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.
Hey Robinson, thanks for reading and for commenting!
There are definitely specific areas where the investment would net a much higher "return," to your point. To the degree it's possible/practical, I think focusing on those areas is absolutely worthwhile, like what Culdesac is doing building a car-free neighborhood next to existing transit infrastructure in Tempe, AZ.
To your point about perfectionism, I do think perfect is the enemy of progress here, as there's often unfortunately a lack of political will or other major barriers to doing this work where it may statistically yield the most benefit. Knowing that those realities exist, and can't *always* be overcome in the short-run (though we should always try, and try hard), I think there's a balancing act of prioritizing highest-impact places and also "taking what you can get."
It's an art *and* a science. The science is about finding the "highest ROI" places, the art is in knowing when to take wins where they exist and when to press for better/not "settle." I don't think there's a perfect answer, so I think the best disposition is just to "have an eye for opportunity" wherever we're located.
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.
Hey Robinson, thanks for reading and for commenting!
There are definitely specific areas where the investment would net a much higher "return," to your point. To the degree it's possible/practical, I think focusing on those areas is absolutely worthwhile, like what Culdesac is doing building a car-free neighborhood next to existing transit infrastructure in Tempe, AZ.
To your point about perfectionism, I do think perfect is the enemy of progress here, as there's often unfortunately a lack of political will or other major barriers to doing this work where it may statistically yield the most benefit. Knowing that those realities exist, and can't *always* be overcome in the short-run (though we should always try, and try hard), I think there's a balancing act of prioritizing highest-impact places and also "taking what you can get."
It's an art *and* a science. The science is about finding the "highest ROI" places, the art is in knowing when to take wins where they exist and when to press for better/not "settle." I don't think there's a perfect answer, so I think the best disposition is just to "have an eye for opportunity" wherever we're located.