Our mission is to build a European based tech company providing CO2 negative digital products and services, mainly for people and companies in EU/EEA. To be a CO2 negative company we’re scope 1-3 net-zero and additionally using 2 % of revenue for CO2 removals.
Our vision is a world where the atmosphere has been restored to its natural balance. It’s a world where historical CO2 emissions has been removed so that the atmosphere is back to it’s pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.
The short versions:
Our mission is to remove CO2 from the air when you’re on our social apps.
Our vision is a world where the atmosphere has been restored to its natural balance.
Climate change has adversely affected both terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and is expected to further affect many ecosystems, including tundra, mangroves, coral reefs, and caves.
Increasing global temperature, more frequent occurrence of extreme weather, and rising sea level are among some of the effects of climate change that will have the most significant impact.
Some of the problem with current and predicted atmospheric CO2 levels are:
Increased occurrence of natural disasters
Species decline and extinction
Marine dead zones
Disruption to water cycle
Some of this is already happening and it’s expected to get worse. A net-zero society in 2050 prevents it from reaching catastrophic levels, but it’s not solving the root problem. It’s simply too much CO2 in the atmophere.
To completely fix this problem the world has to become net-negative, that is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. There are plenty of good and safe solutions to do it.
The world needs a better and more ambitious vision than net-zero. A restored atmophere is what the world should aim for. Net-zero is a milestone towards that goal.
Humanity has done some serious CO2 pollution for just about 110 years and it’s time that we set a goal to clean it up.
When one remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than one emit, that’s being climate positive. Climate positive is a nicer sounding phrase than CO2 negative, but it means the same.
To keep things clear we have to separate the concept of “climate” from the concept of “CO2“. Both can be positive, negative or neutral.
It’s very easy, but it can be a little bit confusing first. When you remove more CO2 than you emit it’s good for the climate, and therefore it’s a positive thing for the climate.
Carbon negative refer to the result we get when we subtract CO2 removals from emissions. When we do the CO2 mathematics and get a positive result it is bad because it leaves CO2 in the air. If we end up with a negative figure it’s good because it removes CO2 from the air. When you remove as much as you emit you’re net zero.
It’s this simple:
If you emit 5 and remove 5, you’re net-zero. (5-5=0)
If you emit 5 and remove 2, you’re CO2 positive, which is bad for the climate. You’ve left 3 in the atmosphere (5-2=+3)
If you emit 5 and remove 7, you’re CO2 negative, which is good for the climate, hence climate positive. (5-7=-2)
Sometimes people in USA speak about being “carbon negative” which sounds like C negative, but what they really mean is CO2 negative. When we speak about being CO2 negative we also count other greenhouse gases by converting them to CO2 equivalents (CO2eq)
Counting and comparing CO2 emissions can be a tricky thing to do. Luckily there are reporting standards such as the Greenhouse gas protocol. They have three scopes:
Direct emissions from the company
Indirect emissions from electricity, heat or steam
Value chain emissions. This is usually the the biggest source of emissions.
If we want to compare companies with each other we have to check what they include when they say they’re climate neutral or net-zero.
Sometimes they only speak about scope 1 and 2. It’s easy for a company to stop there and ignore the large and difficult scope 3. Those indirect emissions happens outside of the company, so technically it’s not “their company”, but the emissions are caused because of the products and services the company provide.
That said, we shouldn’t be too hard on scope 3. In some cases those emissions can be too big to handle for a company, literally so expensive to remove that it would bankrupt the company. At the same time the company may be needed for the society to function. The best approach here is not to let the company die, but instead push for reductions by all companies through the value chain and set a realistic time frame.
Naturally we as consumers should choose a better product or company if those are available. One that already has become net zero or climate positive.
Albin Social’s objective is to become CO2 negative as soon as possible for all three scopes.
Being climate positive mean to remove more CO2 from the air than one emit. There is still no international standard on how CO2 accounting and reporting should be done before a company can call itself climate positive. Let’s look at two options.
Removals based on emissions
One way to be climate positive is to remove, say 110 %, of CO2 emissions. If a company emit 100 ton CO2, then they would remove 110 tons. When that company succeed in reducing their emissions the following year and only emit 50 ton, they would remove 55 ton. So the positive impact on the climate during the first year was 10 ton removed and for the second year they removed 5 ton. At Albin Social we said, hold on, this approach mean that our positive impact decreases over time. Is there a better way.
Just to be clear, we’re not criticizing this method. It’s a good approach if the goal is a net zero society. We aim higher though and dream about a restored atmosphere.
