Tesla’s 2024 financial results are out—and they’re terrible
40 percent of its profit came from selling regulatory credits.
Oh noez! /s
You're viewing a single thread.
The carbon grifting is a problem.
How Tesla Made Great Profits from Regulatory Credits? | SINBON
Take T-brand's SUV as an example. New cars emit around 210 grams of CO2 per kilometer. Under the current EU regulations (95g/km of CO2 emissions for new cars, with a €95 punishment for each gram over the limit), every new car will face a fine of up to €10,925 (115*95 = €10,925). In contrast, every new Tesla vehicle will receive 25 grams of carbon emissions credits, bringing Tesla considerable revenue in the long term.
Do Tesla car owners know that the Tesla company is selling carbon credits on their vehicle? If anything, they should be the ones getting the money, not Tesla. It's a pretty clever scam when you can sell a thing twice.
Tesla's Carbon Credit Revenue Soars to $2.76 Billion Amid Profit Drop
This revenue comes at a minimal cost to Tesla, making it a near-pure profit stream. Unlike other automakers that must purchase credits to comply with emissions regulations, Tesla generates them simply by selling zero-emission vehicles.
And do Tesla owners understand that they are not individually reducing their carbon footprint because Tesla is selling that absence of pollution as a license to pollute (carbon credit)?
This resilience is due in part to the slow transition of legacy automakers to electric vehicles. While companies like Ford and General Motors have made strides in EV production, many still rely on Tesla’s credits to meet tightening emissions standards in the U.S., Europe, and China.
In fact, Tesla’s carbon credits are helping automakers meet strict EU emission targets. Companies like Stellantis, Toyota, Ford, Mazda, and Subaru buy Tesla’s credits to offset their emissions and avoid hefty fines.
ICE car makers are buying Tesla carbon credits so that they can pollute.
What you're detailing here is the definition of "cap and trade". Its a good approach to affect change, I just don't like the money earned is going to someone like Musk.
I don't think that selling licenses to pollute is a good strategy to reduce pollution (it needs to be reduced to zero ASAP).
Sure, but it won't be with that mindset. Entrenched interests will fight tooth and nail, and typically win yielding ZERO reductions and often expansions of pollution.
Cap and Trade works, and we have a real world experience showing it. Here's a great example from the 1980s in the USA fighting acid rain pollution (Sulfer Dioxide emissions into the air)
"The stated purpose of the Acid Rain Program was to reduce total annual SO2 emissions in the US by ten million tons relative to 1980, when total US emissions were about 26 million tons. In a departure from conventional environmental regulation, the legislation did not prescribe how power plants would reduce their SO2 emissions. Instead, with a phase-in beginning in 1995 and culminating in 2000, the statute capped aggregate SO2 emissions at the nation’s 3,200 coal plants and created a market for firms to buy and sell government-issued allowances to emit SO2. " source
We could have had 15 years of CO2 emissions reductions starting in 2010, but your idea of "needs to reduce ASAP" worked to kill it then. source.
It's a conflict of interest, it will go wrong or the system will be cancelled.
You are aware you're claiming it would have been a negative outcome about a historical events that actually resulted in success, right? You are literally denying history because it doesn't agree with your worldview?
Do you see the global GHG emissions going down? Actually down.
Do you know when the targets for ZERO are and what the downwards angle has to be?
Good luck with your optimism.
Do you see the global GHG emissions going down? Actually down.
The successful implementation of cap-and-trade was on Sulfur Dioxide emissions, and YES EMISSIONS WENT DOWN MEETING TARGETS.
The proposal to use cap-and-trade for GHG was shot down by people like you in 2010 that said it wouldn't work, so it was never implemented like it was for Sulfur Dioxide. So GHG continued to rise without the cap-and-trade mechanism to reduce them.
Good luck with your optimism.
Oh, I'm not optimistic. We had something that worked, and it wasn't implemented for GHG because of pessimism like yours.
SO₂ is not the same functionally in the economies as CO₂, just like the ozone destroying gases aren't teh same functionally in the economies as CO₂.
You are breathing optimism like oxygen in an oxygen poor environment.
[X] is not the same functionally in the economies as [Y]
What are you meaning with these words? Are you referring to chemistry, business, or something else. It isn't clear so I don't know what you're trying to communicate.
