10 ms·

Personal CO2 Removal as a Service

95 points by jatsign 7y ago

shinryuu 7y ago
This cool. This kind of carbon removal is still very expensive.
PaulHoule 7y ago
If I calculate that right, it is about $1100 a ton. I just gave a presentation on BECCS w/ Brazilian Ethanol which comes out closer to $30. I haven't put it up, but here is one of the papers I based it on https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261916308194 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191...
- hannob 7y ago
  May I make a guess? You can only get to that number if you ignore landuse changes due to the ethanol production?
  - PaulHoule 7y ago
    Brazil had 379 sugar mills in 2014, thus there is already a land dedicated to sugarcane. This is a real business that makes money without subsidies. Ethanol plants produce CO2 as a byproduct of fermentation which is nearly pure and easy to purify to the point where it can be compressed to 1200 psi and not have nitrogen phase separate out and not have water vapor mix with the CO2 and make carbonic acid that eats pipe. So it is a small add-on to existing plants. A larger and more complex add-on would capture CO2 from the bagasse furnace. This could lead to more land-use changes if it improves the economics and if the ethanol industry can find more markets for fuel and electricity. Most of the ethanol plants are located near Sao Paulo and Rio because that is where the fuel and electricity are in demand. None of them are in the Amazon basin and few in the area to the south of it that is in risk of "savannafication".
- phnofive 7y ago
  As of eight months ago, it was about $500-600: > https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/climeworks-carbon-capture-technology/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/climeworks-carbon-ca...
  - cmutel 7y ago
    Yes, but the linked product/subscription also include deep injection, not just the capture.
- tantalor 7y ago
  TerraPass offers $10/ton https://www.terrapass.com/product/productindividuals-families https://www.terrapass.com/product/productindividuals-familie...
  - oneplusone 7y ago
    Carbon offsets is not the same as co2 removal.
    - lapink 7y ago
      If carbon offset is done well, wouldn't it be equivalent?
      - kohtatsu 7y ago
        AFAICT offsets are "We stopped one tonne from going in", removal is "We took one tonne out".
        throwaway894345 7y ago
        Unless I'm missing something, that sounds like the same net effect. Why is one better than the other apart from price?
        hirsin 7y ago
        It's insufficient - there's a cap on how much carbon we can stop emitting, and maxing that out will not be enough to halt climate change. Agreed though, in the sense that we should fully fund the cheap options while also funding research on going carbon negative.
        kempbellt 7y ago
        +0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths. Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction, but both are moves in the right direction.
- cmutel 7y ago
  You are right that this is very expensive. Other firms in this space estimate that there should be a lower bound for direct air capture of $100-200 per ton of CO2 [0]. However, this is a very different product than BECCS - it direct air capture (DAC) of CO2 which would not occur without your purchase, in the only real permanent operating storage facility we currently have. It is very difficult to know what the marginal impact of changes in sugarcane production are, though we do know that there is potential for either indirect land use change, or mitigation of reduction due to shifts in demand/supply and knock-on effects. [0] https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3
tdons 7y ago
Plant a tree.
- ur-whale 7y ago
  >Plant a tree. How does it compare to what they offer? (as in, metrics please).
  - themagician 7y ago
    About half the mass of a tree is carbon. Seeds cost a couple cents. Plant a big tree (oak, let’s say) in an area where it’s unlikely to burn down and it’s probably good for 1000kg of carbon storage. Comes with a lot of other benefits too.
    - Scarblac 7y ago
      What was the land used for before? It doesn't come for free.
    - jamil7 7y ago
      This is addressed on the website. I think at scale afforestation becomes a very risky prospect financially and requires a much larger amount of land putting biodiversity at risk and infringing on agriculture as apposed to the proposed CO2 remove technology. The cited paper for this on their website is unfortunately paywalled but I would be really interested in finding out more about this.
      - themagician 7y ago
        Big brain time. Biodiversity isn’t at risk if you plant different kinds of trees in different places. You don’t need to build a massive forest in any given place. Simply rebuilding the forests we used to have would go a long way.
        jamil7 7y ago
        No one is advocating for stopping conservation efforts or reforestation. But we will need a combination of solutions in order to reverse existing damage and meet targets.
