Ineptitude on the EV bashing front.

 This article wins the award for the worst article I've read this year.

Before I even bother with the general soundness of any individual arguments, I need to point out that the title implies that it would be better for the environment if the person driving the Tesla chose to drove a gas guzzling SUV and then almost immediately admits in the article that EVs are better for the environment.

In fact, the whole argument of the article is actually that your wealth dictates your carbon footprint more than what you drive. 

So, the title of the article is a lie. While wealth may be a bigger indicator of carbon emissions, if two people with the same amount of wealth used it the same aside from their choice of vehicle, then the one who drove an EV would contribute less to global warming. Period.

While the super wealthy undeniably do contribute more to global warming than the super poor. The image of the "typical Tesla owner" as being that wealthy is inaccurate and misleading. As Tesla releases increasingly more lower cost models and as other entrants in the EV market also drive down prices, Tesla and other EV owners are increasingly more just upper-middle class or even just middle class. And in this range, the wealth vs. pollution argument isn't so clear cut. In most cases, these ARE leading to decreases in carbon output per capita.

Today, the most popular Tesla models are the Model 3 and Model Y. The cost of these cars is right around the average price people are paying for cars. If the "average Tesla driver" were truly a member of even the moderately rich, you would expect the most popular models to be the Model S or Model X.

The "image" of the "average Tesla driver" remains unchanged. But, perception is not truth.

The worst part however is that it wouldn't even be relevant if it were true. Because it doesn't change the fact that EVs DO cut emissions. Even if only the super rich could afford them at present, having them cut their emissions would be a good thing. Having them invest their wealth in green industries would also be a good thing for the future. 

In fact, that is LITERALLY the model Tesla employs. They started with a very expensive electric sports car and used the revenue to fund increasingly larger scale production and increasingly lower cost models. The fact that any Tesla costing under $75k exists is proof that the model works to at least some degree. We still need to see if it can drive costs down to the $30k Musk envisioned. But, even the current Model 3 is technically in range of what the average car buyer spends. 

Carbon emission keep rising despite gains in efficiency for another reason; growth. Populations grow. If you cut emissions per capita by 10% but grow the population by 20% then your overall emissions will still increase. 

The argument that technology won't reduce our emissions is misguided. Not only CAN it reduce our emissions. It IS reducing them. There is this fallacy which many seem to believe; that simply because it didn't happen overnight that it can't or won't happen. It is already HAPPENING. And it will take time for the gains in efficient to overtake the gain in growth. But, the fact that the increases are slowing down in spite of gains in growth says that it is working.