Your claim was that the decline was devastating to Tesla. As to that claim, Tesla’s fast growth is highly material. Whether VW makes more money is irrelevant to whether Tesla is earning money.

He means he doesn’t like Musk. The rest follows.

Tesla sales are growing at an incredible rate, something like 50% per year growth. By far the fastest in the industry. By comparison, many manufacturers’ sales are falling.

Tesla’s falling “market share” is simply the result of the fact that EV market growth is even faster than Tesla market growth. Most of the growth is in lower end vehicles where Tesla doesn’t compete.

Ok, this is actually pretty convincing.

The world’s largest condom maker? I’m listening…

Tesla has done more than any other corporation in history to reduce total future greenhouse gas emissions. Prove me wrong.

Same. So predictable.

Let’s roll!

Imagine there’s no countries …

Hence the word “offset.”

I passed an empty SDC driving on the street this morning.

True. But it’s fun to imagine our prehistoric ancestors sitting around the “fire,” picking pieces of fish out of their teeth, and debating the future merits of this new tangled “cooking” technology.

No doubt the majority would complain that it’s bound to put a lot of cavemen out of work, or that it’s too little, too late to avoid the coming ice age crisis.

This is exactly wrong. The fact that there is so much debate and disagreement is evidence that it’s not all for show. If it were, nobody would care what was agreed.

I know we’re all required to hate billionaires, but it’s not true that they are the biggest polluters.

He tried not to purchase it, but the previous owners of Twitter and the courts wouldn’t let him back out. Maybe they share the blame? When the moment came, they cashed out for profit and abandoned Twitter to someone who didn’t even want it.

The median household income for new home buyers is $86,000, so not as far off as you might think.

Probably not even necessary. How many days do cities with snow actually have snow sitting on the roads? A dozen or less?

That’s a pretty warped view of history. It’s also a record of our triumphs and successes, and the good news is that we move beyond our mistakes.

I just realized that I don’t give a damn whether you agree with me or not.

Ok, but it goes both ways. If money doesn’t do anything except get other people to do the real work, and it’s those other people who are responsible for actual events, then the rich owners of oil companies also don’t really do anything, and it’s the front line engineers who actually drill for oil who are truly responsible for the evils of climate change. Right?

The fact is that money organizes activity in our world. If you want to imagine a different world where everyone follows the Norwegian model, go for it. Meanwhile, Bloomberg used his money in the actual world to make a huge positive contribution to reducing greenhouse emissions.

Google it if you really want to know. But in short, he bankrolled a war room of lawyers who spent the decade filing lawsuits, pushing regulatory changes, funding state and local legislation and initiatives, and anything else they could think of to target individual coal plants and drive them out of business.

And as your comment shows, it was a largely thankless task. He’s an unsung hero of the environmental movement.

Say what you will, but Bloomberg has done more to end the use of coal than any other person alive. Sure, market forces are the ultimate driver, but he’s accelerated it immensely in the US.

It’s per plexing

The purpose of the article is political. The COP27 meeting is about to start, and is located this year in Africa and devoted to the theme that developed countries should provide assistance to developing countries to assist with climate change, on the theory that they are primarily responsible for climate change. So an article about destruction of Congo peatlands appears now to fit that theme.

Mind you, I’m not begrudging them the example. This is how politics works and this arguably is an example of that theme. But in this case, it’s serving a political purpose, not a scientific purpose.

Farther down, the article quotes the scientists as saying it’s “uncertain” and “slow” on the list of potential tipping points:

“The new study provides support for the Congo peatlands being vulnerable to climate drying,” said Prof Tim Lenton, at the University of Exeter and part of the team that undertook the September analysis. “For now, I would keep the Congo peatland and rainforest on the ‘uncertain’ and ‘slow’ list of potential tipping elements in the climate system.”