christiansakai 7y ago
I wonder if plants can absorb the Carbon directly via their roots from the CO2-made-stone?
- philshem 7y ago
  Plants get their carbon from the air (CO2) via photosynthesis.
k__ 7y ago
Would be a good franchise. People probably prefer if CO2 was removed in their cities and not at some location kilometers away.
- devonstopps 7y ago
  You need clean, low-cost electricity near your city to support this. And to scale to a impactful level this will also require a very large amount of new, clean electricity generation...
  - k__ 7y ago
    Sure thing. But how big is the benefit otherwise?
- valw 7y ago
  What for? the harm done by excess CO2 is global, not local. CO2 is diffused across the whole world in a matter of months. Its climate-changing effect lasts much longer than that - decades to centuries.
jseliger 7y ago
One important question is not just "Where is CO2 removal now?" but "Where can CO2 removal companies go if they get adequate funding and consumer uptake?" I subscribe to Climeworks and think of it a bit like an ongoing Kickstarter. A lot of articles about climate change also leave one with an unfortunate sense of helplessness. This is something an average person can do.
- sporkland 7y ago
  That's what I'm doing as well. I assume if climeworks is successful then there will be others interested in the space as well.
quicklime 7y ago
If I've calculated correctly, this service costs $1100 per ton. A flight from New York to London emits about 1 ton of co2. The site talks about averages, but averages can be deceiving. Most people don't fly, and those that fly fly a lot. If you fly, you should probably try to overshot the average (by a lot) when you offset.
- gambiting 7y ago
  I flew from UK to Canada recently, and KLM was offering to "offset my CO2 emissions" for something stupid like $5. Surely....that's not actually a thing? What can they do for $5 that would offset so much CO2?
  - 101404 7y ago
    Did you read the fine print?
  - noir_lord 7y ago
    Plant several trees.
  - 300bps 7y ago
    I figured they must be planting a tree for that $5 and it seems I wasn't far off: https://klmtakescare.com/en/content/be-a-hero-fly-co2zero https://klmtakescare.com/en/content/be-a-hero-fly-co2zero
  - Tuxer 7y ago
    absolutely nothing. If the cost of carbon removal was 5$/ton, we wouldn't be having this climate change problem whatsoever.
    - londons_explore 7y ago
      In europe the carbon cost is EUR24/ton right now.
      - 7y ago
magic5227 7y ago
It might be nice to show how many others have subscribed. This is one of those services where people may think, "i'll do this but i don't want to be the only one." Seeing the scale can be motivating. It would also be nice to know how this would work at scale. If 100k people sign up, can they support that?
pacoverdi 7y ago
Maybe I didn't read the site thoroughly enough but... how do we know that they are doing their part of the bargain? How do we/they measure how much carbon is effectively removed from the atmosphere?
- imglorp 7y ago
  My thoughts too. How do we know it's not just a website? An annual, independent auditor report would be nice, at least confirming their number of subscribers and estimating the capacity of their chemical process.
  - cmutel 7y ago
    Climeworks is a Swiss startup in business since 2003; they have built multiple pilot plants in Switzerland, and are well known here. See e.g. https://www.climeworks.com/about/ https://www.climeworks.com/about/
- valw 7y ago
  I don't think it's technically hard on their end - we totally have the science required to estimate how much their process captures.
aresant 7y ago
Does this system have the potential for substantial improvements in efficiency if we support it? Are the efficiencies gained in manufacturing scale or can the actual process / hardware be substantially improved?
sporkland 7y ago
I've been a subscriber for over a year due to my belief that me doing something in this space is better than me doing nothing. But I didn't do a ton of research first. I'm curious about what options are out there and how they break down in terms of cost effectiveness for sequestration. This service is like 26 Euros for 46% of average travel. I know some companies use this company to offset their travel. https://pachama.com/ https://pachama.com/. Anyone have advice on others?
- valw 7y ago
  Frankly, this service is basically reinventing the wheel of volontary carbon markets, and doing so much, much less efficiently, and with fewer co-benefits. Well-certified projects can offset emissions at a price of about 10$/teqCO2. I personally recommend https://www.standfortrees.org https://www.standfortrees.org.
frandroid 7y ago
Can we destroy bitcoin first?? https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1234493080583143424?s=20 https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1234493080583143424?s=20 Bitcoin energy consumption hits a new all time high of nearly 9GW, comparable to Chile, a country with 18M people. Carbon footprint is ~37 Mt CO2 annually, about that of New Zealand. And yet it still does ~4 transactions per second...
