Launch HN: Wren (YC S19) – Offset Your Carbon Footprint

> Most in this space are nonprofits but we are a business. We take a 20% fee on each subscription. This allows us to hire talented engineers, invest in marketing, and raise capital.

Non-profits can do all of those things, too... Why not do them as a non-profit?

Congrats on the launch! Curious about your thoughts on the carbon impact of carbon offsets vs investing in green bonds that fund energy efficiency projects (e.g. https://copower.me/en/) vs investing in public companies that fund sustainable development (e.g. https://www.hannonarmstrong.com/) vs investing in green energy companies directly (e.g. vivint solar or first solar).

I recognize that the direct dollar-to-CO2 carbon impact might be lower, but green investments might enable higher retail & institutional spend (since it's an investment instead of a donation) and therefore might have more impact on reducing CO2.

For carbon offsets, it is pretty different depending on the type of project. We do not invent these methodologies, we use methodologies from groups like Verra Carbon Standard (https://verra.org/project/vcs-program/methodologies/methodol...). https://projectwren.com/methodologies has more information about how we specifically choose projects.

It can be pretty down in the weeds to calculate the emissions from these projects and since it varies by type I can't summarize it all here. However if you have more specific questions I'd be happy to answer.

Re: carbon footprints, it's a little simpler. We use data + research from Berkeley's cool climate lab (https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/publications) The main model is maintained by them, and is based on linear regression from a bunch of lifestyle variables that you input into the calculator. Our version is slightly different because we base it on country instead of zip code, so we scale most input variables by the country's per capita emissions to get a good estimate.

This is a great question. To be completely transparent, we are considering a flat fee because of the reason you stated.

We originally chose a percent fee because it was an industry standard model that many in the carbon offset space expect. However, we're learning that industry standard here does not mean it's the best possible option.

The big reason why a % fee is good is because for small donations (e.g. 25% of someone's footprint) it makes more sense to scale it. A $4 transaction cost on a $2 impact to the project is crazy.

The tricky thing about our cost structure is that currently we do not have enough revenue to cover our overhead expenses, so even if we're ignoring the per transaction cost we need to find a way to cover our overhead (e.g. a place for us to live so we can hack on this all day)

Ah, sorry "hire talented engineers, invest in marketing, and raise capital." was actually more in reference to the 20% fee.

Although we think impact investors and potentially even VCs can help fund this which is why we haven't become a nonprofit. We are looking at Benefit Corporation as the best legal structure for this, but it will take some time for us to transfer over.