TSLA, biodiversity collapse & climate change

[replicant]

Tesla's mission is to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy.

This would solve a big part of climate change, for sure.
That's why I've invested all my savings into Tesla since 2012, for the record.

But by making all our energy renewable, we may introduce some big changes into the way we inhabit this planet.

If we can

• travel and commute with almost-zero emissions
• use our commute to work and play, thanks to FSD
• build clean houses that are off-grid and super-efficient (thanks to solar roof, power-walls and Tesla HVAC)
• enjoy low latency, high speed internet thanks to Starlink

then, many could choose to move out of dense cities and into large houses and with a nice garden, and live into the wild (as much as possible). Of course, many would prefer to live close to friends and family, but that has always beeen the case and with cheap autonomous transportation and digitization, the balance between our social closeness and our living environment can only increasingly favor the second (to the detriment of the environment).

Everywhere I look, I notice more and more people expecting clean energy and digitization to allow them to finally move to a bigger place and enjoy nature. You can look at all the early retirement threads and Cybertruck dreasm here on TMC or any Tesla fan community, for a start.

That would be fine, only if

• few people had the means and desire for such a life (but it's getting more affordable to do -- as explained by Cathie Wood with her massive deflation thesis -- and no one talks about moving into more dense cities nowadays)
• the collapse of biodiversity was not a problem that is at least as big as climate change

I recommend to read the summary of the IPBES' Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to evaluate the risk of a collapse of natural ecosystems and compare the thread with climate change. Both may be irremediable, but the second may collapse faster than society will suffer from climate change.

Now, what does this have to do with TSLA?

IMHO, Tesla has managed to force all energy and transportation companies to embrace renewable energy (at least for cars, super cars, pickup trucks and, soon, semis and electricty generation)

But I don't know a company that has a similar influence on the biodiversity issue, which has little to do with renewable energy but more with humans' physical footprint on natural habitats (see Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services - Wikipedia). One can veggie (and there's Beyond Meat that is leading the charge on the business side), but very few businesses, for now, would gain financially from limiting our impact on biodiversity. Hey, we gotta make stuff and rebuild our infrastructure, right?

At some point, we may focus out attention from climate change to biodiversity, and Tesla could well we be perceived as a contributor to the rapid expansion of our footprint. Sure, the expansion would be "clean", it would still impinge on nature, with dramatic consequences on natural habitats -- even if you don't make noise and emit no CO2 (see Biodiversity loss - Wikipedia for all known causes)

I don't know when this will happen , but I'm sure this will happen sooner than later. See how long it took societies to do something about climate change. We move very slowly: we started decades ago and we keep emitting more and more CO2! The problem is that we have almost not started to work on the biodiversity thing, and the effects could be worst and felt sooner that the climate thing. So the switch will certainly be brutal (more than Elon's realization that bitcoin hashing is bad for the environment).

I'm worried that Tesla may not be able to mange those two things at once. For example, no Tesla products is well suited for a dense cities (I, for one, live in a tiny flat in Paris that has little to gain from a solar roof, and I don't ride in car but trains and bicycle). Tesla could benefit from serving the "urban" market, to make it as enjoyable as possible (versus the Cybertruck way of live) and to not pass of a contributor to the biodiversity catastrophe.

I also believe that future competitors of Tesla will take advantage of such a blind spot, sooner than later.

I'd like to read your thoughts on this, both as investors and a citizens of this liveable planet.

 

[replicant]

Also, I'd appreciate suggestions of forums where this topic is discussed. I don't think many TSLA investors worry about this, but I prefer to focus on the very long term (I'm young enough for that )

 

[LightngMcQueen]

On related note... and possibly area of bigger impact than Tesla. What is the reception of plant based foods and in particular Beyond Meat in France ?

I did notice shift away from animal products in some European countries, however France has specific food culture.

 

[replicant]

On related note... and possibly area of bigger impact than Tesla. What is the reception of plant based foods and in particular Beyond Meat in France ?

I did notice shift away from animal products in some European countries, however France has specific food culture.

Difficult to say.

I've become vegetarian two years ago for environmental reasons (although I really loved eating meat, fish and shellfish). My girlfriend had been one for her whole life already so it was easy. We don't buy food specifically made for vegetarian though, we just cook meals with lots of lentils, peas, beans and some tofu occasionally.

My family is very traditional in gastronomy, so it's been quite a ride (my father was CEO of a major firm in the food industry). They seem not to want to understand what vegetarianism is, and they keep asking us if we eat meat, poultry or fish. They just forget, over and over for some reasons (ah, ignorance is a bliss!).

