If the message is really to help the planet get healthier, carbon credits should be something to avoid rather than to rely on. But are they?Ī study from the Stanford Law School says that the California law for carbon credits says that “relying on carbon offsets to lower compliance costs risks lessening total emission reductions and increases uncertainty in whether an emissions target has been met.” In other words, allowing big automakers to “clean” their gas guzzlers by buying credits is not preventing them from selling these machines. One of the biggest points of pride the company and its followers have is they are helping save the planet against global warming. That alone could already concern even Tesla advocates, but there is more.
CARBON OFFSETS VS CARBON CREDITS FREE
In Q1 2020, there was no positive free cash flow: Tesla lacked $895 million in that regard. Without these “regulatory credits,” Tesla numbers would be in the red. If you compare that to Tesla’s net profit of $104 million, things get even uglier. The $428 million in carbon credits are just slightly more than the $418 million in “positive free cash flow” Tesla states it had in Q2 2020. They are a side effect of them, one that may take a bigger role than it should. First of all, because these with big numbers do not come directly from the core business of the company – selling cars. After all, legacy automakers are paying Tesla to electrify personal mobility, but this reasoning oversees a myriad of implications. People may think about that as fantastic news.
0 kommentar(er)
