Date: 03 December 2023 Ā· Time: 5pm ā 6:15pm Dubai time/1pm-2.15pm GMT Location: Blue Zone Water Pavilion and online (hybrid): teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-joi...
We thank you for your service šš¼
The far simpler one (and one the companies are lined up to themselves commercialize) is DAC, which gets a huge boost if/when avoidance goes away. But really itās just about anything - like the recent articles about delaying coal plant closures b/c new server farms. Easiest one is just rising demand.
I mean I get your point, but the $30M in question is not that; itās spent on recruitment & contracts & MRV & whatnot. Your point that itās then grist for the PR/lobbying mill is valid but I guess my thinking is that those mills have loads of grist & donāt particularly need the credits to succeed.
I guess I just (sure, maybe in a vacuum & in isolation) would prefer $30M in (sure, inefficient) avoided deforestation spending then that same $30M spent effectively on straight up lobbying or PR, which seems more effective to me as means of arguing against regs.
Arenāt energy companies going to throw every dollar they can arguing against regulation, regardless? (Pretty much every big industry I guess, as a biz tactic) So then the nuanced argument is more that offsets are a particularly effective way of avoiding regulation?
Is the counterpoint that by spending $30M a year, theyāre not spending billions on better things? Doesnāt seem that realistic
Thx. Iām new to carbon world, coming from regulated water, so still forming my opinions of VCM. My basic frame tho is that given itās voluntary and a majority of global companies are *not* participating in offsets or ESG or emissions reductions at all, $30M/yr from Shell is a lot better than $0.
To me this seems net bad for climate, but I see plenty of celebrating from enviro folks. What's the theory of change where this is good - basically if the VCM goes away then there's nothing left to hide behind? Oil companies more likely to get nationalized? Honest good faith question. Thx