Tesla pause German gigafactory construction after environmentalists protest cutting trees

[RonnieOP]

23 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

What is wrong with the other alternative, that they develop on the vast areas of brown field land that exist not too far away from this site? The only reason I can see is cost, land where planning permission already exists is a lot more expensive.

So since Tesla already bought and paid for this land do they now have to buy and pay for the brown land? What do they do with the forest they now own?

 

Who owns said brown land?

 

If the German government wanted to do an even swap i dont think thats a bad idea.

[Sauron]

12 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Whats the inpact on them losing the trees? 

Worse air quality, tainted landscape, loss of wildlife. Probably more, but you'd have to ask them directly.

13 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

According to an article from 2018 33% of Germany’s land area is forest – that is 11.4 million hectares with over 90 billion trees.

Completely irrelevant.

[Bombastinator]

32 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm not the one who needs convincing. Not to mention that deforestation and animal endangerment is only one of the concerns raised.

 

Also we shouldn't just blindly trust companies to keep their spoken word on something like this. Saying they'll plant 3 times as many trees, pinky promise!!! isn't good enough. Have them sign something. Though again, planting trees somewhere else doesn't do much for people living there, does it?

Dude, I'm literally arguing for regulation. And no, removing a regulation does not always mean the reason for that regulation is gone. Case and point, the repeal of net neutrality was deregulation despite the reason that regulation was put into place still being extremely relevant.

I agree. The government should prevent that from ever happening. And in this case, if the factory really has a big impact on the lives of people there then the government should stop it from being built.

? Thought I was replying to @RonnieOP with that one.

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Worse air quality, tainted landscape, loss of wildlife. Probably more, but you'd have to ask them directly.

Completely irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant. 

 

Worse air quality. Is there a big statistical difference?  And also...why are they relying on a man made forest on private land (whos sole purpose for being built was to be torn down) for their air quality?

 

Tainted landscape. Tbh no idea what your getting at here. I agree a a forest looks better then a factory but something being pretty shouldnt be a factor on private land.

[Bombastinator]

45 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Some points to add:

 

 

This forest does not have much life in it. Since it was planted and grown for the sole purpose of becoming cardboard, it is basically just a single type of tree (pine tree to be more precise). This means that few animals are actually suited for living in it. To be more precise, one type of bird (Eurasian hobby bird) and a particular type of bat would need to be reallocated.

The good news is that relocating these animals is expected to be a fairly smooth process according to conservationist Schmitz-Jersch.

 

Would you be okay with the factory being built if:

1) The animal life could be relocated, which seems to be doable with a little bit of effort according to one of the conservationists in touch with Tesla.

2) Tesla plants 3 times as many trees as they cut down, which they have already vowed to doing.

 

 

To me, this seems like a non issue.

I think it’s a question of WHERE the trees are.  Germans like to be able to walk in forests.  There seems to be a certain amount of playing up of the endangered species and the number of trees on one side and the type of endangered species and the type of trees on the other.  
Im wondering if local farm owners were in on the protests hoping Musk would be required to buy a neighboring farm at wildly inflated prices.   A while nail farm instead of just a nail house.  Maybe the answer for this one is for the German government to eminent domain a neighboring farm at standard market rates, make Musk pay for it and turning it into real Forrest instead of fake forest (which this may or may not be depending on view)

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Phill104 said:

What is wrong with the other alternative, that they develop on the vast areas of brown field land that exist not too far away from this site? The only reason I can see is cost, land where planning permission already exists is a lot more expensive.

I just jumped into the conversation but I assume other areas has some drawbacks. I am fairly sure Tesla didn't just throw a dark at a map and went "we want to build here", and did take lots of places into consideration.

 

 

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

I'm not the one who needs convincing. Not to mention that deforestation and animal endangerment is only one of the concerns raised.

I don't think "I'm not the one who needs convincing" is a healthy position to have. I mean, it kind of indicates that you have made up your mind and refuse to change it.

