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 today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
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

Trump's Billion-Dollar Coal Gamble

On flesh-eating parasites, Italian nuclear, and China’s “wasted” renewables

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Tropical Storm Amanda has formed in the eastern Pacific off Baja California, marking the first big storm of the season • Typhoon Jangmi is pummeling Japan, leaving 60,000 without electricity • Western and central Argentina are bracing for a deluge of up to 8 inches of rain this week.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Trump offers nearly $1 billion in funding for coal

President Donald Trump just upped his bid to revive America’s dying coal-fired power sector. In the first of three funding announcements Thursday, the Department of Energy said it would spend up to $425 million to support the supply chain and expand the capacity of at least 13 coal plants. The agency said in the same press release that it would give $75 million to build a new coal export facility at the West Gateway Terminal Project in Oakland, designed to ship more than 10 millions tons of coal overseas each year. Then the Energy Department unveiled another $350 million to support construction of America’s first new coal plants in over a decade: one in Anchorage, Alaska, and the other in Mt. Storm, West Virginia. The money will also support an upgrade of Puerto Rico’s only coal plant, the infamous 510-megawatt facility in Guayama, and the recommissioning of a 205-megawatt Cumberland, Maryland-based plant that shut down in 2024. Since taking office, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has repeatedly ordered coal plants set to shutter to remain open, despite steep costs to utilities that the companies are now challenging in court. But coal plants themselves have played the biggest part in thwarting his plans, given that — as Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin wrote last year — they keep breaking down.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Daily Briefing

The U.S. Government’s Screwworm Screw-Up

An unwanted lesson in good governance.

A screw worm fly.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed on Wednesday that a New World screwworm — a flesh-eating fly that feeds on cattle, livestock, and other mammals — was found in a 3-week old calf in southern Texas. The screwworms aren’t dangerous to people, but they are a serious health risk to cows, and they are likely to drive already record-high beef prices even higher.

The finding reflects the defeat of what was, up until recently, one of my favorite “unknown” government programs. For decades, the United States government paid to breed millions of male screwworms, blast them with radiation to make them sterile, and then drop them from planes into the rainforest at the narrowest stretch of the Panama peninsula. (Sarah Zhang, the bravura science writer at The Atlantic, wrote the ultimate story about this project back in 2020, which is how I learned about it in the first place.) These sterile male worms mate with female screwworms but produce no larvae, creating a biological border in Central America across which screwworms cannot pass, at least in theory.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
AI jail.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Like many new parents, I devote considerable time to thinking about sleep and why it’s not happening. Should I have sung the bedtime song and then changed the diaper? Did the baby need a fourth nap, or was the mistake letting her take a third so close to bedtime? It came as a surprise the other day, then, when a fellow parent in my baby group revealed she isn’t overthinking the whole sleep schedule thing at all. “I asked ChatGPT to write my baby’s sleep plan,” she told us. “It’s validating!”

To this author, personally, outsourcing parenting decisions to the world’s most sophisticated Mad Libs respondent seems like one of the signs that we’re doomed. Sleepmaxxing mothers aside, a plurality of Americans agree with me. Per Heatmap Pro’s latest polling, 45% of voters are “pessimistic” about the long-term impact of artificial intelligence on their lives, with just 22% saying they’re “optimistic” and about a third saying they’re unsure.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue