This week’s ESG roundup reads like a courtroom drama, except the key witness, the Sun, has been dismissed by the prosecution. From suppressed solar science to incoherent carbon accounting, we dissect how climate orthodoxy clings to CO₂ as its villain, even as the real-world data refuses to comply. The IPCC is increasingly not a scientific body, but a policy mouthpiece, reengineering facts to fit the narrative. Meanwhile, corporate ESG posturing persists despite financial contradictions, regulatory boomerangs, and techno-utopian failures (see: Climeworks). If this is what saving the planet looks like, perhaps we need to redefine the emergency.
CHART OF THE WEEK
SCIENCE
IPCC misrepresentations: comments made by former IPCC contributors after cutting ties with the politicized body — so scientists no longer subject to professional repercussions.
IPCC scientist #29 - Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
The problem of climate change is mainly due to the increase in the temperature of the planet. The theory of climate change, teaches that heat on earth originates mainly after the solar constant, due to a greenhouse effect, caused by greenhouse gases, which absorb and retain infrared energy (heat), so the problem of the increase in temperature on the planet, is described as a result of the increase in greenhouse gases, which increases the greenhouse effect (increases heat retention). But this is contrary to thermodynamic science, because the temperature of the atmosphere is the measurement of the average kinetic movement of its molecules,
So the increase in temperature in gases such as the atmosphere is not due to infrared retention, but to the increase in atmospheric molecular motion. In addition, the increase in temperature is always the product of the transformation of other energies, in the case of the atmosphere it is the product of the increase in the kinetic energy of its molecules, Now the kinetic movement that causes heat in the atmosphere is not just the molecules of the atmosphere known as greenhouse gases.
The Charles Gas Law also teaches us that the temperature of an ideal gas (atmosphere) is directly proportional to its volume. This is consistent with the definition of temperature, which is the measure of the kinetic movement of all the molecules of a gas of a given volume, and not only of small amounts of elements such as CO2, in the great mixture (volume) that is the atmosphere.
Another mistake is to consider that the average velocities of the earth's atoms (infrared of the earth) can be retained or measured in the atmosphere, because heat always needs a body, so it cannot be retained outside a body that absorb it. in relation to the absorption of infrared by the gases of the atmosphere, 99.9% (Nitrogen 78%. Oxygen 21%, Argon 0.9% = 99.9%) of the atmosphere does not absorb infrared (heat), so the infrared does not originate an increase in the speeds of the molecules of the atmosphere, to produce an increase in temperature. if this happened, then the increase in the temperature in the atmosphere would be self-sufficient and unstoppable, because the gases in the atmosphere would not only absorb the infrared (heat) emitted by the earth, but also its own infrared (heat) emitted by the kinetic movement of their own molecules. In addition to the evidence of 5 sigma or 99.97%, that CO2 has not had any influence on the process of temperature increase, as a consequence of the increase in the molecular kinetic movement of the atmosphere, being only between 200 and 280 parts in 1,000.000 during the last 400,000 years.
Our take: the kinetic energy responsible for atmospheric heat is overwhelmingly governed by molecular collisions, not by radiative absorption from trace gases like CO₂. Over geological timescales, the temperature dynamics of Earth’s atmosphere have correlated far more with solar cycles and orbital variations than with CO₂ levels, which often lag temperature changes. The author reinforces a key insight: CO₂’s radiative role is minor in the context of the atmosphere’s overall energy budget. It's a compelling call to reassess the exaggerated role assigned to CO₂ in modern climate discourse.
Methodological scheme of thermal analysis is used for portraying the Earth environmental research and climate changes showing particularly the history, effect of atmosphere reflection (albedo) and absorption (so called greenhouse effect included). The net behavior of the Earth as a black body is reviewed. The most influential on climate changes is alteration of the geometry of the Earth trajectory and the irradiative power of the Sun (as a standard thermo-analytical pair of the sample and radiator). Thermodynamic basis of water vapor impacts is pointed out, the absorption spectra of atmosphere emphasized and temperature gradients indicated. The historical course of the Earth temperature and CO2 concentration is put in analogy with the method of gas desorption analysis, which supports the view that the variation of CO2 concentration recorded in the past may not be alone blamed for temperature changes.
Our take: This paper presents a valuable framework for understanding climate variability through the lens of alternating solar irradiation, a far more empirically grounded driver of climate change than anthropogenic CO₂. By focusing on thermal analysis and energy balance, the author highlights the dominant role of external solar forcing over internal radiative feedbacks. This aligns with the evidence of quasi-periodic warming and cooling cycles throughout Earth’s history, none of which correlate convincingly with CO₂ levels alone. The analysis supports a paradigm shift: instead of attributing climate change to trace gas emissions, we should prioritize the study of solar dynamics and natural energy flux variations.
This article considers the position of the absorption bands of the main greenhouse gases within the spectra of incident solar radiation and terrestrial radiation. The presence of absorption bands for CO2, H2O, CH4, and N2O in the near-infrared range of solar radiation may indicate that these gases impede radiation from reaching the Earth's surface. However, the fact that one of the main absorption bands of CO2 (4.3 μ) falls within a section of minimum energy for both solar and terrestrial radiation, and the other band (15 μ) is significantly removed from the peak of the terrestrial radiation curve, does not support the proposed role of this gas in absorbing energy emitted by the Earth. Furthermore, the theory of the greenhouse effect overlooks the inverse square law regarding the decrease in the intensity of radiated energy with distance from the emitting object—the Earth's surface. The attempt to explain the heating of "non-greenhouse" gases through energy transfer from "greenhouse" gases is unsustainable and contradicts the established principle of independent heating of any substance by any energy source. Therefore, the hypothesis regarding the existence of "greenhouse" gases is inconsistent with the observed facts.
Our take: This paper delivers a molecular-level examination of how atmospheric gases interact with thermal energy, exposing widespread misconceptions about CO₂. It explains that while gases like CO₂ can absorb specific infrared wavelengths, this process is sharply limited by quantum mechanical rules and quickly reaches saturation. Moreover, absorbed energy is rapidly redistributed through molecular collisions, not retained as heat in the radiative sense. This reinforces the view that CO₂'s role in atmospheric heating is marginal, especially compared to dominant factors like water vapor and convective heat transfer. It’s a concise, scientifically grounded correction to mainstream greenhouse narratives.
The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO2 measurements from ice cores; CO2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling. It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively "edited".
Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion "buffer" correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.
Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior.
The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes.
13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC's atmospheric residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC's wrong model creates its artificial 50% "missing sink". IPCC's 50% inexplicable "missing sink" of about 3 giga-tonnes carbon annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC's model.
When such rejection has not yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the "scare-them-to-death" influence principle. IPCC's "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a rejectable non-realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda "pop" as we know it.
Our take: This paper presents a critique of carbon cycle models underpinning the greenhouse effect and global warming narrative. The author challenges the often-cited claim that anthropogenic CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, showing instead that observed residence times are far shorter, typically under a decade. By correcting this key misconception, the paper dismantles the foundation of many climate models that rely on exaggerated CO₂ accumulation scenarios. It exposes how flawed assumptions about carbon persistence have been used to justify alarmist projections and restrictive policies.
I’ve spent most of my career in earth science, working alongside thoughtful, rigorous, and principled scientists, people I deeply respect. I don't believe most are dishonest or driven by ideology. Indeed, much of the foundational science in IPCC's Working Group I, which addresses climate data, physical mechanisms, and processes, appears careful and credible. But even there, there's a troubling gap: natural variability is consistently underexplored, overlooked, or simply not taken seriously.