Removals based on revenue
Albin Social want to keep making a climate positive impact as our emissions goes towards zero. This is our proposed method:
1. We look at the previous year and analyse how much CO2 we must remove to be a net-zero company.
2. We remove CO2 and become net zero. Maybe we call this net zero removals.
3. In addition to this we use 2 % of revenue for climate positive CO2 removals.
If we reach a state where our emissions are close to zero, this method keeps removing CO2.
By basing our climate positive removals on revenue it also means that when our company grows, more CO2 are removed. A bigger company with bigger revenue leads to a bigger climate positive impact.
Some people say that no one should start a new company and grow it, that it would be better for the climate to stop using apps. We believe people will keep using social apps no matter if Albin Social exist or not. What we’re doing is to offer apps that are better for the climate. A climate positive app is better than a net zero app. As far as we can see none of the big app companies are net zero for all three scopes, they are still climate negative.
People are not increasing consumption by choosing Albin Social. All they’re doing is being on our app instead of the other apps. There isn’t even a need to fully switch, you can have two apps, but any time spent on our app will mean removed CO2.
This is an interesting and complicated question. CarbonCloud holds the following position: If the life cycle of a product leads to a net release of greenhouse gases, the product should not be referred to as “climate neutral” even if the emissions are compensated for with carbon offsets.
What is carbon offsetting?
Some companies compensate their climate footprint by supporting projects around the world that either mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases compared to a baseline or remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. This is known as “carbon offsetting”. The intentions are praiseworthy, and it can definitely make sense to communicate about them to the public; however, not by claiming to be climate neutral. Instead we encourage statements of the type: “Our climate footprint is XX kg CO2e. We work on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We also invest in project YY that we believe can contribute in the fight against climate change.” This is the honest and transparent way. Why then, does the positive not just simply cancel out the negative? There are two main reasons.
1: It is very hard to know how large effect the projects really have. In many cases, they do not even seem to work at all.
2: There is a clear risk of double counting, meaning that several parties take credit for the same emission reductions, or greenhouse gas removals. Let us take a deeper look at these issues.
Does carbon offsetting work?
This is the million-dollar question. In some cases, it is inherently hard to asses. In other cases, we know that the answer is no. For each project we need to ask ourselves the following:
Does the project deliver the intended results? Things do not always go as planned. A large project in Kenya invested in energy efficient stoves. As it turned out, most of them were never used. Yet, climate offsets were certified and sold. In other projects we will not know the outcome for a very long time. Planted trees, for instance, only absorb and store carbon as long as they are not cut down. How can this be guaranteed for hundreds of years in countries such as Uganda, ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in the world?
Is the project “additional”? In some cases, the project would have taken place anyway, even without the income from carbon offsets. Wind power farms, for instance, produce carbon offsets based on the assumption that the electricity produced replaces coal power. But many of the countries that host the carbon offsetting projects are growing economies with a steadily increasing energy demand. The wind power farms may very well have been built anyway. Additionality is generally an explicit requirement for carbon offsetting project. But unfortunately, the analysis of whether a project is additional is often highly subjective and hard to evaluate in a transparent way. A German research study (Cames, 2016) found that only 2% of the investigated projects had a high probability of being additional.
Is leakage avoided? Leakage is when greenhouse gas emissions increase somewhere else, as a consequence of the carbon offsetting project. If trees are planted on land used by the local population for forage or agriculture, this may lead to other trees being cut down elsewhere. The local farmers may have no other options than to clear vegetation at a new location in order to continue their agricultural activities. This becomes at best a zero-sum game for the climate but a loss for the farmers who need to move, and a loss for biodiversity since planted forests host less biodiversity than natural vegetation.
Who takes the credit?
This is the second question we need to ask. In the business of carbon offsetting, it is not unusual that more than one party takes credit for the same action, resulting in deceptive book-keeping. Let us use an example: trees are planted in Uganda in a carbon-offsetting project. Company X buys the carbon offsets and label their products as “climate neutral”. This means that company X takes credit for the removal of greenhouse gases. However, it is not unlikely that Uganda also accounts for tree planting in the national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions. In that case the action is double counted.
Let us take another example. A wind-power plant is built in Brazil. Carbon offsets are sold, based on the assumption that the electricity replaces coal power. Avoiding double counting means that Brazil will have to assume that the electricity produced comes from coal power, although it actually comes from wind. This does not lie in the interest of Brazil, who has targets to reach under the Paris agreement. If enough carbon offsetting credits are sold, Brazil could end up in a situation where they have only renewable energy in reality but would need to keep on reporting as if they had only coal power, since they have sold the right for the emission reductions to other parties.
