@tim1 hearty Dank❤️
••
@tim1 unfortunately, straight up lies are told here, e.g. the racism issue, which is probably lower at tesla than at many other companies with 100k+ employees. Since Tesla and especially bad news about tesla are always very well received, rare individual cases are extremely inflated in the media. Same issue with Corona, musk has e.g. in Fremont only started again with the production, when Ford and gm had already started their own production. The lockdown in California had also long since ended at that time and, with comparable incidences, work had also long since resumed in Europe at VW and Co. In contrast to other manufacturers, Tesla had even worked out a very good and detailed program based on its experience in China, which should minimize the risk of infection. With the P/E ratio, it is strangely looked at how the situation is with other car manufacturers, although it is hardly comparable, with the extremely comparable situation with the reopening of the factories in the corona time, it is strangely ignored. I do not want to accuse the author of bad intentions, but unfortunately it shows that there was already no objectivity at the beginning.
••
@Lunnaris01 accusing me of lying and then saying it's probably less than I'm portraying it is contradictory (feel free to refute my source exactly), furthermore I refer to the beginning of the post, it is portrayed that I'm currently wearing negative glasses regarding tesla
•
11
•@Derebete I can break down some of your, let's call them instead of "lies" if necessary better false statements. First of all you make at least indirectly the statement that Musk is a corona denier, this is factually as said incorrect, he has repeatedly said that he considers corona a dangerous disease and he and his family is as said also vaccinated, he has only questioned whether the restrictions are proportionate. I know that it is cool lately to put everything in a "Schwurbler" drawer, but rational people should be able to objectively decide which measures are reasonable in which context, e.g. whether a factory, if it takes appropriate safety precautions, can not still produce, because the risk of infection is minimal here, when 50km further the people have already opened the cafes again.
You also say, "Even during the height of the pandemic in the U.S., Musk intentionally violated federal regulations and allowed production to continue in his factories." Again, this statement is factually incorrect, California and the state government had already said the industry could reopen. Only the County had not given approval, even though a Detailed Infection Control Plan had been filed for some time, after which Tesla sued the County. So it is at best a misrepresentation of things, a German counterpart would be if e.g. the chancellor and prime minister say all industry can reopen if there is a safety concept, and then your county refuses to verify your safety concept. Your statement on the other hand sounds like the whole country is still in lockdown and Tesla alone rises above it and just opens its factory. At the time Tesla resumed production, virtually everyone else in the state was already producing again. In fact, on May 8, the government initiated Stage 2, which allows "low-risk" companies to reopen. Low-risk is defined in the nytimes as: "Those include workplaces like factories, with more spaced-out work stations, or nongrocery retail stores, but with curbside pickup." Compared to the "higher-risk" businesses that had to wait for "Stage 3", which the NYTimes defines as " nail and hair salons, gyms, movie theaters and sports without live audiences, as well as in-person religious services." I don't think we need to discuss that Tesla should fall into the 2nd category here. The discussions about whether Tesla should open the factory anyway, against the County's wishes, only came up about a week later. If you look at Tesla's "Cost of Revenue", you can assume that a week without production in Fremont cost the company about 50 million at that time, a loss that only occurred because the County went against the State's wishes, although it was legally unclear whether the County itself was allowed to undermine the State's decision in order to keep companies in lockdown. I think it is also in the interest of the employees that Tesla does not let itself be mobbed by some suburban mayors who ignore the state requirements. I do not want to go too deep into conspiracy theories, but there are speculations that the ignoring of the safety concept was politically motivated, because in the past, the corresponding people have always voted very friendly towards Big Oil in corresponding decisions. That there are enough people in politics who are not well-disposed towards Tesla is clearly provable, even today Tesla is not allowed to sell its own vehicles in certain states because of political blockades and also the general behavior of e.g. Biden since he is president. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter why the county tried to prevent Tesla from reopening the factory on the date given by the governor, but the factor is the idea that Tesla and Elon are swindlers and corona deniers because they want to reopen their factory on the date given by the governor. In this sense, I would urge you not only to read the headlines of the mainstream media, but to take a closer look at the situations, and perhaps also at what Tesla has to say about it, the best example also on the ESG topic is to simply read Tesla's Impact Report. Who builds the factories with the lowest water consumption, which company has made massive efforts, for example, to remove cobalt from its own cell chemistry. Which car manufacturer plasters its factories with solar panels? Which manufacturer puts the efficiency of its vehicles and thus lower power consumption first, instead of simply building larger batteries into vehicles like Ford or Mercedes? Show me a company with a 144-page impact report that clearly shows where it currently stands in terms of sustainability, for example, what its goals are and how it is currently working to achieve these goals.
