Tag Archives: california

Climate Desk Live: A Conversation With Climate Scientist Michael Mann

In DC? Join us on Wednesday, May 15 for the next Climate Desk Live event. James West/Climate Desk One of the chief scientists behind the famous “hockey stick” graph, Michael Mann is among the most influential climate researchers in the United States. He’s also, perhaps, the most regularly attacked. It started with swipes at the hockey stick—the graph seemed to show global warming so unequivocally that skeptics made it their number one target. The furor became even more intense when some of Mann’s emails were exposed in the “ClimateGate” pseudo-scandal. Now, Mann receives regular threats and has found his personal emails pursued by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. And all of this has only made Michael Mann more outspoken. At the next Climate Desk Live event, Mann and host Chris Mooney will discuss new research that reaffirms the validity of the hockey stick. They’ll also talk about public opinion on climate change—and why Mann believes it’s changing. Please join us: Wednesday, May 15, 2013, 6:30 p.m. at the University of California Washington Center, 1608 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036. To attend, please RSVP to cdl@climatedesk.org Original post:  Climate Desk Live: A Conversation With Climate Scientist Michael Mann Related ArticlesObama Campaign Launches Plan to Shame Climate Sceptics in CongressMeet Alvin, the Climate-Change Fighting PuppetWhy Do Conservatives Like to Waste Energy?

Originally from: 

Climate Desk Live: A Conversation With Climate Scientist Michael Mann

Posted in ALPHA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, PUR, RSVP, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate Desk Live: A Conversation With Climate Scientist Michael Mann

One ag-gag bill is dead in California, another is approved in Tennessee

One ag-gag bill is dead in California, another is approved in Tennessee

Shutterstock

This little piggy might be better off in the Golden State.

A California state lawmaker withdrew a bill Wednesday that would have prevented animal activists from documenting systematic cruelty inflicted upon farm animals.

Unlike in other states, where similar ag-gag bills have been approved or are winding their way through legislatures with little public fanfare, the bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Patterson (R) triggered an outcry of opposition in California.

Patterson’s legislation had been pushed by the California Cattlemen’s Association, a lobbying group that represents ranchers and beef producers. The bill was was disingenuously framed as an effort to clamp down on animal cruelty — kind of a war-is-peace deal, except on animal farms.

The latest version of the legislation, before it was yanked, would have required anybody who filmed or photographed abuse of livestock to turn over the evidence to law enforcement authorities within five days. That was framed as an effort to immediately rectify abuses. Because Patterson and the California Cattlemen’s Association love animals so, so much. In reality, it would have made it almost impossible for animal activists to legally document long-running, systematic patterns of animal abuse; instead they would have been forced to blow their cover every time they filmed a single transgression or else risk being prosecuted and fined.

From an opinion column by Carla Hall in the L.A. Times, after the legislation was withdrawn:

About the only good thing you could say about this ag-gag measure is that it wasn’t as bad as other bills introduced in legislatures across the country. Some outlawed videotaping altogether at animal facilities.

The bill was also opposed by the California Newspaper Publishers Assn., which contended that it would have violated the rights of journalists who obtained tapes and recordings made at animal facilities.

Patterson told me when I talked to him last month about his bill that he does care deeply about rooting out animal abuse at slaughterhouses, and that the California Cattlemen’s Assn. does as well. Now that this ill-advised bill is out of the way, Patterson might consider creating other measures that would focus on protecting animals from cruel treatment instead of laws that hamstring people gathering evidence of the cruel treatment.

But there was grimmer news today out of Tennessee, where the Memphis Flyer is reporting that a similar bill was approved by the state House by a single vote. It had already been approved by the Senate. The ag-gag bill will now go to the desk of Gov. Bill Haslam (R), who is expected to sign it. From Food Safety News:

The one-page Tennessee bill only addresses the reporting requirement. It does not address two other elements often found in “ag-gag” bills — prohibitions on taking photographs or video without the permission of the owner, and penalties for obtaining employment without disclosing motives to investigate for animal abuse.

