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

[arondaniel]

Not sure if I want to vote my puny shares yes or no yet.

Ideally Tesla would lead on this issue and switch to the best non-cruelty surfaces possible. Companies can and should lead. I believe Walmart, after all, said no to hormone in milk and voila... no more growth hormones in milk.

That said, I don't pretend to know the best way to make it happen. And my car has leather too, mainly because I never met an option I didn't like.

 

[ecarfan]

I'm voting no on the proposals.

I don't eat meat, for a variety of reasons.

I don't want to handicap Tesla's effort to advance the cause of EVs by trying to force the company to not offer leather seats. It would put the company at a real competitive disadvantage and reduce sales. Many prospective buyers would not understand why they couldn't get leather seats in their luxury EV.

I would like to see Tesla offer the textile material for the Gen 3 seats in the same range of colors as the leather seats.

TSLA Pilot, some of your arguments for your position are reasonable, but you do yourself a disservice by your repetitive and frantic posts. You've made your point. Endless repetition impresses no one...

 

[stopcrazypp]

While, I support Tesla offering non-animal interiors, I do wonder on the facts. Yes, perhaps livestock cause more GHG overall than transportation, but its reminds me of a similar argument about how electricity generation causes more GHG than transportation and thus EVs don't make sense as transportation alternative. This argument fails to account for the fact of how much more work is done for that electricity generation and that the calculation is different given the efficiency of EVs. In other word's it's not an apples to apples comparison.

The main question would be: how much GHG does a leather interior create vs one that is fully synthetic (the number for synthetic surely isn't zero, so that must be factored in). You also have to account for the beef, milk, fertilizer (manure) you can get out of a cow in this number (can't assign all lifetime GHG of a cow only to leather).

 

[TSLA Pilot]

I'm voting no on the proposals.

I don't eat meat, for a variety of reasons.

I don't want to handicap Tesla's effort to advance the cause of EVs by trying to force the company to not offer leather seats. It would put the company at a real competitive disadvantage and reduce sales. Many prospective buyers would not understand why they couldn't get leather seats in their luxury EV.

I would like to see Tesla offer the textile material for the Gen 3 seats in the same range of colors as the leather seats.

TSLA Pilot, some of your arguments for your position are reasonable, but you do yourself a disservice by your repetitive and frantic posts. You've made your point. Endless repetition impresses no one...

Alas, if posters would only READ the posts we'd all be much better off, and this thread would be far shorter, eh?

Let's start with your statement:

"I don't want to handicap Tesla's effort to advance the cause of EVs by trying to force the company to not offer leather seats. It would put the company at a real competitive disadvantage and reduce sales. Many prospective buyers would not understand why they couldn't get leather seats in their luxury EV."

I'll posit that you've not read the actual Proposals? You've also probably not visited a Lexus/MBZ/Infiniti showroom recently? There is no "handicap" to a finely crafted, NuLuxe, MB-Tex, etc. interior. Period. If there was, there would be oceans of Lexus' and MBZ's with environmentally-friendly interiors sitting unsold on dealer lots . . . .

You wrote:

"I would like to see Tesla offer the textile material for the Gen 3 seats in the same range of colors as the leather seats."

Here's an idea! Then vote "FOR" Proposals Three and Four. Otherwise, we'll get more of the same . . . .

Thanks for your inputs, but if too many TSLA investors proceed to vote without reading the proposals I fear for their success.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure if I want to vote my puny shares yes or no yet.

Ideally Tesla would lead on this issue and switch to the best non-cruelty surfaces possible. Companies can and should lead. I believe Walmart, after all, said no to hormone in milk and voila... no more growth hormones in milk.

That said, I don't pretend to know the best way to make it happen. And my car has leather too, mainly because I never met an option I didn't like.

Thank you for the supporting comments and "getting it."

