News
Leading US Bank calls for renewed fossil fuel support as Tesla shifts industry to sustainables
The Annual World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland took place recently. The Forum is a great opportunity for the world’s leaders to combine their knowledge and ideas in a way that will make our world more efficient. At a time when sustainable solutions are emerging at an accelerated rate thanks to companies like Tesla, it was a chance for leaders across numerous industries to establish their stance on the climate debate.
A few big names were among the guests who were in attendance of the Davos meeting. U.S. President Donald Trump, Billionaire George Soros, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Environmentalist Greta Thunberg are few notable names who were present.
During the event, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan suggested that oil companies need support now more than ever as the world begins its transition to more sustainable and environmentally-conscious forms of energy. “We should lend to those companies to help them make progress faster, rather than divest from them which won’t help them at all,” he said in an interview with Andy Serwer.
Moynihan’s comments were a response to Thunburg’s claims that no progress has been made toward reducing the emissions of environmentally-damaging carbon gases. He believes that plenty of progress has been made, but he also believes that it could be expedited if more steps were taken.
He’s right, more companies should do more to assist the cause. But there are not enough companies taking the global crisis of climate change seriously enough. While companies continue to make pledges toward reducing carbon emissions by a certain amount before a certain year, what is funding oil companies going to do toward making the world a more environmentally-friendly place?
Moynihan was on a panel with Duke Energy CEO Lynn Good at the Davos Forum. Duke has pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by the year 2030.
“Think about that. That’s a power company. If they’re moving with that kind of pace, and we are saying we need more alternative energy to meet our goals, that business system will get more progress,” he said. “And so yes, we’ve got to make more progress. We’ve got to make it faster. But we’ve got to do it in an aligned way.”
But there are other companies that have the mindset to take two steps forward and one step back.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is the head of one of the biggest companies in the world. The e-commerce giant made huge strides toward environmental sustainability when it became an investor in electric vehicle manufacturer Rivian, whose zero-emissions R1T is set to compete with Tesla’s brutalist Cybertruck. Amazon also purchased 100,000 electric delivery vans from Rivian in an attempt to reduce the amount of carbon emissions from its vehicles.
A few weeks later, a press release from one of the world’s biggest oilfield service companies stated Amazon was one of the main contributors to the U.S. Oil and Gas Industry’s “Production 4.0” forum that would help accelerate and improve oil production. Amazon’s employees pushed Bezos to make changes that would help the Earth. While he promised electric vans and more conscious packaging, Bezos was directly contributing to an industry that continues to harm the Earth in many ways.
As the head of a large bank like Bank of America or one of the biggest companies in the world like Amazon, the responsibility is huge. The environmental impact of these companies is huge and requires extra attention from large corporations. The power these companies hold is the possible key to environmental longevity, and it starts with the halting of oil funding. If the Bank of America CEO’s statements are any indication though, the transition to sustainability may end up being a bit longer than expected.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