For a good summary of the various ag-gag bills that have been approved or proposed in states across the U.S., check out this recent piece in Modern Farmer.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit link: 

One ag-gag bill is dead in California, another is approved in Tennessee

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on One ag-gag bill is dead in California, another is approved in Tennessee

Keystone XL: The Science, Stakes, and Strategy Behind the Fight Over the Tar Sands Pipeline

green4us

<!– table background #fff; border-collapse: collapse; float: left; margin: 15px; th, td border: 1px #000 solid; th background: #eee; –> Join us for a Climate Desk Live event focused on Keystone XL. tarsandsaction/Flickr On February 17, more than 40,000 people rallied in Washington to convince the president to reject the Keystone XL, a proposed 875-mile pipeline running from the Canadian border into Nebraska and slated to transport oil from tar sands (which is 17 percent more greenhouse gas intensive than standard crude oil). The crowds outside the White House provided overwhelming proof that opposing Keystone has mobilized a new and powerful grassroots constituency. But in the US Senate, the mood was different. In a nonbinding vote, 62 Senators—including 17 pro-Keystone Democrats—voted to approve the pipeline. Just 37 Senators voted against it. In fact, the amendment was co-sponsored by four Democrats, including Max Baucus of Montana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. So are activists’ efforts all in vain? What will happen to the environmental movement if President Obama ultimately lets Keystone go forward? And more broadly: What does this say about the best strategy for fighting climate change? Does compromise, horse-trading, and winning industry allies ultimately work best—or do you have to push the limits of the possible? You’re invited to the next Climate Desk Live event—hosted by myself—for a debate and discussion between some of the leading voices on this issue: David Roberts, Grist magazine, who has been covering Keystone regularly and recently wrote about the “Virtues of Being Unreasonable on Keystone.” Michael Levi, director of the program on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of the new book The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle For America’s Future (Oxford, May 2013), where he writes that combating climate change will require “doing deals [with those] who want to expand production of oil and gas.” Michael Grunwald, senior national correspondent for Time magazine, author of The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era, who recently declared that on Keystone, “I’m with the Tree Huggers!” Join us for a Climate Desk Live event focused on the Keystone XL: Thursday, April 18, 2013, 6:30 p.m. at the University of California Washington Center, 1608 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036. To attend, please RSVP to cdl@climatedesk.org

Visit source:  

Keystone XL: The Science, Stakes, and Strategy Behind the Fight Over the Tar Sands Pipeline

Share this:

See the original article here:

Keystone XL: The Science, Stakes, and Strategy Behind the Fight Over the Tar Sands Pipeline

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, PUR, RSVP, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Keystone XL: The Science, Stakes, and Strategy Behind the Fight Over the Tar Sands Pipeline

Fukushima meltdown appears to have sickened American infants

Fukushima meltdown appears to have sickened American infants

Shutterstock

Fallout from that Fukushima meltdown thing a couple years back? It’s not just the Japanese who are suffering, though their plight is obviously the worst.

Radioactive isotopes blasted from the failed reactors may have given kids born in Hawaii and along the American West Coast health disorders which, if left untreated, can lead to permanent mental and physical handicaps.

Children born in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington between one week and 16 weeks after the meltdowns began in March 2011 were 28 percent more likely to suffer from congenital hypothyroidism than were kids born in those states during the same period one year earlier, a new study shows. In the rest of the U.S. during that period in 2011, where radioactive fallout was less severe, the risks actually decreased slightly compared with the year before.

Substantial quantities of the radioisotope iodine-131 were produced by the meltdowns, then wafted over the Pacific Ocean and fell over Hawaii, the American West Coast, and other Pacific countries in rain and snow, reaching levels hundreds of times greater than those considered safe.

After entering our bodies, radioactive iodine gathers in our thyroids. Thyroids are glands that release hormones that control how we grow. In babies, including those not yet born, such radiation can stunt the development of body and brain. The condition is known as congenital hypothyroidism. It is treatable when detected early.

