Read the original comment, please: ""We have not, even one time, seen a case where climate change has caused long term economic damage. At the very worst bad weather has caused localized destruction that is, in every single case, completely recovered within a decade. "

Not "CO2-related climate change," or "Man-made climate change." Just climate change. And furthermore, a follow-up accusation that the worst-case scenario is "bad weather causing localized destruction... completely recovered within a decade."

No. That's not true. And *that's* what I refuted, with a handful from dozens of examples.

We could argue whether the drought that killed 10 million Benghalis counts as bad weather or climate change, but it certainly caused a catastrophic scenario that did NOT recover within 10 years. My larger point is that bad weather and climate change can have long-lasting effects and have done so for all of recorded history. The Irish Potato Famine may not be directly linked (I likely shouldn't have included it), but millions of Irish immigrated to America as a result. We have an entire population of people today who would not be here if not for a famine and subsequent upheaval.

Saying things "recovered within a decade" obscures the very real damage and millions of lives lost that many of these events caused.

"We have not, even one time, seen a case where climate change has caused long term economic damage. At the very worst bad weather has caused localized destruction that is, in every single case, completely recovered within a decade. "

You're hilariously wrong on this point. I'll grant you that it may depend on your scope and scale, but I trust you're aware that the Middle East used to be referred to as the "Fertile Crescent." What happened? Climate changed. It's theorized that the Mongols were able to cross the Asian steppes in the first place because significant rainfall patterns over several years greened the countryside enough to support a large foraging army as it traveled. And history is full -- literally *full* of examples of kingdoms toppled, countries overthrown, and civil unrest and destruction as a result of climate changes.

1770 Benghal: Famine kills 10 million people. Cause? Drought. One third of the population dead. Recovered in ten years? Not bloody likely.

1630-1631: Famine kills two million in China. Repeated drought-related disasters feed unrest and lead to the collapse of the entire Ming Dynasty in 1644.

1844-1849: Great Irish Potato Famine. Kills over one milion Irish, leads to the emigration of 1.5-2 million more. Irish demographics permanently shifted as a result, Irish populations seeded in other countries including a significant population in America.

1972-1973: Famine in Ethiopia kills 60,000 people, leads to the downfall of King Haile Selassie. Clearly this is a non-issue today, because Ethiopia is now a lush land of plenty and abundance.

1816-1817: Year Without A Summer: Has a huge number of impacts on innovation and culture, as well as killing several hundreds thousand more people worldwide. Wikipedia has the full list of interesting details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y...

So, no, you're just wrong about this. Multi-year weather patterns and long-term climate shifts have killed tens of millions of people throughout history. Famine and drought have toppled nations, destroyed city-states, and crushed empires. In some cases, the economic impacts of these events continue to reverberate in modern history.

Tesla *is* a fringe brand right now. So is Mercedes. So is BMW. So are Porsche and Lamborghini and a host of other high-end luxury car manufacturers. Tesla, like these other companies, builds a product that many would like to own and fairly few can afford.

It seems like what Lutz is saying is "If Tesla wants to meaningfully impact the way the average American gets from Point A to Point B, it needs to build a car that the average American can afford." I don't think there's anything untrue about that statement. I love the Model S and I'd love to *own* a Model S, but there's no foreseeable point in my life when I'll be rich enough to drop $80K on a car. That's why I'm hoping Tesla's midrange offering is a great vehicle with sensible compromises to bring the price down.