Zachary Bogue, co-managing partner for Data Collective LLC, speaks during the Future of Innovation: Spotlight on Artificial Intelligence Conference in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Thursday, June 22, 2017. The market for AI technologies is estimated to generate more than $60 billion in productivity improvements for U.S. businesses annually.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The Silicon Valley venture capital firm DCVCinvests in all kinds of climate tech companies including geothermal power, aerial methane imaging, advanced nuclear fission reactors, fabrics made out of mycelium, wastewater filtration technology — to name a few.
But there is one category of the climate tech landscape that Zack Bogue, a co-founder of DCVC does not invest in: Carbon offsets.
“We really don’t underwrite or like to see companies that are using carbon offsets,” Bogue told CNBC in an interview at the end of September in an interview in the Palo Alto office. “We do not look at companies that need to use carbon offsets to make their business model work.”
A carbon offset is a certificate or voucher that a company or organization buys that represents the reduction of a metric ton, or 2,205 pounds, of carbon dioxide emissions. If a company or organization is unable to eliminate the release of greenhouse gasses in their operations, they may purchase a carbon offset to compensate for their emissions.
“There’s been some studies out there that up to 90% of carbon offsets are completely ineffective — have had no impact — which is a tragedy of our time, because big Fortune 500 companies are paying millions of dollars to these carbon offsets, and continuing to emit in the meantime,” Bogue told CNBC. “And these offsets are actually having zero impact.”
The effectiveness of a carbon offset is a contentious issue, but at least one white paper published in April 2021 from the Finnish nonprofit and startup Compensate found that 90 percent of carbon capture projects were ineffective. Compensate has both a non-profit advocacy arm and a company that sells what it deems to be high quality carbon offsets. For the white paper, Compensate analyzed more than 100 nature-based carbon offsets certified by third-party verifiers in the space.
Of the carbon offsets which Compensate deemed a failure, 52% were guilty of what Compensate called “additionality” — for instance, offset credits sold to protect trees that were never in any danger of being cut down. Another 16% of the projects Compensate analyzed were considered a failure because their permanence was considered in jeopardy. For example, coastal restoration projects for mangroves in Bangladesh were jeopardized when floods devastated the country, Compensate said.
So, too, said Bogue of local California projects.
“There were some forests north of here that were the subject of carbon offsets where someone paid millions of dollars to not cut the forest down and — whether or not that’s legitimate, we can leave that aside — because those forests burned down,” Bogue said. “So they actually released the carbon that the company was paying to not have released and that the company emitted.”
DCVC does not invest in companies that use carbon offsets right now, but that is not an indictment against the idea.
“To be clear, I want I want them to exist,” Bogue told CNBC. “I want there to be a carbon tax, I want carbon credits, carbon offsets.”
But there isn’t enough transparency or accountability in the industry, Bogue said. To properly stand up the industry, there would need to be an agency akin to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), according to Bogue.
“There’s a very set and rigorous process that you need to do to take a molecule from discovery and up until you’re dosing a human with it: You need to prove that it’s effective, you need to prove it’s non toxic,” Bogue said. “I would say that the imperative to reducing CO2 is as high of a human health imperative as putting small molecules into our body. Full stop.”
Until then, the industry is too uncertain to be a safe place for the money that DCVC invests on behalf of its limited partners, which are the likes of college endowments and hospitals.
“It needs to be rigorous, and apples to apples and, and verifiable and documentable,” Bogue said. “That’s just not where it is today. That’s where we need to get to, but that’s also why don’t think it’s investable.”
Honda has officially unveiled the new WN7, its latest electric motorcycle and the first in a planned lineup of larger EV two-wheelers. Designed as a commuter-friendly electric motorcycle for the European market, the WN7 is part of Honda’s push toward carbon neutrality.
The launch shines more light on a reveal we’ve long been waiting for. But with a price tag of £12,999 (nearly US $18k), the real question is whether this modest commuter bike has a fighting chance in an increasingly competitive segment.
