Racing Extinction Documentary Featuring Leilani Munter & Tesla Model S Airs Tonight On Discovery


Tesla Model S - Racing Extinction

Tesla Model S – Racing Extinction

Tesla Model S for "Racing Extinction" Film.

Tesla Model S for “Racing Extinction” Film.

The year’s most highly anticipated documentary will air tonight on Discovery.

Racing Extinction, a film featuring Leilani Munter (environmental activist, race car driver & Tesla Model S owner) and a modded Tesla Model S, will make its worldwide small-screen debut tonight (December 2) on Discovery (and at partner TV stations around the globe) at 9 p.m. EST in the United States and in local prime time in 200-plus countries and TV markets.

Accommodating all of these markets required some 50 versions of the documentary for varying languages and other needs, according to Discovery documentaries chief John Hoffman.

Racing Extinction

Racing Extinction

Discovery says that it expects Racing Extinction to become the all-time, most-watched documentary in a single 24-hour period. John Hoffman, Discovery’s executive vice president for documentaries and specials, estimates a potential audience of 2.4 billion—with 500 million plus expected to watch the show.

In a nutshell, Racing Extinction is a film that exposes the environmental and endangered species concerns that we’re facing.  The film debuted at the Sundance Film Festival back in January 2015.

Check out the Racing Extinction trailer below. Video description:

Worldwide broadcast premiere on Discovery on December 2nd at 9pm ET/PT.

Utilizing state-of-the-art equipment, Oscar®-winner Louie Psihoyos (The Cove) assembles a team of artists and activists intent on showing the world never-before-seen images that expose issues of endangered species and mass extinction.

Whether infiltrating notorious black markets with guerilla-style tactics or exploring the scientific causes affecting changes to the environment, “Racing Extinction” will change the way we see the world and our role within it.

Extended sneak-peek video:

Category: General, Tesla

Tags: , ,

18 responses to "Racing Extinction Documentary Featuring Leilani Munter & Tesla Model S Airs Tonight On Discovery"
  1. Anon says:

    Unsettling and unpleasant topics, to be sure. But this also looks to be great global eco-vert for Tesla Motors…

  2. ffbj says:

    There are people that sit back and say we are screwed, and I am one of them.
    Of course there is still reason to work hard so things will not be as bad. Its a question of degree, sure we are screwed but we can avoid being FO’D!

  3. abc123 says:

    Oh I see. At first I thought Racing Extinction meant the end of race cars like F1 and NASCAR. LOL.

    1. CBonville says:

      Totally could be about the end of racing! But probably not for another generation or two. The possibilities:

      1) Electric already outperforms (and will only get better), and once specific energy is high enough for a race car to finish with one charge (or the rules allow battery packs to be swapped out just like tires), then electric racing will be superior.

      2) Carbon fuels are taxed according to their true costs, making ICE racing cost prohibitive.

      3) Racing with carbon fuels is judged to be a non-essential use of a finite resource, and is outlawed. (Funny, the Mad Max movie series is the antithesis of that idea.)

      4) (Speaking of Mad Max, and thinking about the possible world decades from now) The worst effects of climate change come to pass, millions (or billions?) of people die, and ‘civilized luxuries’ like sports are abandoned as the world plunges into an economic crisis worse than any experienced in the history of currency.

      Dunno about you, but I’m hoping for 1)!

  4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    The problem with discussion of such problems, and documentaries on them, is that almost nobody is willing to face up to what the actual underlying problem is: Human overpopulation.

    This documentary focuses on extinction and the certainly significant effects of massive CO2 increase on the oceans… on causing acidification of the oceans. But again, the documentary focuses on the effects, not the cause.

