Tesla is a complete climate embarrassment, a new report shows

[AVANTI R5]

A new report grades companies on their efforts to meet the Paris Agreement goals. Microsoft leads the pack while Tesla is bringing up the rear.

Tech companies have talked up their climate pledges. A new report from corporate accountability non-profit As You Sow shows some are for real and some falling behind. The group found Tesla — which claims its mission is to "accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy" — is making the slowest progress to reach net zero emissions. Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet, on the other hand, are amongst the leaders in the tech industry.

Thursday’s report, titled “Road to Zero Emissions,” evaluated 55 large global companies in tech and other sectors on whether their climate efforts align with the Paris Agreement goals. The world's main climate pact has set out a stretch goal of limiting global warming to within 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-industrial temperatures. To stabilize the climate at that level requires the world to reach “net zero” emissions by 2050.

The report notes that the vast majority of companies haven’t even established comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. Further, most have not “demonstrated progress in reducing their emissions in alignment with net zero goals.” (To be fair, it's not like governments are doing a great job either.)

Microsoft was one of only two companies to receive an A, and the only tech company to do so. Alphabet received a B and Apple clocked in with a B-. Apple and Microsoft were the only two companies making considerable effort to reduce Scope 3 emissions, a term that refers to carbon pollution associated with assets not owned by the company like supply chains. Those are generally the largest sources of companies' emissions. Microsoft received the top rating mainly because of its transparency in reporting emissions and clear goals to reduce them in line with the 1.5-degree-Celsius target.

Tesla, on the other hand, ranked at the very bottom of the list with a big, fat F. That put it even below well-known polluters like Chevron and Exxon, despite being an EV company. The company's poor grade reflects the fact that it ranked lowest for disclosures, along with Berkshire Hathaway and Square. “Tesla represents an interesting case of a company that creates products significant to the energy transition yet displays a serious lack of disclosure related to its own emissions,” the report says. The company has also failed to set a climate goal, though, again, its product is absolutely essential to helping the world get on track so that we don't cook ourselves.

Square and Meta also received low grades, respectively getting an F and D. As You Sow found that Square has not met any of its emissions goals in any category. That may have something to do with the fact that the company focuses on energy-intensive Bitcoin. (CEO Jack Dorsey claims Bitcoin can reduce emissions, a claim that's, to put it lightly, pretty sketchy.)

Meta, on the other hand, received an “A” for its disclosures, but received a D for its emissions targets and an F for its ability to meet those goals. The company has published optimistic reports tracking its efforts, which show the company reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 59% from 2017 to 2020. It has also invested significantly in renewable energy. But the As You Sow report found Meta significantly lags in addressing its Scope 3 emissions.

Square and Meta did not respond to immediate requests for comment. As for Tesla…well, maybe it’s time they reinstate a PR team.

This story was updated on March 4, 2022 to include more information on Tesla's grade.

https://www.protocol.com/three-clima...ch#toggle-gdpr

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[Sid03SVT]

It's almost as if, corporations, don't give a wet slap from an endangered whales vagina about the environment, and are, bear with me now, solely focused on profitability... who'da thunk it?

Cheese and rice, if you honestly thought Tesla was about 'environmentalism' or anything higher than 'we're gonna make money', you need to consider that you may be extremely gullible; it's written on the ceiling, it's written on the doors, heck, it's written on the walls.

[4S-TURBO]

Tesla doing Texas proud.

[White out]

Tesla does not care. A small handful of people buying new Tesla care. Nobody else does.

[juanmedina]

Terrible terrible terrible

[KC]

Just because they didn't disclose it doesn't mean they're not doing anything.

If you were a company making things, and some non-profit, one of many out there, said "give us your data", when it's not a requirement to.... would you spend the time, money, resources to do so, when you're busy meeting the *real* requirements?

This looks like nothing more than an attempted smear piece by some self-important non-profit trying to make a name for themselves.

[arghx7]

Originally Posted by KC

Just because they didn't disclose it doesn't mean they're not doing anything.

If you were a company making things, and some non-profit, one of many out there, said "give us your data", when it's not a requirement to.... would you spend the time, money, resources to do so, when you're busy meeting the *real* requirements?

This looks like nothing more than an attempted smear piece by some self-important non-profit trying to make a name for themselves.

"Tesla won't answer our questions, therefore they are the bad guys" I'm sure a big donation would change their minds too.

Sounds like extortion to me. Microsoft pays the greenwashing tax, gets a high rating.

[godfather2112]

Originally Posted by Sid03SVT

It's almost as if, corporations, don't give a wet slap from an endangered whales vagina about the environment, and are, bear with me now, solely focused on profitability... who'da thunk it?