While Honda hasn’t released the full technical specs for the WN7 just yet, the company has revealed several key features that give us a glimpse of what to expect. The bike will be powered by a permanent magnet synchronous motor paired with a chain drive, offering a familiar mechanical setup for riders used to older combustion-engine motorcycles. Up front, riders will get a 5-inch color TFT display, and the bike will debut a newly developed Honda RoadSync app, which enables smartphone connectivity for navigation and communication. For added practicality, the WN7 includes a generous 20-liter underseat storage compartment, which should be a nice bonus for commuters looking to stash a helmet or daily essentials.
Honda estimates the WN7 will offer a range of over 130 km (83 miles) on a single charge, making it suited for daily commuting and city riding. It features a fixed lithium-ion battery and supports both home and rapid charging. Using a standard household outlet, riders can expect a full charge in under three hours, while a CCS2 rapid charger can top the battery up from 20% to 80% in just 30 minutes, adding flexibility for quick turnarounds during a busy day.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The WN7 is being marketed as a practical, everyday-use electric motorcycle targeting primarily younger riders in urban environments. Honda is also promising quiet operation, easy handling, and a new sound-emitting system to enhance pedestrian awareness, taking cues from current EV regulations in both automotive and two-wheeled segments.
Production is set to begin later this year at Honda’s Atessa plant in Italy, and the bike will be eligible for government EV subsidies in various European markets.
However, Honda hasn’t yet shared key specs like top speed, motor power, or battery capacity, all of which are vital to truly assessing how this electric bike stacks up in real-world use. But with the announced price of £12,999, it’s already clear that the bike won’t be price competitive against other commuter electric motorcycles in the market.
Electrek’s Take
Look, I’m excited to see Honda finally putting an actual electric motorcycle into production. This isn’t a concept or a lab experiment – it’s a real bike you’ll be able to buy. But with a price of £12,999 (approximately US $17,700) for what appears to be a commuter-level electric motorcycle, this thing might be dead on arrival.
Unless Honda is hiding some truly game-changing specs under the panels, this pricing just doesn’t make sense. Riders in the commuter category already have plenty of options ranging from electric scooters to motorcycles, with many models from smaller manufacturers offering comparable (or even better) range and speed for half the price.
Honda may be banking on brand loyalty, reliability, and build quality to justify the price, and maybe that will work for some buyers. But unless the WN7 delivers dramatically better specs than what’s currently been shown, most would-be EV riders are likely to look elsewhere.
This might be a huge milestone for Honda’s electrification roadmap, but it’s hard to call it a win for riders at this price point.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Uber Freight is launching a ‘Dedicated EV Fleet Accelerator Program’ in partnership with Tesla to lower the most significant barrier to electric Class 8 adoption: upfront cost.
The buyer program pairs purchase subsidies for Tesla Semis with pre‑arranged dedicated freight and route planning around Tesla’s Semi Charger network, which is currently being deployed in the US.
As the name implies, the Dedicated EV Fleet Accelerator Program aims to accelerate the deployment of electric vehicles in Uber Freight fleets.
Here’s how Uber aims to achieve that from the press release:
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Subsidized Price: Fleets purchasing Tesla Semis through this program will receive a subsidy on the purchase price.
Predictable Growth: Fleets will integrate their Tesla Semis into Uber Freight’s dedicated solutions for shippers for a pre-determined period. This creates an opportunity for carriers to forecast revenue with confidence, while shippers gain consistent access to reliable, zero-emission capacity.
Optimize Utilization: Uber Freight taps into its extensive freight network to match carriers with consistent, high-quality freight from our strong shipper base—helping ensure the addition of these Tesla Semis stay fully utilized and carriers see dedicated, real, measurable returns from the start.
Uber actually had a similar partnership with Tesla for its passenger vehicles in Uber’s ride-hailing fleet. Uber drivers were offered discounts on Tesla vehicles and Tesla integrated Uber’s app in its system to work with the car’s navigation and only suggest rides within the vehicle’s current range.
Now, Uber Freight will integrate its software on Tesla Semi trucks and help truckers get routes that work with the electric trucks and its
There are still many unknowns about the program. Primarily, we don’t know how much Uber and Tesla are subsidizing the trucks.
We don’t even have the price of the Tesla Semi.
Tesla originally announced a price of $150,000 for the 300-mile version of the Tesla Semi and $180,000 for the 500-mile version, but this was in 2017, when the electric truck was initially unveiled.
The vehicle program has been delayed several times since and Tesla never updated the price publicly since.
