Why Tesla Was Kicked Out of the S&P 500's ESG Index (cnbc.com) 174
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: The S&P 500 booted electric vehicle maker Tesla from its ESG Index as part of an annual update to the list. Meanwhile, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and even oil and gas multinational Exxon Mobil were still included on the list. The S&P 500 ESG Index uses environmental, social and governance data to rank and effectively recommend companies to investors. Its criteria include hundreds of data points per company that pertain to the way businesses affect the planet and treat stakeholders beyond shareholders -- including customers, employees, vendors, partners and neighbors. Changes to the index took effect on May 2, and a spokesperson for the index explained why they were made in a blog post published Wednesday.
It said that Tesla's "lack of a low-carbon strategy" and "codes of business conduct," along with racism and poor working conditions reported at Tesla's factory in Fremont, California, affected the score. Tesla's handling of an investigation by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration also weighed on its score. "While Tesla may be playing its part in taking fuel-powered cars off the road, it has fallen behind its peers when examined through a wider ESG lens," the S&P spokesperson wrote. The CNBC report cited Tesla's settlement with the EPA in February "after years of Clean Air Act violations and neglecting to track its own emissions." They also mentioned last year's Toxic 100 Air Polluters Index, where Tesla ranked 22nd -- "worse than Exxon Mobil, which came in 26th."
Tesla has notoriously scored poorly, "though it's not just about the environmental aspect but the assessments that have also criticized Tesla's company culture," notes Electrek's Fred Lambert. "ESG doesn't really take into account the fact that Tesla's entire business is about transitioning the world to sustainable energy but rather looks at strategies to decarbonize operations."
On Twitter, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said S&P Global Ratings has "lost their integrity" and has been "weaponized by phony social justice warriors."
It said that Tesla's "lack of a low-carbon strategy" and "codes of business conduct," along with racism and poor working conditions reported at Tesla's factory in Fremont, California, affected the score. Tesla's handling of an investigation by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration also weighed on its score. "While Tesla may be playing its part in taking fuel-powered cars off the road, it has fallen behind its peers when examined through a wider ESG lens," the S&P spokesperson wrote. The CNBC report cited Tesla's settlement with the EPA in February "after years of Clean Air Act violations and neglecting to track its own emissions." They also mentioned last year's Toxic 100 Air Polluters Index, where Tesla ranked 22nd -- "worse than Exxon Mobil, which came in 26th."
Tesla has notoriously scored poorly, "though it's not just about the environmental aspect but the assessments that have also criticized Tesla's company culture," notes Electrek's Fred Lambert. "ESG doesn't really take into account the fact that Tesla's entire business is about transitioning the world to sustainable energy but rather looks at strategies to decarbonize operations."
On Twitter, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said S&P Global Ratings has "lost their integrity" and has been "weaponized by phony social justice warriors."
So, let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
This index is just full of shit then.
Re:So, let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
This index is just full of shit then.
Or you may want to read the second last sentence of the summary. The index doesn't judge what the company does for customers but rather how the company itself is run.
Mind you WTF Exxon is doing on the list is a bit of a curious case, but I guess the list doesn't care if a company did it voluntarily or if shareholders are dragging them kicking and screaming into the modern world.
Re:So, let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Or if their entire company product portfolio results in carbon pollution, apparently.
Re: So, let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This. There is obviously a bias here. Do you know how many people love working at Tesla Fremont? They are working in auto manufacturing not because the GM plant up the road failed and moved to MX. They work there because they believe in the mission and the founder (or are some of the ones looking to hurt the company or its CEO).
Ok, stop for a moment. One of the criteria of the ESG index is not to be mired with accusations of racism and lack of worker safety. Tesla has been having problems on those two fronts, and there's been enough documented complaints on Tesla's floors to put your claim "everyone loves it here" into question.
It's not just about "eco" policies, and this explains why Exxon still remains in the index (on top of noting that Tesla is still in the other, more financially centric indexes.)
Forget unifying the country. Biden cant be in the same room as his opposition. Trump, at least has Mark Zuckerberg on his tech summit. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/t... [nbcnews.com]
Why on Earth would you brin
Re: So, let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
So how is Amazon on the list? They're notoriously bad with their treatment of employees, arguably much worse than Tesla considering that their employees are afraid to take bathroom breaks or take shelter during a natural disaster, they're without a doubt the biggest contributors to throwaway culture, they produce fucktons of plastic waste, they pay relatively little in income taxes, they cheat the fuck out of their merchants, they only pretend to do anything about fake reviews, and probably a ton of other t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like libs think liberalism is a race.
Exhibit B of what I said (about people mindlessly parroting left/right talking points.)
Re: (Score:2)
Or if their entire company product portfolio results in carbon pollution, apparently.
Indeed. But then how do you criticise a company for the results of pollution caused by 3rd parties using their portfolio? Oil companies don't cause pollution directly** , *** , it's their idiot customers who set their product on fire who do.
** Yeah okay producing oil is carbon intensive, but you'd be amazed at how much effort is ongoing to clean that up, converting heaters to fire hydrogen, kicking of billions of dollars of projects to sequester carbon, capture methane, etc. That is policy, spending money t
Re: So, let me get this straight (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... in response to consumer demand & high prices.
The most important function of prices is to determine where to allocate production & capital resources. If prices fell back to $2/gal do you really think they'd keep increasing production?
Just lump planetary risks & nonsense together (Score:5, Interesting)
> The index doesn't judge what the company does for customers but rather how the company itself is run.
Which seems silly if you care at all about the environment. Even the fine summary says:
> While Tesla may be playing its part in taking fuel-powered cars off the road, it has fallen behind its peers when examined through a wider ESG lens
I'm sure that this "wider ESG lens" will do a lot of good on an overheated planet, since it seems to encompass mostly political nonsense and not actual risks to our survival.
Re: (Score:2)
Which seems silly if you care at all about the environment. Even the fine summary says:
No it's not. The S&P is a financial services ratings company. They rate *companies*, not what their customers do with the product. Should Tesla get dinged for carbon emissions because someone got disgruntled and set their Tesla on fire https://theeastcountygazette.c... [theeastcountygazette.com] ? Counting that as a direct emission by a company would be stupid. As is counting someone taking your product, compressing it to 200psi and then lighting it with a spark.
If you want to know total environmental footprint of economic activi
Just proving that ESG is baloney (Score:4)
Sorry, but "making cars that significantly reduce humanity's carbon output" seems like something the company is doing, not the customer.
And ignoring this significant contribution to the environment in favor of a "wider ESG lens" that cares about stupid political crap just tells me that ESG is baloney.
If this is what they mean by ESG, I want nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla is a company that manufactures cars. It is intrinsically a polluting company, especially considering that each of their cars contains a lot of lithium.
Over time, of course, a Tesla ends up being better for the environment than an ICE car but that isn't the same as not being bad for the environment. Teslas are bad, just not as bad as other cars. If Musk was really concerned about the environment, he'd be looking for ways to reduce the number of cars the World needs to build each year. And no, neither H
Re: (Score:2)
The ESG is a list for people who want to make ethical investments without bothering to do their own research. Like when your pension fund asks how you want to invest, there is an ethical investments box that means it goes into ESG list company shares.
The fact that Amazon is on there suggests that it's not a particularly good set of criteria that they are using. As well as having really bad conditions for employees, their delivery system generates a lot of pollution that could be avoided.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without any objective metrics.
Re: (Score:2)
The index doesn't judge what the company does for customers but rather how the company itself is run.
More specifically, it seems all the index cares about is if the company has a written policy on various topics. Apparently, Exxon has an environmental policy and Tesla doesn't.
If I have a policy stating that my product will include a steaming pile of shit in every box, does that make me better than someone that doesn't include a steaming pile of shit in every box but has no policy stating so?
This is what's wrong with large corporations. Lots of talk, very little action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So, let me get this straight (Score:2)
Most people are shareholders, if you have a pension fund, likely you are a shareholder of most of the top 500 companies
Re: (Score:2)
hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Or they just want to hurt Elon because he tried to take over Twitter, and hurt a certain faction within the US establishment.
The decisions behind these indexes predate the acquisition. Put the damn tinfoil hat down, bro, not everything is connected with conspiracies and shit.
Re: hmm (Score:3)
A 'conspiracy theory' is when you accuse otherwise independent actors of behaving in concert toward some hidden purpose. Given that the raison dÃtre of the ESG index is to reshape society by guiding corporate behavior and outcomes, I'm not sure how much 'punishing Musk's companies for his contribution to a different idea of desirable social outcomes' can count.
The idea that coordinated activists are all mutually supressing their instincts in order to be objectively fair to the world's wealthiest billio
Re:hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not though.
It certainly kicked life into the electric car market, there's absolutely no question of that whatsoever.
But it's not single-handedly bringing them to the masses, most electric cars aren't Teslas.
The problem is that other manufacturers have the second mover advantage, and Tesla just isn't innovating enough to stay ahead and retain the benefits of being a first mover. For example, competitors have now caught up on range and Tesla doesn't have any breakthrough right now to stay ahead of them.
If therefore Tesla can't show that it's greener than the competition, and driving the market, then it's reasonable, however much credit it deserves for driving the market in the past, to say that currently it doesn't have particularly strong credentials in terms of green tech.
You can't just do something great at a fixed point in time and expect to be rated well for it forever if others take what you did and do it even better, that's just not how moving indexes work.
The biggest problem is that Musk has stretched himself too thin, for a while he was really pushing Tesla on various issues like range, now he seems more detached and disinterested and has distracted himself with things he has no experience of, like social media with his faltering Twitter bid. He needs to get his focus back to endeavours like Tesla and SpaceX so he can start driving them back ahead of the competition again to get Tesla's value back, otherwise it's going to end up as "just another EV manufacturer".
Re: (Score:2)
For example, competitors have now caught up on range
Which competitor has caught up on range without charging a lot more?
Re:hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Well at the higher end the Mercedes-Benz EQS has about 20% more range than the Model S for only 8% more price. Mid range the Ford Mustang Mach-E outranges the Model 3 for around the same price. There a fair few other decent examples, feel free to research for yourself to see what I mean.
But probably most importantly there are tons of cars at the low end that have respectable range (250 miles+ real world) far cheaper than Tesla's cheapest offering, like, as much as 30%+ cheaper.
Tesla just ain't remotely winning on price/range ratio anymore, whatever you may think. But regardless I'd argue it's those respectably ranged cheap cars that are really driving progress now as they're the ones your average joe buys, they're your mass market cars that make the real difference to car emissions. I don't think Tesla wants to compete there though because Tesla has that Apple factor to it - it won't build a cheap model because it wants to remain a premium brand. That's not a critique as it's a valid (and successful) business model, but it does mean they're inevitably ceding the moral high ground in terms of making a difference for the planet with EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. And do you want to guess at your chances of surviving a crash, SAFELY in that piece of tinfoil and plastic wrap?
Re: (Score:2)
Model 3 long range reaches EPA range of 358 miles with the cheaper, smaller wheels.
Info on Mach E Extended range varies depending on source but I'm seeing figures of "targeting 300 miles EPA range", and 305 miles EPA and 314 miles EPA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ford's EV build and order website shows me the California Route 1 model being the highest range model, which shows 314 miles (515km) EPA range estimate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's like their $35,000 model 3 price point, it mean their $25k car will cost about $34k
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not single-handedly bringing them to the masses, most electric cars aren't Teslas.
The point is that those other cars wouldn't exist if Tesla didn't give the rest of the industry a swift kick up the arse.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not wordwide, but in the USA, most electric cars are Teslas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they are not almost single handedly solving global warming. They just have good marketing that makes people believe this. Having an EV product doesn't make one a green company by default. How they make the EVs does matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Except its not, In my opinion its stagnated, they are still selling a decade old design and have failed to deliver 2 major projects. Their engineers are difficult and arrogant to work with, and are scared to deal with any idea NIH (not invented here). Meanwhile the big boys are gearing up to deliver some nut punchers on vehicles that (at least in their markets) people actually want, and not just a couple fugly sedans, a roadster that looks like a 15 year old Pontiac and a "crossover" which is only a model
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yea and that's kind of the problem, the semi was announced in 2017 and cybertruck was 2019, that's pretty slow even in the EV market
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the semi will ever see the light of day. Haulage companies need to look at economics, and are probably less easily swayed by the Elon hype. In fact, I don't think Musk was ever really serious about it. At the announcement presentation, the stat he seemed most proud of was the 0-60 time. Nobody in trucking cares about that - it's how much load can you carry and how far. Clearly Tesla never talked to anybody in the industry before announcing it.