Cheese and rice, if you honestly thought Tesla was about 'environmentalism' or anything higher than 'we're gonna make money', you need to consider that you may be extremely gullible; it's written on the ceiling, it's written on the doors, heck, it's written on the walls.

Yep. Elon is a man of opportunity and he saw that with Tesla. I can’t blame him one bit. But the whole lip service of “I’m trying to save the world” while also blasting off rockets / spaceships seems rather ironic.

Originally Posted by KC

Just because they didn't disclose it doesn't mean they're not doing anything.

If you were a company making things, and some non-profit, one of many out there, said "give us your data", when it's not a requirement to.... would you spend the time, money, resources to do so, when you're busy meeting the *real* requirements?

This looks like nothing more than an attempted smear piece by some self-important non-profit trying to make a name for themselves.

I mean, plenty of corporations give that info over. If a company is pounding their chest on a cleaner tomorrow, you would think they would proudly show how “green” their entire operation is.

I still support EV vehicles but anyone thinking it’s not raping the environment from which all resources are pulled from are kinda being fooled.

[KC]

Originally Posted by godfather2112

I mean, plenty of corporations give that info over. If a company is pounding their chest on a cleaner tomorrow, you would think they would proudly show how "green" their entire operation is.

Sure, but it's a choice vice a requirement.

And honestly, the reporting says they're getting an "F" for not handing the data over, vs "N/A"... portraying themselves as the arbitrator of green. Like a they're in a position to require it anyways? It's nothing but blackmail. "If you don't give it to us, we'll have no choice to tell everyone we gave you an F for your non-cooperation."

"Godfather, give me the data I ask for, because I asked for it, or I'll tell everyone you failed."

[Pre]

Originally Posted by godfather2112

Yep. Elon is a man of opportunity and he saw that with Tesla. I can’t blame him one bit. But the whole lip service of “I’m trying to save the world” while also blasting off rockets / spaceships seems rather ironic.

The rocket fuel, etc, yeah is a very valid point. But nobody discusses how most cars today spit a fraction out the exhaust they used to. Pretty clean actually.
And there are bigger problems to solve, food waste being #1. But that's off limits because being fat, unhealthy, buying that sack meal, fries, is off limits. So instead we'll just continue to focus on cars and transportation. Trashing the oceans too? Meh, it's all about the cars!

[godfather2112]

Originally Posted by KC

Sure, but it's a choice vice a requirement.

And honestly, the reporting says they're getting an "F" for not handing the data over, vs "N/A"... portraying themselves as the arbitrator of green. Like a they're in a position to require it anyways? It's nothing but blackmail. "If you don't give it to us, we'll have no choice to tell everyone we gave you an F for your non-cooperation."

"Godfather, give me the data I ask for, because I asked for it, or I'll tell everyone you failed."

I forgot to put in my original message they should have received an asterisk or n/a for not submitting data. I agree, you can’t just arbitrarily slap a grade if you don’t have data.

I have issues with both sides. Tesla should provide the data and I’d be willing to bet they do have it. But the report can’t slap a grade because Tesla told them to pound sand.

[KC]

Originally Posted by godfather2112

Tesla should provide the data

Why?5

[godfather2112]

Originally Posted by KC

Why?5

A few reasons.

-Companies pay Tesla significant cash for its EV (ZEV) credits. I think last year they received close to $1B in purchased credits. If the organization off puts strong emissions in the operation, kind of seems like those purchase credit costs should be decreased.

-If a company is positioning themselves and has been selling their products and bettering tomorrows future and climate, it kind of lends suit that the process should too and put that out there.

You can build a cleaner vehicle but if the reduction in environmental impact is significantly reduced or negated by manufacturing or whatever metrics they compile, it doesn’t exactly paint a true and honest picture of the impact it’s making.

I also think it helps with accountability and pushes companies to continue towards cleaning up manufacturing/ business. This is regardless if it’s Tesla or others.

Just seems rather hypocritical to pump the “clean energy vehicle” but refuse to show impact from the business / manufacturing and waste side.

[SCRAPPYDO]

Originally Posted by Pre

The rocket fuel, etc, yeah is a very valid point. But nobody discusses how most cars today spit a fraction out the exhaust they used to. Pretty clean actually.
And there are bigger problems to solve, food waste being #1. But that's off limits because being fat, unhealthy, buying that sack meal, fries, is off limits. So instead we'll just continue to focus on cars and transportation. Trashing the oceans too? Meh, it's all about the cars!

to me climate change is a bull**** religion, but this right here is a no science needed no political crap needed issue. People who pollute the ocean need to be severely punished. That water is the lifeblood of the planet. You destroy the algae and plankton cycle in the ocean it is game over for us all. Stop pissing and moaning about a few parts per billion of CO2, that is a NON issue. Compared to the

A) Ecosystem of the Ocean
B) Bees and insect mass extinction events we are seeing

[SCRAPPYDO]

also depends on the rocket fuel. The space shuttle engines only by product was WATER vapor. The large solids were pretty nasty though.

