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

[Krugerrand]

The more options (better IMHO) that are available, the better.

And yet, Tesla is constantly streamlining options. Why? Because it's costly to have more options AND people have spoken by what they've actually ordered. It'll be interesting to see how options for the Model 3 develop. If, as Tesla grows and becomes more solid (financial, market size-wise etc...) and refines their production procedures, they increase option choices, or if they continue to keep a tight lid on them.

 

[CalDreamin]

According to the EPA, U.S. sources of greenhouse gases by sector in CO2-equivalent mass include:
Transportation- 27%
Agriculture - 9%

A subset of Agriculture is dairy and beef cattle, which combined produce 3% of U.S. GHG emissions.

Transportation produces about 9 times more U.S. GHG emissions than cattle.

Most U.S. GHG emissions from cattle are for the purpose of producing food -- leather is a byproduct.

 

[eloder]

Sorry, but I don't think this is a wise proposal and I'll be voting against it.

The reason being is that any sort of harm to Tesla, especially this early in their lifetime, could very easily blow up in your face. Do you know what's worse than using animal-sourced interiors? Having the EV revolution blow up in their face and collapse.

I'm not saying leather will make or break Tesla, but it'll add ridicule and a non-serious image to Tesla this early on. I'm sure this proposal will make sense in 5, 10 years--but not now, and not before they have the breathing room to focus on a high-quality replacement material.

 

[CalDreamin]

When we discuss GHG emissions of domestic livestock, it's useful to compare to the GHG emissions from the wild animals that were numerous prior to human settlement. Pre-settlement GHG emissions of wild animals provides a long-term baseline. Human impact is that which exceeds this baseline.

There are an estimated 89 million cattle in the U.S. Since they are ruminants, large, and very numerous, the EPA says cattle produce far more GHG emissions (mostly methane) than all other domesticated livestock species.

Prior to settlement, bison numbering in the tens of millions roamed a large portion of North America. Analogous to cattle today, GHG emissions of bison far exceeded that of all other wild ruminants. GHG emissions from American wild ruminants plunged when the bison population was nearly hunted to extinction in the 19th century.

A study found the following:

Overall, methane emissions from bison, elk, and deer in the pre-settlement period in the contiguous United States were about 70% (medium bison population size) of the current emissions from farmed ruminants in the U.S.; data for current (2008) methane and GHG emissions in the U.S. are from the EPA “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2008” report. If the high bison population estimate is taken for this comparison, wild ruminants in the pre-settlement period emitted as much methane as the current domestic ruminants in the United States

So human impact in America has effectively replaced bison GHG emissions with cattle GHG emissions. Pre-settlement GHG emissions from bison and other wild ruminants are estimated to have been 70-100% of today's GHG emissions from cattle and other domestic ruminants in the contiguous U.S. Against this long-term natural baseline, the net effect of cattle GHG emissions is much smaller than if this history is ignored.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

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).

StopCrazyPP,

Let's address some of your concerns. You wrote:

"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."

Don't know and don't care. First, it's proprietary information that's not likely to be shared by MBZ, BMW, Audi, Lexus, or anyone else for that matter. Second, it's not offered as an option, it's STANDARD on most C- and E-Class MBZ, and many others. Third, should we care what other, ostensibly less "green" brands are doing when Tesla is trying to raise the bar on "green?"

"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)."

Okay, here we go again. First, SEC limits shareholder proposals to 500 words. Second, if I were buying textiles and other seating materials by the rail car load, I AM CERTAIN I'D HAVE EASY ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION FROM SUPPLIERS. However, I am not Tesla Motors, nor do I represent them. What we DO have is repeated UN FAO Reports starting from over ten years ago advising that GHG output from agriculture is a larger threat than ALL TRANSPORT COMBINED. Yes, I'm sure we'll have a hemp, denim, and flax cloth Tesla soon, but until then I'm trying with to fix what we might call the "low-hanging fruit." As you can see, even this is a remarkably uphill battle when everyone and their brother comes out with the pitchforks against such an easy, no-brainer, solution.

Let's recap the First Rule of Holes: When you're in one, stop digging. Thus, every check Tesla Motors writes to "Joe's Animal Slaughter and Skin Emporium" for more murdered animal skins digs the hole a little deeper.

"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)."

