4 ms·

Huh. I would argue companies should also work to reduce their “scope 3” emissions by reducing unnecessary travel and maybe even reducing commutes of their emplo

• igor47 3y ago
  absolutely. i think the problem with this whole space is, it's entirely voluntary, or sometimes we have carrots like tax incentives for building renewable energy infrastructure. i think that instead, for scopes 1 and 2, we should have regulation that phases out dirty technologies. in my industry (refrigerants) the montreal protocol is a great example of how to force the phase-out of polluting technology. we know this can work (i wrote a blog post about this at https://www.recoolit.com/post/refrigerants-what-are-they https://www.recoolit.com/post/refrigerants-what-are-they). for scope 3, i think it's hard to regulate "buy fewer flights". or, like, "buy flights only if it's really important to have an in-person meeting". this is where carbon pricing comes in -- then we can use market incentives to force companies to only buy the important flights.