- al_chemist 7y ago
  Why stop at bitcoin if we could destroy Internet? People could do much more instead of watching cat videos or porn.
- valw 7y ago
  There's no 'first' - it's a battle we must fight on many fronts :) Destroying Bitcoin, and more generally digital sobriety, is only one of them!
- SilasX 7y ago
  Sure, as long as we're going to be even-handed about resource-wasting products rather than singling this one out. There are a billion things that produce no net social value but are ignored. And even if we did target Bitcoin, then -- like everything else -- it should be a matter of "are you paying your environmental cost? Cool, then carry on", not "hey I didn't like this for unrelated reasons, so this is my pretense for shutting it down regardless of how much its users are willing to pay for the damage they're doing". My longer comment on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19193938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19193938
  - TrueNomad 7y ago
    I am paying my environmental footprint under the name of "US federal tax" If you are expecting me to pay more, you have something else coming from your blindside.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > There are a billion things that produce no net social value but are ignored. Was going to reply "name three", but I see you covered that in your other post - well, two out of three; "Ferraris for show-off producers in LA, or Hello Kitty backpacks". But those other things don't have a superlinear growth in energy consumption baked into the fundamentals of operation. A Hello Kitty backpack doesn't need schoolchildren to keep burning electricity just to secure its contents. Most things are O(n) - O(n log n) in energy use to general utility provided, and top out at some point. Proof of Work chains need that just to keep the network working, regardless of any utility provided on top (which arguably is near-zero for any legitimate use case). But I agree with the general point - pricing in full externalities of energy use would go a long way towards fixing things, including Bitcoin's existence.
valw 7y ago
If you want make your money work against climate change, I wouldn't recommend this service - it's simply not competitive compared to voluntary carbon markets, in which well-certified projects can offset a teqCO2 for less than 10 USD (that's 100 times more efficient carbon offsetting than ClimeWorks, for high-end projects), and do so with additional co-benefits in terms of biodiversity and livelihood of local communities. REDD+ projects such as https://www.standfortrees.org https://www.standfortrees.org are good examples of that. The differentiating factor of this service is that it's "Permanent: turn CO2 into stone". That benefit is mostly psychological, not pragmatic. Aside from that, the 'small land and water usage' metric is also biased. Yes, rainforest protection projects use land, and you know what else they do? Protect rainforests! It's also not that promising as a CCS technology. Just like energy, CO2 is most efficiently captured where its concentration is highest - that is in power plants, steelmaking plants, etc. I know we love revolutionary startups and shiny new things here, but there are scientific bodies and certification standards which have already done the work well in this space, looking at the problem with a holistic approach and with numbers. I know people mean well here, but for climate change what matters is results, not intentions - so run the numbers before you throw your money out of the window. Cool startup branding is not what makes a project impactful.
- dwild 7y ago
  Why not both? Planting tree is nice, but theses solutions you give have limits, which will only make the cost higher. This is a technological solution, sure it has limits too, but its cost will only go down by being done more efficiently and at one point, we will need to do theses things too, thus the sooner we reach lower price, the better we will be. As you said, it's 100x more expensive, thus no industrial client will consider this solution yet, but you can afford it. Be the first stone that allow them to become 50x more expensive, etc... Being client to them show also that we are ready to put money where our mouth are. That push toward more investment in theses spheres because there's money in the game. Investing into planting trees at 1/100 the cost... well except exploiting even more cheap labor... there's no money to be made.
  - valw 7y ago
TrueNomad 7y ago
What a stupid idea. You expect me to pay $8 a month to a for profit company in return of a promise of doing something that is no different than snake oil. Hopefully they will bilk some enviro-freaks, but anyone with common sense will look at this and have a good chuckle. Good grief.. Al Gore version 2.0

