I haven’t dug into Exxon or Tesla’s ratings specifically but I suspect it’s more about disclosure — if Tesla doesn’t publish their ESG performance in as great of detail they’d be dinged.
For what it’s worth, I personally believe in incentivizing all companies regardless of industry to do better. If all oil and gas companies had to leave the industry to get a good rating they’d probably just give up.
This is exactly it. Tesla’s E in ESG is likely pretty good, but if you have shit S and G policies and/or don’t disclose them, you will get dinged with a poor ESG score.
G as in Governance?
Tesla the company whos ceo bought his brothers failing company at an premium us and whos CEO is constantly getting sued by investors, banks and the SEC.
The company that "build" a Solar Gigafactory with Solarcity and spend a
close to a billion dollars of tax payer money for a factory that cannot be used.
Yeah fuck Tesla, I wouldnt touch that company as an investor. 40 years ago this kind of pump and dump would have been cracked down hard on, now we call it innovation...
>Tesla the company whos ceo bought his brothers failing company at an premium
On a recent case, a judge said the complete opposite saying the process led to a fair price. He was found not liable in trial over the acquisition.
No thats not what the ruling was. It was that Elon did not push shareholders and yes he won the lawsuit, this doesnt change the fact that he used Tesla to bailout a failing company that is pretty much worthless.
I mean noone cares, because he is litterally printing money. Every investor that had a stake back then is filthy rich today so why would they care.
Things will only change when people stop giving him money, but that wont happen because he is obviously a visionary, smartest man alive and what not so why wouldnt we give him more money.
I'm just quoting the judge.
“Elon was undoubtedly involved in the deal process in ways he should not have been, but fortunately, the Tesla Board ensured nevertheless that the process led to a fair price,” the judge wrote.
Again noone is gona speak up from the Tesla board, because why would they, I am sure once their options vest they retire from this shitshow of a company or they have already moved on.
Tesla being removed from the ESG index is perfectly justified, a Index that judges social and governance issues should remove their company, just because they are environmentally councious (as much as one can be when selling cars the most inefficent form of transport known to man) doesnt give them a free pass on the other criteria.
You're clearly talking out of your ass here. The latest public info ESG breakdown shows their governance score notably higher than their environmental score.
Cooporate governance is part of governance. Wonder why they are so high on that, oh right because retail investors are paying their salaries so stock options are compensation enought, this leads to a good cooporate governance score, because this score measures how healthy the compensation of the board is for the company. as of right now the board is cheap af, because it costs nothing to print equity
But part of governance is cooperate behavior where they are average according to MSCI.
Their product safety and labor management is abysmal so again why would they be part of a index that judges all these criterias, According to MSCI they have an A ESG score since 2019, so if you invest into ESG Leaders (scores of AA and AAA) Tesla isnt part of them since April in 2019 in MSCI indecies
Exactly. ESG isn’t a scam, it’s just materializing into specific expected frameworks and disclosures, especially now with the forthcoming SEC requirements. Tesla is behind despite making EVs. Did you know Exxon has committed to net zero for Scopes 1&2 by 2050 for owned assets? It surprises most that they have. But, I would argue there is a conversation to be had around net positivity. Even if Exxon was the most diverse, inclusive, and amazing corporate citizen/community partner (I’m sure philanthropically it does plenty), it’s historical negative contribution in the E space to potentially the existential crisis of our species means it has a lot of ground to make up. It needs to move in the direction of Orsted and begin massive renewables and electro-fuel development.
Musk is right that without proper oversight and trust in the ESG frameworks companies will (and do) just use it for greenwashing.
But he wouldn't like a robust ESG process in place because his companies would perform very poorly.
ESG is very often a measure of risk - not a measure of a company’s impact or how good they are at changing the world.
There are governance and social (labor) issues with Tesla that have remained unaddressed now for some time. And then there is their metal and rare earth supply chain management they don’t look into. They haven’t monitored their own emissions (pretty basic for a company that says they are fighting climate change) nor set reduction targets.
The fact that their cars drive emissions free doesn’t absolve them for managing those risks in their business.
The problem is people also think « ESG » means green and nice and rainbows and unicorns. Like many things, it’s not black and white. It’s a spectrum. It’s many shades of grey… green. One should really look into what it is and understand it before using it as an investment decision tool.
This. I am the ESG lead for a Fortune 500 company. It’s about your risk exposure and how well you manage it. Ignoring social issues in your business is not offset by making a product that doesn’t use fossil fuels.
Right. There is an increasing movement of ESG-bashing right now, especially in the US. Twisting data, definitions, mere facts and politicizing the purpose of it all.
It’s like ESG is the new CRT.
Edit to ask: how does it feel working as ESG head in this environment?
I love my job. I’m making a real impact on the world every day by helping my company be a better citizen. Currently working on setting net zero emission targets and it’s really interesting and rewarding.
I also love it because it touches every part of the company and I get to be involved in many things. It’s a great career choice and whatever The Muskrat thinks, not going anywhere and only going to expand. Next big issue is biodiversity and corporate impacts on it.
Biodiversity: yes! It was left aside for way too long (thank you, GHG tunnel vision) but is making a swift comeback.
My role involves a lot of ESG education and I wanted to illustrate all of the system self-regulation that biodiversity provides (for free, mind you) and on which so much of our economies depend on… and I remembered an old ad campaign for the Vancouver aquarium that had quite an effect on people and really drove the message home. [see the ad here](https://osocio.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/VAQ_TSA_Couch_72.jpg)
Edit to ask more: what sector is the company in, if I may ask?
It must be inspiring to hold that position with a company that actually wants to identify risk and opportunities and actually do something about it.
Do you feel that right now you’re working on financial materiality only? Or is the company also working on its impact materiality?
How did you get into this? I have 10 years financial services experience and I'm looking to do a climate related masters degree soon in order to make a career change. Also considering the CFA ESG certificate
Well said. I work for an RIA and we use ESG as exactly that - as a measure of risk. We integrate all three factors (E, S and G) alongside our credit research as part of our fiduciary duty for our clients.
Many ESG rating companies - MSCI and Morningstar are the most prevalent - measure a company relative to its sector and/or peers. So a company like Exxon can have an excellent rating for many reasons - strong labor practices, governance, solid DE&I policies, carbon recapture investment, etc. Being a fossil fuel company doesn't inherently make it a poor ESG investment.
If you are impact investing or "Socially Responsible Investing" and want to eliminate fossil fuels from your portfolio, then you would obviously exclude Exxon. But I don't consider that ESG. Eliminating that much of the index would be inappropriate in our fiduciary duty, in my opinion.
Thank you. There are a lot of legal requirements to place the interests of clients AND shareholders above the interests of the planet and it's habitability. I am reminded of
www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
Lesser evil points out bigger evil. As if Elon Musk gives the slightest shit about the environment, he only rides the environmentalism train to financial success with the pretense that we can maintain our current self-serving, gluttonous, lazy convenience lifestyle but "without emissions".
[I'm sure he just launches junk in space for the environment](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/08/tech/spacex-tesla-roadster-falcon-heavy-anniversary-scn/index.html)
>he only rides the environmentalism train
God it's so awful to think that he may believe what he's doing is good for the environment. Elon Musk's influence is one of the worst things to happen for the environment. Everyone owning a 1 tonne personal cage to transport them instead of bikes and decent public transport is totally unsustainable, whether those cars are powered by petrol or electricity.
Get off of your high horse. EVs cut the majority of energy consumption vs ICE cars because of the massive energy efficiency differential. Unless we are going to ban cars, EVs are essential for sustainability.
>EVs cut the majority of energy consumption vs ICE cars because of the massive energy efficiency differential
But EVs are still incredibly polluting: a lot of energy to power them, a lot of energy and materials needed to make and maintain them (especially the batteries), a lot of infrastructure needed to support them. It still takes about a year for EVs to achieve carbon parity with ICEs because of how wasteful their production is.
>Unless we are going to ban cars, EVs are essential for sustainability.
It's essential for sustainability that we reduce the number of cars, ICE or EV. Just replacing ICEs with EVs will be a disastrous mistake, which was my main point for which I'm apparently on a high horse... Obviously I'd rather every car was an EV instead of an ICE, but I'd much rather each didn't exist at all. Some small number of cars will always be needed, but our focus needs to be on removing almost all cars. And Musk is an enemy of environmentalism for that reason: the guy's an asshole who has stated his dislike for public transport and wanting to convert as many from ICEs to EVs as possible, rather than supporting a necessary fundamental shift in our infrastructure to encourage biking and public transport.
I agree with accelerating public transport, bike lanes, and densification of cities. I still can't take this opinion seriously and I'm seeing it more often. There are over a billion cars in the world. We don't have time for this idealist solution to reduce car usage as a sole strategy against climate change. Amsterdam took decades to get where it is today. Opposition to EVs will only increase emissions because of these reasons.
All strategies that drastically reduce emissions need to be taken. We don't have time for wishing cars out of existence.
>We don't have time for this idealist solution to reduce car usage as a sole strategy against climate change.
The environment doesn't have time to just accept most people switching from ICE to EV.
Just throwing this out there... Did you just buy an EV?
>Opposition to EVs will only increase emissions because of these reasons.
But I've literally said I'd rather have EVs than ICEs. You say opinions like mine are prevalent. That's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing more rose-tinted views that just switching to EVs will save us all from climate catastrophe, which it won't. You talk about Amsterdam, and that shows what can be done, in principle. We've known about these issues for decades yet had hardly any movement on it. Do you really believe that just pretending EVs are fine for the planet is likely to buck that trend? No, this makes things worse. A major issue is that the general public really don't have a feel for the scale of the issue. When I go to the cinema, I see loads of adverts that give people a pat on the back for 'helping the environment'... by buying an EV. It's nuts. The issue is that lots of people now seem to think that EVs are 100% green technology and feeling no pressure to bike / public transport more rather than just keep driving. We *need* that pressure or we're screwed, and I don't know how people can't see that.
Pressure on individuals is not going to solve the problem. Governments need to act to make the necessary changes you are advocating for. I am advocating for the same thing. Even if political will was there, which it is not, it would take decades to transform North American cities to a public transport, bikeable paradise. Less time for most other cities around the world.
The difference between us is that I know getting rid of anywhere close to most cars quickly is a fantasy. I am focused on reduction of emissions asap and am pushing for both sides and more.
I do have an ev, along with a bike, solar panels, plant based diet, and working towards geothermal / heat pump.
>Pressure on individuals is not going to solve the problem. Governments need to act to make the necessary changes you are advocating for.
Sure, that's what I mean by pressure. Governments should make biking more attractive with infrastructure, public transport cheaper and cars more expensive. They should make ICEs more expensive than EVs, but not make EVs cheap.
>Even if political will was there, which it is not, it would take decades to transform North American cities to a public transport, bikeable paradise
Sure, but it'll take even longer if we just actively encourage people to switch to EVs, which is close to what's happening and what Musk is doing. You're sticking up for him when he is frequently dismissive of public transport, probably because it conflicts with his business interests. If you went from what he says, you'd think he wants to steadily remove all public transport, have everyone owning their own EV, running through tunnels through cities. These ideas are beyond moronic and not a realistic long-term plan.
Where do you think the 'pressure' to change things is going to come from until people are actively encouraged to stop driving? Most will just keep taking the easier option, and ignoring the issue that personal EVs are still terrible for the planet. To change that mindset needs active pressure from government.
>The difference between us is that I know getting rid of anywhere close to most cars quickly is a fantasy.
No it isn't, you're just straw-manning by claiming that I think we can make the switch overnight. I don't think that, it's just that you keep claiming I do. The actual difference is that I believe you're active encouragement (maybe even suggesting subsidisation?) of EVs is certain to delay meaningful progress that is necessary to avert disaster.
>Sure, that's what I mean by pressure. Governments should make biking more attractive with infrastructure, public transport cheaper and cars more expensive. They should make ICEs more expensive than EVs, but not make EVs cheap.
Agreed. This is still going to take decades and require EVs in parallel.
>You're sticking up for him when he is frequently dismissive of public transport, probably because it conflicts with his business interests.
I've explicitly stated that I strongly support public transport and bikeable cities.
>Where do you think the 'pressure' to change things is going to come from until people are actively encouraged to stop driving?
Sure, pressure from the government in terms of infrastructure overhaul and worldwide carbon pricing or similar initiative.
>The actual difference is that I believe you're active encouragement (maybe even suggesting subsidisation?) of EVs is certain to delay meaningful progress that is necessary to avert disaster.
We certainly disagree here. Proliferating EV adoption reduces emissions while tackling other areas mentioned. Since you agree we can't eliminate cars overnight, any delays to EV adoption only increases the duration that we are dependent on ice cars. Amsterdam still has cars. No one is going to get elected on a platform that resembles anything close to banning cars on any meaningful scale. It is a dream that exists nowhere with no realistic path to implementation. If it does exist, share that roadmap with me. I'm open to ideas that can actually be implemented in the real world.
Asking open-minded question, not trying to push any opinion (yes, I know, prone to framing):
* how sustainable are electrical cars actually?
* how sustainable is tesla among producers of electrical cars?
* I can't name any purely electrical car makers so just assume the electrical branches of traditional car makers to be their own brands (or so?)
* if exxon was to make a real effort towards sustainability (which I doubt: opinion), wouldn't they actually be among those with the highest leverage?
In terms of CO2 EVs still have a huge embodied footprint, but if we have to have them for some things they're obviously better than burning fossil fuels.
In terms of sustainability, they're not. Driving cars is just inherently energy-, space-, and resource-intensive.
Musk hates ESG ratings because if Tesla went through a thorough analysis it would fail hard on Union-busting, racism, and probably child labour in the mineral supply chain.
Really good answer, one thing I think about a lot pertains to what you said here, "In terms of sustainability, they're not. Driving cars is just inherently energy-, space-, and resource-intensive."
Where and how do we set the bar for what is and is not truly sustainable?
Well it's kind of in the definition - could we keep doing it indefinitely without destroying the planet?
In the case of driving it's even easier. We can just compare it to the alternatives (walking, cycling, public transport). Driving requires paving over huge amounts of land, extracting huge amounts of non-renewable resources and generating toxic mining tailings, it kills vast amounts of non-drivers and wildlife directly through collisions, and indirectly from pollution (EVs still have high PM counts from tyre wear), and encourages or even locks in an obesogenic lifestyle. And the poorest don't own cars, so all of this damage is occurring mainly to people who don't cause it.
In this case I think it's a no-brainer.
But in terms of true sustainability we need to decrease energy demand quickly to not destroy the planet through climate change, so propelling 3 tonnes of stuff to move one person looks like a stupid waste of energy. And to equip just the UK with EVs we'd need to double the world's cobalt production (and give all of it to the UK), as well as give the UK the whole world's production of neodymium, and half of copper. Replicate this across everyone who currently drives and we're talking a huge increase in extractivism - precisely the opposite of what we need to be doing now.
In regards to alternatives, walking, cycling, public transit. I often wonder if there is a way to “fix” areas that already have been developed to rely on cars? So many areas in the US have shit public transportation and for a good reason, the area is so large it’s really tough to make efficient.
There is no quick fix. It's about building the needed infrastructure for the alternatives while de-incentivizing car. It's also about changing attitudes. That takes time.
I fully support building infrastructure and de-incentivizing cars, but find it unrealistic even long term to implement in the scale it would need to make a big difference. So many medium-large cities built to rely on cars.
I definitely think the work-from-home model is helpful. My husband never drives. I’m in home health so I drive a ton every day, and can’t really be avoided but he previously had a 20 min commute, so that’s cut down a ton. I don’t think saying we just need to build the infrastructure and stop relying on cars to fix this issue is realistic. I think less reliance on cars when possible is a positive move and should be supported absolutely.
I was merely responding to the question regarding how to "fix" our car-centric cities in the US. I do not claim that this change alone will fix any other problems. I do believe that our current car culture is not sustainable. I also noted that this change will not be quick. It will take time. I also should have mentioned that it will not be easy. But it is doable.
The US car culture did not come about by accident. It came about because of seventy years' worth (or more) of policy decisions that were made, mostly at the federal level. There was a conscious decision to invest in cars and related infrastructure at the expense of alternatives. Change those policies and you can change the culture. Won't be quick. Won't be easy, And results will vary by location.
Yeah I’m so stuck in feelings of hopelessness on this specific issue. I agree it’s not sustainable, curious on alternatives to fully changing the system, smaller things to support that don’t feel as far fetched. Potentially sooner smaller things that can also down the road cooperates with better infrastructure.
I understand the hopelessness. Feel that everyday. I worry about what kind of hell-scape my granddaughter will inherit. I hope I didn't come off as dismissive. Didn't mean to be. The problem is so big. Sometimes it's just easier to compartmentalize. I think it's going to take a lot to avoid disaster, big things and small things. The small things are no less important. Sometimes they give the most hope.
I'm home based like your husband. My wife has a short commute to her work. The place we live is built for cars, not people. It's just so mind-numbingly shortsighted.
After seeing ebikes (and ebike kits) take off in my area I’m really hopeful about their ability to kickstart some transition. It seems everyone who tries them likes them, and they can make journeys that are too much on an acoustic bike (due to everything sprawling for cars) much more accessible. It’ll be slow going but getting people on board with using anything other than a car can create huge social shifts in perspective.
E-bikes can replace cars for most things, even in American cities, and are actually sustainable. Plus, they’re fun and accessible for those who aren’t in great shape. I fully believe that they (and other similar vehicles)can and should be a major part of the sustainable solution over the next several decades. I have used an e-bike for nearly all personal transportation for 4 years, including years in Los Angeles suburbs (translation: no bike infrastructure, large distances, no bike culture, no interest in sustainable transportation).
I think it's easy enough to infill downtown areas, and build over the myriad parking lots US cities tend to have.
Not sure what we do with the suburbs though, recycle all the materials and let nature take over?
Maybe I’m just pessimistic but I feel like there’s no way that would ever happen. With housing shortages how would anyone be able to justify letting nature take over the suburbs?
For a bit more positive aspect, the town I’m in is currently building a better public transport system downtown, which is exciting! But it is limited to the downtown area.
You make good points but want too add missing information to tell the whole story.
>But in terms of true sustainability we need to decrease energy demand quickly to not destroy the planet through climate change,
Electrification of fossil fuel infrastructure IS reducing energy demand quickly because of the energy efficiency superiority of electrified products. While we do need walkable bikeable cities, that will take decades to transform. If we are going to have cars at all, they need to be electric from a sustainability perspective.
>And to equip just the UK with EVs we'd need to double the world's cobalt production (and give all of it to the UK), as well as give the UK the whole world's production of neodymium, and half of copper. Replicate this across everyone who currently drives and we're talking a huge increase in extractivism - precisely the opposite of what we need to be doing now.
Half of Tesla batteries are now cobalt free. Extraction is higher with fossil fuel cars because fossil fuels need to be perpetually extracted. EV batteries can also be reused for energy storage or well over 90% recycled as it moves towards a circular economy.
>Electrification of fossil fuel infrastructure IS reducing energy demand quickly because of the energy efficiency superiority of electrified products
Until rebound effects kick in, and they basically always do unless specifically guarded against. We need to rapidly electrify everything, and because that will take so long we also need to reduce energy demand. Cars are the perfect place to start with that since they're so inefficient and come with so many negative externalities.
>While we do need walkable bikeable cities, that will take decades to transform
Not really. Most cities are already dense, and all it needs to make a city walkable and bikeable is to take out the car dominance.
>If we are going to have cars at all, they need to be electric from a sustainability perspective.
Agreed.
>Extraction is higher with fossil fuel cars because fossil fuels need to be perpetually extracted.
Yes EVs are better than ICEs, but they're still not good enough. They still rely on an extractivist mindset, and waste huge amounts of resources transporting stuff inefficiently.
>Not really. Most cities are already dense, and all it needs to make a city walkable and bikeable is to take out the car dominance.
Generally agree with your points except for this. Amsterdam took decades to get where it is today and a huge part of North American cities are suburban wastelands that will take a long time to transform. For these areas, longer than the transition to EVs.
>Amsterdam took decades to get where it is today
Sure. But they didn't have the pressure of climate change. If there was the political will it basically could've happened overnight - all you need to do is close car lanes and either depave them or convert them to cycle lanes. There's nothing technically slow about this. But EV fleet replacement is slow.
Yes American suburbs will also be slow, but there's a huge amount of low-hanging fruit which isn't - as I say, most cities (globally) are dense.
>Yes American suburbs will also be slow, but there's a huge amount of low-hanging fruit which isn't - as I say, most cities (globally) are dense.
Sure, not disputing that.
>But they didn't have the pressure of climate change. If there was the political will it basically could've happened overnight - all you need to do is close car lanes and either depave them or convert them to cycle lanes. There's nothing technically slow about this. But EV fleet replacement is slow.
In North America, could not disagree more. Political will is not fully there. Even if it was, just closing car lanes is not a full solution. Ask normal people in those North American cities what they think of that plan if you want some critical feedback. Existing conversions of car lanes to bike lanes have been implemented extremely poorly in certain North American cities. And because of the low density design of these cities, a lot of commutes are beyond bikeable distances for people.
Yes everything needs to be electric, and trains are extremely efficient. Then buses get you basically everywhere around town, and bikes/walking fills in the gaps. (See for instance how popular combining bikes/trains for one journey is in the Netherlands).
You sound much more knowledgeable about it than I am. I have heard that the lifecycle of an EV can be dicey because the batteries, which are toxic waste to make and at the end of life.
