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

[TSLA Pilot]

wk057 wrote:

This still looks like arm flailing to me. I see zero numbers in this post (or any of your posts) that support your view.

Huh? I'm exploding with numbers--you have to click through to see them.

Please see my reply to Kalud (the guy with the leather desk!) above, then watch the video--nice numbers there as a place to start.

If you want more (and not sure how you missed the 18% from the UN FAO as it's stated in Prop 3 and in the first post of this thread), feel free to dive in to the monster .pdf file too (it's a 19Mb file):

Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options

(Frankly, unless you're a complete wonk, watching Cowspiracy and Do The Math, among others, is far, far more enjoyable.)

350.org

Also, please feel free to click through here, a full TWENTY-ONE pages of hyperlinked source docs upon which the documentary was based (and, yes, Bonnie, I've "recycled" it about half a dozen times now because far too many aren't reading the previous posts):

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts

 

[Kalud]

I'm 100% with you on reducing the consumption of the 100 million barrels of oil per day.

 

[dsm363]

I'm 100% with you on reducing the consumption of the 100 million barrels of oil per day.

Me too. Tesla can't do everything all at once by themselves. Eliminating personal transportation of oil dependence alone is a massive undertaking spanning many many decades and yet some feel Tesla should shoot themselves in the foot by making their products less appealing to the masses?

 

[wk057]

I'm 100% with you on reducing the consumption of the 100 million barrels of oil per day.

+1

..... however Tesla removing leather as an option, a byproduct of the beef industry, is not going to do much, if anything at all, towards this goal.

I agree that Tesla should offer more options, and these will come with time. Under no circumstances do I think the should ever remove normal leather as an option, however.

I feel you should focus your efforts elsewhere on industries that are actually having an appreciable impact on GHG emissions.

 

[Kalud]

source

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

wk057 wrote:

This still looks like arm flailing to me. I see zero numbers in this post (or any of your posts) that support your view.

Huh? I'm exploding with numbers--you have to click through to see them.

Please see my reply to Kalud (the guy with the leather desk!) above, then watch the video--nice numbers there as a place to start.

If you want more (and not sure how you missed the 18% from the UN FAO as it's stated in Prop 3 and in the first post of this thread), feel free to dive in to the monster .pdf file too (it's a 19Mb file):

Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options

(Frankly, unless you're a complete wonk, watching Cowspiracy and Do The Math, among others, is far, far more enjoyable.)

350.org

Also, please feel free to click through here, a full TWENTY-ONE pages of hyperlinked source docs upon which the documentary was based (and, yes, Bonnie, I've "recycled" it about half a dozen times now because far too many aren't reading the previous posts):

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts

If you want to try to persuade people at least try giving people one number. Please answer this question: What is the CO2-equivalent in greenhouse gases added by the use of leather in one Model S?

 

[eepic]

You drive a Tesla and own the stock. You really need to watch this; it should change your life:

Do the Math - The Movie - YouTube

Ironically, it seems the math that shows the flaws in your conclusion is being ignored...

Anyway, it seems like reiterating the logic is futile. I'll just conclude that I am 100% for reducing greenhouse gases therefore I am voting AGAINST these proposals.

 

[wk057]

I'm attending an event this week where about 100 people will be eating filet mignon... I'm driving my off-grid solar powered Model S with dead cow seats to this event. How much GHG are we contributing?

Honestly this thread is going no where. The OP is basically copying and pasting the same non-information. Regulars are asking for details and/or refuting with logical reasons and facts....

Not sure anything is being accomplished here. I'm only still participating because I have nothing really else I can do at the moment (waiting, have my phone with me...)

 

[Kalud]

Out of the 216 listed CPO Tesla, 6 have textile seats (less than 3%). And 3 of those are S60 which we can speculate that the leather vs textile could have been a way to trim the price down by 2,500$.

Tesla CPO Consolidator

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Tesla Pilot, I am trying to focus on the substance of your argument, but I repeatedly have asked you to respond to a point I've not yet seen you directly address.

Are you saying these automakers (Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, Infiiniti) have models they offer that do not include a leather seat option?

As I mentioned before, I looked at the Mercedes website for the model you referred to in your first post and it had leather seats available as an option. If I'm misunderstanding this, and these other manufacturers sell models that do not offer leather as an option, I think that would make your proposal more interesting. Do you know of such options, or is my impression correct that none of these brands have made the decision to exclude leather as an option?

I really hope we can have a constructive discussion about what changes Tesla might be able to make along a continuum of addressing your concerns.

I investigated the same issue with regards to Acura, and they do not as far as I can tell offer any models with synthetic-only seating. Synthetic is often offered as a base option (see the newest TLX sedan) with leather offered as part of an upgrade package.

Tesla Pilot's contention much earlier in the thread was that Tesla should set an example for the industry by going Synthetic-only.

The key question is whether going synthetic-only would harm sales. I don't have an answer to this. Tesla Pilot cited availability of synthetic seating in MB/BMW/Lexus and concurrent sales growth in these brands, but did not respond to my request for data showing that the sales growth was actually the result of synthetic seating availability rather than some other factor. Without this data, nobody here can say with reasonable certainty what might happen if Tesla went all-synthetic on seating.

There is a way to run this experiment.

Tesla could offer Alcantara seating (which is basically synthetic suede -- Japanese developed polymer) at the same cost as leather and see what customers choose. Alcantara sounds exotic and it is made in Italy too. Or make it more $$$ than leather and more exclusive sounding and maybe people will go for it. If leather is average for the industry… offer something better than average.

The problem with synthetics is that they are perceived to be the cheap option because that's what they are in a Benz or Lexus. Nobody wants the cheap stuff, generally speaking.

We don't need UN reports and cow videos to solve this issue. We need Don Draper to sell the alternative to the public... To make them feel that they got something better for them and their status.

 

[SteveG3]

I'm attending an event this week where about 100 people will be eating filet mignon... I'm driving my off-grid solar powered Model S with dead cow seats to this event. How much GHG are we contributing?

Honestly this thread is going no where. The OP is basically copying and pasting the same non-information. Regulars are asking for details and/or refuting with logical reasons and facts....

Not sure anything is being accomplished here. I'm only still participating because I have nothing really else I can do at the moment (waiting, have my phone with me...)

Actually, I think something can be accomplished here.

Several of us have asked Mark and Elizabeth to re-examine what I think is a critical implicit assumption they have made. I've now checked BMW's website in addition to Mercedes. Both of these offer leather seats as an option.

Unless M&E have some information on this I am missing, I think it would be very helpful for them to consider that they are not in fact asking Tesla to match the competition in terms of reducing the use of animal products, they are asking Tesla to leapfrog the competition. It seems as if they've overlooked the reality that their activism will achieve something of value if they can help persuade Tesla to match the competition near term. This may even open the door to Tesla leading on this issue in the future.

M&E will have the mic at Tesla's annual meeting in two weeks for a little over 5 minutes. I really hope they will respond to this question several of us have asked them to look at... not for anyone to be "right" or "wrong," but to effectively use their time to advocate for something a) many of us actually share their interest in and b) which they may really be persuasive to Tesla... more non leather offerings across Tesla's offerings in the very near term.

Mark and Elizabeth, if you have some information contrary to what I saw on the Mercedes and BMW U.S. websites, and global manufacturers have in fact eliminated leather as an option in major markets, please let us know this... I know it would effect how I look at your proposals. If in fact, you are asking Tesla to not meet, but leapfrog the competition, please reconsider what will be an effective use of your time in front of Tesla's leadership and Board of Directors. To paraphrase an old saying, "the "perfect" is a challenge to the good."

 

[hockeythug]

How much C02 do the airplanes Mr. Peters pilots produce a year?

 

[SteveG3]

I investigated the same issue with regards to Acura, and they do not as far as I can tell offer any models with synthetic-only seating. Synthetic is often offered as a base option (see the newest TLX sedan) with leather offered as part of an upgrade package.

Tesla Pilot's contention much earlier in the thread was that Tesla should set an example for the industry by going Synthetic-only.

The key question is whether going synthetic-only would harm sales. I don't have an answer to this. Tesla Pilot cited availability of synthetic seating in MB/BMW/Lexus and concurrent sales growth in these brands, but did not respond to my request for data showing that the sales growth was actually the result of synthetic seating availability rather than some other factor. Without this data, nobody here can say with reasonable certainty what might happen if Tesla went all-synthetic on seating.

There is a way to run this experiment.

Tesla could offer Alcantara seating (which is basically synthetic suede -- Japanese developed polymer) at the same cost as leather and see what customers choose. Alcantara sounds exotic and it is made in Italy too. Or make it more $$$ than leather and more exclusive sounding and maybe people will go for it. If leather is average for the industry… offer something better than average.

The problem with synthetics is that they are perceived to be the cheap option because that's what they are in a Benz or Lexus. Nobody wants the cheap stuff, generally speaking.

We don't need UN reports and cow videos to solve this issue. We need Don Draper to sell the alternative to the public... To make them feel that they got something better for them and their status.

anticitizen, thanks for checking on Acura. I will add that even if these automakers had increased sales and somehow one could prove that the only variable that changed was the introduction of non leather seats, that does not mean sales would not have been hurt by the removal of leather seats. It would neither be surprising that more options increased sales, nor that fewer options would drop sales.

I say, let's look for Tesla to turn to this issue by first matching the competition, before we consider asking them to lead the competition. This really is no different than what happened with active safety features and autopilot. When the Model S first came out it was clearly well behind the competition by not having active safety features. Last fall, they started building vehicles with the equipment to match the competition (even if not all the software was ready from day one). Shortly, they look to be near the lead in this area.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

It's like this:

http://youtu.be/mZxenUmWsac

Throwing policy reports and activist videos doesn't sell. That's like telling people Life Cereal is "Eat Life By The Bowlful". What the heck does that mean???

But what about "Life Cereal, The Cure For The Common Breakfast"? Aha! Now you have a product that is a cure for common. It solves something and makes you feel uncommon!

Has anyone ever shown up stinking drunk to meeting with clients? Vomited in front of clients?

 

[Duckjybe]

Sorry, as we don't buy automotive interior materials or animal skins by the railcar, and don't work in the industry either, we can't answer your two questions with specific info. (Full disclosure: I have seen plenty of brains blown out of sentient cows at an aboittoir, and we have watched the short video of standard industry practices here: Meat.org | The Website the Meat Industry Doesn't Want You to See
.)

So it is clear your GHG argument is a red herring and your real agenda is animal rights activism, and you are unfairly picking on Tesla. Go pick on Toyota, Ford or GM who sell way more leather seats.

 

[AudubonB]

Against all possible propriety, I am going to further this slow train-wreck of a thread by adding more, uh, methane, with a direct question, which follows after this preamble.


Mark & Elizabeth, you are making use of your rights as TSLA shareholders to make a reasoned, impassioned plea for TM to assist you in your desires to change persons' habits, in your belief that such a change is one of the necessary criteria to help save the planet.

Okay so far? I think I've summarized in fairly disinterested fashion your position.

Now then, cogitate on the following and let me know what you think:

1. Mankind's affair with the automobile has lasted some 3 generations in the wealthiest, most minuscule portion of the planet - NoAm + richest sectors of western Europe. Factor in the entire planet and we're not even at 1 generation.

2. Mankind's affair with consuming beef and others of the bovine ilk - even including the Indian subcontinent - has been a part of the human condition for 100 generations? Not even close. Many, many thousands of generations.

You are then, from the anthropological viewpoint, attempting to make use of the tiniest mote of a lever to shift the most ponderous of tendencies, of desires, of habits. My assessment is that you've chosen the wrong platform to make your plea.

