| The Anti-Environmentalism of Tesla Motors’ Elon Musk |
| Thursday, 14 June 2012 10:00 | Written by Steven Kotler | Commentary |
|
Musk, the one-time PayPal owner (his shares sold for $160 million) turned rocket scientist (his privately built spaceship/space company called Space X won the contract for ferrying supplies and eventually US astronauts to the Space Station), has gotten into the electric car business. His company, Tesla Motors, has produced a nifty little electric sports car that goes zero-to-60 in under four seconds and has a range of almost 250 miles. Pretty impressive, but here’s what’s not so impressive. Musk has been very vocal about all the green reasons why we need electric cars and I agree with all of them. I agree we’re running out of oil. I agree that rampant climate change must be stopped. I agree that finding a less invasive way of moving people from point A to point B would be great. I agree that more ordinary citizens need to stand up and take action. I agree, agree, agree and agree—but here’s what I don’t agree with: Musk has five sons and—according to the article—plans for more. Let me be blunt—if you have five children and plans for more you don’t give a shit about this planet. Ask any expert around: the largest problem facing the planet today is population. There are almost seven billion people and, as I’ve written before, the figure most scientists use for our planet’s carrying capacity (that’s how many people can live here sustainably) comes out at two billion. This means that already, without the help from guys like Musk, we are 4.4 billion people too many. So why can’t you have a lot of kids and still care about the planet? Simple. According to the Population Media Center, “The expansion of human activity and the associated loss of habitat are the leading causes of the unprecedented extinction of plants and animals species worldwide.” This is a polite way of saying, since our resources are finite, every child born steals from the future to pay for the present. Worse, Americans do more of this than other nations. “Ecological footprint” is a term used to measure an individual’s impact on the planet. As computed by the Global Footprint Network, the average American has a footprint equivalent to 9.4 global hectares (23.3 acres) or roughly 17 football fields. The average Haitian, by comparison, uses .5 global hectares—or 1.5 acres—to survive. This is why exporting American culture and lifestyles is problematic. If the rest of the world wants to live like we do, then we need five planets worth of resources to make that happen. So let me ask the obvious question: Do you think Musk’s kids even live as we do? \Are they going to use 23.3 American acres or—since this is a very rich man we’re talking about—do you think he’s spending less on his kids than the rest of us? That would be, um, unusual. He is most likely doing what most parents do—spending about all he can afford on his kids. And since he can outspend the rest of us…. well, you do the math. Musk can sell all the electric cars he wants, but don’t believe the hype. He’s either: A) An idiot—meaning he got into green business without knowing the first thing about green living. Seriously, population issues are Green Living 101. They are the absolute basics. So if he’s this dumb and building something as tricky to build (and sell) as an electric car…well, let’s just say, I wouldn’t have much faith in his cars. B) A hypocrite—meaning he knows the truth but thinks talking a good green game is enough. So when the time comes for me to buy an electric car, I’ll be looking in every direction besides Tesla Motors. Help the Earth, Spread the Word: Share this article with family and friends by clicking on the "Email This" or "Share This" links below right. Then see TODAY'S TOP STORIES.
Share This
Email This
Comments
(9)
Written by Spartak , January 15, 2013
what's the problem with you? 5 kids is GREAT! and to plan more is much better!!! the most important thing is that our kids to learn to live in contribution and PEACE! and then don't worry about them, because when that day comes, when this planet would be very small for them they will think about colonizing oceans and other planets. So please, don't be so aggressive. I like this dude for his electric car and I think its the first step humans first time in 100 years will smell and breath the real air!
Report abuse
Written by Matt Greco , August 13, 2012
This article illustrates why the world can and would do so much better without so-called environmentalists. I would just call them mental, but that's me. I think what is sadder is how we can't be human anymore. Everyone has to be an asshole, hate-the-world, hate-myself-more, animals-love-me environmentalist or an I-love-guns-and-grits-and-especially-wars-asshole conservative. You all disgust me in every way imaginable. Just know that you greenies are not intelligent, you are not saving the planet, you are not interesting, you are not open or intuitive and the earth hates you for what you are doing to it.
Report abuse
Just a word for the worthless writer, population is the least of our problems. You have bought into the PTB's agenda just as much as the conservatives buy the idea that wars are necessary. You simply serve the other side - on your knees, happily. You all disgust me so much and it would be just a waste of my time to go on anymore. To give you solid facts about how there is plenty of land area for another 25 billion people if only we did not crowd into cities as the PTB wants. But facts would be a waste on the putrid green minds of mush such as yourselves. Time for a bath. PS, I will be removing this website from my Google Reader immediately. You should try to get a few thinking minds in your office.
Written by kristaf , November 19, 2009
Alan, I would point out that the author owns rescue dogs. They did not come into being because of a choice he made, as children do. These are animals that were already here and that other folks decided were undeserving. I believe once animals are here they deserve to be taken care of. Humans too, of course. But we do have some power over deciding whether we want to create new lives--why shouldn't their effect on our environment play a role in that decision?
Report abuse
Written by Alan , November 18, 2009
Man says too many kids are bad, but he has too many dogs. New Scientist magazine says dogs are 70% as bad as kids for the environment. Get off yur high horse and see what a hole you are in.
Report abuse
Written by DBT , November 10, 2009
Overpopulation is the single biggest environmental issue and the root of most, if not all, of the others. But many environmentalists don't want to talk about it for fear of alienating a big swatch of people. Why? Because it touches a nerve in many people due to their religious beliefs or a belief that having children is somehow a sacred right. Unfortunately, it is simply a choice--and one that directly affects the health of the planet in profound ways. This essay uses a critique of Musk to point this out. It's not so much an attack on him as a call to stop ignoring overpopulation as an environmental issue.
Report abuse
Written by Debby Grant , November 10, 2009
The writer makes a good point. A person who is not environmental in their personal life and then markets an environmental product is suspect--and the product is suspect as well.
Report abuse
Written by hexhunter , November 09, 2009
1) It seems true that he has 5 children, he is now divorced from their mother, any more children would supposedly be from his fiancee. I am not sure you can really deny her children because he already has 5.
Report abuse
2) Maybe he is planning to adopt, I think that would be acceptable. 3) The car industry and the petrol industry are very hard to infiltrate, a few companies are moving from hybrids to full electric but without competition from Tesla they may delay transition for decades. Tesla's buisness model works, they start with an eye catching, expensive product, and work down until Tesla is equal to the Toyota's and the Honda's and whatever other companies weren't left behind. *Not proof read or error checked :)
Written by Tom Saxton , November 09, 2009
While I agree that our growing population is the biggest problem our species faces, dismissing the value that Tesla Motors has in either solving our petroleum-based transportation problem or motivating the big automakers to do something helpful simply because the CEO has five kids is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
Report abuse
Do you suppose there's a single automaker on the planet that has no executives with two or more kids? And why limit this argument to automakers? By Kotler's reasoning, before doing business with any company, we should look at all the employees to see if there's anyone at the company that isn't sufficiently green to earn our business, while we're living in our off-grid yurt and eating only vegetables from our own organic garden. Frankly, anyone who is blogging is using more than their share of the planet's resources, me included. That doesn't mean we can't make significant progress toward a sustainable economy by driving electric. |
In August of 2009, The New Yorker published an article about Elon Musk that immediately began bothering me.
Show/Hide comments