    Human overpopulation is the Tragedy of the Commons writ large. If you don’t know what “Tragedy of the Commons” means, please follow this link right now:

    This documentary, like nearly all of them, talks about what we might do to ameliorate or at least significantly slow the devastation of the natural world and/or reduce our CO2 footprint. Let me give just one real-world example of why all such attempts are doomed to failure:

    One thing contributing to global warming, and to increased CO2 output, is the slash-and-burn method of agriculture, which is currently devastating the Amazon rain forest. I saw an interview with one farmer who was in the process of doing a slash-and-burn. The interviewer pointed out to him that the government had prohibited what he’s doing; that it was in fact illegal. He responded that he had to do it to feed his family; that he had no choice. It was either that or starve. This was clearly a case of too many people for the region to support sustainably… yet we can hardly expect the farmer and/or his family to volunteer to reduce the area’s human population by committing suicide!

    Ultimately, the only way to reduce human impact on the environment is to reduce our population to the point that the Earth’s ecosystem can sustain it. It’s already far too large to be sustained, and it’s still growing rapidly.

    No, I don’t have any magical solution to offer here. In the long term, we can manage human population by birth control coupled with appropriate education, plus economic incentives to have fewer children. But in the short term, on the time scale of a century or so, that simply can’t reduce the total human population fast enough.

    If you look at history, dealing with local or temporary overpopulation in certain areas is very much a case of “If you don’t control events, events will control you.” Human overpopulation has been controlled — if that’s the right word — by war, epidemic disease, and famine. You will note that all three of these things are occurring with greater frequency within the past few years… altho the outbreaks of (for example) Ebola have been beaten back through heroic efforts.

    Sorry to give such a bleak outlook for the future. But the reality is that overpopulation is already causing wars and famine in the Mideast and Eastern Africa. Things like the refugee crisis in Europe, famine, shortages of fresh water supplies, and the rise of extremist groups battling for territory (ISIS, for example) are merely symptoms of overpopulation, altho that reality is more-or-less entirely ignored in news coverage. And it seems very nearly certain things will get a lot worse, for some decades, before they start getting better.

    On a positive note: Those who predict that the Human species itself is threatened by climate change, that we are in danger of making ourselves extinct, are being intentionally alarmist. Our species has been very successful at spreading into many different environments and climates, and thriving in all of them. We as a species will certainly be able to survive a piffling few degrees of global warming. But many, many individuals, and groups, won’t be happy about the conditions that we’re forcing ourselves to live in due to ever-increasing overpopulation. The worldwide disparity between “haves” and “have-nots” is going to become increasingly stark in the near future.

    1. Jay Cole says:


      (gonna wade into this one because you brought it up, and its a fun topic)

      For most who do come to realize (and accept) the root issue, it is probably already too late…as they have had their kids or have life-choices already in motion. And for those who have yet to fully procreate, they will not be told what to do in something like this. The world is more and more about tolerance and freedoms, and quite frankly that flies in the face of the changes needed to effect real/significant change in the short term.

      Put another way, and I am not picking on Musk here…just using him as an example (as his overlying impact for good is exceptional/outside the norm). He is on the stage in Paris, talking about electric cars, solar power for the grid, etc. – all worthy topics which we should embrace. However, he has the deadly combination of being very rich and has FIVE sons…and might not be done (curse of the oft-separated man).

      The implied CO2/environmental damage his lineage will bring over the term that the world wants to stop this 2 degree climate change/clean the environment is massive. If everyone did this, game over. He (and others concerned) is asking people to get cleaner, others to cut emissions by XX%, get gov’ts/business to commit to reductions. Yet he has already bought 5 lives into this world.

      …his kids will be wealthy and probably net 3-4+ kids each of their own as well (as multi-millionaires are give to do, as well as emulate family norm precedents – you do what your parents did), So you are talking about 20-25 new people coming into existence from 1 guy in a ~35 odd year span…who knows thereafter. The environmental footprint of each of these kids will be equal to 100s of “normal” wage earners, and 1000s of the poor.

      Again, Mr. Musk has made up for his environmental transgression by the nature of his extraordinary contributions, but he is one of the very few who has been able to achieve that and is an outlier.