My (Parisian) coworkers are more curious and they've been reducing meat consumption significantly over the past 4 years, but none of us has to worry about the food prices as we're quite privileged and sensitized on the topic (so typical bobo). One is quasi vegetarian already and we've both became members of a local Community Supported Agriculture organization. We mostly eat at home these days thanks to WFH or do meal prep, so it helps too.

It's really easy to find veggie-compible restaurants in Paris these days. I don't look for them but quickly look at the menu to find meals without meat and that don't need it (they're used to modify the recette when you ask). It's harder in the provinces, especially the ones known for their meaty gastronomy (or when Parisian are not really welcome) but things are moving slowly (many big cities switch greens in the last municipal elections, with plenty of stupid, baseless scandals -- see in Lyon) . Anecdote: I've been assaulted by a chef once in Luberon just because I ask not to have duck in their so-called "veggie salad". I'll be going to Périgord next week for vacation, so it's should be fun too (I'll rent a Zoé there so we'll be asking for charging to add icing on the cake, lol).

I tried a Beyond Meat burger once in Paris, but had to look for it. It was "okay" but I'm avoiding heavily-processed food nowadays so I probably won't try again. I know a few McDonalds have had veggie options for years, even in Auvergne. In Paris, there are lots of small restaurants for bobos, so there's plenty of veggie, home-made options. I know often forget that my diet is not typical.

 

[replicant]

I found an article in French that covers the new Climate vs Biodiversity dilemma. It should translate well in Google Translate or DeepL:
#36 : Le piège de la focalisation sur le (seul) climat

English: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Extracts

Confusion, with potentially serious consequences, has taken hold in the public debate about current environmental concerns. It consists in considering that climate change is the only environmental emergency, of truly global scope

(...)

“On the environmental issue, biodiversity is the subject least understood by economists, who already have great difficulty in integrating the climate issue ” estimated in 2019 economist Gaël Giraud.

For Guillaume Sainteny, " the increasingly frequent monetization of climate change has the consequence of making it an" environmental object "more" serious "than others, [which would be] more difficult to quantify ". He adds that “this monetarization also contributes to transforming climate change into an economic issue [and therefore into an opportunity], potentially becoming more legitimate than other environmental issues ”.

Jean-Marc Jancovici, on the same line, completes the explanation: “ the climate has favorable elements to push the actors to look at the problem:

• It has a long-standing one-stop-shop for access to scientific information (the IPCC)
• There is a planetary threshold for emissions not to be exceeded (3,000 billion tonnes of CO2 cumulatively from 1850 to 2100),
• The nuisance is monetized (carbon price but not only).

Biodiversity doesn't have that. Its IPCC (IPBES) is recent, the yellow frog equivalent tonne remains to be invented, and the quantifiable threshold is difficult to establish ”.

(...)

Decarbonisation must go hand in hand with the protection of biodiversity without the first ambition being deployed to the detriment of the other ; this imperative is still far from being sufficiently integrated. Priority should be given to measures that simultaneously help preserve the climate and biodiversity (and land), in particular by giving priority to “nature-based solutions” that promote natural carbon sinks.

 

[LightngMcQueen]

Difficult to say.

I've become vegetarian two years ago for environmental reasons (although I really loved eating meat, fish and shellfish). My girlfriend had been one for her whole life already so it was easy. We don't buy food specifically made for vegetarian though, we just cook meals with lots of lentils, peas, beans and some tofu occasionally.

My family is very traditional in gastronomy, so it's been quite a ride (my father was CEO of a major firm in the food industry). They seem not to want to understand what vegetarianism is, and they keep asking us if we eat meat, poultry or fish. They just forget, over and over for some reasons (ah, ignorance is a bliss!).

My (Parisian) coworkers are more curious and they've been reducing meat consumption significantly over the past 4 years, but none of us has to worry about the food prices as we're quite privileged and sensitized on the topic (so typical bobo). One is quasi vegetarian already and we've both became members of a local Community Supported Agriculture organization. We mostly eat at home these days thanks to WFH or do meal prep, so it helps too.

It's really easy to find veggie-compible restaurants in Paris these days. I don't look for them but quickly look at the menu to find meals without meat and that don't need it (they're used to modify the recette when you ask). It's harder in the provinces, especially the ones known for their meaty gastronomy (or when Parisian are not really welcome) but things are moving slowly (many big cities switch greens in the last municipal elections, with plenty of stupid, baseless scandals -- see in Lyon) . Anecdote: I've been assaulted by a chef once in Luberon just because I ask not to have duck in their so-called "veggie salad". I'll be going to Périgord next week for vacation, so it's should be fun too (I'll rent a Zoé there so we'll be asking for charging to add icing on the cake, lol).

I tried a Beyond Meat burger once in Paris, but had to look for it. It was "okay" but I'm avoiding heavily-processed food nowadays so I probably won't try again. I know a few McDonalds have had veggie options for years, even in Auvergne. In Paris, there are lots of small restaurants for bobos, so there's plenty of veggie, home-made options. I know often forget that my diet is not typical.

Thank you @9837264723849 for your detailed explanation! This information is extremely useful - doubling down on positive $TSLA experience of last 5 years, I have invested significantly in BYND. I am very positive about its prospects, and believe BYND SP growth prospects for next 10 years are ~2X those of TSLA for the same time frame.

I have been eating mostly plant based in the last ~15 years ... from what you describe France seems to go through similar changes as North America, but maybe lagging the cultural transition wave by around 10 years. I have been following developments in other European countries, and was particularly surprised by the speed at which vegetarian options gain acceptance in Germany and even Italy .. land of the veal.

Since you were so kind sharing useful information I have some follow up issues to explore. First, I would like to qualify that the level of processing in BYND Meat is comparable or in fact of lower to that of baguette (gridding, mixing and cooking of vegetable ingredients) and in fact BYND burger is definitely less processed and has fewer additives and processing by products than say baguette with ham and ripened cheese.

Lets assume for a moment that it will take several years for this fact to become accepted, as it took many years to accept that EVs are not polluting more "because electricity is from coal".

How important will be the price for average French shopper?
BYND will reach price parity and undercut meat within ~3 years, given the simplicity of the ingredients and the largely automated process it is really no brainer. How do you think the meat substitutes like BYND will be received by general population which is facing having bigger day to day issues than "caring for the future"? In North American or German culture cheaper food substitutes are traditionally very well accepted (as in American "cheese" or German Ersatz's)
Do you think that undercutting price of meat by 10..20% would unlock significant demand in France ?

How aware are the French of actual conditions of factory meat industry, I am talking not just cruelty, but contamination, antibiotics and hormone use, animal waste disposal etc. ? Is there a concerted industry effort to hide this behind AgGag legislation like we see in North America?

What are the attitudes of French farmers to the transition? Do they see it as a threat or an opportunity ?

 

[MC3OZ]

This graph / graphic is great to share with anyone who doubts Climate Change is happening:-

World of Change: Global Temperatures

The average global temperature has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

 

[MC3OZ]

I'd like to read your thoughts on this, both as investors and a citizens of this liveable planet.

The best way to preserve biodiversity is natural parks and reserves with strongly enforced rules....

Another consideration is if some farming/grazing land is going to be displaced, by a disruption in agriculture:-

Ex-framing land might become available to rewilding.... or residential,

You can see pasture/grazing uses a lot of land:-

Here’s How America Uses Its Land

The 48 contiguous states alone are a 1.9 billion-acre jigsaw puzzle of cities, farms, forests and pastures.

www.bloomberg.com

There is also a chance the world's populations might decline, fertility rates are dropping in many developing countries....

IMO a move out of the cities has been triggered in part by COVID-19.

Clean energy and transport (and in particular Boring Co Tunnels) could make cities much more pleasant to live in...

I think we need to solve climate change first, hopefully that will give humanity some motivation to better preserve and rebuild ecosystems...
It is a combination of preserve and rebuild, rebuild is needed...

The key to being able to rebuild is having a coherent, sustainable and increasingly efficient society...

 

[MC3OZ]

This video is worth viewing as an executive summary:-

The RethinkX document is also worth downloading and reading:- RethinkX

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Living in cities is far more efficient than sprawling, regardless of the energy systems at play.

As for biodiversity....homo sapeiens did 95% of our damage long before the Industrial Revolution. The issues we're causing now are a drop in the bucket. Though you could probably make an argument on the insect front, which is important.

 

[kbM3]

This would solve a big part of climate change, for sure.
That's why I've invested all my savings into Tesla since 2012, for the record.

But by making all our energy renewable, we may introduce some big changes into the way we inhabit this planet.

If we can

• travel and commute with almost-zero emissions
• use our commute to work and play, thanks to FSD
• build clean houses that are off-grid and super-efficient (thanks to solar roof, power-walls and Tesla HVAC)
• enjoy low latency, high speed internet thanks to Starlink

then, many could choose to move out of dense cities and into large houses and with a nice garden, and live into the wild (as much as possible). Of course, many would prefer to live close to friends and family, but that has always beeen the case and with cheap autonomous transportation and digitization, the balance between our social closeness and our living environment can only increasingly favor the second (to the detriment of the environment).