Media nowadays sell less and less news and journalism, they sell advertising, and with negative Tesla headlines you can generate good clicks, the same with Elon, he is a polarizing personality with millions of followers and fans, and you get a lot of traffic if you can trigger the fans on the one hand and fire the haters on the other. Since Tesla doesn't advertise, it doesn't matter to report unfairly, on the contrary, other big advertisers like other car manufacturers might even be happy. This does not mean that the media have no value, but that they should be consumed under these aspects.
You also say, "Even during the height of the pandemic in the U.S., Musk intentionally violated federal regulations and allowed production to continue in his factories." Again, this statement is factually incorrect, California and the state government had already said the industry could reopen. Only the County had not given approval, even though a Detailed Infection Control Plan had been filed for some time, after which Tesla sued the County. So it is at best a misrepresentation of things, a German counterpart would be if e.g. the chancellor and prime minister say all industry can reopen if there is a safety concept, and then your county refuses to verify your safety concept. Your statement on the other hand sounds like the whole country is still in lockdown and Tesla alone rises above it and just opens its factory. At the time Tesla resumed production, virtually everyone else in the state was already producing again. In fact, on May 8, the government initiated Stage 2, which allows "low-risk" companies to reopen. Low-risk is defined in the nytimes as: "Those include workplaces like factories, with more spaced-out work stations, or nongrocery retail stores, but with curbside pickup." Compared to the "higher-risk" businesses that had to wait for "Stage 3", which the NYTimes defines as " nail and hair salons, gyms, movie theaters and sports without live audiences, as well as in-person religious services." I don't think we need to discuss that Tesla should fall into the 2nd category here. The discussions about whether Tesla should open the factory anyway, against the County's wishes, only came up about a week later. If you look at Tesla's "Cost of Revenue", you can assume that a week without production in Fremont cost the company about 50 million at that time, a loss that only occurred because the County went against the State's wishes, although it was legally unclear whether the County itself was allowed to undermine the State's decision in order to keep companies in lockdown. I think it is also in the interest of the employees that Tesla does not let itself be mobbed by some suburban mayors who ignore the state requirements. I do not want to go too deep into conspiracy theories, but there are speculations that the ignoring of the safety concept was politically motivated, because in the past, the corresponding people have always voted very friendly towards Big Oil in corresponding decisions. That there are enough people in politics who are not well-disposed towards Tesla is clearly provable, even today Tesla is not allowed to sell its own vehicles in certain states because of political blockades and also the general behavior of e.g. Biden since he is president. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter why the county tried to prevent Tesla from reopening the factory on the date given by the governor, but the factor is the idea that Tesla and Elon are swindlers and corona deniers because they want to reopen their factory on the date given by the governor. In this sense, I would urge you not only to read the headlines of the mainstream media, but to take a closer look at the situations, and perhaps also at what Tesla has to say about it, the best example also on the ESG topic is to simply read Tesla's Impact Report. Who builds the factories with the lowest water consumption, which company has made massive efforts, for example, to remove cobalt from its own cell chemistry. Which car manufacturer plasters its factories with solar panels? Which manufacturer puts the efficiency of its vehicles and thus lower power consumption first, instead of simply building larger batteries into vehicles like Ford or Mercedes? Show me a company with a 144-page impact report that clearly shows where it currently stands in terms of sustainability, for example, what its goals are and how it is currently working to achieve these goals.
Media nowadays sell less and less news and journalism, they sell advertising, and with negative Tesla headlines you can generate good clicks, the same with Elon, he is a polarizing personality with millions of followers and fans, and you get a lot of traffic if you can trigger the fans on the one hand and fire the haters on the other. Since Tesla doesn't advertise, it doesn't matter to report unfairly, on the contrary, other big advertisers like other car manufacturers might even be happy. This does not mean that the media have no value, but that they should be consumed under these aspects.