Now Uber Freight says that Tesla will review the total cost of ownership with potential fleet buyers through its new program.
Tesla Semi is now expected to enter volume production in 2026.
The automaker is also starting to deploy its Megacharger stations, EV fast-charging stations designed for commercial electric vehicles, such as the Tesla Semi.
This is cool. We don’t know the exact size of the subsidy, but it is a significant development that Uber Freight is offering more job opportunities for those who own an electric truck.
It should encourage more fleet managers to accelerate their fleet transition to electric vehicles.
The sticker price is often a significant barrier to EV adoption, even though the total cost of ownership is often cheaper than that of internal combustion engine vehicles. However, for truckers, the total cost of ownership is much more important since it is their business.
However, everything suggests that the Tesla Semi will cost closer to $300,000 than $150,000, and therefore, every consideration is important when making such a large purchase.
Interestingly, this new partnership coincides with Rebecca Tinucci’s recent appointment as CEO of Uber Freight.
Tesla has agreed to settle another wrongful death lawsuit from a fatal crash involving Autopilot before the case could get to trial later this year.
It’s one of many lawsuits involving several crashes involving Tesla’s advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised), after the floodgates were open following a watershed trial.
Over the last few years, Tesla vehicles have been involved in numerous accidents involving the automaker’s advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS): Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised), better known as ‘FSD’.
Despite the names of those feature packages, they are not considered automated driving systems. They are Level 2 driver assistance systems and require the driver’s attention at all times.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Drivers and victims involved in those crashes have often sued Tesla, but the automaker has managed to have the cases dismissed, placing most of the blame on the drivers.
However, things started to change over the last year.
For the first time, a case went to trial before a jury, and they decided to assign a third of the blame for the crash to Tesla for the role Autopilot played. The rest of the blame was assigned to the driver, who had already settled with the victims and their families before the Tesla trial began.
The jury awarded the plaintiffs $243 million. The automaker has made clear its intentions to appeal the verdict.
Before the trial, the plaintiffs offered Tesla to settle for $60 million, and the company refused.
The trial process cost them much more.
The jury didn’t buy Tesla’s usual argument that it couldn’t be blamed because it clearly informs the driver that they are always responsible for the vehicle. The plaintiffs’ lawyers successfully argued that Tesla was careless in the way it deployed Autopilot, without implementing geofencing and marketing it to customers in a manner that encouraged the abuse of the system.
There are dozens of additional lawsuits against Tesla involving incidents with Autopilot and FSD, and they are all riding on the verdict as well as all the information that came from the trial.
The same lawyers and law firms that represented the plaintiffs in the trial in Florida are also representing victims and the families in those other lawsuits.
Brett Schreiber, the lead attorney in the Florida case, is also leading Maldonado v. Tesla, another wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla involving its Autopilot feature. The case was set to go to trial in the Alameda State Superior Court by the end of the year.
The case involves a Tesla vehicle on Autopilot that hit a pickup truck on the highway, killing fifteen-year-old Jovani Maldonado, who was a passenger in the pickup truck. His father was driving him back home from a soccer game.
In a new court filing, Tesla and the plaintiffs have requested that the court approve a settlement that the two parties have reportedly agreed upon.
The settlement is confidential.
Electrek’s Take
Like I said, the floodgates are open. We are now starting to see the crashes that occurred in 2018 and 2019 being addressed in court.
This is just the beginning.
Crashes on Autopilot and then FSD have greatly ramped up starting in 2020-2021 with greater delivery volumes and Tesla launching FSD Beta.
I hope that more cases reach trial, as we do learn a lot more about Tesla and its deployment of driver assistance systems through them.
But with how the first one went, I am sure the automaker is much more eager to settle those cases.
However, can it just keep doing that?
There have already been over 50 deaths related to crashes involving Tesla Autopilot or FSD.
As morbid as it sounds, if the going rate for a Tesla Autopilot-related death is around $50 million, that’s already more than $2.5 billion and growing.
This is nuts. Will this continue to happen?
More people die in crashes involving Tesla’s half-baked ADAS products. Tesla continues to compensate the victims and their families with millions each time, essentially using the money it earns from selling the dream of those half-baked ADAS features eventually leading to real autonomy.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.