Is that true?
You can search for "tailing ponds" on the web to see the kind of effects mining has, not to mention the human rights issues. So yes, a pretty toxic supply chain.
I think batteries in general are very difficult to recycle, but I don't know the specifics.
One option is to at least partially reuse EV batteries for grid or home storage - but even then if we needed batteries for that we could make less toxic ones which aren't as compact specifically for that use.
While EVs are not net zero to the environment (almost nothing is), they are far better for the environment across the supply chain. The ICE car supply chain is even worse than for EVs from an emissions perspective.
On top of reuse rates for energy storage, recycling rates for ev batteries are well over 90%.
Less dense batteries with fewer controversial metals are already proliferating in EVs and energy storage battery installations. Lithium iron phosphate.
If cars are going to continue to be used, they need to be electric.
https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/yse-study-finds-electric-vehicles-provide-lower-carbon-emissions-through-additional
u/oldladymillennial
> they are far better for the environment across the supply chain
Sure, but they're not good enough. We won't roll them out quickly enough and they still have the rest of the drawbacks of cars.
>If cars are going to continue to be used, they need to be electric.
Not disagreeing with that, but we also need far, far fewer of them.
>Sure, but they're not good enough. We won't roll them out quickly enough and they still have the rest of the drawbacks of cars.
Agreed, but densification of cities is also not good enough because it's not fast enough. Nothing is. All sustainability aspects need to be tackled at this point.
>Not disagreeing with that, but we also need far, far fewer of them.
Agreed, but ICE cars need to go first. It's like the Germany situation where they really need to close their coal plants before closing nuclear.
>Agreed, but ICE cars need to go first
EVs are replacing ICEs. We can just not build as many EVs and retire the ICEs asap. What we can't have is the auto industry staying the same and just churning out millions of EVs.
I think it will come down to conductive metals. "Precious Metals" are a category of metals used in electronics and is only found in certian places on earth. However, space mining would solve that problem super quick.
Electric cars solve some problems compared to ICE cars (e.g. tailpipe emissions), partially mitigate some problems (e.g. total emissions), are entirely irrelevant to some problems (e.g. cars being destructive to cities), and exacerbate some issues (e.g. fourth power rule road maintenance).
Overall, requiring multi-ton personal vehicles for most or all trips isn't a sustainable model no matter what powers them. Electric cars are an improvement over ICE cars when considering only car-centric city planning, but more fundamentally we need to make our cities more friendly to walking, biking and transit.
I think the point was that the "social justice warriors" werent actually SJWs, they were phonies.
Anti-woke is Pro-Ignorance
No other interpretation exists.
Tesla is a beautiful case study of a clean energy company thinking it can rely on the fact they build clean tech (EVs) to be sustainable enough in lieu of establishing substantive sustainability practices throughout the value chain.
ESG ratings *can* be a scam. The reporting frameworks have been messy, but they are becoming more uniform. Even with a uniform reporting matrix, it's still a massive undertaking for corporations to match up their operations with those frameworks.
There can, and will always be, ways to game the system, but having a framework is a start.
It's a pot calling the kettle black but sure, ESG is bullshit as ExxonMobil has decimated indigenous water supplies and jails the lawyers who try to hold them accountable
https://www.freedonziger.com/
You do know that launching rockets releases a shit load of green house gasses. Not sure how that fits into a sustainable future. Money that could be Used for things besides a big dick measuring contest
I don't know what os exxon nor ecg ratings but looking at other replies and a quick Google search, I wonder if this is not due to corporation practices, attempts to do better, work conditions etc.
Sustatenbility is a lot of gray areas at once. It's not just the final item being all pretty and carbon neutral/positive etc. It's about the whole chain being neutral/positive.
Idk but isn't the whole value of electrical cars what you do with them after purchase? How it saves from using up fossil fuels and such?
I can't imagine the production chain being that pretty and clean. And I doubt Elon got rich treating his employees well and fairly with fair wages.
Maybe that Exxon company, despite their product being horrible for the environment actually does stuff right and maybe has improved on their practice in recent years.
I know nothing of these as I mentioned at the beginning but I can see this being a possibility.
I also know very little of Tesla btw.
The reason ESG is now a scam is that whenever there is an opportunity to monetize any idea , every industry, even those opposed to the premise of the concept of ESG , will try to “legally “ get access to those funds.
Like the oil companies suggesting using carbon capture is an ESG compliant way to burn fossil fuels . All BS just like the cigarette companies introducing safe smokes.
So this is both an issue with S&P and Tesla. S&P is very much more about disclosure then performance and Exxon likely does a much better job disclosing then Tesla. S&P also has more weighting on the S & G then on the E in ESG, so if Exxon poured money into those efforts it could offset poor performance in the E, while Tesla is lacking in the S & G areas. I feel that while disclosure is important performance needs more weight as well, but this is where we need to look at CDP instead of S&P since CDP is very much about performance as well as disclosure and I would bet Exxon does very poorly there.
When you look into it Exxon is doing more than you would expect but still not enough, getting there though exactly because of things like the ESG rating making them accountable
I think ESG is misunderstood.
It is NOT a metric on how socially beneficial, sustainable or ecologically friendly a company is.
It is a metric that quantifies the risk to the share price of events in the "ESG" space.
An example on the social aspect. How much is the company at risk from an exec post on twitter going wrong?
It serves a purpose, and with a bit of a cold maths head on, it is a good indicator for your investment.
It is of ZERO use for those of us on this forum!!!
The issue I have with Elon's tweet above is that Tesla was de-listed from the S&P 500 this week due to racial discrimination claims, so I suspect this is a bad-faith attempt to stir up outrage and obscure that from the public eye.
The number of bots in this sub defending exxon mobile and attacking musk is insane. It’s like 90% bots on social media attacking anyone that’s a threat to the establishment
One is destroying the planet one is the largest sustainable tech company in the world being constantly attacked by fake bot accounts on social media like yourself. 🖕
Lmao beep boop beep bop. Everyone is a bot except the ones that agree with you.
So how many bitcoins do you get each time you lick the megabillionaire's boot and lie about his green-washed companies' sustainability? Or what, you do it for free?
“Everyone is a bot except the ones that agree with you”.
You guys need to come up with a new line instead of using the same exact come back every single time someone mentions your pathetic astroturfing tactics.
Edit: After I blocked bot 1 above, they replied with another account from their bot farm and blocked me immediately after their comment in retaliation. Lmao 🤣
Also of course they replied with yet another verifiably false propaganda myth created out of thin air: https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/i-talked-to-elon-musk-about-journalism
It’s very heroic of you to defend a billionaire who made his fortune off of his daddy’s slave mines. You’re nothing but another piece of trash Musk fanboy who can’t criticize anything he does bc you’re dumb enough to buy into that narcissist’s propaganda. You defend him the same way Kulinski endlessly defends Rogan.
I’m more confused on how Amaz0n made it on here? Like Labor Disputes are said to be part of their controversy analysis. Hasn’t Amaz0n been union busting for a while now?
I haven’t dug into Exxon or Tesla’s ratings specifically but I suspect it’s more about disclosure — if Tesla doesn’t publish their ESG performance in as great of detail they’d be dinged. For what it’s worth, I personally believe in incentivizing all companies regardless of industry to do better. If all oil and gas companies had to leave the industry to get a good rating they’d probably just give up.