95 points by jatsign 7y ago

This cool. This kind of carbon removal is still very expensive.

If I calculate that right, it is about $1100 a ton. I just gave a presentation on BECCS w/ Brazilian Ethanol which comes out closer to $30. I haven't put it up, but here is one of the papers I based it on https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261916308194 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191...

hannob 7y ago
May I make a guess? You can only get to that number if you ignore landuse changes due to the ethanol production?
- PaulHoule 7y ago
  Brazil had 379 sugar mills in 2014, thus there is already a land dedicated to sugarcane. This is a real business that makes money without subsidies. Ethanol plants produce CO2 as a byproduct of fermentation which is nearly pure and easy to purify to the point where it can be compressed to 1200 psi and not have nitrogen phase separate out and not have water vapor mix with the CO2 and make carbonic acid that eats pipe. So it is a small add-on to existing plants. A larger and more complex add-on would capture CO2 from the bagasse furnace. This could lead to more land-use changes if it improves the economics and if the ethanol industry can find more markets for fuel and electricity. Most of the ethanol plants are located near Sao Paulo and Rio because that is where the fuel and electricity are in demand. None of them are in the Amazon basin and few in the area to the south of it that is in risk of "savannafication".
phnofive 7y ago
As of eight months ago, it was about $500-600: > https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/climeworks-carbon-capture-technology/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/climeworks-carbon-ca...
- cmutel 7y ago
  Yes, but the linked product/subscription also include deep injection, not just the capture.
tantalor 7y ago
TerraPass offers $10/ton https://www.terrapass.com/product/productindividuals-families https://www.terrapass.com/product/productindividuals-familie...
- oneplusone 7y ago
  Carbon offsets is not the same as co2 removal.
  - lapink 7y ago
    If carbon offset is done well, wouldn't it be equivalent?
    - kohtatsu 7y ago
      AFAICT offsets are "We stopped one tonne from going in", removal is "We took one tonne out".
      - throwaway894345 7y ago
        Unless I'm missing something, that sounds like the same net effect. Why is one better than the other apart from price?
        hirsin 7y ago
        It's insufficient - there's a cap on how much carbon we can stop emitting, and maxing that out will not be enough to halt climate change. Agreed though, in the sense that we should fully fund the cheap options while also funding research on going carbon negative.
        kempbellt 7y ago
        +0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths. Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction, but both are moves in the right direction.
cmutel 7y ago
You are right that this is very expensive. Other firms in this space estimate that there should be a lower bound for direct air capture of $100-200 per ton of CO2 [0]. However, this is a very different product than BECCS - it direct air capture (DAC) of CO2 which would not occur without your purchase, in the only real permanent operating storage facility we currently have. It is very difficult to know what the marginal impact of changes in sugarcane production are, though we do know that there is potential for either indirect land use change, or mitigation of reduction due to shifts in demand/supply and knock-on effects. [0] https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3

tdons 7y ago

Plant a tree.

ur-whale 7y ago
>Plant a tree. How does it compare to what they offer? (as in, metrics please).
- themagician 7y ago
  About half the mass of a tree is carbon. Seeds cost a couple cents. Plant a big tree (oak, let’s say) in an area where it’s unlikely to burn down and it’s probably good for 1000kg of carbon storage. Comes with a lot of other benefits too.
  - Scarblac 7y ago
    What was the land used for before? It doesn't come for free.
  - jamil7 7y ago
    This is addressed on the website. I think at scale afforestation becomes a very risky prospect financially and requires a much larger amount of land putting biodiversity at risk and infringing on agriculture as apposed to the proposed CO2 remove technology. The cited paper for this on their website is unfortunately paywalled but I would be really interested in finding out more about this.
    - themagician 7y ago
      Big brain time. Biodiversity isn’t at risk if you plant different kinds of trees in different places. You don’t need to build a massive forest in any given place. Simply rebuilding the forests we used to have would go a long way.
      - jamil7 7y ago
        No one is advocating for stopping conservation efforts or reforestation. But we will need a combination of solutions in order to reverse existing damage and meet targets.

