10 ms·
Live dashboard of carbon dioxide removal purchases
- mysterydip 3y agoWhy are sales up so high this year? Hasn't this been a market for years?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nerbert 3y agoMicrosoft apparently.
- vuln 3y agoMore details in the Microsoft deal https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/15/23724418/microsoft-carbon-capture-burning-wood https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/15/23724418/microsoft-carbon...
- mrpopo 3y ago> If that all sounds like a tricky balancing act, it is. Previous research has found that burning woody biomass can create more CO2 emissions than what’s captured. That’s because only capturing smokestack emissions fails to account for all the pollution that might come from cutting down the trees and transporting the wood. Plus, it can take a long time for trees or plants to grow mature enough for people to rely on them to draw down a significant amount of CO2. Carbon removal at large scale is really a big scam through and through, isn't it?
- ResearchAtPlay 3y agoFantastic! This site provides an intuitive overview of carbon dioxide removal purchases sourced from six different market places and two registries. Metrics include carbon credit sales and deliveries, prices, names of suppliers and purchasers, and the method of carbon dioxide removal (e.g. direct air capture or biochar production). I find this site useful to get an overview of the development of voluntary carbon markets and their recent rapid expansion. Voluntary carbon markets are fractured into several market places and registries, so getting an aggregate overview over all markets was somewhat difficult prior to discovering this site. Thank you for the submission!
- arcticbull 3y agoI'm very surprised if they're able to actually get really good quality data on what constitutes removed carbon. Most carbon offsets for example are a scam, in the sense that one of the most common 'offsets' is for example paying people to not cut down trees - that they may or may not have been planning to cut down in the first place. There's no international standard or monitoring bodies, and the registries are generally incentivized to make the people paying them (industry) look good. The whole concept is silly, we don't offset crime for instance. I can't just pay someone in advance to not punch someone so that I can do it. Offsetting is just a way of propping up existing unsustainable business models in the eyes of ESG investors. It's greenwashing. I'm not saying none of this is real, but I'm sure it varies dramatically and the data is probably epically unreliable. Here's some write-ups from Greenpeace [1], NRDC [2] to the Center for American Progress [3]. [1] https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/50689/carbon-offsets-net-zero-greenwashing-scam/ https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/50689/carbon-... [2] https://www.nrdc.org/stories/should-you-buy-carbon-offsets https://www.nrdc.org/stories/should-you-buy-carbon-offsets [3] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-cftc-should-raise-standards-and-mitigate-fraud-in-the-carbon-offsets-market/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-cftc-should-rai...
- version_five 3y agoSee this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36190299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36190299
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- loeg 3y agoTaking the site at face value, the claim is removal (not offsets). However, even at face value, the amount of carbon removed is far less than what has been sold. (I agree that offsets seem unhelpful at best, just not sure it's worth deep diving on that when this isn't obviously about offsets.)
- 3y ago
- version_five 3y agoI couldn't tell from the site, is this "offsets" or actual carbon sequestration? And because sometimes the difference is fuzzy, is it paying for stuff that would have happened anyway, or is it somehow net removal? I saw a "method" chart but it had no labels on my phone so maybe it's addressed there.
- bertil 3y agoI had the same question. There’s an explicit breakdown in one of the graphs, Suppliers and a graph on Price Per Method. They cover both obvious approaches to Direct air capture (DAC, Electrochemical Ocean Capture) and less obvious ones (BioChar, Biooil, Mineralization, Enhanced weathering, Biomass removal, Macroalgae). I suspect that the inclusion of some on a reference dashboard will increase their legitimacy, and lower the case for approaches not included here. I also expect that companies will start favoring the cheapest approach.
- ResearchAtPlay 3y agoVoluntary carbon markets typically trade in both avoidance and removal (i.e. sequestration) credits. Since this site is called Carbon Dioxide Removal I would assume listed trades only cover sequestration, and my cursory review of the listed removal methods appears to confirm that only sequestered carbon trading is listed (but the methods section does not state this explicitly). Regarding "is it paying for stuff that would have happened anyway, or is it somehow net removal?": One of the requirements for generating carbon credits is additionality, i.e. a project should only receive carbon credits if it were not viable without the revenue from those credits. But as you point out, determining additionality is rather difficult and often fuzzy.
