Yes, but one way may be quicker. That is the difference.
Edit: think about it this way. If it continues as is, they will continue to get VC money. If they have 5 years of funding for the sake of argument, and they can stem the tide a bit, they can ride it out and add on more and more years from VC cash infusions.
If the bleed increases, depending on how much it increases, it could be less palatable to a VC. So they don’t gain an extra round of funding, they have to close up shop sooner.
If it worked out to close them after 5 years through a 10% increase in CO2 output, that far outweighs them continuing for another 10 or 15 years and the CO2 that would produce.
The question isn’t whether or not they will continue to operate, but for how long.
But it should also have an insanely high CO2 output, so maybe be more direct.
Debatable.
If it causes them to go out of business, will it result in less co2 over time, despite the increase now?
If so, it may be worth it to speed up the process by adding “pretty please” and “thank you so much” to every sentence.
They’ll go out of business either way.
God, I hope so.
Yes, but one way may be quicker. That is the difference.
Edit: think about it this way. If it continues as is, they will continue to get VC money. If they have 5 years of funding for the sake of argument, and they can stem the tide a bit, they can ride it out and add on more and more years from VC cash infusions.
If the bleed increases, depending on how much it increases, it could be less palatable to a VC. So they don’t gain an extra round of funding, they have to close up shop sooner.
If it worked out to close them after 5 years through a 10% increase in CO2 output, that far outweighs them continuing for another 10 or 15 years and the CO2 that would produce.
The question isn’t whether or not they will continue to operate, but for how long.