Falcon 9 uses LO2 and RP-1 (high grade Kerosine), so they have some fairly nasty emissions.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO

to me climate change is a bull**** religion, but this right here is a no science needed no political crap needed issue. People who pollute the ocean need to be severely punished. That water is the lifeblood of the planet. You destroy the algae and plankton cycle in the ocean it is game over for us all. Stop pissing and moaning about a few parts per billion of CO2, that is a NON issue. Compared to the

A) Ecosystem of the Ocean
B) Bees and insect mass extinction events we are seeing

Yet you ignore the billions of tons of CO2 that are absorbed by the ocean each year, increasing acidity and killing huge ecosystems.

Cant' see the forest for the trees.

[SCRAPPYDO]

The ocean has has been absorbing billions of tons of CO2 each year since the ocean existed. The earth as a whole emits and absorbs over 100 billion tons of CO2 each year naturally. Whether man was here or not.

We are just insignificant contributors compared to the whole living world. The ocean absorbs CO2 through algae and diffusion. Your EV will not save a single furry seal. CO2 is not an enemy. The world has seen much more and much less CO2 than we have now.

Less pollution is good. But there is not climate catastrophe about to happen. That is political fodder to force an agenda. We should always strive to pollute less, but stop the doom and gloom BS.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO

The ocean has has been absorbing billions of tons of CO2 each year since the ocean existed. The earth as a whole emits and absorbs over 100 billion tons of CO2 each year naturally. Whether man was here or not.

We are just insignificant contributors compared to the whole living world. The ocean absorbs CO2 through algae and diffusion. Your EV will not save a single furry seal. CO2 is not an enemy. The world has seen much more and much less CO2 than we have now.

Less pollution is good. But there is not climate catastrophe about to happen. That is political fodder to force an agenda. We should always strive to pollute less, but stop the doom and gloom BS.

Ocean co2 concentration:


The last time atmospheric CO2 was this high, humans did not exist and sea levels were at least 15 feet higher than they are now. You want that world?


You're just wrong bro. Time to get with science. We've moved past the flat earth days...

[mcarb002]

Originally Posted by dwf137

Ocean co2 concentration:


The last time atmospheric CO2 was this high, humans did not exist and sea levels were at least 15 feet higher than they are now. You want that world?


You're just wrong bro. Time to get with science. We've moved past the flat earth days...

He’s a climate change denier that calls it “knee jerk science” lol don’t waste your time dude

[Integra96]

Meanwhile, back in fact land...

Tesla really needs to do better and I hope they feel some pressure from this report.

[KC]

Originally Posted by godfather2112

A few reasons.

-Companies pay Tesla significant cash for its EV (ZEV) credits. I think last year they received close to $1B in purchased credits. If the organization off puts strong emissions in the operation, kind of seems like those purchase credit costs should be decreased.

Then that's who shall get the information they have. Not the outside agency that has zero to do with the credits.

-If a company is positioning themselves and has been selling their products and bettering tomorrows future and climate, it kind of lends suit that the process should too and put that out there.

Again, then the organizations that are in charge of this stuff shall have access to it, those that have entered into contract with Tesla. The org in question that gave them an F is an outside, unrelated non-profit.

You can build a cleaner vehicle but if the reduction in environmental impact is significantly reduced or negated by manufacturing or whatever metrics they compile, it doesn't exactly paint a true and honest picture of the impact it's making.

I also think it helps with accountability and pushes companies to continue towards cleaning up manufacturing/ business. This is regardless if it's Tesla or others.

Just seems rather hypocritical to pump the "clean energy vehicle" but refuse to show impact from the business / manufacturing and waste side.

Don't disagree. However, Tesla is in contract with certain agencies and other organizations. This is not one of them. So, again, them coming in and saying "we want it" when there's no contractual obligation to do so, is nothing but them trying to create PR out of thin air at Teslas expense. And Tesla is smart by not even addressing them in the media. They're a nothingburger as it relates to what Tesla is going to be/remain green.

[AVANTI R5]

YouTube (Short URL)

YouTube (Short URL)

YouTube (Short URL)

YouTube (Short URL)

YouTube (Short URL)

YouTube (Short URL)

[KC]

Can we NOT turn this into another environment pissing match? I purposefully steered away from the comments myself. Thanks.

People think they are right. Let them.

People think others are wrong. Let them.

[AVANTI R5]

Need5

[godfather2112]

Originally Posted by KC

Can we NOT turn this into another environment pissing match? I purposefully steered away from the comments myself. Thanks.

People think they are right. Let them.

People think others are wrong. Let them.

I’m going to echo this. If it becomes that, I’m locking it.