christiansakai 7y ago

I wonder if plants can absorb the Carbon directly via their roots from the CO2-made-stone?

philshem 7y ago
Plants get their carbon from the air (CO2) via photosynthesis.

k__ 7y ago

Would be a good franchise. People probably prefer if CO2 was removed in their cities and not at some location kilometers away.

devonstopps 7y ago
You need clean, low-cost electricity near your city to support this. And to scale to a impactful level this will also require a very large amount of new, clean electricity generation...
- k__ 7y ago
  Sure thing. But how big is the benefit otherwise?
valw 7y ago
What for? the harm done by excess CO2 is global, not local. CO2 is diffused across the whole world in a matter of months. Its climate-changing effect lasts much longer than that - decades to centuries.

jseliger 7y ago

One important question is not just "Where is CO2 removal now?" but "Where can CO2 removal companies go if they get adequate funding and consumer uptake?" I subscribe to Climeworks and think of it a bit like an ongoing Kickstarter. A lot of articles about climate change also leave one with an unfortunate sense of helplessness. This is something an average person can do.

sporkland 7y ago
That's what I'm doing as well. I assume if climeworks is successful then there will be others interested in the space as well.

quicklime 7y ago

If I've calculated correctly, this service costs $1100 per ton. A flight from New York to London emits about 1 ton of co2. The site talks about averages, but averages can be deceiving. Most people don't fly, and those that fly fly a lot. If you fly, you should probably try to overshot the average (by a lot) when you offset.

gambiting 7y ago
I flew from UK to Canada recently, and KLM was offering to "offset my CO2 emissions" for something stupid like $5. Surely....that's not actually a thing? What can they do for $5 that would offset so much CO2?
- 101404 7y ago
  Did you read the fine print?
- noir_lord 7y ago
  Plant several trees.
- 300bps 7y ago
  I figured they must be planting a tree for that $5 and it seems I wasn't far off: https://klmtakescare.com/en/content/be-a-hero-fly-co2zero https://klmtakescare.com/en/content/be-a-hero-fly-co2zero
- Tuxer 7y ago
  absolutely nothing. If the cost of carbon removal was 5$/ton, we wouldn't be having this climate change problem whatsoever.
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    In europe the carbon cost is EUR24/ton right now.
    - 7y ago

magic5227 7y ago

It might be nice to show how many others have subscribed. This is one of those services where people may think, "i'll do this but i don't want to be the only one." Seeing the scale can be motivating. It would also be nice to know how this would work at scale. If 100k people sign up, can they support that?

pacoverdi 7y ago

Maybe I didn't read the site thoroughly enough but... how do we know that they are doing their part of the bargain? How do we/they measure how much carbon is effectively removed from the atmosphere?

imglorp 7y ago
My thoughts too. How do we know it's not just a website? An annual, independent auditor report would be nice, at least confirming their number of subscribers and estimating the capacity of their chemical process.
- cmutel 7y ago
  Climeworks is a Swiss startup in business since 2003; they have built multiple pilot plants in Switzerland, and are well known here. See e.g. https://www.climeworks.com/about/ https://www.climeworks.com/about/
valw 7y ago
I don't think it's technically hard on their end - we totally have the science required to estimate how much their process captures.

aresant 7y ago

Does this system have the potential for substantial improvements in efficiency if we support it? Are the efficiencies gained in manufacturing scale or can the actual process / hardware be substantially improved?

sporkland 7y ago

I've been a subscriber for over a year due to my belief that me doing something in this space is better than me doing nothing. But I didn't do a ton of research first. I'm curious about what options are out there and how they break down in terms of cost effectiveness for sequestration. This service is like 26 Euros for 46% of average travel. I know some companies use this company to offset their travel. https://pachama.com/ https://pachama.com/. Anyone have advice on others?

valw 7y ago
Frankly, this service is basically reinventing the wheel of volontary carbon markets, and doing so much, much less efficiently, and with fewer co-benefits. Well-certified projects can offset emissions at a price of about 10$/teqCO2. I personally recommend https://www.standfortrees.org https://www.standfortrees.org.

