Tesla Stock Slides As Trump Weighs Emissions-Standards Changes

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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/20180124_tsla1.jpg

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...

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/20180124_tsla.jpg

Time for Elon to visit The White House again!!

Comments

abgary1 Jan 24, 2018 2:36 PM Permalink

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.

LongOfTooth Jan 24, 2018 1:55 PM Permalink

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.

 

VWAndy Jan 24, 2018 1:43 PM Permalink

 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.

NonExistentFun… Jan 24, 2018 1:32 PM Permalink

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.

jcaz NonExistentFun… Jan 24, 2018 1:59 PM Permalink

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 by NonExistentFun…

Two Theives an… Jan 24, 2018 1:31 PM Permalink

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.

BitchesBetterR… Jan 24, 2018 1:24 PM Permalink

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? 

 

Oh, that's right- every time someone invents/comes up with clean technologies away from Oil based engines- that person suddenly "dies" for unknown causes & the work gets destroyed...... 

cougar_w Jan 24, 2018 1:22 PM Permalink

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.

PrivetHedge cougar_w Jan 24, 2018 2:04 PM Permalink

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 by cougar_w

3-fingered_chemist Jan 24, 2018 1:14 PM Permalink

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.

 

snblitz 3-fingered_chemist Jan 24, 2018 2:00 PM Permalink

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 by 3-fingered_chemist

Herodotus Jan 24, 2018 1:09 PM Permalink

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.

knukles Jan 24, 2018 1:07 PM Permalink

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

WernerHeisenberg Jan 24, 2018 1:07 PM Permalink

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.

cougar_w Blackhawks Jan 24, 2018 1:30 PM Permalink

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 by Blackhawks