Thanks for your writing, Michael. I'm a recent subscriber and enjoying it so far.
I think an objective perspective towards this issue might consider the net carbon emissions of a project through a time-value lens, similar to that of a discounted cash flow model. The change might cost us 10 units of emissions today, but it saves us 2 units of emissions each year going forward. It's important not just to consider the net emissions, but the rate at which that reduction is achieved. The purely emissions-motivated investor would invest in the projects that return the greatest time-adjusted reduction in emissions.
Of course, this could become a rabbit hole of over-analyzing and letting perfect be the enemy of progress.
Thanks for your writing, Michael. I'm a recent subscriber and enjoying it so far.
I think an objective perspective towards this issue might consider the net carbon emissions of a project through a time-value lens, similar to that of a discounted cash flow model. The change might cost us 10 units of emissions today, but it saves us 2 units of emissions each year going forward. It's important not just to consider the net emissions, but the rate at which that reduction is achieved. The purely emissions-motivated investor would invest in the projects that return the greatest time-adjusted reduction in emissions.
Of course, this could become a rabbit hole of over-analyzing and letting perfect be the enemy of progress.