“Fukushima fallout appeared to affect all areas of the U.S., and was especially large in some, mostly in the western part of the nation,” wrote researchers with the Radiation and Public Health Project in their peer-reviewed paper published in Open Journal of Pediatrics.

The links between iodine radioisotope exposure and juvenile hypothyroidism were established after the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown. The authors of this new paper suspect that the spike in Pacific Coast cases in 2011 was linked to the Fukushima accident, but they warn that further analysis is needed “to better understand any association between iodine exposure from Fukushima-Dai-ichi and congenital hypothyroidism risk.”

Their findings may be only a tip of an epidemiological iceberg.

“Congenital hypothyroidism can be used as one measure to assess any potential changes in U.S. fetal and infant health status after Fukushima because official data was available relatively promptly,” the researchers wrote. “However, health departments will soon have available for other 2010 and 2011 indicators of fetal/infant health, including fetal deaths, premature births, low weight births, neonatal deaths, infant deaths, and birth defects.”

So stay tuned. Two years and one month after the meltdown, we’re only just beginning to understand how the nuclear catastrophe affected the health of people living around the vast Pacific Ocean.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link – 

Fukushima meltdown appears to have sickened American infants

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fukushima meltdown appears to have sickened American infants

New gasoline rules are good for your lungs and bad for Big Oil

New gasoline rules are good for your lungs and bad for Big Oil

Shutterstock

/ Tyler OlsonLess sulfur in gasoline means less tailpipe pollution.

Oh, tough break for the oil industry. The Obama administration today will propose new rules that will help curb smog by cracking down on sulfur in gasoline.

“This is the first big environmental initiative in the Obama administration’s second term,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

Automakers and everybody who breathes will benefit from the new EPA rules, which will require refineries to produce gasoline containing no more than 10 parts per million of sulfur. The EPA currently allows up to 30 ppm.

Sulfur is a problem in gasoline because it reduces the performance of catalytic convertors. That, in turn, lowers efficiency and boosts tailpipe emissions that contribute to smog and soot.

From The Washington Post:

The proposed standards would add less than a penny a gallon to the cost of gasoline while delivering an environmental benefit akin to taking 33 million cars off the road, according to a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement had not been made yet.

Oil industry officials, however, said the cost would be at least double the administration’s estimate and could add up to 9 cents a gallon in some places.

The proposed standards, which had been stuck in regulatory limbo since 2011, would reduce the amount of sulfur in U.S. gasoline by two-thirds and impose fleet-wide pollution limits on new vehicles by 2017.

The Obama administration’s decision to go ahead with the regulations deals a political blow to the oil and gas industry, which had mobilized dozens of lawmakers in recent days to lobby the White House for a one-year delay.

It’s a sad day for the oil companies. Sharing in their misery are congressional Republicans. From Reuters:

Republican lawmakers had tried to stop the rules. Ed Whitfield, the chair of the House Energy and Power subcommittee, introduced a bill last year to stop the EPA from issuing the Tier 3 measures.

But don’t let that get you down — not everybody is bummed.

[H]ealth groups say the rules will cut billions in doctors’ bills. A study released by Navigant Consulting last year said the rules could cut healthcare costs for lung and heart diseases by $5 billion to $6 billion a year by 2020 and double that by 2030. …

The rules are supported by many automakers who want regulatory certainty and for federal rules to be harmonized with strict regulations in California. The Auto Alliance, a group of 12 manufacturers, has said cutting sulfur content in gasoline has side benefits including improving fuel efficiency and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link: 

New gasoline rules are good for your lungs and bad for Big Oil

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New gasoline rules are good for your lungs and bad for Big Oil

Big military guy more scared of climate change than enemy guns

Big military guy more scared of climate change than enemy guns

Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, chief of U.S. Pacific Command, doesn’t look like your usual proponent of climate action. Spencer Ackerman writes at Wired that Locklear “is no smelly hippie,” but the guy does believe there will be terrible security threats on a warming planet, which might make him a smelly hippie in the eyes of many American military boosters.

Commander U.S. 7th Fleet

Everyone wants him to be worried about North Korean nukes and Chinese missiles, but in an interview with The Boston Globe, Locklear said that societal upheaval due to climate change “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen … that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

“People are surprised sometimes,” he added, describing the reaction to his assessment. “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”

Locklear said his Hawaii-based headquarters — which is … responsible for operations from California to India — is working with Asian nations to stockpile supplies in strategic locations and planning a major exercise for May with nearly two dozen countries to practice the “what-ifs.”

Locklear isn’t alone in his climate fears. A recent article by Julia Whitty takes an in-depth look at what the military is doing to deal with climate change. A 2008 report by U.S. intelligence agencies warned about national security challenges posed by global warming, as have later reports from the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. New Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel understands the threat, too. People may be surprised sometimes, Adm. Locklear, but they really shouldn’t be!

Will not-a-dirty-hippie Locklear’s words help to further mainstream the idea that climate change is a serious security problem? And what all has the good admiral got planned for this emergency sea-rising drill in May?

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See original article here – 

Big military guy more scared of climate change than enemy guns

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Amana, G & F, GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big military guy more scared of climate change than enemy guns

California town could require solar power on every new house

California town could require solar power on every new house

With year-round high temperatures and less than two inches of rain on average a month, the desert town of Lancaster, Calif., just north of Los Angeles, seems like a great place for solar. But Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris isn’t taking any chances (which is exactly what you would expect from a mayor named R. Rex Parris).

Parris, a Republican, is “hell-bent on branding his sprawling Antelope Valley community not just as the solar capital of California but as the ‘solar energy capital of the world,’” according to Mother Nature Network.

The mayor is proposing a zoning change that would require houses built after Jan. 1, 2014, to include solar-power systems. Lancaster has long been a solar leader, but Parris is trying to take it to a whole ‘nother level, pending the city council’s vote.

From KCET:

The zoning changes would also streamline permitting for solar installations, and would implement a few other interesting requirements. For instance, as GreenTech Media reports, model homes in developments would have to display the kinds of solar available to different home designs, and developers building housing tracts in phases would need to build each phase’s solar capacity before moving on to the next phase.

Builders could also qualify by buying solar credits from other generating facilities, but they’d have to be within the city of Lancaster.

“I want to offer the builders some flexibility,” Parris told ReWire. “New developments require catchbasins for flood runoff, and the builders could put the solar panels there if they choose. Or they could use rooftops. Whatever works.”

“I believe global warming is going to be solved in neighborhoods, not by nations,” Parris continued. “I want Lancaster to be part of that.”

In an address at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi in January, the mayor acknowledged the flack he might get from the building industry: “We will just have to take the heat.” R. Rex Parris did not, in fact, drop the mic after that comment, but he really should have.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Cities

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Excerpt from:  

California town could require solar power on every new house

Posted in ALPHA, Amana, G & F, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California town could require solar power on every new house

Calif. Bill Calls for Single-Use Battery Recycling

Photo: Flickr/JohnSeb

Calif. Assemblyman Das Williams (D) has introduced a bill to the state legislature which would create a recycling and disposal program for all non-rechargeable, single-use household batteries sold in the state.

In early 2006, household batteries were prohibited from being disposed of in solid waste landfills in California. However, currently there is no system in place for managing discarded single-use batteries, making it difficult for consumers to find places to recycle old batteries.

“Banning batteries from disposal without making recycling easy is frustrating for the public. The goal of this bill is to provide convenient recycling opportunities statewide to make it easy for consumers to comply with the law,” said Heidi Sanborn, executive director of the California Product Stewardship Council, in a press release.

Assembly Bill 488 would require producers of single-use household batteries to submit a stewardship plan to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

California state law already requires producers and retailers of rechargeable batteries to collect used rechargeable batteries from consumers. However, currently there is no such mandatory take-back system for single-use alkaline batteries.