Everywhere I look, I notice more and more people expecting clean energy and digitization to allow them to finally move to a bigger place and enjoy nature. You can look at all the early retirement threads and Cybertruck dreasm here on TMC or any Tesla fan community, for a start.

That would be fine, only if

• few people had the means and desire for such a life (but it's getting more affordable to do -- as explained by Cathie Wood with her massive deflation thesis -- and no one talks about moving into more dense cities nowadays)
• the collapse of biodiversity was not a problem that is at least as big as climate change

I recommend to read the summary of the IPBES' Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to evaluate the risk of a collapse of natural ecosystems and compare the thread with climate change. Both may be irremediable, but the second may collapse faster than society will suffer from climate change.

Now, what does this have to do with TSLA?

IMHO, Tesla has managed to force all energy and transportation companies to embrace renewable energy (at least for cars, super cars, pickup trucks and, soon, semis and electricty generation)

But I don't know a company that has a similar influence on the biodiversity issue, which has little to do with renewable energy but more with humans' physical footprint on natural habitats (see Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services - Wikipedia). One can veggie (and there's Beyond Meat that is leading the charge on the business side), but very few businesses, for now, would gain financially from limiting our impact on biodiversity. Hey, we gotta make stuff and rebuild our infrastructure, right?

At some point, we may focus out attention from climate change to biodiversity, and Tesla could well we be perceived as a contributor to the rapid expansion of our footprint. Sure, the expansion would be "clean", it would still impinge on nature, with dramatic consequences on natural habitats -- even if you don't make noise and emit no CO2 (see Biodiversity loss - Wikipedia for all known causes)

I don't know when this will happen , but I'm sure this will happen sooner than later. See how long it took societies to do something about climate change. We move very slowly: we started decades ago and we keep emitting more and more CO2! The problem is that we have almost not started to work on the biodiversity thing, and the effects could be worst and felt sooner that the climate thing. So the switch will certainly be brutal (more than Elon's realization that bitcoin hashing is bad for the environment).

I'm worried that Tesla may not be able to mange those two things at once. For example, no Tesla products is well suited for a dense cities (I, for one, live in a tiny flat in Paris that has little to gain from a solar roof, and I don't ride in car but trains and bicycle). Tesla could benefit from serving the "urban" market, to make it as enjoyable as possible (versus the Cybertruck way of live) and to not pass of a contributor to the biodiversity catastrophe.

I also believe that future competitors of Tesla will take advantage of such a blind spot, sooner than later.

I'd like to read your thoughts on this, both as investors and a citizens of this liveable planet.

As has been explained by others, Tesla can’t solve EVERY problem. They need an absolute laser focus on fossil fuel burning reduction. Any variance from that focus is bad.

Boring Co. + Tesla will impinge LESS on nature, not more.

Autonomy means fewer cars to help reclaim parking. Boring means fewer surface streets.

It’s quite ridiculous to criticize the company heroically striving to save the planet, for not doing more.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

I don't think this is as potentially as big of an issue as you think. Mainly because travel time does NOT decrease with the introduction of zero emissions transportation. Even though you can now commute 2 hrs emissions free on a daily basis, doesn't mean you'd want to. That's time taken away from children, friends, and family. Yes, it will work well for some, but not everyone (probably not even a simple majority).

Plus, urban environments generally have better food (and that's what attracts people to the cities despite the higher living expense): Good Food

Lastly, the destruction of natural lands has nothing to do with people's desire for larger houses, and more to do with the need to produce more food to support the larger populations. Urbanization doesn't solve for that. Packing more people per square km of land just increases farmland requirements elsewhere. If anything, the people who want the larger land, also tend to want to grow some of their own food, reducing the need for some of the food supply.

When attributing one factor to one issue, it's a fallacy to claim that it is a major contributing factor.

The only real fix for biodiversity is fewer people, then all the ancillary requirements (food, clothing, entertainment, transport, etc) to support those people goes away. So unless we introduce 2-children per family restrictions, any other solutions will be as effective as farts in the wind.

 

[MC3OZ]

As has been explained by others, Tesla can’t solve EVERY problem. They need an absolute laser focus on fossil fuel burning reduction. Any variance from that focus is bad.

Boring Co. + Tesla will impinge LESS on nature, not more.

Autonomy means fewer cars to help reclaim parking. Boring means fewer surface streets.

It’s quite ridiculous to criticize the company heroically striving to save the planet, for not doing more.

I agree, I'll post my thoughts which are similar..

1. We can't expect Tesla/Elon to solve every problem.
2. Tesla/Elon are doing more than most.. and many positive benefits can be overlooked

Elon/Tesla
Clean Energy and transport

• Helps prevent climate change, the biggest threat to biodiversity.
• Exhaust and chimney stacks emissions are bad for human health, but are also likely to be bad for wildlife.
• Massive oil spills destroy a lot of nature, but smaller fossil fuel spills of all kinds occur regularly.
• Plastics destroy a lot of wildlife, we will be making new plastics, which are hopefully more environmentally friendly,..
• Oil tankers can be recycled, supplying a lot of steel, it is likely we will see fewer cargo ships.... due to the localisation of supply chains.

Boring co tunnels

• High speed above ground transport can and does kill a lot of wildlife, underground has less impact
• Tunnels + clean energy and transport make city environments more livable.,. reducing urban sprawl..

Robots

• Likely to help with recycling
• Likely to help with industrial agriculture
• Likely to help with cleanup of old mine/industrial sites, land regeneration.... all very labour intensive

Others

Industrial agriculture

• Significantly less land and water needed.
• No pesticide use
• Large chunks of land available for possible rewilding, rebuilding ecosystems
• Accelerated CO2 absorption, lower emissions..
• Will help displace logging of forests, overfishing, overgrazing,,,,

Providing all humans with adequate food, transport, communications and information will also help with population decline, and sustainability more generally..

Population will decline but technology can do a lot to reduce the environmental footprint,

A lot of the decisions are made by individuals and governments, something Elon has little influence on,,,

It is accurate to say new technologies are giving us the ability to make smarter choices, and more innovation will also help.

After climate change, human health in all forms, and rebuilding biodiversity are the next big challenges.

Elon might decide some of these areas are priorities, and he is already making contributions in the area of health...

Robots will help with declining human population, at least in terms of having the workforce to support an aging population.
Declining human fertility is an issue that might get increasingly urgent, it may be harder to slow / reverse than we imagine...

 

[replicant]

As has been explained by others, Tesla can’t solve EVERY problem.

I'm not asking Tesla to solve another problem, am I? I'm saying that Tesla may well unintentionally become a significant contributor to biodiversity collapse by reducing the cost of transportation.

They need an absolute laser focus on fossil fuel burning reduction. Any variance from that focus is bad.

Great! That's what I understood more than a decade ago and why I've invest 100% my savings into the stock (becoming rich enough not to worry about my personal situation but how the world is changing). You don't seem to understand my point regarding the link between Tesla's upcoming position and biodiversity collapse.

Boring Co. + Tesla will impinge LESS on nature, not more.

Autonomy means fewer cars to help reclaim parking. Boring means fewer surface streets.

Fewer cars for the same number of miles, that's true.

But the cost per mile will drop significantly, allowing people to travel more. See Jevons paradox - Wikipedia

All analysts/investors following Tesla expect demand for transportation to rise as cost drop, so even if the cars generate no emission at all, people will travel more, either to commute longer (enjoying bigger home and gardens) or to simply go into natural spaces more frequently.That's great on an individual level (who doesn't desire enjoying nature more and spend more time the wild?) but it will further degrade natural ecosystems because 8+ billion people and counting will necessarily spread out further into remote areas, locally and globally. This is a huge contributor to the collapse of biodiversity and, again, having clean energy (solar panels, battery, EV...) does not balance things out. Emissions and parking spaces are not the major issues at stake, here: it's not the transportation systems in itself but what it allows (living in and traveling to uninhabited areas).

Boring Co. may help increase urban density but if people can more quickly leave the city for a few hours or a two-day weekend out of the urban areas, the Jevons paradox will cancel out all the benefit of shorter/narrower streets. Fast and affordable transport will make people travel more.

It’s quite ridiculous to criticize the company heroically striving to save the planet, for not doing more.

Am I criticizing Tesla? I'm clearly talking about politics here: what we, as a society, allow people and businesses to do freely, when taking into account all the limits of our environment. And good criticism aims at being constructive (which I must be, since I've bet all my savings on Tesla for about a decade now).

We're switching polluting cars to clean cars, which is great and will help a lot with carbon emissions and probably prevent the worst climate change scenario. But the media, politicians, business leaders and most people believe that the "environment" thing is mostly about carbon emission. That was expected as we focused on IPCC while we learned about climate change and realize how fast we're going into the wall. But this is incorrect because fossil fuels and parking spaces aren't the main factor in biodiversity loss.

