I just wrote a blog post about linking LCFS programs. With nearly a dozen LCFS programs around the world, each with their own carbon price, it could be incredibly economically beneficial to link programs in order to create business certainty and increase the political durability of these programs. The main barrier to linking programs is that the compliance targets would have to be linked between jurisdictions, which would require rulemaking and coordination. Such rulemaking may be subject to lawsuits, as we saw with POET I and POET II in the early days of the California LCFS. But the upside in terms of economic efficiency and business certainty would far outweigh the challenges of linking programs. As JFK said, “We choose to [do these things] not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” https://lnkd.in/gy4CPgi5
Mohsen S.
3w
And I put one from Obama "But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade. That would be worse for our deficit, worse for business, worse for you, and worse for the next generation. And I refuse to let that happen."
Founder, Circular Solar Innovating solar, battery efficiency with circular economy materials and CDR (carbon dioxide removal)
3wGood to hear Will. That's why in 2023-2024 I travelled to the EU, Turkiye on my US made (initially Canadian) project. Global carbon removal solutions for global problems means linking up will expedite on adoption, application and this lowers innovation costs.