Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
So how much of your income do you donate and how much of your time do you volunteer TSLA Pilot?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Your help needed: "FOR" Votes for 2015 TSLA Prop 3 and 4
- Thread starter TSLA Pilot
- Start date
Stunned and disappointed to see WK057 come out against Props 3 and 4, especially in light of his prolific postings here.
He wrote:
"At this point in the game it would be of no benefit to the company to implement such proposals."
My response:
1. We're racing toward a self-induced extinction event with CO2 concentrations at 400 ppm and climbing quickly, and where the global consensus is that 350 ppm and below are required to sustain life on Earth:
350.org
Do the Math - The Movie - YouTube
2. Tesla was created to help alleviate this problem.
3. WK057 see's "no benefit to the company to implement such proposals?"
Huh? This is a profoundly illogical conclusion, at best.
Allow me to repeat and expand on an analogy used by Elon himself.
A. We're in "Lifeboat Earth."
B. Water is at knee depth and climbing.
C. Elon has invented a great bailing bucket, BUT he drills holes in about 80 or 90% of them and water pours back into the boat with every bailing attempt.
D. Props 3 and 4 will have Tesla STOP drilling holes in the bailing buckets.
WK057 wrote: "but right now it would be a complete waste of resources."
My response: What waste of resources? I have already described and provided a sample script for Tesla's Interior Materials buyer. Here it is again:
[Tesla Interior Materials Buyer--Here's a sample script to bring the salespeople running to your office: "Please bring us samples of your most environmentally-friendly, leather-like seat materials, something even BETTER than MB-Tex, and be here by Wednesday at 1:00 p.m. Oh, and be sure to bring a full report on the lifecycle GHG cost of your product--HUGE bonus points if it uses any recycled material!"]
I presume this person would be on salary, and this is part of their job description, no?
Frankly, we expected support from WK057, not silliness and unsupported opinion; let us hope he'll revisit and reconsider.
Kalud
Active Member
I received my voting documents and code well before this thread started and have no regret saying that I already voted against props 3 & 4.
I wouldn't have bought this car (and shares) if leather wasn't an option. IMHO Tesla would have a serious demand issue.
Removing all leather product all at once in that market segment is unrealistic and would be counterproductive at this stage.
With that being said, I would probably accept something like Alcantara sport seats that I think could be eventually introduced, I strongly dislike leather-like materials.
I wouldn't have bought this car (and shares) if leather wasn't an option. IMHO Tesla would have a serious demand issue.
Removing all leather product all at once in that market segment is unrealistic and would be counterproductive at this stage.
With that being said, I would probably accept something like Alcantara sport seats that I think could be eventually introduced, I strongly dislike leather-like materials.
I own 'cloth' seats in my 2012 MS. 'Cloth' really means 'woven', woven of plastic threads i.e. made of PETROLEUM no doubt. There is 0% natural fibers in there I can assure you. Scratches actually deform the threads permanently or temporarily.
So call them 'woven', not 'cloth'.
This issue has all the excitement of class-action mailings I receive as a stockholder (which get quickly tossed in the hopper).
--
So call them 'woven', not 'cloth'.
This issue has all the excitement of class-action mailings I receive as a stockholder (which get quickly tossed in the hopper).
--
Last edited:
Were this proposal to pass, the net impact on the cattle industry would approach zero.
The OP clearly states that he refused to spend $100k (give or take $30k) on a new car because it didn't have a vegan option, but can't comprehend how a for profit public company would be concerned that people might not want to spend $100k (give or take $30k) on a car that doesn't have a leather option.
While fake leather can look nice and feel nice, there is simply nothing that substitutes, IMO, for the durability of real leather.
Passing these proposals would be suicidal for Tesla. My votes are "no".
The OP clearly states that he refused to spend $100k (give or take $30k) on a new car because it didn't have a vegan option, but can't comprehend how a for profit public company would be concerned that people might not want to spend $100k (give or take $30k) on a car that doesn't have a leather option.
While fake leather can look nice and feel nice, there is simply nothing that substitutes, IMO, for the durability of real leather.
Passing these proposals would be suicidal for Tesla. My votes are "no".
Fourteen points to address from 32no . . . wow.
