
Singapore Says Musk's Electric Cars Are About 'Lifestyle,' Not Climate - yoelo
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-21/singapore-says-musk-s-vision-promotes-lifestyle-not-climate
======
apo
> “What Elon Musk wants to produce is a lifestyle,” Zulkifli said Wednesday
> when asked about the entrepreneur’s comments. “We are not interested in a
> lifestyle. We are interested in proper solutions that will address climate
> problems.”

Electric cars are poor, even counterproductive stand-ins for long term
solutions such as public transportation and the elimination of the suburban
commuter lifestyle. They hide a multitude of externalities forced on the
public and not paid for directly by owners or manufacturers.

Climate change aside, it's not hard to imagine a country as densely populated
as Singapore opposing electric cars.

~~~
izacus
> Electric cars are poor, even counterproductive stand-ins for long term
> solutions such as public transportation and the elimination of the suburban
> commuter lifestyle. They hide a multitude of externalities forced on the
> public and not paid for directly by owners or manufacturers.

Sure, but that's the solution you get from people who've never really
experienced a well designed public transportation system. It's essentially a
"faster horse" solution to traffic pollution issue which doesn't address the
reasons behind the insane amount of tarmac space in modern US cities.

~~~
lonelappde
People aren't dumb. Building a city requires decades of coordinated action by
thousands to millions of people, and it only works if rich people volunteer or
are coerced to give up the disproportionate amount of real estate they enjoy,
and no one gets a luxurious amount of space. It's not a matter of individuals
seeing the light.

~~~
timerol
It's also a matter of the government allowing a city to be built. This sounds
trivial, but is actually the biggest component to the lack of affordability in
SF and NYC.

There are places where a lot of people want to live, but the gov't is actively
preventing housing being built there. Instead of allowing the next increment
of development (SFH -> missing middle -> mid-rise apartment buildings -> high
rise apartment buildings), many US cities do their best to block development
wherever possible. The only developments that can make it through the process
are 1) huge, 2) well-backed by capital, and 3) hugely profitable.

We need less Hudson Yards, and more of
[https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1163863367439802369](https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1163863367439802369)

------
dragonsh
In Singapore they have monopoly on car servicing and distribution. C&C takes
care of Benz and Performance motor for BMW. Then Japanese and Korean cars are
also by single distributor entities. They control the price and the market.

Also Oil and Gas is core industry for Singapore economy. So when anyone fills
gas it helps government revenues and generate jobs. Climate is not the primary
concern given the small footprint of Singapore.

Also if Tesla comes in Singapore as it is perfect place for its range BMW,
Benz which are the primary brands will suffer heavily. Also thousands of jobs
repairing gasoline engine, oils, filters will be lost. Since electrical car do
not have as many mechanical moving parts as traditional gasoline car it will
reduce maintenance costs and car servicing and parts related business.

So Singapore won't let Tesla setup up easily. It will be taxed higher than
other electrical car companies which works on fringes and do not threaten the
oil and gas related automobile jobs and taxes.

~~~
agent008t
>Climate is not the primary concern given the small footprint of Singapore.

I would have thought that given its geographical location, climate would in
fact be a primary concern of Singapore. So why is it not? One could hardly
accuse Singaporean government of short-sightedness.

~~~
input_sh
> ...climate would in fact be a primary concern of Singapore. So why is it
> not?

Literally the second sentence in an article that was submitted:

> The city-state, which has said its efforts to cope with climate change are
> as crucial as military defense, has prioritized greater use of its trains
> and buses, Masagos Zulkifli, minister for environment and water resources,
> said in an interview Wednesday.

~~~
agent008t
But climate change is global, not local. So it would seem that worldwide
adoption of electric cars would be in Singapore's national interest, assuming
they genuinely see an existential threat to Singapore from climate change.

And yet, they make statements like this which seem counterproductive. So, why?

~~~
SuoDuanDao
I would guess Singapore wants to encourage a local electric vehicle industry
and will shelter it from competition in the early years.

~~~
k3nt0456
No. Singapore is a tiny city state with a service based economy

~~~
thinkcontext
Dyson is setting up an EV plant in Singapore.

------
pornel
They're not wrong. Buses, trains and cycling don't have the appeal of a sporty
private car, but in a dense city they're much much more efficient.

