It's not that they cannot. They don't have an incentive to do it.
If I'm being paid for my performance while I'm a CEO, why would I spend money today (and hurt my performance today) to fix a problem that MIGHT affect the company in 20 years
It just that it is more likely that founders genuinely care about their baby, so they have more incentive to make the company more resilient to long term risks. I don't think this is an absurd claim. It's not that every founder is the same, there are founders who behave just like most CEOs.
No, they literally cannot. Because if they try to, they will be fired by the board for failing to perform and replaced with someone who will undo their work.
Because you aren't actually being paid for your performance as CEO. You are being "paid" by increasing the value of the company you mostly own. Its up to you to play the long game or the short game. Ivy MBAs don't even have the option.
Does the lithium, cobalt, etc. not undergo a material change as the battery is used? Meaning, is the lithium in a brand new battery the same as the lithium in a battery that's been used for years?
I would presume the question was about the physical and chemical state of the lithium rather than the atomic makeup. Like whether the lithium is ionized, whether it's a powder or crystallized solid, etc.
Both chemically combine with other atoms to form molecules - that is how a battery works. If they combine with the wrong thing it can be a lot harder to separate them again (not nuclear level, but harder)
The stoichiometry stays exactly the same, just shred the battery and feed the result back to the beginning of the e.g cobalt mining operation operation. Better however if you somehow manage to roughly separate it into lithium, cobalt and so on and use the result instead of the respective ore.
I keep seeing this argument that companies are responsible for pollution. While yes it's true, why do you think those companies are polluting? It's not because they get up in the morning and say "better go pollute a bit more today!" They are creating products/services for people.
So if it bothers you that much then stop using those products/services. Not possible? Then vote to change laws. Not possible? Revolution
I get that putting the onus on consumers isn't going to fix the problem, but pointing to a factory that pollutes because you buy their products and want their product cheaply is equally inane
> It's not because they get up in the morning and say "better go pollute a bit more today!"
Of course not, but they do actively make decisions based on profit over sustainability.
> So if it bothers you that much then stop using those products/services. Not possible? Then vote to change laws. Not possible? Revolution
One voter voting on an issue doesn't change anything. These kinds of arguments must be made to convince others to vote with you on the issue. The same could be said of a revolution: a one person revolt doesn't go anywhere, we need more folks to embrace the revolution.
There's also been a concerted effort by corporations over the past few decades to shift blame from corporations & manufacturers responsible for pollution onto the consumers, which makes arguments like these necessary (because otherwise the only argument on the market is that we consumers are just buying plastics to spite the environment, to be hyperbolic about it).
> Of course not, but they do actively make decisions based on profit over sustainability.
and that's what they're supposed to do. Make the most profits while abiding by the law. As consumers start caring more about sustainable supply chains so will producers. When their profits get hurt because consumers choose a more sustainable product, then you'll see change. As long as consumers don't care and just want the cheapest thing (which unfortunately has been the great majority of people for the past 100 years) the producers won't care either
Exactly. People are always quick to call for a ban on any externality they can blame whilst not spending a single thought cycle on their own behavior.
As soon as principles are really tested, it's crickets.
People have large TVs, ACs, high-end gaming PCs, a ton of devices, huge cars, eat lots of meat, use air travel, and drown themselves in cheap packages from China.
All of this life-style is our natural birth right, and none of its should be banned or taxed. Also, it doesn't contribute to the climate problem at all. It's all Bitcoin's fault. Or, the "industry".
> but pointing to a factory that pollutes because you buy their products and want their product cheaply is equally inane
Agreed, but I'm not pointing at the factories. Consumers _can't_ lobby congress or control the media narrative. Factories don't lobby congress nor spin a media narrative designed to distract attention from those profiting off dumping the externalities of the business models onto the world.
I'm pointing at the corporations (the sum actions of their boards & C-suites taken as a single entity) that own the factories and reap the rewards. I'm pointing at the people that have effectively "won" capitalism and then took it way too far by changing the law and controlling the narrative to make sure they stay in power no matter the costs.
I hope there's some resolution that doesn't require a revolution, though I suspect we'll just do _nothing_... then it'll be a mega-clusterfuck the likes of which we can barely imagine... and maybe after the first 10M-100M deaths due to famine/heat/fires/storms we may figure out that we need to do something... and it'll be too late and/or that something will be another major war.
But before that western society gets to decide how to handle storms/crop failures/droughts driving the largest human mass-migration EVER (Central America => USA, Africa/Middle East => Europe) during a period when resources are constraining.
some people (like me) don't have separation of work/life balance. I get emails 24 hours a day. Markets move every second from sunday evening until friday afternoon. I'm constantly on my phone or in front of my computer.
So I would rather do this while sitting in comfortable sweatpants at home rather than wasting 3 hours getting dressed, commuting, etc. to do the exact same thing I would be doing anyway. Plus I get to eat healthier food, save money on food, clean my place more, spend time with family more, go workout when there's a lull in the markets, etc.
So while for some work/life balance is better with a separation, for me and many others, work/life balance is drastically improved by not going into the office
Large solar farms take up a lot of land. Much more than wind does. It also makes that land useless for anything else other than solar.
Large wind farms generate more power than solar on a per acre basis and have a lot of land that can be used for cow/sheep grazing, buildings for other purposes, and so on.
Solar is getting so cheap that people can use them for "local solar" (in the industry, that's called distributed generation).
Rooftop solar on residential homes usually power the house first, then the battery of the house, then the grid. This could change if net metering is allowed though but usually only after your batteries are topped up.
Also you could just not have batteries (since it's so expensive). In that case any excess power will just go directly to the grid.
It's actually common for sheep to be grazed under solar and it helps keep the grass trimmer. Or the grassland can be managed for wildlife and polinators.
My guess is that solar sites will be managed to improve soil quality. And eventually we will rotate the fields under solar to give the soil a rest. It is the perfect opportunity for a win-win.
Yea, they graze under/around solar panels but that's pretty much all you can do for a solar farm. Wind gives you more opportunity to use the land.
I don't see the solar site management thing happening by the way. A lot of time and effort goes into land siting and selection. It won't be that easy to just pack it up and move.
Nothing and some companies are looking at that. It changes the dispatch characteristics but that's not a big deal.
I can see this happening more in the future when you kind of run out of space and have increased demand for power. First thing you'll probably do is upgrade the turbines to be bigger/more efficient. Then if you've maxed that out you can start adding solar panels underneath the turbines.
At the end of the day it's about lowering your costs to generate the power you need.
If I'm being paid for my performance while I'm a CEO, why would I spend money today (and hurt my performance today) to fix a problem that MIGHT affect the company in 20 years