Your help needed: "FOR" Votes for 2015 TSLA Prop 3 and 4

[Krugerrand]

1.: So just like electric cars on the road vs. ICE? So why don't we just stop making electrics then?

As was said earlier, this doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) an all or nothing event. Tesla is doing what Tesla can do to achieve 'their' mission, which isn't what the OP says it is. It is entirely unreasonable to expect Tesla to do everything and be all to everyone. Step back a moment and take in all that Tesla has done in such a short time, is currently doing, and has on their plate. As well their still (albeit less) delicate situation. Certainly express your desire to Tesla for a vegan choice (which they have already produced).

2.: Doesn't that count for any material used for producing the car?

Of course it does, but that's not the point and you know it.

For the OP: Less than zero chance of getting a 'for' vote from me. How one goes about it is as important to me as the issue itself.

 

[LargeHamCollider]

Definitely voting no, this proposal is based in pretentious moral posturing and little else. Johan and AWDtsla do a great job bringing things back to reality.

I grew up on a farm, I guarantee that no one is "preventing the suffering of sentient creatures" by not eating beef. Herbivores in the wild die far more heinous deaths and live far more heinous lives than the cows from my childhood back yard (video evidence available on request; and yes, farming can and often is done in unethical ways, that is a separate issue).

 

[SteveG3]

Mark and Elizabeth, I greatly appreciate your taking action, and I will look at the links you've provided.

I would, however, like you to consider something. I just went to Mercedes website, and, while they certainly offer these vegan options, they do offer leather as well. I think there is a very big difference between Tesla offering vegan options, and Tesla not offering leather options. I've been vegetarian nearly 25 years, and what you are suggesting sounds a bit like asking someone who eats meat to have dinner together at a vegan or vegetarian restaurant, or at a restaurant with vegan, vegetarian and meat dishes. In my experience the friend will far more readily go to the second restaurant, where they may very well order a vegetarian or vegan dish (analogous to Mercedes business model resulting in significant sales of vehicles with vegan seats).

It's basic in our human nature to not only care about the result we end up with, but also our personal sovereignty in making the choice leading to that result. That's the difference I see in what you are recommending for Tesla in contrast to what Mercedes is offering. (fwiw, I did not look up the other automakers you mentioned... if one exclusively offers vegan seats, please let us know).

Based on that point, I do think Tesla would be at a substantial competitive disadvantage (not to mention opening a new line of attack from detractors who try to tarnish the company with politically divisive name calling), and from there I agree with the other comments here that at this point in Tesla's life, surviving and flourishing as an EV producer is a more immediate goal than addressing the use of animal products.

Don't get me wrong... I really want to see more vegan options. I'd be very happy to see it both as a reflection of Tesla's values, and to allow me to take delivery of an S or X as soon as possible with tan vegan Nextgen seats. Once more, thanks for your efforts, you've clearly put careful attention into this issue.

 

[Duckjybe]

Hmm, sounds like you are calling me a hypocrite too?

Yes, but I don't fault you for it, because I agree with your statement earlier in the thread that Tesla has other priorities. I am as guilty of hypocrisy as anyone in this matter.

I freely admit my value judgment that Tesla's efforts to bring battery storage and transport into the mainstream in order to ultimately reduce reliance on carbon fuels, is in the long term more important than any effort on Tesla's part to reduce factory farming of cows. Tesla going mostly Vegan within the next few years would have minimal impact on factory farming for beef production.

This is an unfortunate situation where the choice is between bad and less bad.

I totally agree with 32no's posts above AND I am not a vegan, I bought a Tesla to help the advent of sustainable transportation, I do not believe this proposal will help the advent of sustainable transportation, and I will be voting no. There is no hypocrisy here.

 

[cpa]

This discussion regarding leather and beef overlooks another important area: Dairy cows. According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture there were nearly 9.2 million dairy cows in the United States in 2011. These were "milk cows," so likely there were more animals than that when you consider calves, pregnant and non-lactating cows and the handful of bulls that are kept around for semen. What happens to the dairy animals once their milk production declines? Hides come from dairy cows too.