Approximately 80 percent of batteries sold in California are alkaline batteries, according to the assembly bill. Managing discarded batteries costs local governments and taxpayers up to $2,700 per ton, which adds up to tens of millions of dollars each year.

“This is a perfect example of how producers, local governments and retailers can unite to help meet a greater good,” Assemblyman Williams said in a press release. “By changing our habits in little ways such as recycling batteries, we can collectively make dramatic changes to help the environment and save money.”

The bill may be heard in committee as early as March 22. If passed, the proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2015.

Patricia Escarcega

Contributing Writer

Like this story?

You’ll love our newsletters!

why join?

learn about the perks

View post: 

Calif. Bill Calls for Single-Use Battery Recycling

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Calif. Bill Calls for Single-Use Battery Recycling

Calories make you fat, but sugary calories make you fat and diabetic

Calories make you fat, but sugary calories make you fat and diabetic

Valerie Everett

Pick your poison.

Drink a can of sugary soda every day, increase your chance of developing diabetes by 1.1 percent.

Drink two cans a day, instead of none, and your risk increases by 2.2 percent.

That was the sobering and very specific conclusion of an exhaustive worldwide study of diets, obesity rates, and Type 2 diabetes: For every 150 calories of sugar that a person wolfs down every day, whether that sugar was squeezed out of sugar cane, beets, or corn, that person becomes 1.1 percent more likely to develop the disease. Type 2 diabetes is the form of the disease caused by lifestyle; type 1 is genetic.

A 12-ounce can of soda typically harbors about 150 sugary calories (which scientists, including the authors of the new study, confusingly call kilocalories). Many candy bars contain more calories than that, though not all from sugar.

The Californian scientists who conducted the 175-nation study, published this week in PLOS ONE, showed that it is not merely the amount of calories in somebody’s diet that affects whether they are likely to develop diabetes. It’s where they get their calories from. New Zealanders, for example, are growing more obese yet fewer of them are developing diabetes. That’s because they’re getting their extra calories from such things as oil, meat, and fiber, not from sugar.

The scientists concluded that those other sources of calories do not increase diabetes rates. Well maybe a tiny bit, but not to an extent regarded as statistically significant. That means that somebody with a big appetite but an aversion to sugar could become obese without becoming a candidate for daily dates with needle-tipped insulin pens. It also means that sugar junkies are putting themselves at risk both of becoming obese, with the myriad health complications that brings, and also of developing diabetes. From the study:

Sugars added to processed food, in particular the monosaccharide fructose, can contribute to obesity, but also appear to have properties that increase diabetes risk independently from obesity.

The study was the icing on the cake for theories that sugar is toxic. As columnist Mark Bittman wrote in The New York Times:

The study demonstrates [that sugar, not obesity, causes diabetes] with the same level of confidence that linked cigarettes and lung cancer in the 1960s. As Rob Lustig, one of the study’s authors and a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said to me, “You could not enact a real-world study that would be more conclusive than this one.”

Bittman thinks the findings should prompt the federal government to do something about the poison that is sugar:

The next steps are obvious, logical, clear and up to the Food and Drug Administration. To fulfill its mission, the agency must respond to this information by re-evaluating the toxicity of sugar, arriving at a daily value — how much added sugar is safe? — and ideally removing fructose (the “sweet” molecule in sugar that causes the damage) from the “generally recognized as safe” list, because that’s what gives the industry license to contaminate our food supply.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Food

,

Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link: 

Calories make you fat, but sugary calories make you fat and diabetic

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Calories make you fat, but sugary calories make you fat and diabetic

Test drive of Tesla sedan leaves New York Times stranded

Test drive of Tesla sedan leaves New York Times stranded

Tesla is Silicon Valley’s car. The company’s head of product design, Elon Musk, went from rethinking online payments as a cofounder of PayPal to rethinking automobiles. Tesla’s first vehicle was an electricity-and-testosterone-powered roadster; recently, it added a sedan (electricity only).