~~~
einpoklum
About the appeal - it depends on your cultural background. Here are some other
ways people from different backgrounds think about this (not necessarily
consistent with each other):

* A private car is bulky and noisy, bicycles and pedestrians aren't. * Lazy people drive in cars, healthy people walk or cycle. * A private car removes you from society, while using public transport/walking puts you with a group of peers, and cycling is a bit more singular but you're still surrounded by your peers with no physical barrier. So using a private car is somewhat disdainful towards the rest of society. * A car is either a truck for people who need it to move things around, or if its a private car - it's probably some young man wasting his money to feel macho.

~~~
rootusrootus
Do people who don't own or have interest in owning a car really get that upset
about other people's choices? The way you've worded those makes it sounds like
they're feeling pretty judgemental.

~~~
baby
I live in SF, previously Chicago, and I'm annoyed everyday at:

* I have to cross large streets that have been built for cars all the time

* Public transport sucks

* The city is against other modes of transportation like kick scooters and people comolain about how much space they take when you have large cars parked everywhere

* Because people move in cars, no area is really densed. Restaurants and bars are miles apart.

* Because few people take the bus, there are all sorts of crazies there. I took the bus twice when I moved here and almost got beatten up the first time, witnessed someone getting mugged the second time. I'll never take the bus again here.

* When I'm in the shuttle, and the traffic is freaking slow, I look outside the window and see one person per car. Why don't more people take shuttles instead of taking so much space on the road? Well there is no public transport.

* Noise, noise, noise

* The roads are all broken. Shuttle rides are uber bumpy.

~~~
tathougies
I think this is nuts. I lived in san Francisco for many years and the entire
city is accessible by public tranit. The city is even building more like the
new subway line.

And Chicago takes the cake for crazies on buses. Ive never felt so unsafe on a
bus as Chicago.

Id rank san Francisco's situation on par with londons core urban areas. Maybe
you're also including the surrounding burbs?

~~~
viklove
Which line were you on? I take a bus to work every day in Chicago, and I've
felt unsafe maybe once or twice. Definitely felt way less safe walking through
downtown SF with the homeless population heckling me for my soda.

Chicago's public transit ranks _much, much_ higher than SF's. The fact that
you compared it to London shows just how conceited you are.

~~~
tathougies
> conceited

I don't think that's quite the word you're looking for.

We took the bus from downtown to UChicago. The express was fine, but on the
way back on the regular, going through south side. It was way worse than SF.

That being said, the commuter buses in Chicago and the L were basically as
nice as any other respectable public transit option.

> The fact that you compared it to London

In both cities I have lived near the downtown core. In both cities I was able
to get mostly where I wanted to go in under an hour, within and immediately
surrounding the city. SF is moderately better in that, within an hour and a
half on public transit I can not only visit the city, but also wilderness in
Marin county.

> Chicago's public transit ranks much, much higher than SF's

I don't buy most 'rankings'. Portland, where I live now, is supposed to have
one of the best transit systems on the west coast. We're looking for
neighborhoods to live in. From one neighborhood six miles from downtown, it
would take me one hour by bus to reach the city. In SF, I have lived in the
city, but I've also lived in Silicon Valley (~ 40 miles away, but still only
an hour to SF via Caltrain), and in Marin (~15 miles away in San Rafael, but
still only an hour to the city). Still, Portland for some reason is ranked
higher. Portland is about on par with Los Angeles. The system is slow.
Something is wrong with most rankings IMO.

But what would I know, I'm just some guy who's lived in a bunch of cities, and
never commuted by car to work, ever.

~~~
viklove
Just wanted to chime in and let you know _conceited_ was precisely the word I
was looking for. You sound excessively proud of your city (SF) to a fault.

------
davnicwil
Isn't that the commonly understood strategy of Tesla?

You can't start with the environmental benefits as the main selling point, it
has to be a good car. Especially when Tesla started, the base cost of EV tech
was extremely high, so the only market-competitive 'good' car you could build
on top of it was a luxury car focused on optimising performance, comfort,
brand, etc, with a very high price tag.

Obviously as the price of the base tech falls, a mass market car will emerge
that's actually good, and sells, bringing the environmental benefits along
with it not as a primary thing but a secondary one. That's the way it has to
work (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective). Also seems
that's exactly what Tesla is doing, I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

~~~
PeterStuer
Any 'mass market car' can by definition not be good for the
climate/environment. Cars, whether electric or other, are unsustainable.