The best way to make it happen? Two suggestions:

1. Vote "FOR" Proposals 3 and 4.

2. You also "vote" with your dollars; vote for things that don't destroy the environment (so avoid leather).

I'm pretty sure you'd like a well-made, finely-crafted non-leather interior even better, especially when it helps leave a livable planet for future generations. (How's that for a bonus!) Buyers in Lexus' and MBZ's showrooms seem to like them, not to mention the many positive words spilled over at Consumer Reports, the non-profit testing organization that buys around 50 cars a year for testing.

Seeing how option pricing has been going at Tesla these days, I'm sure it'll help boost the Average Selling Price if they offer a premium, leather-like, non-leather interior . . . bad for us buyers, but good for our TSLA share price!

 

[CaptainKirk]

Here's what's going through my head when I think about why the board is recommending against the proposal, strictly from a business perspective. I won't be entering a debate over my musings, but I will still read what gets posted to keep an open mind.

Tesla is still facing an uphill battle in educating the world with regards to EV's, and as others have mentioned, the primary goal should be converting the world to sustainable transport as much as possible. Certainly at tiny scale that Tesla is at compared to the automotive sector, one might think that it's easy for them to switch to a synthetic material, but I actually think that there's a huge risk in going to a 100% synthetic seats in a set amount time now, because they will be at the mercy of seat suppliers. Remember, we don't know the pricing for the synthetic options currently offered versus the leather seats.

What caused the fiasco with the Next-Gen seats? Will a self-imposed constraint on the seat material cause problems in the future? Other manufacturers may have synthetic seat options, but the question to ask is, who is supplying those materials and making those seats? I'm going to wager that the other luxury automotive marques may actually make the seats in-house, and that MB-Tex, Nuluxe represent proprietary synthetic materials developed by their respective manufacturers. As long as Tesla currently offers synthetic options, that's okay with me for the time being. Further down the road when the company actually has positive cash flow and money in the bank, then I definitely agree that this issue warrants looking into. For now, it's not the right time, as it exposes the company to additional execution risk.

 

[ecarfan]

TSLA pilot, I read your two proposals. I'm not voting for them. Good luck. My paltry few votes will make no difference.

 

[CalDreamin]

I'll posit that you've not read the actual Proposals? You've also probably not visited a Lexus/MBZ/Infiniti showroom recently? There is no "handicap" to a finely crafted, NuLuxe, MB-Tex, etc. interior. Period. If there was, there would be oceans of Lexus' and MBZ's with environmentally-friendly interiors sitting unsold on dealer lots . . . .

I think it's a good idea to encourage Tesla to offer high quality faux leather and textile seating in a range of colors, in both the standard and Next Gen seats. If these were offered at no added cost, with natural leather as a higher cost option, fewer Tesla buyers would opt for natural leather. These additional offerings would start to move things in the direction the OP advocates without a mandate against natural leather.

Using myself as an example, I don't want black seats -- the only color available that isn't natural leather. But if a high quality tan faux leather had been available I probably would have gotten that instead of natural leather.

The carrot is far more likely to be accepted by Tesla, Tesla shareholders, and Tesla buyers than the stick proposed by the OP.

I disagree with an implication that faux leather offerings from M-B, Lexus, etc. are evidence that Tesla could stop offering natural leather without harming sales. All Mercedes-Benz models sold in the USA including the entry level CLA-250 are available with natural leather seating, either as an option or as standard. The S-Class and AMG models come standard with natural leather. The M-B example is evidence that buyers of premium cars priced at $70-130K expect natural leather seating at least as an option, if not standard.

 

[Lloyd]

Artificial or Vegan Leather is criticized for not being environmentally friendly and are made from PVC or oil products (decayed other animals and plants), but we have debated this in previous threads.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_leather

 

[mdemetri]

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 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

First, lets restrict the discussion to GHG emissions; bringing up animal mistreatment and animal rights activism (while a worthy issue) is a completely different issue that is not part of TSLA's primary mission. It appears that you are attempting to bring your vegan belief system to TSLA; this inherent bias greatly weakens your argument.

