4 ms·
I’m paying Climeworks 1000$ to remove a ton of CO2 every month. Not very cost effective, but a start.
by Hermel 7y ago
I’m paying Climeworks 1000$ to remove a ton of CO2 every month. Not very cost effective, but a start.
- adrianN 7y agoYou could pay $100 and buy two tons of coal every month and $900 to bury it somewhere.
- paulcarroty 7y agoBuying coal isn't effective by design - you'll only encourage market to produce more & more coal.
- adrianN 7y agoYou raise the price for people who want to burn it.
- Fiahil 7y agoYou could also plant 100 trees every month for the same amount, and in 5 years you would have a small forest + removed 1079 tons of C02 instead of 60. In 10 years, you would have 12000 trees and removed 4283 tons of C02 instead of 120. Trees are not really the best carbon removal tool that one could hope for, but at least they're a decent comparison. PS: Very approximate carbon removal per tree per year rate of 5.9kg. Bigger trees can remove more carbon (>22kg for a 10yo tree) and the tree species also have a role to play, but you get the point, climeworks effectiveness is extremely small and you're lighting piles of cash on fire.
- hawski 7y agoHow much CO2, on scale, let's say, 10 years, planting 1000 trees a month would remove? I have https://teamtrees.org/ https://teamtrees.org/ in mind, they claim to plant one tree for each dollar.
- Fiahil 7y ago10 years, with 1000 trees a month (it's a lot of trees!) make 42834 tons of CO2 (with very average calculation and constant CO2 removal rate instead of linear growth) By comparison, climeworks would have removed 120 tons of CO2.