Tesla pause German gigafactory construction after environmentalists protest cutting trees

[Unixsystem]

1 hour ago, SlimyPython said:

if you complain about a problem, you should provide a alternative soulution

The situation here isn't even complaining about the problem, it's complaining that someone else's solution is only 90% ideal (and then still not offering a viable alternative solution). 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Phill104 said:

 Nobody will ever use a car 24/7, so the rest of the time it is free for others to use,

The problem is that majority of the cars are used at the same time, society works on timetables where we all go to work at the same time and school at the same time.  The distribution of time in use  isn't spread out enough to make that work.   

[Unixsystem]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

The problem is that majority of the cars are used at the same time, society works on timetables where we all go to work at the same time and school at the same time.  The distribution of time in use  isn't spread out enough to make that work.   

I feel kind of stupid that I didn't even think to argue that. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

Again you're arguing from a perspective of a city dweller. Even if you dump thousands of community cara into the suburbs, there's no guarantee that one is going to be within convenient distance. Can I walk a mile to pick up a community car? Sure, but why would I?

 

In response to your "does it make sense to invest in a car that sits idle most of the time" - yes, absolutely, for me and millions of others. Even if a community car is a 5 minute walk away, why would I bother with that when I can have one in my own garage ready to go at a moments notice? I know my car is reliable and well maintained, I know my car is clean and doesn't stink, I know that it's fueled up and I know that in an emergency or a rush it will be exactly where I left it. That piece of mind is absolutely worth a monthly car payment for me. For others, maybe not, but if you try to push a future that fucks with the personal preferences of a huge number of people all you're going to do is push people away from it. 

 

Now once we get fully self driving cars that can come and pick you up from your front door, the value proposition tilts much closer to being viable for most people. That said I personally would still be more likely to pay the upfront cost to purchase my own car and then perhaps rent it out to a ride sharing service to make back some of that cost on the side when I know I don't need it. 

And self driving is the direction we are going. 
 

Your own argument shows what a selfish race humans are, and how stuck in a routine we have become. 
 

While some will want to continue ownership, a lot of people will prefer the community car option. Cities like Paris are currently seeing a big drop in the number of young people buying or leasing cars. A generation there is changing their attitude towards cars and in quite a way, Paris has excellent transport links both externally and internally, I am aware that is not true of most places. We do however need to change.

 

So how would you feel in the future should self driving cars become the norm about your car automatically popping off to do deliveries? A design that simply linked an external pod and spent its time when you are asleep or away beavering away. In return a huge percentage of the cost of your ownership was met by someone else’s, as well as all your fuel and maintenance? No hygiene issues there and a car working for you in effect,

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Phill104 said:

The maths have been done by people far more qualified than I. This is why there is huge investment in the community car industry. Nobody will ever use a car 24/7, so the rest of the time it is free for others to use, and that includes for deliveries etc. One company is planning on pods that can latch onto these cars for instance, dropping deliveries off as it goes. Peoples patterns of use can be built up and the system could do a lot to reduce overall miles per year substantially. The technology is in its infancy, but literally hundreds of big companies are investing billions into research to achieve this.

 

Im more thinking out loud then anything.

 

And I can see how this theory could work in some areas. But at the same time I can easily see how it would be pointless in a lot of areas.

 

I mean theres no system they can produce thats going to decrease the number of miles per year I travel. Be it in my own car or a community car the miles are going to be traveled the same.

 

It just seems like a very expensive car pool business. one that already exists in a lot of areas (at least in the states).

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The problem is that majority of the cars are used at the same time, society works on timetables where we all go to work at the same time and school at the same time.  The distribution of time in use  isn't spread out enough to make that work.   

Which is why we need to change our fixed 9-5 attitudes, as well as our insistence on being one person in our own box,

[Guest]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

 

Im more thinking out loud then anything.

 

And I can see how this theory could work in some areas. But at the same time I can easily see how it would be pointless in a lot of areas.

 

I mean theres no system they can produce thats going to decrease the number of miles per year I travel. Be it in my own car or a community car the miles are going to be traveled the same.