What are the other concerns? Those were the concerns I saw conservationists had, but I haven't looked much into it yet.

 

 

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Also we shouldn't just blindly trust companies to keep their spoken word on something like this. Saying they'll plant 3 times as many trees, pinky promise!!! isn't good enough. Have them sign something. Though again, planting trees somewhere else doesn't do much for people living there, does it?

Seems like you're arguing in bad faith here.

I am not sure if they have signed something, but they have a project in place and are already working on it.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-giga-berlin-tree-replanting-zones-finalized/

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-finds-giga-berlin-tree-replanting-area/

[Bombastinator]

Just now, LAwLz said:

I just jumped into the conversation but I assume other areas has some drawbacks. I am fairly sure Tesla didn't just throw a dark at a map and went "we want to build here", and did take lots of places into consideration.

 

 

I don't think "I'm not the one who needs convincing" is a healthy position to have. I mean, it kind of indicates that you have made up your mind and refuse to change it.

What are the other concerns? Those were the concerns I saw conservationists had, but I haven't looked much into it yet.

 

 

Seems like you're arguing in bad faith here.

I am not sure if they have signed something, but they have a project in place and are already working on it.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-giga-berlin-tree-replanting-zones-finalized/

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-finds-giga-berlin-tree-replanting-area/

I think it’s fair to say that the Germans can figure this one out.  The ecology people have a point but there appears to be a certain amount of disengenuousness about it. 
The Germans are good at courts.  They haven’t been debased the way they have in the United states

[dalekphalm]

12 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Why? 

 

Why should it be ok to tell people what they can or cant do with their land over an endangered snail that nobody knew was there, or would notice if gone?

 

If you made a list of what a tesla plant would give germany (jobs, tax income, more EVs, etc) and compare it to a endangered insect or recoon. Which one is more beneficial.

 

So why care about it?

So, ecosystems are really complex things. Snails, in particular, are actually really important parts of an ecosystem, as they help enrich the soil, and also provide a food source for a shitload of different animals.

 

Often times, killing off an entire species can lead to a domino effect with unintended consequences.

 

In this case, I'm in favour of relocation of the endangered species and Tesla continuing with their project, though.

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I feel like a lot of people, including this forum, have love- or hate-boner for Elon and will either absolute love everything he does, or is against everything he does, for no logical reason.

 

He could cure cancer tomorrow and people would still say he is a bad person for X and Y reasons, and that people shouldn't use the cure.

 

But he could also run over a bunch of school children and some people would go "well only 18 of the 20 children died while 19 of them would have died if he had been driving a Ford".

 

 

It's like a cult, on both sides. In general, I think the whole environment debate has become more and more cult-like on both sides.

Indeed - personally, I think Musk is a genius (literally, one of the smartest people currently alive). He's also a goddamn idiot and an asshole a lot of the time too (especially his tweeting).

 

I quite like his companies - in particular SpaceX. But neither the companies, nor him, are perfect. But he's not some evil person either. He really does think what he's doing is best for humanity - and I think he's definitely got some good points.

 

In this context, as I said above, barring other concerns, I support the relocation of the bats.

[RonnieOP]

10 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

So, ecosystems are really complex things. Snails, in particular, are actually really important parts of an ecosystem, as they help enrich the soil, and also provide a food source for a shitload of different animals.

 

Often times, killing off an entire species can lead to a domino effect with unintended consequences.

 

I understand. And i agree that the domino effect should be looked at. But if theres not one then it shouldnt be a concern imo.

 

Snails was just a random animal i used but even if it was snails. Enriching the soil wouldnt matter since the soil is going to be covered by a factory anyway. And again they wouldnt need to be food for the wildlife since the wildlife would leave when its torn down.