What most do not realize is that agriculture is an enormous industry. The food and fiber that we grow here in the US produces an astronomical amount of byproducts that we humans do not eat or use for fabric. Moreover, fresh fruits and vegetables get culled and never reach our plates because the products have cosmetic blemishes, misshapen fruits, or are sized wrong. Where do these tons and tons of byproducts and culled foods wind up? Not in a landfill. Some go to bio-generation plants, but that is a very small amount. Some goes to commercial composting companies. But almond hulls, citrus pulp, sugar beet pulp, cottonseeds and more wind up at dairy farms for the cows to consume in addition to hay, grass and corn. In fact, these "balanced diets", as it were, are really good for the animal and good for the farmer and ultimately good for us consumers if we like milk, cheese, butter and ice cream.

To my way of thinking, it makes no difference if we compost ag products using microorganisms in the earth or we compost them using internal microorganisms and digestive juices in ruminants' stomachs. Either way, the end product is nearly identical and gets collected and recycled! :smile:

 

[Perfectlogic]

Saying Tesla is hypocrites because they sell cars with leather is like calling you you a hypocrite for using a washing machine TSLA pilot, or any device that uses electricity, or live in a house bigger than a closet that needs heating, I mean are you against climate change or not? No, ofcourse that statement is absurd, there are more colours than black and white.

 

[mdemetri]

I would like to reiterate my own opinion on the proposals as the shareholders meeting draws near (here is a link to the original post):

This!!! Especially point 4. Cows are not raised for their hides; they are raised to provide food (meat, milk, cheese, butter etc). The hides add to the value but are simply a by-product of the food industry. Thus, I see zero reason why not using leather seats would reduce GHG emissions.

Second, there is a very big difference between the emissions from burning oil/gas/coal and that from livestock. Yes, methane from livestock is more warming than C02 (~25 times more potent), however it is generated by livestock eating corn/hay etc that was grown by absorbing large amounts of C02 from the atmosphere. Indeed, this is a cycle that should be close to carbon neutral, although there is still a difference in the reduced warming from C02 reduction from growing feed versus the more potent warming from the methane emissions. However, methane only persists in the atmosphere for ~12 years, whereas C02 persists for thousands of years. I do not know what the net effect is, but it is certainly different than burning oil that has no offsetting effects.

Third, in the US the greatest source of methane is from oil/gas/coal (39%), compared to 36% from enteric fermentation/manure (Methane Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA). And as noted above, the latter but not the former is counterbalanced by reduction in C02 from growing feed for the livestock.

Thus, IMHO it is far more important to get off oil/gas/coal than it is to eliminate the livestock industry, which could never be achieved by not using leather. The former is Tesla's goal, not the latter.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

I agree. Let's throw away the skin of cows used for meat. I don't believe extra cows are butchered for just the hide. Maybe burning the hides will produce more co2 or making imitation leather will use more energy than treating hides. Is there any evidence that not using the hides will save a single cow?

What just the smallest of searches will reveal . . .

Leather Is More Than | One Green Planet

among many others.

Why is this a debate? Seriously, why?

One choice involves cruelty, the unbearable suffering of sentient beings, and then their murder. After which their bodies are cut up and then a long list of toxic chemicals are used on their skin to keep it from decomposing. (Oh, and all this after tons of GHG's are produced--that's just so amazingly smart now that we're over 400 CO2 ppm!)

The other choices involve no cruelty, far less GHG's, a longer-lasting, better looking product, products that OTHER SMARTER, more environmentally friendly brands, such as MBZ, BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, et al, are ALREADY using. Absent their decades of investment in ICE and transmissions, they'd be ahead of Tesla from an environmental perspective.

2013 BMW M135i - Interior and Engine [1080p HD] - YouTube

Again, why is there a debate?

There are far too many on this forum with such little knowledge of this subject, a testament to the amazing publicity work by Big Ag to ensure the population remains in the dark about goes on behind the curtain . . . scary.

- - - Updated - - -

This!!! Especially point 4. Cows are not raised for their hides; they are raised to provide food (meat, milk, cheese, butter etc). The hides add to the value but are simply a by-product of the food industry. Thus, I see zero reason why not using leather seats would reduce GHG emissions.