The negotiations of the Paris agreement have shown us how difficult it is to agree on rules that avoid double counting. Reaching our climate targets requires that we BOTH reduce emissions in all countries around the world AND remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, for instance by planting trees. Double counting blurs our vision and makes it harder to keep track of what remains to be done. If we look specifically at the food industry, we see that it is currently responsible for about 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, 2014). To fulfill the Paris agreement and stop climate change these emissions will have to be reduced, even if all other emissions are reduced to zero! Crediting the food industry with reductions in other sectors can hence not be the solution for the food industry and such claims have the risk of delaying real and effective measures from being made.
What do we suggest?
There are technologies that you could argue actually work. One example is direct air capture, involving facilities that capture carbon dioxide from the air so that it can be stored below ground. It is a technology that has a high probability of giving the intended results. The likelihood is very low that that the carbon dioxide will escape from its storage below ground. It is a costly technology with no other positive side effects. Therefore, it can be considered “additional” since it will not be implemented unless someone pays for it. There are other technologies for climate compensation that you could argue also work. We applaud any engagement in such projects. However, our basic appeal is this: find out your climate footprint and communicate it to your customers without smokescreen. CarbonCloud is here to help!
Cames, M., Harthan, R. O., Füssler, J., Lazarus, M., Lee, C., Erickson, P., & Spalding-Fecher, R. (2016). How additional is the clean development mechanism. Analysis of application of current tools and proposed alternatives. Oeko-Institut EV CLlMA. B, 3.
IPCC. (2014). Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1454.
As things stands now, thew world is heading for a climate disaster of gigantic proportions. We’re about to fail the Paris agreement unless more is done.
The current trajectory on temperature may even lead to tipping points being passed, and with it comes an unknown effect on the future. It could lead to extinction of animals, and it’s not even guaranteed that humanity will survive.
On the large timescale of the universe, it’s fully possible for humanity to go extinct. It can happen if we do some small mistake such as changing the climate we need for survival. Our livable temperature span is very narrow.
The world must begin removing CO2 from the atmosphere now. EU governments already have the goal of net zero emissions by 2050. It’s good and it’s possible to reach, but it’s not enough.
If we’re going to achieve the goal of the Paris agreement, we need to both reduce emissions and remove historical emissions at the same time.
All technology to remove CO2 already exist. It can be scaled up to make a real difference. The reason it’s not already being done is ignorance by people and inaction by companies and governments.
We need to raise awareness of carbon removal methods and the importance of starting now. Waiting until 2050 to start this process would be a big mistake. Governments in Europe could, and should, put CO2 removal on the agenda.
Removals can be a new program and run in parallel with activities for reductions. It should not interfere with the speed of reductions. We can let EU countries begin removal of the historical emissions from Europe. We can begin on the older side of history and remove the emissions from steam factories.
At that time people had no other choice than to use coal. Unfortunately their activities damaged the climate, but our current society stands on the shoulders of fossil fuel. We should not blame previous generations, they did their best in pursuit of a better future. We now have a better future and luckily we have the technology to fix the problem. It’s our responsibility to do so.
Net zero should be a milestone, not the end goal. By scaling up removals and speeding up reductions we can pass that milestone sooner than 2050. Europe need to go beyond net zero emissions to become climate positive.
The symbol above represents removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
When we look at the symbol we can see a circle, it signifies planet earth. We can also see a wavy line which signifies atmospheric CO2 levels.
A sharp spike is seen on the left side. It shows our unbalanced climate and serves as warning of the approaching climate disaster. It’s sharp, unnatural and almost piercing through the circle.
Currently we’re at the top of the spike and levels are still going up. Unless governments and companies do more for the climate we’re going to fail the Paris agreement and head straight for a disaster.
The fast decline in CO2 after the peak signifies faith in our ability to remove CO2 from the air. Small waves on the right side of the spike signifies an ideal future with a fully restored atmosphere. A natural variation of CO2 levels causes the small waves. On this balanced level people can live in harmony with nature for generations to come.
The Fediverse may seem complicated at first glance, but it is actually easy once you get used to it. In short the Fediverse consist of several apps with different names that are connected with each other through a new de-centralized technology.
The Fediverse is still a bit rough on the edges. It’s so new that some things are a bit clunky but it’s okay once you get used to i. It’s more than okay, it’s really good. Work is done all the time to polish and improve Mastodon and Pixelfed.
In total there are over a million users on the Fediverse already. With the de-centralized nature of the Fediverse people are spread out on many servers. You can follow and talk to anyone from any server, regardless of your choice. Here’s a list of communities, each on their own server.
Our community and server, Mastodon.green, is for people in EU and invited friends from around the world. We’re aiming to become the first climate positive server on the Fediverse.