Second, the links you provide simply speak of emissions; they fail to consider the type of emission or how it was generated. Emissions are not created equal. Harvesting higher order carbon molecules (i.e. oil, natural gas, coal) that were generated over 100's of millions of years over only ~100 years is nowhere near the same as that generated by livestock. There is a very simple biological concept known as the carbon cycle. Plants convert C02 to larger carbon containing molecules by utilizing energy from the sun (e.g. produce sugars) and animals eat these to produce C02. This then provides plants the C02 needed to grow. It is a cycle and a symbiotic relationship. When a human eats vegetables or fruits they participate in this carbon cycle and produce lots of C02. Eating meat is just an extra step (plant->animal->human), but still part of the carbon cycle that has a time scale of decades. This is in stark contrast to extracting oil/gas/coal, which represents carbon that was sequestered over millions of years. Releasing this carbon as C02 over ~100 years is an utter global catastrophe. Attempting to hijack this global catastrophe to apply one's Vegan belief system to livestock emissions is not reasonable. There is simply no comparison. The carbon cycle takes care of the carbon emissions from animals over a very small time scale (i.e. plants absorb C02, the plants are than eaten by livestock, humans than eat livestock, both produce C02 that is then absorbed by growing more plants). Comparing this normal ecological cycle that occurs over decades to the dumping of carbon that was sequestered over millions of years is not a reasonable argument.

BTW, while this is not my area of expertise, I have a PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and am a Professor at a top 50 University in the Unites States.

 

[ggr]

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?

Ummm.... Yeah! What's the point you are trying to make here?

I get it that you're against killing the cows in the first place. In fact, against raising (most of) them. But why make life difficult for the only good guys in sight, just because they aren't going as far as you would like? The consensus I'm hearing is that we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let Tesla do what they're doing, and go after GM and Ford, and the meatpacking industry, first.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I disagree with an implication that faux leather offerings from M-B, Lexus, etc. are evidence that Tesla could stop offering natural leather without harming sales. All Mercedes-Benz models sold in the USA including the entry level CLA-250 are available with natural leather seating, either as an option or as standard. The S-Class and AMG models come standard with natural leather. The M-B example is evidence that buyers of premium cars priced at $70-130K expect natural leather seating at least as an option, if not standard.

I was about to point out the same thing. None of the companies listed have a goal of eliminating natural leather completely and all of them have leather at least as an option (and standard in many models). Even those with synthetic options may have certain surfaces that are only available in leather (for example the cheapest CLA comes standard with a leather wrapped steering wheel).

And from a business prospective even offering the synthetic leather option may not be viable for Tesla if the take rate is low. CaptainKirk brings up a great point that the synthetic alternatives of the other manufacturers are largely proprietary, so while it saves money for those manufacturers (synthetic is cheaper for them than natural leather), there is no guarantee that it'll be less expensive for Tesla.

There are no statistics provided by the OP of the market share of synthetic leather (esp. his proposal all synthetic, not a mix of both) in the premium brands. Just offering it as an option is not a sign of acceptance or success. What percentage of cars are made in that option is what matters.

And after reading the proposals, proposal 3 has no details on how much GHG is saved (if any) by going with synthetic vs natural leather. This is a core point. The hand-waving about livestock being a large portion of GHG is not sufficient to prove the point, as synthetic leather products are not exactly environmentally friendly in the first place (esp. vs the cloth that Tesla offers and few premium brands offer).

And proposal 4 is overly vague on any concrete benefits for Tesla (how many people care about "cruelty" against farm animals enough that there would be a measurable sales boost from this).

 

[dsm363]

Alas, if posters would only READ the posts we'd all be much better off, and this thread would be far shorter, eh?