 

It just seems like a very expensive car pool business. one that already exists in a lot of areas (at least in the states).

Not suggesting it is the only solution, just one of many that are currently getting huge investment. When Amazon’s, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Tesla and many startups as well as most of the tradition automotive companies are all spending lots on the technology we need to listen.

 

Here though we have Tesla trying to play the green card and chop down A Forrest for profit. There are huge brown areas in that part of Germany but the land price for brown field is substantially more than the cost for green belt land. So huge companies can and do use their power and influence to build there in a way the rest of us cannot.So for me it is understandable people are angry.

[RonnieOP]

6 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Here though we have Tesla trying to play the green card and chop down A Forrest for profit. There are huge brown areas in that part of Germany but the land price for brown field is substantially more than the cost for green belt land. So huge companies can and do use their power and influence to build there in a way the rest of us cannot.So for me it is understandable people are angry.

Who sold Tesla the land though?

 

Im not familiar at all with German law. But if they bought the land...its theirs is it not? Taking tesla out of the equation if someone else owned the land could they not start tearing down trees?

 

And huge companies invest in shit all the time. That in itself isnt evidence of much.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Citation that recycling cans causes more damage than using any other form of liquid transport. 

Fair, I should have said plastic bottles of water or something - though you could just not drink soda. The point is that just because it's better than other things doesn't mean it's good. A slap to the face is better than a kick in the nuts, that doesn't mean I get to slap you and claim it's a good thing.

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I think you are missing a key point. When businesses succeed it helps the economy and that helps the people.

Nonsense. A healthy economy is important but the idea that businesses succeeding automagically helps people is ludicrous. Cotton plantations were doing great during slavery.

22 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

If businesses don't want to be located in an area that means less jobs and a weaker economy resulting in worse conditions for the people in that area.

It depends, in this case the people living there are doing just fine without this factory.

24 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

So giving good conditions for companies is not putting the company before the people but doing something that will help the people.

Again, that entirely depends on what those conditions entail.

24 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

mean one of the great things about big companies is that they employ alot of people which is good thing.

Only if those people need that job, are paid well and it doesn't cause damage to the surrounding area.

25 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I honestly don't get what all the hate is for companies that objective have made huge positive impacts in the world and people.

I could literally sit here for hours listing the atrocious things that have been done in the name of business and corporations. In fact, the entire reason we're in a climate crisis right now is that not enough has been done to regulate corporations and their impact on the environment. This idea that companies are some divine entity that can do no wrong is not only baseless but actively harmful.

 

I'm not even saying that building factories is inherently wrong, I'm saying that this specific factory might have serious consequences on the environment it would be placed in and these complaints must be taken seriously, not dismissed with a lie (because saying it actually has a positive impact is, in fact, a lie).

[RonnieOP]

58 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

Again you're arguing from a perspective of a city dweller. Even if you dump thousands of community cara into the suburbs, there's no guarantee that one is going to be within convenient distance. Can I walk a mile to pick up a community car? Sure, but why would I?

 

In response to your "does it make sense to invest in a car that sits idle most of the time" - yes, absolutely, for me and millions of others. Even if a community car is a 5 minute walk away, why would I bother with that when I can have one in my own garage ready to go at a moments notice? I know my car is reliable and well maintained, I know my car is clean and doesn't stink, I know that it's fueled up and I know that in an emergency or a rush it will be exactly where I left it. That piece of mind is absolutely worth a monthly car payment for me. For others, maybe not, but if you try to push a future that fucks with the personal preferences of a huge number of people all you're going to do is push people away from it. 

 

Now once we get fully self driving cars that can come and pick you up from your front door, the value proposition tilts much closer to being viable for most people. That said I personally would still be more likely to pay the upfront cost to purchase my own car and then perhaps rent it out to a ride sharing service to make back some of that cost on the side when I know I don't need it. 

This is kinda my same thought process.

 

Why would i rent a car to sit in my driveway when i could just own my own car?

 

I live 25 minutes from the city. So if i rented one and went home then its going to be there until i take it back to the city for work in the morning. Thats not going to help anyone. Not even me since renting it will be more expensive.

