Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
Each time a person chooses not to buy a new Tesla because of Elon, it lands a triple blow to the company.
That's because Tesla isn't a company that just profits from selling cars.
A big part of its business is also generating emission certificates by selling EVs to legacy automakers (like GM, Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, etc).
Those carbon credits "offset" the fossil fuel pollution created by the petrol cars those legacy automakers sell:
"GM purchased about 44 million credits in 2023, the EPA report said, while Tesla sold about 34 million, the largest of all transactions."
"Tesla generated a substantial $1.79 billion from carbon credit sales last year … bringing its total earnings from such credits since 2009 to nearly $9 billion."
https://carboncredits.com/tesla-hits-record-high-sales-from-carbon-credits-at-1-79b/
So let's suppose you decide to buy a Volkswagen EV instead of a Tesla.
Tesla doesn't just miss out on the profit from that EV.
It also misses the profit from selling the carbon credits for that car to VW.
Meanwhile, VW gains the carbon certificates for that EV, meaning it needs to buy fewer offsets from Tesla for its petrol cars.
And that's likely to be extra bad news for Elon, if he's borrowed against his Tesla shares to fund other parts of his empire: https://social.vivaldi.net/@ajsadauskas/114204194057224800
@ajsadauskas Wait, Tesla gets the emissions certificate even though they don't own the car? So if someone purchases a Tesla specifically to reduce emissions they do not get the emissions reduction certificate?
@geolaw @ajsadauskas
I think it is wholesale.
What would one do with a single emissions certificate?
@midgephoto @ajsadauskas Maybe reduce my taxable income on my personal tax return?
@geolaw @midgephoto @ajsadauskas
EV rebates are a separate thing from what this is talking about - this is, I think, like other nations' commercial/industrial carbon crediting programs. It's not a tax break per purchase, it's a carbon pollution or emissions cap that is applied by gov't implementing a cap across a sector, like auto manufacture or sales. Carbon-limiting operations are allowed to trade/sell their part of the allowance to higher-emission enterprises.
@geolaw @midgephoto @ajsadauskas Tesla makes a crappy, buggy, vaguely car shaped IoT device and claims it's an automobile in order to be granted a share of the carbon allowance for the US auto industry, which they just resell to companies that make real cars that still burn gas.
@johannab @geolaw @ajsadauskas
I've not driven a Tesla, but the S was comfortable to be driven in a few years ago, as an airport taxi at Amsterdam.
I think they've fallen behind others, but from ahead.
To give them credit, that (the car-shaped object) is not what they made nor their early USP. Think transport system.
@geolaw @ajsadauskas
That must be a tax regime I know nothing of.
Here, our vehicle excise duty (which has some technical difference from being a tax) is currently based on CO2 emissions, thus providing a return on choosing a vehicle that doesn't.
That's changing slightly next month.
If you are a car-making company, you are allowed to make nearly 4 ICEV cars for each BEV (or I think PHEV) you sell, reducing towards 3 2 1 ...less over years, but you can "borrow" BEVs someone else made.
@ajsadauskas Do buy electric; just don’t buy Tesla.
@ajsadauskas FWIW I like my VW ID.3, and I expect the 4, 5, 7 etc are also nice.
I don't have the use case for the Mercedes BEVs, but the EQA was lovely. And big, by UK standsrds.
@ajsadauskas "In some US states", and possibly some other countries, though I think this is a uniquely US approach to increasing EV development.
@btuftin @ajsadauskas uniquely US because it's so highly exploitable. Other countries see that as a bad thing, but not us!