Elon Musk to advise Trump administration

[stopcrazypp]

I think the reasonable reaction is that one doesn't effect the other. More people digging coal in west virginia doesn't hurt Tesla sales. GM isn't going to Trump to put Tesla out of business, they will go to Trump and ask not to be punished for the types of vehicles they produce. More oil drilling is not going to hurt Tesla sales. A lot to gain and nothing to lose here.
I think Trump, and of course Rick Perry, are guys who are for 'all of the above'

I forgot to post this, but here goes:

GM's the only car company that lobbies actively to block Tesla at every turn.

And about energy policy, you forgot Tesla's battery pack sales. Tesla is also merging with Solar City, which means the survival of coal will also hurt Tesla sales of solar panels. There will also probably be laxer or eliminated standards on natural gas drilling and generation, as the EPA just released the first such standards this year:
EPA Releases First-Ever Standards to Cut Methane Emissions from the Oil and Gas Sector | U.S. EPA News Releases | US EPA
This will keep natural gas and generation prices low and make other sources less competitive.

Another core part of Obama's Clean Power Plan (which will likely be overturned the way things are going) is emissions trading (which would have made renewables worth more and put a cost on CO2 emitting):
FACT SHEET: Clean Power Plan and the Role of States | Clean Power Plan | US EPA

GM lobbying against CAFE and ZEV standards will directly impact Tesla's revenue from regulatory credits. More drilling for oil to keep prices down will impact demand for more efficient cars, including Teslas. Although EVs have been somewhat more immune to this than hybrids, Model 3 may be more impacted because it's at a lower price point than previous Teslas and it's targeting much higher volume.

From what Trump has done previously (for example for Carrier), there will probably be some token amount of American jobs that will be subsidized at Tesla, but I doubt Elon will be able to have much influence on Trump's energy policy, which would have a far bigger impact on Tesla's bottom line.

 

[voyager]

I forgot to post this, but here goes:

GM's the only car company that lobbies actively to block Tesla at every turn. And about energy policy, you forgot Tesla's battery pack sales. Tesla is also merging with Solar City, which means the survival of coal will also hurt Tesla sales of solar panels. There will also probably be laxer or eliminated standards on natural gas drilling and generation, as the EPA just released the first such standards this year:
EPA Releases First-Ever Standards to Cut Methane Emissions from the Oil and Gas Sector | U.S. EPA News Releases | US EPA
This will keep natural gas and generation prices low and make other sources less competitive. Another core part of Obama's Clean Power Plan (which will likely be overturned the way things are going) is emissions trading (which would have made renewables worth more and put a cost on CO2 emitting):FACT SHEET: Clean Power Plan and the Role of States | Clean Power Plan | US EPA

From what Trump has done previously (for example for Carrier), there will probably be some token amount of American jobs that will be subsidized at Tesla, but I doubt Elon will be able to have much influence on Trump's energy policy, which would have a far bigger impact on Tesla's bottom line.

Like I said, bottom line in any pitch to Trump should be: there's a lot more money to be made... more innovation, jobs and other benefits to generate in greening the economy. It's about time that green advocates like Musk, Gates and Tom Steyer bundle their strength and PR to make things clear to Trump.

 

[jbcarioca]

Like I said, bottom line in any pitch to Trump should be: there's a lot more money to be made... more innovation, jobs and other benefits to generate in greening the economy. It's about time that green advocates like Musk, Gates and Tom Steyer bundle their strength and PR to make things clear to Trump.

Bluntly, the pitch needs to be directly to Trump's ego. After that to the US non-subsidized employment that comes from Tesla, Solar City, Space X. Taking all three is more likely to work than just one. Above all the pitch must emphasize how smart, prescient and incisive is the President-elect, all said with smaller words and lots of hyperbolic sound bites. It will not work unless Trump can take the credit. Don't forget to count all the jobs created in the South, for every single service. Don't forget the subsidies given to failed employers like GM and Chrysler that sent jobs abroad and imported cars and trucks while Tesla stayed in the US, Solar City keeps installing in the US and did not take and lose Federal money like Solyndra.
Don't forget all the foreign jobs and equipment that Space X brought back, at dramatically lower cost than the US Defense contractors he hates so much.

Musk has a really good story as long as he can devise a way to give Trump the credit for it all.

 

[Barklikeadog]

I forgot to post this, but here goes:

GM's the only car company that lobbies actively to block Tesla at every turn.

And about energy policy, you forgot Tesla's battery pack sales. Tesla is also merging with Solar City, which means the survival of coal will also hurt Tesla sales of solar panels. There will also probably be laxer or eliminated standards on natural gas drilling and generation, as the EPA just released the first such standards this year:
EPA Releases First-Ever Standards to Cut Methane Emissions from the Oil and Gas Sector | U.S. EPA News Releases | US EPA
This will keep natural gas and generation prices low and make other sources less competitive.

