They’re bleeding money
You can’t just take research costs and whatever else off the table to make the case the company is healthy…You think other major auto manufactures don’t have research costs?
And from today
Beyond all that electric cars at scale are still a novelty we don’t have the power grid to handle the offset…Look at the number of businesses they have 1-2 free charging locations as soon as its more than the CEO using them or some tax credit for doing so they will be going away.
Looking at my first post, the question should have been ‘Do you think Tesla doesn’t plan on making money?’
Sorry for the confusion. I’m aware of their current financial situation. I’m challenging why he thinks Tesla is merely a welfare case.
I look at it from a simpletons point of view. A large portion of what we consume / use is mined from below ground. I don’t remember the percentage exactly, but it was a larger number than I expected. There’s only so much of anything in the ground that we can mine. The more we mine, the deeper we have to go to get it. The deeper we have to go the more natural resources we need to expend to get there. Meantime, all the potentially reusable products go into a giant pile until we can’t pile anymore on and is covered in dirt, and them cordoned off because of all the toxins we’ve put in there. If I can toss a can, bottle, paper, plastic, whatever in another container and place it next to the same garbage can I put out every week, why wouldn’t I? I can’t possibly imagine that I’m not doing something to prevent waste and even help stop further waste from happening.
As I said, my simple minded viewpoint but I feel like I’m doing very little actual work for what I feel is a worthwhile cause.
:tup:
The “Prius” argument is more about virtue signaling that anything at this moment is history.
Yeah, everything you’re saying is great until you get to “negative impacts”. The geologic perspective is that an increase in global temperature is neither bad nor good; it just is. We humans have less control over our planet than we like to think we do. And reversing any impact we may or may not have had is impractical. The answer as it always has been is to adapt & evolve.
… skepticism about whether or not these were ‘tweaked’…
Not so much that they’re tweaked, but that we don’t know all the variables. We’re clearly missing parts of the puzzle so models are constantly being revised as we figure new things out. Observed data always seems to under perform the dramatic data spit out by our models.
… able to take earlier data points to predict the last few decades accurately.
“Decades accurately” … man, decades are such a short period of time when talking to a Geologist, lol.
I’ll pull out the bullshit card on this one. Got any sources on that? CO2, methane, etc have been proven to contribute to increasing temperature.
You misunderstand. No one questions that CO2, methane, etc increase temperature. The disagreement is over the rate of that increase. Is the rate “Al Gore we’re all going to die” fast or is it “Meh, this is interesting. Let’s start to transition off fossil fuel” slow.
And here’s the grand disconnect. You’re viewing the issue from a “life as we know it” perspective. Others (including myself) view the issue from quite a farther distance.
… If you consider the entire life of the planet, the ‘default’ of Earth is not to have life on it at all.
Starting to think like a Geologist 
… It’s about making an attempt to extend the life of our species.
I’m sure you genuinely believe this. But nothing I’ve seen has me concerned for the longevity of human kind.
BINGO… We have a winner. Despite all the doom and chaos predictions human kind is not threatened by this. Insurance companies are threatened. If you own waterfront property along the ocean where common sense says you’re gambling with mother nature regardless of climate change you’re threatened. If you chose to live in a desert that only exists because it pumps millions of gallons out of a nearby lake (cough Vegas cough) you’re threatened. Even then all these endangered humans are only threatened financially. The ocean isn’t going to jump up 6’ overnight and a hurricane isn’t capable of a sneak attack. The water in Lake Mead won’t go poof and vanish. These threatened people will have plenty of time to move out of harms way.
Mankind in general is a hearty species with the scientific advantage to adapt to just about anything for a price. We can live in the desert with AC and we can man a station 365 days a year in the Antarctic. Sorry if I have a hard time believing a +5 or +10 degree change is going to end mankind. It may make some places a lot harder (and more expensive) to live but maybe the right answer is just to not live there instead of trying to fight climate changes that have been going on for billions of years.
They are bleeding money. All their cars sell at no profit. They took on a massive debt liability for Solar City. They even said they have 0 plans to make any money on the cars they sell.
And it isn’t a quip. Lot of green energy companies right now are only beneficial and cheaper if you get the subsidies from the states and governments. Most are running at net losses and rely on their install base due to grants from public dollars.