frandroid 7y ago

Can we destroy bitcoin first?? https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1234493080583143424?s=20 https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1234493080583143424?s=20 Bitcoin energy consumption hits a new all time high of nearly 9GW, comparable to Chile, a country with 18M people. Carbon footprint is ~37 Mt CO2 annually, about that of New Zealand. And yet it still does ~4 transactions per second...

al_chemist 7y ago
Why stop at bitcoin if we could destroy Internet? People could do much more instead of watching cat videos or porn.
valw 7y ago
There's no 'first' - it's a battle we must fight on many fronts :) Destroying Bitcoin, and more generally digital sobriety, is only one of them!
SilasX 7y ago
Sure, as long as we're going to be even-handed about resource-wasting products rather than singling this one out. There are a billion things that produce no net social value but are ignored. And even if we did target Bitcoin, then -- like everything else -- it should be a matter of "are you paying your environmental cost? Cool, then carry on", not "hey I didn't like this for unrelated reasons, so this is my pretense for shutting it down regardless of how much its users are willing to pay for the damage they're doing". My longer comment on this point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19193938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19193938
- TrueNomad 7y ago
  I am paying my environmental footprint under the name of "US federal tax" If you are expecting me to pay more, you have something else coming from your blindside.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > There are a billion things that produce no net social value but are ignored. Was going to reply "name three", but I see you covered that in your other post - well, two out of three; "Ferraris for show-off producers in LA, or Hello Kitty backpacks". But those other things don't have a superlinear growth in energy consumption baked into the fundamentals of operation. A Hello Kitty backpack doesn't need schoolchildren to keep burning electricity just to secure its contents. Most things are O(n) - O(n log n) in energy use to general utility provided, and top out at some point. Proof of Work chains need that just to keep the network working, regardless of any utility provided on top (which arguably is near-zero for any legitimate use case). But I agree with the general point - pricing in full externalities of energy use would go a long way towards fixing things, including Bitcoin's existence.

valw 7y ago

If you want make your money work against climate change, I wouldn't recommend this service - it's simply not competitive compared to voluntary carbon markets, in which well-certified projects can offset a teqCO2 for less than 10 USD (that's 100 times more efficient carbon offsetting than ClimeWorks, for high-end projects), and do so with additional co-benefits in terms of biodiversity and livelihood of local communities. REDD+ projects such as https://www.standfortrees.org https://www.standfortrees.org are good examples of that. The differentiating factor of this service is that it's "Permanent: turn CO2 into stone". That benefit is mostly psychological, not pragmatic. Aside from that, the 'small land and water usage' metric is also biased. Yes, rainforest protection projects use land, and you know what else they do? Protect rainforests! It's also not that promising as a CCS technology. Just like energy, CO2 is most efficiently captured where its concentration is highest - that is in power plants, steelmaking plants, etc. I know we love revolutionary startups and shiny new things here, but there are scientific bodies and certification standards which have already done the work well in this space, looking at the problem with a holistic approach and with numbers. I know people mean well here, but for climate change what matters is results, not intentions - so run the numbers before you throw your money out of the window. Cool startup branding is not what makes a project impactful.

dwild 7y ago
Why not both? Planting tree is nice, but theses solutions you give have limits, which will only make the cost higher. This is a technological solution, sure it has limits too, but its cost will only go down by being done more efficiently and at one point, we will need to do theses things too, thus the sooner we reach lower price, the better we will be. As you said, it's 100x more expensive, thus no industrial client will consider this solution yet, but you can afford it. Be the first stone that allow them to become 50x more expensive, etc... Being client to them show also that we are ready to put money where our mouth are. That push toward more investment in theses spheres because there's money in the game. Investing into planting trees at 1/100 the cost... well except exploiting even more cheap labor... there's no money to be made.
- valw 7y ago

TrueNomad 7y ago

What a stupid idea. You expect me to pay $8 a month to a for profit company in return of a promise of doing something that is no different than snake oil. Hopefully they will bilk some enviro-freaks, but anyone with common sense will look at this and have a good chuckle. Good grief.. Al Gore version 2.0