Ah, yes, the "No one gives a damn so we shouldn't either" defense? Really?

We think Prop 4 would be a HUGE boon for Tesla--a taking of the "high ground" before anyone else does. There is no better place to be than at the top of the Moral Mountain. Tesla has an obvious tie-in with its environmentally-friendly cars and SUV's if it were to transition to animal-free interiors. In doing so, the "cruelty-free" moniker comes quite naturally. (And it stands in strong positive contrast to the "Hypocrite" label that awaits post-June 9th . . . )

It's very easy: as TSLA shareholders, are we "for" this cruelty, or are we "against" it? For now, Tesla buyers are forced into this because Tesla's ordering process actually PUNISHES high-information customers that do not want to sit on, or be surrounded by, the cruelty inherent in murdering animals, nor do they wish to dump more GHG's (the list is long and keeps changing, but for now it's: no Next-Gen Seats, no power liftgate, no cornering lights, no fog lamps, almost no trunk lighting, no illuminated door handles, and more). That is insane.

Part of winning in a highly-competitive market is being where your customer will be tomorrow, today. How you can, even for a moment, argue against Prop 4 and attempt to justify the abject cruelty seen below is a testament to either callousness or something far worse.

Please watch this short TEDx presentation by Dr. Melanie Joy. She's working on this topic for decades and is better versed than I will ever be. Once you've watched it, we'd love to read your new thoughts on Props 3 and 4.

Watch Video at TEDxTalks

Thank you.

p.s. I remain shocked and amazed that the intelligent, seemingly thoughtful people on this forum continue to apply their energy and intelligence to support a status quo that both dumps mild-boggling amounts of GHG's into the atmosphere, and results in unspeakable horror to billions of sentient beings. Is the brainwashing of our youth so overwhelming that even as adults we cannot step back, analyze the evil that is obvious, and make changes to that programming? Are we too much like "most men" that Churchill speaks of?

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”

― Winston S. Churchill

 

[bonnie]

p.s. I remain shocked and amazed that the intelligent, seemingly thoughtful people on this forum continue to apply their energy and intelligence to support a status quo that both dumps mild-boggling amounts of GHG's into the atmosphere, and results in unspeakable horror to billions of sentient beings. Is the brainwashing of our youth so overwhelming that even as adults we cannot step back, analyze the evil that is obvious, and make changes to that programming? Are we too much like "most men" that Churchill speaks of?

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”

― Winston S. Churchill

I don't think you're listening to what people are saying. I suspect all you're hearing is the 'no' and not 'the why'. Because if you were listening, your response would be different.

If you're shocked, you might stop and allow yourself, for a moment, to consider that if you really believe that people here are thoughtful and intelligent, there might be a valid reason that we're saying what we're saying.

What I have seen is people saying they applaud the intent. That many don't buy into reduction of GHGs by stopping the use of an animal by product (not the reason for agricultural-sourced GHG release, btw), that the proposed substitution might in fact be more harmful to the environment than a byproduct, that passing of this proposal could end up shooting all of us in the foot, that non-leather options are already available, that there might be better timing for this, and that finally, many of us believe that Tesla will ultimately do what is right when they can do so without stopping forward momentum on their stated mission.

Implying we're all brainwashed is really not worthy of responding to - other than to say that the primary person who is ignoring the plea for good discussion that you put out in the first post appears to be you. Think about that.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Bonnie wrote:

"What I have seen is people saying they applaud the intent."

So we'll distill this to the core elements.

Bonnie, chemical equations don't care about "intent." They are chemical equations. Period.

We, the stockholders, own Tesla Motors. As owners, my wife and I cannot tolerate going into the FOURTH year of the "act" of making great, environmentally-friendly cars, and then stuffing most of the interiors full of GHG-dumping animal skins. After trying the "nice" approach with Tesla on all of our buys (except for the stop-gap used MS, of course), we've had it with the board, their staff(s) and gatekeepers, hence, a HUGE amount of work to generate Props 3 and 4.

Tesla Motors, OUR company, makes choices.

Option A: Tesla can write a check to "Joe's Slaughterhouse and Animal Skin Emporium" for 34 railcars filled with the skins of animals that have suffered greatly (Why should anyone care? They're just a "commodity.") and produced tons of GHG's.