- n2parko 3y agoGood question! CDR.fyi aggregates purchases, deliveries, and verifications of carbon removed and stored for more than 100 years CDR.fyi does not track things like "avoided emissions" (like switching your fleet from gas to EV) or lower-permanence solutions (like planting trees) (Methods show up on that chart when you hover, but good UX feedback there :)
- x3874 3y agoSo a one stop shop to look up which corps invest in ESG-mandated feel-good BS? Noice.
- version_five 3y agoIf it's atmospheric capture or un-gamed diversion of emissions, I think it's a win. If it's carbon offsets tied to an existent forest or whatever, I agree with you.
- bertil 3y agoThose seem to be mostly serious approaches, i.e. no offset on historical forests, but they include some approaches that are not as obvious as direct air capture.
- justanotheratom 3y agoWhat is the problem if this were ESG-mandated. Can you point me to any writing on the subject? I want to understand.
- version_five 3y agoIf this is a serious comment it should be very easy for you to look up criticisms of esg investing. I'm not sure what you're hoping for from the OP.
- hedora 3y agoI looked up some criticisms, which boiled down to: - 79% of Americans support ESG investing. - Republicans are more likely than Democrats to oppose interference in ESG investment strategies. - Some Republicans, especially DeSantis, are trying to start an anti-ESG culture war, but it hasn’t had much impact on investment holdings. - Some Democrats think ESG is a scam because some of the stuff it screens for doesn’t actually improve the environment or social justice. (For instance, some ESG indexes measure resilience against climate change instead of taking action to avoid climate change). So, I’m really not seeing what point you are trying to make. The above is mostly from Forbes, who are obviously pro-business. The critique about ESG not being progressive enough is from the Atlantic.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- akomtu 3y agoCarbon offsets is like a doctor telling a grossly obese patient to mitigate the problem with periodic fat removal. This gives the patient a false hope that he doesn't need to completely change how he lives.
- nozzlegear 3y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but carbon offsets/removals are not the only thing that we (the human race) are trying. In your analogy, the patient has also been changing their diet and exercising more by electrifying transportation and switching to renewable sources of energy. Whether it's too little, too late is another matter.
- akomtu 3y agoThe patient has switched to an electric toothbrush, but continues to absorb 3 fridges of food every day, almost 1.5x more since he started talking to the doctor.
- felix318 3y agoMerits and criticisms aside, carbon offset has a striking semblance with the sale of indulgences practiced by the Catholic church in the middle ages. Some patterns of thought seem ingrained in us.
- gruez 3y agoThe difference is that indulgences goes to some random organization that doesn't use it in a way that offsets/mitigates the damage (eg. you doing adultery and then paying the church $$$ doesn't result in the adultery being reversed), whereas carbon removal actually reverses the damage (at least in theory). In that sense I see it as closer to cleaning up your own mess.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hedora 3y agoIt’s more like telling them to exercise to burn off the fat. That will be extremely hard at first, since they are probably starting from zero. However, as they get fitter, they will be able to burn more calories per day via exercise. Of course, diet + exercise is much better than just one or the other. We have to remove ~ 25% of the carbon currently in the atmosphere, or we’re screwed. We definitely can’t reach that goal without carbon capture. We almost certainly can’t reach it without cutting emissions by >> 90%.
- Originami 3y ago[dead]
- elintknower 3y agoIf I make my own charcoal can I also be added to the list?
- n2parko 3y agodepends on how many tons you're willing to make and whether you follow science-backed protocols :) - Biochar: https://fs.hubspotusercontent00.net/hubfs/7518557/Supplier%20Documents/Puro.earth%20Biochar%20Methodology.pdf https://fs.hubspotusercontent00.net/hubfs/7518557/Supplier%2... - Biooil: https://www.carbon-direct.com/insights/a-new-proto-protocol-for-bio-oil-sequestration https://www.carbon-direct.com/insights/a-new-proto-protocol-...
