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
AM Briefing

‘Starting to Fray’

On Greenland’s deepsea mining ban, Indonesia floating nuclear, and a solar boom

Data center construction.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Hurricane Trudy has weakened from its peak as a Category 2 storm but still threatens up to 8 inches of rain as it swirls off Baja California • A nor’easter is howling through the Mid-Atlantic this week, hammering the coast with winds of up to 70 miles per hour • A humid overcast has settled over Paris this week as French authorities struggle to regain control after protests over living costs gave way to anarchic riots.


THE TOP FIVE

1. America’s AI infrastructure boom ‘is starting to fray’

At least 47 major data center projects have been delayed, withdrawn, or blocked so far this year, according to data the regulatory intelligence service RegLayer shared with the Financial Times — and that may be a “conservative estimate.” Just 35% of planned data centers are “credible,” analysts told the newspaper, as more than 1,000 communities across the United States now have restrictions on artificial intelligence infrastructure. The data comes as investors look increasingly jittery about AI following ChatGPT-maker OpenAI’s missing a key revenue metric this year.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Spotlight

A Giant Data Center Offers a Permitting Reform Test Case

What would happen to Project Jupiter if the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act is passed?

Project Jupiter.
Heatmap Illustration/Project Jupiter, Library of Congress

One of the nation’s largest data centers is struggling under permitting woes. So let’s play a game: would the bipartisan permitting bill in Congress make the path easier, or might the federal legislation be irrelevant to large hyperscalers under development today?

Meet Project Jupiter, a mega project in southern New Mexico in Dona Ana County under development by Oracle and OpenAI, with financial backing from SoftBank and political support from the Trump administration for being a part of Stargate, a major Trump administration public-private initiative boosting AI development. Project Jupiter would be one of the largest data centers in the country if completed and currently is expected to run on a microgrid powered by fuel cells converting gas to electricity, which the developers claim will burn much cleaner than a typical off-grid gas turbine power plant.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Trump Administration Is Still Messing with Offshore Wind Farms

And more of the week’s top news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. New England (and Maryland) – The Trump administration is still messing with offshore wind farms, even while trying to pass a permitting reform deal. Examining the court filings reveals why they may feel empowered to do it — and I’m not sure how this ends.

  • Last Friday, in a legal case brought by anti-wind activists, the Justice Department submitted a motion in federal court to send the construction and operations plan for Orsted’s Revolution Wind project in New England back to the Interior Department for more analysis. On Wednesday, the DOJ entered a similar motion in another case challenging the construction and operations plan for U.S. Wind’s MarWin project off the coast of Maryland in a lawsuit brought by the state’s coastal community of Ocean City.
  • Trump’s actions led some to question whether the president was sabotaging the deal, and others to claim the media coverage itself was an attempt to kill it. Going further, supporters of the bipartisan bill claimed the DOJ's motions were precisely why the bill should become law, implying it would guard offshore wind farms against this sort of maneuver.
  • However, for the bill’s backers, it’s worth considering why the Trump administration believes it has the legal authority to do this. It’s also time to ask whether the bill would actually protect these wind farms against this tactic.
  • To answer those questions, you have to rewind. On May 1, 2025, the Interior Department withdrew a Biden solicitor’s opinion instructing the agency to “strike a rational balance” between wind power and fishing interests. This revocation document is technically not in effect at the moment; one year later, a federal court ruled the opinion was potentially illegal as a part of a preliminary injunction on five anti-renewables actions requested by solar and wind trade groups. The Trump administration is contesting that ruling, and the administration has filed a notice of appeal.
  • In August, despite that opinion being in doubt, a federal judge granted Trump permission under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to remand the construction and operations plan for the now-defunct Atlantic Shores offshore wind farm in the waters of New Jersey. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb specifically wrote that Atlantic Shores failed to demonstrate the federal government had limitations under OSCLA on revisiting these plans and that the injunction from the litigation on appeal “did not prohibit all reevaluation of agency action.”
  • In the recent Revolution and MarWin filings, Trump’s Justice Department argues the construction and operations plans should be remanded under OSCLA without being vacated. The DOJ motions include claims that previous decision documents did not adequately explain impacts to commercial fishing and other industries that use OSCLA waters. It’s not clear if the administration will win these motions.
  • The bipartisan permitting bill would bar the Interior Department and other federal agencies from taking “any new action that would revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, or alter a federal authorization or permit in effect on or after September 16, 2026,” or “any other action to interfere with or prevent the construction or operation at full capacity of a project that has secured all necessary federal authorizations and permits.” The restriction exempts cases where “the agency is required to take such action by order of a court.” As I wrote in our lengthy piece explaining the bill, this provision has a damages component that allows companies impacted by violations to pursue financial compensation.
  • Here’s the billion-dollar question I expect we won’t have answered unless the bill language is enacted and then litigated: Would the court order exception apply to rulings that grant these motions? Or would the developers be able to sue for damages?

2. Columbia County, N.Y. – New York’s renewable energy permitting office has rejected an upstate solar farm on farmland as a House Democrat representing the area joined hands with the Trump administration in publicly railing against the project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow