2 ms·

I’m very confused here, did you accidentally respond to the wrong comment? But that’s unlikely too, as you even quoted me… I disagree with none of your points.

I’m very confused here, did you accidentally respond to the wrong comment? But that’s unlikely too, as you even quoted me… I disagree with none of your points. The only reason I can imagine for your comment is that you've misunderstood there term green washing perhaps? This is it's official definition: > Greenwashing, also called "green sheen", is a form of advertising or marketing spin in which green PR and green marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization's products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly. The socialized cost I was speaking about wasn't the resulting environmental degradation but the literal cost of both researching the technology and building sites which do it. That's why carbon capture is so beloved by the industry: they can offload the literal costs to society while virtue signaling by giving token support for this pointless effort. To add another point to the carbon capture fiasco: the energy spent capturing the CO2 is quite significant, so it's not even certain that their CO2 contribution is subtractive at the end.

fuzzfactor 3y ago
I do exactly think this is just greenwashing by JPMorgan. I see the $200 Million as token support for a misguided effort that is being given a spin as something more effective than it really is. The climate cost to society has always been offloaded primarily because it was not accounted for financially. What better PR than to put (a little bit of) their money where their mouth is by supporting Climeworks, no deceptive advertising campaign necessary, just that level of spin at this point. Climeworks seems to be saying foremost exactly what JPMorgan wants them to say, more convincingly than JPMorgan could say for itself. >the energy spent capturing the CO2 is quite significant, so it's not even certain that their CO2 contribution is subtractive at the end. You seemed to have grasped this more so than others.

fuzzfactor 3y ago

I do exactly think this is just greenwashing by JPMorgan. I see the $200 Million as token support for a misguided effort that is being given a spin as something more effective than it really is. The climate cost to society has always been offloaded primarily because it was not accounted for financially. What better PR than to put (a little bit of) their money where their mouth is by supporting Climeworks, no deceptive advertising campaign necessary, just that level of spin at this point. Climeworks seems to be saying foremost exactly what JPMorgan wants them to say, more convincingly than JPMorgan could say for itself. >the energy spent capturing the CO2 is quite significant, so it's not even certain that their CO2 contribution is subtractive at the end. You seemed to have grasped this more so than others.