Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party leader Armin Laschet visit the construction site of Tesla’s Gigafactory in Gruenheide near Berlin, Germany, August 13, 2021.
Patrick Pleul | Reuters
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said the fundamental good the electric car maker does will be measured in the acceleration of the world to sustainable energy.
Tesla’s role in the auto industry’s move to electrification is undeniable. Many major automakers are now investing billions in EV and battery manufacturing, and consumer interest in EVs continues to grow. While a Pew Research Center survey this summer found only 7% of U.S. adults currently had an electric or hybrid vehicle, 39% said they were considering an electric vehicle to be the next car they bought.
“One of the many things he did is he pushed the industry toward taking EV seriously,” former Ford CEO Mark Fields said of Musk.
Tesla didn’t surpass 1% share of new car sales until 2018, but during the first half of 2021, Tesla’s share of the all-electric segment of the auto market stood at about two-thirds.
“Profitability as a pure EV maker is an accomplishment in and of itself,” said Driss Lembachar, manager of transportation and infrastructure research at Morningstar’s Sustainalytics.
Tesla‘s stock price, now near-$900, and its rise to a near-$1 trillion company, shows that investors have been rewarded for sticking with a company that five years ago traded under $50 amid constant reporting on financial struggles.
But for ESG analysts including Lembachar, “There is some room for improvement.”
Beyond Tesla earnings and sales
As Tesla gets set to report its latest earnings on Wednesday and demand for its EVs show continued growth, its balance sheet becomes less volatile, and it ramps up manufacturing around the globe — including operations in Europe and China — its success is also an indication that Tesla has passed beyond its roots as a California start-up. It’s becoming a mature automaker. That is one reason ESG experts are watching closely to see how Musk’s company evolves in relation to investor concerns about environmental, social and governance issues.
Yana Kakar, global managing partner emeritus at Dalberg, said when the ESG debate is boiled down to a choice between whether the product a company produces is good, such as a Tesla EV, or the way it produces the product is good, that is a mistake.
“That’s a false dichotomy,” she said. “There is no necessary tradeoff. It is not a zero-sum game.”
How a company produces its products can be a reflection of the same values in the products it creates, and “that is entirely achievable,” Kakar said.
This debate over Tesla has a parallel to the rise of Silicon Valley companies that are “revolutionizing” industries and, as a result, have to keep their focus on that primary goal and not ESG.
“That attitude has been particularly prevalent in Silicon Valley,” said Jaakko Kooroshy, head of sustainable investment research at FTSE Russell. “But investors have come around to the view that a company can continue ‘saving the world’ and also have decent sustainability disclosures, and those disclosures do matter in the context of the company trying to save the world.” He added, “The line from Tesla for a very long time was ‘we are busy here saving the world so who cares about our emissions disclosures and corporate governance mechanisms.”
Tesla shareholders are pressing company on ESG
The recent Tesla annual shareholder meeting showed how investor pressure is being applied to the company, with a measure for diversity, equity and inclusion reporting approved by shareholders over management objections. The vote came shortly after a legal case in which a former Tesla contract worker sued over a hostile work environment and was awarded $137 million.
ESG experts say it is a sign that Tesla shareholders are making their voices heard, but it will be another year before ESG experts and shareholders can assess any changes made by Tesla in response to the shareholder measure. Shareholder measures are non-binding, and though corporate management often enacts changes in response to shareholder wins, it is not always with the scope or comprehensiveness that shareholders expected.
To date, in spite of all of the “good” the company is doing related to climate change, Tesla has not had the best ESG track record.
Paul Tudor Jones’ ESG firm JUST Capital ranks Tesla among the bottom 10% of all companies on ESG — its ESG methodology is weighted more heavily to broad social issues than climate specifically.
FTSE Russell has Tesla ranked last among carmakers globally on ESG issues.
Tesla did not respond to a request for comment on its ESG philosophy.
Environment and climate
ESG rating agencies, in the early days of the industry, don’t yet agree on how to assess Tesla even on the “E” of environment with which it is synonymous.
Lembachar said on the environmental pillar in ESG, “They are one of the best … it goes without saying they produce only cars without emissions, and they have been credited for that.”
But in 2018, FTSE Russell gave Tesla a “zero” on environment because even though its revenue sources are green and its cars are non-emitting, the company didn’t disclose its own operational emissions.
