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.
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