 

In this case its some random bird and bats. If someone wants to relocate them then thats fine. Go ahead. But if nobody wants to do that or for some reason it cant be done, and those bats are not vital to the ecosystem, it shouldnt be a consideration for stopping the build.

 

Im not even a Musk fan at all. I dont like him and i will never own a tesla. But this blocking his factory is dumb to me.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think "I'm not the one who needs convincing" is a healthy position to have. I mean, it kind of indicates that you have made up your mind and refuse to change it.

No, it indicates that I'm not arguing for that position but rather for listening to the people who are. I can't know for sure how much merit there is behind the claim that it's a problem, I'm not qualified to make that call. I do know enough to figure out that it's not as simple as Musk tried to paint it though.

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

What are the other concerns? Those were the concerns I saw conservationists had, but I haven't looked much into it yet.

Water pollution was mentioned in the OP.

[GDRRiley]

21 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

just plant twice as many trees as you removed?

I mean tesla has the money to do it...

already is planting 3x of native ones most are about 30-75 miles away.

They are replacing pine trees used for paper products

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Sauron said:

I mean... the fact we're having this discussion in the first place seems like a pretty clear indication that it's not being ignored. Though again, it's not a solution - it's just stalling.

 

 

Your original argument was that electric cars were not sustainable and building this factory in the first place is BS:

 

Quote

And Musk is full of shit when he says this will have an overall positive environmental impact - electric cars are not sustainable despite being more energy efficient than their gas counterparts. A factory like this can only have a negative impact, whether that impact is acceptable or not depends on the circumstances but it's certainly not what Musk would have you believe. The only positive impact this would have would be for his pockets. At this point Elon is the CEO of faux environmentalism - the kind of environmentalism that only serves as a selling point or as a popularity boost rather than a call for a much needed systematic change.

 

The issue is denying any moves to better our selves on the grounds that the solution is not perceived as 100% is not the same as people protesting the removal of tress in first place.

 

 

There is only one problem here and that is - does musk need to build it there?  The problem is not - is musk's overall solution/business better or worse for the environment?

 

If the actual problem of where it needs to be built can be concluded with not building because electric cars are not (in opinion) good enough, then no one should be building literally anything, as nothing is good enough. 

 

[Brooksie359]

20 hours 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.

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

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

Again, that entirely depends on what those conditions entail.

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

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).

And I could cite many times more great things companies have done than horrible things they have done. Also comparing allowing a company to operate in an area to using slave labor is kinda ridiculous. I mean they stopped Google from locating in an area because they were afraid of gentrification not because they were violating people's basic human rights. 

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Your original argument was that electric cars were not sustainable and building this factory in the first place is BS:

Electric cars aren't sustainable - yes

The factory is BS - not what I said. I said what Musk said in response to the protest was BS.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

There is only one problem here and that is - does musk need to build it there?  The problem is not - is musk's overall solution/business better or worse for the environment?

That's not what Musk tried to argue, which is what I was responding to in the part you quoted. He said that building that factory was a net positive for the environment, which it just isn't no matter how many trees you (don't) take down to build it.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

If the actual problem of where it needs to be built can be concluded with not building because electric cars are not (in opinion) good enough, then no one should be building literally anything, as nothing is good enough. 

There's an argument to be made for the fact that we probably don't need more car factories in general - but it's not the argument I was making. I don't necessarily have a problem with Tesla expanding their business nor do I think they're particularly bad compared to some of their competitors in this regard; the problem I have with this is not the act itself, but rather the dismissal of protests with what is basically a self-aggrandizing lie. If they're going to claim they're some sort of heroes of the environment then they'd better meet that expectation in spades, and they don't.

 

Now, the protest may or may not be right - the negative consequences of building the factory there might be lower than building it elsewhere - but Tesla and the German government definitely need to take it seriously and investigate the situation rather than dismiss it with a simplistic and incorrect tweet.

[leadeater]

20 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Electric cars aren't sustainable - yes

Neither are any cars, in fact pretty much all forms of current transportation is not sustainable, population growth and the flow-ons from that are far reaching and a really big problem. The difference is not really if something is sustainable because for the most part nothing is and we rely on technology and process progression over generations as has always been.

 

The better thing to evaluate is which option is overall better across as many factors as possible, electric cars have some big benefits for larger dense cities, cleaner air where the people actually are. And of course you can charge electric vehicles with something like nuclear.

 

Until humans sprout wings and fly I don't see any sustainable transportation happening, but even then we have to eat which is the fuel of flight and food production isn't going to be sustainable either.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Electric cars aren't sustainable - yes

Which is only a valid argument if the problem was finding a solution to ICE car issues.  The problem is  the land usage in building this factory, so any commentary regarding electric cars being unsustainable is either moot or (as I pointed out) using the fact something isn't absolute to condemn the entire effort.

 

Quote

The factory is BS - not what I said. I said what Musk said in response to the protest was BS.

That's not what Musk tried to argue, which is what I was responding to in the part you quoted. He said that building that factory was a net positive for the environment, which it just isn't no matter how many trees you (don't) take down to build it.

That just comes down to either opinion or a whole lot of numbers and facts we don't have in front of us.  How many cars will this factory produce? how much CO2 does that represent? what does the environmental impact statement say?  Musk says a lot of stupid things,  I don't see how pontificating the negatives of every solution counters that at all. 

Quote

There's an argument to be made for the fact that we probably don't need more car factories in general - but it's not the argument I was making. I don't necessarily have a problem with Tesla expanding their business nor do I think they're particularly bad compared to some of their competitors in this regard; the problem I have with this is not the act itself, but rather the dismissal of protests with what is basically a self-aggrandizing lie. If they're going to claim they're some sort of heroes of the environment then they'd better meet that expectation in spades, and they don't.

 

Then why even mention the attributes of electric cars as considered as an alternative to conventional transport issues? Surely you must see that making claims about environmental solutions in order to dismiss the personality or operational behavior of companies doesn't work as a valid argument. 

 

Quote

Now, the protest may or may not be right - the negative consequences of building the factory there might be lower than building it elsewhere - but Tesla and the German government definitely need to take it seriously and investigate the situation rather than dismiss it with a simplistic and incorrect tweet.

 

I don't know what's right and what isn't,    @maartendc   Made some good comments earlier about it and I have already expressed my concerns with the German governments ability to do things positive for the environment, however I have to ask, what makes you think the government and Tesla haven't already seriously investigated it?

[Sauron]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Which is only a valid argument if the problem was finding a solution to ICE car issues.  The problem is  the land usage in building this factory, so any commentary regarding electric cars being unsustainable is either moot or (as I pointed out) using the fact something isn't absolute to condemn the entire effort.

 

That just comes down to either opinion or a whole lot of numbers and facts we don't have in front of us.  How many cars will this factory produce? how much CO2 does that represent? what does the environmental impact statement say?  Musk says a lot of stupid things,  I don't see how pontificating the negatives of every solution counters that at all. 

 

Then why even mention the attributes of electric cars as considered as an alternative to conventional transport issues? Surely you must see that making claims about environmental solutions in order to dismiss the personality or operational behavior of companies doesn't work as a valid argument.

I already answered these points in previous posts, so I'll be brief - cars as a whole aren't efficient enough to be sustainable. Presenting any amount of them as a positive for the environment is therefore incorrect. Musk did just that and I called bs. I had to at least make the point that electric cars are still unsustainable in order to refute his statement.

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't know what's right and what isn't,    @maartendc   Made some good comments earlier about it and I have already expressed my concerns with the German governments ability to do things positive for the environment, however I have to ask, what makes you think the government and Tesla haven't already seriously investigated it?

