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

[anticitizen13.7]

Interesting analysis. (And what a metaphor--whew!)

I am admittedly somewhat demented, as people who know me personally can verify. I say stuff that even I find horrific later (even if it turns out to be true). I do not sleep well at night.

 

[32no]

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):

I am firmly against proposal 3 for many reasons, and I would recommend that everybody votes against it. This is why:

1. The proposal wants to eliminate the use of leather in Tesla's cars, which takes away the right of people to chose what they want. If you believe that getting non-leather seats is a better alternative, go ahead, but do not force your views on others. Tesla's mission is to bring sustainable transport to the masses, and restricting their choices would only make the car less appealing.

2. Other performance luxury car owners already trash the Tesla for its not very opulent interior that lacks some luxury inserts and features that other cars have. Removing the leather option will reinforce this image and will probably significantly slow cannibalization of other ICE cars as buyers (especially in the premium markets and definitely in China) would opt for more opulent interiors. This is against Tesla's mission of achieving sustainable transport because it will prevent the necessary cannibalization of ICE products.

3. Many investors and consumers view Tesla as a niche producer for rich environmentalists and performance luxury car fans. Removing the leather option would encourage this view of Tesla as a niche producer, which directly goes against Tesla's goal of sustainable transport on a mass scale.

4. The leather industry is a byproduct of the beef industry, and Tesla is a VERY insignificant consumer of leather products in the market. It is absolutely silly to propose that Tesla's discontinuation of usage of leather products in its cars would offset any emissions from the beef (and the corn industry that feeds it) industry especially since any effect on livestock emissions, however tiny, would be immediately offset by people who opt to chose ICE cars rather than Tesla's cars because they lack leather.

5. The claim that livestock contributes more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than transport is erroneous. According to the EPA, agriculture made up 9% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the US, and transport made up 27%. Also, not all 9% of the GHG emissions come from livestock, some comes from other agricultural activities. Also according to the EPA, 14% of global GHG emissions come from agriculture (not all of that is from livestock), and 13% from transport.

6. The cherry picked reviews of other cars with non animal sourced interiors is incredibly misleading, as it talks about the Mercedes C-Class and E-Class which are entry level and mid level cars, while Tesla's Model S and upcoming Model X are very high end vehicles, where a lack of leather is not nearly as acceptable nor as common-place as in entry and mid level cars.

7. The alternatives to leather are also not very environmentally friendly, as most fake leathers contain plastic (which uses petroleum products) or PVC.

8. The forced use of completely non-animal leather products can potentially create further production constraints and can cause production to slow, which is also against Tesla's mission of bringing sustainable transport to the masses as soon as possible.

9. Its a slippery slope. How far do you go with the idea of minimizing GHG emissions and environmental impact? Should Tesla avoid production of such GHG intensive 2 ton metal boxes and instead opt to make bikes?

10. Finding other faux leather products will take time and research money, both resources are scarce and would be better allocated in investing into the company's future.

A more reasonable proposal would not ask for elimination of leather, but rather offering faux leather options and not penalizing customers who chose the cloth interior, but as it is worded, the 3rd proposal is extreme and will not accomplish its own goal of reducing environmental impact, will create more troubles for Tesla, and reinforce images of Tesla as a niche poor interior product. Vote against this proposal even if you support the notion of offering faux leather options (which I do as well), because it is simply too extreme of a measure.

 

[bonnie]

I think it is true that people will be offended by the statements about hypocrisy and having blind spots.

However, there may be no other way to call a duck a duck if it is in fact a duck. I believe that the fact of the matter is that use of leather does contribute to GHG emissions and animal cruelty.

There MAY be no other way, but there certainly are other ways in this thread - especially if the goal is to generate support. Only a suggestion, of course . If people want to alienate those that they want support from, that's fine.

The key issues are whether the sacrifice of using animal products is worth potential delays in the ultimate goal, and whether the alternative materials themselves have unintended impact.

So I'm not convinced that the use of leather is nothing more than using a byproduct of a beef-eating society (of which I am not one, btw). If less people eat beef, there is less leather available, the price goes up and companies source new materials. Perhaps the real focus should be on eliminating the source of the leather ...

More broadly speaking: "do the ends justify the means?"