Another core part of Obama's Clean Power Plan (which will likely be overturned the way things are going) is emissions trading (which would have made renewables worth more and put a cost on CO2 emitting):
FACT SHEET: Clean Power Plan and the Role of States | Clean Power Plan | US EPA

GM lobbying against CAFE and ZEV standards will directly impact Tesla's revenue from regulatory credits. More drilling for oil to keep prices down will impact demand for more efficient cars, including Teslas. Although EVs have been somewhat more immune to this than hybrids, Model 3 may be more impacted because it's at a lower price point than previous Teslas and it's targeting much higher volume.

From what Trump has done previously (for example for Carrier), there will probably be some token amount of American jobs that will be subsidized at Tesla, but I doubt Elon will be able to have much influence on Trump's energy policy, which would have a far bigger impact on Tesla's bottom line.

I fail to see the connections. These are more like talking points.
People who have their lives adversely effected by the price of coal or natural gas aren't the same people who can drop $$$ on solar panels.
I'm all for clean energy, but I do not want the government punishing one business in order to help another business. I do not like this on any level. And yes, before you play the
oil subsidy card, I am against their subsidies as well. I don't believe the government should be fining a business which produces a perfectly legal product.
I am against government bailouts as well. Capitalism rocks. Someone fails, someone else better rises up.

What if our government decided that hydrogen autos were the future? What if they decided to punish Tesla for creating a non-hydrogen car and forced them to pay big $$$ in order
to support an upstart hydrogen vehicle maker? Tesla drivers would go ballistic, say its not fair...

 

[OBX John]

I fail to see the connections. These are more like talking points.
People who have their lives adversely effected by the price of coal or natural gas aren't the same people who can drop $$$ on solar panels.
I'm all for clean energy, but I do not want the government punishing one business in order to help another business. I do not like this on any level. And yes, before you play the
oil subsidy card, I am against their subsidies as well. I don't believe the government should be fining a business which produces a perfectly legal product.
I am against government bailouts as well. Capitalism rocks. Someone fails, someone else better rises up.

What if our government decided that hydrogen autos were the future? What if they decided to punish Tesla for creating a non-hydrogen car and forced them to pay big $$$ in order
to support an upstart hydrogen vehicle maker? Tesla drivers would go ballistic, say its not fair...

There are some good reasons for government intervention in markets - usually to prevent market failures.

By failures I don't mean companies going out of business, but failures to price in all costs like pollution. Unless coal and oil pay something for their pollution so it can be mitigated by government or private action, they have an advantage over EVs who cost more yet don't cause public suffering from pollution.

Another reason to interfere in markets is to subsidize new technology until economies of scale can make them competitive. I don't want government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, but I certainly want them to help innovation.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I fail to see the connections. These are more like talking points.
People who have their lives adversely effected by the price of coal or natural gas aren't the same people who can drop $$$ on solar panels.
I'm all for clean energy, but I do not want the government punishing one business in order to help another business. I do not like this on any level. And yes, before you play the
oil subsidy card, I am against their subsidies as well. I don't believe the government should be fining a business which produces a perfectly legal product.
I am against government bailouts as well. Capitalism rocks. Someone fails, someone else better rises up.

What if our government decided that hydrogen autos were the future? What if they decided to punish Tesla for creating a non-hydrogen car and forced them to pay big $$$ in order
to support an upstart hydrogen vehicle maker? Tesla drivers would go ballistic, say its not fair...

OBX John beat me to it. It's not about "punishing one business in order to help another business", it's about making coal and gas pay their fair share of the costs of their pollution, which up to now they haven't been paying.

If coal and gas can make themselves have lower pollution, or pay the fair costs of pollution (as Obama's plan is suggesting), then that is fine. The fact of the matter is they don't and coal in particular can't survive once you factor in the changes needed to make it acceptably clean or if it is paid for via emissions trading (which is why so many coal plants have shut down after the EPA's recent rules). Natural gas may seem better, but in reality it has gotten a free ride for a long time already. There have been practically no regulation and counting of leaks and given the potency of natural gas as a GHG, this is long overdue. And such regulation is looking in serious jeopardy given the appointments Trump made to the EPA and DOE.

Look up externality. These are the things the "free market" tends to fail to account for:
Externality - Wikipedia

 

[Barklikeadog]

So you both say that you are against punishing businesses...
and then you go on to justify punishing said businesses...

Again... what if Tesla were severely punished with fines in order to help those who make hydrogen cars?
Ive asked this in the past, nobody seems to have an answer.

 

[OBX John]

So you both say that you are against punishing businesses...
and then you go on to justify punishing said businesses...