Second, there is a very big difference between the emissions from burning oil/gas/coal and that from livestock. Yes, methane from livestock is more warming than C02 (~25 times more potent), however it is generated by livestock eating corn/hay etc that was grown by absorbing large amounts of C02 from the atmosphere. Indeed, this is a cycle that should be close to carbon neutral, although there is still a difference in the reduced warming from C02 reduction from growing feed versus the more potent warming from the methane emissions. However, methane only persists in the atmosphere for ~12 years, whereas C02 persists for thousands of years. I do not know what the net effect is, but it is certainly different than burning oil that has no offsetting effects.

Third, in the US the greatest source of methane is from oil/gas/coal (39%), compared to 36% from enteric fermentation/manure (Methane Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA). And as noted above, the latter but not the former is counterbalanced by reduction in C02 from growing feed for the livestock.

Thus, IMHO it is far more important to get off oil/gas/coal than it is to eliminate the livestock industry, which could never be achieved by not using leather. The former is Tesla's goal, not the latter.

You see zero reasons because you choose to not see them perhaps?

While I don't know your background or profession, it appears your analysis is countered by the UN FAO . . . and their analysis is measured in the hundreds of pages.

Here's more info:

Livestock a major threat to environment

The ethical wardrobe: Is it OK to wear leather? | Fashion | The Guardian

Stella McCartney Sheds Light on Leather's Dark Truth

But still, why so much mental effort to try to justify the unjustifiable?

Even the meat argument becomes a joke when one looks at the eye-watering amounts of water used to put a very small portion of animal flesh on your plate, and, by extension, animal skins under your butt (BTW, for those not in the know, California is in a very severe drought):

Log In - The New York Times

I was going to print out the Cowspiracy source doc pages for the Tesla BoD, but it's 21 pages. So I just sent them the DVD. I don't think they watched it, but I encourage you to. Oh, and by the way, unlike many others in this "debate," they aren't selling anything but the truth . . . .

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts

 

[Chickenlittle]

What just the smallest of searches will reveal . . .

Leather Is More Than | One Green Planet

among many others.

Why is this a debate? Seriously, why?

One choice involves cruelty, the unbearable suffering of sentient beings, and then their murder. After which their bodies are cut up and then a long list of toxic chemicals are used on their skin to keep it from decomposing. (Oh, and all this after tons of GHG's are produced--that's just so amazingly smart now that we're over 400 CO2 ppm!)

The other choices involve no cruelty, far less GHG's, a longer-lasting, better looking product, products that OTHER SMARTER, more environmentally friendly brands, such as MBZ, BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, et al, are ALREADY using. Absent their decades of investment in ICE and transmissions, they'd be ahead of Tesla from an environmental perspective.

2013 BMW M135i - Interior and Engine [1080p HD] - YouTube

Again, why is there a debate?

There are far too many on this forum with such little knowledge of this subject, a testament to the amazing publicity work by Big Ag to ensure the population remains in the dark about goes on behind the curtain . . . scary.

- - - Updated - - -



You see zero reasons because you choose to not see them perhaps?

While I don't know your background or profession, it appears your analysis is countered by the UN FAO . . . and there analysis is measured in hundreds of pages.

Here's more info:

Livestock a major threat to environment

The ethical wardrobe: Is it OK to wear leather? | Fashion | The Guardian

Stella McCartney Sheds Light on Leather's Dark Truth

But still, why so much mental effort to try to justify the unjustifiable?

Even the meat argument becomes a joke when one looks at the eye-watering amounts of water used to put a very small portion of animal flesh on your plate, and, by extension, animal skins under your butt (BTW, for those not in the know, California is in a very severe drought):

Log In - The New York Times

I was going to print out the Cowspiracy source doc pages for the Tesla BoD, but it's 21 pages. So I just sent them the DVD. I don't think they watched it, but I encourage you to. Oh, and by the way, unlike many others in this "debate," they aren't selling anything but the truth . . . .

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts

Yes throw away the skins. There is no cruel measures taken to harvest the skin. The animals were already killed for the meat. Harvesting dead hides does not hurt the animal. Much like harvesting skin and bones from dead humans are not a cruel process either. These, as well as other urgans harvested routinely from humans too

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Saying Tesla is hypocrites because they sell cars with leather is like calling you you a hypocrite for using a washing machine TSLA pilot, or any device that uses electricity, or live in a house bigger than a closet that needs heating, I mean are you against climate change or not? No, ofcourse that statement is absurd, there are more colours than black and white.

PerfectLogic,

Yes, we have 7.44 kW of SolarCity solar panels on the roof and we love them, but that's not why we're here.

Let's please stay on topic.

Please allow me to borrow one of Elon's metaphors:

We're in a lifeboat, our ONLY lifeboat, and it's taking on water.

Elon has invented a better bailing bucket; it's great!

We've invested in both his bailing buckets and his company because we feel his mission is just and good for our lifeboat and all that live on it.

However, he drills holes in about 80 or 90% of his bailing buckets and they leak water back into the lifeboat with every attempt to bail water . . .

I'd like him/Tesla Motors to stop drilling holes in their awesome bailing buckets.

It's really just that simple.

 

[Krugerrand]

Why is this a debate? Seriously, why?

Because not everyone believes as you do.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

**Yes throw away the skins. There is no cruel measures taken to harvest the skin. The animals were already killed for the meat. Harvesting dead hides does not hurt the animal. Much like harvesting skin and bones from dead humans are not a cruel process either. These, as well as other urgans harvested routinely from humans too**

Wow, so as long as animals don't suffer after they are killed, then it's okay? And then we transition to human organ donation too?

Talk about going off on a tangent . . . .

Fellow investors, let us please stay on topic. I think the bailing bucket example above is as simple as I can make the analogy.

Please vote for more buckets without holes by voting "FOR" Props 3 and 4.

Thank you.

 

[tinm]

This would only be a symbolic vote. It will not be approved. Musk owns like 30% of the stock, and insiders and institutional holders combined are not going to be for this, and they're the majority of the vote. So maybe it gets a 5% yes.

As I said, symbolic only.

Considering the tiny market share Tesla has of the global automobile market, I think the proponents of these propositions ought to pursue Ford, GM, Toyota, BMW, VW for starters. Tesla is less than a drop in the bucket.

 

[Krugerrand]

Wow, so as long as animals don't suffer after they are killed, then it's okay?

Wouldn't advocating for humane handling, caregiving and slaughter be a better place to focus? Or are you suggesting that once dead the animal then suffers by being skinned?

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Because not everyone believes as you do.

Okay, I'll bite.

What is there about the facts presented by objective scientists that involves "believes as you do?"

Livestock a major threat to environment

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts

The last one is 21 pages if you'd like to print it out.

Take your pick of the facts, but please, as much as I did not enjoy the subject, I DO remember this from HS and university chemistry labs--there is NO place in chemistry equations, EVER, to input variables such as:

"What does the group consensus say about this?"

OR

"Does it conflict with the lessons you learned as a child?"

OR

"Does it make you uncomfortable?"

OR

"Do you believe something different?"

To recap:

1. Reducing GHG's is why Tesla Motors exists.

2. Every Tesla potentially reduces GHG's.

3. Yet because of an asteroid-sized blind spot at the highest levels of Tesla, many/most Tesla's come with materials sourced from an industry that produces more GHG's than all of transport COMBINED, despite a long list of alternatives that don't support that industry and produce less GHG's.

4. Even worse: Tesla customers that don't want to support that industry and want minimal/no GHG's Teslas are punished . . . .

5. The status quo is insane.

6. We'd like to fix this and we NEED your help to do so.

7. Please vote FOR Props 3 and 4.

Thank you.

 

[Lloyd]

I like leather, and IMO it has no net affect about green or responsible. I'm voting NO!

 

[TSLA Pilot]

This would only be a symbolic vote. It will not be approved. Musk owns like 30% of the stock, and insiders and institutional holders combined are not going to be for this, and they're the majority of the vote. So maybe it gets a 5% yes.

As I said, symbolic only.

Considering the tiny market share Tesla has of the global automobile market, I think the proponents of these propositions ought to pursue Ford, GM, Toyota, BMW, VW for starters. Tesla is less than a drop in the bucket.

Tesla is, by many accounts, the MOST important auto manufacturer in the world. Their every move is watched very closely. Where Tesla leads, other brands will follow, or they'll cease to exist . . . . As Consumer Reports stated, (in so many words), " . . . better than brands that have been building cars for over 100 years."

Tesla holds out a shingle as a "Green" brand simply by existing, and because of the dozens of speeches Elon has given highlighting why he's worked so hard to make it succeed.