OR

Option B: Tesla can write a check to "Fred's Cool Non-leather Interior Materials" for 34 railcars with their version of MB-Tex, BMW SensaTec, or something else entirely (Hemp, Flax, or TM-Tex?).

Option A is hypocritical and in direct conflict with Tesla's reason for existing.

Option B is not.


"That many don't buy into reduction of GHGs by stopping the use of an animal by product (not the reason for agricultural-sourced GHG release, btw), that the proposed substitution might in fact be more harmful to the environment than a byproduct, that passing of this proposal could end up shooting all of us in the foot, that non-leather options are already available, that there might be better timing for this, and that finally, many of us believe that Tesla will ultimately do what is right when they can do so without stopping forward momentum on their stated mission."

Well, that's quite the run-on sentence, but let's try to break it up:

1. Frankly, we really don't care that some "don't buy into" the reduction of GHG's. I've presented UN FAO reports that number in the hundreds of pages, and an ENTIRE FRIGGIN' DOCUMENTARY WITH 21 PAGES OF HYPERLINKED SOURCES for that documentary. In contrast we have others posting here about--wait for it--BISON gasses!

Really!

There is NO evidence that non-animal sourced "leather" is worse. On the contrary, Lexus and Toyota speak to the environmental benefits on their websites.

Since they have NONE, until the "AGAINST" posters present reports from authoritative sources, let's just drop that supposed "debate" okay?

(And you might want to take a look at Merchants of Doubt; I found out about it from Elon's Tweet and, wow, what a read and another great documentary.)

2. "Better timing?"

Right.

Remember the note above re: chemical equations?

We're already at 400+ CO2 ppm and climbing and it's not a good time to stop adding to the problem?

See above post, but I think a reminder is needed.

First Rule of Holes: "When you're in one, stop digging."

It does NOT say, "When the time is right, stop digging." (That would be a part of a Cialis commercial.)

3. Saving the best for last. Bonnie wrote:

" . . . when they can do so without stopping forward momentum on their stated mission."

Nonsense. Seriously, this is just getting silly now.

Do you really believe that for someone, ANYONE, at Tesla PICKING UP A PHONE TO CALL A HALF DOZEN INTERIOR SUPPLIERS would stop Tesla's "forward momentum?"

I just don't see the production line coming to a halt while everyone stops to listen to the speakerphone conversation, but maybe I'm wrong . . . .

[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!"]

 

[bonnie]

Yeah. I've pretty much had enough of your style of discussion. Suggest you read your first post. I appreciate your passion and what you're trying to accomplish.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Eloder,

Oh my. After careful review, YES, you ARE right!

I've just seen the news reports: There are MILLIONS of MBZ, Lexus', BMW's and Infiniti's piling up at the ports and at dealerships because the skins of animals that had their brains blown out are NOT in their interiors.[/I]

Answer this one question for me: For BMW, Mercedes Benz, Audi, Lexus, and Porche vehicles in the 75,000-130,000 $US price range, what is the % take rate for synthetic seating options?

Edit: I actually have no problem with anyone here voting yes on either of the resolutions. It won't make any practical difference because the major shareholders will back the board's recommendations. A yes vote does send a message though that people care about this issue.

I really think that Gigafactory needs to go online and Model 3 needs to be established before Tesla takes on the seating issue in earnest. In the meantime, I encourage Tesla customers to buy the Textile interior and skip the interior upgrade package.

 

[Johan]

TSLA Pilot: Perhaps you saw my earlier response about how in principle you're correct and in a hundred years from now people may look back on a discussion like this and think it's as absurd as when the founding fathers of the US wrote the constitution, claiming all men are created equal, all the while owning slaves.

Even though this is my sincere belief I do not actively protest the use of leather, I don't support your proposal and I do eat meat (sparingly, but for egoistic health reasons). So how can this be? Am I stupid? Am I fooling myself? Is my heart made of stone? No, the answer is how this issue stands in relation to all the other complexities of life.

Let me ask you, not rhetorically but seriously: How many percent of your income do you donate to organizations working hard for children who are forced in to prostitution? How much of your time do you volunteer at a local shelter for the homeless? Is your house larger than it needs to be for you and your family and if so, how is that responsible with regards to the environment (heating, materials etc)? Do you travel for pleasure, by plane, boat or by driving thus contributing unnecessary green house emissions?

