I think you’re describing the challenge pretty well: attributional vs. consequential or average vs. marginal emissions. But if we step back, it seems that we should focus on approaches which serve to reduce emissions rather than increase them—full stop. When you look at the problem through that lens the value of the consequential or marginal approach makes more sense than any other. Clearly, it’s not perfect but the point should be that adding renewables to the highest emitting grids will have the greatest impact and that is worth doing. It’s not about hourly or monthly or annual accounting: to paraphrase James Carville, it’s the carbon, stupid!

Expand full comment