 

I dont see how having millions of car pool cars is better then having millions of personal cars on the road.

 

People are too sporadic for this to be feasible imo. I am the type of person who drives everywhere. I refuse to put myself in a situation where im going to rely on someone else. If I get a call saying my kid is in trouble I need to get there asap. Not hoping there is an available community car somewhere near me.

 

[RonnieOP]

35 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I could literally sit here for hours listing the atrocious things that have been done in the name of business and corporations. In fact, the entire reason we're in a climate crisis right now is that not enough has been done to regulate corporations and their impact on the environment. This idea that companies are some divine entity that can do no wrong is not only baseless but actively harmful.

 

I'm not even saying that building factories is inherently wrong, I'm saying that this specific factory might have serious consequences on the environment it would be placed in and these complaints must be taken seriously, not dismissed with a lie (because saying it actually has a positive impact is, in fact, a lie).

 

Im confused on what exactly the issue is here. Is it just the fact that they are cutting down a shit load of trees?

 

And whos land was it? Who sold it to Tesla?

[mr moose]

59 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Which is why we need to change our fixed 9-5 attitudes, as well as our insistence on being one person in our own box,

It's not an attitude it's the result of streamlining productivity.  Productivity fails when you only have half the workforce present at any one time to do business with.  EDIT: I should add, this happens at all scales of business, not just in a single factory or office, abut across business as well.

 

40 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Fair, I should have said plastic bottles of water or something - though you could just not drink soda. The point is that just because it's better than other things doesn't mean it's good. A slap to the face is better than a kick in the nuts, that doesn't mean I get to slap you and claim it's a good thing.

 

And conversely,  just because a solution doesn't tick all the boxes doesn't mean its no good  and should be ignored. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, RonnieOP said:

Who sold Tesla the land though?

 

Im not familiar at all with German law. But if they bought the land...its theirs is it not? Taking tesla out of the equation if someone else owned the land could they not start tearing down trees?

 

And huge companies invest in shit all the time. That in itself isnt evidence of much.

Planning permission needs to be granted to do anything including chopping down trees. Large sums of folding stuff eases that planning permission in a way most people simply cannot afford.

 

Not sure how planning works in the US, are you allowed to buy and build what you want? 

[RonnieOP]

10 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Planning permission needs to be granted to do anything including chopping down trees. Large sums of folding stuff eases that planning permission in a way most people simply cannot afford.

 

Not sure how planning works in the US, are you allowed to buy and build what you want? 

 Tbh I dont know how it works here for corporations. Ive never had to deal with that.

 

But it seems like this should have been figured out before Tesla bought the land.

 

I personally think that if its your land its your land. I dont think that stupid shit like endangered species should be a factor. The trees were planted by another business so its not a national forest so they should be allowed to cut them down. If the Government is going to tell a landowner they cannot build on their own land that makes very little sense to me. Its not the governments land.

 

Now the part about their water usage I agree with. They shouldnt be able to use up all the cities water supply and that was something that should have been figured out long before they even bought the land. I dont know whos to blame on that one. Or if thats an actual issue.

[greenmax]

7 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

one of the selling points for their cars is that they are better for the environment.

Yeah used up batteries is good for the enviroment.

RoHS standards leaving out lead in circuits is a benefit.

 

It is the social justice warrior age, gotta be protesting something. Big Bad Tesla might as well be it.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

 Tbh I dont know how it works here for corporations. Ive never had to deal with that.

 

But it seems like this should have been figured out before Tesla bought the land.

 

I personally think that if its your land its your land. I dont think that stupid shit like endangered species should be a factor. The trees were planted by another business so its not a national forest so they should be allowed to cut them down. If the Government is going to tell a landowner they cannot build on their own land that makes very little sense to me. Its not the governments land.

 

Now the part about their water usage I agree with. They shouldnt be able to use up all the cities water supply and that was something that should have been figured out long before they even bought the land. I dont know whos to blame on that one. Or if thats an actual issue.

