[thisjustinm]

Part of me says this is great because we need every single action towards reducing carbon in the atmosphere - big and small - we can get if we want to even get close to where we need to avoid catastrophe.

Another part of me wonders why would anyone chose Wren over COTAP[0] (for example) - a non-profit (501c3) where 90.9% of funds go toward their projects, you get a tax deduction and you can check in on their finances via their non-profit filings to ensure they are actually allocating funds how they say they are.

[0] https://cotap.org

edit: grammar

[robertk]

Humans are not rational agents. Scaling through a technology model that measures “customer acquisition” and uses its for profit structure to identify more effective messaging and adoption patterns for carbon offsetting commitments may be more impactful on aggregate, even if per your remarks it is objectively worse than the nfp alternative.

On the subset of humanity that is already pro-active on this, advertising COTAP is the way to go but the strategies are complementary.

[bstanfield15]

Hi Justin! Ben here, co-founder of Wren. COTAP is a great organization, and the non-profit filings are a good, fundamental way to verify that they exist and are doing what they say. In response to why Wren, our philosophy is that most individuals—perhaps most of you on HN excluded—don't spend the time to figure how to contribute to stopping climate change, let alone carbon reduction projects, and certainly don't spend additional time following up on the additionality and usage of their donations. On top of that, there is a great opportunity to stitch this community together and create a place where ideas can be shared around climate reduction, projects can be supported in tandem, and ideas can be brought forward for how to reduce your carbon footprint. We're only a few weeks old and a lot of this is ambition, but our goal is to expand upon an individual's initial excitement around doing something about climate change.

[bstanfield15]

Oh and on the note of public filings, we're looking into becoming a Public Benefit Corporation, a type of company that is obligated to consider the impact of their decisions on society, not only shareholders. Kickstarter is one as of 2015, and they published a great charter here: https://www.kickstarter.com/charter

[gustaf]

This is a really good point. The goal of both Wren and COTAP is to have the most impact solving climate change. Having the most impact doesn't have to mean you charge the lowest fee - but it does mean removing the most amount of CO2. If charging a higher fee gives Wren a change to reach millions and get them to pay more where COTAP is still tiny and have one-time donations that is a strong argument for why a different model is needed here

[cotap]

COTAP here... Thanks to thisjustinm for getting us into the conversation : )

Not to rain on the parade here, just a cautionary tale that is intended to be helpful...

I would say take a look at Cool Effect which launched in early 2016. Charity at a glance, but it's also a bottomless-pocketed family from Marin. It cuts itself checks from the Overlook Intl Foundation, run by the same people. Both orgs have same CEO. All fine...

But look at the 990s... They have thrown the kitchen sink at this and have probably dumped $10+ million by now. $800K+ in PR and marketing before they even launched.

Yet they've only sold well under 1 million tonnes over 3 years. In other words, back of the envelope they've lost $9 per tonne, even when being a charitable donation.

Also, divide their 838,715 cumulative tonnes noted on their home page by their 533,115 cumulative members. 1.57 tonnes/member over 3 years, or a half tonne per member per year. Not anywhere close to the average US footprint.

Half the country doesn't believe in climate change, or it's not a priority, or is living paycheck to paycheck, or all of the above. Offsetting is not anywhere on the horizon of their hierarchy of needs. Offsetting is complex, misunderstood, and controversial (see our op-ed's n TheHill.com for a taste).

When you finally get beyond those nesting subsets, there's enough market size to go around in theory but it's extremely competitive.

[gustaf]

I hope my answer didn't come off as ignorant to the COTAP story - I'm sorry if it did.

Thanks for sharing the backstory on Cool Effect. Their effort on marketing to me also reflect the type of marketing that don't work. After spending 5 years at the growth team of Airbnb I'm more convinced than ever that marketing have to have strong ROI that can be measured. If it does, it's an excellent way of growing something. And because of Google and Facebook's dominance, more and more this is becoming one of the very few ways to go really big. I know Wren isn't spending money on marketing yet but having a foundation where that is possible is a great chance to make a really big impact.

I totally agree that educating the rest of the country and policy etc are the top priorities but at the same time you have millions of individuals who want to take individual action but don't know exactly what to do. Both you and Wren seems like great options for them to be involved.

[landon32]

Wow, I hadn't heard that story before.

One thing that might help is if we publish all of our spending online in a transparent way. There are probably legal/accounting considerations we'd need there but I'd imagine it would be safe to post that after each year.

So far, we have spent less than $200 on marketing and PR, mostly to test Google Ads. We realized pretty quickly google ads weren't effective so we shut them off. Since we're setup as a business we can't afford to lose money on each ton.

[StavrosK]

Sorry, I'm not very familiar with charities, can you clarify what your point is here? I'm not sure what Cool Effect is or what you're talking about.

[cotap]

They're a 501(c)3 private foundation, similar to a 501(c)3 public charity like COTAP. This makes offsetting contributions tax-deductible. The point is by making it tax-deductible, along with other things like helping folks offset monthly, they've already tried to make it as compelling and easy as possible to offset, but no dice relative to time/effort/$ put in. Similar to StandforTrees.org. I'm basically saying I don't think Wren is different enough, other than charging higher margins, something not in their favor. It is good they're transparent about margins, but that's not unique either.

[StavrosK]

I see, thank you. What would you recommend I donate to, if I wanted to maximize my environmental impact per dollar?

[StavrosK]

Personally, I have three issues when thinking about contributing to charities like Wren:

1) Will my money go where they say it'll go? How can I know that? 2) How do I know that I'm actually helping the environment? How do I know the money doesn't end up in some corrupt individual's pocket at the target country? I know first-hand how some people end up profiting handsomely from subsidies with various tricks. 3) Am I actually offsetting X tons of carbon? How does preservation even offset any carbon, since it's preventing more carbon from being released, instead of offsetting what I did release.

Thanks for the effort, it seems like a very worthwhile cause!

[salixrosa]

I think I can answer #3 for you!

Preventing deforestation isn't generally (primarily) about preventing more carbon from being released. The wood probably isn't go to end up in the atmosphere any time soon regardless -- it'll go to building homes, etc. However, each tree chopped down is one less tree doing precious carbon fixing, ie, one less tree removing the atmosphere carbon that was already released.

[baby_wipe]

I don't care about how companies allocate their funds. Results matter more.

[toomuchtodo]

If I can pick between two orgs with similar results, and get a tax deduction with one of them, I’m going with the one that I’m not paying taxes on the contribution.

[chadl2]

Very cool, hadn't seen this before. Signed up for a monthly COTAP offset donation. :)

[cotap]

Thanks!!