There is a mistake in this analysis, but I’m happy that by removing the mistakes we come out as a clear winner. - Double accounts for risk (in expected value, and then it applies risk again on the expected value, which already included an 80-90% risk/failure rate) - Your analysis gives zero weight to the social cost of carbon and social return on investment, which in conservative scenarios return additional millions to society in our case, and in most stock market cases would have costs instead of benefits - We are not a consumer marketplace, and we are not in recycling
There is a mistake in this analysis, but I’m happy that by removing the mistakes we come out as a clear winner.
- Double accounts for risk (in expected value, and then it applies risk again on the expected value, which already included an 80-90% risk/failure rate)
- Your analysis gives zero weight to the social cost of carbon and social return on investment, which in conservative scenarios return additional millions to society in our case, and in most stock market cases would have costs instead of benefits
- We are not a consumer marketplace, and we are not in recycling
Could you adjust for the mistake please?