Reading this https://www.altcoinbuzz.io/cryptocurrency-news/partnerships/tezos-and-cambridge-university-partnership-to-facilitate-reforestation/
makes me think of this: tezos should use a part of its inflation to feed a dao contract that would be dedicated to compensate the tezos carbon emissions. Or maybe to compensate more than what it creates. Each time a single person do a transaction on tezos, the earth become cleaner. Tezos, the first earth greening ledger. That sound awsome!
IMHO, using L1 for that important purpose is not worse than using L1 for liquidity baking rewards.
I don’t mean to be rude, but maybe you should fund it with your pockets instead of asking for an inflationary tax to fund your altruistic end.
XTZ printing machine could go brrrr to feed people in Africa too, and that might seem something very noble too, like your green stuff is, but is simply economically bad for all XTZ hodlers since inflation dilutes the value of our coins.
Thats not altruistic but a cheap marketing action. Even accounting for the manufacture of the baking rigs that should not be much more than 1k$/year, but its still early here so do your own calculation:
How much inflationary fiscal pressure would be added by funding this marketing attempt? We already have 0.3% annual dilutive inflation with LB. And is it worth it? We are already marketing ourselves as a green blockchain, #cleanNFT, etc and is not attracting much external capital investment, being carbon-neutral or even carbon negative will make the difference?
You are a baker and so better suited to calculate it.
1 ton of CO2 costs 51 USD.
1 manufactured Laptop produces 250 kg CO2.
1 kWh produces 0.4 kg CO2.
So it should be somewhere between neglible and miniscule.
Still not worth it, even if it is a miniscule investment. The marketing benefits from being almost neutral (99%) to full neutral (100%) is not going to bring any more capital investment to tezos.
1/Carbon neutrality is not a matter of altruism. Any product or service produced on earth should be carbon neutral. That’s just realism.
2/ More and more people will take care of ESG criterias when they invest or consume. Taking care of ESG is clearly a differentiating factor. Look at the meme often heard: “green NFTs”
We already are 99% carbon-neutral compared to Ethereum, making 100% carbon-neutral with a tax i doubt is going to do much in terms of marketing benefits. Maybe if we actually reach 10% carbon-negative would make some marketing noise, but funding 10% carbon-negative with an annual inflation tax might still be expensive, let me calculate it, @Haxerol fix my math if I’m wrong, okay so for 100% neutral and 10% negative carbon footprint:
Okay, so, there are around 388 bakers… assuming they all use the same equipment (laptop) = 97000 Kg of CO2.
According to this image a laptop consumes 75 kW/h annually, so 388 bakers (x) by 75 = 29100 Kw/h per year (x) 0.4 kg of CO2 = 11640 kilograms of CO2.
97000 kg CO2 + 11640 kg CO2 = 108640 kg or 119.755101 tons of CO2, now multiplied by the CO2 ton cost, 119.75 x 51 USD = 6107.25 US dollars that we would have to print annually to be carbon-neutral
Now to be 10% carbon-negative, we could print another extra annual $610, so in total = $6717 annual.
Does it worth it to be carbon-negative from a marketing standpoint to dilute ourselves $6717 a year? IT is a miniscule amount of money, that I agree, but I just don’t think it is going to do much for marketing, this is my personal opinion.
You mean, that we should tax ourselves annually to give the money to a DAO contract, then the DAO contract would have to give the money to a third party? And what this third party will do with the money? Plant trees, I guess? Serious question.
Why do you buy a new laptop each year to bake?
Oh yes facepalm, sorry, initial year only. Then the rest, $654 a year for carbon-neutral.
It would be negligible and honestly to see a decent marketing benefit, we should spend much more. We could print $1,000,000 worth of XTZ annually to fund a DAO that will be in charge of funding community projects like reforestation, planting trees, etc. And we could also let participate big organizations that are already planting trees worldwide in the DAO, not just community projects.
Then promotion ourselves as a blockchain that is 152905% carbon-NEGATIVE and that is saving the world, see if it works.
I absolutley disagree.
I do not agree that carbon neutrality is important or that ‘ESG’ is anything honest, good or in the interests of the environment or Tezos.
Quite the opposite, ‘ESG’ is a detriment to the environment.
I absolutely and especially disagree ( as a user, builder, and Baker ) with any portion of the inflation going to subsidize any kind of initiative like this.
To be ‘economically friendly’ is to already be both human, animal and environmentally sound, since a good economic actor is wise with their use of resources. No need to add the politicized labels “green,” “clean,” or “eco-whatever.”
Yeah, I disagree as well of taxing ourselves for having more green labels. I’ve said it, it is not worth it. And I will disagree in almost everything that involves inflationary taxes anyway
I like the idea but strongly disagree that it should be included in the protocol. I’d love to see this capability included in TRD as a voluntary option for bakers.
I would also like to call out that the numbers you’ve sourced are inaccurate. I’m quite familiar with the carbon credit field and, truthfully, 99% of the projects range from low quality - illegitimate. Legitimate sources are tough to find. Regen is attempting an on-chain scheme. Toucan is an on-chain bridge backed by the reputable Verra Registry, based on the Polygon network.