I'll use some abbreviations to help speed the process along:
BS--BAD Science or NO Science
QS--Questionable Science
**********************************************
Now here are the doubts and potential negatives that have been brought up:
1. Leather is a by product of the meat/dairy industry anyway
BS.
Truth: It is a CO-Product that provides additional profits to an industry that DOES MORE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE THAN ALL TRANSPORT COMBINED (from the UN FAO reports linked below). Why would any TSLA shareholder or occupant of Planet Earth want to do this?
How Meat Contributes to Global Warming - Scientific American
Livestock a major threat to environment
Stella McCartney Sheds Light on Leather's Dark Truth
2. Eliminating the leather option can reduce sales (you refute this by pointing to entry and mid level cars, and saying, "Look! These cars come with cheaper non leather as standard and they are selling fine!" This proves nothing about the Model S, which competes with high end cars like Porsche Panamera, Audi A8, Mercedes S Class, and BMW 7 series, none of which offer non leather options AFAIK).
BS.
32no posits that the buyer of MBZ C-Class or E-Class is an entirely different customer than the S-Class buyer?
Let me share a little dirty secret from one of my MBA classes. The marginal cost to MBZ or Lexus or BMW or Audi to add a few inches of extra wheelbase, or extra body length, or a fancier headliner, or a larger engine, is very, very low. However, an S-Class can cost two or three TIMES the cost of a C-Class--that is a LOT of profit. So the marketing problem for MBZ, Lexus, et al, is to somehow differentiate the various models to make the consumer think the S-Class is worth two or three TIMES the cost of the C-Class. So "different" is how they do it--anything that can be done of make the consumer think there's more "something" in the S-Class is done, and that's why it doesn't come with MB-Tex. Sadly, that difference actually makes the S-Class look worn and tired with cracked leather seats many years before an E-Class will look that way, but perhaps that'll hasten the trade-in for a new S-Class . . .
3. You're taking away people's freedom to choose and forcing your views on them.
Sadly, we have share our little orb sailing through the solar system with everyone and, even as a Libertarian, I realize that your right to casually dump your GHG's in our shared atmosphere and oceans stops when you threaten life on Earth. Thus, and especially until we have a global GHG tax, as owners of Tesla, we should be a part of the solution because if we are not, we are part of the problem.
4. The amount of leather Tesla is using is infinitesimal, so the benefit of removing the option is also infinitesimal.
BS.
Translation: 32no actually means to say, "The holes that Tesla is drilling in our bailing buckets are small, so even though the water is at knee depth and rising, the holes we are adding don't matter."
I posit that Tesla hits above its weight--by many accounts it is THE most watched, most important car company on the planet. Where it goes, other brands will follow.
(And, yes, Tesla buys buy GHG-filled animal skins by the railcar and is growing quickly, so, yes, it IS a problem.)
5. Many fake leathers contain plastic and PVC that use petroleum products, and are therefore not environmentally friendly
BS.
Lexus and Toyota's websites specifically comment on the environmental friendliness of their NuLuxe and SofTex interior materials. Furthermore, while there is some GHG produced in the production of these products, the vast majority of GHG's come from the BURNING of such products, not their use. I do not believe that Teslas will be incinerated at end of life . . .
6. Forcing Tesla to use faux leather can cause more production constraints
No evidence of this is presented, nor is it likely given the production volumes of similar vehicles that use MB-Tex or Lexus' NuLuxe or Toyota's SofTex or BMW SensaTec. Furthermore, the proposals have a very graduated phase-in schedule to allow for this shift.
7. Is any action tha Tesla does hypocritical because most of them emit at least some GHGs? Should Tesla do everything, even if impractical, to reduce GHGs?
32no is off in the weeds here. Props 3 and 4 are direct and specific suggestions to reduce GHG's. He/she is welcome to introduce his/her own proposals if aware of any other area in which Tesla is making poor choices re: GHG's.
8. Tesla will have to use money and time to find faux leather, both are scarce resources.
Tesla's Interior Supplier Manager is on a SALARY. This is part of his/her job.
A sample script provided below, again:
[Tesla Interior Materials Buyer--Here's a sample script to bring the salespeople running to your office: "Please bring us samples of your most environmentally-friendly, leather-like seat materials, something even BETTER than MB-Tex, and be here by Wednesday at 1:00 p.m. Oh, and be sure to bring a full report on the lifecycle GHG cost of your product--HUGE bonus points if it uses any recycled material!"]