I invite you again to read the summary of Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services | IPBES secretariat, if you haven't do so already. It will take years for the media to understand that 1) biodiversity collapse will disrupt all our systems much earlier than climate change
2) investments planned to flight climate change might end up being a small % of what saving biodiversity requires

Being a long term shareholder in Tesla, I'm worried that when the company will be #1 in terrestrial transportation (which I believe they will soon be), people/governments will demand that the company put things in place to ensure that **robotaxis** don't expend at the expense of the natural ecosystems. Note that it's 100% obvious in my opinion that all cars will soon be 100% EV (and I'll do everything to help in that regard). You can say it's a political problem and it's the job of politicians to stop urban sprawling, better protect wild areas, etc. But maybe we (shareholders) should anticipate just a little bit and avoid ending in Facebook's position where we let them do their things and only now realize that they ** oh surprise** put their interest before everything else (see what social media has become and do to children health, manipulation etc). We can and must make transportation clean and affordable, but you can't ignore the impact it will have on our environment: 1) because our environment does not allow surround us but makes life possible in the first place and 2) because taking into consideration what robotaxi will do to society does actually male business sense (let's not become the Facebook of transportation or people will want Tesla to kill itself).

 

[replicant]

I don't think this is as potentially as big of an issue as you think. Mainly because travel time does NOT decrease with the introduction of zero emissions transportation. Even though you can now commute 2 hrs emissions free on a daily basis, doesn't mean you'd want to. That's time taken away from children, friends, and family. Yes, it will work well for some, but not everyone (probably not even a simple majority).

I'm not saying that all people will be happy to spend hours in their cars, but **all the people I know** would be happy to live in much less dense places if they could be in a taxi and pay little. This includes friends who are happy to commute by cars or spend less than $40/mo to have access to all public transportation in the Paris area. I don't know how much things will change but I can't believe it won't change everything. Just with Covid, people started buying secondary houses in Brittany and other nice regions, and if they could travel more, they'll do it at least once per week. SNCF (operator of the fast train "TGV" network) launched subscriptions to cross France weekly between office and anywhere in the country at a limited cost (it's a huge success, people are ready to travel by train for hours once it has become affordable and easy to do: just hop and go).

Plus, urban environments generally have better food (and that's what attracts people to the cities despite the higher living expense): Good Food

Unless robotaxi get food delivered anywhere for a nickel. The Tesla app, connected to your calendar and favorite menu, will anticipate your wishes (or let you believe their suggestion is what you wanted in the first place...) and get your warm dinner on time, wherever you are.

Lastly, the destruction of natural lands has nothing to do with people's desire for larger houses, and more to do with the need to produce more food to support the larger populations. Urbanization doesn't solve for that. Packing more people per square km of land just increases farmland requirements elsewhere. If anything, the people who want the larger land, also tend to want to grow some of their own food, reducing the need for some of the food supply.

When attributing one factor to one issue, it's a fallacy to claim that it is a major contributing factor.

The only real fix for biodiversity is fewer people, then all the ancillary requirements (food, clothing, entertainment, transport, etc) to support those people goes away. So unless we introduce 2-children per family restrictions, any other solutions will be as effective as farts in the wind.

I don't understand your focus on food also I live and work in Paris where I can walk/bike to some of the world-best restaurants in under 15 minutes. My friends, colleagues and family crave for great meals but it never was a factor when deciding where to move. There are so many more important criteria such as the size of the house/apartment, access to nature, schools, transportation, etc.

Wherever you live, you eat. And unless you're talking about diet, I don't think living within or out of a city has any significant impact on farmland requirements (personal or community supported farms are still artificial spaces with regard to biodiversity).

Finally, it seems that your last 2 paragraphs contradict themselves. Of course fewer people would alleviate the problem, but how can you believe that for this only reason, we can't do anything else than limiting the number of children per family? A single egoist person can have the footprint of 20 frugal persons (heck, my retired father emit at least 30x the CO2 that I do on an annual basis... and we're in the same social category and have the same means!). If you research who are actually responsible for all environmental issues, you'll soon realize that a few consume an order of magnitude more than the vast majority of the population. We could be billions more on this Earth, living a great life, and still have a sustainable planet. We just need to make the right investment and not ignore the consequences of our actions (and not be naive with regards to what technology usually do, cf. Jevons paradox - Wikipedia).

 

[replicant]

1. We can't expect Tesla/Elon to solve every problem.

Who' asking Tesla/Elon to solve every problem? I'm pointing out that reducing the cost of transportation might increase the number of miles traveled enormously. I'm definitely not saying that it would be Tesla or Elon's fault -- people behave like they do, and if they can and want to travel, they will.

