That's not what this site shows. The numbers are way too low, this cannot include the (indeed) BS like paying a farmer 10 bucks not to remove a tree in the next year or planting trees and pretending on paper like they'll all grow to maturity.

Also confirmed in the discussion elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36190193

Baseless criticising of a good thing is what I'd call BS, rather than the companies showing up on this site...

(To be clear, prevention is better than capture from a very simple return on investment perspective, but if these companies would rather pay someone to clean up their mess than do it themselves, and are willing to pay that capture premium.. be my guest. Net zero is net zero. If they price themselves out of the market because capture is so costly, that's their own problem.)

The delivery curve is pretty clearly exponentially increasing, so yes, it would make intuitive sense that delivery is at an all time peak, because delivery is rapidly increasing.

It would be much more concerning if the all time peak was historical, and it was post peak. That would indicate something negative.

Being at an all time peak is a strongly good sign.

I looked up some criticisms, which boiled down to:

- 79% of Americans support ESG investing.

- Republicans are more likely than Democrats to oppose interference in ESG investment strategies.

- Some Republicans, especially DeSantis, are trying to start an anti-ESG culture war, but it hasn’t had much impact on investment holdings.

- Some Democrats think ESG is a scam because some of the stuff it screens for doesn’t actually improve the environment or social justice. (For instance, some ESG indexes measure resilience against climate change instead of taking action to avoid climate change).

So, I’m really not seeing what point you are trying to make.

The above is mostly from Forbes, who are obviously pro-business. The critique about ESG not being progressive enough is from the Atlantic.