A day after his stock-only pay-package was announced, Elon Musk may be a little disappointed this morning as his shares are sliding following a WSJ report that California regulators and Trump administration officials met to discuss for the first time the prospect of controversial changes to vehicle-emissions rules.
The taxpayer-subsidized car-maker is under pressure today, not helped by headlines from The Wall Street Journal that adminstration officials took a significant step in complex negotiations aimed at preventing a legal battle over future environmental regulations on cars and trucks.
President Donald Trump last year charged federal regulators with revisiting the regulations in response to increased purchases of heavier and less-efficient pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles.
That move triggered concern at Ms. Nichols’ California Air Resources Board, which favors lofty emissions standards including higher sales of electric cars.
In a coffee shop near the White House, Trump administration officials broached whether California is open to easing future emissions and mileage goals, the people said, an approach state leaders have openly resisted for nearly a year. California officials were noncommittal, but agreed to continue discussions and exchange technical analyses ahead of an April deadline for the Environmental Protection Agency to decide whether regulations covering 2022-2025 should be revised.
The reaction was not violent but is clear...
Time for Elon to visit The White House again!!
Comments
Co2 is not a GHG, is benign and does not cause global warming.
Ice cores have shown that the average co2 level for the past 300 million years is 3 times higher (1200ppm) than the present level (400ppm). If anything the planet is deficient in co2.
A correlation exists between temperature and co2 levels but it is the temperature that rises first followed by the co2 level because the increase in forest, grass, peat bog and coal seam fires.
Man-made co2 is 0.003% of the atmosphere and it is impossible that that small amount of gas drives our climate.
There are 6 factors that impact our climate that are interconnected by 23 systems that we have little or no data on or understanding of. If we did have the data and understanding there is not enough computing power on earth to model.
Big oil, big banks, the automotive industry are starting to feel the pinch from Tesla so an easy fix is to regulate them out of business.
And the beat goes on.
Well, Tesla has taken deposits on cars anyways & hyped the stock...delivery is another story...
In reply to Big oil, big banks, the… by LongOfTooth
What pinch? - Tesla have sold hardly any cars. Tesla threatens no one.
In reply to Big oil, big banks, the… by LongOfTooth
Such a racket. Lets just say the auto industry has been weaponized to shit. Scammed every way they can think of.
I do the whole fliipn thing differently.
Emissions standards from the late 90's are about as good as you can get without raising the cost to achieve a fraction of a percent. Most of the world uses the same standards we were using in the late 90's. Any improvement beyond that should be "organic" from manufacturers voluntarily finding effective improvements that are cost competitive.
That's very true, NonExistentFun- in fact, in many urban areas, the emissions from new cars are cleaner than the prevailing air quality- that is, what's coming out of these cars is better than what is going in, so the cars are literally cleaning that air. The gains to be made at this point become exponentially more costly, makes no sense- go after coal plants or cow farts rather than new cars, makes more economic and environmental sense;
But I know- this witch hunt has nothing to do with economic or environmental sense.....
In reply to Emissions standards from the… by NonExistentFun…
Why stop at cow farts? Why not other wild life? Rabbits, deer, buffalo, chickens, rats, dogs, cats, hippos, tigers, libtards etc. I mean fuck nature, it doesn't know what it's doing, right?
In reply to That's very true,… by jcaz
Tesla who? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
In reply to Emissions standards from the… by NonExistentFun…
Some of the most efficient engines are modern clean-diesel... Hopefully some common sense will return and once again I can shop and drive these wonderful modern diesel cars. I can argue a diesel car is overall less damaging to the environment than hybrids.
Is that really true in lieu of the Volkswagen cheating scandal? Serious question, no /sarc.
In reply to Some of the most efficient… by Two Theives an…
VW makes some of the best engines. Their tech was kicking Detroit's ass. The " scandal" was more about this and dollar hegemony than " emissions cheating" . A TDi is a FAR more efficient and ecologically conservative vehicle than these huge SUVs clogging up the highways
In reply to Is that really true in lieu… by Throat-warbler…
Where is the Model 3? It was released July 2017 and here we are 7 months later and I have not seen one Model 3 on the road.
with all the nonsense on car emissions, batteries lifetime, engines, "self driving" - and nevertheless <<<The Environment >>> wouldn't be time for those genius the likes of Elon Musk to "rethink" the entire Mobility/Transport problem moving forward?
The really damaging pollutant from cars is largely unrecognized and so 0% regulated. That would be CO2, and there is no way to prevent autos and trucks from emitting it during operation. Increasing mileage reduces emission per mile, but that's all and it solves nothing. Even electric cars are net emitters of CO2 when you consider all forms of electricity generation and of course manufacturing of the vehicles and batteries. The only solution is to get rid of personal transportation outright, and the day is coming when I promise you that is exactly what will happen. It will happen because it must happen, and on that day people will be losing their minds in terror that it might not happen, but by then it will be too late to matter.
All fossil fuels originate from life forms that were once on the surface of the earth - absorbing CO2, and releasing O2.
Release the sequestered carbon from coal, and oil deposits, and the deserts will become green again.
In reply to The really damaging… by cougar_w
Watch the movie Apollo 13 to see a method for removing CO2 from air.
It is called a CO2 scrubber. There are other methods.
Though, why you would want to kill all the plant life on earth is beyond me.
In reply to The really damaging… by cougar_w
CO2 is harmless, irrelevant and a huge benefit to plant and tree growth and hence food sources. In no way, shape or form is it a pollutant on earth.
In reply to The really damaging… by cougar_w
Science. Get some.
In reply to CO2 is harmless, irrelevant… by PrivetHedge
Science. Get some.
Here you go!
Oh,and there's this, too.