9. Cows do not contribute more to GHG emmissions than cars.
BS. 32no, please provide links supporting this statement. Until otherwise, it's both incorrect and not relevant. One or both Props specifically reference the work of the UN FAO from almost a decade ago, but I will recap the press release so that 32no may become aware of their work from almost a decade ago:
Livestock a major threat to environment
Remedies urgently needed
29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?
Surprise!
According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.
Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
10. As Johan points out, there are no proposals to immediately line the roof of the Fremont factory with solar, only buy aluminum that is produced using GHG neutral methods, ship cars only by train, not offer the heavy panoramic roof or 21" wheels, or stoping building Model S/X altogether since they are much larger than needed for most people.
Not relevant to Props 3 and 4. Eventually there will be a very large array of SolarCity PV panels on the roof of the Fremont factory, but I suggest that will not happen until the SolarCity plant being built in New York is completed, but, again, this item is nothing more than a distraction from the core issues addressed in Props 3 and 4.
However, I concur that wasting that much roof space is silly. Recommend Johan and 32no add this to their shareholder proposals after SolarCity's factory is up and running.
11. Cows are productive animals, between beef, milk, fertilizer, and leather, only a portion of a cow's GHG emmissions can be assigned to leather, and this portion could actually be less than the GHG emmissions of faux leather.
QS and BS.
First, in contrast to the UN FAO's reports, among many others, 32no has not provided any source docs or links suggesting that GHG from faux leather is an issue, and my understanding is that the VAST majority of GHG is actually sourced in the BURNING of such materials, not their use or production.
Second, the amount of plant-based food fed to animals delivers only a tiny fraction of animal flesh that can be consumed by humans, and even that is bad news as it leads to a very, very long list of diseases and shortened lifespans.
See:
Forks Over Knives | Official Website (available on Netflix, btw)
and:
U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists | Cornell Chronicle
12. There are no luxury cars where you have faux leather options but no real leather options.
Untrue.
There are many awaiting your inspection at your local MBZ, Lexus, Infiniti, BMW dealer (and, if you are in a non-US market, at your local Audi dealership too). Recommend you stop by and check them out . . . like we have.
2013 BMW M135i - Interior and Engine [1080p HD] - YouTube
13. This is a distraction project
Not sure what a "distraction project" is, but I do know we've spent hundreds of hours on it thus far, and another hour just now
. Personally, I'd like to ask for your help and some "FOR" votes.I guess when it seems the majority of the species is hell-bent on a self-induced extinction event the long hours spent by others to stop that could be considered "distracting."
14. Tesla board has reccommended we vote against it.
Ah, yes, indeed they have. Sadly, both our company and our planet will suffer for the decision. The media simply loves to expose hypocrisy and lord knows, we have a mega-dose of it here . . .
We are boggled that the Board could have come to such a poor decision, but we have a few ideas as to how it happened:
A. The board members are very wealthy people that probably received far too much mail, thus, they have staff that filters EVERYTHING before it touches their hands. Our proposals were not able to pass those filters, thus limiting their knowledge of the subject to that known or concurred with by their staff(s).
B. Elon and his brother, also a board member, are from South Africa. Their formative years were not likely to have been much influenced by concerns re: animal abuse given what was going on with "human abuse" in SA at the time . . . . Thus, the Prop 4 concerns re: abuse and murder of sentient beings isn't on their radar, let alone the environmental aspects.
The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery: Marjorie Spiegel, Alice Walker: 8601403081577: Amazon.com: Books
C. The board may have actually received the Cowspiracy DVD's, but none of them actually watched it. Thus, they maintain an asteroid-sized blind spot in their knowledge, and also remain completely unaware of the 21-pages of supporting source hyperlinks here:
http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts
D. Even though they're only in their 40's and 50's, they've already reached the point where they "Don't wish to be bothered with the facts; our minds are made up?"
There may be other possibilities, but the harsh reality of life is that even the smartest minds in the room STILL don't know everything . . . .
Thank you for writing 32no.
Now that every single one of your 14 points has been corrected we look forward to your "FOR" votes on Props 3 and 4. The planet, the company and we need them!