A geologist’s perspective is exactly what I’m seeing you take. Millions upon millions of years of adaptation. You don’t think that what we’re adding to the mix could change things faster than we can adapt. That’s fair because humans have technology on our side, but we’re certainly changing things faster than the rest of the animal world can adapt. Should we just not give a shit about any life aside from humans with money? Or can you refute that we’re having an effect on the ability of other species to survive? Curious to hear what you think on this.
“Decades accurately” … man, decades are such a short period of time when talking to a Geologist, lol.
Indeed. Maybe you should view things from a different perspective. No one is arguing that the Earth won’t be here because of anything humans do to it. The argument is for preserving all life on top of making it easier for humans to adapt. You of all people should understand the comparable rate of change from human causes.
You misunderstand. No one questions that CO2, methane, etc increase temperature. The disagreement is over the rate of that increase. Is the rate “Al Gore we’re all going to die” fast or is it “Meh, this is interesting. Let’s start to transition off fossil fuel” slow.
There’s probably misunderstandings on both sides of the argument. Like most things, the most vocal people drown out the real discussion and alarmist views get projected on people who are making real and reasonable observations of the data we have available. I would slightly alter the latter of your statements to: “Meh, things are getting worse. Let’s start to transition off fossil fuel as soon as we can so we don’t cause more damage.” Does that sound fair?
And here’s the grand disconnect. You’re viewing the issue from a “life as we know it” perspective. Others (including myself) view the issue from quite a farther distance.
Ha. Josh, you may view the issue from a farther distance (although this seems to make you overlook certain things) but most people who argue against climate change are not in your camp. I would never equate you to them.
As for ‘life as we know it’; how would you view it? Earth existed before us and will exist after us? No shit. See previous comments.
I’m sure you genuinely believe this. But nothing I’ve seen has me concerned for the longevity of human kind.
Again, human kind may well be fine and dandy with technological advances. Despite what @JayS thinks, environmentalists aren’t worried that air conditioners won’t work if we continue to burn fossil fuels. There is a global impact on all plant and animal life. The same plant and animal life that allowed humans to be where we are.
I’m not going to pretend to know much about the financial world. As far as I know, Tesla has been making a lot of controversial steps but hasn’t been losing much confidence from investors. They are selling a desirable product at what would be good margin. (If they weren’t dumping money their growth.) They took a federal loan back in 2009 for $465 mil which was paid back early, with interest. All automakers get subsidies and tax breaks at the state and federal level.
Green energy companies in general (mostly solar) are definitely only viable with the federal incentives. No disagreement there. My bet is that will change in the near future with cheaper and more efficient solar technology, and Tesla is helping to make that happen.
Got any reading material on the matter? I’d like to know more about it. I’m just pissed I didn’t put money in TSLA when it was ~$35/share. (Sidenote, what the fuck happened to their stock in the last couple weeks?)
If anyone you know is looking to dump there waterfront property for cheap because they’re scarred of climate change, please send them my way so I can lowball the shit out of them while building up their fears
Side note: my step father was also a Geologist and 100% convinced catastrophic climate change would happen in his lifetime. Well he’s dead now so that didn’t happen, however I remember him talking about how stupid Dubai was for building their man-made islands (The World, etc) because it they were only “10 years away” from being under water… Still waiting for that one 20+ years later.
This actually WOULD cause serious problems if the rate was too quick. +5, +10 or more is a huge deal. But that’s not what we’re seeing, more along the lines of 1/10th degree movements. Plenty of time to react and respond without panic’d decisions.
I tend to gauge average temperature swings by the number of AC units I see for sale on here. It’s pretty accurate.
Me - “I’d like to learn more about this.” @boxxa - “Here is the easiest possible piece of information about TSLA to find on the internet.”
:lol: Was hoping for a bit more.
They missed massive production on their batteries. Like 40% less than expected. Also they missed 2nd quarter deliveries by like 10%.
So how do we stop or reverse this? Similar to my rising oceans question. Yes we’re having an impact, there just isn’t any real practical solution. Especially if you believe the rate of change is high.
That’s rainbows and lollipops man. Not all life is going to survive. It didn’t before humans were around, it doesn’t now, and it won’t after we’re gone. We’ve had several mass extinctions and species die out all the time with surprising regularity.
