Rivian now selling pollution indulgences

[NC-Rivian]

Offset credits is what kept Tesla afloat in the early daze and allowed T to become the EV juggernaut that it is today.

Sponsored

 

[crashmtb]

“Business ethics” is an oxymoron. Ultimately a for profit corporation, especially a publicly traded one, has one motivator; profit and growth.

no matter what the fluffy mission/vision statements might say.

 

[moosetags]

This rates right up there with the wetlands mitigation system where some charlatan sets aside some junk land so that he can fill-in some prime wetlands to put up a high end condo complex. This system along with these pollution indulgences were created by unscrupulous businessmen with the full support of pandering politicians.

Brian

 

[R1S88]

I don't get the objection here as the system was designed for buyers and sellers. If Rivian doesn't need to pollute they should benefit and the buyers of the offsets should pay the price for their polluting. It should have a net positive effect as it disincentivizing carbon release and rewards others who do less (emitting no carbon is not realistic). Maybe the results of the program underwhelm, but I can't see criticizing Rivian for participating and polluting less than other manufacturers.

 

[CheezyNachos]

“Business ethics” is an oxymoron. Ultimately a for profit corporation, especially a publicly traded one, has one motivator; profit and growth.

no matter what the fluffy mission/vision statements might say.

Milton Friedman, is that you?

 

[emoore]

We all want to drive electric cuz it’s a better driving experience…the planet isn’t going to be saved. It’s a nice thought but…even moving 100% personal transport to electric…not gonna have much of an effect…maybe 15% with current models I’ve seen…You need shipping and airline travel and big rig over the road shipping to go electric… and oil refineries to just stop to really do anything about global warming. It’s sad…

Then what's the point of all this if we can't make the planet better? Might as well just burn coal in our houses and cars and planes. 15% is a significant amount of carbon reduction. Power production accounts for another 25% and that is easier to get 100% carbon free than ships, planes and industry. Buildings account for another 13%. We can easily eliminate over 50% of our carbon emissions and then work on the harder industries (hydrogen, jet fuel from CO2, etc).

 

[DaveA]

Then what's the point of all this if we can't make the planet better? Might as well just burn coal in our houses and cars and planes. 15% is a significant amount of carbon reduction. Power production accounts for another 25% and that is easier to get 100% carbon free than ships, planes and industry. Buildings account for another 13%. We can easily eliminate over 50% of our carbon emissions and then work on the harder industries (hydrogen, jet fuel from CO2, etc).

That was a whiskey fueled rant tbh...lol. But we can hope for the best.

 

[emoore]

That was a whiskey fueled rant tbh...lol. But we can hope for the best.

I wish but a bit too early for whiskey.

And we have to hope more than for the best. Even ignoring the environmental impacts, at some point in the near future we are going to run out of fossil fuels. And then what? We go back to the middle ages? It's good to start moving toward renewable energy sources now so that we have a replacement when that happens.

 

[Thedude]

Then what's the point of all this if we can't make the planet better? Might as well just burn coal in our houses and cars and planes. 15% is a significant amount of carbon reduction. Power production accounts for another 25% and that is easier to get 100% carbon free than ships, planes and industry. Buildings account for another 13%. We can easily eliminate over 50% of our carbon emissions and then work on the harder industries (hydrogen, jet fuel from CO2, etc).

Some changes are definitely easier and can be effected by the average consumer buying a cleaner vehicle. Advances in battery materials and storage capacities are really what’s going to make EVs viable for the broad market and those are in the pipeline so the future looks good.

Other industries will be much harder to convert as mentioned. In a single day at work I produce completely unfiltered emissions roughly equivalent to driving a diesel truck 4500 miles. As a whole we emit nearly 700k miles worth of unfiltered diesel truck emissions each month. It’s not apples to apples but a close example of what we release.

 

[Zoidz]

Implementing environmental impact reduction is hard, difficult, and expensive for corporations. Credit programs like this are certainly a compromise but they cause shift in the right direction. I don't see this as a hit on Rivian's mission statement. As a public startup that is losing money Rivian has to balance the mission statement against financial realities. The end result is still net positive for environmental change.

 

[crashmtb]

Milton Friedman, is that you?

Wrong Milton.

 

[NineElectrics]

Especially at this early stage I think Rivian should do what they need to do to stay alive and keep putting out vehicles that don’t emit pollution and don’t stop at gas stations. That makes a huge difference.

I would perhaps feel differently if Rivian were in actual danger of dying. The more EV manufacturers out there, the more pressure will exist on legislatures to tighten the cap and trade cap. But they are not in any danger of dying and will never be. Funding will exist for EV makers from now until eternity. The world is in literal danger and that will become more and more apparent.

Rivian has a choice on whether to spend investor money in a way which doesn’t sell our children down the river. That includes not selling pollution credits.

Yes, if Rivian loses a ton of money, other manufacturers will lobby the government to relax restrictions. “Look how impossible it is to meet these onerous pollution quotas profitably” they will whine. And Rivian losing a billion a quarter helps their case a lot. But the amount Rivian gets by selling these credits is almost nothing in comparison, and the harm to the planet is real.

The real reason to sell pollution credits is to stall the EV programs of competitors by giving them a cheap out, preventing investment and harming competition. Suck.

 

[MidnightRivian]

I always say when it's time to roll up your sleeves and play with Wall Street.

F*Ck feelings, make money.

I hope Rivian continues to look into every possible revenue opportunity to get to cash flow positive.

 

[Thedude]

I would perhaps feel differently if Rivian were in actual danger of dying. The more EV manufacturers out there, the more pressure will exist on legislatures to tighten the cap and trade cap. But they are not in any danger of dying and will never be. Funding will exist for EV makers from now until eternity. The world is in literal danger and that will become more and more apparent.

Rivian has a choice on whether to spend investor money in a way which doesn’t sell our children down the river. That includes not selling pollution credits.

Yes, if Rivian loses a ton of money, other manufacturers will lobby the government to relax restrictions. “Look how impossible it is to meet these onerous pollution quotas profitably” they will whine. And Rivian losing a billion a quarter helps their case a lot. But the amount Rivian gets by selling these credits is almost nothing in comparison, and the harm to the planet is real.

The real reason to sell pollution credits is to stall the EV programs of competitors by giving them a cheap out, preventing investment and harming competition. Suck.

Passenger EVs aren’t going to save the world regardless of selling credits or not.

 

[Bmitch24]

Environmental issues aside, the world is nowhere close to running out of fossil fuels. Gasoline and natural gas may become more expensive as supply shifts to higher marginal cost reservoirs, but there is sufficient oil and natural gas and coal accessible for every one of us to drive ICE vehicles until we die. Oil and gas is gonna get regulated out of business long before supply shortages start to be a real problem.


As far as how effective the program is, all we have to do is look at Tesla. Selling carbon offsets allowed them to exist until they actually made money selling cars. Without Tesla, the technology and consumer demand doesn't progress enough and we do not have the global push to electrify the consumer fleet that allows me to drive my R1T. I think the carbon offset model is way better than a straight up tax paid to the government

Sponsored