Over the weekend, The New York Times ran a review of the sedan by John Broder. His test drive, a haul from the outskirts of D.C. to Boston, could have gone better. From “Stalled Out on Tesla’s Electric Highway”:

The Model S has won multiple car-of-the-year awards and is, many reviews would have you believe, the coolest car on the planet.

What fun, no? Well, no.

The problem was power. The electric car, like a regular car, needs to be refilled. But unlike a regular car, you can’t refuel every few miles. Broder’s trip was meant to highlight two new charging stations between the cities, spaced within the range of a full charge of the car. Ideally. As Broder discovered, that wasn’t his experience — something for which the cold weather may have been partly to blame.

As I crossed into New Jersey …, I noticed that the estimated range was falling faster than miles were accumulating. At 68 miles since recharging, the range had dropped by 85 miles, and a little mental math told me that reaching Milford would be a stretch.

I began following Tesla’s range-maximization guidelines, which meant dispensing with such battery-draining amenities as warming the cabin and keeping up with traffic. I turned the climate control to low — the temperature was still in the 30s — and planted myself in the far right lane with the cruise control set at 54 miles per hour (the speed limit is 65). Buicks and 18-wheelers flew past, their drivers staring at the nail-polish-red wondercar with California dealer plates.

Broder’s trip ended on the back of a flatbed truck in Connecticut. But the story didn’t.

After the review ran, Musk jumped on Twitter to criticize it and the reviewer.

The “Top Gear BS” is a reference to a similar problem experienced by the TV show Top Gear when it was reviewing the Tesla Roadster. The show noted that the car ran out of juice well before it should have. Musk and Tesla filed a libel lawsuit, which was eventually thrown out.

Musk’s promised blog post hasn’t yet materialized, but that didn’t stop the Times from rising to the defense of the review. The paper told the Atlantic Wire:

The Times’s Feb. 10 article recounting a reporter’s test drive in a Tesla Model S was completely factual, describing the trip in detail exactly as it occurred. Any suggestion that the account was “fake” is, of course, flatly untrue. Our reporter followed the instructions he was given in multiple conversations with Tesla personnel.

As the San Francisco Chronicle notes, the review did some damage to Tesla. By the time markets closed last night, the stock had dropped 2 percent.

That might be a bit unfair. Tesla got out ahead of its skis a little in suggesting that the car was ready to have a road-trip review even though there are so few charging stations. Limited infrastructure is still a key inhibitor to electric-car adoption. But Musk’s response may have been a worse decision. By attacking the review, he both provides a disincentive to future reviewers and builds the affair into a much bigger deal than it needed to be — though his response did help the stock price rebound a bit. His later tweet indicating that more charging stations are imminent may have made an important longer-term point.

As a Silicon Valley veteran, Musk should know that things go wrong, and it’s the responsibility of the tech company to foresee and handle those problems. And, look, it could have been worse. At least Broder didn’t experience a crash.

Update: Broder posted his own response to Musk. It’s detailed. For example:

Mr. Musk has referred to a “long detour” on my trip. He is apparently referring to a brief stop in Manhattan on my way to Connecticut that, according to Google Maps, added precisely two miles to the overall distance traveled from the Delaware Supercharger to Milford (202 miles with the stop versus 200 miles had I taken the George Washington Bridge instead of the Lincoln Tunnel). At that point, I was already experiencing anxiety about range and had called a Tesla employee from the New Jersey Turnpike to ask how to stretch the battery. She said to shut off the cruise control to take advantage of battery regeneration from occasional braking and slowing down. Based on that advice, I was under the impression that stop-and-go driving at low speeds in the city would help, not hurt, my mileage.

Broder ends his response where we would have thought: It’s worth trying the test drive again once there is more infrastructure.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Cities

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Original link:  

Test drive of Tesla sedan leaves New York Times stranded

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Test drive of Tesla sedan leaves New York Times stranded