4 ms·
It seems like they will do anything except the obvious because that would affect the economy. Why harm one business by forcing them to reduce emissions and prof
by hnthrow90348765 2y ago
It seems like they will do anything except the obvious because that would affect the economy. Why harm one business by forcing them to reduce emissions and profits when you can have two profitable companies where one pollutes and the other cancels that out (ideally...)?
There has to be some other, unannounced benefit to funding these things like contributing research insights to naval warfare problems.
- wombatpm 2y agoBy having a second company, it becomes an expense of the polluting company. Now the MBA’s can put a cost savings into their decision model to reduce their emissions. If their CO2 cost is X and the upgrade costs are Y they can optimize, calculate paybacks, determine ROI. For some companies the calculus comes out the outsourcing CO2 capture is the best solution.
- jfengel 2y agoI suspect that the unannounced side benefit is that it sounds cool. You get to be the guy who had the brilliant idea that saved the planet with no effort on anybody else's part.
- semi-extrinsic 2y agoCDR technologies are being developed for the 2040s and 50s, when we have (hopefully) cut new carbon emissions down close to zero, and need to start repairing the sins of earlier decades.
- maxerickson 2y agoBenefiting the economy is good, actually. Having resources to consume is good. It's not a conspiracy to do something stupid. We also probably benefit from geoengineering regardless of what happens to CO2 production (depending on whether we think the weather was better a few decades ago or not).
- grues-dinner 2y agoBill Bryson's description of an ecological disaster of zinc smelter superfund site being amazing for GDP comes to mind.