 

[Chris TX]

I feel like I've fallen into some Fox News Channel, here in this thread. Relevant facts and studies are countered by hysteria and irrelevant personal moral objections.

1. The OP demands TSLA stop selling cars with animal hides because they create GHG.
2. Even though the GHG emitted by the animals is still going to happen because they are raised for beef (there are no TSLA products that contain edible beef products)
3. The production of an animal hide replacement (MB-Tex, etc.) would actually INCREASE GHG emissions because the beef cows will still be raised for beef (i.e. food) and these plastic surfaces use petroleum.
4. The OP expects the shareholders and the board to agree that this is good for the company, but the vast majority of TSLA customers have purchased vehicles WITH animal hides. How is this good for the company/shareholders?

Cry all you want about dead cows, but if Tesla doesn't use the cow hides, it just reduces the demand for them and lowers the price to the companies that do buy these waste products.

Voting yes would be insane for a shareholder.

 

[brianman]

please reconsider what will be an effective use of your time in front of Tesla's leadership and Board of Directors. To paraphrase an old saying, "the "perfect" is a challenge to the good."

+1

As a case in point, take a walk through the posts in this thread to tally up how many thread contributors you've (a) convinced to change for you, (b) convinced to change against you, and (c) not swayed one way or another. My rough estimation is that (b) and (c) far outweigh (a) in this sample.

Consider this as you prepare to step up to the microphone to attempt to sway Tesla officer and TSLA shareholders. Philosophy, strategy, tactics, humility, tone, etc. all matter. Best wishes in furthering the cause that drive your passion.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

So it is clear your GHG argument is a red herring and your real agenda is animal rights activism, and you are unfairly picking on Tesla. Go pick on Toyota, Ford or GM who sell way more leather seats.

It goes further than that.

Bonnie raised this point numerous times: the core driver of cow factory farming is meat and dairy consumption.

Even if everyone on the planet stopped using leather, cows would still be subjected to horrible conditions because of demand for inexpensive beef and dairy.

Reducing GHG and cruelty from animal agricultural practices has to start with the primary reason the animals are raised: food.

If the only useful product from cows was hides, I doubt agribusiness would bother raising cows. It takes a tremendous amount of feed and water to raise a cow. Hides are the byproduct.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

WK057:

You've taken apart multiple Tesla battery packs and designed your own home energy storage solution.

You've installed dozens of kW of PV on your roof.

You're not a dumb guy.

So, WK057, how could you possibly type this?

Honestly this thread is going no where. The OP is basically copying and pasting the same non-information. Regulars are asking for details and/or refuting with logical reasons and facts....

This after I have already provided you with 19 Mb .pdf file direct from the UN FAO:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

This after I have already provided you with the TWENTY-ONE PAGES of source doc hyperlinks:

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts

And you state that this is "non-information?"

I can't posit that you are lying (that would be "snippiness" and I'm not snippy), so please, wk057, share with the thread how you could possible call the two explosive links above "non-information."

Seriously. I'd like to read your response as the links are so fact- and data-filled as to be bubbling over.

**Or are they just "non-information" because the data conflict with your world-view, a world-view you formed at childhood?**

In the interim, I'll take a sanity break from the forum for a bit. The level of discourse has degraded so far and so fast that it's simply not worth the time or effort. Far too many posters here are so profoundly (and permanently?) married to illogical and unsupportable positions (as sustained by the massive evidence to the contrary) that they can't be bothered to click on the links I've provided . . . so why bother providing them? Why use mental bandwidth to answer those that throw empty "rocks" and call Props 3 and 4 a waste of time yet don't include a single hyperlink that supports their position, after I've submitted 21+ pages worth that explain why this matters so much to life on the lifeboat we call Earth?

**Question: When did, "My mind is made up, please don't bother me with the facts," become the motto on TMC Forums?**

My hours on this thread have greatly worried me about the future of our species. If AI gets big, we are doomed, and probably rightfully so. In the interim, the GHG counter keeps counting . . . scary stuff.

None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.
Matthew Henry