Again... what if Tesla were severely punished with fines in order to help those who make hydrogen cars?
Ive asked this in the past, nobody seems to have an answer.

How is making businesses pay for their pollution punishment? If a business makes a huge profit by dumping a bunch of waste in your yard, would you not argue they should pay for disposal of that waste? It's the same thing.

If you choose not to understand externalities, I can't make you, but if you'd like to understand why government intervention in markets can make those markets more efficient, it's worth looking at with an open mind.

 

[stopcrazypp]

So you both say that you are against punishing businesses...
and then you go on to justify punishing said businesses...

Again... what if Tesla were severely punished with fines in order to help those who make hydrogen cars?
Ive asked this in the past, nobody seems to have an answer.

It seems like the argument is going over your head. Again, the regulations aren't "punishing" businesses, it's making businesses pay their fair costs to society.

I'll give an example that perhaps will make things clear:
Let's say you run a factory. Typically factory waste, including hazardous waste, has a significant cost for safe disposal. To save on those costs you just run a pipe to a river nearby and then dump it into the river directly (a situation which has happened in many cases). Without regulation, you would be more competitive against other factories because you save on the costs of disposal.

Then the government finds out and fines you and makes you safely dispose of such waste in the future. Is that "punishing" businesses, or simply making them pay their fair costs?

Hydrogen cars are irrelevant because it provides no advantages over EVs in terms of pollution (instead it is a drastically less efficient way to use the same energy). Under a fair scheme to account for their pollution, hydrogen would not have any advantage over EVs in terms of subsidies or fines.

We have a very long thread about this here if you are interested in hydrogen:
Hydrogen vs. Battery

 

[Barklikeadog]

How is making businesses pay for their pollution punishment? If a business makes a huge profit by dumping a bunch of waste in your yard, would you not argue they should pay for disposal of that waste? It's the same thing.

If you choose not to understand externalities, I can't make you, but if you'd like to understand why government intervention in markets can make those markets more efficient, it's worth looking at with an open mind.

I understand just fine.
Dumping toxic waste is illegal.
Is driving or selling a car illegal?

 

[Barklikeadog]

It seems like the argument is going over your head. Again, the regulations aren't "punishing" businesses, it's making businesses pay their fair costs to society.

I'll give an example that perhaps will make things clear:
Let's say you run a factory. Typically factory waste, including hazardous waste, has a significant cost for safe disposal. To save on those costs you just run a pipe to a river nearby and then dump it into the river directly (a situation which has happened in many cases). Without regulation, you would be more competitive against other factories because you save on the costs of disposal.

Then the government finds out and fines you and makes you safely dispose of such waste in the future. Is that "punishing" businesses, or simply making them pay their fair costs?

Hydrogen cars are irrelevant because it provides no advantages over EVs in terms of pollution (instead it is a drastically less efficient way to use the same energy). Under a fair scheme to account for their pollution, hydrogen would not have any advantage over EVs in terms of subsidies or fines.

We have a very long thread about this here if you are interested in hydrogen:
Hydrogen vs. Battery

Again, you are talking about regulating an activity which would be illegal. Incorrect disposal of waste.
Driving a car is not an illegal activity.

as for Hydrogen, this is a HYPOTHETICAL. Nobody seems to be able to answer that question.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

The "keep your enemies closer" and "pragmatism" arguments seem destined, in my opinion, to end up in the "coordination" sphere as described here:

What Those Who Studied Nazis Can Teach Us About The Strange Reaction To Donald Trump | The Huffington Post

This may be an extreme statement but, would dearly like to see Elon/Tesla not go the way of Mercedes and VW in Nazi Germany.

 

[Barklikeadog]

Despite seeing 'huff post' I read it anyway. The theme throughout the entire piece is the painting of trump supporters with one big brush. The assumption that they are all deplorables.
Yet in exit polls, most trump supporters don't want deportation, the majority wanted change for change sake, didn't trust clinton, cared about the supreme court, worried about terrorism...

The writers seem to say that trump is using these issues as a scapegoat excuse... But they are (trade immigration) very legit issues our country is facing.

Finally... Playing the Nazi card is so old and tired. It was done to reagan, bush, bob dole.. Every repub gets called that by the left. Blah blah blah

 

[stopcrazypp]

Again, you are talking about regulating an activity which would be illegal. Incorrect disposal of waste.

Under the Clean Air Act excessive pollution out of power plants is illegal too (and this is what the EPA regulates under that law).
The problem is Trump has appointed people that believe that green-house gases are not pollution. Thus there will be moves to do away with any polices that try to govern that (beginning with the massive witch hunt against federal employees that worked on climate policy, a witch hunt that luckily failed). This is what I am saying directly affects Tesla (both the battery packs and solar panel).
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/u...-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0

Driving a car is not an illegal activity.

