Good morning Sir, I continue to enjoy your newsletter, thank you. To answer your question, my suggestion is private sector companies in addition to city, county, state, and federal governments should adopt purchasing policies that give preference to businesses that are 3rd party certified as climate friendly. The certification for climate friendly would mean these businesses would measure their emissions, Scope 1-3, and then either change practices to make them 0 or engage the voluntary offset markets to eliminate them. Whichever was cheaper would arguably drive their decision. It goes without saying we need rigorous standards in our carbon markets, but if paying villages to convert wood burning stoves to methane bio-digester cooking systems (sometimes for $8/ton) is cheaper than putting up your own solar panels with back up batteries, to me it should be obvious we should do the cheaper one. This would lead to us doing the cheap and easy stuff first and buying us time to do the harder stuff later. To me there should be an explosion of emission reduction work by the carbon offset market where innovators are seeking the cheapest lowest hanging fruit to capitalize on this work. FWIW, I advocated for this policy at the City of Gresham but the lack of trust with the carbon offset market was a big obstacle.
Your spot-on comment about "reducing emissions now" being more valuable than "reducing emissions later" underscores the Time Value of Carbon Reduction!
Not sure about that Time ranking of so many companies. Are they trying to be the US News of college rankings? I like your idea of emphasizing 3 critical areas (net zero by 2030, carbon renewal, and extension to supply chain) and highlighting each year the top 5 or whatever in that category, with specificity related to their accomplishments.
Carrot vs. stick: What about also highlighting the bottom of the barrel, the 5 or so companies that are doing the most damage, either by obfuscation or by denial or by outright carbon pollution?
Good indeed to praise the front-runners every now and again.
Two comments/suggestions:
1. I think 2030 net zero goals should only be praised if accompanied by a detailed plan on how the company will get there. 2030 is 6 years away, so any significant changes in equipment, energy supply, etc, would need to be in the planning more or less already. Same for targets to reduce emissions by 40-60% in 2030. Only deserve praise IF there is a detailed plan.
2. The most important topic to lead on for companies is POSITIVE LOBBYING for more strict climate regulations. Which companies or sectors have published detailed net zero plans and strategies that include a detailed analysis of the type of policies, regulations, incentives, etc that would enable them to reach that target and remain competitive and profitable.
Good morning Sir, I continue to enjoy your newsletter, thank you. To answer your question, my suggestion is private sector companies in addition to city, county, state, and federal governments should adopt purchasing policies that give preference to businesses that are 3rd party certified as climate friendly. The certification for climate friendly would mean these businesses would measure their emissions, Scope 1-3, and then either change practices to make them 0 or engage the voluntary offset markets to eliminate them. Whichever was cheaper would arguably drive their decision. It goes without saying we need rigorous standards in our carbon markets, but if paying villages to convert wood burning stoves to methane bio-digester cooking systems (sometimes for $8/ton) is cheaper than putting up your own solar panels with back up batteries, to me it should be obvious we should do the cheaper one. This would lead to us doing the cheap and easy stuff first and buying us time to do the harder stuff later. To me there should be an explosion of emission reduction work by the carbon offset market where innovators are seeking the cheapest lowest hanging fruit to capitalize on this work. FWIW, I advocated for this policy at the City of Gresham but the lack of trust with the carbon offset market was a big obstacle.
Your spot-on comment about "reducing emissions now" being more valuable than "reducing emissions later" underscores the Time Value of Carbon Reduction!
Not sure about that Time ranking of so many companies. Are they trying to be the US News of college rankings? I like your idea of emphasizing 3 critical areas (net zero by 2030, carbon renewal, and extension to supply chain) and highlighting each year the top 5 or whatever in that category, with specificity related to their accomplishments.
Carrot vs. stick: What about also highlighting the bottom of the barrel, the 5 or so companies that are doing the most damage, either by obfuscation or by denial or by outright carbon pollution?
Good indeed to praise the front-runners every now and again.
Two comments/suggestions:
1. I think 2030 net zero goals should only be praised if accompanied by a detailed plan on how the company will get there. 2030 is 6 years away, so any significant changes in equipment, energy supply, etc, would need to be in the planning more or less already. Same for targets to reduce emissions by 40-60% in 2030. Only deserve praise IF there is a detailed plan.
2. The most important topic to lead on for companies is POSITIVE LOBBYING for more strict climate regulations. Which companies or sectors have published detailed net zero plans and strategies that include a detailed analysis of the type of policies, regulations, incentives, etc that would enable them to reach that target and remain competitive and profitable.