5 ms·

Great initiative! I offset my emissions with Wren (https://wren.co https://wren.co – I am not affiliated) and wonder how it compares to Carbon Removed. My curr

by thamer 5y ago

Great initiative! I offset my emissions with Wren (https://wren.co https://wren.co – I am not affiliated) and wonder how it compares to Carbon Removed. My current plan there is ~$23 to offset 200% of my emissions for a total of 1.3 tons of CO2/month (if that seems low: I have no car, no commute, live in a 1-bedroom apartment and rarely eat meat). The plans for Carbon Removed are at $15 for 100 kg, $42 for 300 kg, and $65 for 500 kg. Why such a difference? That's $0.13-0.15/kg for Carbon Removed and $0.018/kg at Wren. Where is the difference coming from?

kisamoto 5y ago
Thanks for your feedback and great news that you are already taking responsibility for your footprint. A key difference between us and Wren (and other offset based services) is that we focus on carbon removal - actively undoing a carbon footprint, rather than offsetting it. The way we see it this way: if we emit a ton of CO₂, we should remove a ton resulting in 0 emissions in the atmosphere. If we offset (by paying typically developing countries to change their behaviour), there is still a ton in the atmosphere. As a result, sequestering carbon dioxide is much harder and expensive. For example, removing via Direct Air Capture is currently around $1000/ton. Via bio-oil is close to $700/ton. At the other end of the scale offsets are typically $32/ton. I don't want to diminish the efforts of offsets - they have a place and help developing nations transition to more sustainable alternatives - but we want to focus on bringing carbon removal down the curve. To try and make this more affordable we also mix in calculated removals via forestation which is cheaper. Does that make things a little clearer?
- thamer 5y ago
  I get that carbon capture is very expensive and difficult, but surely planting trees does remove carbon from the atmosphere? That's where their biomass mostly comes from. On my Wren profile, it says "Your annual carbon emissions are equivalent to..." with a few equivalent amounts like "18793 miles driven in a car" or "The amount of CO2 349 pine trees absorb in a year". So isn't planting 349 pine trees in a year offsetting my emissions, literally removing the CO2 my lifestyle produced? (maybe once they're grown). If what you mean by offsets is more something like "pay to have N people switch to cleaner fuels instead of cooking with coal", then sure. But on Wren you can choose how to distribute the amount you pay; some can go to planting trees, some can go to cleaner fuels, or rainforest protection, etc. I looked up other similar services yesterday and found Terrapass (https://www.terrapass.com/ https://www.terrapass.com/ – also not affiliated) and their plan for 13,000 lbs/year costs $4.86/month or $58.32/5,897kg or ≈ 1c/kg. That said, it wasn't exactly clear from a quick look whether it was lowering emissions by this amount of removing the same amount. I do get your point though, and the distinction is definitely important. The name Carbon Removed certainly makes this goal clear. I wish other services clearly differentiated how much CO2 was actively removed per dollar spent. In any case, best of luck! I'm glad to see more of these initiatives and wish you success.
  - kisamoto 5y ago
    Trees definitely do capture CO₂ and sequester it away - that's why we also support them. However planting trees does not make up the majority of offsetting projects. Offsetting can and does include things like "not cutting down these trees", or "using drones to check trees are alive". Non-tree based offsets include things like "greener stoves" as you mentioned. These all get certified that they do _something_ however the quantity of CO₂ mitigated is vague. Bloomberg actually did a short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20xMbGkEIQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20xMbGkEIQI) on how tree based offsets can be abused within the rules set out by the verification systems. On top of this trees take time to reach maturity, die from disease & wildfires releasing their CO₂ and in some cases encourage farmers to deforest to replant for the offset credits. This is all very negative but I am trying to provide the other side of the coin. Trees are not enough to reverse the impact we, as a society, have had on the climate, but they are a very important part and should be supported. Our approach is to use forestation (we also double plant and calculate carbon sequestered over 10 years) in combination with much needed technological solutions to help develop them and bring them down the price curve. Thank you so much for this discussion and your luck. Keep up the great work learning and doing good for the climate.

by thamer 5y ago

kisamoto 5y ago

Thanks for your feedback and great news that you are already taking responsibility for your footprint. A key difference between us and Wren (and other offset based services) is that we focus on carbon removal - actively undoing a carbon footprint, rather than offsetting it. The way we see it this way: if we emit a ton of CO₂, we should remove a ton resulting in 0 emissions in the atmosphere. If we offset (by paying typically developing countries to change their behaviour), there is still a ton in the atmosphere. As a result, sequestering carbon dioxide is much harder and expensive. For example, removing via Direct Air Capture is currently around $1000/ton. Via bio-oil is close to $700/ton. At the other end of the scale offsets are typically $32/ton. I don't want to diminish the efforts of offsets - they have a place and help developing nations transition to more sustainable alternatives - but we want to focus on bringing carbon removal down the curve. To try and make this more affordable we also mix in calculated removals via forestation which is cheaper. Does that make things a little clearer?

thamer 5y ago
I get that carbon capture is very expensive and difficult, but surely planting trees does remove carbon from the atmosphere? That's where their biomass mostly comes from. On my Wren profile, it says "Your annual carbon emissions are equivalent to..." with a few equivalent amounts like "18793 miles driven in a car" or "The amount of CO2 349 pine trees absorb in a year". So isn't planting 349 pine trees in a year offsetting my emissions, literally removing the CO2 my lifestyle produced? (maybe once they're grown). If what you mean by offsets is more something like "pay to have N people switch to cleaner fuels instead of cooking with coal", then sure. But on Wren you can choose how to distribute the amount you pay; some can go to planting trees, some can go to cleaner fuels, or rainforest protection, etc. I looked up other similar services yesterday and found Terrapass (https://www.terrapass.com/ https://www.terrapass.com/ – also not affiliated) and their plan for 13,000 lbs/year costs $4.86/month or $58.32/5,897kg or ≈ 1c/kg. That said, it wasn't exactly clear from a quick look whether it was lowering emissions by this amount of removing the same amount. I do get your point though, and the distinction is definitely important. The name Carbon Removed certainly makes this goal clear. I wish other services clearly differentiated how much CO2 was actively removed per dollar spent. In any case, best of luck! I'm glad to see more of these initiatives and wish you success.
- kisamoto 5y ago
  Trees definitely do capture CO₂ and sequester it away - that's why we also support them. However planting trees does not make up the majority of offsetting projects. Offsetting can and does include things like "not cutting down these trees", or "using drones to check trees are alive". Non-tree based offsets include things like "greener stoves" as you mentioned. These all get certified that they do _something_ however the quantity of CO₂ mitigated is vague. Bloomberg actually did a short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20xMbGkEIQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20xMbGkEIQI) on how tree based offsets can be abused within the rules set out by the verification systems. On top of this trees take time to reach maturity, die from disease & wildfires releasing their CO₂ and in some cases encourage farmers to deforest to replant for the offset credits. This is all very negative but I am trying to provide the other side of the coin. Trees are not enough to reverse the impact we, as a society, have had on the climate, but they are a very important part and should be supported. Our approach is to use forestation (we also double plant and calculate carbon sequestered over 10 years) in combination with much needed technological solutions to help develop them and bring them down the price curve. Thank you so much for this discussion and your luck. Keep up the great work learning and doing good for the climate.