[valw]

I'm surprised to not see these investments directed towards the voluntary carbon market, in which projects such as those REDD+ certified achieve more than 10X higher efficiency, with significant co-benefits in biodiversity and support to the local communities (here's an example I give often: https://standfortrees.org/).

It looks like the projects were chosen through the biases of Silicon Valley, chosen to be futuristic and technologically impressive rather than impactful.

Carbon credits markets sometimes have a bad press due to the abuses in carbon offsetting approaches, but since the approach here is voluntary action rather than offsetting, I see no reason not to use them.

What seems more sensible to you, financing Western entrepreneurs at $100/tCO2e, or financing nature preservation, energy transition and poverty alleviation in developing countries at $10/tCO2e? Thanks Stripe, but I'll keep buying carbon credits.

[kisamoto]

There is a distinction between carbon credits and negative emissions.

I wouldn't say these projects are bias towards silicon valley style there is simply a growing acceptance that nature based solutions - whole undeniably important and essential - are simply not enough.

They are cheap but slow. Trees can be wiped out with wild-fires releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Negative emissions technologies such as bio-oil, direct air capture and storage, olivine and biochar, are developing to help support nature based solutions and remove quickly.

While expensive at the moment I believe they will become cheaper as the technologies and processes mature and the economies of scale kick in.

I don't say this to convert you - nature is a great way to help combat the climate crisis - however do not dismiss this essential step for our future.

[valw]

Note that carbon credits are not all about afforestation - if you don't believe in afforestation, fine, you can buy from projects that do energy transition or industrial efficiency (at the same cost, preventing emissions is always better than capturing CO2). So that's not really an argument against carbon credits.

I'm not saying technology has no role to play - but this specific choice of technologies by Stripe seems dubious to me, and seems to optimize for futuristic enthusiasm rather than potential impact.

I'm not against researching uncertain technology. But all of these projects are about aiming for highly-uncertain technology to solve our problems. Not a single one is about changing the way we live or relying on proven techniques. See why I'm talking about Silicon Valley bias here?

[adamsea]

Any studies you can cite to support your beliefs you're sharing here?

[jackdeansmith]

As far as nature based solutions go, this study on the potential for afforestation is a good place to start: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.14887/. Simply put, there isn't enough land to plant enough trees to get us out of this mess. That doesn't mean that planting trees isn't useful, I think the paper makes a good case for why it's cost effective and buys time, but it isn't enough alone.

My personal take is that the cheap carbon credits are indeed a more cost effective use of money right now, but it's low hanging fruit that we will run out of soon.