3 ms·
This seems like a scam to me. The reason VCs don't fund "normal" crops like wheat etc. is that commodities don't generate the high profits that make "unicorns"
by jessaustin 6y ago
This seems like a scam to me. The reason VCs don't fund "normal" crops like wheat etc. is that commodities don't generate the high profits that make "unicorns" possible. There have been fewer people employed in agriculture in USA every year for the last 150 years. The only long-term successful firms are selling "picks and shovels", and even they have to resort to evil to generate reliable profits (Monsanto, etc.) All of the crops under discussion in TFA are also commodities. Where is the profit going to arise? These venture funds will not return investors' money.
- Vysero 6y agoIt seems fishy to me as well knowing that most farmers operate at a loss each year. Whatever profit a system like this might generate would have to be enough to offset those losses whilst still providing enough to keep the farmers happy along with the investors?? Seems pretty damn unlikely that this "agroforestry" is capable of doing that.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- greatgib 6y agoI think that something the article tries to not to be explicit is that the reel business model is: Lots of company greenwash and pretend to "compensate" their CO2 emissions by paying farms like that to plant trees. And that is very profitable as costs to plant a tree compared is a lot lower than the income received from a companies in compensation. And now, vulture funds realized that they can make a lot of money on the back of the carbon reduction market!