Join The Community

tesla cars with a no leather option for vegeterian/vegan

I don't know if that subject ever came up the in forum, I didn't saw it but sorry if it did.

I'm a vegeterian and as such, I would like to have the option to buy a Tesla with no leather, it's not possible at the moment, I think prospective Tesla buyer are often environmentally councious people and that group overlaps with the vegeterian/vegan crowd, I think it would be a good idea for Tesla to offer a "no leather" option on it's vehicules.

I would be thrilled to have the opinion of a Tesla representative on the subject.

that was my grain of salt, thanks for reading,
Jean-Pierre Guay
Québec, Canada

So, seeing as this thread is a bit off track... Tesla currently has the option of a textile interior, and the leather dash is optional. As far as I know, if you get textile, with non-leather dash, there is no (real) leather in the car.

I would need a Tesla rep to confirm, but I can't think of anything that would be leather in this case, so vegans are free to purchase the car, guilt-free.

You guys kill me. You're so determined to jump on some environmental bandwagon you don't even get the facts straight. You call for no leather, and things like a ban on using trees to build, but those are far better solutions than poisoning the environment through manufacturing artificial materials. Trees are literally the only renewable and natural building material, and leather would be wasted if we didn't use it for upholstery and clothing. Native Americans used every part of an animal when they killed it. It was a very efficient use of materials, and a good example for the modern world. I'd rather have a natural leather seat than a toxic plastic one.

Timo "I'm also too carnivorous not to enjoy good stake"

Luckily those are usually made from wood and thus vegan-friendly.

Surprised that Brian didn't catch this one ;-)

:-D. Honest typo which I didn't catch because it is actual word and FF didn't underline it. Steak.

I think you may have the wrong idea of the Vegan motives. I do not hold their opinion, but I can respect it. Their issue with the use of animal products is not an environmental concern, but an ethical one. They do not want to be the cause of suffering for an animal. By buying leather products, and eating animal flesh, they would be contributing to the suffering of a living being, and to them, it is unacceptable.

they would be contributing to the suffering of a living being...directly. Indirect ways are not their concerns.

The motives for becoming a vegetarian fall in three categories. The first, as mentioned above, is ethical, the second has to do with human health, and the third is environmental. The ethical issues are obvious and it also is clear that a diet high in animal protein (meat) is not as healthy as one that uses less meat.

My wife and I have been vegetarians now for about 25 years for all of the above reasons. One of the first things that hit me was that at the time in California restaurants were not serving water to customers, unless requested, because of a water shortage. Shortly thereafter I read the a pound of beef uses about 5,000 to 10,000 gal of water to produce, and it seemed funny that I could order a steak or hamburger, no problem, but a glass of water, that was being irresponsible. In the US, raising livestock uses 80% of grain and more than half the water, and yet it is rarely discussed as a potential cause of water shortages or, dare I say it, global warming. Add the methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas, produced by cattle to the overall use of resources by livestock, and it is clear that eating less meat is the lowest cost and most effective way to reduce your personal impact on global warming. Buying an EV is good too.

Vegetarians come to that decision via an intermixture of the above reasons. For many years we would say that yes we are vegetarians, and asked why would explain, but tried not to proselytize. Now that we understand the climate change/global warming impact of eating meat, we are more likely to encourage people to consider the consequences of eating meat and the desirability of eating less.

it also is clear that a diet high in animal protein (meat) is not as healthy as one that uses less meat.

Is it? We have couple of million of years of hunter-gatherers genes in us. Fruits and meat is very healthy. Vegetables just don't have all that you need. We are omnivores, not herbivores or carnivores. Especially fish is good for you.

What you read about that beef is just plain wrong (probably twisted by some misleading statistic, that's the most common way to produce BS that people don't immediately recognize as BS)

A kg (about 2 pounds) of beef takes approx. 16,000 liters of virtual water to produce. That's about 2100 gallons of water per pound of beef.

You guys can ask me anything. I have Google! ;-)

But nevertheless, respect for anyone's believes, please. As long as people don't hurt each other in name of their believe, no worries.

some livestock production is more sustainable than food crop production, from a water use standpoint, despite higher virtual water use per kg of food produced

From that wiki, that's the relevant phrase. That's what makes what shs read wrong; one part of the whole picture that gets exaggerated in purpose to shock people.

Not all land is suitable for grain farming. Sheep like mountainsides better than mules. Speaking of which, it's pretty clear the early domestication of the horse for riding and plowing was a dual use for a meat animal. The Lapps can do the same with reindeer, but it's a dicier proposition.

Do ethical vegans slap mosquitoes? Poison rats? Co-exist with fire ants? Delusion.

Being partly insectivore is actually a viable choice and quite good one at that for environment point of view. Insects (and other bugs) are very efficient at converting stuff to edible form, and they are not sentient enough to cause ethical problems. Not sure about taste though.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen