News
European Investment Bank set to vote on a major fossil fuel lending policy
The European Investment Bank (EIB), the world’s largest international public lending institution, will meet on October 15 to determine whether or not they should continue to fund oil and gas companies with billions of dollars. A potential cut in funding would mean a huge victory for eco-friendly groups, as it would bring an end to direct financial support from the EIB to the main contributors to the climate crisis: oil and gas companies.
European countries and citizens have made it clear that they understand the severity and urgency of climate-based issues, with eight countries in the EU already proposing bills and laws that would begin the phase-out of petrol-powered vehicles. The sale of these cars influences a negative environmental response in a direct manner, as emissions from internal combustion engines hurt the overall quality of the environment. As protests and marches that bring to light the issues of climate change have become more popular and frequent, citizens are doing their part as human beings to increase awareness of the ever-growing issues that fossil fuels provide to the Earth.
In Europe, EIB holds the key to beginning a new era of eco-friendly investing. Bill McKibben, an author, and Schumann Distinguished Scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College, Vermont, stated that on October 15, the EIB will meet to discuss whether they will continue to fund projects that assist in the growth of the fossil-fuel industry. This meeting could be Europe’s next big step in the war against fossil-fuels.
In 2018, the bank supplied companies in the gas and oil sector with €2.4 billion for projects. If the EIB decides to begin pulling funding from petroleum-based projects, it could pave the way for eco-friendly options to receive financial backing. The EIB’s staff has proposed an end to providing gas and oil companies with funding, a project that would go into effect in 2020. However, resistance is expected to be encountered by governments who still believe in the use of fossil fuels: Germany and Italy to name a couple.
Climate activists know that the first steps in beginning the phase-out period for the use of pollution-inducing petroleum projects is to cut funding. Without money, projects cannot flourish. A key factor in fighting the fossil-fuel sector is to stop funding projects that do not help our environment. With ocean levels rising and global temperatures reaching all-time highs, the time to act is now.
-->In the U.S., the climate movement is alive and well, but the issue is navigating the government away from projects that involve gas and oil companies. With the country’s current political climate, there seems to be little hope that climate activists will be able to make any significant changes before the 2020 election. But that doesn’t mean that companies and organizations are not making efforts to initiate a “greener” future. In September 2019, the University of California scrapped an $80 billion endowment for stocks that would support fossil fuels.
Whether looking at the world from a transportation or energy stance, it is clear that the future is electric. Oil and gas are becoming less and less convenient, especially for 800,000 homeowners in California’s Bay Area after Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) shut off power in an attempt to reduce the possibility of forest fires at the beginning of the windy Autumn season. Tesla CEO Elon Musk made every attempt to help alleviate some of the inconveniences for those who are still without power by offering a discount on the installation of solar and battery systems for residences. In addition, Musk announced that Tesla owners would be able to charge their vehicles with the help of Tesla Powerpacks that will be installed to Supercharger stations within the affected region.
The next few years will be a crucial time for the Earth, as scientists have suggested that a significant amount of effort is needed to fight the global climate crisis. The United Nations’ leading climate scientists have warned that we have 12 years to begin fighting climate issues seriously, or there could be major consequences. Generations to come will have an unlimited amount of issues to fight, such as water and food shortages if action is not taken soon. But the question that remains is this: Can we afford to test this theory? Scientists could be wrong in the estimations, but can humans take the chance?
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
-->It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
-->The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
-->News
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.
Model 3 Standard lands in NL
The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.
Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers.
Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.
-->Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts
At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.
The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.
With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.
News
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Tesla Model Y led China’s top-selling pure electric vehicles in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment through October 2025, as per Yiche data compiled from China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) figures.
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Model Y is still unrivaled
The Model Y’s dominance shines in Yiche’s October report, topping the chart for vehicles priced between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB. With 312,331 units retailed from January through October, the all-electric crossover was China’s best-selling EV in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment.
The Xiaomi SU7 is a strong challenger at No. 2 with 234,521 units, followed by the Tesla Model 3, which achieved 146,379 retail sales through October. The Model Y’s potentially biggest rival, the Xiaomi YU7, is currently at No. 4 with 80,855 retail units sold.
Efficiency kings
The Model 3 and Model Y recently claimed the top two spots in Autohome’s latest real-world energy-consumption test, outperforming a broad field of Chinese-market EVs under identical 120 km/h cruising conditions with 375 kg payload and fixed 24 °C cabin temperature. The Model 3 achieved 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y recorded 21.8 kWh/100 km, reaffirming Tesla’s efficiency lead.
The results drew immediate attention from Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun, who publicly recognized Tesla’s advantage while pledging continued refinement for his brand’s lineup.
-->“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