Historically, Tesla did not provide transparency in terms of reporting its Scope 1 and Scope 2 carbon emissions, water use, or waste management. But Tesla has improved as investors pressed for more information and it has started publishing more corporate disclosures in recent years, said Kooroshy, which has led to an improvement in Tesla’s environmental ranking in the FTSE Russell ESG analysis.
How Tesla deals with the waste it generates and its water usage, particularly as it is starting to scale around the world and provide millions of vehicles, does matter, he said. There are many ways to produce EVs, some cleaner and some more problematic, and supply chains and sourcing of raw materials such as cobalt, which goes into batteries, and human rights and labor issues in regions where minerals are sourced, need to be considered by investors as risk factors.
“What is clear is that Tesla has made some improvements, but compared to many of its peers in the auto industry, its environmental reporting is still fairly rudimentary,” Kooroshy said. “They are conscious of, and made commitments to disclose more data points in future, and as they do, when they do, we will see it reflected in those ratings.”
Labor
On balance, social and governance issues remain the major hurdles for Tesla. MCSI places Tesla above average in its rankings, but not as an ESG leader.
“If you look at labor management or product safety quality, we see some issues there,” said Arne Klug, vice president of ESG research at MSCI. “We couldn’t say that the company’s programs, in terms of labor management, or product safety, quality, are really aligned with its growth strategy based on our assessment.”
In March, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Tesla violated federal labor laws while United Auto Workers and other unions tried to organize at its original plant in Fremont, California. The NLRB also found Tesla guilty of “coercively interrogating” three employees over unionizing activities, illegally firing another and disciplining another.
For JUST Capital, worker issues are one of the primary reasons Tesla gets “tripped” up in its rankings, Whittaker said. How a company supports local communities, what is it doing on diversity, and what it is doing on fair pay and worker issues, are all issues that JUST weighs more heavily than climate alone in its overall ESG rankings because Whittaker said, “the public weighs them highly.”
The labor issues will pose a material risk to Tesla as it expands around the world, Lembachar said, as they do for any company with global operations where a confrontation with a labor force at one site can increase the risk of more general strikes.
“Workforce issues can have more of an effect now that the company is getting out of this start-up stage and expanding around the world and in Europe, where there is a really strong union tradition,” he said. “The company must be prepared for labor-related risks and, according to us, must have stronger labor-related programs prepared to tackle issues related to the expansion of its workforce engine around the world.”
Autopilot as an ESG issue
Tesla is facing investigations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding Autopilot, the automated driving technology currently in Tesla’s Models 3, S, X and Y in 2021.
While it may at first not seem obvious how self-driving is an ESG issue, it in fact falls within traditional categories that date all the way back to the days of Ralph Nader and “unsafe at any speed”: product safety and passenger safety.
Lembachar said Tesla’s full self-driving (FSD) is something his firm receives a lot of questions about as an ESG scoring metric, but he says it is simple: “Anything related to passenger safety is product governance and falls under the ‘Social’ pillar. Everything related to recalls, accidents, defects, responsibility of company is product governance.”
He was quick to point out that if self-driving works it may ultimately cut down on accidents by as much as 90%, and Tesla is potentially far ahead of competitors with the technology. But in a period of time when it is being scrutinized as the cause of accidents and fatalities, self-driving remains a product governance negative, and that metric has a heavy weighting for the auto industry. That hits other companies, too, such as GM after its recent recall on electric cars due to battery fire risk. And Lembacher said these issues have a material cost: for GM, more than $1 billion in the case of the recalls. “That is a very material issue,” he said.
Corporate governance and Tesla’ ESG future
Even though tweets may seem ephemeral, Musk’s confrontation with the Securities and Exchange Commission over controversial tweets can negatively impact the company’s corporate governance score.
“In terms of corporate governance, we see the confrontation between Musk and the SEC as problematic,” Lembacher said. “Tweets are problematic when they change the share price and that can be harmful for shareholders … and that’s why the SEC has been flagging it. There is a risk that the regulator at some point will sanction the company and since we are running a risk rating product, we have to flag this issue.”
Questions also remain about the company’s acquisition of SolarCity, which was controlled by Musk’s cousins (a legal case is ongoing brought by shareholders).
The corporate governance issues raise a bigger question about Musk’s impact on ESG ratings.
