@SpaceCowboy@return2ozma ~60% of Tesla’s profits come from the sale of carbon credits, which enable other massive vehicles that run on fossil fuels to be built. E-cars are not about “saving the planet” they are pure Greenwash which is saving the motor industry.
That’s more of a problem with how carbon credits are being regulated. Sure Tesla are being assholes for doing this, but it’s a corporation, I don’t expect them to be good guys.
But none of that changes the fact that some meathead buying a Cybertruck instead of the equivalent fossil fuel monstrosity is reducing CO2 emissions in a direct way. Spray paint the sign a Tesla corporate HQ, don’t damage a vehicle which will only have the result of someone driving a fossil fuel vehicle a little longer while the damage is being fixed.
You’re assuming unscrupulous companies wouldn’t find another loophole or just pay a fine for going over the limit.
Don’t get me wrong, Tesla is shit for helping with the loophole, but it’s a degrees of bad kind of thing. Getting fossil fuel vehicles off the road does reduce carbon emissions, but Tesla was exaggerating their numbers. They should be punished for doing this, but doubling up their numbers only works if the number isn’t zero.
But this is all getting away from the fact that damaging these vehicles has the net effect of people driving fossil fuel vehicles longer. It’s a net harm to everyone.
@SpaceCowboy @return2ozma ~60% of Tesla’s profits come from the sale of carbon credits, which enable other massive vehicles that run on fossil fuels to be built. E-cars are not about “saving the planet” they are pure Greenwash which is saving the motor industry.
That’s more of a problem with how carbon credits are being regulated. Sure Tesla are being assholes for doing this, but it’s a corporation, I don’t expect them to be good guys.
But none of that changes the fact that some meathead buying a Cybertruck instead of the equivalent fossil fuel monstrosity is reducing CO2 emissions in a direct way. Spray paint the sign a Tesla corporate HQ, don’t damage a vehicle which will only have the result of someone driving a fossil fuel vehicle a little longer while the damage is being fixed.
Literally the state of California would have lower CO2 emissions today if Tesla didn’t exist.
You’re assuming unscrupulous companies wouldn’t find another loophole or just pay a fine for going over the limit.
Don’t get me wrong, Tesla is shit for helping with the loophole, but it’s a degrees of bad kind of thing. Getting fossil fuel vehicles off the road does reduce carbon emissions, but Tesla was exaggerating their numbers. They should be punished for doing this, but doubling up their numbers only works if the number isn’t zero.
But this is all getting away from the fact that damaging these vehicles has the net effect of people driving fossil fuel vehicles longer. It’s a net harm to everyone.
If somehow murder became not illegal, it wouldn’t make all the corpses not murderer’s problem.