I could go on but I won't, hopefully you get my point.

 

[SteveG3]

Mark and Elizabeth,

Through your own concern and action you are shortly going to have something no one else here will have- for six minutes you will have the floor at Tesla's annual meeting.

You've asked us all to be open minded. I can think of no greater way for you to have not only the floor, but the attention of Tesla's leadership and board of directors than by opening with a display of the very open mindedness you've called for.

I urge you to reread the comments here. It does not seem you've considered the point several of us have raised (myself in post #43). The other automakers offer vegan options, but do not exclude leather as an option as you are requesting of Tesla. I repeat, there's a very big difference between consumers choosing a Tesla with non-leather seats having been offered the same set of seating options offered by other vehicle brands, and consumers feeling that Tesla has already decided this issue for them. As with the restaurant analogy I offered, people like to make their decisions for themselves, even if they ultimately end up selecting what you would have Tesla select for them. Foremost Tesla is trying to establish the desirability of an EV drivetrain over an ICE drivetrain. There may be a way to incorporate some of the concerns you've shared with us about animal products within the direction the company is headed, but Tesla cannot go forward with two missions.

Please try to envision your six minutes at the meeting.

Do you think you will accomplish more by,

a) repeating your thesis, and expressing disappointment with Tesla's recommendation, or

b) saying you've discussed this with other shareholders, reflected on the discussion, and now appreciate realities of marketplace expectations Tesla has to contend with that you did not consider when you first wrote the proposals.

If you open with b) I can see the people at Tesla really listening to the rest of what you say while you have the floor. You can express your desire that Tesla offer synthetic leather seating options with every configuration of its vehicles as a step in a direction you hope you and Tesla are in agreement upon which is sensitive to the realities of the market place Tesla is looking to succeed in.

Please give some more thought to what will be most effective in moving towards your goal.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Yeah. I've pretty much had enough of your style of discussion. Suggest you read your first post. I appreciate your passion and what you're trying to accomplish.

Thank you for the kind words, but would, truthfully, prefer your response to my comments.

I think I addressed your concerns completely but perhaps I've misunderstood your words, or perhaps there's just no response when the debate is distilled to its core elements?

In the interim, do please vote "FOR" both proposals; the planet needs as many votes as we can muster.

Thx.

 

[32no]

Eloder,

Oh my. After careful review, YES, you ARE right!

I've just seen the news reports: There are MILLIONS of MBZ, Lexus', BMW's and Infiniti's piling up at the ports and at dealerships because the skins of animals that had their brains blown out are NOT in their interiors. I've even heard rumors that there's so little space left at the ports that the transport ships have been instructed to just dump thousands of them at sea!

MBZ, Lexus, BMW and Infiniti are filing papers for bankruptcy first thing tomorrow, when the courts open again after our federal holiday. People are even driving by the dealerships and even the brand headquarters mocking the staff, calling them "non-serious!"

Too bad their attempts to find a "high-quality replacement material" for GHG-dumping cow skins didn't work out. Now millions are out of work and those brands, decades or over a century old, are gone forever.

It is such a good thing you've posted here and saved Tesla from a similar fate!

Thank you for your words of wisdom; I really hope Tesla can learn from those terrible failures in time, lest they make the grievous error of EVER trying to install nice-looking, comfortable, environmentally-friendly interiors in a Tesla....

Where would we have been without your timely, sage advice?

You are alienating the few people that would vote for your rather extreme proposal with your rhetoric. Step away from the rhetoric for a moment and reason with me:

This proposals potential benefits are pretty much three things: reducing GHG emmissions, reducing the killing of animals and cruelty, and putting Tesla closer to the top of the moral mountain.

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
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).
3. You're taking away people's freedom to choose and forcing your views on them.
4. The amount of leather Tesla is using is infinitesimal, so the benefit of removing the option is also infinitesimal.
5. Many fake leathers contain plastic and PVC that use petroleum products, and are therefore not environmentally friendly
6. Forcing Tesla to use faux leather can cause more production constraints
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?
8. Tesla will have to use money and time to find faux leather, both are scarce resources.
9. Cows do not contribute more to GHG emmissions than cars.
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.
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.
12. There are no luxury cars where you have faux leather options but no real leather options.
13. This is a distraction project
14. Tesla board has reccommended we vote against it.

