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
Energy

Span Is Building a New Kind of Electric Utility

The maker of smart panels is tapping into unused grid capacity to help power the AI boom.

A SPAN device.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, SPAN

The race for artificial intelligence is a race for electricity. Data centers are scrambling to find enough power to run their servers, and when they do, they often face long waits while utilities upgrade the grid to accommodate the added demand.

In the eyes of Arch Rao, the CEO and founder of the smart electrical panel company Span, however, there is a glut of electricity waiting to be exploited. That’s because the electric grid is already oversized, designed to satisfy spikes in demand that occur for just a few hours each year. By shifting when and where different users consume power, it’s possible to squeeze far more juice out of the existing system, faster, and for a lot less money, than it takes to make it bigger.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Electric Vehicles

How Toyota Became an EV Winner

After years of dithering, the world’s biggest automaker is finally in the game.

Toyota EVs.
Heatmap Illustration/Toyota, Getty Images

The hottest contest in the electric car industry right now may be the race for third place.

Thanks to Tesla’s longtime supremacy (at least in this country), its two mainstays — the Model Y and Model 3 — sit comfortably atop the monthly list of best-selling EVs. Movement in the No. 3 spot, then, has become a signal for success from the automakers attempting to go electric. The original Chevy Bolt once occupied this position thanks to its band of diehard fans. Last year, the brand’s affordable Equinox EV grabbed third. And then, earlier this year, an unexpected car took over that spot on the leaderboard: the Toyota bZ.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
AM Briefing

EV Fee

On forever chemicals, Indian and Swedish nuclear, and Ford’s battery business

EV charging.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: A raging brushfire in the suburbs north of Los Angeles has forced more than 23,000 Californians to evacuate • The Guayanese capital of Georgetown, newly awash in offshore oil money, is also set to be drenched by thunderstorms through next week • Temperatures in Washington, D.C., are nearing triple digits today.


THE TOP FIVE

1. Congress proposes a $130 per year fee on electric vehicles

A bipartisan budget deal to fund roads, railways, and bridges for the next five years would also slap a $130 per year fee on drivers registering electric vehicles, with a $35 fee for plug-in hybrids. Late Sunday, lawmakers on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released the text of the 1,000-page bill. Roughly a sixth of the way through the legislation is a measure directing the Federal Highway Administration to impose the annual fees on battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles — and to withhold federal funding from any state that fails to comply with the rule. If passed, the fees would take effect at the end of September 2027. The fees — which increase to $150 and $50, respectively, after a decade — are designed to reinforce the Highway Trust Fund, which has traditionally been financed through gasoline taxes. In a statement, Representative Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican and the committee’s chairman, said the legislation “ensures that electric vehicle owners begin paying their fair share for the use of our roads.” But Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, called the proposal “simply a punitive tax that would disproportionately impact adopters of electric vehicles, with no meaningful impact on” maintaining the fund. “Drivers of gas-powered vehicles pay approximately $73 to $89 in federal gas tax each year,” Gore said. “The proposed fee would charge an unfair premium on EV drivers, at a time when all Americans are looking for ways to save money.”

Keep reading...Show less
Green