The Cybertruck may eventually make it into producti
Re: (Score:2)
They're not going to launch a Semi.
The power capacity required for a semi would rob enough from cargo hauling capacity that using one becomes unprofitable.
And there are weight limits on trucks for a reason.
Seriously? (Score:2)
Are you seriously claiming that road transport is the sole cause of CO2 emissions? I suggest you actually find out some numbers before making ludicrous claims like that
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla is doing nothing to solve the global warming problem and at the price, it's not bringing EVs to the masses.
Building more cars with any kind of power train is not solving the global warming problem. Also, endorsing Bitcoin is precisely the opposite of solving global warming.
Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
From Tesla's 2022Q1 results [cnbc.com]:
Revenue: $16.8 billion
Profit: $3.3 billion
Carbon credits: $679 million
Please explain how if the carbon credits were 4% of revenue, that Tesla would be losing money when their profit was 19.6% of revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
You can shift numbers as much as you want. The reality is that it is irrelevant for 2 simple reasons:
a) Even when playing with the numbers they are profitable without carbon credits and Elon Musk has repeatedly called for them to be removed from the auto industry since they benefit his competitors more than him.
b) It's really completely irrelevant if something is profitable only because of credits. That's the whole reason subsidies exist: push an agenda via collective resources. If private companies didn't use those credits to their competitive advantage it would defeat the purpose of subsidies existing in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is complete bullshit.
How did a parrot (Score:2)
Oh, that's right. On the Internet, nobody knows your'e a parrot.
Except we can tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, as others have pointed out, credits are less than a quarter of Tesla's profit.
Second, what's wrong with that system? Do you think those ICE companies like giving money to a direct competitor that could one day put them out of business? It's hard enough to make money on ICE cars without having to give millions to the competition.
The system punishes companies that are stuck in the ICE age while rewarding those who are producing clean cars. It's working perfectly as intended.
It's like countries r
Re: (Score:2)
(There have been half a dozen stories about this on Slashdot already)
You've been here long enough to know that you should only come to Slashdot for the comments. And if you came for the comments you'll have found those half a dozen stories thoroughly debunked.
Which begs the question: Are you a weirdo who only reads Slashdot for the submission? Are you willfully ignorant pushing an outdated message from years ago? Or do you have an axe to grind?
That's what it is (Score:4, Informative)
" Elon Musk said S&P Global Ratings has "lost their integrity" and has been "weaponized by phony social justice warriors."
The name ESG means "environmental, social, and governance." By definition that's pretty much social justice warrior.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings the question of why the market should care about SJW stuff.
My guess is, they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most don't, business regulation=cost and less profit
Correctomundo (Score:2)
I ignore ESG ratings and vote against ESG stuff at AGMs. I'm sure my 3 million bucks of shares makes no difference either way
Re: (Score:2)
If you think those things are valuable to company then why wouldnt you invest in companies that do them well? You can easily make a case with the direction the culture and regulations in the future that companies who do well in those areas are going to see success in future.
Of course you could make the case that they won't but there does seem to be a small but growing demand for more "socialally concious" investing. The markets are just people after all.
Re:once stock prices get back to normal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's what it is (Score:4, Insightful)
Which brings the question of why the market should care about SJW stuff.
Because it is an extortion scam.
This is the same reason why Apple suppliers were highlighted for poor labor practices when Samsung's were even worse, because Apple got money to be extorted. Basically, "you have a nice company you got there, it would be a shame if your stock price tanked because we put a black label on it". Money changed hands, and your company is now on a virtue list.
It works because there are enough ignorant Americans who make investment based on these virtue signalling lists, or "activist shareholders" (read paid shills) who will cause trouble during shareholder meetings if the company don't play this game, and of course reporters who gleefully report these disruptions aiding the scam.
Re:That's what it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Which brings the question of why the market should care about SJW stuff.
Some shareholders do care (and they have the right to do so), which is why this type of index exists.