As for us, after the hoops we had to jump through just to see our own two proposals, let alone vote on them, I feared the outcome you suggest--a major loss. Hence, our effort to fight that failure via an appeal on TMC where many TSLA investors might be found.

We hoped that we'd gain some desperately needed visibility to our otherwise invisible proposals, AND VOTES, by posting here; let's hope we're correct.

This is most certainly an uphill battle, but the facts are clear and convincing. The more than know about them, the better our odds.

Quite by accident, we've followed the steps outlined by the WSJ. Others have done more with less, so we remain optimistic as Tesla, in the end, is a logic- and fact-based company. It's just getting the facts to the executive suite and Board of Directors that's been a real challenge I'm afraid. I sent them each a copy of the Cowspiracy DVD, but I'd guess they were "round filed" by staff, hence the shift in tactics . . . .

How to Be an Activist Investor - WSJ

- - - Updated - - -

I like leather, and IMO it has no net affect about green or responsible. I'm voting NO!

Ding! Ding!

We have a winner for the "Don't Bother Me With the Facts; My Mind is Made Up" Award!

I'm not giving up on you though--while I don't think you'll watch the DVD, at least watch the trailer please:

http://www.cowspiracy.com/

Thanks!

 

[Lloyd]

Ding! Ding!

We have a winner for the "Don't Bother Me With the Facts; My Mind is Made Up" Award!

I'm not giving up on you though--while I don't think you'll watch the DVD, at least watch the trailer please:

http://www.cowspiracy.com/

Thanks!

Well, without debunking the website as I don't believe that is the point here, i just gave my opinion. But, in order to watch your video I have to contribute $9.95 to a cause I don't believe in (I think). I do have a problem with that. The trailer does not make me want to contribute or gravitate to your cause, or really tell me what the documentary is about. I live in cow country, and spent most of my life with cows or people who work with animals in some fashion. JMO: No Thanks!!

 

[Krugerrand]

What is there about the facts presented by objective scientists that involves "believes as you do?"

To stay entirely on topic, some people don't believe that Tesla should only sell vegan cars and they've given valid reasons.

To recap:

1. Reducing GHG's is why Tesla Motors exists.

As you've been informed, that is NOT why Tesla Motors exists. Here's a blog post for you to refresh your memory: The Mission of Tesla | Tesla Motors

Our goal when we created Tesla a decade ago was the same as it is today: to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible.

2. Every Tesla potentially reduces GHG's.

Yes it does, whether or not it has leather or fake leather interior.

3. Yet because of an asteroid-sized blind spot at the highest levels of Tesla, many/most Tesla's come with materials sourced from an industry that produces more GHG's than all of transport COMBINED, despite a long list of alternatives that don't support that industry and produce less GHG's.

And Tesla also sources parts that originate from the oil industry. Life's funny that way. Thankfully, a good chunk of the human population, including those at the highest levels of Tesla, are able to understand the complexities of life and see the many shades of grey that exist and make decisions best for them in the moment.

4. Even worse: Tesla customers that don't want to support that industry and want minimal/no GHG's Teslas are punished . . . .

Oh, please, nobody is being punished by Tesla. Everyone has a choice. If you find it that disagreeable then a) don't buy a car from Tesla, and b) don't invest in Tesla. Go buy one of those Mercedes/BMW/Audi vegan cars.

5. The status quo is insane.

Yep, sometimes. And sometimes it exists because that's what makes sense.

6. We'd like to fix this.

Going about it the wrong way, and you've been told that by a number of people. It seems you're not interested in listening.

7. We'd like your help.

8. Please vote FOR Props 3 and 4.

Not going to happen from me for the reason I stated earlier in this thread.

 

[Ugliest1]

Thankfully, a good chunk of the human population, including those at the highest levels of Tesla, are able to understand the complexities of life and see the many shades of grey that exist and make decisions best for them in the moment.

Krug, great post, thank you for taking the time to pull out the specific corrections.

Re the Tesla high-up mucky-mucks, their decision-making IMO has been exemplary, truly inventing the future, weaving a reasonable path amid all the land mines and general battlefields, and having the guts to correct their occasional mis-steps in an open and honest way. Great thinking for both short- and the long term.

Not going to happen from me for the reason I stated earlier in this thread.

I've already voted no, the reasons in my earlier post.