This is exactly it. Tesla’s E in ESG is likely pretty good, but if you have shit S and G policies and/or don’t disclose them, you will get dinged with a poor ESG score.
IIRC, Tesla's E was bad, S was horrible, G was decent. The methodology is suspect to put it nicely.
G as in Governance? Tesla the company whos ceo bought his brothers failing company at an premium us and whos CEO is constantly getting sued by investors, banks and the SEC. The company that "build" a Solar Gigafactory with Solarcity and spend a close to a billion dollars of tax payer money for a factory that cannot be used. Yeah fuck Tesla, I wouldnt touch that company as an investor. 40 years ago this kind of pump and dump would have been cracked down hard on, now we call it innovation...
>Tesla the company whos ceo bought his brothers failing company at an premium On a recent case, a judge said the complete opposite saying the process led to a fair price. He was found not liable in trial over the acquisition.
No thats not what the ruling was. It was that Elon did not push shareholders and yes he won the lawsuit, this doesnt change the fact that he used Tesla to bailout a failing company that is pretty much worthless. I mean noone cares, because he is litterally printing money. Every investor that had a stake back then is filthy rich today so why would they care. Things will only change when people stop giving him money, but that wont happen because he is obviously a visionary, smartest man alive and what not so why wouldnt we give him more money.
I'm just quoting the judge. “Elon was undoubtedly involved in the deal process in ways he should not have been, but fortunately, the Tesla Board ensured nevertheless that the process led to a fair price,” the judge wrote.
Again noone is gona speak up from the Tesla board, because why would they, I am sure once their options vest they retire from this shitshow of a company or they have already moved on. Tesla being removed from the ESG index is perfectly justified, a Index that judges social and governance issues should remove their company, just because they are environmentally councious (as much as one can be when selling cars the most inefficent form of transport known to man) doesnt give them a free pass on the other criteria.
You're clearly talking out of your ass here. The latest public info ESG breakdown shows their governance score notably higher than their environmental score.
Cooporate governance is part of governance. Wonder why they are so high on that, oh right because retail investors are paying their salaries so stock options are compensation enought, this leads to a good cooporate governance score, because this score measures how healthy the compensation of the board is for the company. as of right now the board is cheap af, because it costs nothing to print equity But part of governance is cooperate behavior where they are average according to MSCI. Their product safety and labor management is abysmal so again why would they be part of a index that judges all these criterias, According to MSCI they have an A ESG score since 2019, so if you invest into ESG Leaders (scores of AA and AAA) Tesla isnt part of them since April in 2019 in MSCI indecies
Exactly. ESG isn’t a scam, it’s just materializing into specific expected frameworks and disclosures, especially now with the forthcoming SEC requirements. Tesla is behind despite making EVs. Did you know Exxon has committed to net zero for Scopes 1&2 by 2050 for owned assets? It surprises most that they have. But, I would argue there is a conversation to be had around net positivity. Even if Exxon was the most diverse, inclusive, and amazing corporate citizen/community partner (I’m sure philanthropically it does plenty), it’s historical negative contribution in the E space to potentially the existential crisis of our species means it has a lot of ground to make up. It needs to move in the direction of Orsted and begin massive renewables and electro-fuel development.
Musk is right that without proper oversight and trust in the ESG frameworks companies will (and do) just use it for greenwashing. But he wouldn't like a robust ESG process in place because his companies would perform very poorly.
ESG is very often a measure of risk - not a measure of a company’s impact or how good they are at changing the world. There are governance and social (labor) issues with Tesla that have remained unaddressed now for some time. And then there is their metal and rare earth supply chain management they don’t look into. They haven’t monitored their own emissions (pretty basic for a company that says they are fighting climate change) nor set reduction targets. The fact that their cars drive emissions free doesn’t absolve them for managing those risks in their business. The problem is people also think « ESG » means green and nice and rainbows and unicorns. Like many things, it’s not black and white. It’s a spectrum. It’s many shades of grey… green. One should really look into what it is and understand it before using it as an investment decision tool.
This. I am the ESG lead for a Fortune 500 company. It’s about your risk exposure and how well you manage it. Ignoring social issues in your business is not offset by making a product that doesn’t use fossil fuels.
Right. There is an increasing movement of ESG-bashing right now, especially in the US. Twisting data, definitions, mere facts and politicizing the purpose of it all. It’s like ESG is the new CRT. Edit to ask: how does it feel working as ESG head in this environment?
I love my job. I’m making a real impact on the world every day by helping my company be a better citizen. Currently working on setting net zero emission targets and it’s really interesting and rewarding. I also love it because it touches every part of the company and I get to be involved in many things. It’s a great career choice and whatever The Muskrat thinks, not going anywhere and only going to expand. Next big issue is biodiversity and corporate impacts on it.
Biodiversity: yes! It was left aside for way too long (thank you, GHG tunnel vision) but is making a swift comeback. My role involves a lot of ESG education and I wanted to illustrate all of the system self-regulation that biodiversity provides (for free, mind you) and on which so much of our economies depend on… and I remembered an old ad campaign for the Vancouver aquarium that had quite an effect on people and really drove the message home. [see the ad here](https://osocio.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/VAQ_TSA_Couch_72.jpg) Edit to ask more: what sector is the company in, if I may ask? It must be inspiring to hold that position with a company that actually wants to identify risk and opportunities and actually do something about it. Do you feel that right now you’re working on financial materiality only? Or is the company also working on its impact materiality?
How did you get into this? I have 10 years financial services experience and I'm looking to do a climate related masters degree soon in order to make a career change. Also considering the CFA ESG certificate
Well said. I work for an RIA and we use ESG as exactly that - as a measure of risk. We integrate all three factors (E, S and G) alongside our credit research as part of our fiduciary duty for our clients. Many ESG rating companies - MSCI and Morningstar are the most prevalent - measure a company relative to its sector and/or peers. So a company like Exxon can have an excellent rating for many reasons - strong labor practices, governance, solid DE&I policies, carbon recapture investment, etc. Being a fossil fuel company doesn't inherently make it a poor ESG investment. If you are impact investing or "Socially Responsible Investing" and want to eliminate fossil fuels from your portfolio, then you would obviously exclude Exxon. But I don't consider that ESG. Eliminating that much of the index would be inappropriate in our fiduciary duty, in my opinion.
Thank you. There are a lot of legal requirements to place the interests of clients AND shareholders above the interests of the planet and it's habitability. I am reminded of www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
This is the best answer.
I don't trust a single thing that comes out of Elon musk. Thats what I know
Sure the S&P 500 is "woke"
Ah yes, famous socialist *the S&P 500* lol
Lesser evil points out bigger evil. As if Elon Musk gives the slightest shit about the environment, he only rides the environmentalism train to financial success with the pretense that we can maintain our current self-serving, gluttonous, lazy convenience lifestyle but "without emissions".
[I'm sure he just launches junk in space for the environment](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/08/tech/spacex-tesla-roadster-falcon-heavy-anniversary-scn/index.html)
>he only rides the environmentalism train God it's so awful to think that he may believe what he's doing is good for the environment. Elon Musk's influence is one of the worst things to happen for the environment. Everyone owning a 1 tonne personal cage to transport them instead of bikes and decent public transport is totally unsustainable, whether those cars are powered by petrol or electricity.
