News
Elon Musk walks the walk by consuming far less carbon than other billionaires
Elon Musk may be trading places with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos these days for the title of the world’s richest person by net worth, but the Tesla and SpaceX CEO also holds a unique place among his fellow billionaires. Based on estimates from anthropologists from Indiana University, Elon Musk may very well be one of the billionaires with the smallest carbon footprint.
Critics of Elon Musk would argue that the Tesla and SpaceX CEO’s carbon footprint is excessive due to his frequent travels with his private jet. However, Richard Wilk, the director of the Open Anthropology Institute at Indiana University, and Beatriz Barros, a Ph.D. candidate in anthropology at Indiana University, noted in an analysis that Musk’s carbon footprint is actually quite small relative to his fellow billionaires. This is because, unlike other billionaires, Musk owns no luxury superyachts or custom-made, sprawling mansions.
Wilk and Barros opted to analyze a number of billionaires from the 2020 Forbes List, particularly those whose consumption is public knowledge. This excluded a good number of the super-rich in Asia and the Middle-East, but it still provided a good sample of billionaires from across the globe. To estimate each billionaire’s carbon footprint, the anthropologists used data from the US Energy Information Administration and Carbon Footprint. Together with some extensive research, this allowed the pair to estimate the annual CO2 emissions of each house, aircraft, yacht, and vehicle publicly declared by each billionaire.
On average, US residents pollute about 15 tons of CO2 per year as of 2018, though the average global footprint per person is smaller at just about 5 tons annually. The 20 billionaires who were included in the study, for their part, contributed an average of 8,190 tons of CO2 in 2018. But even among this list, some billionaires polluted significantly more than others. And as it turned out, those who owned massive luxury yachts tend to consume significantly more than those who did not.
Roman Abramovich, the owner of London’s Chelsea Football Club and a man who made most of his $19 billion fortune trading oil and gas, proved to be the biggest polluter in the anthropologists’ list with at least 33,859 metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2018. This is due in no small part to his luxury superyacht, the Eclipse, which at 162.5 meters bow to stern is practically a small, private cruise ship. He also travels across the globe in a custom-designed Boeing 767 with a 30-seat dining room, as well as his Gulfstream G650 jet. Abramovich also uses two helicopters and a submarine on his yacht. On top of this, the oil and gas magnate boasts several properties, such as a 28-hectare estate in St. Barts that once belonged to David Rockefeller.
Bill Gates, a huge advocate for sustainability, consumes far less carbon than Abramovich, but his emissions still tower over those of Elon Musk. Gates maintains a $127 million estate in Medina, Washington named Xanadu, which covers 6,131 square meters and amenities like a 23-car garage, a 20-person cinema, and 24 bathrooms. Gates also owns a horse farm, four private jets, a seaplane, and several helicopters. The anthropologists estimate that Gates’ annual carbon footprint stands at 7,493 tons, mostly due to his flying.
For his part, Elon Musk owns no yachts, and the CEO has noted that he does not take many vacations. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO was estimated to have a rather billionaire-modest carbon footprint of 2,084 tons in 2018, which was hundreds of times higher than the average American but significantly smaller than his fellow billionaires. Interestingly enough, Musk’s carbon footprint may have also gotten considerably lower as of late, considering that he sold all of his houses in 2020 and he promised to divest his worldly possessions. Ultimately, Musk, who is currently worth about $190 billion or ten times that of billionaires like Abramovich, proves that even the super-rich can make choices to ensure that they live as sustainably as possible.
Read Wilk and Barros’ analysis of billionaires’ carbon footprint here.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
