No post body was provided.
ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
121–130 of 189 posts
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation Yes, it is. Tax the fuel on its carbon content at the point of sale of the fuel from the refinery.
Many activities generate emissions that have nothing to do with the sale of fuel. Who gets to decide what counts as emissions?
If that's big enough to worry about, then tax carbon at the point oil, gas, and coal, come out of the ground.
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but even "emissions" isn't a simple calculation Yes, it is. Tax the fuel on its carbon content at the point of sale of the fuel from the refinery.
That forgets to count methane from cows.
Cows aren't adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere. They are a distraction from the real problem.
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a Dalio guy. He believes in this: https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainabl...
He believes there is a lot of money to be made, so he he supports it enthusiastically. It doesn’t reflect on whether he thinks it is good for society or the planet.
He believes in climate change: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/30/billionaire-ray-dalio-on-why...
You can see how he quantifies carbon emissions. https://www.bridgewater.com/research-and-insights/sustainabl...
If he was only concerned with making money, you'd think he'd have jumped into digital currencies.
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#125also note that CSR (corporate social responsibility) is public relations, not a moral or ethical position, part and parcel to the term 'greenwashing'. in the same vein as the article, we should stop talking about climate change in favor of pollution. climate change is vague, pollution is not. we can see and feel the effects of pollution, which makes it more likely that we can create a coalition to address it rather t…
The easiest way to get rid of coal plants is to tax the carbon content of fuel. Natural gas has twice the energy per C atom, so this would naturally(!) favor gas power generation over coal power. Tax it, and let the market sort it out.
carbon taxes are the exact kind of roundabout measure that creates distortions and unintended consequences[0] rather than directly tackling the core issue. we need to tax pollution directly, as happened with CFCs in the 80s, because what we want to get rid of is pollution and that's how you directly internalize externalities while minimizing gaming potential (and we should use the funds for further clean-up efforts). carbon by itself is not a pollutant[1], but rather an essential component of life. things like dioxins, lead and other heavy metals, particulate matter, ammonium, radon, microplastics, pesticides, VOCs, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, radiation (coal/fly ash surpasses nuclear waste, but both are relatively small), and yes, even a number of hydrocarbons, are directly pollutants, so let's target those things directly.
[0]: cap-and-trade is another oft-mentioned approach, but suffers from the same gaming potential as carbon taxes. in the ideal, it should work, but practically they've been shown to become regulatorily captured, just like most bureaucratic measures.
[1]: you could even argue that carbon dioxide is not necessarily a pollutant because it's essential to the cycle of life on earth. it becomes a critical problem when we have something like an order of magnitude more of it than we do currently, but so can anything be poisonous in high enough doses.
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#126No post body was provided.
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#127Considering almost all company's produce something to sell (even software or services) and those things rely on consumption and emissions, then shouldn't all companies be rated as net harmful or "C" or whatever?
Are you implying that it is impossible to be carbon neutral? Or are you saying something else?
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#128Our startup takes a new data approach to transparency and granularity of ESG data to sidestep a lot of the criticisms of greenwashing, and help people understand. I don't think oversimplifying to one metric is an answer for all the people who care about other things (e.g. data privacy, corporate corruption, so many other issues). We have a little description of our approach at https://www.yourstake.org/info/noscore-e…
Would you consider candidates outside the US? e.g. in Canada?
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your view is skewed towards living in a city. your solution doesn't work for a number of reasons. if I wanted to go somewhere I would call an Uber and they would drive 20 or 30 miles to pick me up and then 40 or 50 miles more to drop me off and then the reverse would happen when I wanted to go home Rather than me just driving the 100 miles there and back You have additional overhead of somebody having to come…
These are fair points. I am actually sorry that my last post might have been more dismissive than was called for. The thing is most people live in urban areas (and the general trend is for that to increase) and don't work in woodworking. So this caused me to be a bit dismissive as it doesn't really effect the main point that much. As I said, there will always be exceptions. I think the more productive discussion is t…
I personally think the best “solution” to needing any vehicle (car, truck) “outside a city” is one that runs on petrol alternatives (biodiesel, among others, being a common one). For remote/very very cold regions gasoline still has high value because they’re easier to start in way sub zero temps.
for the record there’s no bias against EVs here
Re: ESG should be boiled down to one simple measure: emissions
#130also note that CSR (corporate social responsibility) is public relations, not a moral or ethical position, part and parcel to the term 'greenwashing'. in the same vein as the article, we should stop talking about climate change in favor of pollution. climate change is vague, pollution is not. we can see and feel the effects of pollution, which makes it more likely that we can create a coalition to address it rather t…
Agreed... in the end, the "climate change" message is really about pollution... so should just talk about what can be its' own isolated issue that everyone sees, recognizes and cares about. Doom spreaders sound like quacks in general. It doesn't matter if it's Satan or Climate change... it just breeds skepticism. Keep the message on message. This is why a lot of people stopped/don't support the EPA and the Green move…
climate change has become a culture war meme topic, which is why it's time to change the perspective and leave that inanity behind, so that we can make meaningful change in our lifetimes (lest our lifetimes and those coming behind us become shorter and more painful). framing matters, and we the people need to grab the mediopolitical bull (who try to do all the pre-thinking for us) by its horns before we get gored.