Let's start with your statement:

"I don't want to handicap Tesla's effort to advance the cause of EVs by trying to force the company to not offer leather seats. It would put the company at a real competitive disadvantage and reduce sales. Many prospective buyers would not understand why they couldn't get leather seats in their luxury EV."

I'll posit that you've not read the actual Proposals? You've also probably not visited a Lexus/MBZ/Infiniti showroom recently? There is no "handicap" to a finely crafted, NuLuxe, MB-Tex, etc. interior. Period. If there was, there would be oceans of Lexus' and MBZ's with environmentally-friendly interiors sitting unsold on dealer lots . . . .

You wrote:

"I would like to see Tesla offer the textile material for the Gen 3 seats in the same range of colors as the leather seats."

Here's an idea! Then vote "FOR" Proposals Three and Four. Otherwise, we'll get more of the same . . . .

Thanks for your inputs, but if too many TSLA investors proceed to vote without reading the proposals I fear for their success.

- - - Updated - - -



Thank you for the supporting comments and "getting it."

The best way to make it happen? Two suggestions:

1. Vote "FOR" Proposals 3 and 4.

2. You also "vote" with your dollars; vote for things that don't destroy the environment (so avoid leather).

I'm pretty sure you'd like a well-made, finely-crafted non-leather interior even better, especially when it helps leave a livable planet for future generations. (How's that for a bonus!) Buyers in Lexus' and MBZ's showrooms seem to like them, not to mention the many positive words spilled over at Consumer Reports, the non-profit testing organization that buys around 50 cars a year for testing.

Seeing how option pricing has been going at Tesla these days, I'm sure it'll help boost the Average Selling Price if they offer a premium, leather-like, non-leather interior . . . bad for us buyers, but good for our TSLA share price!

Why don't you read what people are saying. Does Mercedes -only- offer synthetic leather as you are asking Tesla to do? No, they don't.

You really need to consider your audience and your tactics. Attempting to shame or guilt people into something like this likely won't be productive.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

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.

#4 & #5 are not facts. #3 (the blind-spot part of it) therefore follows as not being a fact. And lastly, #7 isn't the only possible resolution for #4 and #5, since providing a synthetic leather offering without eliminating the leather offerings would resolve both "issues". Therefore, it's your belief against the others.

Here is one fact that you've ignored while it's been repeated ad infinitum - Having Tesla eliminate the leather option will turn away more potential customers than would be gained from a synthetic leather option. Why? Because a significant majority of the population do NOT think like you do. Just look at the statistics for the number of beef consumers as my proof (highest percentage I found showed only 5%: 16 Million People in the US are Now Vegan or Vegetarian! The Raw Food World News ). So with the majority of the target market NOT caring about livestock, removing leather from their product options would kill the company.

Keep in mind that Tesla has a halo only amongst its followers. A large number of "petrol-heads" actively work to detract, ridicule, and possible kill the company. I voted against your proposals last year and will do so again this year, as it will kill the company more effectively than all the naysayer's FUD spread so far.

 

[Johan]

In the greater sense if course TSLA Pilot is correct. In a hundred years we won't use leather for car seats anymore, only synthetic and/or possibly recombinantly manufactured leather. If people do eat meat in 100 years from now I hope it's the type grown in a Petri dish (through recombinant technology). But the time isn't right now, for Tesla, to fight this issue as there are bigger and more pressing challenges in front of them.

But yes, a hundred years in to the future I think it's very likely people will look back and say there was still a cognitive dissonance in the early 21st century, in the same way we laugh today when we think of the fact that the founding fathers of America, while in all seriousness stating "all men are created equal" were slave owners.

 

[ToddRLockwood]

This feel-good initiative is the wrong solution to the wrong problem. Putting leather in one's car is a personal decision, as is consuming beef. I happen to be vegan, but I'm not about to start telling others what they should eat. If you really want to make a difference in global warming, put your energies into replacing coal-fired power plants with renewables. Become an advocate for solar energy.