Selling cars with excessive pollution is illegal according to federal law. Did you miss out on the whole VW dieselgate controversy?
Volkswagen emissions scandal - Wikipedia
And in various states (esp. CARB states) it is also illegal to drive a car with excessive pollution (this is enforced with regular smog checks).

There is no difference in the analogy.

as for Hydrogen, this is a HYPOTHETICAL. Nobody seems to be able to answer that question.

I already answered the question, even though you are obviously trying to build a strawman. Under a fair scheme that accounted for the relative pollution of the technologies, Tesla would not be "severely punished with fines" vs. hydrogen. And if an unfair scheme was built, people here would protest. However, what you are suggesting (that fossil fuels are being unfairly punished) is not what is happening in this case. What Trump's administration is poised to do is give GHG a free ride, and make things much easier for fossil fuels, and that is not fair in any way to the other technologies.

 

[Barklikeadog]

A straw man argument? Hardly. The govt has deemed that A is better than B, therefore it punishes B.
I ask the A people if they would still feel the same if the govt deemed C better than A.
Would they then support C, or Would they defend A?
Your answer is to defend A.
This is not about studies, comparisons or anything else, just the basic premise of being fine with the govt picking winners and losers(as long as you are the winner)

 

[OBX John]

A straw man argument? Hardly. The govt has deemed that A is better than B, therefore it punishes B.
I ask the A people if they would still feel the same if the govt deemed C better than A.
Would they then support C, or Would they defend A?
Your answer is to defend A.
This is not about studies, comparisons or anything else, just the basic premise of being fine with the govt picking winners and losers(as long as you are the winner)

You are correct. The government is picking the "winners" that don't pollute. And punishing the "losers" that do. If you consider polluters "A" and non-polluters "B", and in your opinion A = B, then you will never "C" our argument.

 

[stopcrazypp]

A straw man argument? Hardly. The govt has deemed that A is better than B, therefore it punishes B.
I ask the A people if they would still feel the same if the govt deemed C better than A.
Would they then support C, or Would they defend A?
Your answer is to defend A.
This is not about studies, comparisons or anything else, just the basic premise of being fine with the govt picking winners and losers(as long as you are the winner)

You are bringing a strawman argument because you presume that A and B is equal in impact and that "the govt" is just arbitrarily saying one is better than the other.

The goal of the policies is not to help one equal technology over the other, but rather assign a fair cost to pollution (particularly greenhouse gas emissions). Thus people do not think it is unfair or "punishing" to coal plants, natural gas, etc to pay for those relative costs or to comply with such emissions regulations because they are not equal in terms of their emissions impact.

And you used different phrasing:
"what if Tesla were severely punished with fines in order to help those who make hydrogen cars?"
However, your example of hydrogen car is worse than Tesla in emissions impact, which is why I would not agree to policies that severely punished Teslas vs hydrogen cars.

To go back to your example, let's replace C with "magic unicorn technology 10x cleaner than EVs" instead of hydrogen. Then I would be all for policies that gives 10x the subsidies (or equivalently 1/10 the fines) to cars running on "magic unicorn technology 10x cleaner than EVs" instead of to Teslas.

See the difference?

 

[Bangor Bob]

Magic unicorns are really expensive, and you never know how far one is going to take you. Plus, you don't even know if you'll be able to find the special hay to feed them. There's some question about how long they last, too. You'll need to replace their guts in 5 years - do you know how expensive unicorn guts are?

They're just toys for rich do-gooders! You work hard and barely get by - and now they want your tax dollars going to help rich people in Cali-good-damned-fornia buy magic unicorns?! No sir, no sir indeed!

On a completely unrelated topic, I'd like to thank the Senator for squashing that pesky oil royalty increase the house cooked up - that wold have killed jobs! Jobs, I tell ya! Mostly my yacht crew's jobs, but that's just between us. We'll be there for you in 2020, Senator!

 

[Barklikeadog]

You are correct. The government is picking the "winners" that don't pollute. And punishing the "losers" that do. If you consider polluters "A" and non-polluters "B", and in your opinion A = B, then you will never "C" our argument.

A doesn't pollute?? How are they charged? How is the steel produced? How are they shipped? How are the tires made?
You don't believe that it is possible to improve on a Tesla?

This is the problem with ideologues.

 

[nwdiver]

A doesn't pollute?? How are they charged? How is the steel produced? How are they shipped? How are the tires made?
You don't believe that it is possible to improve on a Tesla?

This is the problem with ideologues.

Pretty sure that his argument is that there are external factors that need to be taken into account... I'm also pretty sure you were aware of that.

That's the beauty of a Carbon Tax. Everyone pays $20, then $40, then $100/ton... let the best technology win.