- RetroHippyNimby 3y agoHow many tons? I own a forest that was historically used for timber, but I am thinking about making biochar at the small single tons level, and burying it into the soil.
- n2parko 3y agoCo-founder of CDR.fyi, thanks for all the feedback and love for what we're building! Carbon removal is definitely a unique market in the early innings, and our goal is to provide transparency into the market at it scales. One important note: CDR.fyi aggregates purchases, deliveries, and verifications of carbon removed and stored for more than 100 years
- hedora 3y agoSo, burning a gallon of gasoline makes 20 lbs of CO2, so 100 gallons produces one ton. At your current spot price ($29), that means it costs $0.29 per gallon of gasoline to capture the released carbon. I’m pretty optimistic about the viability (and necessity) of carbon capture, but that seems too good to be true. In particular, it would mean that we don’t need to stop using fossil fuels, since that is rounding error vs. the price of gasoline. Is anyone actually delivering captured carbon at that price yet?
- gruez 3y ago>At your current spot price ($29), that means it costs $0.29 per gallon of gasoline to capture the released carbon. The graph is deceptive because eyeballing the average rate gets you ~$300, not $29. There might be something funky going on with the averaging, because if you click into the individual producers, the price you get is on the order of hundreds of dollars, not tens of dollars.
- hedora 3y agoIf you tap on today’s spot price (which is nearly the lowest price on the graph), a tooltip pops up and says $29. I tapped it because I wasn’t sure if the Y axis started at zero. (It does.) Edit: Macroalgae is at $8. Is that in production yet?
- blkhawk 3y agoto even list the price as a primary factor is also bad - you need to list how much carbon is created by your method for each unit of carbon you capture. This probably has to be based on the average carbon cost for energy a the location you are doing it (since even if you are all renewable on paper that renewable energy could be used to displace use of fossil fuels).
- ISL 3y agoIs that price volatility real?
- danpalmer 3y agoI'm suspicious that this is missing a lot of data, and if it's only a portion of the market and biased in which data is included, that would make it less useful. Google is one of the leaders in terms of corporations buying offsets, and my understanding is that they have a high bar in terms of quality/effectiveness. They offset all carbon emissions and have back-dated that to the beginning of the company. And yet they're nowhere to be seen on this. Am I missing something about what this data is supposed to show?
- exp1orer 3y agoI agree that this is likely missing data systematically. However note the difference between carbon offsets vs carbon removals. I don't know what kinds of offsets Google bought but given that they started buying them >15 years ago, they were probably not removals.
- danpalmer 3y agoThat's true, but my understanding is that removals are a subset of offsets, and considered higher quality offsets. Given that Google seems very committed to doing this at scale and in an evidence based, audited, method, I'd be very surprised if nothing of theirs comes up in this. Disclaimer btw, I do work for Google but nothing to do with this. The company policy on this however is a strong factor in me choosing to work here.
- ycombinete 3y agoI couldn't find anything on that website about what a "carbon removal purchase" is. Apparently it's something that people just know about. "Carbon removal marketplaces are the bridge between companies that sell the removals of CO2 from the atmosphere and businesses or individuals, who are willing to purchase these removals, in order to offset their emissions and help mitigate the climate crisis." [0] [0] https://carbonherald.com/top-10-carbon-removal-marketplaces-in-2023/ https://carbonherald.com/top-10-carbon-removal-marketplaces-...
- rs999gti 3y agoThe whole carbon credit process seems very scammmy to me and greenwashing away the problem. How is this independently audited? If Google or Facebook buys 1B USD of carbon credits, which is supposed to remove X tons of co2, can I go to an independent government or private org and ask if the actual measure of co2 went down?
- kisamoto 3y agoThis is removal not traditional credits. Removals often have a LCA that takes into account any emissions produced during the process and sells active CO₂ removal.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]