Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Transportation

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Tesla Was Kicked Out of the S&P 500's ESG Index

Comments Filter:
  • by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @05:04PM (#62547134)

    This index is just full of shit then.

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @05:32PM (#62547248)

      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.

      • by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @05:49PM (#62547296) Journal

        Or if their entire company product portfolio results in carbon pollution, apparently.

        • 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). Tesla has always been polarizing from day 1. But these days every organization seemed bent left or right. If you arenâ(TM)t perfectly neutral or hell bent one way or the other
          • 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

            • 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

              • I dunno, maybe Amazon treats all of its employees like shit equally so it isn't racist or sexist. It's all bullshit anyways and some probably just had an axe to grind with Musk. At least he can bitch about them on Twitter now.
            • by armada ( 553343 )
              I hear you but these days, if we are honest, “accusations of racism” are almost background noise. I, for example, just found out a few days ago that I’m a racist because I homeschool my kid.
        • 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

      • by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @06:01PM (#62547326) Journal

        > 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.

        • 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

          • by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Thursday May 19, 2022 @10:13AM (#62549204) Journal

            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.

        • by jeremyp ( 130771 )

          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

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          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.

      • Its because its full of shit. If you're a good little boy and do what all the globalist authoritarians tell you, you get highly rated on the ESG scale. If you rock the boat in any way, you get naughty points and get kicked off. Tesla is out because Elon is rocking the boat with his attempted twitter buyout. Anything he owns is taking a hit in their eyes right now.
      • Without any objective metrics.

      • 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.

    • by RobinH ( 124750 )
      Imagine you're Exxon and you know you're one of the main parts of the problem when it comes to the environment, and you ask some junior level executives to go figure out how to solve this problem, and they come back and say, "there are some expensive technologies we can use to cut emissions from our operations by X%, but in the end we're an oil company and we're going to keep selling a product that is going to keep harming the climate, and there's not much we can do about that." So instead, you funnel a co
  • hmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blackomegax ( 807080 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @05:05PM (#62547140) Journal
    The company is almost single-handedly solving the global warming problem by bringing EV to the masses. Clearly this S&P entity is owned by the oil barons who just want to tank EV's so the gas pipes stay flowing.
    • Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by louzer ( 1006689 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @05:17PM (#62547176)
      Or they just want to hurt Elon because he tried to take over Twitter, and hurt a certain faction within the US establishment.
      • Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)

        by luis_a_espinal ( 1810296 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @09:41PM (#62547874)

        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.

        • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @05:22PM (#62547200)

      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".

      • 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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @06:02PM (#62547330)

          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.

          • The absolute game changer in terms of volume is the Wuling MINI EV which costs between $4,000 and $6,000. They sold 400K last year in China.
            • by Chas ( 5144 )

              Sure. And do you want to guess at your chances of surviving a crash, SAFELY in that piece of tinfoil and plastic wrap?

          • At least some of your range comparisons are BS.
            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.
          • Once the "4680" batteries enter mass production, Tesla's next vehicle will target a $25,000 price point. Which is the same price point the avg Civic/Corolla has inflated to.
      • by Chuq ( 8564 )

        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.

      • most electric cars aren't Teslas.

        Perhaps not wordwide, but in the USA, most electric cars are Teslas.

      • Without the lead of Tesla, those 2nd mover competitors would still be hawking gas driven wares, not EV's, hence, Tesla is bringing EV to the masses. It may backfill to lots of different brands, but Tesla will go down in history as the pack leader, even if they fail to innovate and fall to obscurity after the dominos fall.
    • 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.

    • by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

      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

      • Most of Tesla's upcoming projects are delayed on the "4680" battery progress. But that's ramping fast and will let them launch the pickup, semi, and a 25,000 dollar budget car (25k is the current inflation median pricing for civic/corolla classes)
        • by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

          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

        • by jeremyp ( 130771 )

          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

        • by Chas ( 5144 )

          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.

    • 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

    • by jeremyp ( 130771 )

      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.

  • That's what it is (Score:4, Informative)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @05:06PM (#62547144) Journal

    " 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.

    • Which brings the question of why the market should care about SJW stuff. I mean, the stock market is a market, the word right there in the name. Once the negative-interest bubble bursts and stock prices get back to normal, I may personally buy some Tesla stock that all those funds that suddenly started caring so much about SJW stuff don't want.
      • Which brings the question of why the market should care about SJW stuff.

        My guess is, they don't.

        • Some funds do care because they think their customers care, so it's basically a checkbox they have to tick. They don't give a crap how ESG is defined and how companies get the title, as long as the checkbox gets ticked. Individual investors don't have to care about that though.
        • 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

      • 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.

      • Yeah, you just go right ahead and buy TSLA AFTER the stock price recovers again. Good plan, oh master of finance.
        • oh ok, I think I get what you're trying to say, except that the low interest rate bubble is already in the process of bursting, in case you hadn't noticed by the recent significant declines across growth stocks. Clearly you're expecting a significantly deeper bottom, including for TSLA. One thing though, TSLA itself is not borrowing anymore. It's massively profitable, and past break-even. So its growth rate doesn't depend directly on interest rates at this point.
      • by khchung ( 462899 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @08:27PM (#62547702) Journal

        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.

      • by luis_a_espinal ( 1810296 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @09:45PM (#62547884)

        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.)

        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          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

          • by jeremyp ( 130771 )

            Tesla the company is not that green: manufacturing vehicles is intrinsically an environmentally damaging process, no matter what the powertrain.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      If it's not wanting a society heavily controlled by dicks for dicks, then I guess I am a "social justice warrior". Deal.

    • 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

  • ...right-wing troll. He used to mostly stay out of politics, but it seems he decided to go all out.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bkmoore ( 1910118 )

      ...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)

        by judoguy ( 534886 )

        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.

        • 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.

      • by steveha ( 103154 ) on Thursday May 19, 2022 @03:56AM (#62548350) Homepage

        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]

        • The point is who enforces state health regulations? The counties do, and Alameda was responsible for enforcing state health regulations within their county. You're right, nobody wanted to close the Tesla factory, as long as Tesla complied with health regulations. I stand by my original opinion, Mr. Musk just hates being told what to do or how to run his business, especially by people he views as his inferiors. The argument that it's good enough for China, so should be good enough here really misses the poin
          • 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.

  • by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @05:25PM (#62547212) Homepage
    On the plus side, a new source of green energy.
  • 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.

  • 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

    • 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

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2022 @06:14PM (#62547362)
    they've been getting by because the big car companies don't want to make electrics but they do want to make high profit margin trucks that pollute like crazy. Tesla was the beneficiary of a scheme that paid them huge sums of cash from Ford & GM in exchange for selling electric cars. Basically a roundabout gov't subsidy since the cost of reducing pollution effectively shoved off of them and onto Truck buyers, essentially a tax if you needed a truck.

    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.
    • 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

  • His company exists because of carbon credits. He talks bad about environmentalists.
    His company exists because of government subsidies. He talks bad about government intervention in the economy.
  • Looking at the data (Score:4, Informative)

    by ElizabethGreene ( 1185405 ) on Thursday May 19, 2022 @08:48AM (#62548908)

    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.

The difficult we do today; the impossible takes a little longer.

Working...