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’re out of free articles.

Subscribe to access Heatmap’s expert analysis of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability. Save $57 on an annual subscription, just $156 $99/year.
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
Daily Briefing

Exclusive: 75% of Americans Now Oppose Local Data Center Development

The U.S. public’s support for AI data centers has continued to collapse since the spring, a new Heatmap Pro poll shows.

A data center protester.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The American public has soured even further on local data center development since the spring, new polling shows.

Three-quarters of Americans now say that they would oppose a new data center being built near where they live, according to a new Heatmap Pro poll conducted by Embold Research, and more than six in 10 Americans say they would strongly oppose such a proposal.

Keep reading...Show less
Energy

Now Is the Worst Time for Diesel to Get Expensive

Agricultural equipment largely runs on diesel, and with the harvest season coming up, that spells bad news for farmers.

A farmer looking at diesel prices.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Gas prices are climbing again.

As the United States and Iran confusingly engage following the end of a 60-day “memorandum of understanding” between the two warring countries, the fuel market has begun to readjust yet again, continuing the volatility that has confounded analysts since mid-February. While the gasoline most drivers buy has seen its price increase — the national average gas price now sits at $4.09 a gallon, according to AAA, compared to $4 a month ago and $3.13 a year ago — the most dramatic increase has been in diesel. The price of that fuel — a crucial input to the agricultural economy, as well as an important heat source in certain parts of the U.S. — now sits at $5.50 a gallon, up around 14 cents on the week and close to its peak price for the year in June. It’s also dramatically higher than the $3.70 a gallon it was selling at a year ago.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
AM Briefing

Operation Blue Skies

On electrolyte factories, Josh Shapiro's flip, and Canadian clean power

Contrails.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Firefighters are encircling Belgium’s largest fire on record, just the latest blaze in Europe as historic heat waves roast the continent • The Canadian wildfire smoke that billowed into Michigan this summer cost the state nearly $6.7 billion • The string of storms that now includes the habagat, or southwest monsoon, hammering the Philippines has displaced 5.2 million Filipinos so far.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Trump pushes to open 45 million acres of national forests to logging

The Trump administration is barreling forward with a plan to open close to 45 million acres of wilderness in national forests to road construction and logging, removing protection The New York Times said has been in place for a quarter century. The U.S. Forest Service’s proposal would rescind a Clinton-era rule enacted in 2001 to bar roadways from routing through certain areas. The repeal is a major victory for Republican states and industry groups that lobbied for years to revoke the protections, and even unsuccessfully sued more than a dozen times to strike down the so-called roadless rule.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue