I have to admit I do not think this attack happened either by chance or without co-ordination in some way.
In addition, I very much doubt that all the names used to post comment are unrelated: apart from making the obvious point that all are likely to be false I rather suspect there may be multiple identities for a single person involved.
Apparently my writing about his mistakes here is “coordination” now.
So, just for the avoidance of doubt Snippa. I have not told anyone to go comment on your blog. I never do in fact. I have also not coordinated anything. All I have done is indulge in a little free speech by reading, then considering and commenting upon, your proposal.
As I’m now about to do again:
Then SCA suggests that a business must have a plan for becoming net carbon neutral, including on Scope 3.
Scope 3 emissions belong to those using the product, not those making it. This is a fundamental error here.
After then it is claimed that there is double counting by including Scope 3. And yes, there could be if a product does, after sale pass through multiple further business hands before reaching an end consumer. But this entirely misses the point of SCA.
No, we’re talking about your assumption within SCA. The end consumer is the one travelling, cooking, consuming and thus emitting. And it’s consumer behaviour we desire to change too. This is all made entirely plain in the Stern Review and other such basic documents.
That double counting would matter if SCA was a macroeconomic measure. But it is not. It is a microeconomic measure. What it is seeking to appraise is what an entity’s contribution to global heating might be.
It’s still double counting and it still matters.
And if it is in a supply chain that delivers global heating it is playing a part in that process.
Jeebus, you’re not even understanding your own point. The supply chain is Scopes 1 and 2. Scope 3 is not the supply chain, it’s consumption.
Then it is claimed by critics that SCA prices this carbon that has been measured. Quite specifically sustainable cost accounting does not do that. It prices the cost of eliminating the carbon.
Which is another mistake being made. The cost of eliminating the emissions isn’t the important thing. The damage the emissions – their cost – do is.
It does not require the creation of an artificial market in carbon, thankfully. That’s not least because that market is not going to exist at any price that might be required at any foreseeable time in the future.
Trying to do economics without considering prices is, well, it’s rampantly stupid actually. And to claim that carbon is going to have no price at all is insane. It might even be a high price but there is going to be one.
As a consequence I propose that a precautionary principle must apply: only proven technology can be included in a plan to be net carbon neutral.
The world must become carbon neutral, today, with extant and proven technologies only. Entirely missing the point of Stern, Nordhaus et al, that the task is to develop the technologies which allow industrial society without climate change.
I am well aware that those who do not like sustainable cost accounting will wish to continue to take issue with it, and I m entirely happy about that: if I did not believe in constructive debate I would not have facilitated comments on this blog for as long as I have. But, those who raise repetitive, and continually inappropriate questions on the subject, not least because they make false claims as to what SCA is about, will simply be referred to this blog post. And those who are here to troll can expect to be banned.
And anyone who continues to point out Snippa’s errors will be banned. Got that?