Elon Musk Broke Bad on Climate

Donald Trump hasn’t taken office yet, but the quarter of a billion dollars Elon Musk invested in Trump’s victory is already paying off in ways large and small. On Friday, Reuters reported that the Trump transition team is looking to scrap a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration crash-reporting requirement, “a move that could cripple the government’s ability to investigate and regulate the safety of vehicles with automated-driving systems.” Tesla finds this requirement irksome, and lo, it may soon disappear.

In the scope of Musk’s emerging sway over the Trump administration and the course of federal policy in the coming years, it’s a relatively minor story of potentially corrupt influence and the subversion of the public interest. But an even more disturbing picture of Musk’s full priority set is coming into focus.

Musk, the richest human being in history (his net worth now tops $400 billion), may soon exercise a control over government policy unprecedented for a private citizen, which as recently as a year or so ago might have seemed like a net positive for the fight against climate change. Until the relatively immediate present, Musk was rightly counted as a hero of that battle. Whether or not you accept his claim that “I’ve done more for the environment than any single human on Earth,” Musk has certainly done more than anyone to promote the adoption of electric vehicles. And no public figure could — if he wanted — have more ability to convince conservatives in general, and Donald Trump in particular, to accept the reality of climate change and commit to doing something about it than he does.

But that is not what Elon Musk wants. It is becoming clear that in pursuit of his own objectives — money, power, domination over others, personal aggrandizement, and the realization of his dream of making humanity a “multi-planet species” — Musk is content not just to set aside the fight against climate change, but to actively undermine it.

While Musk has not made any grand announcement declaring that he no longer cares about climate, there is considerable evidence to suggest he does not. In a rambling interview with Trump this August, Musk said that his views on the fossil fuel industry are “probably different from what most people would assume.” He explained that “I don’t think we should vilify the oil and gas industry,” and although over time we should move toward sustainable energy, “we still have quite a bit of time … we don’t need to rush and we don’t need to stop farmers from farming or prevent people from having steaks.”

Which is almost exactly what any fossil fuel CEO would say.

It certainly marks a rhetorical shift for someone who once advocated a “popular uprising” against fossil fuel companies. One might object that whatever he says in interviews, he’s still the CEO of America’s largest EV manufacturer. And Tesla no doubt remains a company filled with people committed to combating climate change who see their work as a key part of that effort. The third iteration of the company’s “Master Plan,” released last year, describes what it believes is necessary to “fully electrify the economy and eliminate fossil fuel use.”

But that doesn’t seem to reflect the CEO’s own thinking. The Washington Postreported that earlier this year, Musk killed plans to create an affordable Tesla that could have greatly expanded the reach of EVs in the U.S., opting instead to make further investments in luxury cars and artificial intelligence. (To add insult to injury, Reuters first reported in April that the car had been canceled, but Musk said that the outlet was “lying.”) “The internal deliberations over the so-called Tesla Model 2,” said the Post, “reflect what sources close to Musk describe as a significant shift in the billionaire’s attitude toward climate change.”

That’s apparent in what may be the single most important decision Trump and congressional Republicans will have to make with regard to EVs: whether to kill the $7,500 EV subsidy revived and expanded by the Inflation Reduction Act. If Musk wanted to, he could almost certainly convince Trump that the subsidies ought to remain in place. But he doesn’t; this summer he said on an earnings call that while eliminating the subsidies might cost Tesla some sales, “long term, it probably actually helps” because it would be “devastating for our competitors.” Or as he said in a tweet, “Take away the subsidies. It will only help Tesla.”

In other words, Musk favors a policy change that will reduce overall adoption of EVs, because it will hurt his competition, perhaps driving some of his competitors out of the EV market entirely. Bad for the climate, but good for Elon Musk.

Then we have the rest of the Trump administration’s agenda to roll back climate progress. To date there is zero evidence that Musk has suggested that Trump dial back his “drill, baby, drill” agenda or appoint administration figures who are anything less than fossil fuel enthusiasts. Quite the opposite: When Trump posted on Truth Social that “Any person or company investing ONE BILLION DOLLARS, OR MORE, in the United States of America, will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including, but in no way limited to, all Environmental approvals,” Musk responded by tweeting, “This is awesome.”

That it isn’t in Trump’s power to single-handedly waive “all Environmental approvals” isn’t the point, so much as the fact that Musk thrills to the idea of the government no longer bothering to enforce environmental laws. While the “Department of Government Efficiency” Trump has tasked Musk with creating is neither a department, nor part of the government, nor devoted to efficiency, it nonetheless stands as a symbol of Musk’s close relationship with Trump and his ability to influence Trump’s decisions, particularly given how little Trump actually cares about policy areas other than immigration and foreign trade. It has become hard to envision Musk acting as anything other than an accelerant on Trump’s worst environmental instincts.

Musk’s shift to the right will continue to have serious national consequences in both government policy and public debate. He bought Twitter in 2022 with the stated intention of removing much of its content moderation in the name of “free speech,” with the predictable result that the renamed X quickly became a sewer of far-right extremism and misinformation of all kinds. As multiple analyses have shown, climate denialism and deceit have proliferated on X, making it one of the premier vectors of influence for those who would thwart efforts to address the climate crisis.

There is no reason to believe that this concerns Musk in any way. The man who once had the key insight that the way to fight climate change was to make EVs cool now thinks nothing is cooler than getting retweets and likes from the right-wing trolls who consider him their king.

At this point, one might even question whether Musk ever cared about climate change, or if concern about warming was just an engine that he realized could make him rich and feed his grandiose dreams of world domination. The answer to that question is: It doesn’t matter. Whatever he might once have thought, Musk has been transformed. He is no longer a force for good in the climate fight; instead, he’ll be one more obstacle to ensuring the future of the planet. If only he didn’t have the ability to do so much damage.