If Tesla does a great job at converting ICE to EV and make transportation cheap (which is great!), Tesla may de facto become a contributor to the rise in travel -- ceteris paribus. EV may be perfectly clean but still, more affordable travel will redesign our cities and I doubt it would be for the best consider the current trends (urban sprawling, zero political concern about most IPBES identified risks, media confusion btw climate change and biodiversity loss, etc)

2. Tesla/Elon are doing more than most.. and many positive benefits can be overlooked

Of course, but that's not the question here, is it? I'm mostly talking about the probable consequences of cheap robotaxis

[ Clean Energy and transport] Helps prevent climate change, the biggest threat to biodiversity.

Climate change is the biggest threat to biodiversity? Do you have any source? I'm well aware that the two are linked (see latest workshop report) but still

Globally, land-use change is the direct driver with the largest relative impact on terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, while direct exploitation of fish and seafood has the largest relative impact in the oceans (well established) (Figure SPM.2) {2.2.6.2}. Climate change, pollution and invasive alien species have had a lower relative mpact to date but are accelerating (established but incomplete)

page 28, source: https://ipbes.net/sites/default/fil...ssment_report_summary_for_policymakers_en.pdf

Climate is $14 but the 2 next points are about "extensive areas of the planet are being opened up to new threats (well established" (!!) and "Long-distance transportation of goods and people, including for tourism" (!!!!). All in all, I'd bet that the the reduction of the cost of transportation (to travel and expend infrastructures) has a bigger impact on ecosystems than carbon emissions via climate change.

I agree with many of your bullet points but regarding robots, Elon stated clearly that it's about making physical labor cheap and almost unlimited... Do you really expect Jevons paradox - Wikipedia to soon be invalid? I can't imagine that people will just use robots to make fewer and smaller things, and not continue to extract more things, faster and further. I'm not saying people are stupid and careless, but given our current systems (legal, economical, etc), I'm just unable to conceive robots doing just the right things. I don't want to limit technical progress but technologies like any tools can be used for the best or the worst (see Pharmacology - Wikipedia where a drug is always both a remedy and a poison). Why not do som basic therapeutics review before industrializing something en masse, for everyone to enjoy? I'd have appreciate if we did that with fossil fuels, tobacco, ad-driven social media etc. To make our technology better, not slow it/ban it/avoid it.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

I'm not saying that all people will be happy to spend hours in their cars, but **all the people I know** would be happy to live in much less dense places if they could be in a taxi and pay little. This includes friends who are happy to commute by cars or spend less than $40/mo to have access to all public transportation in the Paris area. I don't know how much things will change but I can't believe it won't change everything. Just with Covid, people started buying secondary houses in Brittany and other nice regions, and if they could travel more, they'll do it at least once per week. SNCF (operator of the fast train "TGV" network) launched subscriptions to cross France weekly between office and anywhere in the country at a limited cost (it's a huge success, people are ready to travel by train for hours once it has become affordable and easy to do: just hop and go).


Unless robotaxi get food delivered anywhere for a nickel. The Tesla app, connected to your calendar and favorite menu, will anticipate your wishes (or let you believe their suggestion is what you wanted in the first place...) and get your warm dinner on time, wherever you are.



I don't understand your focus on food also I live and work in Paris where I can walk/bike to some of the world-best restaurants in under 15 minutes. My friends, colleagues and family crave for great meals but it never was a factor when deciding where to move. There are so many more important criteria such as the size of the house/apartment, access to nature, schools, transportation, etc.

Wherever you live, you eat. And unless you're talking about diet, I don't think living within or out of a city has any significant impact on farmland requirements (personal or community supported farms are still artificial spaces with regard to biodiversity).

Finally, it seems that your last 2 paragraphs contradict themselves. Of course fewer people would alleviate the problem, but how can you believe that for this only reason, we can't do anything else than limiting the number of children per family? A single egoist person can have the footprint of 20 frugal persons (heck, my retired father emit at least 30x the CO2 that I do on an annual basis... and we're in the same social category and have the same means!). If you research who are actually responsible for all environmental issues, you'll soon realize that a few consume an order of magnitude more than the vast majority of the population. We could be billions more on this Earth, living a great life, and still have a sustainable planet. We just need to make the right investment and not ignore the consequences of our actions (and not be naive with regards to what technology usually do, cf. Jevons paradox - Wikipedia).

I'm pointing out that it is a fallacy to equate reduced transportation costs with migration away from urban centers. Electricity and capital costs alone are 5 cents per km. The time value of the robotaxi is well above that (Tesla was targeting a fare price of 50cents / mile). And if there's a built-in oven to keep the food warm/hot in transit, then the costs are higher and will be passed along to the consumer.

People are not going to migrate out in droves, just because transport costs are lower. And biodiversity isn't going to be restored by getting other people to fix their issues (or relying on tech to do so).

You live in France and have read many postings on TMC with a US-centric viewpoint. You should know that different places have different circumstances and motivations. So what are you doing in your area to increase the biodiversity in your area? The Sierra Group and various other environmental groups have been instrumental in trying to preserve as much wildlands as possible here in the US. If there's an issue with biodiversity in your area, then it needs to be solved by the people who live there.

Lastly, my last two paragraphs were not self-contradictory, because raising children automatically increases ones CO2 footprint. Here in the states, some families have too many children (4 or more) and "consume" (in clothing, products, and disposables) proportionately! If each family has more children, then more teachers and classrooms (and eventually more schools) need to be built to educate them, along with the support staff to feed and protect them.

Europe (and Japan) might have a negative population growth issue, but most of the rest of the world has the reverse issue. Over-fishing and deforestation-for-farmland are the biggest symptoms of over-population. Being worried about transport costs reducing biodiversity is a red-herring.

 

[MC3OZ]

Climate change is the biggest threat to biodiversity? Do you have any source?

Top scientists warn of 'ghastly future of mass extinction' and climate disruption

Sobering new report says world is failing to grasp the extent of threats posed by biodiversity loss and the climate crisis

www.theguardian.com

An estimated one million species are at risk of extinction, many within decades, according to a recent UN report.

Whether Climate change is the worst contributor to Biodiversity or not depends largely on ho wbad it gets:-

Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions - Nature Communications

The linkage between temperature change and extinction rates in the fossil record is well-known qualitatively but little explored quantitatively. Here the authors investigate the relationship of marine animal extinctions with rate and magnitude of temperature change across the last 450 million...

www.nature.com

As to what can be does we have pioneering work in Regenerative Agriculture being done with vary degrees if scientific rigour, consensus and controversy.

e.g.

I'm mostly talking about the probable consequences of cheap robotaxis

Keep in mind Robotaxis will free up a lot of land which is currently being used for parking..

Cities could turn those parking areas into gardens/wetlands with underground water vaults..

The way to rebuild biodiversity is rebuild the natural environment, including wetlands.

 

[replicant]

Top scientists warn of 'ghastly future of mass extinction' and climate disruption

Sobering new report says world is failing to grasp the extent of threats posed by biodiversity loss and the climate crisis

www.theguardian.com

Whether Climate change is the worst contributor to Biodiversity or not depends largely on ho wbad it gets:-

Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions - Nature Communications

The linkage between temperature change and extinction rates in the fossil record is well-known qualitatively but little explored quantitatively. Here the authors investigate the relationship of marine animal extinctions with rate and magnitude of temperature change across the last 450 million...

www.nature.com

As to what can be does we have pioneering work in Regenerative Agriculture being done with vary degrees if scientific rigour, consensus and controversy.

e.g.

Keep in mind Robotaxis will free up a lot of land which is currently being used for parking..

Cities could turn those parking areas into gardens/wetlands with underground water vaults..

The way to rebuild biodiversity is rebuild the natural environment, including wetlands.

Too bad you aren't consider my complete answer: the IPBES says climate change is not the biggest threat (see above). Did you actually read their assessment report? The press articles you linked to are about the IPBES report so they clearly misinterpreted it.

As for robotaxis and the end of parking spaces, do you really believe that the Jevons paradox will be broken *this time*? If so, why?

I've seen lots of parking spaces being removed already (we're removing half of the parking space in my city, for once) and none is being turned into natural space. Zero. Nada.

People do want to have some flora around them, but that is not helping biodiversity if we continue to choose things for being green (see: Are our lawns biological deserts?). I can also point out many positive initiatives like local attempts to regenerative farming, but for now, all these remain anecdote in the huge cycle/funnel of additional pressures on ecological niches. To me, taking the tobacco industry as examples, it seems like rejoicing to hear that the industry will be adding filters to all packs: sure it helps on a cigarette basis, but if people allow themselves to smoke more due to this *innovation*, we're heading into the wall at high speed. And unlike cancers an human lives, there may well be a point of no return w/ regards to biodiversity.

 

[Jack6591]

Wow, great thread guys, I’m sorry I’m late to the party.

I’m working on a post covering sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) — Gas-Insulated-Switchgear — and electrical industry maintenance practices. I’ll be back.