"Say Company X manufactures a material; one day, it figures out how to manufacture the material more efficiently, or make it lighter, or some such. The material is used by Company Y to make a product. With X's more-efficient, lighter material, Y is able to make its product lighter and more efficient, and thus reduce the product's CO2 emissions. Who gets credit for the carbon reduction? "
Have I missed something in this example? Surely it's the second company? Theirs are the carbon emissions that go down.
The referred article goes all complex on the matter but the basic thing is whose emissions have gone down?
Carbon confusion | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist Magazine:
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
USAican RW Christians misunderstand "socialism"
The other day on Mastodon, I came across an article about left-wing politics and Jesus. It appears to have been written from a Christian-na...
-
I'm not sure people have believed me when I've said that there have been discovered uncaffeinated coffee beans. Well, here's one...
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
-
Unexpected (and sorry, it's from Friday -but I was a bit busy the end of last week), but I'm really pleased for the city which I sti...
No comments:
Post a Comment