“It is not enough to say the company is being run by a ‘genius’ and as a result, ‘please don’t ask us too many questions,” Kooroshy said. “There is no doubt about the achievements of this company, particularly about accelerating the transition to sustainable energy. This is stuff for the history books, but at the end of the day, for investors trying to understand how much of a portfolio to invest in this company … not enough, he said. “It’s still not a free pass. … Making these disclosures doesn’t stop them from innovating.”
Kakar said Tesla’s mission of accelerating the transition to sustainable energy, and its focus on that as an argument in its defense, is implicitly a relative statement comparing itself to other automakers, and that is where the false tradeoff comes in. “It is terrific they are making EVs … but relative to the next guy is not the important point, and doesn’t obfuscate responsibility.”
Many ESG investors and ESG investment products today accentuate the “E” and climate specifically. “That’s where the action is at and investors have seen it as a good story, and if you think about environmental performance and climate as the big opportunities, you see Tesla as a big solution and will be attracted to it,” Whittaker said.
But as any company grows in scope and scale, the range of issues they have to contend with changes and investors will ask more about the “how” behind the growing business.
“That’s what is going to happen with Tesla as people become more aware of the social risk of how it operates,” Whittaker said. “It is bound to become more of an issue for investors and more of an operational risk for the company if it doesn’t perform well … more prominent in the overall calculus of company competitiveness and success.”
“That is not to say it won’t do well,” he added. “Musk is an incredible entrepreneur and business leader and I am sure if it becomes an issue he thinks will affect the value of the company or brand, he will respond accordingly. I expect it will become more of an issue for the management team to have to deal with.”
For most of human history, currency was a direct claim on tangible, productive output. Before the abstraction of government fiat or cryptocurrency, value was stored in things that required real work and resources, bushels of grain, livestock, gold, assets with their own direct productive output: horses, and tragically, slaves.
These were the foundational assets of economies, representing a direct link between labor, resources, and stored value.
As we accelerate into an all-electric, all-digital age, this fundamental link is re-emerging, but with a new unit of account. The 21st-century economy, defined by automated industry, robotic, electric transport, and now power-hungry artificial intelligence, runs on a single, non-negotiable input: electricity. In this new paradigm, the real base currency, the ultimate representation of productive capacity, is the kilowatt-hour (kWh).
The kWh is the new economic base layer.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Last week, I was in Bijiashan Park at night overlooking Shenzhen, arguably the most technologically advanced city on earth, built over the previous few decades, partly on cheap electricity, cheap labor, and manufacturing innovations.
I could see the giant high-voltage power lines coming over Yinhu Mountain to power the constant light show that is Shenzhen at night. I couldn’t help but think about how cheap electricity and a strong grid have been critical to China’s exceptional economic rise.
As you stroll around the city, you see power everywhere. There are charging stations at every corner, including insane 1 MW charging posts, electric cars and trucks, trucks that carry batteries to electric scooter shops, which are also literally everywhere.
Everything moves on electric power. Industries are powered by electricity, and now, with the advent of AI, virtually everything is increasingly processed by LLMs, which are ultimately powered by electricity through power-hungry data centers.
In a world where everything runs on electricity, electricity itself becomes the currency of civilization.
It is measurable, divisible, storable, and universal – all qualities that a currency needs, but unlike fiat and crypto, it’s actually directly linked to productive output. No politics. No inflation. Just physics.
This concept is not merely academic; it appears to be the quiet, guiding principle in China. While others debate the merits of decentralized digital tokens, China is executing a multi-pronged strategy that treats electricity as the foundational strategic asset it has become.
First, China is building the “mint” for this new currency at an incredible, world-changing scale, and it has retained absolute state control over its distribution. Its deployment of new electricity generation, particularly from renewables, is staggering. The country met its 2030 target of 1,200 gigawatts of renewable capacity five years early, in 2025.
In 2024 alone, renewable energy accounted for a record 56% of the nation’s total installed capacity, with clean generation meeting 84% of all new demand.
Here’s a comparison of electricity generation between China and the US:
If this chart doesn’t scare the West. I don’t know what will. The trend is not reversing any time soon. In fact, it appears to be accelerating as China is doubling down on solar and nuclear.
State-owned monoliths manage this entire system, primarily the State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), the world’s largest utility. For better or worse, this centralized control allows the state to execute massive national strategies impossible in a liberalized market, such as building an Ultra-High-Voltage (UHV) grid to transmit power from remote solar and wind farms in the west to the power-hungry industrial hubs on its coast.