Sure. That's a bigger philosophical discussion. But we're in a thread where support is desired. Again, belittling people is probably not going to generate support. So 'the means' doesn't get you to 'the ends'.

In debates that center around personal values, offense is IMO unavoidable.

And I'll call it out when I see it. There is nothing wrong with trying to keep an open conversation (especially when the OP has already stated that they'd prefer that things not degrade ... but is the first to do so).

There will only be the victorious and the defeated.

Really? I think of this as more 'short game' and 'long game'. Your way sounds so finite & war-like. Nothing wrong with good discussion and people coming to a point of agreement. That doesn't make someone victorious or defeated.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

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):

A more reasonable proposal would not ask for elimination of leather, but rather offering faux leather options and not penalizing customers who chose the cloth interior, but as it is worded, the 3rd proposal is extreme and will not accomplish its own goal of reducing environmental impact, will create more troubles for Tesla, and reinforce images of Tesla as a niche poor interior product. Vote against this proposal even if you support the notion of offering faux leather options (which I do as well), because it is simply too extreme of a measure.

I really do think that this is the best option.

Am I completely happy about it? No, because, I am deeply concerned about factory farming and methane emissions. However, the continued and growing use of petroleum-fueled automobiles and power sources must be stopped.

I acknowledge that I am a hypocrite on this. I just do not see any better option.

I personally eat very little meat outside of local free range chickens. I have never owned a car with leather seating. It's the best I can do.

 

[bonnie]

I really do think that this is the best option.

Am I completely happy about it? No, because, I am deeply concerned about factory farming and methane emissions. However, the continued and growing use of petroleum-fueled automobiles and power sources must be stopped.

I acknowledge that I am a hypocrite on this. I just do not see any better option.

I personally eat very little meat outside of local free range chickens. I have never owned a car with leather seating. It's the best I can do.

This I can agree with .

I've owned plenty of leather seating (in and out of cars), but my food choices are similar (but also include sustainable fish, likely not to have high levels of mercury, so fish like wild-caught AK halibut and salmon). I'm happy with eggs & dairy for protein sources, since I can't do soy products. I grow most of my own produce, max out on solar (Powerwall next ), compost, etc. And keep bees which not only increase the production of my garden and neighborhood gardens, but it helps with the overall concern of declining bee population. Chickens soon - for both the eggs and also to help with bug control (since I don't use pesticides).

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Forcing consumers to choose buying non-leather seating surfaces or buying a different manufacturer doesn't make sense for the company. Instead, Tesla Motors should develop or source a high-quality leather replacement surface like the ones listed above (MB-Tex was in my last car and it was fantastic!) and show the benefits side by side. Let the consumer decide by voting with their dollars.

I know the MB-Tex in my old car was 6 years old, and never received any kind of special treatment. In fact, it was abused by car seats and things. If you put that 6 year old seating surface next to a brand new one at the dealership, you couldn't tell the difference. I would choose the MB-Tex over leather every time, but not because of animal rights reasons.

I also agree that true Vegan versions need to be easily ordered. That can be done with a simple check box that appears when you select non-leather seating.

Chris,

Spot on!

And therein lies the rub--most simply don't understand that one can have a LEATHER-LIKE interior that doesn't crack, show wear, and looks great after a decade of use, while ALSO leaving a better planet for us and future generations. (Side benefit: better alignment with everyone's beliefs about "avoiding unnecessary cruelty.")

I am blown away by what should be an easy, no-brainer, choice, yet it elicits such incredible negative responses with an emphasis on "opinion" and "beliefs."

That is SUCH an odd thing.

I don't recall any high school or college chemistry experiments in which there was a place to insert variables on "What does the average person on the street believe?" or "What's your opinion about the outcome of this chemistry experiment?" or "What's the class consensus on how this should work?"

It's CHEMISTRY.

It's repeatable.

It's fact.

Thanks for the plug on MB-Tex; we've seen the same with BMW Leatherette/SensaTec. It's only gotten better over the years, as reported by the experts at the non-profit Consumer Reports (but they only buy 40 or 50 cars a year so what do they know?!?).

 

[Chickenlittle]

I fully support your efforts! Excuse my ignorance, but where do I vote? I only have 280 shares, am I even eligible for voting? BTW proud funder of Cowspiracy on Kickstarter.

Edit: funder.. is that even a word?

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?