~~~
mensetmanusman
That is false in the case where the mass market dramatically improves global
supply chains for batteries/storage. When the world has low cost batteries,
solar energy will dominate due to the fact it is approaching order of
magnitude lower $/kW costs than extraction fuels.

~~~
irishloop
All of these cars use precious metals and resources which come from (probably)
China who pollutes like hell to get them so who knows what the long-term
ramifications are.

~~~
ecpottinger
What precious metal in a BEV?

~~~
McWobbleston
Cobalt

~~~
scruple
The largest export of the DRC. [0]

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_industry_of_the_Democra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_industry_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo)

------
Reason077
> _" it would be difficult to develop adequate charging stations with 85% of
> the population living in high-density, government-supported housing."_

This is a common fallacy. If there is already somewhere to park the car, then
you already have somewhere to install charging. In a highly developed city
like Singapore, the electric grid already extends almost everywhere.

> _" hydrogen is a better long-term solution than electric vehicles for
> decarbonizing transportation, in part because of the carbon footprint from
> mining the metals needed to produce car batteries and the issues around
> their eventual disposal."_

Batteries aren't free, but neither are electrolizers and fuel cells (limited
life span, large quantities of platinum and rare earth metals needed for
catalysts, etc). The lifecycle efficiency of battery electric vehicles is much
better than for hydrogen fuel cells, and the infrastructure requirements are
much more managable.

~~~
Dumblydorr
Batteries will get greener over time. Their main components, lithium,
steel,aluminum, carbon, water, these are not dirty materials. Cobalt and other
rare metals, yes those must be minimized, which may be why Tesla bought
Maxwell which has non cobalt cathode tech, and which has supercapacitor tech
that may supplement the battery. In short, EVs will get cleaner over time,
let's not throw them out or slow adoption. We desperately need a cleaner
atmosphere and they will somewhat help with that by replacing ICEs.

------
simisimiailah
Singapore has always been super anti personal vehicle... they have a big
excise tax on personal vehicles. Far removed from the context of America where
everyone has a car

------
smiley1437
Any time you see an article promoting hydrogen as fuel, be suspicious - it's
likely being promoted by the oil industry.

As of 2000, 95% of hydrogen production is sourced from 'steam reforming',
basically breaking off hydrogen gas from fossil fuels:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Steam_reforming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Steam_reforming)

Sure, everyone knows you can get hydrogen from nice clean electrolysis but
it's not nearly as cheap (energetically) as getting it from fossil fuels.

Anyways, the oil industry would be relatively happy to a move to hydrogen so
they could continue being the primary suppler of fuel.

------
Neil44
It seems his thoughts apply to any EV's not just Tesla's, but invoking Elon's
name in there gives the statement media wings.

~~~
input_sh
Maybe that's because Elon directly criticized Singapore's government a few
months ago?

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1080829741056159744](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1080829741056159744)

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1080888452256657408](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1080888452256657408)

~~~
martythemaniak
"Singapore has enough area to switch to solar/battery & be energy-independent"

How does something so mild get labeled as criticism?

------
sempron64
Accessibility and empowerment are important to liberal society. The fact is
that there is high demand for motor vehicles even in large municipalities for
children/families, the disabled, the elderly, or anyone moving large packages.
This is a plurality of the populace, even in urban centers. Banning cars in
favor of public transit will greatly reduce their mobility and their voice in
society. Electric cars are a great way of serving this demand with a much
smaller local and global environmental impact. The fact that the wealthy also
enjoy the comfort of private vehicles doesn't make them immoral.

Certainly we can use fewer, greener parking lots. Certainly we can use better
public transport. Certainly the _majority_ of transit in Asian and European
metros is public, and should be in America. But a plurality of transit even in
the densest hubs is private. There are plenty of cars, and there is plenty of
real need for them.

Condemning cars is reductionist and elitist, and at the risk of an ad-hominem
attack, usually advocated by those who can afford expensive taxis when they
need them, and don't often need them since they are young and single.

Maybe the dynamics will change with self-driving vehicles whose hiring will be
more economical than ownership. But that is so far not a practical short- or
medium-term reality.

------
Digit-Al
I found the last paragraph particularly interesting. I have a friend who is a
real car enthusiast; he owns several classic cars which he maintains himself
and takes to car shows. A few weeks ago he said that he believed that hydrogen
fuel cells were the future, not electric cars.

I don't know enough about hfc's to have an opinion but I followed the link
they gave and it looks like they could still be a way off in terms of
practicality.

Anyone here have an informed opinion they'd be willing to share?