Second, China wields its control over the grid as a precision tool of industrial policy. China’s average electricity rate of $0.084/kWh is cheaper than most of the rest of the world, but its power lies not in the base price but in its strategic application. The government deploys a “Differential Electricity Pricing” policy: a “stick” that penalizes low-tech, high-consumption industries with higher rates, and a “carrot” that provides preferential pricing to incentivize strategic sectors.
The most potent example is in the AI sector. China is now offering massive electricity subsidies, cutting power bills by up to half, for data centers run by giants like Alibaba and Tencent. The condition for this cheap power is that these companies must use locally-made, Chinese AI chips, such as those from Huawei.
China is spending its “electricity currency” to directly fund the growth of its domestic AI chip industry and sever its dependence on foreign technology. This same logic applies to its global dominance in green tech, where state-subsidized firms like BYD benefit from a state-controlled industrial ecosystem built on reliable, managed power.
Third, and possibly the most explicit exemplification of China viewing electricity as the base currency is its moves against cryptocurrency.
In 2021, the government banned all cryptocurrency transactions and mining. While the official reasons cited financial stability, the move might have had a deeper, strategic intention.
From the state’s perspective, it was a tool for capital flight, allowing wealth to bypass government controls. But in a world where electricity rules, cryptocurrencies are, in effect, a competing “currency” that burns the foundational asset (electricity) to create a decentralized store of value.
By banning crypto, China simultaneously reclaimed its monopoly on economic control and shut down a massive, “wasteful” leak of its most precious resource. It freed up that generating capacity to be strategically allocated to its preferred industries, like AI and manufacturing.
China’s actions, viewed together, are a clear and coherent strategy. By massively investing in and securing total state control over its domestic electricity supply (the “mint”), using its price as a tool to fuel strategic industries, and banning decentralized competitors that consume the same resource, China is making a clear bet. It has been recognized that in an age where all productivity is powered by the grid, the ultimate source of national power is not gold, fiat, or crypto, but the state-controlled kilowatt-hour.
The Blockchain and Crypto: Ledger vs. Furnace
This perspective brings a critical nuance to the role of blockchain technology. In an economy where electricity is the base currency, the blockchain makes perfect sense, but only as a ledger, not as a store of value.
A distributed ledger is the ideal technological layer to act as the accounting system for this new economy. It can track the generation, transmission, and consumption of every kilowatt-hour with perfect transparency. It can automate complex industrial contracts and manage the grid’s load balancing without a central intermediary. In this sense, blockchain is the “banking software” for the electricity standard.
However, “Proof of Work” cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin face a fatal contradiction within this paradigm. They aim to serve as a store of value by burning the base currency (electricity) to secure the network. If the kilowatt-hour is the 21st-century equivalent of gold, then Bitcoin mining is akin to melting down gold bars to print a paper receipt. It destroys the productive asset to create a derivative token.
Bitcoin is quickly losing credibility as a classical safe store of value. It trades like a security, at least over the last year, and its value is only whatever the next moron is willing to pay, with no valuable asset behind it.
China’s strategy reflects this precise understanding. While they ruthlessly banned Bitcoin mining (the “furnace” that wastes the asset), they have simultaneously championed the Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN) and the Digital Yuan. They have embraced the ledger to track and control their energy economy, while rejecting the supposed asset that destroys it.
This is a trap that crypto fans often fall into. They recognize the value of the blockchain, which is real, but they mistakenly broadly assign the same value to cryptocurrency, which is simply an application of the blockchain.
Electrek’s Take
What I’m trying to explore in this op-ed is the idea that if the present is electric and the future is even more electric, then it makes sense for electricity to be the foundation of the economy.
If electricity is the backbone of global trade and the metric of productivity, the kWh ultimately becomes the real currency of a truly electrified world.
And I think China has figured this out, as evidenced by its new electricity generation surpassing the rest of the world combined and by its ban on cryptocurrency.
They are going to let the rest of the world hold the crypto bag while they have more electricity generation than anyone to power their industries, which are already taking over the world.
I think the rest of the world should learn from this. Instead of pouring capital into meme coins and made-up stores of value, we should invest in electricity generation and storage.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
This aerial picture shows the oil tanker Boracay anchored off the Atlantic Coast off Saint-Nazaire, western France on October 1st, 2025. French authorities said Wednesday they were investigating the oil tanker Boracay anchored off the Atlantic Coast and suspected of being part of Russia’s clandestine “shadow fleet”.
Damien Meyer | Afp | Getty Images
Oil prices extended declines and energy stocks fell sharply on Friday morning as U.S. President Donald Trump pushed for a peace deal to end the long-running Russia-Ukraine war.
International benchmark Brent crude futures with January expiry slipped 2% to $62.09 per barrel at 11:02 a.m. London time (6:02 a.m. ET), after dipping 0.2% in the previous session. The contract is down more 16% so far this year.
U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures with January expiry were last seen 2.4% lower at $57.61, after closing Thursday off 0.5%.
Europe’s Stoxx Oil and Gas index, meanwhile, led losses during morning deals, down more than 2.7%. Britain’s Shell and BP were both trading around 1.6% lower, while Germany’s Siemens Energy fell more than 8%.
U.S. oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron were 0.4% and 0.2% lower, respectively, during premarket trade.
The bearish market sentiment comes as investors pore over the details of the Trump administration’s push to secure a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.
The U.S., under a widely leaked plan, has reportedly proposed that Ukraine cede land including Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, and pledge never to join the NATO military alliance.
The plan also says Kyiv will receive “reliable” security guarantees, while the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel, according to The Associated Press, which obtained a copy of the draft proposal. CNBC has not been able to independently verify the report.
Analysts were doubtful that the peace plan, which is thought to be favorable toward Russia, would be backed by Ukraine.
Guntram Wolff, senior fellow at Bruegel, a Brussels-based think tank, was among those skeptical about whether the proposed peace plan could lead to a deal.
“I think it’s always good to talk each other so in that sense it’s a good development but I have to say when I saw the details of this supposed peace plan, I really don’t think it can fly,” Wolff told CNBC’s “Europe Early Edition” on Friday.
“Because at the core, what it says is that Ukraine should give up significant parts of its military personnel, meaning the military personnel would decrease by something like a third from 900,000 to 600,000,” he added.
A general view of a PJSC Lukoil Oil Company storage tank at an oil terminal located on the Chaussee de Vilvorde on October 30, 2025 in Brussels, Belgium.
Alongside the peace plan noise, energy market participants closely monitored the potential impact of U.S. sanctions against Russian oil producers Rosneft and Lukoil, with the measures taking effect from Friday, a stronger U.S. dollar and expectations for the Federal Reserve’s upcoming interest rate decision.
Texas-based tuning firm Vigilante 4×4 is known for its wild, high-horsepower Jeep SJ Hemi restomods – but they’re more than just a hot rod shop. To prove it, they’ve developed a bespoke, all-electric skateboard chassis designed to turn the classic Jeep Grand Wagoneer into a modern, desirable electric SUV.
The scope of the Vigilante 4×4 electric chassis project is truly impressive. More than just a Jeep SJ frame with an electric drive train bolted in, the chassis is a completely fresh design that utilizes precise 3D scans of the original SJ Wagoneers, Grand Wagoneers, and J-Trucks to establish hard points, then fitted with low-slung battery packs to give the electric restomods superior weight balance, a lower center of gravity, and objectively improved ride and handling compared to its classic, ICE-powered forefathers.
The result is a purpose-built platform that delivers power to the wheels through a dual-motor system – one mounted in the front, and one at the rear – to provide a permanent, infinitely variable four-wheel drive system that offers both on-road performance and the kind of off-road capability that made the Grand Wagoneer famous in the first place.
Vigilante 4×4 electric Jeep SJ
“This isn’t a replacement for our Vigilante HEMI offerings,” reads the official copy. “It’s a total revisit of the Vigilante platform under electric power.”
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The company emphasizes that its new chassis is still in the prototype stages. As such, there are no specs, there is no pricing, there are no range estimates. Despite it all, the response from Jeep enthusiasts has already been strong. “Keep in mind this is our first prototype,” a spokesperson said. “There’s still a lot of work to be done – but the journey has begun.”
Electrek’s Take
Electric SJ chassis; Vigilante 4×4.
Retro done wrong – think the Dodge Charger Daytona EV or VW ID.Buzz – is a disaster. Always. If that nostalgic tone is just a little bit off, the song doesn’t work. The heartstrings don’t pull. Done right, however, the siren song of nostalgia will have you putting a second mortgage on your house to put a Singer Porsche or ICON Bronco in your garage.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.