Climate protesters have expressed concerns about Tesla’s plans, which entail cutting down approximately 250 acres of forest in a rural community of fewer than 8,000 residents near a nature conservation area.
The water usage is a huge issue. The region has suffered a severe drought from 2018-2022. There is some issues with a chemical bubble in the ground that require a careful and coordinated pumping by all water utilities and well operators in the area to not suck it into the aquifer.One water utility had to deny all building permits for new houses, schools, businesses because Teslas water consumption capped the legally and sustainably permittable water extraction in the area.
There was a huge shitshow around the permits Tesla gained with direct political interference from the state government to overlook legal requirements in particular in the context of water. Tesla is fighting to deny access for the water utility to the chemical analysis of the water they extract at their wells.
There is a risk that Tesla could permanently destroy the water supply for hundreds of thousands of people if they are not made to observe the legal requirements and cooperate with other stakeholders for water in the region.
Well that’s a big problem nowadays isn’t it? They’re stated problem is an excuse. They’re not protesting due to this impact or that impact, if they were they wouldn’t be wishy washy about which thing they don’t like. If you ask me, they’re protesting Musk but pretending it’s about something more substantial.
Your not wrong, everyone hates musk and the fact that the project received absurd amounts of tax funding. But thats not a secret, if you actually look at the protests, they are openly anti capitalist and anti car in general. The media just likes to focus on the environmental arguments to make the protest look silly.
I dunno, I think protesting cars and capitalism is sillier than protesting environmental destruction. But even then, using environment issues disingenuously to agitate against capitalism is the MO of the left, and it has to be that way because nobody would buy their garbage otherwise. That’s why they’re constantly accusing their opponents of ulterior motives, it’s projection, they can’t imagine a world in which someone’s stated motives are their actual motives because they’re compulsive liars.
Measured against ICE cars. Actual direct alternatives are public transport, bikes, and micro cars.
And you’re also assuming they’re driven that long before the person buys another car.
They do serve the exact same function. And no, they don’t stay on the road. The batteries degrade, die and aren’t replaceable due to proprietary designs. There’s already plenty of dead EVs.
The average life of an EV is over 13 years. The batteries, generally have 100k warranties and are consistently lasting well into the 150k mile ranges. These vehicles stay on the road for as long as an ICE automobile and have a negative carbon footprint when compared to that baseline.
Buses, trains, trams, etc. serve a similar overall function as a personal automobile, the two even share some overlap on fundamental functions; however, as they are not 1:1 replacements for one another any comparison can never be of a direct nature.
I’ve been doing an ebike conversion to do errands around town. I won’t be using it to travel to my mother in law’s place 70 miles away. They aren’t direct alternatives.
Unless you consider alternatives such as e-bikes and public transport which we should be. We’re not gonna make a dent in climate change without some form of sacrifice.
In addition to other answers, keep in mind that Tesla gets credits relative to how far below the average carbon footprint their cars are and sell those credits to manufacturers of cars with more emissions. So in a way a part of the reduced liferime emissions are “gone” before the cars drive for the first time
if there were some figures i could fiddle to fit that narrative, do you think that would mean that cutting down 250 acres of forest would actually be worth it rather than a convenience somebody has gussied up as “necessary” because it would make them a profit?
Go protest to the people who give the permit to cut down those trees, those are the problem. If tesla listen to the protest, another company is going to cut those trees.
If that area is marked as forest instead of industry/residential, no one can cut it, end of thread.
But as usual, protestors are barking up the wrong tree (pun intended)
Should be noted that basically all of that forest is a tree farm monoculture.
Now they moved to protesting the water usage of the factory, which is high, but quite low compared to other industries and farms in the area.
I mean, fuck cars in general, but protests that focus on bullshit facts are not helping the cause.
The water usage is a huge issue. The region has suffered a severe drought from 2018-2022. There is some issues with a chemical bubble in the ground that require a careful and coordinated pumping by all water utilities and well operators in the area to not suck it into the aquifer.One water utility had to deny all building permits for new houses, schools, businesses because Teslas water consumption capped the legally and sustainably permittable water extraction in the area.
There was a huge shitshow around the permits Tesla gained with direct political interference from the state government to overlook legal requirements in particular in the context of water. Tesla is fighting to deny access for the water utility to the chemical analysis of the water they extract at their wells.
There is a risk that Tesla could permanently destroy the water supply for hundreds of thousands of people if they are not made to observe the legal requirements and cooperate with other stakeholders for water in the region.
Well that’s a big problem nowadays isn’t it? They’re stated problem is an excuse. They’re not protesting due to this impact or that impact, if they were they wouldn’t be wishy washy about which thing they don’t like. If you ask me, they’re protesting Musk but pretending it’s about something more substantial.
Your not wrong, everyone hates musk and the fact that the project received absurd amounts of tax funding. But thats not a secret, if you actually look at the protests, they are openly anti capitalist and anti car in general. The media just likes to focus on the environmental arguments to make the protest look silly.
I dunno, I think protesting cars and capitalism is sillier than protesting environmental destruction. But even then, using environment issues disingenuously to agitate against capitalism is the MO of the left, and it has to be that way because nobody would buy their garbage otherwise. That’s why they’re constantly accusing their opponents of ulterior motives, it’s projection, they can’t imagine a world in which someone’s stated motives are their actual motives because they’re compulsive liars.
Frack. That’s sucks
Does the carbon savings make it worth it?
Highly doubtful. EVs still have a high footprint, especially those obese ones that we’re making in the West.
They have a large footprint of creation. Their footprint over their lifetime is net negative when measured against direct alternatives.
Measured against ICE cars. Actual direct alternatives are public transport, bikes, and micro cars. And you’re also assuming they’re driven that long before the person buys another car.
Those are indirect alternatives. A direct alternative serves the exact same function.
It doesn’t matter if that person buys another car; it matter is the EV stays on the road. They do.
They do serve the exact same function. And no, they don’t stay on the road. The batteries degrade, die and aren’t replaceable due to proprietary designs. There’s already plenty of dead EVs.
The average life of an EV is over 13 years. The batteries, generally have 100k warranties and are consistently lasting well into the 150k mile ranges. These vehicles stay on the road for as long as an ICE automobile and have a negative carbon footprint when compared to that baseline.
Buses, trains, trams, etc. serve a similar overall function as a personal automobile, the two even share some overlap on fundamental functions; however, as they are not 1:1 replacements for one another any comparison can never be of a direct nature.
I’ve been doing an ebike conversion to do errands around town. I won’t be using it to travel to my mother in law’s place 70 miles away. They aren’t direct alternatives.
That’s what trains are for, or worst case, a car that isn’t an oversized mess.
Unless you consider alternatives such as e-bikes and public transport which we should be. We’re not gonna make a dent in climate change without some form of sacrifice.
Those are indirect alternatives and are not relevant to my comment.
In addition to other answers, keep in mind that Tesla gets credits relative to how far below the average carbon footprint their cars are and sell those credits to manufacturers of cars with more emissions. So in a way a part of the reduced liferime emissions are “gone” before the cars drive for the first time
if there were some figures i could fiddle to fit that narrative, do you think that would mean that cutting down 250 acres of forest would actually be worth it rather than a convenience somebody has gussied up as “necessary” because it would make them a profit?
Go protest to the people who give the permit to cut down those trees, those are the problem. If tesla listen to the protest, another company is going to cut those trees.
If that area is marked as forest instead of industry/residential, no one can cut it, end of thread.
But as usual, protestors are barking up the wrong tree (pun intended)
Are these the same German protestors who advocated for shutting down nuclear power plants?