~~~
clouddrover
Fuel cell cars exist and you can buy them. Examples:

\- Hyundai Nexo:
[https://www.hyundaiusa.com/nexo/index.aspx](https://www.hyundaiusa.com/nexo/index.aspx)

\- Toyota Mirai:
[https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/fcv.html](https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/fcv.html)

\- Honda Clarity: [https://automobiles.honda.com/clarity-fuel-
cell](https://automobiles.honda.com/clarity-fuel-cell)

\- Lexus LS next year: [https://www.motor1.com/news/362598/lexus-ls-fuel-cell-
spied/](https://www.motor1.com/news/362598/lexus-ls-fuel-cell-spied/)

They're practical realities today. They have fast fueling with good range.

~~~
eigenloss
In California. They are completely unfuelable elsewhere!

~~~
clouddrover
They can be refueled in

\- South Korea: [http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/south-
korea/](http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/south-korea/)

\- Japan: [http://hydrogen-navi.jp/en/index.html](http://hydrogen-
navi.jp/en/index.html)

\- China: [https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-06-07/chinas-largest-
hydro...](https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-06-07/chinas-largest-hydrogen-
fueling-station-opens-in-shanghai-101424532.html)

\- Europe: [https://h2.live/en](https://h2.live/en)

------
s_Hogg
I really love the pragmatism of the Singaporean Government sometimes. Other
countries are nowhere near as pushed for resources and consequently don't do
anywhere near as good a job as them of facing big, gnarly problems like this.
Kind of a pity, really.

~~~
asdff
If you smoke weed they throw you in jail and beat you.

~~~
s_Hogg
I'm aware of that. I was talking about their pragmatic streak that enables
actually doing something about climate change, rather than their authoritarian
one that thinks corporal punishment is fine.

------
ulfw
I'll just leave this here to add a bit more background:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_industry_in_Singapore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_industry_in_Singapore)

~~~
coldtea
Not really relevant.

Singapore itself has huge financial disincentives to car ownership to begin
with, they actively discourage it with huge fines. That's for gas using cars,
and has been the case since decades.

It's also not that they worried that the insignificant market share of Tesla
globally would live them without international buyers for their oil (which is
a mere 5% of their much diverse economy). Besides, the dispute with Musk was
over domestic use.

They are truly against cars, and in favor of buses and subway (which are both
excellent in Singapore, which is also quite bike friendly).

------
lota-putty
Bicycling to work everyday is about Climate.

Edit: [http://www.globalstewards.org/reduce-carbon-
footprint.htm](http://www.globalstewards.org/reduce-carbon-footprint.htm)

~~~
C1sc0cat
In Singapore :-) you do know what sort of climate they have there.

One of my co-workers went out there (on a full ride expat job) and had to give
it up as the climate affected his asthma to much.

------
brosinante
Well, he ain't wrong. Nothing like a 35k base cost to show off that sweet
startup money.

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
In Singapore, a Toyota Corolla costs you around $100k. (Seriously.) A parallel
import Tesla S via Hong Kong is over $400k.

[https://mothership.sg/2018/06/tesla-cars-for-sale-
singapore-...](https://mothership.sg/2018/06/tesla-cars-for-sale-singapore-
price/)

------
mensetmanusman
Singapore is in an interesting position, because anything they do to mitigate
air pollution pales in comparison to the Malaysian fires that annually fill
their air. It’s hopeless until the situation with their geographical neighbors
change.

------
somesortofsystm
Electric cars may be a lifestyle, but electric mopeds are a solution. They
reduce congestion, consume far less energy per mile traveled, and are
generally a greater way to get around the city - especially if you join a club
and share the devices among a group of people who are interested in
maintaining them and using them effectively.

So, all Tesla really needs to do is make an e-moped. I'd sign up immediately -
I love my Unu, but it needs a bit of the Tesla flair...

------
raaaaraaaa2
if you have 'clean' electricity mix e.g. France (dominant nuclear), Norway
(dominant hydro) then I consider electric car as 'ecologic' (after few years
lower CO2 than conventional car).

