Just to expand on my reply to James comment about the cost benefits converting CO2 to Methanol.
In private business every project has a cost/benefit analysis done to enable the business to get the best value for their spend. This usually involves all options being considered and the best one, in that businesses view, is chosen and implemented.
In government of course the criteria is different and thus it will not be the best value for money that is chosen but the one that gives whatever criteria is chosen by the selectors. Thus it may be the one where a minister is on the board for example rather than one that is much cheaper. (Just an example)
In costing your projects in the green area though the cost/benefits are treated pretty much as a direct cost and the benefits are it enables the project to go ahead and shuts the whingey whiney greenies up. Excellent benefits on their own btw.
So all that is done is the cost is added to the total costs and then evaluated to see if there is profit to be made. If so it’s a go, if not then it’s halted.
Now the government always knows what is best. Even better than people in the line of business it fiddles with. Because as previously stated their criteria is to cost effectively reduce emissions, for example, whilst the governments is to make sure that the correct mix of foreigners, women and gay people are employed. (The government has many agendas)
Now if the government didn’t specify what green add ons it wanted but specified a few attainable criteria on emissions instead then business would chose the cheapest and the best and emissions would come down. I’m sure it wouldn’t be what the government chooses though.
The benefits for any green costs
Just to expand on my reply to James comment about the cost benefits converting CO2 to Methanol.
In private business every project has a cost/benefit analysis done to enable the business to get the best value for their spend. This usually involves all options being considered and the best one, in that businesses view, is chosen and implemented.
In government of course the criteria is different and thus it will not be the best value for money that is chosen but the one that gives whatever criteria is chosen by the selectors. Thus it may be the one where a minister is on the board for example rather than one that is much cheaper. (Just an example)
In costing your projects in the green area though the cost/benefits are treated pretty much as a direct cost and the benefits are it enables the project to go ahead and shuts the whingey whiney greenies up. Excellent benefits on their own btw.
So all that is done is the cost is added to the total costs and then evaluated to see if there is profit to be made. If so it’s a go, if not then it’s halted.
Now the government always knows what is best. Even better than people in the line of business it fiddles with. Because as previously stated their criteria is to cost effectively reduce emissions, for example, whilst the governments is to make sure that the correct mix of foreigners, women and gay people are employed. (The government has many agendas)
Now if the government didn’t specify what green add ons it wanted but specified a few attainable criteria on emissions instead then business would chose the cheapest and the best and emissions would come down. I’m sure it wouldn’t be what the government chooses though.