••
@Lunnaris01 that with the corona provisions I look at the next week again, revise that if necessary, with the statement that tesla is not the most environmentally friendly company in the world I remain, for a car manufacturer they are manyicht good, but beyond that they can not compete with the other contenders for the title of the most climate-friendly company in the world, nevertheless, thank you for the correction if necessary
••
@Derebete According to S&P, Tesla was excluded because they are in the bottom 25% of their industry group. This means that they believe that 75% of the car manufacturers are better positioned here, which is relatively absurd. As far as environmental friendliness is concerned, one should always consider the impact as a whole. If you look at Nordex as a company, for example, the pure production of wind turbines and also the installation on sealed surfaces with a large concrete surface as an anchor is also not unconditionally what one would consider "environmentally friendly", but you can not ignore that the things 20-30 years will supply thousands of households with wind energy. Same with electric cars, clearly the production of an electric car is not the most environmentally/climate friendly thing ever, but if Tesla hadn't sold their current ~1M vehicles in the last 12 months, it wouldn't be 1M less vehicles driving, it would be 1M more internal combustion vehicles driving. Also, the Teslas that are currently on the road will continue to provide emission-free transport for 5-10 years or even longer. In addition, electricity generation is already relatively green and is becoming greener, while the situation in the transport sector is actually deteriorating in part because people are increasingly turning to SUVs and high-performance vehicles, while combustion vehicles are already so far advanced in their development phase that they are no longer efficient, so to speak. Electromobility is the only way to decarbonize this sector (besides the illusion that everyone suddenly wants to drive a train) and no one is working harder on this than Tesla, not least because with the Model 3 they even risked driving the company completely to the wall in order to finally produce a usable electric car for the masses.
Last but not least, Tesla has produced more electricity with the solar modules they sell than their own gigafactories and all vehicles in the fleet have consumed combined. The source for this is unfortunately only Tesla itself, but I don't know how anyone else could get this data. I recommend you to have a look at the Impact Report of Tesla, it is not only about climate friendliness, but also about diversity or LGBTQ friendliness. And regarding diversity and alleged discrimination of the employees, the media is exploiting every little accusation of racism, but the fact that Tesla e.g. is again in the list of the best companies in the world in 2021 is not a problem. 2021 again in the list of best workplaces for people who would identify as LGBTQ+ is never reported by the same media and you only find out if you read e.g. specific Tesla news like teslamag or teslarati. https://www.hrc.org/resources/best-places-to-work-for-lgbtq-equality-2022 https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2021-tesla-impact-report.pdf
Last but not least, Tesla has produced more electricity with the solar modules they sell than their own gigafactories and all vehicles in the fleet have consumed combined. The source for this is unfortunately only Tesla itself, but I don't know how anyone else could get this data. I recommend you to have a look at the Impact Report of Tesla, it is not only about climate friendliness, but also about diversity or LGBTQ friendliness. And regarding diversity and alleged discrimination of the employees, the media is exploiting every little accusation of racism, but the fact that Tesla e.g. is again in the list of the best companies in the world in 2021 is not a problem. 2021 again in the list of best workplaces for people who would identify as LGBTQ+ is never reported by the same media and you only find out if you read e.g. specific Tesla news like teslamag or teslarati. https://www.hrc.org/resources/best-places-to-work-for-lgbtq-equality-2022 https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2021-tesla-impact-report.pdf
••
but if i now compare the destruction/pollution of billions of cubic meters of earth and water with offshore wind energy the result is actually clear ps: to take tesla itself as a source about tesla i find critical, see nicola, Wirecard, Elisabeth Holmes etc, even if i agree with you that they could know it best
••
@Derebete At the end of the day, no manufacturing industry is ever "climate friendly", but as long as we don't proclaim a dictatorship in which all these things are simply banned, I think we should look at what is best in comparison to what. Tons of nuclear waste, massive coal holes+CO2 blowing out or just the negative aspects of e.g. wind energy or battery production. Perfectly sustainable would be unfortunately only in a cave in the forest, but that will be difficult to enforce in our society. I think Tesla is very committed to doing the right thing in this context.
••