Without knowing a ton about the economics, my understanding is that Project Vesta, as a startup working on carbon capture and sequestration, costs more per ton than other initiatives currently, but the hope is with continued revenue & investment they can go down the cost curve. I agree it’s hard to know for sure what to believe—the geoengineering route taken by Make Sunsets is somewhat more controversial than CC&S (and I think, encodes more assumptions about efficacy), and one might reasonably prefer a more direct if expensive route to reversing carbon emissions. I might make a rough analogy to the difference between GiveDirectly and AMF, with reasonable people preferring the first due to being more direct (even if less cost effective).
This seems way too expensive? I feel like make sunsets suggest you can offset a lifetime of carbon for like $500.
I think a big problem is it’s hard to know what to believe here. And hence people don’t offset.
Without knowing a ton about the economics, my understanding is that Project Vesta, as a startup working on carbon capture and sequestration, costs more per ton than other initiatives currently, but the hope is with continued revenue & investment they can go down the cost curve. I agree it’s hard to know for sure what to believe—the geoengineering route taken by Make Sunsets is somewhat more controversial than CC&S (and I think, encodes more assumptions about efficacy), and one might reasonably prefer a more direct if expensive route to reversing carbon emissions. I might make a rough analogy to the difference between GiveDirectly and AMF, with reasonable people preferring the first due to being more direct (even if less cost effective).