News
Tesla’s Elon Musk strikes diplomatic note on climate change, oil and gas in podcast interview
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been outspoken on many issues over the years, and as the leader of the most successful electric car company in the world, it’s not surprising when his comments are aimed at skeptics of climate change and promoters of oil and gas industry expansions. That said, Musk is also quite aware of the nuances involved with industry that make things less binary than green energy advocates often frame them. In a recent podcast hosted by Kara Swisher called Sway, the serial entrepreneur took a more diplomatic tone than usual when discussing our planet’s future, fossil fuels, and the people involved in their production.
Swisher’s interview style is straightforward, and her opinions on matters under discussion are barely veiled. After a rocky start that prompted Musk to become a bit combative in his replies (“Sell your stock, I don’t care. What’s the point of this podcast?”), their discussion made its way to the emerging climate-focused market and steps being taken by governments both in the US and around the world. “I think these are all indications that the end of fossil fuel vehicle is nigh,” Musk replied in reference to his thoughts on California Governor Gavin Newsom’s latest executive order banning the sale of new fossil fuel vehicles by 2035.
Building further on that topic, the Tesla CEO also offered less-dire thoughts about where Earth is headed if the transition to sustainability is hindered. “I do not think this is actually the end of the world. I just think things get riskier,” Musk said after referencing the unprecedented growth of CO2 ppm currently in the atmosphere. “We need to think in terms that are not super binary… The actions that we take change the probability that the future will be good.” While his comments were somewhat positive, he still kept a realistic focus. “If you think of how civilizations have developed, we’ve put ourselves right on the edge of the water. If that water level rises even a little bit, you’ve got major problems.”
In yet another unusual diplomatic stroke, Musk also had sympathetic words for people who’ve worked in the oil and gas industry as a career. “Honestly, I feel a bit bad about hating on people in the oil and gas industry,” he admitted. “For a lot of people in the oil and gas industry, especially that are on the older side, they kind of built their companies and did their work before it was clear this was a serious issue… And now…people are kind of making them out to be villains when for the longest time they were just working hard to support the economy and didn’t really know it was gonna be all that bad.”
Swisher pointed out that it was odd for Musk to speak on behalf of the industry he’s been so tough on in the past, but Musk reminded her that his foray into electric cars was more about running out of oil vs. the dangers of burning it and releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere. In his early years, the Tesla chief wasn’t aware of the environmental impact of fossil fuels as much as understanding that running out of them would bring the collapse of civilization.
Musk’s diplomacy then made it all the way to the White House. “Arguably, he’s been as supportive as he can be on the electric car front, recognizing that a massive part of the Republican support is coming from oil and gas,” he noted in reference to US President Donald Trump after Swisher inquired about his political positions in the upcoming elections. After a further challenge from the podcast host over policies taken up by political parties, the CEO refrained from taking a hard-and-fast position. “If you’ve got a two-party system, then the problematic issues are gonna kind of fall somewhat randomly into one party or the other. Like, it’s not clear to me that there’s a cohesive set of reasoning why these things are in one party vs. another. They seem semi-random.”
The Sway episode touched on nearly every topic Musk is involved in – artificial intelligence, Neuralink, and SpaceX included. There was one other issue, though, that he had not-so-diplomatic words to offer. “The press coverage of [Battery Day] was sad. Most of the press takeaway was a sad reflection of their understanding, really,” he lamented. “I’m also not trying to convince people that much. The results will speak for themselves… We have had cars driving with those cells since May.”
You can listen to the full Sway podcast interview with Swisher and Musk here.
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.
The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.
There were no injuries reported.
🚨 A Tesla Semi reportedly caught fire, with California Highway Patrol confirming. The Semi was on I-880 SB
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.
However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.
@Tslachan From on of the videos looks like it’s an old Semi (not the refresh version that recently started production) https://t.co/KzwmR2kXow
— Area Under The Curve 🎗️ (@AreaUnderCurve) October 28, 2026
At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.
The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.
The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.
An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.
Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.
A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.
“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”
🚨 Here’s the first look at Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away function in action:
Apparently this driver accidentally enabled it and drove forward; you can see the Supercharger pull with the car.
Tesla said previously this would cost up to $25k if not used properly. https://t.co/B4qQRrsO6B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 28, 2026
Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.
Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.
Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:
- You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
- You must leave the area immediately.
- Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
- Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.
After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know