There are other indexes that use different criteria, in particular the good old, plain-vanilla SP&500, which only cares about financial performance.
For shareholders that do not care about such issues, then can just opt for the latter. The existence of one type of index does not preclude an interested (or non-interested) shareholder from using the other.
What is amusing is seeing so many slashdot users here (who are at most indirect dime shareholders) getting so worked up about this thing.
This is so bloody ridiculous. Things aren't that complicated, and none of you gain anything by overthinking it (let alone project your left/right identity politics on it.)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Some shareholders care. There are a class of mutual funds called "Ethical funds" that were created decades ago for that reason - such funds don't invest in things like tobacco, oil and other companies.
If it matters to you, good on you. If it doesn't, that's your decision as well.
There are plenty of companies and plenty of investments one can put their money into. And they can put their money however they want, it's their money after all.
Some companies care about things like ESG - a notable example
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla the company is not that green: manufacturing vehicles is intrinsically an environmentally damaging process, no matter what the powertrain.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it's not wanting a society heavily controlled by dicks for dicks, then I guess I am a "social justice warrior". Deal.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a weird definition but cool.
Re: That's what it is (Score:3)
What's funny is environmental concerns and social justice concerns are often directly at odds. Shit environmental and social justice concerns are often at odds with themselves. Think about the solar farm that encroches on wild spaces, or the removal of a polluting coal plant in a poor community, but the replacement of which both costs jobs and raises power prices (which disproportionately impacts the poor). Sure there are some decisions that seem like slam dunks ESG wise, but most arent. ESG is almost farci
Re: (Score:3)
That hasn't been true for a while. Last quarter they made $3.3B profit while emissions credit sales were $679M [theverge.com].
Musk is turning into a (Score:2, Interesting)
...right-wing troll. He used to mostly stay out of politics, but it seems he decided to go all out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...right-wing troll. He used to mostly stay out of politics, but it seems he decided to go all out.
Musk is just bent out of shape because the State of CA told him he had to comply with health regulations at the height of COVID, or risk having his factories shut down. What I see is a man child who doesn't like being told what to do by others.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What I see is a man child who doesn't like being told what to do by others.
Anyone who DOES like to be told what to do by others is pitiful.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who DOES like to be told what to do by others is pitiful.
If I came and punched you in the face would you be upset, or would you say "My man I like you. You're not like those pitiful people who simply obey the rules and don't assault others!"
You can be thankful that you reap the benefits of a modern western society on the "pitiful" actions of others.
Re:Musk is turning into a (Score:4, Interesting)
Section 13(d) of the 1934 Act and Regulation 13D thereunder require beneficial owners of more than 5% of a class of equity securities of a publicly traded company to file a report with the SEC. For purposes of calculating the percentage of shares held, a fund manager will generally be deemed the beneficial owner of the shares held by its clients, as well as of any shares held in its proprietary account. The Section 13(d) reporting requirement is satisfied by filing Schedule 13D with the SEC. Schedule 13D must be filed within 10 days of crossing the 5% ownership threshold. Schedule 13D must be amended promptly to reflect any material changes in the information provided. “Promptly” is not defined in the 1934 Act but is generally interpreted to mean less than two business days.
He did this so he could acquire more shares before the market heard about all the shares he was buying. He really should be forced to acquire as he has run thousands of twitter employees thru the ringer, and they should be paid their 54.20/share.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, I think Tesla is more secure than SpaceX. Starlink has the potential to bring down the latter company.
Re:Musk is turning into a (Score:5, Informative)
Musk is just bent out of shape because the State of CA told him he had to comply with health regulations at the height of COVID
Factually incorrect. Guidance from the Federal government was that factories like Tesla's could open; orders from the Governor of California allowed factories like Tesla's to open; but one or more health officers in Alameda County (the county in which the city of Fremont is located, thus the county containing Tesla's factory) ordered the Tesla factory to stay closed. Meanwhile, the factory in Shanghai was already open, and Elon Musk felt that the measures being taken to protect workers in Shanghai were working, and he was of course planning to use similar measures in Fremont. And of course grocery stores and other "essential" businesses were open.
Elon Musk was upset that factories in most of California were allowed to re-open, but not in the county Tesla's factory was in.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tesla-idINKBN22L0S5 [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is who enforces state health regulations?