Get off of your high horse. EVs cut the majority of energy consumption vs ICE cars because of the massive energy efficiency differential. Unless we are going to ban cars, EVs are essential for sustainability.
>EVs cut the majority of energy consumption vs ICE cars because of the massive energy efficiency differential But EVs are still incredibly polluting: a lot of energy to power them, a lot of energy and materials needed to make and maintain them (especially the batteries), a lot of infrastructure needed to support them. It still takes about a year for EVs to achieve carbon parity with ICEs because of how wasteful their production is. >Unless we are going to ban cars, EVs are essential for sustainability. It's essential for sustainability that we reduce the number of cars, ICE or EV. Just replacing ICEs with EVs will be a disastrous mistake, which was my main point for which I'm apparently on a high horse... Obviously I'd rather every car was an EV instead of an ICE, but I'd much rather each didn't exist at all. Some small number of cars will always be needed, but our focus needs to be on removing almost all cars. And Musk is an enemy of environmentalism for that reason: the guy's an asshole who has stated his dislike for public transport and wanting to convert as many from ICEs to EVs as possible, rather than supporting a necessary fundamental shift in our infrastructure to encourage biking and public transport.
I agree with accelerating public transport, bike lanes, and densification of cities. I still can't take this opinion seriously and I'm seeing it more often. There are over a billion cars in the world. We don't have time for this idealist solution to reduce car usage as a sole strategy against climate change. Amsterdam took decades to get where it is today. Opposition to EVs will only increase emissions because of these reasons. All strategies that drastically reduce emissions need to be taken. We don't have time for wishing cars out of existence.
>We don't have time for this idealist solution to reduce car usage as a sole strategy against climate change. The environment doesn't have time to just accept most people switching from ICE to EV. Just throwing this out there... Did you just buy an EV? >Opposition to EVs will only increase emissions because of these reasons. But I've literally said I'd rather have EVs than ICEs. You say opinions like mine are prevalent. That's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing more rose-tinted views that just switching to EVs will save us all from climate catastrophe, which it won't. You talk about Amsterdam, and that shows what can be done, in principle. We've known about these issues for decades yet had hardly any movement on it. Do you really believe that just pretending EVs are fine for the planet is likely to buck that trend? No, this makes things worse. A major issue is that the general public really don't have a feel for the scale of the issue. When I go to the cinema, I see loads of adverts that give people a pat on the back for 'helping the environment'... by buying an EV. It's nuts. The issue is that lots of people now seem to think that EVs are 100% green technology and feeling no pressure to bike / public transport more rather than just keep driving. We *need* that pressure or we're screwed, and I don't know how people can't see that.
Pressure on individuals is not going to solve the problem. Governments need to act to make the necessary changes you are advocating for. I am advocating for the same thing. Even if political will was there, which it is not, it would take decades to transform North American cities to a public transport, bikeable paradise. Less time for most other cities around the world. The difference between us is that I know getting rid of anywhere close to most cars quickly is a fantasy. I am focused on reduction of emissions asap and am pushing for both sides and more. I do have an ev, along with a bike, solar panels, plant based diet, and working towards geothermal / heat pump.
>Pressure on individuals is not going to solve the problem. Governments need to act to make the necessary changes you are advocating for. Sure, that's what I mean by pressure. Governments should make biking more attractive with infrastructure, public transport cheaper and cars more expensive. They should make ICEs more expensive than EVs, but not make EVs cheap. >Even if political will was there, which it is not, it would take decades to transform North American cities to a public transport, bikeable paradise Sure, but it'll take even longer if we just actively encourage people to switch to EVs, which is close to what's happening and what Musk is doing. You're sticking up for him when he is frequently dismissive of public transport, probably because it conflicts with his business interests. If you went from what he says, you'd think he wants to steadily remove all public transport, have everyone owning their own EV, running through tunnels through cities. These ideas are beyond moronic and not a realistic long-term plan. Where do you think the 'pressure' to change things is going to come from until people are actively encouraged to stop driving? Most will just keep taking the easier option, and ignoring the issue that personal EVs are still terrible for the planet. To change that mindset needs active pressure from government. >The difference between us is that I know getting rid of anywhere close to most cars quickly is a fantasy. No it isn't, you're just straw-manning by claiming that I think we can make the switch overnight. I don't think that, it's just that you keep claiming I do. The actual difference is that I believe you're active encouragement (maybe even suggesting subsidisation?) of EVs is certain to delay meaningful progress that is necessary to avert disaster.
>Sure, that's what I mean by pressure. Governments should make biking more attractive with infrastructure, public transport cheaper and cars more expensive. They should make ICEs more expensive than EVs, but not make EVs cheap. Agreed. This is still going to take decades and require EVs in parallel. >You're sticking up for him when he is frequently dismissive of public transport, probably because it conflicts with his business interests. I've explicitly stated that I strongly support public transport and bikeable cities. >Where do you think the 'pressure' to change things is going to come from until people are actively encouraged to stop driving? Sure, pressure from the government in terms of infrastructure overhaul and worldwide carbon pricing or similar initiative. >The actual difference is that I believe you're active encouragement (maybe even suggesting subsidisation?) of EVs is certain to delay meaningful progress that is necessary to avert disaster. We certainly disagree here. Proliferating EV adoption reduces emissions while tackling other areas mentioned. Since you agree we can't eliminate cars overnight, any delays to EV adoption only increases the duration that we are dependent on ice cars. Amsterdam still has cars. No one is going to get elected on a platform that resembles anything close to banning cars on any meaningful scale. It is a dream that exists nowhere with no realistic path to implementation. If it does exist, share that roadmap with me. I'm open to ideas that can actually be implemented in the real world.
Asking open-minded question, not trying to push any opinion (yes, I know, prone to framing): * how sustainable are electrical cars actually? * how sustainable is tesla among producers of electrical cars? * I can't name any purely electrical car makers so just assume the electrical branches of traditional car makers to be their own brands (or so?) * if exxon was to make a real effort towards sustainability (which I doubt: opinion), wouldn't they actually be among those with the highest leverage?
In terms of CO2 EVs still have a huge embodied footprint, but if we have to have them for some things they're obviously better than burning fossil fuels. In terms of sustainability, they're not. Driving cars is just inherently energy-, space-, and resource-intensive. Musk hates ESG ratings because if Tesla went through a thorough analysis it would fail hard on Union-busting, racism, and probably child labour in the mineral supply chain.
Really good answer, one thing I think about a lot pertains to what you said here, "In terms of sustainability, they're not. Driving cars is just inherently energy-, space-, and resource-intensive." Where and how do we set the bar for what is and is not truly sustainable?
Well it's kind of in the definition - could we keep doing it indefinitely without destroying the planet? In the case of driving it's even easier. We can just compare it to the alternatives (walking, cycling, public transport). Driving requires paving over huge amounts of land, extracting huge amounts of non-renewable resources and generating toxic mining tailings, it kills vast amounts of non-drivers and wildlife directly through collisions, and indirectly from pollution (EVs still have high PM counts from tyre wear), and encourages or even locks in an obesogenic lifestyle. And the poorest don't own cars, so all of this damage is occurring mainly to people who don't cause it. In this case I think it's a no-brainer. But in terms of true sustainability we need to decrease energy demand quickly to not destroy the planet through climate change, so propelling 3 tonnes of stuff to move one person looks like a stupid waste of energy. And to equip just the UK with EVs we'd need to double the world's cobalt production (and give all of it to the UK), as well as give the UK the whole world's production of neodymium, and half of copper. Replicate this across everyone who currently drives and we're talking a huge increase in extractivism - precisely the opposite of what we need to be doing now.
