The goal is to reduce CO2, not create more electric cars. That’s just one possible solution.

Additionally have you seen how small Tesla is compared to someone like VW? They’re easily an order of magnitude smaller.

Finally if Tesla are building in the EU then they’re contributing to the EU manufacturing industry, and they’re beholden to EU regulation.

> The goal is to reduce CO2, not create more electric cars. That’s just one possible solution.

Well shooting yourself in the foot is a pretty bad way to achieve those goals.

> Additionally have you seen how small Tesla is compared to someone like VW? They’re easily an order of magnitude smaller.

A US company benefiting from much looser regulation at home and most of all the insane FED money printing making its way to the stock market and funding them with free money.

> Finally if Tesla are building in the EU then they’re contributing to the EU manufacturing industry, and they’re beholden to EU regulation.

So we can all be factory workers for americans. Great.

> Well shooting yourself in the foot is a pretty bad way to achieve those goals.

You’re going to have to explain why this is shooting ourselves in the foot. I’m still not seeing it.

> A US company benefiting from much looser regulation at home and most of all the insane FED money printing making its way to the stock market and funding them with free money.

I’m not entirely sure I understand what your trying to say. Which regulations are so much looser and can you explain what advantages they provide to Tesla vs an EU company.

> So we can all be factory workers for americans. Great.

EU companies own factories in the US (VW is a notable example), and US companies own factories in the EU. Nothing wrong with that.

> The goal is to reduce CO2, not create more electric cars. That’s just one possible solution.

No, the goal is not to reduce CO2, it is to eliminate it entirely, and in order to do that one of the things you have to do is convert all auto transportation over to electric cars. But I bet you already knew that.

> Maybe that regulation is stupid and it causes the wrong incentives? If you wanted more electric cars, there are plenty of ways of making them more appealing thus creating a market for them.

Maybe instead of picking a technology you should manage to the target you actually want. The target could in theory be reached with Hydrogen cars and perhaps that would be better — shame if they’d regulated for electric.

(Actually I think hydrogen is an absurd transport fuel, and California’s hydrogen power funding a waste. But the principle holds)

I suspect the EU law is the same as the California one in that it doesn't require EVs... hydrogen is fine for CARB, you can even get a partial credit for natural gas.

California gave hydrogen funding in order to give them a fair shot. No fair declaring after the fact that it was a waste.

FWIW the physics of trying to store and transport H seemed plainly absurd on the face of it, to me at the time and I haven’t seen any breakthroughs since then.

Your surmise is correct in re he EU law. I was responding to a comment saying “if you want EVs, fund EVs” which was an unwarranted assumption.

> local manufacturers who have EU regulation burdens and foreigners who don't.

Tesla is also subject to EU regulation. The emission regulations concern cars sold in Europe, no matter whether the company selling them is headquartered in Europe or not. It's just that in this case they're more compliant with the regulation than Fiat.