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Great example of 'not listening to what people are saying'. I'm not sure if you're willfully replying to a different point or if you just don't understand ... so I'll try another way.
I don't see much argument in this thread that cow agriculture contributes to release of CO2. What people ARE saying that if you stop using leather, there will not be a noticeable impact on the commercial farm industry because leather is a byproduct, not the reason that cows are raised. As long as beef is eaten, there will be cows. Eliminating leather will not eliminate the cow industry.
But every time someone points out leather is a by-product, you respond with how much GHG cows produce, as if it is 100% attributable to leather. Skewing facts just doesn't work with this crowd.
pz1975
Active Member
TSLA Pilot: It amazes me how condescending you come across about an issue you obviously feel very strongly about. The style of your arguments (equivalent to an adult talking to 12 year-olds) is very ineffective and I am sure has turned more people away from your point of view than towards.
To answer your question:
First, how about because we're with Elon on stopping our self-induced extinction event? Even if WE transition to bus travel (although there's no public transport in our city), the reality is that in the US and most other spread-out yet advanced first world societies, there is a STRONG preference for non-public transport. (And that's why Elon is making cars and SUV's, not a bus, perhaps?) Also, even if we HAD bus service here, using it would actually ADD to our GHG's--yes, ADD to our GHG's--because we power our MS (and the whole house) via our 7.44 kW SolarCity PV system that's sitting on the roof.
Second, how about because we're ALL IN with Tesla and SolarCity--these two firms are the vast majority of savings and retirement funds. (Heck, I'm in 5-figures of MARGIN debt as I type this as I couldn't pass up the recent "Sale" on TSLA a few months ago
Thus, we don't want to the company to suffer a loss of integrity, brand value, and frankly, get a nasty public "black eye" when this information becomes more publically known.Third, how about because this is our only planet and Tesla is the most important auto/energy company on it. Thus, their every move is carefully watched and they should LEAD, not follow, on this issue. I've used Elon's "bailing bucket" metaphor a few times already, but we need it again:
A. We're knee-deep in water in our one and only lifeboat.
B. Tesla builds a GREAT bucket, but drills holes in 80 or 90% of them.
C. Props 3 and 4 suggest Tesla to stop drilling those holes.
D. We need your "FOR" votes.
Please join us.
Thx.
Duckjybe
Member
TSLA Pilot:
Please tell us how much GHG will be saved with your proposal and how much this will cost Tesla.
If you cannot respond to this question with two numbers and how you arrived at these numbers then please don't bother with your volumes of BS.
A company cannot exist on principle alone.
You don't happen to work in the faux leather industry do you?
Please tell us how much GHG will be saved with your proposal and how much this will cost Tesla.
If you cannot respond to this question with two numbers and how you arrived at these numbers then please don't bother with your volumes of BS.
A company cannot exist on principle alone.
You don't happen to work in the faux leather industry do you?
Last edited:
To answer your question:
First, how about because we're with Elon on stopping our self-induced extinction event? Even if WE transition to bus travel (although there's no public transport in our city), the reality is that in the US and most other spread-out yet advanced first world societies, there is a STRONG preference for non-public transport. (And that's why Elon is making cars and SUV's, not a bus, perhaps?) Also, even if we HAD bus service here, using it would actually ADD to our GHG's--yes, ADD to our GHG's--because we power our MS (and the whole house) via our 7.44 kW SolarCity PV system that's sitting on the roof.
Second, how about because we're ALL IN with Tesla and SolarCity--these two firms are the vast majority of savings and retirement funds. (Heck, I'm in 5-figures of MARGIN debt as I type this as I couldn't pass up the recent "Sale" on TSLA a few months ago
Third, how about because this is our only planet and Tesla is the most important auto/energy company on it. Thus, their every move is carefully watched and they should LEAD, not follow, on this issue. I've used Elon's "bailing bucket" metaphor a few times already, but we need it again:
A. We're knee-deep in water in our one and only lifeboat.
B. Tesla builds a GREAT bucket, but drills holes in 80 or 90% of them.
C. Props 3 and 4 suggest Tesla to stop drilling those holes.
D. We need your "FOR" votes.
Please join us.
Thx.
