[CrazyStat]

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Tesla was awarded tradeable regulatory credits. They didn't have any use for them, so they sold them. I suppose they could have just sat on them and refused to sell.

There are valid criticisms around the environmental cost of building electric vehicles. There are also valid criticisms of the regulatory environment that Tesla operates in. I'm not convinced, though, that it makes sense to expect Tesla to refuse to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of unneeded credits out of principle.

[CrazyStat]

Replying to myself to elaborate.

The regulatory credit trading scheme is effectively the same as a system under which the government imposes extra taxes on FIAT/Chrysler while giving Tesla a tax break. Should Tesla refuse to take that tax break because the money is coming from FIAT/Chrysler?

[reitzensteinm]

I think Tesla should absolutely take the money.

But it means that buying an EV in the EU doesn't really help the environment as an individual action. The emissions are essentially locked in by government policy, although it's very aggressive.

I think this is better though. It doesn't rely on consumers being conscious of their externalities, because regardless of their choices the aggregate carbon efficiency will be improving steadily by the exact same amount year over year.

The program is clearly creating a vibrant BEV market and forcing economies of scale that will eventually make them profitable outside of compliance. It's a major win.

Buying an EV, buying its certificate and not letting anyone use it would mean you're not also allowing 10 ICEs to be sold. But that would really be going above an beyond.

And I don't think Tesla (as the only auto maker that could have this program) wants to draw attention to the dynamics at play.