Sounds fair to me, but some people need to consider ALL the uses of fossil fuels (not just gasoline) and accept that we will NEVER be done extracting them. There is no replacement. The irony of people in Kayaks out in Seattle harbor blocking the Shell rig comes to mind. You’ll never satisfy the “leave it in the ground” hard liners.
Controlling temperature by reducing carbon emissions is the only method we have with current technology.
That’s rainbows and lollipops man. Not all life is going to survive. It didn’t before humans were around, it doesn’t now, and it won’t after we’re gone. We’ve had several mass extinctions and species die out all the time with surprising regularity.
BS. This is different on orders of magnitude due to the time scale alone. Humans causing mass extinction is okay because catastrophic events caused it in the distant past before humans were around? Why would we CONTRIBUTE to the killing off of species? We need biodiversity on this planet.
Sounds fair to me, but some people need to consider ALL the uses of fossil fuels (not just gasoline) and accept that we will NEVER be done extracting them. There is no replacement. The irony of people in Kayaks out in Seattle harbor blocking the Shell rig comes to mind. You’ll never satisfy the “leave it in the ground” hard liners.
That goes with my earlier comment. Those hipsters on kayaks are no different than rednecks rolling coal in Arkansas. Neither have a clue what oil is really part of. The broad range of uses from oil do not go ignored by people paying attention to the detail and are still pushing for renewable energy sources.
The overall vibe I get from your responses is that you know it’s happening, but we shouldn’t bother to do anything about it. Why? We can make steps in the right direction with current technology and curb the effects instead of burying our heads in the sand and letting our grand kids have to adapt to worsening conditions.
My grandparents created acid rain and a hole in the Ozone. I survived both.
And?
We can’t control global temperature by reducing emissions. We might be able to do it by eliminating emissions entirely, but that’s not going to happen.
We’re not causing mass extinctions. We might be making things difficult for a number of vulnerable species, but certainly not wiping out life in an apocalyptic way… yet.
It’s not that we shouldn’t, it’s that we can’t because ultimately we won’t. We don’t have the will, consensus on a path forward, enforcement mechanisms, political means or full understanding of the issue yet as humans.
steps in the right direction
Lots of people subscribe to the “every little bit helps! <3 <3 <3” argument and often try to convince others that small, token changes in their lifestyle will help change the climate. Politicians argue that still relativity small, token “steps” in policy, regulations, etc. will help “control the temperature.” This is mass hypnosis.
We would need massive and immediate changes that nearly every human would need to agree with to “control the temperature.” 100% nuclear power running all electric societies in 10 years would be my best answer, but I’m sure you can guess the chances of that happening. If one believes humans are contributing to a catastrophic rate of change, how then can one also believe small steps will do anything meaningful?
If people only advocate for the small steps, celebrate virtually meaningless climate “agreements” (not treaties with the force of law behind them) and shun things like nuclear power, it’s not going to get humanity anywhere near “controlling the temperature” within a meaningful amount of time to stop any apocalyptic predictions from occurring anyway. It’ll make you feel less climate guilt, but that’s about it.
Or we can recognize that “controlling the temperature” is practically unattainable and adapt to this new reality. And who knows, maybe the observed data will continue to show a low rate of change and the only consequence of all this is that people will be more aware of their world. :tup:
“Even if the change we can make will make very little difference, we should still do it, because at least we’re trying”.
I think that’s the line between the two sides here. Some people need to feel like they’re trying. It’s just like my kid’s school when they started locking all the doors to after school pickup after Sandy Hook. “We need to make the schools more secure so we’re locking these doors”. It made them happy because they felt like they were doing something. At Sandy Hook the dude shot his way through a locked door, but locking these doors is going to make us safer.
Climate change is the same. People were up in arms over Trump dumping the Paris Accord saying, “Look, even China is on board”. Yeah, China, the land of “fuck all your regulations, we don’t care” is on board. China is also on board with international copyright laws, at least on the books, but the Landwind X7 still exists:
Good luck forcing China to meet the Paris Accord numbers they agreed to when they doesn’t see a problem with that blatant ripoff.
Bottom line I don’t feel like paying a bunch of new taxes to support “fixing climate change” when I know all it’s going to really do is be a new revenue stream for our bloated government while the climate continues to change. I don’t believe in “feel good” measures that don’t work.
More Tesla fun
Without corporate welfare Tesla would not exist. As much as I think their cars are neat, I bought an RS7 instead. I really have no interest in owning an orphan car.
