“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” – John Stuart Mill
Following the last Invest With Impact newsletter, about Epoch.Blue and their work to help companies monitor and decrease emissions throughout their supply chain, a few readers voiced a response. In the spirit of Invest With Impact not being a soapbox, but a community that values socratic discussion of these topics and not just talking points, I wanted to both offer a response and an invitation to discuss further. The essential question was this: “Based on the recent lawsuit against Delta Airlines which claims that carbon credits aren’t reducing emissions, and a subsequent loss of consumer interest in companies who use them as a marketing tool, does the market for carbon credits just disappear?” Without a free and open discussion of the relevant issues on which Invest With Impact is focused, fixing problems through innovation, the net effect of that innovation is dramatically decreased by everyone holding their own narrow opinions. Wide discussion of these topics allows everyone to hone their arguments through debate and the raising of counterpoints, while also helping to better inform those who might not have the full picture. I think that this opinion is well-founded and well-intended, so I wanted to offer a response in the spirit of free discussion.
First, and most notably, Epoch.Blue(the company whose feature on this newsletter prompted this) isn’t selling Carbon Credits. They are working on a tool that allows companies to monitor emissions throughout their supply chain, and allow companies to incentivize carbon emission reductions from deep in their supply chains. This is easiest to illustrate for companies with large agricultural supply chains, where the decrease in carbon emissions could come from paying a farmer a small amount to incorporate practices that deliberately sequester carbon in their fields. This is a very different mechanism than the carbon credit market, and while the Voluntary Carbon Market is mostly used as a marketing tool, with the side benefit of potentially reducing emissions, a deliberate effort by companies using holistic tools like Epoch.Blue can reduce emissions, and not just offset them.
Finally, I would like to open this up to the Invest With Impact community. The very foundation of the newsletter is to promote discussion of these topics, not to dictate a viewpoint. If you disagree with me or have a different perspective, it is in both our best interests, and the best interests of the community at large to have an open discussion about it. Next week will return with “regularly scheduled programming”, but as the community grows, I wanted to spend some time to encourage discussion and debate as well as clear up any misconceptions about the topics covered in last week’s newsletter. Please feel free to respond to the post on Substack, tweet at me @Garberchov, or send me a message on LinkedIn, and we will include them in next week’s newsletter.
If you liked this, please consider sharing it with someone else who might – the power of the Invest with Impact movement is only as great as those who know about it. If someone forwarded this to you, and you haven’t joined, please consider subscribing. See you next week!