Re carbon offsets - assuming the market and oversight tightens up controls to insure real GHG benefit, I’m interested in the impact on reducing deforestation and increasing investment in remediation efforts that should happen anyway, but might happen sooner. I’d also like to watch the cost curves of validated quality credits vs carbon emission mitigation technologies... what we want to see is that there is an acceleration to carbon emission elimination and no need for credit markets.
I think it's junk. If the science is there and the market approves, emissions will lower. Government picking winners and losers or setting arbitrary offsets is rent-seeking.
I've been thinking a lot lately about cumulative advantage - similar to the Matthew Effect. It's been on my mind as it relates to venture capital, particularly how a micro fund thrives on a world of muli-stage mega funds. I don't have an answer but I'm pursuing some theories. If anyone comes across any more data points on that, drop me a link!
I think the carbon offsets are just a way for businesses to lay claims to carbon neutrality and not actually doing much of anything...like buying the pre-existing forest. We need true oversight on this--thinking that Greta Thunberg should have a full-time job as master carbon credit overseer!
It think carbon credits are ingenious from an economic standpoint. But the devil is in the details. How can we trust that the carbon offset is valid? Who would we trust to certify the offsets?
Agreed. Aligning economic incentives toward the common good is brilliant. I don’t know who we can trust. Vera was supposed to be the trusted 3rd party, but that’s seriously in doubt now.
Re carbon offsets - assuming the market and oversight tightens up controls to insure real GHG benefit, I’m interested in the impact on reducing deforestation and increasing investment in remediation efforts that should happen anyway, but might happen sooner. I’d also like to watch the cost curves of validated quality credits vs carbon emission mitigation technologies... what we want to see is that there is an acceleration to carbon emission elimination and no need for credit markets.
I think it's junk. If the science is there and the market approves, emissions will lower. Government picking winners and losers or setting arbitrary offsets is rent-seeking.
I've been thinking a lot lately about cumulative advantage - similar to the Matthew Effect. It's been on my mind as it relates to venture capital, particularly how a micro fund thrives on a world of muli-stage mega funds. I don't have an answer but I'm pursuing some theories. If anyone comes across any more data points on that, drop me a link!
I think the carbon offsets are just a way for businesses to lay claims to carbon neutrality and not actually doing much of anything...like buying the pre-existing forest. We need true oversight on this--thinking that Greta Thunberg should have a full-time job as master carbon credit overseer!
It think carbon credits are ingenious from an economic standpoint. But the devil is in the details. How can we trust that the carbon offset is valid? Who would we trust to certify the offsets?
Agreed. Aligning economic incentives toward the common good is brilliant. I don’t know who we can trust. Vera was supposed to be the trusted 3rd party, but that’s seriously in doubt now.
Some really interesting stuff that I enjoy every weekend!
Thanks Linda!