I would bet even a diesel bus holding 60 passengers puts out less pollution than 60 people all driving EVs. And I didn't say only buses. Mass transit would include rail as well which could be powered by electricity as well. Also not everyone owns a home or can afford to put such a large solar system on their house let alone afford a Model S. You are attacking the 0.1% of a less than 0.1% part of the problem. Focus on bigger goals.
Either way, you're losing the war here with your style and you don't need to repeat the bailing bucket analogy again.
- - - Updated - - -
Agree. Tesla should and likely will offer a vegan option on all seats at some point. Making this transition over three years to exclude leather could greatly harm the company and their sales.
Odd that you would state this with nothing to back it up:
IMHO Tesla would have a serious demand issue.
When Lexus, MBZ and other brands are replacing animal skins with environmentally-friendly non-animal materials that are quite "leather-like," and sales are going up quite nicely, I can't find how your opinion has a factual basis here.
Recommend you personally stop by their dealerships and look at them for a better informed opinion.
Even better: revisit them on the used car lot in a few years and see how they look after years of use.
Also stated above:
Removing all leather product all at once in that market segment is unrealistic and would be counterproductive at this stage.
Recommend you read the proposal suggestion of a graduated phase-in so it won't be "all at once." Plus the reason Tesla exists is to reduce GHG's; why keep adding them? Especially exasperating: Why punish high-information buyers?
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Unless you're not tied to the grid, this is a silly argument. Just because your PV system covers your needs, doesn't mean that switching to a different form of transportation wouldn't be better. Because (here's the tricky part
), your excess energy would go to the grid and reduce overall consumption. And if you're truly off-grid, you could have reduced the size of your solar system (the manufacture of which also contributes). Either way, there is no reason for you to drive a large electric vehicle while insisting Tesla limit interior choices & lecturing the rest of us.
(Point of curiousity - you keep referring to 'we', as in 'we need your votes', 'we are surprised' .. who is this 'We' you use so freely. Are you officially representing a group?)
"Either way, you're losing the war here with your style and you don't need to repeat the bailing bucket analogy again."
And therein lies the problem.
We ALL have strong assumptions and belief/value systems implanted in our young, impressionable minds by our parents.
Challenges to those lifelong-held assumptions are seen as a threat and/or cause internal conflict, conscious or otherwise (cognitive dissonance); feelings are hurt.
And thus, many on this thread clasp to an unsupportable, illogical position not because they can provide reasoned facts to the contrary . . . but because they don't like the messenger's "style."
This is a very big deal.
As I mused earlier, Elon is very, very right to be worried about AI.
We should all be.
And therein lies the problem.
We ALL have strong assumptions and belief/value systems implanted in our young, impressionable minds by our parents.
Challenges to those lifelong-held assumptions are seen as a threat and/or cause internal conflict, conscious or otherwise (cognitive dissonance); feelings are hurt.
And thus, many on this thread clasp to an unsupportable, illogical position not because they can provide reasoned facts to the contrary . . . but because they don't like the messenger's "style."
This is a very big deal.
As I mused earlier, Elon is very, very right to be worried about AI.
We should all be.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
You will need to demonstrate that availability of synthetic seating material actually *caused* sales to rise in order to effectively sell this argument.
What you are now arguing is correlation. How do you know that sales aren't increasing for some other reason? This is a logical reasoning issue that cannot be ignored.
But yes, I agree that leather upholstery in cars generally ages poorly. The fabric in a 15 year old Honda generally looks pretty good (I drove a mid 90's Accord well into this century), while a leather seated Accord from 10 years ago will look pretty worn out. The sad truth is that many new luxury cars today are leased rather than sold, and the drivers do not care how the interior looks after 2-3 years, because they simply roll to a newer model.
Personally I quite like my dead cow seats in all three Model S I've purchased.
Not sure why you would have felt you would have had support from me on this. You won't find an animal rights proponent in me, and I've openly expressed that viewpoint elsewhere on this forum in the past.
I'd strongly suggest that next time you present a shareholder proposal that you take a different approach.
Not sure why you would have felt you would have had support from me on this. You won't find an animal rights proponent in me, and I've openly expressed that viewpoint elsewhere on this forum in the past.
I'd strongly suggest that next time you present a shareholder proposal that you take a different approach.
Similar threads
- Poll
