>As an individual, he has probably had net positive environmental impact than the next 1m people combined.

This is such a terrible mindset.

So we're going to allow the rich to do whatever damage they want to the environment, personally, if they construct widgets that are slightly less harmful than the next best widget?

It's this sort of hypocrisy that prevents people from buying in to the environmental movement: celebrities lecturing the rest of us while they don't alter their lifestyle one iota. The proletariat will never accept it.

Jury‘s still out on that, mostly because it‘s still up for debate whether replacing gas cars 1:1 with electric cars is a good idea.

I don’t doubt that we actually need electric cars, the important question is just whether that’s all we need or whether we need other transformations (radically fewer cars and less space for cars in cities, for example).

This second goal is something Elon has actively worked against, for example with his Hyperloop bullshit.

Considering SpaceX, definitely not.

> he has probably had net positive environmental impact than the next 1m people combined.

He probably could be this or that potentially

because sport EV for the rich is "net positive environmental impact"???

if you ignore spacex maybe

lets not talk about how he lead the electric car revolution, that's just a huge positive thing.