Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report” • Hacker News Board

Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”

#41

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 2:46 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #32

7e wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fair to compare Tesla's new cars with others' new cars. That's the benchmark. If someone didn't buy a Tesla, they would have bought another type of new car (though probably a new hybrid or plug in hybrid, which have even higher average MPG). Tesla is disingenuous here.

Except they aren’t comparing their cars. They are trying to quantify the total carbon saved from their cars and other ventures like solar panels. People have no idea what a “ton of carbon” equates to, but saying it is the equivalent of taking 500k cars off the road is meaningful to the general population.

People have no idea what a “ton of carbon” equates to, but saying it is the equivalent of taking 500k cars off the road is meaningful to the general population.

Is this meant to be an off the cuff remark, or is a ton of carbon and 500,000 cars meaningfully linked?

Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”

#42

Post by slg » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:22 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #41

slg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they aren’t comparing their cars. They are trying to quantify the total carbon saved from their cars and other ventures like solar panels. People have no idea what a “ton of carbon” equates to, but saying it is the equivalent of taking 500k cars off the road is meaningful to the general population.

People have no idea what a “ton of carbon” equates to, but saying it is the equivalent of taking 500k cars off the road is meaningful to the general population. Is this meant to be an off the cuff remark, or is a ton of carbon and 500,000 cars meaningfully linked?

Thanks for pointing that out, I definitely phrased that poorly. The report said they saved "four million tons of carbon" and they equated that to "saving emissions from being released into the environment from over 500K ICE vehicles". They are basically converting one unit that is hard to understand "one ton of carbon" to a unit that people can relate to in "one ICE vehicle".

Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”

#43

Post by omgwtfbyobbq » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:42 AM UTC

Ugh, Neidermeyer...

He's been anti-PHE/EV for over a decade at this point.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.htm...

He's been focusing on Tesla recently, but that's only because they're pushing EV production more than anyone else.

Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”

#44

Post by exolymph » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 4:17 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #21

rgrove wrote: post #6

The article claims Tesla is incorrect when they say that "the average ICE vehicle gets around 22 MPG", and counters with EPA stats showing that the average fuel economy of all vehicles in the US is 24.9 MPG. But these aren't the same thing. The set "all vehicles in the US" contains both ICE vehicles _and_ hybrid/battery-powered EVs. But Tesla is explicitly only talking about ICE vehicles, and Tesla doesn't specifical…

>but The Drive's counter-argument makes an apples vs. oranges comparison. I will go one step further, The Drive's number is just straight dishonest. It lists that number as "the average fuel economy of all vehicles in the US hit 24.9 MPG in 2017". If you click through to the EPA report it list that 24.9 number as for "all new vehicles". It also says the number was 23.6 in 2012. The average car on the road is roughly…

The writer probably fucked up, I doubt that it was intentional.

(Is that worse or better? Worse, because lying on purpose would be more obvious, even without fact-checking. Well, that's the hope — can't say for sure...)

Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”

#45

Post by tdhz77 » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 2:14 AM UTC

justinclift wrote: post #33

tdhz77 wrote: post #7

I’m not stating anything other than this website is owned by Time, inc. Time, inc owners is currently on several boards for the oil and gas industry. https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.a...

"The Drive" website... doesn't seem to mention "Time, Inc." anywhere, and your link is to an overview of "True Multimedia Co. Ltd.", described on that page as: `True Multimedia Company Limited provides high-speed multimedia network services in Thailand. ` ... which seems completely irrelevant. Maybe provide better references? :)

Thank you for visiting one of the sites within the network of sites of Time Inc. and its subsidiaries. Ads delivered on these sites may be delivered from participants in the Digital Advertising Alliance's (DAA) Self-Regulatory Program, whose goal is to provide you with enhanced notice about online advertising practices and choices about the ads you see.

Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”

#46

Post by justinclift » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 5:41 AM UTC

tdhz77 wrote: post #45

justinclift wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Drive" website... doesn't seem to mention "Time, Inc." anywhere, and your link is to an overview of "True Multimedia Co. Ltd.", described on that page as: `True Multimedia Company Limited provides high-speed multimedia network services in Thailand. ` ... which seems completely irrelevant. Maybe provide better references? :)

Thank you for visiting one of the sites within the network of sites of Time Inc. and its subsidiaries. Ads delivered on these sites may be delivered from participants in the Digital Advertising Alliance's (DAA) Self-Regulatory Program, whose goal is to provide you with enhanced notice about online advertising practices and choices about the ads you see.

k. What's with the link to the Thailand place?

Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”

#47

Post by tdhz77 » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

justinclift wrote: post #46

tdhz77 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for visiting one of the sites within the network of sites of Time Inc. and its subsidiaries. Ads delivered on these sites may be delivered from participants in the Digital Advertising Alliance's (DAA) Self-Regulatory Program, whose goal is to provide you with enhanced notice about online advertising practices and choices about the ads you see.

k. What's with the link to the Thailand place?

Corrected link was below. The owner of Time, inc is on several traditional Energy and Gas boards.

Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”

#48

Post by tdhz77 » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

tdhz77 wrote: post #47

justinclift wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

k. What's with the link to the Thailand place?

Corrected link was below. The owner of Time, inc is on several traditional Energy and Gas boards.

This may help you understand the relevant facts:

http://fortune.com/2018/11/09/fortune-sale-chatchaval-jiarav...

Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”

#49

Post by tdhz77 » Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

dbasedweeb wrote: post #37

basetop wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think pointing out a potential conflict of interest is the same thing as a conspiracy theory.

It is when they’re not even owned by Time! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19678982

Yes it is. http://fortune.com/2018/11/09/fortune-sale-chatchaval-jiarav...

Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”

#50

Post by justinclift » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 12:17 PM UTC

dbasedweeb wrote: post #37

basetop wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think pointing out a potential conflict of interest is the same thing as a conspiracy theory.

It is when they’re not even owned by Time! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19678982

It turns out... they're probably right in this case. ;)

eg it does look like Time, Inc owns it, and the new owner of Time, Inc does sit on the board of both a Thai Gas company and some other (Thai?) energy company.