 

[Chris TX]

Another 3rd party anecdote for MB-Tex:
The Case for MBTex - 2014 Mercedes-Benz CLA250 Long-Term Road Test

 

[elliott82]

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?

Firstly, you gotta start somewhere. Whats your suggestion where to start then? And I'm pretty sure there would be other uses for the hides Tesla wouldn't use. I don't know if you missed it, but it's about stopping the exploitation of animals. But I assume this is the wrong forum for that...

 

[bonnie]

Firstly, you gotta start somewhere. Whats your suggestion where to start then? And I'm pretty sure there would be other uses for the hides Tesla wouldn't use. I don't know if you missed it, but it's about stopping the exploitation of animals. But I assume this is the wrong forum for that...

Where do you start? Scroll back up . You start by going to the source and reducing the availability of leather. Leather isn't the problem. The massive consumption of beef is the problem.

If there are 'other uses for the hides that Tesla wouldn't use', then how does that solve anything?

- - - Updated - - -

I believe, personally, that Tesla will eventually offer a vegan option on the ordering page - but not as a result of finger waggling, but rather because it makes good business sense.

If it matters to you, when you buy a Tesla, then ASK for what you want. That's how the change will be made. Not by dictating what everyone should do from a moral high ground.

And with that, I'm out. Nothing much left to say. My vote was lost with the dictatorial approach of how the proposal was written. Maybe that will get some votes, but I suspect this approach won't change anyone's mind on how they vote.

 

[elliott82]

Where do you start? Scroll back up . You start by going to the source and reducing the availability of leather. Leather isn't the problem. The massive consumption of beef is the problem.

If there are 'other uses for the hides that Tesla wouldn't use', then how does that solve anything?

Umm yeah as a long time vegan I very much agree... I don't understand. Something got lost in translation here. Excuse me, English is not my native tongue. I was merely commenting on Chickenlittles post. The 'other uses for the hides that Tesla wouldn't use' comment was meant to be sarcastic Nevertheless I think it would send an amazing signal if Tesla would start offering materials like MBTex.

- - - Updated - - -

Where do you start? Scroll back up . You start by going to the source and reducing the availability of leather. Leather isn't the problem. The massive consumption of beef is the problem.

If there are 'other uses for the hides that Tesla wouldn't use', then how does that solve anything?

- - - Updated - - -

I believe, personally, that Tesla will eventually offer a vegan option on the ordering page - but not as a result of finger waggling, but rather because it makes good business sense.

If it matters to you, when you buy a Tesla, then ASK for what you want. That's how the change will be made. Not by dictating what everyone should do from a moral high ground.

And with that, I'm out. Nothing much left to say. My vote was lost with the dictatorial approach of how the proposal was written. Maybe that will get some votes, but I suspect this approach won't change anyone's mind on how they vote.

Why would it be dictating if Tesla wouldn't offer leather? Just curious. A vegan restaurant doesn't dictate people what to eat. If they want their Chuck-E-Cheese they just go there...

 

[Johan]

Why is there no proposal for Tesla to
1) Immidiately line the entire roof of the Fremont factory with solar, to produce their own electricity with no emissions
2) Only buy aluminum for the car bodies that has been extracted, refined and produced by CHG-neutral methods
3) Ship cars by no other means than train and if the use of ships is necessary, sail boats
4) Not offer the pano roof since it makes the car heavier, making it less energy efficient thus giving rise to higher secondary emissions
5) in line with the above not offer the car with 21" wheels
6) stop building the Model S and Model X all together, since these cars are way to large, powerful and luxurious compared to what most of all people would ever need

and so on...

So I agree with others: I hope Tesla offers one more option beside real leather and textile: synthetic leather, and let the buyer decide.

 

[Duckjybe]

I think it is true that people will be offended by the statements about hypocrisy and having blind spots.

However, there may be no other way to call a duck a duck if it is in fact a duck. I believe that the fact of the matter is that use of leather does contribute to GHG emissions and animal cruelty.

The key issues are whether the sacrifice of using animal products is worth potential delays in the ultimate goal, and whether the alternative materials themselves have unintended impact.

More broadly speaking: "do the ends justify the means?"

In debates that center around personal values, offense is IMO unavoidable. There will only be the victorious and the defeated.

