One of those little problems with Sustainable Cost Accounting

SCA means that a retired accountant from Wandsworth will be evaluating businesses to see how much it will cost them to become carbon neutral. This poses certain problems:

And clean steel is just a pipe dream right now.

Clean steel is produced right now. Actually, the largest US producer makes nothing but clean steel. Nucor only ever recycles scrap.

Even if you mean clean virgin steel that’s also both possible and happening right now. DRI is just that. It’s not just that plants are being built around the world at least one is in production.

Along with all the other idiocies about it SCA depends upon the knowledge and technical judgements of someone with no knowledge and incapable of technological judgement. It’s not likely to work out well, is it?

9 thoughts on “One of those little problems with Sustainable Cost Accounting”

  1. I keep hearing this word “sustainable” applied to stuff that’s clearly going to collapse in a heap of dust and rubble in a fortnight. It must be some new definition of the word that I wasn’t previously aware of.

  2. I’m wouldn’t be surprised that a lot of ‘planned’ offsets were never planted, or would be interesting to see how much is an increase in planting vs buying a certificate from someone who was going to be planting anyway and realised this is a handy way to subside existing activity.

  3. I think the potato thinks of sustainable in relation to how long he can fool organisations into giving him money. He might be an ignoramus about economics, politics and science, with the personality of a hungry hippo, but he can’t half grift.

  4. ” would be interesting to see how much is an increase in planting vs buying a certificate from someone who was going to be planting anyway and realised this is a handy way to subside existing activity.”

    Thats definitely the case with the carbon offset payments that are available to the farming industry, they are basically paying people to continue doing what they are doing anyway. They pay people to use direct drilling for example instead of ploughing, among other things. But farmers who think direct drilling is a good idea are doing already, so whats the point of paying them? Maybe if someone was going to swap between the cultivation methods then it would make sense to pay them to do it, and continue to do so, but 90% of the carbon offsets will be for existing activities and not one jot extra of carbon is sequestered than would have been anyway. Its all just a complete con.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *