[kisamoto]

I co-founded a company to make carbon removal accessible to everyone (https://carbonremoved.com)

Idea is to avoid the dubious carbon credit system and instead actually remove your historical footprint.

We've been iterating on different variations of the product for a year and registered a company (we're Swiss based) in April. So far we are responsible for the removal of 26tons of CO2 and with our customer base we're now removing over 10tons per month.

In the grand scheme of things, we know it's a small step but by supporting multiple carbon removal providers (Direct Air capture and storage; tree planting; enhanced weathring through olivine stones (coming soon); biochar (coming soon)) we're aiming to make carbon removal affordable while maximizing our environmental impact.

[chispamed]

First of all congrats on building a business that focuses on tackling climate change as its probably the most pressing global issue of all right now. However I’ve been struggling with the ethics of carbon removal and carbon offsets a bit myself and would be really interested in your perspective. If the ethical goal is to have the lowest atmospheric CO2 concentration in let’s say 2050, how do you justify funding carbon removal now at a time where the prevention of carbon creation is way cheaper per ton and thus allows people to have a higher impact regarding that goal for the same cost? Is it because you feel that with the right funding now carbon removal could eventually become much cheaper? I’m not trying to criticize you, I’m just really interested in the topic as something about carbon offsets always feels pretty sketchy and I’m always looking for ways to ethically invest or donate (I gave to an anti-deforestation initiative for some years and am financing crowdfunded loans for businesses to install solar panels in developing countries right now while also leading an ethically conscious lifestyle when it comes to travel, diet, activism and general consumption).

[kisamoto]

That's a great question so I hope I can provide a little insight to my thinking:

    * You are right, we do need to also focus on reducing emissions and carbon removal is by no means a replacement for reductions;
    * However even if we were to reduce to zero emissions tomorrow, there is still an excess of emissions already present in the atmosphere that needs to be addressed/removed.
    * Another large consideration for myself when thinking about this project was to support as many carbon removal projects as possible now, so they can be mature, cheaper and readily available as we also reduce.

It is my firm belief that carbon removal should and will replace the existing carbon credits based system. If I emit a ton of CO₂ then buy credits that have reduced (although this is a little ambiguous) someone elses emissions, my 1 ton still exists in the atmosphere.

Reducing my own footprint (so it becomes 0.5 tons) then actively removing that unavoidable footprint - or more if I would like to live carbon negative - means I can truly say I have no impact.

I hope this helps but please feel free to ask about anything else or email me directly: ewan (at) carbonremoved (dot com)