I think the potential negatives and doubts way outnumber the positives, and therefore the best course of action is not to eliminate leather, but rather make faux leather options available other factors permitting.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Answer this one question for me: For BMW, Mercedes Benz, Audi, Lexus, and Porche vehicles in the 75,000-130,000 $US price range, what is the % take rate for synthetic seating options?

Edit: I actually have no problem with anyone here voting yes on either of the resolutions. It won't make any practical difference because the major shareholders will back the board's recommendations. A yes vote does send a message though that people care about this issue.

I really think that Gigafactory needs to go online and Model 3 needs to be established before Tesla takes on the seating issue in earnest. In the meantime, I encourage Tesla customers to buy the Textile interior and skip the interior upgrade package.

Thanks, but we REALLY do need every "FOR" vote. Not only will it make easier to get on the ballot next time if we don't win this time, but it will send an important signal.

Second, we need to ensure that Tesla STOPS punishing high-information buyers. We should have listed this first, in retrospect.

Excluding the Next Gen seats AND the interior upgrade is a LOSE-LOSE outcome. Customers end up with cars they don't like (ask me how I know . . . ) and Tesla leaves money on the table for high-margin options that people WANT to buy. This is insane. (Plus, I hate to say it but I'm just repeating Elon's words: the non-Next Gen seats "suck," and that's what you're forced to sit on if you order the textile interior. This is why our current MS order is on hold--after nearly three years and now our third new MS order, we're $%&@ tired of STILL being punished by Tesla for trying to be environmentally-friendly buyers, ESPECIALLY when we're dropping near or above six-figures for one of their cars!)

Again, thanks 13.7 for your words of support; there are too few here as the vast majority of the discussion veers off into the weeds (Bison!) and very much avoids the core issues . . . especially those in Prop 4.

 

[stopcrazypp]

StopCrazyPP,

Let's address some of your concerns. You wrote:

"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."

Don't know and don't care. First, it's proprietary information that's not likely to be shared by MBZ, BMW, Audi, Lexus, or anyone else for that matter. Second, it's not offered as an option, it's STANDARD on most C- and E-Class MBZ, and many others. Third, should we care what other, ostensibly less "green" brands are doing when Tesla is trying to raise the bar on "green?"

1) I'm not asking for specific numbers, but even knowing a rough industry percentage would help prove your point that synthetic leather is having good acceptance in the industry (and the further point that eliminating all leather would be viable commercially).
2) Tesla is already offering a non-leather option as standard (cloth) that is more environmentally friendly than the synthetics you are proposing (which are petroleum based products with lots of chemical processing). But your main point was never about this, it is about eliminating leather completely as an option, which is why I pointed out no other automaker has such a goal.
3) You have not established that going with synthetic leather is more "green" than going with natural leather (see below).

"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)."

Okay, here we go again. First, SEC limits shareholder proposals to 500 words. Second, if I were buying textiles and other seating materials by the rail car load, I AM CERTAIN I'D HAVE EASY ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION FROM SUPPLIERS. However, I am not Tesla Motors, nor do I represent them. What we DO have is repeated UN FAO Reports starting from over ten years ago advising that GHG output from agriculture is a larger threat than ALL TRANSPORT COMBINED.

I'm not asking for exact numbers. I'm asking if you have any data or even a rough calculation of how much GHG you would save going with synthetic vs natural leather. This would allow you to answer some core qualitative questions:
1) Do you save any GHG going from natural leather to synthetic leather?
2) If you do, what is the relative savings vs the GHG impact of someone going back to a gasoline car because of the lack of a leather option? An E-Class for example generates 450g GHG/mi vs 250g GHG/mi for an 85kWh Model S (average US grid), saving 200g GHG/mi. Over a 150k mile lifetime, that saves 30,000 kg of GHGs. You only need a very rough order of magnitude number to answer this question.

If the answer to the first question is no, then that kills the entire point of proposal 3. And the answer to the second question determines how worthwhile it is for Tesla to pursue this. If you can't answer these questions I don't see how you can convince anyone to support your cause. The answers to these questions would be what a fact supported proposal would highlight.

I already said, just because GHG from agriculture might be a bigger threat than transportation does not support your point (my counter example is already given: GHG from electricity generation is a bigger threat than transportation, but that does not mean EVs are more polluting than existing transportation; you have to compare the two in the specific application).

"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)."

Ah, yes, the "No one gives a damn so we shouldn't either" defense? Really?

We think Prop 4 would be a HUGE boon for Tesla--a taking of the "high ground" before anyone else does. There is no better place to be than at the top of the Moral Mountain. Tesla has an obvious tie-in with its environmentally-friendly cars and SUV's if it were to transition to animal-free interiors. In doing so, the "cruelty-free" moniker comes quite naturally. (And it stands in strong positive contrast to the "Hypocrite" label that awaits post-June 9th . . . )

No, I'm not making that argument. I'm saying your point that it would be "huge boon" should be supported by facts. You can start by pointing out some examples of successful "cruelty-free" campaigns in other industries, even if none exist in the auto industry. If you have no evidence at all that such a campaign can result in positive impacts to Tesla's sales (it might even be negative given how there are plenty of people who hate PETA in this country), I don't see how you can say it would be a huge boon. I get that this is a big issue for you, but understand that many do not hold the same views as you do and try to see the issue from their perspective in order to get them on your side.

As an EV advocate, I frequently come across people from the opposing point of view and I always approach them with facts and fact-based answers to all their counterpoints. I'm simply pointing out holes in your argument and core questions you must address with facts in order to make your argument convincing.

 

[Chris TX]

You do more harm than good for what you say you support. Perhaps YOU are the one who works for the beef industry, trying to alienate everyone who might have supported this proposal at another point in the future?

I vote the title of this thread be changed to "Here's why you should vote AGAINST TSLA Prop 3&4"

I think I'll tender my votes this year just because of this thread, too.

 

[Grendal]

I agree with many people here. I applaud your effort to bring a major issue into the light. However I am also aware that a person and a company need to pick their battles. Tesla has their battle to fight and it is not an easy one. For them to begin a "shotgun" effort to change people's viewpoint is diluting their personal fight. Not offering leather in a car will not suddenly change the world. That fight would be better brought to light by the industry doing the most damage. What Tesla is doing is creating a path to sustainable transportation by creating vehicles that are as compelling, if not more compelling than a regular fossil burning vehicle, is their way of changing the world.

Since this is a soapbox thread where we are discussing environmental issues then I'd like to point out that the larger issue is worldwide population. The reason you have a vast meat industry creating GHG's is because there are 7 billion people on this planet and they all need to eat. That is why Elon's other industry, SpaceX, is so critical. He is working hard on getting a segment of humanity off this one planet. That JMHO on the subject.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Moderator's Note

Let's please dial down the level of personal confrontation. I've moved two posts to Snippiness, but several that I left teeter on the edge.

 

[wk057]

I rarely (almost never?) post in any of the investment threads. I quietly hold on to my TSLA, for the most part because overall I believe the company will succeed (and in turn, I will profit from my patience).

But..... I quite literally laughed out loud when I saw these proposals. At this point in the game it would be of no benefit to the company to implement such proposals. Maybe in the future to drum up demand as a marketing gimmick to gather up a few edge cases that this would be a deciding factor for, but right now it would be a complete waste of resources.

Fortunately, there is no way that either of these will get enough votes to actually pass with Tesla's board recommending voting against them, rightfully so.

My shares are voting fully against such nonsense proposals. At the very least I can rest assured that I personally can negate the "for" votes of the proposers.

 

[neroden]

*Sigh* I'm allergic to many of the artificial petroleum-based materials and I had to specify leather for personal health.

Sorry, can't support this. I would, of course, support making sure that people who *want* an animal-free, vegan car *can* buy one. This has been an issue with Tesla's lineup at certain times.

But some of us have sound reasons to use animal skins. In fact, I'd prefer more of them and less petroleum-based products.

If you're going to do something like this next year and you want any chance of success, you need to allow for leather to be there as an option. Please rewrite it to ask Tesla to make all premium options (including "executive seating", etc.) available in non-leather variants. There's a significant "I hate leather, I want cloth" market even beyond the vegans and it would be financially wise for Tesla to do this. I think you'd get a lot more votes for "make vegan options possible" than you will get for "make non-vegan options impossible".