For other places around the world where electricity is more 'dirty' just drive
some small car with combustion engine and maintain it as long as possible.
Small car needs less energy for transport then heavy electric vehicles.

~~~
maeln
Just the battery production can take 2-4 years to offset compare to a gasoline
car[1]. Then you also have to take into account that battery have to be
replaced regularly and the overall production of the car pollution.

It would be more ecological friendly to just use you gasoline car until it die
and then only make the switch to electric. And even then, buying a used car
and also running it until it dies might still be more ecological.

The technology will get better, on production level and on the car level. But
right now, its very far from a clear cut to say if electric car are more
'green' than gazoline car (that are already produced).

Overall, the main issue is personal transportation. If you really want to be
ecological, you should use mass transportation (excluding planes for short
travel) whenever possible and use car sharing when you really need a personal
transportation. The idea of all having a car sitting idle 90% of the time is
fundamentally incompatible with ecology and electric car won't solve this.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_aspects_of_the_e...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_aspects_of_the_electric_car#Environmental_impact_of_manufacturing)

~~~
1122904369
Excerpt from the source parent cites [1]:

Full life cycle assessment (well-to-wheels) comparison of four different power
train technologies for _production_ and _usage_. It is unclear if the _usage_
value includes replacements and recycling. Values are in tonnes CO2
equivalent. Sorted from most to least CO2e consumed. Battery is second!

Standard gasoline engine: 5.6 + 24 = 29.6

Battery electric vehicle 8.8 + 19 = 27.8

Hybrid: 6,5 + 21 = 27.5

Plug-In Hybrid 6.7 + 19 = 25.7

edit: formatting

------
RickJWagner
Yeah, there's some truth in that.

The newest Chevy Bolt has more range than a base Tesla, btw. Progress moves
on.

------
mensetmanusman
I would love to visit a city that is only populated by e-busses and EVs.

Why? To listen...

------
bazooka_penguin
It's about life styling over the peasants who cant afford a Tesla

------
stunt
Singapore is in a unique position. It makes sense that they have public
transport as the number one priority.

------
freewizard
The debate should be public transportation vs cars for those mega cities, not
against Tesla.

------
wayanon
Electric will make a huge difference when it takes diesel engines off the
roads.

------
ggm
If SG moved directly to EV share cars, and did some structural planning around
them, We really would be living in the future. The french can keep jetpacks, I
want a land based transport system which keeps roads as public utility value.

~~~
navaati
> The french can keep jetpacks

That looks funny, care to explain ?

~~~
kryptiskt
He probably means Franky Zapata's flyboard: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-49225001](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49225001)

~~~
navaati
Hahaha that's great, thank you :)

------
xiaodai
In Singapore, every car is about Lifestyle and status.

------
ptah
also
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/22/electric_vehicles_w...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/08/22/electric_vehicles_wont_help_carbon_emissions_target_say_mps/)

------
jordanbeiber
Just thinking about the headline.

Turning EVs into a rich persons lifestyle is a good way to start a boom down
the line.

The rich people will often be positioned to put pressure on politics and
businesses as well, and they want to be able to charge their shiny toy, right?

Suddenly everyone wants a big screen in an EV cause’ it’s cool; ”Oh, look at
this rich, happy dude in his awesome toy on insta!”

Queue really, really cheap long range model 3... _cough_

Changing an already put in place lifestyle where needed (US? Europe). I
personally can’t tell yet if EV is the way to go, but at least it’s something.
Musk is obviously convinced.

So, what I’m saying is that Elon might very well be going for
climate/environment, not to say there’s better ways. Awesome public transit
for example.

~~~
dagw
_Queue really, really cheap long range model 3_

Let's not exaggerate. We might not be talking Ferrari money, but we're still
talking BMW money as opposed to Hyundai money.

~~~
rootusrootus
I'm not much of a Model 3 fan, but the 35K model is definitely not BMW money.
Factoring in lower fuel costs, it's cheaper than an average new car.

~~~
dagw
The long range model 3 is $48k, and well over $50k if you want all the fancy
autopilot software extras.

~~~
rootusrootus
Well sure, you can option many cars up to absurd prices. You can also buy a
basic $35K Model 3 if that is all you want.

~~~
dagw
But we were specifically talking about the long range version.

------
clouddrover
> _“What Elon Musk wants to produce is a lifestyle,” Zulkifli said Wednesday
> when asked about the entrepreneur’s comments._

It sounds more like he wants to turn Tesla into a taxi service:

[https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/22/tesla-plans-to-launch-a-
ro...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/22/tesla-plans-to-launch-a-robotaxi-
network-in-2020/)