In reply to Science. Get some. by cougar_w
Yes, start with Beers Law of an already saturated IR spectrum from CO2 (i.e. adding more changes nothing). Then realise that not a single climate model today takes account of cloud cover - the biggest influence of climate.
That's why all the global warming theories kept failing - so much that they had to rebrand it to climate change. I note that the US professor on Climate was late at Davos due to being held up with ice and snow.
While you were bleating about 4x4's and CO2 europe filled their roads with diesel cars that actually do cause pollution and kill tens of thousands: meanwhile CO2 killed no one (but fed millions).
In reply to Science. Get some. by cougar_w
Funny, "people will be losing their minds." You should know.
In reply to Science. Get some. by cougar_w
Take your country back from oligarchs. Destroy the oil barons. Go for the jugular, ban gas cars (keep trucks/suv's).
At some point the cost to reach certain standards is a burden. I think we are already there for IC engines. Cars are pretty damn clean these days as it is.
The problem is not that the cars can't get cleaner, it's that there are too many cars on the road. Even if one pollutes very little, if you add that up over millions and millions of cars, then you get a lot of pollution.
If the Left wants to fight for the environment, they should push for car ownership limits which makes more sense in my opinion.
Maybe a policy where you can only drive your car every other day.
I think the Dems should really push for this, lol.
In the San Francisco bay area, tens of thousands of people commute to and from the Silicon Valley to Pleasanton, a 50 to 90 minute freeway commute (each way) through a mountain pass.
On the other hand they are dead set against travelling to Coyote valley which is a straight shot and about a 30 to 45 minute freeway commute (each way).
That is a savings of 40 to 90 minutes per day plus less wear and tear on the car, less gas, etc.
There is also the Santa Cruz commute which is 25 to 50 minutes each way and is also shunned. I suppose due to the all the hippies and pot. It is a mountain pass too.
In reply to At some point the cost to… by 3-fingered_chemist
Coincidence?
http://fortune.com/2017/06/01/elon-musk-trump-paris-agreement/
California should not be permitted to have separate standards. This is a restraint of trade and is not permitted under the "commerce clause" of the US Constitution.
Yep....Dumbass Cali wants to lower pollution? Get the fucking people to stop driving......raise the gas tax on all the lowriders.
In reply to California should not be… by Herodotus
The Commerce Clause is only used for things that are the opposite of the original intention of the clause.
In reply to California should not be… by Herodotus
And by the same token, California and its Air Resources Board should not be permitted to dictate standards to the other 49 states. The other 49 states didn't elect those idiots in Sacramento, and we should be under their thumbs.
In reply to California should not be… by Herodotus
Fuk the peoples republic of Kalifornia......
In reply to And by the same token,… by GunnerySgtHartman
I think the other states do exactly as they like.
In reply to And by the same token,… by GunnerySgtHartman
LOL
Tesla is a stock that defies gravity. A cash flow negative CIA dump
sooooooo many other reasons tesla stock should be cratering but for some reason they are a darling of the past admin's complete misallocation of capital to inefficient sjw industries
btw the stock is up 11% ytd so this move doesn't even cover the gain.........
In reply to Tesla is a stock that defies… by Cluster_Frak
Warning: yet another mass triggering in effect
Poor baby.
I'll betchu that Elon has no more of his money invested in Tesla. Oh, he owns shares, etc., but has made his nut back. The rest is taxpayer money.
Gallic shrug
Booooo! I love my (virtue signaling) electric car, recharged by coal burning power plants, so I have plausible deniability that I am in fact wrecking the planet more than the guy driving the old (recycled!) hot rod muscle car.
I forgot, /sarc. For the record, Werner drives a older gasoline powered car lacking a GPS transmitter and also lacking a (Michael Hastings RIP) drive by wire control system.
In reply to Booooo! I love my (virtue… by WernerHeisenberg
How old are you? Like 90 or something? Nobody has a GPS transmitter in their car. The transmitters are in space, everyone else has a receiver.
You people get whacked out on technology and then half the time (or more) don't even understand how simple shit even works. And don't get me started on chem-trails swear to god that's so screwed up.
In reply to I forgot, /sarc. For the… by WernerHeisenberg
Don't poke Grandpa or he will lay some double pumping holleys , top loader tranny smack on your ass
And for the last time GET THE FUCK OFF HIS LAWN
In reply to How old are you? Like 90 or… by cougar_w
you get an upvote for this.
In reply to How old are you? Like 90 or… by cougar_w
BS double posts AGAIN ZH??
In reply to How old are you? Like 90 or… by cougar_w
Go back to 1985 standards. Cars are radically cleaner today. Cost of further 'improvement' is radically higher than the actual benefit.
But how would they soak up that excess income you would of had and kept you on the Debt hampster wheel
In reply to Go back to 1985 standards. … by ipso_facto
All the US carmakers are "taxpayer-subsidized."
Taxpayers directly pay for every mile of the roads, bridges, intersections without which cars and trucks wouldn't have nearly as much utility. And then have to pay for highway patrols, traffic courts, and jail time for offenders because the cars and trucks are way too powerful for common uses. Taxpayers pay extra insurance, and insurance goes up for everyone when traffic fatalities increase.
All these taxpayer subsidies keep BigAuto in buckets of money.
In reply to All the US carmakers are … by Blackhawks
If I remember Ford was the only one that didn't take a "bailout"
In reply to All the US carmakers are … by Blackhawks
Ford "spent" $6 billion in sweetheart DOE .25% loans to "develop" the electric Ford Focus.
Ever see one of those?
Ford took a bailout, just in a different form.
In reply to If I remember Ford was the… by JimmyJones
that was because they made a deal with the UAW before the other two who dragged their feet and then the shit hit the fan.. etc
In reply to If I remember Ford was the… by JimmyJones
Pagination