Sounded astonishingly high, but a quick search from a few sources (one cited [1]) checks out. Now to go down a rabbit hole of how this 82 gallons breaks down and what I can do to reduce my consumption...
Seems like its BS, but lets boil it down to a simple unit example:
Company g pulls 1 unit of electricity from a coal power plant that produces just that 1 unit of electricity. By buying carbon offsets, g indirectly funds a power developer to replace the coal plant with a solar plant.
In this example, offsets produce the same net reduction as building their own solar power plant. As long as you purchase offsets from reputable organizations that require the deployment of proceeds to directly offset carbon that would not otherwise have occurred, then it works.
To me, "paying for" and "diluted" connotates negative emotions.
Cash paid in this instance is treated no different than cash in their normal operating expenses. If either generates profits in line with their current expected returns, the stock price stays the same, and everyone is indifferent to the transaction.
Same goes for stock issuance. If the expectation of the use of proceeds from the issuance are in line with the company's current expected returns, everyone is indifferent.
Your statement is still true, and the stock market jumped today on the news, so I feel my connotation is misplaced.
This works for the masses, but in my experience when machines force a use case, it causes more headache than not cause I'm not like the masses.
A barely related side rant: my microwave decided it wants to error out when it thinks you're trying to microwave air. i have a bowl in there. stop telling me to open the door to put something in. Whatever engineer at GE thought they would be smarter than the user, you're one of the many reasons your company is going out of business.
Curious. Left-right scrolling works as expected, however up down turns into left-right but with vertical overscroll. seems like they need an extra "overscroll-behavior-y: none;"
There's no long term risk to google and other ad exchanges because the advertisers are in a prisoners dilemma.
If the advertisers collude or trust that the competitors won't increases ad spend, the relative market share stays the same and all companies participating enjoy increased margins.
The first company to break gains market share, so as a result they all "overspend" and google is the only one that benefits.
The worst part is the cost of google's margin is baked into product pricing, so the end result is we pay more to have the companies compete to advertise to us.
My bank charges these fees, however there is an out for automated withdrawals, so I have a few of my bank accounts transferring the same amount between each other.
[1] https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/scie...