3 ms·
Regarding additionality: does this mean that, for purposes of the offset, you’re trusting that the technicians you train wouldn’t have properly recovered the re
by ericpauley 4y ago
Regarding additionality: does this mean that, for purposes of the offset, you’re trusting that the technicians you train wouldn’t have properly recovered the refridgerant anyway? Do you have some rough statistics to suggest this? There’s also the issue of self-selection: the techs that work with you are probably more likely than the general population to be properly reclaiming already, for instance since the marginal gain from your program is greater for them (same money for no additional work). Have you considered this?
- lovemenot 4y agoThe company is a start-up. So what if they are picking too-low-hanging fruit initially? As long as their process can in principle scale to a point where genuine reductions are possible. And they do actually enter a legitimate certification process fairly soon. The certification authority will then become responsible for proper accounting. In the mean time, they are asking for investors' trust without verification. Not ideal, but not unreasonable for a PoC / MVP.
- exp1orer 4y agoGood questions, we spend a lot of time thinking about how to ensure the actual additionality of what we're doing. The most important consideration - we pay per kg, and less than the market rate of new gas. So a technician that was recovering gas before to reuse it would be taking a loss if they sold to us and then went out to buy new gas.
- ericpauley 4y agoGotcha, so technicians that already recover generally reuse now? Thanks for the great explanation!