The real point is that it's not competitive to operate in a county that keeps your plant shut down when your competitors in other states are allowed to resume production.
It's not about tantrums. It's about (existential-level) business environment differences.
Tesla must be spinning in his grave (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Funny.
Sorry I just ran out of points before this thread...
Elon Misk Kicked Off S&P ESG Index (Score:2)
The phrase you are looking for is:
"And not a single fuck was given."
Actually to be fair, maybe there are some investment funds you can get into that promise only to trade stocks on that index (I have not looked but one can buy anything). Insignificant by design, though. And those same customers probably invest in Tesla directly, anyway.
pertain to the way businesses affect the planet (Score:2)
Guess the phrase, "pertain to the way businesses affect the planet," carries only a couple of those hundreds of points. And the quote, "While Tesla may be playing its part in taking fuel-powered cars off the road, it has fallen behind its peers when examined through a wider ESG lens," kind of confirms that idea. There is no way that Tesla could be considered to be playing it's part: the company has single-handedly buried the needle on the gauge of moving the world away from fossil fuels. So, the weightin
Re: pertain to the way businesses affect the plan (Score:2)
The problem with Tesla is that Elon will not kowtow to vested interests who have immense influence over regulations, laws, and markets.
This is why the automobile dealers association of America and their state counterparts have spent tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars trying to blackball his dealerships in every state. They literally tried to make his business model illegal.
They blackballed his company from doing business with parts sub-suppliers as well, so he has to reinvent almost every component
Tesla's revenue doesn't match it's valuation (Score:3)
But, well, Ford's got an electric truck on the way. GM won't be far behind. No more carbon credits for Tesla. No more free rides.
I'd say give it 10 years and we'll see a buyout from one of the big 4. Mostly for patents and engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
But, well, Ford's got an electric truck on the way. GM won't be far behind. No more carbon credits for Tesla. No more free rides.
I'd say give it 10 years and we'll see a buyout from one of the big 4. Mostly for patents and engineers.
This is unhinged. Tesla sold 2/3 of the electric vehicles in the US last year and was at one point more valuable than the top 10 other worldwide car manufacturers combined. And the carbon credits were less than 5% of their revenue last quarter.
GM had to recall all of its Bolt electric vehicles for an unfixable problem and issued an emergency order to anyone who had one not to park it anywhere near a house or other vehicles due to the risk of fire. No one is about to buy a mass-market electric car from them
Bite the hand that feeds (Score:2)
His company exists because of government subsidies. He talks bad about government intervention in the economy.
Looking at the data (Score:4, Informative)
I was surprised to see Tesla as #22 on the worst polluters list, so I dug into it.
The underlying data is here:
https://grconnect.com/tox100/r... [grconnect.com]
They take the quantity of a pollutant and multiply it by a toxicity multiplier. The big thing driving Tesla's score is Cobalt compounds. According to the data they had air releases of 5,517 pounds times a toxicity multiplier of 17,000,000 for a big number of 93,789,000,000.
It's notable that this only tracks data in the United States. Tesla could become *green* on this index by moving their gigafactory 1,000 miles southeast into Mexico which IMHO means it is bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:shareholder service (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't bother posting when you don't know what you are talking about.
1. This isn't the S&P 500 (and there is no "S&P" index to get into).
2. Lots of S&P 500 companies pay no dividends (for example Amazon).
3. "With their stock price trading at about half the YTD price": Utterly meaningless sentence. Perhaps you mean "With their stock trading at about half its YTD peak price"?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if this index is bullshit or not, but you could be producing electric cars and still shitting up the planet overall because of bad business practices like sourcing from shitheels. For example most of the world's lithium comes from open pit mines in Australia, but it could be coming from salyars in Chile. Presumably it's still cheaper to get it from the open pit mines somehow, but that's not got the lowest environmental impact, has it? And then there's the batteries with cobalt in. 50% of new Te
Re: (Score:2)
Let us know when cars aren't crashing all the time. Then we can care about some Tesla crashes. At least let us know when more people are crashing and/or dying in Teslas than other makes. Car crashes is not news for nerds unless it runs over Bill Gates.
Re: Jus tripped the hand that ESG has no value (Score:2)