4 ms·

From the article: > Lyft rolled out a multimillion-dollar investment to become a completely carbon-neutral transportation service through the purchase of carbo

From the article: > Lyft rolled out a multimillion-dollar investment to become a completely carbon-neutral transportation service through the purchase of carbon offsets If this is true, Lyft has already priced in the climate externality, and there's really nothing to complain about there.

rahimnathwani 7y ago
Except: - the price of carbon offsets may not be high enough (particularly if you care about types of pollution other than CO2, and/or you believe that pollution near/at population centres is more damaging than pollution elsewhere) - carbon offsets do nothing to address the other issue (congestion)
- satyrnein 7y ago
  For carbon specifically, isn't the price correct by definition if they reached carbon neutrality? To decrease congestion (as well as localized pollution like smog), my ideal solution would be a floating per-minute rate (based on congestion levels at that instant) for square feet of road uses. (I'd probably do the same for street parking.) Since that sounds challenging and involves possibly dystopian levels of surveillance, I'd settle for more traditional congestion pricing .
  - masonic 7y ago
    if they reached carbon neutrality? But there's no standard or oversight for claiming "we bought credit for X tons of CO2". Example: there are stewards of old-growth forests who are selling carbon credits based on "if we cut these down, X carbon would be released", even if they cannot do so anyway by law or deed. The Headwaters forest in CA is one. Unless you know the exact basis for claimed credits, it essentially breaks down to a media/P.R. bribe.
  - rahimnathwani 7y ago
    On your first point: you're presuming they reached carbon neutrality. But that is a claim that's been made, not something that has been proven. It's possible that the design, operation and monitoring of the market for voluntary carbon offsets means that the purchase of a carbon offset today results in the desired reduction of CO2 emissions today or in the next few days/weeks. But I don't know enough to trust that to be true. Do you? EDIT: the above is a theoretical point. masonic included an example in a sibling comment. On your second point: - we can measure road usage using cameras at a much more granular level than that used by traditional congestion pricing schemes - the traditional scheme with which I'm most familiar (London) has a flat fee for the whole day; so, once a vehicle has entered the zone once in the day, there is no incentive to limit distance. And vehicle-miles (not # vehicles) is what causes congestion. So I wouldn't want to settle for that type of design.
    - satyrnein 7y ago
      I don't know any more than I quoted, which I accompanied with "if this is true..." I don't think the London style congestion pricing is ideal, but what would be better?
      - rahimnathwani 7y ago
        "I don't think the London style congestion pricing is ideal, but what would be better?" The infrastructure for the London Congestion Zone includes cameras at every entry/exit point. So the operators of the scheme can trivially know which vehicles are within the zone at any point in time. The size of each vehicle is known to the DVLA. With these pieces of information, it would be easy to implement a charge based on the amount of time spent in the zone, and the footprint of the vehicle. The above may not be optimal, but it could be done with data that is already being collected. No need for additional infrastructure, except for changing some signage.
        satyrnein 7y ago
        That would include time spent parked in a private garage, anything to be done about that?

rahimnathwani 7y ago

Except: - the price of carbon offsets may not be high enough (particularly if you care about types of pollution other than CO2, and/or you believe that pollution near/at population centres is more damaging than pollution elsewhere) - carbon offsets do nothing to address the other issue (congestion)

satyrnein 7y ago
For carbon specifically, isn't the price correct by definition if they reached carbon neutrality? To decrease congestion (as well as localized pollution like smog), my ideal solution would be a floating per-minute rate (based on congestion levels at that instant) for square feet of road uses. (I'd probably do the same for street parking.) Since that sounds challenging and involves possibly dystopian levels of surveillance, I'd settle for more traditional congestion pricing .
- masonic 7y ago
  if they reached carbon neutrality? But there's no standard or oversight for claiming "we bought credit for X tons of CO2". Example: there are stewards of old-growth forests who are selling carbon credits based on "if we cut these down, X carbon would be released", even if they cannot do so anyway by law or deed. The Headwaters forest in CA is one. Unless you know the exact basis for claimed credits, it essentially breaks down to a media/P.R. bribe.
- rahimnathwani 7y ago
  On your first point: you're presuming they reached carbon neutrality. But that is a claim that's been made, not something that has been proven. It's possible that the design, operation and monitoring of the market for voluntary carbon offsets means that the purchase of a carbon offset today results in the desired reduction of CO2 emissions today or in the next few days/weeks. But I don't know enough to trust that to be true. Do you? EDIT: the above is a theoretical point. masonic included an example in a sibling comment. On your second point: - we can measure road usage using cameras at a much more granular level than that used by traditional congestion pricing schemes - the traditional scheme with which I'm most familiar (London) has a flat fee for the whole day; so, once a vehicle has entered the zone once in the day, there is no incentive to limit distance. And vehicle-miles (not # vehicles) is what causes congestion. So I wouldn't want to settle for that type of design.
  - satyrnein 7y ago
    I don't know any more than I quoted, which I accompanied with "if this is true..." I don't think the London style congestion pricing is ideal, but what would be better?
    - rahimnathwani 7y ago
      "I don't think the London style congestion pricing is ideal, but what would be better?" The infrastructure for the London Congestion Zone includes cameras at every entry/exit point. So the operators of the scheme can trivially know which vehicles are within the zone at any point in time. The size of each vehicle is known to the DVLA. With these pieces of information, it would be easy to implement a charge based on the amount of time spent in the zone, and the footprint of the vehicle. The above may not be optimal, but it could be done with data that is already being collected. No need for additional infrastructure, except for changing some signage.
      - satyrnein 7y ago
        That would include time spent parked in a private garage, anything to be done about that?