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

 

[elliott82]

Why is there no proposal for Tesla to
1) Immidiately line the entire roof of the Fremont factory with solar, to produce their own electricity with no emissions
2) Only buy aluminum for the car bodies that has been extracted, refined and produced by CHG-neutral methods
3) Ship cars by no other means than train and if the use of ships is necessary, sail boats
4) Not offer the pano roof since it makes the car heavier, making it less energy efficient thus giving rise to higher secondary emissions
5) in line with the above not offer the car with 21" wheels
6) stop building the Model S and Model X all together, since these cars are way to large, powerful and luxurious compared to what most of all people would ever need

and so on...

So I agree with others: I hope Tesla offers one more option beside real leather and textile: synthetic leather, and let the buyer decide.

Well it's not that the OP is nitpicking on some minor details. They are making an effort to stop the suffering of millions of sentient beings. They are actually doing something and trying to make a change. And therefore they have my utter respect. It baffles me why this topic is such a non issue for most people.

 

[Johan]

Well it's not that the OP is nitpicking on some minor details. They are making an effort to stop the suffering of millions of sentient beings. They are actually doing something and trying to make a change. And therefore they have my utter respect. It baffles me why this topic is such a non issue for most people.

In real life there are many, many worthwhile causes to persue and many ethically correct choices. The things is no thing and no issue exists in a vacuum but in complex interaction with many other things. Sometimes choosing one thing means not choosing something else, or rather prioritizing one thing sometimes means giving something else up. So it all comes down to ranking the importance of different things and trying to gauge the consequences of one's choice.

In this case I think Tesla would loose many sales were they to not offer leather (but not by offering synthetic leather), hence stunting their development, hence slowing down the progress toward their stated goal which is the accelerated advent of electric transport (not a reduction in green house emissions). I happen to believe the "cost" of removing leather as a choice is higher than the reduced suffering of animals gained. Obviously this is because I put less value on the suffering on sentient animals than you or the OP. But this is the way of the world: even when it comes to very important matters we differ in how we assign value to things.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

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.

 

[AWDtsla]

Reality:
1. The amount of leather uses compared to the entire car market or the entire world is infinitesimal.
2. Given the realities of manufacturing, a supply problem could destroy the entire company. An outcome which would be considerably worse for everyone on this planet in many ways.
3. Tesla should offer alternatives as them become possible, not due to shareholder mandate. Stop engineering the product by committee, it is pure death. Quiet down in the peanut gallery so Tesla can work.

 

[elliott82]

In real life there are many, many worthwhile causes to persue and many ethically correct choices. The things is no thing and no issue exists in a vacuum but in complex interaction with many other things. Sometimes choosing one thing means not choosing something else, or rather prioritizing one thing sometimes means giving something else up. So it all comes down to ranking the importance of different things and trying to gauge the consequences of one's choice.

In this case I think Tesla would loose many sales were they to not offer leather (but not by offering synthetic leather), hence stunting their development, hence slowing down the progress toward their stated goal which is the accelerated advent of electric transport (not a reduction in green house emissions). I happen to believe the "cost" of removing leather as a choice is higher than the reduced suffering of animals gained. Obviously this is because I put less value on the suffering on sentient animals than you or the OP. But this is the way of the world: even when it comes to very important matters we differ in how we assign value to things.

Well thanks for your response and your honesty. Difficult topic to talk about

 

[ahimberg]

I'd be interested in an experiment if Tesla offered a premium non-leather and sold it as better than leather, and upgrade on top of leather, etc -- would it get significant share on sales from the people that are buying every option on their p85d?

using more natural/renewable materials was one of the things I liked about Fisker, maybe Tesla will catch on to an opportunity to do more and sell it for more at the same time

 

[elliott82]

Reality:
1. The amount of leather uses compared to the entire car market or the entire world is infinitesimal.
2. Given the realities of manufacturing, a supply problem could destroy the entire company. An outcome which would be considerably worse for everyone on this planet in many ways.
3. Tesla should offer alternatives as them become possible, not due to shareholder mandate. Stop engineering the product by committee, it is pure death. Quiet down in the peanut gallery so Tesla can work.

1.: So just like electric cars on the road vs. ICE? So why don't we just stop making electrics then?
2.: Doesn't that count for any material used for producing the car?
3.NEVER!!! ;D