• return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Climate protesters have expressed concerns about Tesla’s plans, which entail cutting down approximately 250 acres of forest in a rural community of fewer than 8,000 residents near a nature conservation area.

      • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Should be noted that basically all of that forest is a tree farm monoculture.

        Now they moved to protesting the water usage of the factory, which is high, but quite low compared to other industries and farms in the area.

        I mean, fuck cars in general, but protests that focus on bullshit facts are not helping the cause.

        • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          4 months ago

          The water usage is a huge issue. The region has suffered a severe drought from 2018-2022. There is some issues with a chemical bubble in the ground that require a careful and coordinated pumping by all water utilities and well operators in the area to not suck it into the aquifer.One water utility had to deny all building permits for new houses, schools, businesses because Teslas water consumption capped the legally and sustainably permittable water extraction in the area.

          There was a huge shitshow around the permits Tesla gained with direct political interference from the state government to overlook legal requirements in particular in the context of water. Tesla is fighting to deny access for the water utility to the chemical analysis of the water they extract at their wells.

          There is a risk that Tesla could permanently destroy the water supply for hundreds of thousands of people if they are not made to observe the legal requirements and cooperate with other stakeholders for water in the region.

        • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Highly doubtful. EVs still have a high footprint, especially those obese ones that we’re making in the West.

          • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            They have a large footprint of creation. Their footprint over their lifetime is net negative when measured against direct alternatives.

            • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              Measured against ICE cars. Actual direct alternatives are public transport, bikes, and micro cars. And you’re also assuming they’re driven that long before the person buys another car.

              • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Those are indirect alternatives. A direct alternative serves the exact same function.

                It doesn’t matter if that person buys another car; it matter is the EV stays on the road. They do.

                • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  They do serve the exact same function. And no, they don’t stay on the road. The batteries degrade, die and aren’t replaceable due to proprietary designs. There’s already plenty of dead EVs.

                  • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    The average life of an EV is over 13 years. The batteries, generally have 100k warranties and are consistently lasting well into the 150k mile ranges. These vehicles stay on the road for as long as an ICE automobile and have a negative carbon footprint when compared to that baseline.

                    Buses, trains, trams, etc. serve a similar overall function as a personal automobile, the two even share some overlap on fundamental functions; however, as they are not 1:1 replacements for one another any comparison can never be of a direct nature.

        • slurpyslop@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          if there were some figures i could fiddle to fit that narrative, do you think that would mean that cutting down 250 acres of forest would actually be worth it rather than a convenience somebody has gussied up as “necessary” because it would make them a profit?

      • Fallenwout@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Go protest to the people who give the permit to cut down those trees, those are the problem. If tesla listen to the protest, another company is going to cut those trees.

        If that area is marked as forest instead of industry/residential, no one can cut it, end of thread.

        But as usual, protestors are barking up the wrong tree (pun intended)

    • cygon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s a battery factory that was built there despite environmental concerns.

      I think the main things that attracted the ire of environmentalists are:

      • When the building permits were still being negotiated, Tesla just started clearing land illegally
      • A battery factory requires lots of water, this one was built in a region already low on groundwater
      • There have been several instances of spilled chemicals
      • The sewage coming out of the factory has been contaminated (phosphorus and nitrogen) beyond allowed thresholds for two years
      • The local water supply company is reportedly near its limit, but Tesla wants to expand the battery factory and clear additional land

      .

      But the situation is a bit muddy. Early protests around 2021…2022 often had a share of far right wingnuts trying to recruit people. That’s lessened, though. This specific protest was definitely swelled in numbers by the factory expansion and land clearing plans, but is also part of a planned day of protests by the “Disrupt Tesla” group. They have a web presence here: https://disrupt-now.org/en/.

    • can@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      EVs are a good next step but they still use tires that break down leaving microplastics in the environment and a study showed they may even leave more.,