2050 is so far into the future its meaningless. If they were serious, it would be early to mid 2030s. What’s worse is that renewable energy is very viable and there are tons of tax credits to offset the investment, so it also seems like poor corporate strategy to not invest.
Exactly! In the report, the companies that do have meaningful goals of at least 80% emissions reductions by 2030 do WAY better than the rest of the companies!
But a 2050 goal is meaningless, and “net” zero by 2050 is even more meaningless because they can claim to fill it with carbon capture or carbon credits.
If they were serious, they’d be making quarterly goals. Maybe not net zero this quarter or the next, but the immediate target would certainly not be more than a couple years from now at max.
2050 is so far into the future its meaningless. If they were serious, it would be early to mid 2030s. What’s worse is that renewable energy is very viable and there are tons of tax credits to offset the investment, so it also seems like poor corporate strategy to not invest.
Yeah that’s just playing for time. Can’t do anything this year eh?
Exactly! In the report, the companies that do have meaningful goals of at least 80% emissions reductions by 2030 do WAY better than the rest of the companies! But a 2050 goal is meaningless, and “net” zero by 2050 is even more meaningless because they can claim to fill it with carbon capture or carbon credits.
If they were serious, they’d be making quarterly goals. Maybe not net zero this quarter or the next, but the immediate target would certainly not be more than a couple years from now at max.