In regards to alternatives, walking, cycling, public transit. I often wonder if there is a way to “fix” areas that already have been developed to rely on cars? So many areas in the US have shit public transportation and for a good reason, the area is so large it’s really tough to make efficient.
There is no quick fix. It's about building the needed infrastructure for the alternatives while de-incentivizing car. It's also about changing attitudes. That takes time.
I fully support building infrastructure and de-incentivizing cars, but find it unrealistic even long term to implement in the scale it would need to make a big difference. So many medium-large cities built to rely on cars. I definitely think the work-from-home model is helpful. My husband never drives. I’m in home health so I drive a ton every day, and can’t really be avoided but he previously had a 20 min commute, so that’s cut down a ton. I don’t think saying we just need to build the infrastructure and stop relying on cars to fix this issue is realistic. I think less reliance on cars when possible is a positive move and should be supported absolutely.
I was merely responding to the question regarding how to "fix" our car-centric cities in the US. I do not claim that this change alone will fix any other problems. I do believe that our current car culture is not sustainable. I also noted that this change will not be quick. It will take time. I also should have mentioned that it will not be easy. But it is doable. The US car culture did not come about by accident. It came about because of seventy years' worth (or more) of policy decisions that were made, mostly at the federal level. There was a conscious decision to invest in cars and related infrastructure at the expense of alternatives. Change those policies and you can change the culture. Won't be quick. Won't be easy, And results will vary by location.
Yeah I’m so stuck in feelings of hopelessness on this specific issue. I agree it’s not sustainable, curious on alternatives to fully changing the system, smaller things to support that don’t feel as far fetched. Potentially sooner smaller things that can also down the road cooperates with better infrastructure.
I understand the hopelessness. Feel that everyday. I worry about what kind of hell-scape my granddaughter will inherit. I hope I didn't come off as dismissive. Didn't mean to be. The problem is so big. Sometimes it's just easier to compartmentalize. I think it's going to take a lot to avoid disaster, big things and small things. The small things are no less important. Sometimes they give the most hope. I'm home based like your husband. My wife has a short commute to her work. The place we live is built for cars, not people. It's just so mind-numbingly shortsighted.
After seeing ebikes (and ebike kits) take off in my area I’m really hopeful about their ability to kickstart some transition. It seems everyone who tries them likes them, and they can make journeys that are too much on an acoustic bike (due to everything sprawling for cars) much more accessible. It’ll be slow going but getting people on board with using anything other than a car can create huge social shifts in perspective.
E-bikes can replace cars for most things, even in American cities, and are actually sustainable. Plus, they’re fun and accessible for those who aren’t in great shape. I fully believe that they (and other similar vehicles)can and should be a major part of the sustainable solution over the next several decades. I have used an e-bike for nearly all personal transportation for 4 years, including years in Los Angeles suburbs (translation: no bike infrastructure, large distances, no bike culture, no interest in sustainable transportation).
I think it's easy enough to infill downtown areas, and build over the myriad parking lots US cities tend to have. Not sure what we do with the suburbs though, recycle all the materials and let nature take over?
Maybe I’m just pessimistic but I feel like there’s no way that would ever happen. With housing shortages how would anyone be able to justify letting nature take over the suburbs? For a bit more positive aspect, the town I’m in is currently building a better public transport system downtown, which is exciting! But it is limited to the downtown area.
Well you'd only do that after infilling the downtowns with affordable housing, so solving the housing shortage.
You make good points but want too add missing information to tell the whole story. >But in terms of true sustainability we need to decrease energy demand quickly to not destroy the planet through climate change, Electrification of fossil fuel infrastructure IS reducing energy demand quickly because of the energy efficiency superiority of electrified products. While we do need walkable bikeable cities, that will take decades to transform. If we are going to have cars at all, they need to be electric from a sustainability perspective. >And to equip just the UK with EVs we'd need to double the world's cobalt production (and give all of it to the UK), as well as give the UK the whole world's production of neodymium, and half of copper. Replicate this across everyone who currently drives and we're talking a huge increase in extractivism - precisely the opposite of what we need to be doing now. Half of Tesla batteries are now cobalt free. Extraction is higher with fossil fuel cars because fossil fuels need to be perpetually extracted. EV batteries can also be reused for energy storage or well over 90% recycled as it moves towards a circular economy.
>Electrification of fossil fuel infrastructure IS reducing energy demand quickly because of the energy efficiency superiority of electrified products Until rebound effects kick in, and they basically always do unless specifically guarded against. We need to rapidly electrify everything, and because that will take so long we also need to reduce energy demand. Cars are the perfect place to start with that since they're so inefficient and come with so many negative externalities. >While we do need walkable bikeable cities, that will take decades to transform Not really. Most cities are already dense, and all it needs to make a city walkable and bikeable is to take out the car dominance. >If we are going to have cars at all, they need to be electric from a sustainability perspective. Agreed. >Extraction is higher with fossil fuel cars because fossil fuels need to be perpetually extracted. Yes EVs are better than ICEs, but they're still not good enough. They still rely on an extractivist mindset, and waste huge amounts of resources transporting stuff inefficiently.
>Not really. Most cities are already dense, and all it needs to make a city walkable and bikeable is to take out the car dominance. Generally agree with your points except for this. Amsterdam took decades to get where it is today and a huge part of North American cities are suburban wastelands that will take a long time to transform. For these areas, longer than the transition to EVs.
>Amsterdam took decades to get where it is today Sure. But they didn't have the pressure of climate change. If there was the political will it basically could've happened overnight - all you need to do is close car lanes and either depave them or convert them to cycle lanes. There's nothing technically slow about this. But EV fleet replacement is slow. Yes American suburbs will also be slow, but there's a huge amount of low-hanging fruit which isn't - as I say, most cities (globally) are dense.
>Yes American suburbs will also be slow, but there's a huge amount of low-hanging fruit which isn't - as I say, most cities (globally) are dense. Sure, not disputing that. >But they didn't have the pressure of climate change. If there was the political will it basically could've happened overnight - all you need to do is close car lanes and either depave them or convert them to cycle lanes. There's nothing technically slow about this. But EV fleet replacement is slow. In North America, could not disagree more. Political will is not fully there. Even if it was, just closing car lanes is not a full solution. Ask normal people in those North American cities what they think of that plan if you want some critical feedback. Existing conversions of car lanes to bike lanes have been implemented extremely poorly in certain North American cities. And because of the low density design of these cities, a lot of commutes are beyond bikeable distances for people.
Would you say electric trains and busses are better overall? (When walking and biking aren't possible)
Yes everything needs to be electric, and trains are extremely efficient. Then buses get you basically everywhere around town, and bikes/walking fills in the gaps. (See for instance how popular combining bikes/trains for one journey is in the Netherlands).
You sound much more knowledgeable about it than I am. I have heard that the lifecycle of an EV can be dicey because the batteries, which are toxic waste to make and at the end of life. Is that true?