There are limits to that one.  Or there used to be.  It almost always winds up being about money.  Manipulating stuff like that is how developers make money.  It’s all about land value.  Buy the land because the value is low because it’s got inhabitants like endangered species, get the law changed, make the species extinct, boom money.  They also do it with flood plains.  Doesn’t mean the people they sell the land to won’t get flooded out of course because it doesn’t actually change physics but they’re usually long gone.  In this case no more creature that belonged to everyone.  It’s basically theft from everyone on earth, but it’s hard to prosecute.  Most of the ultra wealthy had an ancestor who figured out how to do something or other like that.  It’s an ancient con.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

 Tbh I dont know how it works here for corporations. Ive never had to deal with that.

 

But it seems like this should have been figured out before Tesla bought the land.

 

I personally think that if its your land its your land. I dont think that stupid shit like endangered species should be a factor. The trees were planted by another business so its not a national forest so they should be allowed to cut them down. If the Government is going to tell a landowner they cannot build on their own land that makes very little sense to me. Its not the governments land.

 

Now the part about their water usage I agree with. They shouldnt be able to use up all the cities water supply and that was something that should have been figured out long before they even bought the land. I dont know whos to blame on that one. Or if thats an actual issue.

So would you be happy for the owner of the land right in front of your house to slap in a 100 story tower block? That is why planning permission exists, to protect people as well as wildlife, water, drainage, potential pollution issues etc. Just because you own some land it does  not, and should not, mean you can do exactly what you want on it.

[greenmax]

1 minute ago, Phill104 said:

So would you be happy for the owner of the land right in front of your house to slap in a 100 story tower block? That is why planning permission exists, to protect people as well as wildlife, water, drainage, potential pollution issues etc. Just because you own some land it does  not, and should not, mean you can do exactly what you want on it.

But also dont want the government to be a nanny state either.

[Unixsystem]

14 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

So would you be happy for the owner of the land right in front of your house to slap in a 100 story tower block? That is why planning permission exists, to protect people as well as wildlife, water, drainage, potential pollution issues etc. Just because you own some land it does  not, and should not, mean you can do exactly what you want on it.

I'd imagine that the person who owns the land in front of me probably had to agree to all sorts of permits and contracts before buying the land, and again before being able to build on it. 

 

Why was the business with this Tesla factory not ironed out before the purchase and before plans were all laid out? 

[RonnieOP]

10 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

So would you be happy for the owner of the land right in front of your house to slap in a 100 story tower block? That is why planning permission exists, to protect people as well as wildlife, water, drainage, potential pollution issues etc. Just because you own some land it does  not, and should not, mean you can do exactly what you want on it.

Tbh if its their land even if i didnt like it i wouldnt fight it. Its their not mine. 

 

Its part of the reason i bought my house in the area i did. So i wouldnt be bothered by whatever the neighbor did with their land.

 

Again i couldnt care less about wildlife. If an endangered snail or whatever loses its home im fine with that. Living in a world without red pandas or bald eagles is fine with me. 

 

The water and pollution i agree about. They should be within whatever federal regulations that are set. But if they are then they should be allowed to build it.

 

[Unixsystem]

2 hours ago, Phill104 said:

And self driving is the direction we are going. 
 

Your own argument shows what a selfish race humans are, and how stuck in a routine we have become. 
 

While some will want to continue ownership, a lot of people will prefer the community car option. Cities like Paris are currently seeing a big drop in the number of young people buying or leasing cars. A generation there is changing their attitude towards cars and in quite a way, Paris has excellent transport links both externally and internally, I am aware that is not true of most places. We do however need to change.

 

So how would you feel in the future should self driving cars become the norm about your car automatically popping off to do deliveries? A design that simply linked an external pod and spent its time when you are asleep or away beavering away. In return a huge percentage of the cost of your ownership was met by someone else’s, as well as all your fuel and maintenance? No hygiene issues there and a car working for you in effect,

Again, you are obsessed with the city mindset. I'm sure that system would work great in Paris. How about in the Wisconsin suburbs, or in in Texas. Not everyone has the same population density as Europe, nor do we want it. I find it funny that you say the perspective of spending my own money for person convenience is selfish but then act like everywhere should act like the downtown of a big city. 

 

As for having a self driving car that can go off and do other tasks, it would depend both on my personal compensation for the service as well as my ability to filter by what it's doing. Going out and doing automated deliveries would probably be fine, but I don't want it going out and picking up a bunch of drunks who are going to vomit on my floor. As a value add, it would be nice, but I'm not going to accept a company just taking my property and using it for another service without my input. 

[RonnieOP]

7 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

I'd imagine that the person who owns the land in front of me probably had to agree to all sorts of permits and contracts before buying the land, and again before being able to build on it. 

 

Why was the business with this Tesla factory not ironed out before the purchase and before plans were all laid out? 

Apparently the trees were originally planted by a cardboard factory with the sole intent to cut them down to make cardboard.

 

So cutting the trees down should not be a factor at all in this decision.

 

 

 

 

[handymanshandle]

Environmentalists are often quite a vicious group of people who like a few other groups of people you cannot yield to them. For if you give them an inch they'll take more than a damn mile.

Wanting to take better care of the planet is one thing, an admirable thing. I'm someone who strongly believes in the free-market's ability and collective interest to do that on its own accord rather than being forced to by governments. But it's another thing when they get angry at a car company that's been touted as an in the long run more environmentally friendly car maker.

 

Thing with electric cars is that the production of the Lithium cells is certainly bad for the environment, I believe Europe uses more nuclear and wind/solar/hydro energy than the US so that same "coal powered car" thing doesn't *really* apply.

 

I'm a bigger fan of ICE vehicles though, I love V6s and Inline 6s and V8s and hell the VW W8 used in the Passat for a few years and W12 used in the Phaeton for a few years (that W12 is basically a Bentley engine but who cares, it's a 12 cylinder engine in a Volkswagen)
But I recognize something else will likely replace ICE in the not so distant future.

[handymanshandle]

17 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

Again, you are obsessed with the city mindset. I'm sure that system would work great in Paris. How about in the Wisconsin suburbs, or in in Texas. Not everyone has the same population density as Europe, nor do we want it. I find it funny that you say the perspective of spending my own money for person convenience is selfish but then act like everywhere should act like the downtown of a big city. 

 

As for having a self driving car that can go off and do other tasks, it would depend both on my personal compensation for the service as well as my ability to filter by what it's doing. Going out and doing automated deliveries would probably be fine, but I don't want it going out and picking up a bunch of drunks who are going to vomit on my floor. As a value add, it would be nice, but I'm not going to accept a company just taking my property and using it for another service without my input. 

agreed, just because technology is getting better doesn't mean suddenly 7 billion people are gonna be flocking to live in or stay in densely populated areas.

 

 

Nor is that going to be the case ever.


Maybe in Europe and large American cities (Los Angeles, New York, etc) driverless cars will be more common place but for your average person outside of that? Hell no. Not to mention those costs that those things will cause for a great deal of time, I doubt fully driverless cars will be in the $20,000-$40,000 range for the first 10+ years after they really start coming into play will really be available.

Let's say they're not meant to be owned like cars have been since their mass production, well for a lot of people owning a car is a sense of pride. I don't think they're gonna wanna give that up.

[divito]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

Yes they do, that's the point - Musk tried to frame this as a positive for the environment but it's not and it couldn't possibly be. Again, it's possible the pros outweigh the cons in this specific instance, but let's not pretend it's good for the environment - there is a nontrivial discussion to be had here and trying to dismiss it by saying that the environment isn't affected is irresponsible.

The trees were already going to be eliminated with their original purpose, so that has no bearing on whatever is currently happening.

Electric vehicles, so far in their short life, require less maintenance and repair, reducing all the emissions from their usage, and the parts and infrastructure to support the parts and repair that would normally go into a gas vehicle. It's not "good" for the environment, but it's better.

There are so many things we collectively take for granted as a society that aren't "good," but were better than the alternatives at the time. If everyone worked along the logic that you are, we'd have never progressed anywhere.