4 ms·

Part of me says this is great because we need every single action towards reducing carbon in the atmosphere - big and small - we can get if we want to even get

Part of me says this is great because we need every single action towards reducing carbon in the atmosphere - big and small - we can get if we want to even get close to where we need to avoid catastrophe. Another part of me wonders why would anyone chose Wren over COTAP[0] (for example) - a non-profit (501c3) where 90.9% of funds go toward their projects, you get a tax deduction and you can check in on their finances via their non-profit filings to ensure they are actually allocating funds how they say they are. [0] https://cotap.org https://cotap.org edit: grammar

robertk 7y ago
Humans are not rational agents. Scaling through a technology model that measures “customer acquisition” and uses its for profit structure to identify more effective messaging and adoption patterns for carbon offsetting commitments may be more impactful on aggregate, even if per your remarks it is objectively worse than the nfp alternative. On the subset of humanity that is already pro-active on this, advertising COTAP is the way to go but the strategies are complementary.
bstanfield15 7y ago
Hi Justin! Ben here, co-founder of Wren. COTAP is a great organization, and the non-profit filings are a good, fundamental way to verify that they exist and are doing what they say. In response to why Wren, our philosophy is that most individuals—perhaps most of you on HN excluded—don't spend the time to figure how to contribute to stopping climate change, let alone carbon reduction projects, and certainly don't spend additional time following up on the additionality and usage of their donations. On top of that, there is a great opportunity to stitch this community together and create a place where ideas can be shared around climate reduction, projects can be supported in tandem, and ideas can be brought forward for how to reduce your carbon footprint. We're only a few weeks old and a lot of this is ambition, but our goal is to expand upon an individual's initial excitement around doing something about climate change.
- bstanfield15 7y ago
  Oh and on the note of public filings, we're looking into becoming a Public Benefit Corporation, a type of company that is obligated to consider the impact of their decisions on society, not only shareholders. Kickstarter is one as of 2015, and they published a great charter here: https://www.kickstarter.com/charter https://www.kickstarter.com/charter
- gustaf 7y ago
  This is a really good point. The goal of both Wren and COTAP is to have the most impact solving climate change. Having the most impact doesn't have to mean you charge the lowest fee - but it does mean removing the most amount of CO2. If charging a higher fee gives Wren a change to reach millions and get them to pay more where COTAP is still tiny and have one-time donations that is a strong argument for why a different model is needed here
  - cotap 7y ago
    COTAP here... Thanks to thisjustinm for getting us into the conversation : ) Not to rain on the parade here, just a cautionary tale that is intended to be helpful... I would say take a look at Cool Effect which launched in early 2016. Charity at a glance, but it's also a bottomless-pocketed family from Marin. It cuts itself checks from the Overlook Intl Foundation, run by the same people. Both orgs have same CEO. All fine... But look at the 990s... They have thrown the kitchen sink at this and have probably dumped $10+ million by now. $800K+ in PR and marketing before they even launched. Yet they've only sold well under 1 million tonnes over 3 years. In other words, back of the envelope they've lost $9 per tonne, even when being a charitable donation. Also, divide their 838,715 cumulative tonnes noted on their home page by their 533,115 cumulative members. 1.57 tonnes/member over 3 years, or a half tonne per member per year. Not anywhere close to the average US footprint. Half the country doesn't believe in climate change, or it's not a priority, or is living paycheck to paycheck, or all of the above. Offsetting is not anywhere on the horizon of their hierarchy of needs. Offsetting is complex, misunderstood, and controversial (see our op-ed's n TheHill.com for a taste). When you finally get beyond those nesting subsets, there's enough market size to go around in theory but it's extremely competitive.
chadl2 7y ago
Very cool, hadn't seen this before. Signed up for a monthly COTAP offset donation. :)
- cotap 7y ago
  Thanks!!
baby_wipe 7y ago
I don't care about how companies allocate their funds. Results matter more.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  If I can pick between two orgs with similar results, and get a tax deduction with one of them, I’m going with the one that I’m not paying taxes on the contribution.

robertk 7y ago

Humans are not rational agents. Scaling through a technology model that measures “customer acquisition” and uses its for profit structure to identify more effective messaging and adoption patterns for carbon offsetting commitments may be more impactful on aggregate, even if per your remarks it is objectively worse than the nfp alternative. On the subset of humanity that is already pro-active on this, advertising COTAP is the way to go but the strategies are complementary.

bstanfield15 7y ago

Hi Justin! Ben here, co-founder of Wren. COTAP is a great organization, and the non-profit filings are a good, fundamental way to verify that they exist and are doing what they say. In response to why Wren, our philosophy is that most individuals—perhaps most of you on HN excluded—don't spend the time to figure how to contribute to stopping climate change, let alone carbon reduction projects, and certainly don't spend additional time following up on the additionality and usage of their donations. On top of that, there is a great opportunity to stitch this community together and create a place where ideas can be shared around climate reduction, projects can be supported in tandem, and ideas can be brought forward for how to reduce your carbon footprint. We're only a few weeks old and a lot of this is ambition, but our goal is to expand upon an individual's initial excitement around doing something about climate change.

bstanfield15 7y ago
Oh and on the note of public filings, we're looking into becoming a Public Benefit Corporation, a type of company that is obligated to consider the impact of their decisions on society, not only shareholders. Kickstarter is one as of 2015, and they published a great charter here: https://www.kickstarter.com/charter https://www.kickstarter.com/charter
gustaf 7y ago
This is a really good point. The goal of both Wren and COTAP is to have the most impact solving climate change. Having the most impact doesn't have to mean you charge the lowest fee - but it does mean removing the most amount of CO2. If charging a higher fee gives Wren a change to reach millions and get them to pay more where COTAP is still tiny and have one-time donations that is a strong argument for why a different model is needed here
- cotap 7y ago
  COTAP here... Thanks to thisjustinm for getting us into the conversation : ) Not to rain on the parade here, just a cautionary tale that is intended to be helpful... I would say take a look at Cool Effect which launched in early 2016. Charity at a glance, but it's also a bottomless-pocketed family from Marin. It cuts itself checks from the Overlook Intl Foundation, run by the same people. Both orgs have same CEO. All fine... But look at the 990s... They have thrown the kitchen sink at this and have probably dumped $10+ million by now. $800K+ in PR and marketing before they even launched. Yet they've only sold well under 1 million tonnes over 3 years. In other words, back of the envelope they've lost $9 per tonne, even when being a charitable donation. Also, divide their 838,715 cumulative tonnes noted on their home page by their 533,115 cumulative members. 1.57 tonnes/member over 3 years, or a half tonne per member per year. Not anywhere close to the average US footprint. Half the country doesn't believe in climate change, or it's not a priority, or is living paycheck to paycheck, or all of the above. Offsetting is not anywhere on the horizon of their hierarchy of needs. Offsetting is complex, misunderstood, and controversial (see our op-ed's n TheHill.com for a taste). When you finally get beyond those nesting subsets, there's enough market size to go around in theory but it's extremely competitive.

chadl2 7y ago

Very cool, hadn't seen this before. Signed up for a monthly COTAP offset donation. :)

cotap 7y ago
Thanks!!

baby_wipe 7y ago

I don't care about how companies allocate their funds. Results matter more.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
If I can pick between two orgs with similar results, and get a tax deduction with one of them, I’m going with the one that I’m not paying taxes on the contribution.