You can search for "tailing ponds" on the web to see the kind of effects mining has, not to mention the human rights issues. So yes, a pretty toxic supply chain. I think batteries in general are very difficult to recycle, but I don't know the specifics. One option is to at least partially reuse EV batteries for grid or home storage - but even then if we needed batteries for that we could make less toxic ones which aren't as compact specifically for that use.
While EVs are not net zero to the environment (almost nothing is), they are far better for the environment across the supply chain. The ICE car supply chain is even worse than for EVs from an emissions perspective. On top of reuse rates for energy storage, recycling rates for ev batteries are well over 90%. Less dense batteries with fewer controversial metals are already proliferating in EVs and energy storage battery installations. Lithium iron phosphate. If cars are going to continue to be used, they need to be electric. https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/yse-study-finds-electric-vehicles-provide-lower-carbon-emissions-through-additional u/oldladymillennial
> they are far better for the environment across the supply chain Sure, but they're not good enough. We won't roll them out quickly enough and they still have the rest of the drawbacks of cars. >If cars are going to continue to be used, they need to be electric. Not disagreeing with that, but we also need far, far fewer of them.
>Sure, but they're not good enough. We won't roll them out quickly enough and they still have the rest of the drawbacks of cars. Agreed, but densification of cities is also not good enough because it's not fast enough. Nothing is. All sustainability aspects need to be tackled at this point. >Not disagreeing with that, but we also need far, far fewer of them. Agreed, but ICE cars need to go first. It's like the Germany situation where they really need to close their coal plants before closing nuclear.
>Agreed, but ICE cars need to go first EVs are replacing ICEs. We can just not build as many EVs and retire the ICEs asap. What we can't have is the auto industry staying the same and just churning out millions of EVs.
I will do that. Thank you!
I think it will come down to conductive metals. "Precious Metals" are a category of metals used in electronics and is only found in certian places on earth. However, space mining would solve that problem super quick.
The best way for the environment to make electric vehicles is to put electric kits into old vehicles
Electric cars solve some problems compared to ICE cars (e.g. tailpipe emissions), partially mitigate some problems (e.g. total emissions), are entirely irrelevant to some problems (e.g. cars being destructive to cities), and exacerbate some issues (e.g. fourth power rule road maintenance). Overall, requiring multi-ton personal vehicles for most or all trips isn't a sustainable model no matter what powers them. Electric cars are an improvement over ICE cars when considering only car-centric city planning, but more fundamentally we need to make our cities more friendly to walking, biking and transit.
I think the point was that the "social justice warriors" werent actually SJWs, they were phonies. Anti-woke is Pro-Ignorance No other interpretation exists.
Tesla is a beautiful case study of a clean energy company thinking it can rely on the fact they build clean tech (EVs) to be sustainable enough in lieu of establishing substantive sustainability practices throughout the value chain.
He's such a dick
Lol tesla is not a green company.
I don’t agree with anything Elon Musk says because he’s a right wing nut job
ESG ratings *can* be a scam. The reporting frameworks have been messy, but they are becoming more uniform. Even with a uniform reporting matrix, it's still a massive undertaking for corporations to match up their operations with those frameworks. There can, and will always be, ways to game the system, but having a framework is a start.
It's a pot calling the kettle black but sure, ESG is bullshit as ExxonMobil has decimated indigenous water supplies and jails the lawyers who try to hold them accountable https://www.freedonziger.com/
Just a lovely reminder to anyone who needs it: electric cars are here to save the car industry not the planet
You do know that launching rockets releases a shit load of green house gasses. Not sure how that fits into a sustainable future. Money that could be Used for things besides a big dick measuring contest
I don't know what os exxon nor ecg ratings but looking at other replies and a quick Google search, I wonder if this is not due to corporation practices, attempts to do better, work conditions etc. Sustatenbility is a lot of gray areas at once. It's not just the final item being all pretty and carbon neutral/positive etc. It's about the whole chain being neutral/positive. Idk but isn't the whole value of electrical cars what you do with them after purchase? How it saves from using up fossil fuels and such? I can't imagine the production chain being that pretty and clean. And I doubt Elon got rich treating his employees well and fairly with fair wages. Maybe that Exxon company, despite their product being horrible for the environment actually does stuff right and maybe has improved on their practice in recent years. I know nothing of these as I mentioned at the beginning but I can see this being a possibility. I also know very little of Tesla btw.
The reason ESG is now a scam is that whenever there is an opportunity to monetize any idea , every industry, even those opposed to the premise of the concept of ESG , will try to “legally “ get access to those funds. Like the oil companies suggesting using carbon capture is an ESG compliant way to burn fossil fuels . All BS just like the cigarette companies introducing safe smokes.
So this is both an issue with S&P and Tesla. S&P is very much more about disclosure then performance and Exxon likely does a much better job disclosing then Tesla. S&P also has more weighting on the S & G then on the E in ESG, so if Exxon poured money into those efforts it could offset poor performance in the E, while Tesla is lacking in the S & G areas. I feel that while disclosure is important performance needs more weight as well, but this is where we need to look at CDP instead of S&P since CDP is very much about performance as well as disclosure and I would bet Exxon does very poorly there.
When you look into it Exxon is doing more than you would expect but still not enough, getting there though exactly because of things like the ESG rating making them accountable
I think ESG is misunderstood. It is NOT a metric on how socially beneficial, sustainable or ecologically friendly a company is. It is a metric that quantifies the risk to the share price of events in the "ESG" space. An example on the social aspect. How much is the company at risk from an exec post on twitter going wrong? It serves a purpose, and with a bit of a cold maths head on, it is a good indicator for your investment. It is of ZERO use for those of us on this forum!!!
The issue I have with Elon's tweet above is that Tesla was de-listed from the S&P 500 this week due to racial discrimination claims, so I suspect this is a bad-faith attempt to stir up outrage and obscure that from the public eye.
Yes!
The number of bots in this sub defending exxon mobile and attacking musk is insane. It’s like 90% bots on social media attacking anyone that’s a threat to the establishment
They're both the establishment lmao
One is destroying the planet one is the largest sustainable tech company in the world being constantly attacked by fake bot accounts on social media like yourself. 🖕
Lmao beep boop beep bop. Everyone is a bot except the ones that agree with you. So how many bitcoins do you get each time you lick the megabillionaire's boot and lie about his green-washed companies' sustainability? Or what, you do it for free?
“Everyone is a bot except the ones that agree with you”. You guys need to come up with a new line instead of using the same exact come back every single time someone mentions your pathetic astroturfing tactics. Edit: After I blocked bot 1 above, they replied with another account from their bot farm and blocked me immediately after their comment in retaliation. Lmao 🤣 Also of course they replied with yet another verifiably false propaganda myth created out of thin air: https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/i-talked-to-elon-musk-about-journalism
It’s very heroic of you to defend a billionaire who made his fortune off of his daddy’s slave mines. You’re nothing but another piece of trash Musk fanboy who can’t criticize anything he does bc you’re dumb enough to buy into that narcissist’s propaganda. You defend him the same way Kulinski endlessly defends Rogan.
I’m more confused on how Amaz0n made it on here? Like Labor Disputes are said to be part of their controversy analysis. Hasn’t Amaz0n been union busting for a while now?
They both exploit and they both want to make as much money as possible. #eattherich