terms in the equations are worrying. Still, I remain optimistic that once it has become obvious that it's cheaper to fix the climate than to keep on burning fossil fuels at a price does not account for all associated costs, the investments will quickly shift towards sustainable energy.

The incomprehensible thing to me is the sheer number of people with engineering training who work as building contractors, architects etc who are clueless about solar and wind, battery storage and even heat pumps. I regularly deal with such people in the US, Brazil and elsewhere. Outside of western europeans and chinese I'm aghast at the colossal ignorance.

Without serious education enhancement and dedicated efforts to correct FUD from oil & gas, mining and old-style public utilities this will not change quickly. This is far beyond anything Tesla can do, itself exacerbated by conflating the Tesla distribution system with the motive force.

It seems to em that the best short term solution for Tesla is to make large commitments to TE and vehicles in places where the ICE and energy infrastructure is seriously deficient. That is working for Chinese companies. That approach also provides obvious use cases that have immediate benefit.

One need not go so remote as Pitcairn, although that might work too. Islands worldwide big and small will benefit. Just ask, say, Richard Branson or Larry Ellison. For that matter take a trip to South Australia. Here is a large obvious family easy sale, already proven for decades. I'm biased I did it for an island 35 years ago and had full payback in less than a year. Thet was when it was really, really hard to do and very expensive, as it still is in many places.

 

[AudubonB]

The incomprehensible thing to me is the sheer number of people with engineering training who work as building contractors, architects etc who are clueless about solar and wind, battery storage and even heat pumps. I regularly deal with such people in the US, Brazil and elsewhere. Outside of western europeans and chinese I'm aghast at the colossal ignorance.

Without serious education enhancement and dedicated efforts to correct FUD from oil & gas, mining and old-style public utilities this will not change quickly. This is far beyond anything Tesla can do, itself exacerbated by conflating the Tesla distribution system with the motive force.

It seems to em that the best short term solution for Tesla is to make large commitments to TE and vehicles in places where the ICE and energy infrastructure is seriously deficient. That is working for Chinese companies. That approach also provides obvious use cases that have immediate benefit.

One need not go so remote as Pitcairn, although that might work too. Islands worldwide big and small will benefit. Just ask, say, Richard Branson or Larry Ellison. For that matter take a trip to South Australia. Here is a large obvious family easy sale, already proven for decades. I'm biased I did it for an island 35 years ago and had full payback in less than a year. Thet was when it was really, really hard to do and very expensive, as it still is in many places.

And as I did almost fifteen years ago at 63ºN. The massive battery bank is, unquestionably, the keystone of any such system. Solar, obviously, is negligible 20 or so weeks out of the year but all in all, our payback also was nigh-instantaneous.

 

[Singuy]

Oh was it Ross that provided Starlink to help Ukraine which without it, Ukraine would already be lost?

Elon and the Media both butchered a good deed.

1. Elon complains about not getting paid by the DOJ for starlink
2. Media muddled the waters by stating the government was buying some starlink
3. Starlink's team threw a wrench into Ukrainian's operation due to breaching their user agreement

So yes, SpaceX, which is not profitable, should be compensated for starlink. Yes, Elon is donating and gifting Ukraine 10s of millions a year for services. And yes starlink shouldn't be used for military operations as the intent is for hospitals and civilians.

However if you already have a negative view on Elon, Starlink isn't winning Elon any favors due to his own big mouth and the media taking away any sorts of good deed by replacing them with controversial ones.

 

[scaesare]

Or, Elon is just telling it like he sees it.

Right... my point is that the way he sees it in the big picture is that "the sky is falling" mantra in the short term isn't likely true... he recognizes that chicken little simply makes more opponents.

But in the long term, he sees it as a risk for sure... he hasn't decided that there's no existential risk from climate change all of the sudden.

 

[CHGolferJim]

Musk is a "literalist"
He also said there was no reason to panic over COVID.
This is true as well.
Panic is not something to advocate for.

Most people require fear of something to dramatically change their approach, so “don’t panic” is often heard as “don’t worry about it”.

 

[Rarity]

Elon and the Media both butchered a good deed.

1. Elon complains about not getting paid by the DOJ for starlink
2. Media muddled the waters by stating the government was buying some starlink
3. Starlink's team threw a wrench into Ukrainian's operation due to breaching their user agreement

So yes, SpaceX, which is not profitable, should be compensated for starlink. Yes, Elon is donating and gifting Ukraine 10s of millions a year for services. And yes starlink shouldn't be used for military operations as the intent is for hospitals and civilians.

However if you already have a negative view on Elon, Starlink isn't winning Elon any favors due to his own big mouth and the media taking away any sorts of good deed by replacing them with controversial ones.

Communications megaconstellations are inherently global and geopolitical in nature. People are playing dirty, in many cases for their own survival. There are no angels in war. Everybody's going to get muddy and if they're going to go against Musk, they're going to get especially muddy. He will wallow in the mud with the best of them. We just need to get used to it as an integral part of Musk Inc. and not expect good deeds to pay off so directly.

As it relates to Tesla, it will help in some respects and be challenging in others. SpaceX and Starlink is a one-of-a-kind business. It is the envy of the world. Tremendous prestige attached. The Chinese are 20 years off at a sprinter's pace. Some countries like China may feel more wary of Tesla because of it. Some countries like Malaysia and The Phillipines may feel attracted toward Tesla because of it. Some consumers like in middle America may feel warmer toward Tesla. Some consumers like in Europe may feel cooler toward Tesla.

Moderator edit: This is close enough to having some topical material that it did not suffer the fate of the prior three. Further such posts will, however, be treated less kindly.

As may their authors.

 

[Carl Raymond]

I don't think we can begin to make the claim that the problem is in any way solved until we at least see global emissions start to go down.

If I squint at the Keeling Curve I see slight downward concavity from about 2020. Are we seeing the start of the solar/wind/storage/EV/heat-pump effect?

Of course, climbing while arcing down merely means enhancement of the greenhouse effect continues, at a slower rate. Arcing up would be worse.