3 ms·
When these come up, I like to note that we likely also have to think about how to unwind the organizations that will build up around these practices. Unless ev
by abathur 5y ago
When these come up, I like to note that we likely also have to think about how to unwind the organizations that will build up around these practices.
Unless every removal op is a vertically integrated loss center in govt or large emitters, there will inevitably be people in the chain whose livelihoods or profits or stockholders benefit from keeping the spigot on (both of money for removal, and of emissions that necessitate it).
This is all assuming invention and improvement don't bootstrap easily scalable straightforwardly profitable removal practices.
Thinking ahead about this means a chance at putting up guardrails before there is an established lobby to push back.
- ip26 5y agoProfitable removal organizations would actually allow certain industries to transition more slowly. Also, if you can close the money loop you can set up good incentives. If the money spigot is funded by the emitters, the capture orgs are directly incentivized to make capture cheaper to make it more attractive to emit, etc. Key to avoid direct public subsidy of said spigot though.