Musk's response makes it sound very much like he doesn't understand - or doesn't care about - the implications. Since he represents Tesla I must assume the company is aligned with his view. The German government on the other hand seems to be taking it seriously (at least its courts are), I wasn't insinuating otherwise.

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Neither are any cars

Yes, exactly.

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

in fact pretty much all forms of current transportation is not sustainable

Public transports are sustainable because they're one or more orders of magnitude more efficient than any car. Even if they weren't quite efficient enough to be sustainable we'd have to live in a carless society and think of a better solution before you could argue that it's not good enough, because cars are definitely worse. Oh, and bus manufacturers are rarely hailed as environmentalist heroes - so at least we wouldn't have the hypocrisy.

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The better thing to evaluate is which option is overall better across as many factors as possible, electric cars have some big benefits for larger dense cities, cleaner air where the people actually are. And of course you can charge electric vehicles with something like nuclear.

Electric public transports exist. Nuclear or not at the core we have a problem of efficiency. Nuclear power plants aren't zero impact either so it's important to make good use of the energy they produce.

22 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Until humans sprout wings and fly I don't see any sustainable transportation happening, but even then we have to eat which is the fuel of flight and food production isn't going to be sustainable either.

Food production could definitely be made sustainable. Our current overall production probably isn't, but there are many ways the process could be improved. I'm not a vegan but they have a point - cattle is wildly inefficient compared to plants and slowing down on meat production would have a positive impact.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I already answered these points in previous posts, so I'll be brief - cars as a whole aren't efficient enough to be sustainable. Presenting any amount of them as a positive for the environment is therefore incorrect. Musk did just that and I called bs. I had to at least make the point that electric cars are still unsustainable in order to refute his statement.

Except what musk said can still be (and likely is) true, building electric cars as opposed to ICE cars is still more environmentally friendly than ICE cars.  Your argument would only be legitimate if musk tried to claim EV's are sustainable or wasn't comparing any aspects of them to ICE.

Quote

Musk's response makes it sound very much like he doesn't understand - or doesn't care about - the implications. Since he represents Tesla I must assume the company is aligned with his view. The German government on the other hand seems to be taking it seriously (at least its courts are), I wasn't insinuating otherwise.

 

Of course his statements are pro his company,  but that doesn't mean they are untrue,  building EV's instead of ICE's will have a net benefit to the environment.  I don't see what is untrue about that statement even when you factor in that they might have to clear trees to do it.  They had to clear trees and drown wildlife to build hydro damns and that is considered by many to be better for the environment. I don't see a difference here, especially given energy production is such a short term problem in the greater scheme of things. 

 

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except what musk said can still be (and likely is) true, building electric cars as opposed to ICE cars is still more environmentally friendly than ICE cars.

That doesn't mean the factory is a net positive for the environment, so no, it's not true.

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Public transports are sustainable because they're one or more orders of magnitude more efficient than any car.

That doesn't make them sustainable, that makes them viable for X number of years, then it will no longer be. But like I alluded to, time and technology moves on and something will come to address what we need.

 

24 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Even if they weren't quite efficient enough to be sustainable we'd have to live in a carless society and think of a better solution before you could argue that it's not good enough, because cars are definitely worse. Oh, and bus manufacturers are rarely hailed as environmentalist heroes - so at least we wouldn't have the hypocrisy.

So literally the point of EV cars too then... benefits of today for a future better solution later

[leadeater]

32 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Food production could definitely be made sustainable. Our current overall production probably isn't, but there are many ways the process could be improved. I'm not a vegan but they have a point - cattle is wildly inefficient compared to plants and slowing down on meat production would have a positive impact.

Only way food production can ever be sustainable is if the birth/death rate is zero and it isn't, so it never will be when you require fertile land or even land at all for food production. You either have somewhere to live or somewhere to produce food, not both. I grow my own food at home but hell that is so inefficient and ineffective and requires land area, which is the point. Pick one, and no matter what it'll run out with a net positive birth rate.

