← Back to context

Comment by giantg2

3 years ago

Tesla has a lot of issues. It's not a stretch to see their material risks (lithium, cobalt, nickel, plastic aka oil) as being pretty bad. The source of the electric powering the car matters too. As does the fact that they still use oil based or CO2 emitting roadways and the effects of the brake pads and tires.

They certainly have problems. Tesla and oil companies have material and process (environmental) risks. Tesla also has the risks associated with poor societal and governance stances.

So back to my original comment - you'll have to look into the companies themselves because their "benefits" are debatable, including Tesla's.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/why-tesla-was-kicked-out-of-...

Edit: wow getting a lot of hate without any reply. I guess just because I'm critical of Tesla?

7 comments

giantg2

Reply
dbrueck  3 years ago

> I guess just because I'm critical of Tesla?

No, it's because the ESG stuff seems more about virtue signaling than doing actual good, and the fact that that one main list includes oil companies but excludes Tesla is really compelling evidence of this.

Other downvotes are probably for stuff like "the fact that they still use oil based or CO2 emitting roadways". I mean... c'mon.

  • giantg2  3 years ago

    "the fact that that one main list includes oil companies but excludes Tesla is really compelling evidence of this."

    This doesn't seem like compelling evidence without diving into why. Tesla is quite shady in trying to avoid things. For example, not complying with battery laws in Germany, working conditions issues, etc.

    The ESG score also include "S" and "G". It's not all about "E".

    But I agree that the scores don't mean much. Which, for the third time, I recommend looking into the companies because their "benefits" are generally debatable.

    "I mean... c'mon."

    Well I guess I'll like to evaluate from a systems thinking standpoint. N-order impacts are relevant.

    • dbrueck  3 years ago

      > This doesn't seem like compelling evidence without diving into why

      Fair enough, but not only is a company pushing us towards renewable energy better than a company resisting that better in the abstract, the real issue is the specific companies that the ESG index kept while booting Tesla.

      https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/exxon-mobil-is-the-wors... https://www.npr.org/2019/10/22/772241282/exxon-is-on-trial-a... https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobi...

      The list goes on and on and on, and this isn't even taking into account all of their lawsuits from employees about inappropriate workplace things. Again, it's not that Tesla is some pristine company, but that it's extremely hypocritical for booting Tesla from a list but keeping at least one other company that is far worse in pretty much every way, and that's what really calls into question the legitimacy of the ESG ratings.

      > [criticism about criticism about Tesla relying on oil-based roads] > Well I guess I'll like to evaluate from a systems thinking standpoint. N-order impacts are relevant.

      Of course they are relevant, but dinging a company because they don't solve every tangential issue seems defeatist, and every ESG index company has at least as many ways in which they could theoretically do much more if we start connecting the dots to everything in the system they're a part of. So it's just back to the original point: the ESG scoring seems, at best, pretty inconsistent.

      3 replies →