Payments Company Stripe Is Kick Starting Market For Carbon Removal 23
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: Stripe is signing up to pay for carbon-removal technologies that haven't been invented yet. The payments company has formed a partnership with Deep Science Ventures, a London investment firm that specializes in building technology companies from the ground up. DSV will recruit scientists to develop ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If they come up with viable concepts, Stripe will be their first customer. It will pay DSV startups $500,000 each up front to capture and store carbon, then a further $1 million if they meet performance milestones.
The new partnership marks an expansion of Stripe's effort to provide a market for unproven technology that could potentially help limit the damage of global warming. The United Nations' scientific panel on climate change says the least-bad global-temperature scenarios depend on people removing billions of tons of planet-warming gases from the atmosphere. It also cautions that companies and governments may never be able to deploy the technology on the scale required to make that happen. Since August 2019, when it promised "to pay, at any available price, for the direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and its sequestration in secure, long-term storage," Stripe has committed $9 million to 10 carbon-removal projects.
Stripe's carbon-removal procurement is led by Ryan Orbuch, who was a product manager before focusing on climate, and the team's projects are vetted by a panel of industry experts. Costs vary, with the most expensive service costing more than $2,000 per ton of carbon removed. Scalability is more important than current pricing. Stripe says technologies should have the potential to remove half a gigaton of carbon dioxide a year by 2050 at a cost of $100 per ton, and store it for at least 1,000 years. Stripe has tethered its core business of operating payment infrastructure to its side project. Stripe Climate, a tool introduced in October 2020, lets Stripe's customers divert a percentage of revenue to the carbon-removal pot. Roughly 9,000 of Stripe's millions of business users have enrolled contributing nearly $3 million a year collectively, and roughly 8% of new Stripe users sign up [...].
The new partnership marks an expansion of Stripe's effort to provide a market for unproven technology that could potentially help limit the damage of global warming. The United Nations' scientific panel on climate change says the least-bad global-temperature scenarios depend on people removing billions of tons of planet-warming gases from the atmosphere. It also cautions that companies and governments may never be able to deploy the technology on the scale required to make that happen. Since August 2019, when it promised "to pay, at any available price, for the direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and its sequestration in secure, long-term storage," Stripe has committed $9 million to 10 carbon-removal projects.
Stripe's carbon-removal procurement is led by Ryan Orbuch, who was a product manager before focusing on climate, and the team's projects are vetted by a panel of industry experts. Costs vary, with the most expensive service costing more than $2,000 per ton of carbon removed. Scalability is more important than current pricing. Stripe says technologies should have the potential to remove half a gigaton of carbon dioxide a year by 2050 at a cost of $100 per ton, and store it for at least 1,000 years. Stripe has tethered its core business of operating payment infrastructure to its side project. Stripe Climate, a tool introduced in October 2020, lets Stripe's customers divert a percentage of revenue to the carbon-removal pot. Roughly 9,000 of Stripe's millions of business users have enrolled contributing nearly $3 million a year collectively, and roughly 8% of new Stripe users sign up [...].
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Manchin doesn't want to our 700 super-billionaires to pay a penny to benefit the middle class. It seems unlikely that any money to address our world-wide problems will be unlocked by the ones holding the purse strings.
Re: (Score:2)
Manchin doesn't want to our 700 super-billionaires to pay a penny to benefit the middle class.
The billionaires will not pay their taxes by reducing their consumption of cigars, champagne, and caviar. They will sell productive assets, which represents the future profit stream of their companies. So we are liquidating future productivity to pay for current consumption.
That is nuts when America is already under-producing and over-consuming. The stimulus is just going to pay for even more container ships full of Chinese products waiting to be unloaded at American ports while the cost is dumped onto o
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because everything Congress does must be a multi-trillion dollar bill. I mean it's just impossible to break this up into about 100 smaller bills that 67% of the senators could agree on and pass.
This is complete bullshit. The bills that go through Congress should not all be some massive overly complex bullshit that nobody could read in a year. Every bill should be no bigger than a magazine at the checkout line at a supermarket. That's what? 50 pages? If it is a big deal that needs more than that
Re: (Score:2)
The capital critters always traded favors and pork for votes. The spending bills are so complex for multiple reasons. The cynical reason is that it must contain enough earmarked spending to appease enough key members. The second and most important reason is that the discretionary budget is created as part of an annual appropriations process. All the spending must pass through committee before it can go to a vote. It doesn't really matter to the committee if they review a single million-page bill or 20,000 f
Re: (Score:2)
Trees (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So has anyone come up with a more efficient, effective, cheap & sustainable carbon capture technology than planting trees & re-wilding the areas of the planet we've ravaged so far?
Trees are nice. Planting trees is not going to fix global warming.
There is nowhere near enough land available for tree planting to make a difference.
making plans to squeeze every last drop of oil & gas out of the earth
Proven oil and gas reserves are far higher today than a few decades ago, and will be even higher when we stop using fossil fuels. We aren't going to stop using oil because we "run out".
& burn it?
The FF companies don't burn oil, gas, and coal. Consumers do that. The problem isn't "them", it's "us".
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the FF companies, because they spend a huge amount of money lobbying for us to continue burning fossil fuels and do everything they can to discourage us from switching away from them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear fission power (Re:Trees) (Score:2)
Carbon capture means nothing if we can't lower CO2 emissions. We have had governments pay some very intelligent and educated people to look into solutions. Their solutions are public record. Those not following their recommendations are not taking the problem of CO2 emissions seriously. There are many options to solve the problem but all of the options include nuclear fission power. How much nuclear power is required is debatable, it can be dozens of nuclear power plants, more like hundreds of nuclear
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a "you problem".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So has anyone come up with a more efficient, effective, cheap & sustainable carbon capture technology than planting trees [...]
Yes, there are lots of approaches.
We'll need to find out which ones are the most efficient ones really fast now. Personally, I bet on mineralisation / Enhanced Weathering: https://www.projectvesta.org/ [projectvesta.org]
To incentivise development, we'll probably need Carbon Takeback Obligations: https://www.biobasedpress.eu/2... [biobasedpress.eu]
The 'fruit hanging order': ...)
Lowest: Reduce emissions
Medium: Carbon capture and mineralisation / storage from high concentration sources (flue gases, industry, traffic,
High: Direct Air Capture (m
Re: (Score:2)
Cool-ing (Score:2)
Good
Now just be careful you don't go too fast or overboard.
Moving in from the sea over 100 to 300 years is an irritation.
Accidentally inducing an ice age, which can come on in as little as 2 years (geologic records-- you just need a summer where the winter snow doesn't melt, and the lack of summer warming due to sun reflection will make the next winter start at winter temps, not end at them.)
So easy does it.
Re: (Score:3)
If we accidentally go too far and trigger an ice age (haha), we can reverse it in a heartbeat by pumping out freon.
Chlorotrifluoromethane is 14,000 times as effective as CO2.
Hype Technologies partners with Buzz Inc (Score:2)
Next up, get your carbon crypto coins while the ponzi scheme lasts!
Re (Score:1)