$100M xPrize for Carbon Removal

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/ – 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.

I love this project. But I worry they are going to have trouble getting permission to scale this up. I read that the amount of kg of Carbon sequestered per kg of Olivine put down is roughly 1:1. Let's say the average American has an annual carbon footprint of 16 tonnes. Maybe we can aim to reduce that to 10 with lifestyle changes such as cutting out most meat and driving electric. That is still 10 tons of Olivine each American is effectively going to have to put on a beach somewhere per year to be carbon neutral. I'm personally totally OK with turning all our beaches green if they can show it doesn't damage ecosystems but I can guarantee you there will be a lot of NIMBYism pushing back against this.

Don't get me wrong it's possibly a great weapon against clime change and we are going to need every single one.

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) 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.

Grammar tip, if someone name ends in s, you can just write Gates’ experiment.

> You can google all the stats I provided

Did, and did not find what you suggested. I did find a 300 dollar figure which just reflects cost, not the number of toys.

> For the United States, it’s TWENTY TONS PER PERSON PER YEAR

As I said: everyone has a higher carbon footprint in the West, mainly owing to infrastructure and industry. The combined consumer spending choices are not what is leading to the extra tonnage.

Here's the breakdown straight from the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Industry. Electricity. Transportation. Agriculture. Commercial and Residential COMBINED are just 13%.

Americans are not consuming so much more than Europeans as to generate 10 extra tons of carbon. The average spending reflects it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household... . Not to mention this doesn't take into account prices, and digital service & goods consumption.

I hope that clears any doubts.

> That isn’t because we for some reason have worse power plants or worse ways of making steel.

The suburban experiment is a North American one, and America is absolutely huge. Infrastructure is vastly more expensive to maintain in NA, and yes there are inefficiencies everywhere. Simply living, having access to water, electricity and food, creates more emissions in America based on location.

Suburbs are money-losers and subsidized by city-centers, despite the taxes on residents there. Sprawled cities are way more wasteful than dense cities, and America is a nation of sprawled cities.

Ultimately, you're dwelling on a red herring. I addressed the primary issue already. Sustainability matters because of scale. If the population were actually stagnant, a) consumption would not lead to increased emissions anywhere, b) we'd actually address the problem. Bullying consumers does not. It's just a race to the bottom.

Sustainability matters because of scaling.