Seems like the article author has a problem to understand the concept of hyperbole...
If you want to make a serious argument that's understood, then perhaps avoid the hyperbole.
Without the hyperbole, though, the argument seems to fall apart, because there are many car models that are significantly cheaper than Teslas.
The problem is that you are anchoring your argument on the price of the Tesla.
A company that wanted to bring, e.g, an all-electric version of the Honda Fit/Fiat 500/Peugeot 100/Renault Twingo/etc wouldn't be competing with Teslas, they would be competing against the ICE version of a compact/economic car.
Price-sensitive people are never going to buy a $18-25k electric car, if the ICE equivalent version costs half of that. "Oh, but it's cheaper than a Tesla" is not relevant.
Most people are price-sensitive. This doesn't mean they purchase exclusively based on the cheapest price. If the wealthy can spend more to save the environment, why can't the non-wealthy? They just can't spend the same total amount.
Let me put another way: if the market for smaller EV cars were an actual profitable opportunity, don't you think that at least some of the car companies would be going after it?
I've been arguing that Musk's motive is profit, not saving the Earth.
If he truly believed the Earth's environment was in danger, and saving it was his life's goal, then I don't think the question of "profitable opportunity" would stand in his way.
I'm not interested in evaluating Musk as a businessperson. I'm interested in his self-promoted reputation as a "humanitarian".
Making EVs is not inherently a humanitarian act. The other auto companies are doing it now too, and nobody ever thought they were trying to save the Earth. There's obviously a lot of money to be made, and Musk has made it. As I see it, he's really good at making wealthy people feel good about themselves.
There is absolutely nothing that can be done on a large scale if you don't have any type of economic power. Don't forget that even today none of his post-PayPal large ventures have turned any actual profit. People are only investing in Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity and etc because they believe that it might be profitable. If it was known to be a money sink, we would still be stuck in the status quo.
> I'm interested in his self-promoted reputation as a "humanitarian".
And I don't care at anyone's ideology or their intrinsic motivation. Just look at the whole FTX saga to see how an "Effective Altruist" is responsible for the largest scam of this generation.
What matters at the end of the day is that Tesla broke the dominance of the big car companies and turned EV cars from mere prototypes into actual vehicles that people can buy. (Yes, it is still the exception, but soon it will become the rule)
We are still stuck in the status quo as far as global warming is concerned.
> And I don't care at anyone's ideology or their intrinsic motivation.
Then we're just talking past each other.
1) No, we are not. Rich nations have been systematically reducing their carbon emissions (per capita and per GDP, and in some cases even in absolute numbers)
2) Most of the pollution comes from developing countries, and unless you want to halt any economic development in the global south, they will first need to become wealthy and then focus on carbon emissions.
3) None of what I said above relates to Musk. It seems like the action that you can see as virtuous would be if gave away his money to some "cause" (which?) that would help (how?) to fight climate change.
> Then we're just talking past each other.
Possibly. But that doesn't exclude the possibility that your argument is nothing more than a bad rationalization to justify the Musk hate.