Tesla Motors is already doing more than their fair share for the environment. Tesla's new Gigafactory will be a model of sustainability and will be fully powered by renewables. This is a real commitment, not a symbolic one, and it could inspire many other types of manufacturers to follow suit. Taking a stand on leather would not materially affect anything, given Tesla's small output, except that it would hinder sales at the upper end of Tesla's market.

 

[MartinAustin]

Tesla needs to provide a seat surface that is easy to clean (unlike cloth), but it's not created from farmed animals. Period.

And while they're at it, make sure it's ventilated.

And stop using the name "next-gen" on the seats... they're really not that good, and at some point there will be a 3rd generation. One wonders why they are still selling the old seats, if the next generation exists.

 

[Perfectlogic]

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.

I was trying to prove a point relevant to the topic which clearly went way over your head, the matter in question is not "just that simple" at all, just like you clearly are trying to do yours do stop climate change even though you are still contributing to it by living in a house and using electricity (do you think those solar panels grew out of the ground?). You need to stop sounding so condescending and narcissistic, we all know you think this is simple and impossible to come to a different conclusion than you if you just watch the cowspiracy documentary but there is no objective truth in this argument so stop acting like there is one. You keep repeating that just because MB and Lexus offers synthetic leather options and they sell some number of those then that just proves that all consumers want this option, I mean come on now. Tesla is built on the premise of accelerating the transition to sustainable transportation and it makes sense for their policies to reflect this but they are still a young company and can't do everything at once.

 

[dsm363]

And if we are right and getting rid of leather hurt sales enough to harm sales or worse yet lead to the company going under or getting bought out would that be an improvement in the situation TSLA Pilot? I'm not willing to risk that. They should offer their best seats in a non leather alternative but you are going about this in a less than ideal way.

 

[eepic]

The core mission of the company is to reduce GHG's. This is WHY Tesla Motors exists.

Yet, they should continue to damage to the planet by producing interiors that include products from an industry that does more damage than ALL TRANSPORT COMBINED.

How does this make sense?

Do you see the hypocrisy in this?

Hi there, I understand where you are coming from but I will be voting against this. In the longer run when Tesla has more time and resources, I would agree and vote for a proposal to encourage non-animal products. It's just not the top priority right now and the incremental impact of their leather seats with 0.05% of auto market share is really a drop in the bucket. I would rather they focus on growing market share by an order of magnitude first, then be able to make an impact towards something like this. They are trying to catalyze electrification of transport en-masse across all automakers, which would have a much greater impact that changing leather options on their seats alone right now.

I would encourage you to empathize with the difficulty of managing the current supply chain timed in lock-step with production as it is, and moving heaven and earth to pull off the minor miracle that is the Model 3 (see: Gigafactory).

Perhaps an analogy would be like saying the Fremont Tesla Factory should be fully powered by wind and solar. Absolutely that would be nice and probably will be the case in the long run, but it's just a distraction project right now when they have to be really focused on the MX and M3. Pragmatically, even the GF will start out using power more from the grid than it's renewables can supply.

Bottom line: there's tons of great initiatives TM take leadership on, but they they don't have the resources and manpower to do it all at this stage - and unfortunately this proposal is not the best bang for your buck with regards to making an impact at this point in time.

 

[Chris TX]

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).

Absolutely. And as a member of a family that raises beef cattle, I still chose the Textile option for my Model S. I also think there needs to be quality leather alternatives like the previously discussed MB-Tex. The more options (better IMHO) that are available, the better. I would have happily chosen an MB-Tex-like seating surface over everything, even at a premium. I also think Tesla should cater to those that want vegan options for their car.

The only sane way for Tesla Motors to reduce the number of animal hides used in their vehicles is to provide better alternatives. If this prop passed, the only selection is what, Textile? If you're going to complain about something or attempt to get a "morally objectionable" option removed, you better come armed with a solution AND a way to implement it.