I'm not opposed to designing things to recycle, reuse, etc better, but my instinct tells me entropy will win and that carbon taxes + public R&D/venture funding are likely enough, and I'm unsure they'd come to this conclusion. Is your project going to be public?
-
-
But materially embodied energy is direct energy somewhere right? Are you saying that when say China sends stuff we'd have carbon tariffs to account for them not doing it? That would seem reasonable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Energy in general is much more legible and within it, electricity generation and transportation are the most legible parts. But I don’t think there’s a way to decarbonize based on energy alone. You have to do a “renewables” equivalent to materials production and use as well.
-
We already have the harmonized code / UNSPEC systems though to start with though, so we'd have a good idea of embodied carbon by code, and there'd be a whole business of trying to green certify that you were doing better than average to reduce your taxes.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If you could get China to run all their mining ops and factories on renewables that would certainly make the point moot. My guess is that transition will happen but too slowly to matter.
-
If the world tariffed it, it'd happen or they'd buy credits. It's technically straight forward. Agreed though that actually assuming we can pass a carbon tax law soon is far from certain.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.