      For myself, I am a single child, I have a single child, I instill those same values in my son and hope he sticks with 1 child…and that single decision is more valuable than a lifetime of owning EVs, and using solar power or whatever level of conservation I aspire to. Instead of creating a huge family tree of descendants at the bottom of the family tree, I have a huge tree at the top. Provided my son keeps it at 1 kid, that will make 8 great grandparents, 4 grandparents, 2 parents 1 child – 8x reduction over 4 generations/75 years, instead of 2-4-8-16, or 2-5-15-45. It sure would be nice to get the world population from 7 billion down to 900 million before the end of this century, 450 million in 100 years -and in so doing solve all the cast majority of these crisis of environmental effect – that is the only way to get it under control.

      How can you tell how your family has done in this regard? If you have a family Christmas, how large is the gathering if everyone attends? Can they all fit around one table? Two? Twelve? The better your family has done, the smaller the result. And no, that doesn’t make for less family, because in lieu of the weird uncles and cousins you don’t know/can’t relate to, you find close/good friends you can and bring them into your net…they become your family.

      What can you really do about your family/past decisions now? Nothing. But you can decide to stop with the proliferation if you already have a child(ren) – buy a Model S instead of another kid (it’ll be cheaper), and if it is past ‘your time’, you can still influence your offspring/friends to make a change.

      As a sidenote to making a decision like this, you also ensure a higher living standard for your kids by doing nothing out of the ordinary or exceptional, as the wealth of two are always being transferred to one.

      1. Djoni says:

        With all due respect to your invaluable contribution to this world of EV and all the promising future it make.
        I think you totally miss the point and just turn your head away from the problem.
        Quoted from the film “Racing extinction”
        “If every American skipped meant and cheese just one day a week for a year, it would be like taking 7 600 000 cars off the road”
        Just prior to that
        “Livestock produced more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector”

        So, if I can sum up what I think it means: It not the amount of people that is the problem, but the way too many of them lives.
        Sorry to burst your bubble, but EV is just one tiny solution that won’t, by far, resolve all this mess we did and pursue doing.

        1. Jay Cole says:

          No, I don’t think I did. Everything in the film is great, spot on, good things to do. Things we should be doing, advancing… but it underlines the root problem even more. Overpopulation in relation to the vast deficiency level of technology needed to support those people’s standard of living cleanly.

          I didn’t mention EVs as a solution at all. Less people is 95% of the issue, doing the other things, being “greener” is the other 5%.

          As for these quotes you mention:

          ““If every American skipped meant and cheese just one day a week for a year, it would be like taking 7 600 000 cars off the road”

          “Livestock produced more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector”

          …this is EXACTLY my point. If these small things effect that much change, think about how reducing the US population by a factor of 8 would change things. From 320 million to 40 million.

          Imagine the “change” if 280 million people in the US didn’t eat anything at all (or 6.12 billion people worldwide).

          Also the 250 million vehicles in service today in the US for those 320 million would also drop to ~31 million. (worldwide the drop would be from 1.1 billion to 137 million). US annual car sales would drop from ~18 million today just over 2 million.

          Best part? The amount of physical sacrifice needed by the adults of America today? Nothing at all. It is hard to miss what you don’t have. So while people with 4-5 kids obviously can’t imagine life without their kids, couples with only one don’t have that connection to ‘not real people’ anymore than the couple with 4 kids can miss that 5th child they decided not to have.

          Put another way, I am in a 8 to 1 reduction, 4 generation tree – a trend that hopefully continues (and not something I can take credit for starting…just being a part of).

          I can pollute by proverbial ass off, take airline flights every week and have 2 steaks a day (none of which I actually do) and I will be much cleaner than the “greenest” EV/solar conservationist that has 3-4 kids, who then each have 3 kids, who have 3 kids, etc. – because my tree’s sacrifice is an 88% percent reduction of actual persons. That “greenest” guy whose family tree averages 3 kids per generation? his “bottom of the tree” at generation 4 now become 24 people on the 4th generation.

