Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Electric Vehicles

Don’t Sell Your Tesla Because of Elon Musk

If you care about climate change, this is a no-brainer.

•
Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and a Tesla.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Back in 2019, the year I bought my Tesla Model 3, Elon Musk was more nuisance than accused neo-Nazi. He released an offbeat autotuned rap song about Harambe the gorilla and was acquitted of defamation charges after calling a rescuer in the Thailand cave incident of being a “pedo guy.” Both events feel eons ago in internet time. They also feel ancient as part of the gradual progression of Tesla’s CEO from real-life Tony Stark to right-wing agitator and propagandist.

Lots of people who purchased Tesla EVs before Musk took off the mask are understandably miffed. Anyone who buys a Cybertruck and has been on the internet before should know they’re driving an extension of Elon’s id. But millions of people worldwide bought Teslas over the past several years with no intention of puttering around in a MAGA machine. The sentiment can be seen in the bumper stickers that now appear on Model 3s and Ys around blue states, declaring some version of “I bought it before Elon was crazy.” A new study in the Netherlands put a number to the notion: The survey found that one in three Tesla owners wants to unload their cars rather than continue to drive a vehicle associated with Musk.

This is a time when social media abounds with lists of companies to avoid because of their political stances and contributions; anyone who wants to vote with their wallet by not buying Tesla absolutely can and probably should buy some other carmaker’s EV instead (unless Tesla, which is slated to release its earning this week, winds up the last EV-maker standing). But don’t ditch your Model S or Y just to avoid driving around in an advertisement for his company.

I’ve thought a lot about this as a Model 3 owner for five-plus years. It’s not uncommon to meet someone who can’t wait to tell you they’d never buy a Tesla because of Musk’s politics or noxious behavior on X. Fair enough. But plenty of those people drive gas-only or hybrid vehicles. The oil company CEOs who make money selling gasoline and diesel have been far worse for the climate than Musk, even if his Trump-ward turn is closing the gap. They just know enough not to tweet. Or buy Twitter.

It certainly doesn’t make climate sense to dispose of a Tesla in favor of a non-EV. But even trading one in for another company’s EV just to get Musk out of your life is a bad deal. When you sell your car, it becomes somebody else’s car. That person inherits the symbolic weight of owning one of Musk’s products and takes over the Supercharging dole, paying Tesla for energy every time they need to charge away from home. More importantly, you’ll probably wind up purchasing a new EV that needed a reasonable amount of carbon emissions to create (not to mention water and other resources), and will need years of driving on cleaner energy to make up for it. What’s gained in virtue signaling is lost in carbon dioxide.

This personal conundrum is reminiscent of the macroeconomic controversy over fossil fuel divestment, where universities, companies, and other institutions have been pressured to rid themselves of investment that support coal, oil, and gas. In theory, selling off such assets is supposed to harm the fossil fuel industry. But as the Harvard Business Review writes: “What looks good on paper often falls short in practice. There’s one major problem with divestment: Selling an asset requires someone to buy it. In other words, for you to divest, someone else needs to invest.” Institutions get to pat themselves on the back and tell constituents they greened their portfolio, but the fossil fuel business carries on unchanged.

In fact, the Review directly compares divestment to the car problem. Companies, they say, should think about sunsetting their fossil fuel investments rather than selling immediately just to wash their hands of a dirty industry. It’s just like how driving an old car into the ground is better than selling it — since selling requires buying, and buying adds a new car to the roads.

So it goes for aging Teslas. You might feel a wave of satisfaction by selling off your Model Y and derive great pleasure from not having to think about Musk when you get in your car. But if, like me, you bought an electric car for climate reasons, and it just so happened that a Tesla was the most practical one you could get, then the best thing to do once it’s paid off is to keep it as long as it will run.

An owner can keep more of their money from lining Musk’s pocket by charging at home or at other companies’ DC fast-chargers instead of Superchargers, or by having the vehicle repaired and serviced by independent shops rather than by Tesla itself. But it is quite literally not worth it to sell your Tesla just to avoid having to explain to other people, or to yourself, why you drive one.

Green
🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Q&A

Why the Wilderness Society Backs a Data Center Moratorium

Talking with Dan Hartinger, the land conservation group’s senior policy director.

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s Q&A is with Dan Hartinger, senior policy director for The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization in D.C. that this week called for a moratorium on data center development on public land. The public statement was relatively scant on details about the group’s stance, and a decade of reporting on policy in Washington has taught me that its positions are quite influential, especially in more traditional outdoor recreation and conservationist circles that are also often bipartisan. So I reached out and asked if someone could further explain the society’s position, and Dan obliged.

The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Data Center Outrage Catches Up to Renewables Outrage in Michigan

Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Central Michigan – I regret to inform you of this back-and-forth between candidates running for Congress and a would-be constituent because it’s a warning sign for the renewable energy sector (and sort of broke my brain).

  • This week brought the first and likely only debate between Rep. Tom Barrett and Sunrise Movement cofounder Will Lawrence, who are locked in a tight contest over the Michigan 7th congressional district. As I’ve written, their race is a must-watch not only for control of the U.S. House but also the political fortunes of the data center sector.
  • The debate contained a remarkable exchange: Moderators played taped remarks from Paula Caltrider, identified as “a local resident” in the city of Mason to ask the candidates a question about data centers. Instead, she offered a comment. “You know, you can’t be a part of this no data center movement without renouncing the large solar farms and dangerous battery storage facilities that power these data centers.” (Quick TL;DR on Caltrider: She’s been quoted in national media coverage of the data center backlash and last year won a legal settlement after allegedly being fired for refusing a vaccine mandate.)
  • Barrett then ran with Caltrider’s baton. “I appreciate Paula linking these together, the stripping away of local control that took place in pursuit of this Green New Deal agenda in Lansing that took away control from communities” – a reference to the state’s primacy law that other Michigan Republican candidates have opposed.
  • Lawrence, whose support for a federal data center moratorium made him a national political test case, did not take the bait, nor did he criticize renewable energy. Instead, this part of the debate became a tit-for-tat about whether the sitting congressman once backed tax breaks for data centers. “He stuck his finger up into the wind, saw which way it was blowing, did a complete 180 on this issue,” Lawrence said. Then Barrett and Lawrence got into a confusing back-and-forth about whether the Inflation Reduction Act was a giveaway to data centers.
  • To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time the Data Center Trojan Horse has reared its ugly head on any kind of prominent debate stage, but it won’t be the last. For example: The Wisconsin gubernatorial debate is Oct. 21, and we’ve warned you about that one.

2. Doña Ana County, New Mexico – I suggest you pay closer attention to the federal permitting fight playing out over Oracle’s Project Jupiter.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Spotlight

The Data Center Backlash Is Coming for Permitting Reform

The Senate’s compromise bill enters the chat at a moment when federal land and anti-pipeline advocates are already quite activated.

The Capitol and a data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The AI data center backlash is getting louder in D.C. ahead of the midterms – and it’s poised to collide head-on with the new permitting reform deal being negotiated in Congress.

This week, major environmental advocacy organizations are taking large public steps to lean in on the data center fight. The League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council, I’ve been told, are imminently announcing a $250,000 ad buy in the Washington, D.C. market focused entirely on decrying fossil fuel-powered data centers and Trump administration policies to speed up their construction. The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization, announced it now supports a moratorium against data centers on “public lands” focused on the roughly half billion acres under the Interior Department’s stewardship. And Earthjustice on Thursday did a detailed report claiming that 80% of the data centers under development “bringing their own power” are going to rely on gas generation.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow