I Paid $1,000 for My Tesla to be Blue
By: Carbon Radio
Tags: Self Driving Cars, Future, Design, Sustainability, Cars

Ok, I don’t feel terrible, but I do feel convicted about paying $1,000 to make my new Tesla blue. If you are not aware, the Tesla Model 3 comes painted with the Pearl White Multi-coat, but if you pay $1,000 extra, you can get it painted Deep Blue Metallic. What this probably means is that all of the cars that Tesla manufactures come off the line with the Pearl White Multi-coat, and then as customers request the Deep Blue Metallic or another color option, they paint them accordingly. If that isn’t the case, then why would they charge $1,000 extra for Deep Blue Metallic?

As an aspiring environmentalist, buying a new car is already troublesome. If my goal is to reduce my carbon footprint to zero, then buying a brand new car of any kind is not a good start. The best thing I can do to zero my carbon footprint is reduce my commute to a bikeable distance, and then ride my vintage bicycle to work every day. That would be the best way to at least zero the carbon footprint associated with my commute.

Unfortunately, I’ve been raised to appreciate convenience, and I’ve been trained in the dark arts of consumerism. These are habits we are all trying to break. With the rise in remote work, it is possible that I could find a job where my commute is eliminated, but then what about all of the driving I do to other places. I suppose I could utilize Lyft as much as possible whenever my destinations are outside bikeable distance and outside the range of public transit.

On the other hand, if Tesla has taught the world anything, it is that we can in fact design and build products that have a symbiotic relationship with the planet.

No, that doesn’t sound right…

Perhaps symbiotic is not the right word, because symbiotic is generally defined as a relationship between two or more organisms that may or may not be beneficial to either. Perhaps complementary? Or mutually beneficial? Let’s just say Tesla has driven the rise of electric vehicles, and electric vehicles are far better for the environment than cars with internal combustion engines. Well, let’s not say far better for the environment. Instead, let’s say far less bad for the environment.

The general thesis of Tesla is that internal combustion engines are terrible for the environment, so let’s replace them with electric vehicles. But what about all the other materials in cars (like the Deep Blue Metallic paint)?

William McDonough and Ford Motor Company showed a Model U concept car in Detroit in 2003 that was designed with McDonough’s “cradle-to-cradle” framework. The cradle-to-cradle framework essentially addresses all of the materials associated with the products in our society. This seems like a logical next step for Tesla. They’ve designed a car that creates zero emissions while driving. Now they need to design a car that creates zero emissions in the entire life cycle.

This might seem unreasonable, but they are now operating at a scale where they can at least do carbon offsets in an efficient way. In addition to the carbon footprint, car manufacturers need to address the material waste associated with their cars.

There is a lot consumers can do to help. The answer is not to only buy one color of car. The answer is also not to stop buying cars all together. We should of course try to increase remote work and reduce the miles in our commutes. We should of course ride our vintage bicycles more. We should of course use public transit and ride sharing. But cars give us independence, autonomy, convenience, and range that those other options do not, and we shouldn’t feel bad about wanting that.

Consumers can signal to producers that they want more sustainable options. I can ask questions as I’m buying a car, and even after I’ve bought the car that will signal to Tesla and other car manufacturers what I’m looking for. I can write emails to Tesla and other car manufacturers and product designers. I can write a blog post about how I want to see and hear more about the sustainable design elements of the products I am considering buying. And then, when it comes time to make a decision between two products that are equal except for the sustainability of their materials, I, as the consumer, should pick the one with the sustainable materials. This isn’t perfect, and we’re not going to get it right every time.

There is of course also a role for governments to play in regulating what materials can be used, but, for the most part, the designers, producers, and manufacturers really have the most power to influence the impact of products on the environment. We can’t expect people to stop wanting color or new features or widgets in their cars. It is much easier to change the way enlightened designers think than to change the way the masses of consumers think. And really, if you want to change the way the masses think, then designing a didactic product would be a good strategy.

Didactic is such a good word. It means “designed to teach”. Imagine that. A car designed to teach. I don’t mean Teslas should come complete with the Khan Academy app installed. I mean Tesla should continue to do what they have already done. They’ve created electric vehicles that are teaching us about the viability and performance of electric vehicles (and all of the physics, technology, and economics associated with that). Now, let’s see if they can make Deep Blue Metallic equally didactic and sustainable.