          1. Djoni says:

            I get your point.
            I just disagree even more.
            Not with the math, it’s all good, but the premise is biased.
            Seriously, all human just want to keep on.
            Beside, the film isn’t about human extinction, but race extinction.
            Animal, species, living thing that you know well might not be there for your only child.
            How about that?
            I don’t remember the right number but it’s something like 10% of wealthiest produce 60% of the greenhouse gases.
            So if you want to get rid of anyone, to be practical and to the point, you have to choose all the wealthy on this planet first.
            Because, it’s all their(our) fault.
            And this happen to be you and me and all the commenter on this site.

            1. Jay Cole says:

              I think if you go back to my original post, I point to exactly that:

              “his (Musk) kids will be wealthy and probably net 3-4+ kids each of their own as well…the environmental footprint of each of these kids will be equal to 100s of “normal” wage earners, and 1000s of the poor.”

              The higher up the food chain the worse the footprint, that is the reality. But you have to apply the discipline consistently across the board, it has to be accepted a societal norm (like covering your mouth when you cough instead of coughing in someone’s face – you just do it)…because to improve one’s situation for yourself and your kids is human nature, you can pick and choose who needs to follow the rules.

              The “poor” aren’t there because they volunteered for the job, and they are scrambling to get up off the mat and do better for themselves and their offspring – some will fail to improve their situation, others will not – but you can’t try to pick the winners and then curtail only them for succeeding. For example: All that mass procreation of the extremely poor in China from the last century are now clawing their way into higher demographics, and as a result are polluting the heck out of the plant at more of a 1st world rate, saying “you did it, now its time to get ours”.

              There is a lot of “if we do A,B,C,D,E things it might help turn this around in 25,50 or 100 years” out there right now, and all of that is great. But if there was only 500 million people on this planet today, we would not be talking about any of these issues, because they would not exist…at least not until hundreds of years in the future; maybe thousands or tens of thousands of years – as one theorizes that today’s rapidly advancing technology would easily be able to outpace need in a low/managed population with no growth curve.

              Again, just to be clear I’m not arguing “against” any of these great causes, the topic at hand here is the “main” causes that society is too self-oriented to recognize.

              1. Djoni says:

                So, we agree then, we’re screwed!
                Amazingly, they did not talk about other big problem of all this mess.
                Garbage, garbage and wasted food or else.
                Statistic show that about 60% of all produced food never feed anyone.
                Some of that waste is just big corporation manipulating the market, and the rest just by careless people.
                Did the talk about the 8 plastic continent?
                No, but I guess it was already too depressing.

                In the end we’re fighting to preserve the tip of the iceberg while all of it is sinking fast.
                And Im an optimist!

                1. Jay Cole says:

                  Hehe, basically yupe…but we all fight on the best we can nonetheless, really no alternative.

                  It is almost at the point were we need one of these catastrophic events to shake people (or rather governments)into action…then hope it is not too late and we can fix/adjust to the new reality

                  sidenote: just reading back, maybe I came on a bit too strong with you…wasn’t my intention at all, I really enjoy this topic and appreciate the discussion

        2. vdiv says:

          So if we eat grass instead of meat do we need to have vent tubes inserted into our stomachs, plastic bladders on our backs, monitor the methane emissions with a FLIR, and project them with a big-ass rig mounted on the back of our EV? 😉

      2. vdiv says:

        “buy a Model S instead of another kid (it’ll be cheaper)”

        more fun too :p

    2. Carol says:

      Very insightful read. Thank you.

  5. Djoni says:

    “meat” not meant.

  6. Sophia Harcourt says:

    Please when will this air again? I have been waiting all year to see this and my stupid phone did not remind as I had set it.

    1. vdiv says:

      This Saturday night at 9 PM EST (also PST) on the Discovery channel.

      Also will probably be available on demand in a couple of days.