Ford Motor Company’s 2020 Sustainability report outlines the legacy automaker’s plans to become carbon neutral by 2050. In an attempt to solidify itself as an environmentally-friendly car maker with a goal that would decrease its contribution to global climate issues, Ford chose a conservative route instead of a challenging one that would assist the transportation sector’s strong push toward sustainability.
Tesla’s road to environmentally-friendly transportation started well before Elon Musk’s 2006 draft that is known as the “Master Plan.” Musk knew that CO2 emissions were threatening lift on Earth and that a change needed to be made. Fourteen years later, Tesla sets on top of the automotive world as the leader in electromobility, and arguably could be recognized as the company that made legacy automakers rethink a business model centered around gas-powered machines that are harming the Earth and its atmosphere.
A company with a short, but rich history like Tesla realized the issue was here before the first Roadster even rolled off of the production lines. However, Ford, a company that recently celebrated its 117th birthday, does not seem to recognize the issues at hand, pushing a date for its sustainability goals that sits 30 years down the road.
https://twitter.com/Ford/status/1275820983299870722
In 2018, Ford sold the most vehicles on Earth with 2.38 million units, according to EVadoption.com. However, the company can only attribute .39% of its total sales to its electric cars, which at the time only accounted for the Ford Focus EV. Although the company is planning to introduce its Mustang Mach-E, an all-electric version of the F-150 pickup, and three other models within the next few years, it seems to be too little, but it’s not too late.
Ford’s first step in moving toward sustainability is to introduce a fully-electric fleet well before 2050. Thirty years is far too long as other automakers, like Volkswagen, are pumping in billions of dollars into plans that involve making a lineup of vehicles battery-powered and not combustion-driven. Ultimately, the effort relies on recognizing the problem that gas-powered transportation gives to the environment, and Ford has to realize that its goal is far too distant. Change is needed now.
It is not all bad, though. Ford does plan to use locally-sourced renewable energy for all manufacturing plants globally by 2035. This effort bodes well for the company’s mission, and will undoubtedly help Ford move toward carbon neutrality.
The question is: Where is the urgency? Several countries around the world have already announced their intentions to phase-out fossil fuels. Of the fourteen that have announced bans of gas-powered vehicles, only one has a goal of 2050: Costa Rica.
Many of the locations are considering 2025, 2030, or 2040 as the year when gasoline and diesel-powered machines will no longer be permitted. If Ford doesn’t adopt a quicker timeframe, it could spell trouble for the automaker in these locations, which include large, dense car markets like China, Germany, India, and Spain.
Electric vehicles are becoming more popular, and Tesla is leading the charge. The company has inspired many automakers to adopt its style with minimalism, and its goal with sustainability. Many companies have gotten on-board with the idea, setting lofty goals that will accelerate the shift from gas to batteries. However, Ford is treating its sustainability plan as a way to gain support from a growing community, and not as a way to decrease its carbon footprint promptly.
It’s an emergency, Ford, and it is time to start acting like it.
Ford Sustainability Report 2020 by Joey Klender on Scribd
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