 

This is why I view the sustainability arguments as pointless, they don't matter. If something is the best option but is only viable to 20 years it's still the best option, for 20 years.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That doesn't make them sustainable, that makes them viable for X number of years, then it will no longer be.

That's not how this works - resources can be renewed, it's just a matter of not using more than we can reliably harvest.

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

But like I alluded to, time and technology moves on and something will come to address what we need.

Honestly that's just wishful thinking. There are physical limits to how much we can get out of a given resource and we're nowhere near being able to control our climate (which would also take a LOT of energy by the way).

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So literally the point of EV cars too then... benefits of today for a future better solution later

No, because we have a better solution that actually works. Not to mention Tesla makes luxury cars so they aren't about to make a significant impact.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's not how this works - resources can be renewed, it's just a matter of not using more than we can reliably harvest.

Yes that is how it works. Did you forget the rate of renewability? Did you forget the ratio of consumption to renewal? Public transport is not sustainable as it is today, did I actually give a time frame? No, because I have no idea when it will no longer be the case but I know it won't be, without the aforementioned march of time, technology and process improvements. 

 

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Honestly that's just wishful thinking. There are physical limits to how much we can get out of a given resource and we're nowhere near being able to control our climate (which would also take a LOT of energy by the way).

No it isn't, it's history. And what I mean is ALL options, ALL process improvements, ANYTHING. That includes say less meat and more vegetable/fruit consumption.

 

13 minutes ago, Sauron said:

No, because we have a better solution that actually works. Not to mention Tesla makes luxury cars so they aren't about to make a significant impact.

We have a list of solutions that address different needs and have different benefits, EV is part of that. It's foolish to discount an option because it's not perfect for everything with zero concessions or downsides.

 

Edit:

Also I care greatly about breathing clean air so personal EV usage instead of ICE is a huge, huge, huge, huge, huge, positive for me. Just even have a small look in to the health impacts of bad air, even only a by a small amount.

[Sauron]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Only way food production can ever be sustainable is if the birth/death rate is zero and it isn't, so it never will be when you require fertile land or even land at all for food production. You either have somewhere to live or somewhere to produce food, not both. I grow my own food at home but hell that is so inefficient and ineffective and requires land area, which is the point. Pick one, and no matter what it'll run out with a net positive birth rate.

...no...

 

Life is obviously sustainable, it has gone on for billions of years without issues (save a couple of sudden extinction events due to external forces), even just agriculture has been working just fine - only in the last couple of centuries have we started harvesting resources at a rate that isn't sustainable by our planet. If you plant a crop and harvest some grain every year you can do it virtually forever - if you just swallow the whole plant it will only last you one season.

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Public transport is no sustainable as it is today, did I actually give a time frame? No, because I have no idea when it will no longer be the case but I know it won't be

If something drains energy at a slower rate than we can reliably produce it, it is sustainable and it will be until something changes drastically for unforeseen reasons. You don't "run out" of sustainability - something either is sustainable or it isn't.

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No it isn't, it's history.

That's survivor bias. You take the fact that we've never actually caused the complete collapse of our environment yet and deduce that therefore it can never happen. It's also completely unwarranted to just assume that since something has happened before in human history it will reliably repeat - attempts to predict the future this way have failed countless times. "Don't worry, the village has never been flooded before so even if it has been raining for two months straight, which is completely unprecedented, we don't run a risk of flood".

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

We have a list of solutions that address different needs and have different benefits, EV is part of that. It's foolish to discount an option because it's not perfect for everything with zero concessions or downsides.

It's not that it's not perfect or that it has downsides, it's that it doesn't solve the problem.

[mr moose]

37 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That doesn't mean the factory is a net positive for the environment, so no, it's not true.

 

Again, how do you know?   what is the environmental footprint of the factory versus not producing EV's?  Unless you know that then you are arguing from an uninformed opinion and emotional response to Musk rather than one of established fact.