3 ms·

Their subscription page is currently offering a rate of about $1.35 USD per kg of CO2 removed, and they promise to complete your order within 6 years. It’s nice

by fwlr 3y ago

Their subscription page is currently offering a rate of about $1.35 USD per kg of CO2 removed, and they promise to complete your order within 6 years. It’s nice to have some hard numbers on end-stage or “gold standard” CO2 offset (no doubt there are cheaper carbon credit options but this directly solves the hardest problem, CO2 that’s diffused into the atmosphere.

thinkcontext 3y ago
That's an order of magnitude more expensive than capturing from a point source.
masklinn 3y ago
For reference we’re producing about 60Gte/year globally. For pure CO2, developed countries produce about 5t/year/person on the low end (Switzerland, Sweden, Italy) and >15 on the high end (Luxembourg, Australia). To the surprise of no one, the US is on the high end (15.5), so are petrostates (Saudi Arabia 16, Brunei 18, UAE 23, and Qatar takes the top at 37).
marvin 3y ago
For reference, Charm Industrial offers $0.6/kg. https://charmindustrial.com/plans?planName=consumer&budget=600 https://charmindustrial.com/plans?planName=consumer&budget=6... Charm's pricing is actually approaching reasonable to offset a single person's net CO2 emissions if you're comfortably middle class; in the low 4 digits per month. Add a tax benefit and get the costs a bit lower, and it starts to look doable.
gus_massa 3y ago
For comparison, 1 gallon of gasoline release 9kg of CO2, so it's $0.15 USD more per gallon to be carbon neutral. I think that number is too low to be real.
- jlund-molfese 3y ago
  Wouldn’t you multiply rather than divide, to get +$12.15/gallon?
  - gus_massa 3y ago
    Yes, obviously! My bad. I must don't make math in the morning. Thanks for the correction.
clnq 3y ago
It would take around £12k a year to offset my carbon footprint in the UK, where it is below average. That's a significant part of my take-home salary. I could spend maybe £1-2k a year, especially given the futility of this (I would be one of the 0.00...01% of people doing this, large industries will continue to increase pollution, there is no political will for meaningful measures to reduce emissions). There really isn't a lot of value in this. I'd rather invest in a green energy company, or even just pay the bills of a large energy producer decarbonising (replacing a pollution-heavy power plant with something near carbon zero). Can some company do this carbon filtering at the source more cost-effectively (potentially at no cost to the source/industry/plant producing CO2 now)? I'd rather buy carbon offset from them and pay for that operation. I think they could sequester 10T a year for far below £10k.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > Can some company do this carbon filtering at the source more cost-effectively? If you have some centralized source like that, you should invest on replacing it with something that doesn't emit CO2. It's always a better deal. Carbon capture is for sources where you just can't plug something like this.
  - clnq 3y ago
    The source might have other incentives. But I agree with the sentiment. I think CO2 offsets could be more effective if done through a fund that funds specific de-carbonisation projects for our industries. For example, they could fund a transition from coal power plants to renewable power plants for power companies, so long as the power companies agree to not increase their carbon emissions and decommission their coal power plants in the process. Or even a fund that simply subsidizes carbon filters for sources of pollution. Or a lobbying fund that's actually for the good of humanity, not for greed. There are many creative solutions that could offset a ton of CO2 emissions cheaper. But not the carbon-offset grift we have now. Instead, actual programs with actual reports, auditing, and accountability. If such a fund claims they've recaptured one tonne of CO2, I would expect that there is at least 273kg-heavy pile of carbon or, more realistically, some kilograms of some carbonated substance somewhere.

by fwlr 3y ago

thinkcontext 3y ago

That's an order of magnitude more expensive than capturing from a point source.

masklinn 3y ago

For reference we’re producing about 60Gte/year globally. For pure CO2, developed countries produce about 5t/year/person on the low end (Switzerland, Sweden, Italy) and >15 on the high end (Luxembourg, Australia). To the surprise of no one, the US is on the high end (15.5), so are petrostates (Saudi Arabia 16, Brunei 18, UAE 23, and Qatar takes the top at 37).

marvin 3y ago

For reference, Charm Industrial offers $0.6/kg. https://charmindustrial.com/plans?planName=consumer&budget=600 https://charmindustrial.com/plans?planName=consumer&budget=6... Charm's pricing is actually approaching reasonable to offset a single person's net CO2 emissions if you're comfortably middle class; in the low 4 digits per month. Add a tax benefit and get the costs a bit lower, and it starts to look doable.

gus_massa 3y ago

For comparison, 1 gallon of gasoline release 9kg of CO2, so it's $0.15 USD more per gallon to be carbon neutral. I think that number is too low to be real.

jlund-molfese 3y ago
Wouldn’t you multiply rather than divide, to get +$12.15/gallon?
- gus_massa 3y ago
  Yes, obviously! My bad. I must don't make math in the morning. Thanks for the correction.

clnq 3y ago

It would take around £12k a year to offset my carbon footprint in the UK, where it is below average. That's a significant part of my take-home salary. I could spend maybe £1-2k a year, especially given the futility of this (I would be one of the 0.00...01% of people doing this, large industries will continue to increase pollution, there is no political will for meaningful measures to reduce emissions). There really isn't a lot of value in this. I'd rather invest in a green energy company, or even just pay the bills of a large energy producer decarbonising (replacing a pollution-heavy power plant with something near carbon zero). Can some company do this carbon filtering at the source more cost-effectively (potentially at no cost to the source/industry/plant producing CO2 now)? I'd rather buy carbon offset from them and pay for that operation. I think they could sequester 10T a year for far below £10k.

marcosdumay 3y ago
> Can some company do this carbon filtering at the source more cost-effectively? If you have some centralized source like that, you should invest on replacing it with something that doesn't emit CO2. It's always a better deal. Carbon capture is for sources where you just can't plug something like this.
- clnq 3y ago
  The source might have other incentives. But I agree with the sentiment. I think CO2 offsets could be more effective if done through a fund that funds specific de-carbonisation projects for our industries. For example, they could fund a transition from coal power plants to renewable power plants for power companies, so long as the power companies agree to not increase their carbon emissions and decommission their coal power plants in the process. Or even a fund that simply subsidizes carbon filters for sources of pollution. Or a lobbying fund that's actually for the good of humanity, not for greed. There are many creative solutions that could offset a ton of CO2 emissions cheaper. But not the carbon-offset grift we have now. Instead, actual programs with actual reports, auditing, and accountability. If such a fund claims they've recaptured one tonne of CO2, I would expect that there is at least 273kg-heavy pile of carbon or, more realistically, some kilograms of some carbonated substance somewhere.