But something happens between the technical findings and the public narrative. By the time it reaches policymakers, media, and the general public, nuance disappears. Uncertainty becomes certainty. Debate becomes denial. And science becomes storytelling.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in how the IPCC treats Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), the literal energy source for Earth’s entire climate system.
Each time I write about this, I get closer to saying what I once refused to believe: maybe this isn’t just sloppy communication or bureaucratic overreach. Maybe it’s scientific fraud.
What the IPCC Says
The IPCC insists solar activity has essentially done nothing meaningful to influence climate in the last 270 years. They report solar forcing at an absurdly trivial 0.01 W/m² since 1750. Yet they never fully engage with the wide range of peer-reviewed evidence suggesting far greater variability. Instead, they rely exclusively on one dataset, one interpretation… one that fits neatly with their preferred narrative.
Just a hundredth of a watt? That’s not a minor role… they’re saying the Sun has essentially done nothing for the last 270 years.
What the Science Really Shows
Before satellites, we relied on reconstructions of TSI using sunspot records, cosmogenic isotopes, and magnetic modeling. These reconstructions are not all in agreement, but many show a rise in solar activity from the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850) to the late 20th century.
Even if only part of that increase in TSI translates into net radiative forcing at Earth’s surface, we’re talking about a possible warming contribution of 0.3 to 0.6 W/m². That’s within the same range the IPCC attributes to anthropogenic CO₂. It doesn’t eliminate human influence, but it absolutely complicates the “CO₂ is the sole driver” narrative.
The IPCC doesn’t engage with any of these reconstructions seriously. In fact, they don’t even mention most of them.
Are Climate Models Rigged for CO₂?
Climate models aren’t neutral tools, they’re built and tuned by humans with assumptions embedded deeply within them. The dominant assumption, central to nearly all major climate models, is that human-generated CO₂ is the overwhelming climate driver, overshadowing natural variations like solar activity.
This isn't speculation, it's openly admitted. Model creators regularly tweak “parameters” to match historical temperature trends. Yet, what if the foundational assumption of CO₂ dominance is wrong? What if, as multiple respected studies and unresolved satellite disputes suggest, solar variability has been systematically suppressed?
This would mean our models don’t simply miss some details, they profoundly mislead policymakers by overstating our certainty about human-driven warming and understating natural climate influences.
Our take: Dr. Wielicki exposes a glaring omission, the IPCC’s persistent neglect of solar variability as a climate driver. By sidelining the sun’s influence, the IPCC reinforces a narrow CO₂-centric narrative that ignores well-established natural cycles. This biased framing undermines scientific objectivity and skews climate policy toward costly, ineffective solutions - it allows for CO2 to be blamed.
For every GW of installed batteries+solar+wind the need for another resource decreased by roughly 0.134 GW (on average across the balancing authorities). For nuclear for every GW of installed nuclear the need for another resource decreased by 0.95 GW.
Our take: Michael Caravaggio's analysis of 2024 U.S. hourly generation data offers a revealing comparison between renewables and nuclear power in their capacity to replace fossil fuels. The data indicates that for every gigawatt (GW) of installed capacity, nuclear energy reduces the need for other resources by approximately 0.95 GW (almost a 1:1 replacement), whereas the combination of wind, solar, and batteries achieves only about 0.134 GW (1:7.5) of reduction per installed GW.
This stark contrast underscores nuclear power's superior reliability and consistency. With a capacity factor averaging around 93%, nuclear plants operate near full capacity most of the time, providing a stable and predictable energy supply. In contrast, renewables like wind and solar are inherently intermittent, with capacity factors typically ranging between 10% and 50%, depending on location and technology. This intermittency necessitates substantial overbuilding and storage solutions to match the reliability of nuclear or fossil fuel plants.
Furthermore, the analysis highlights that it takes over seven times as much solar or wind capacity to replace a given amount of fossil fuel generation compared to nuclear power! This inefficiency not only has economic implications but also indicates the absurd inefficiency of a transition to a renewable-only energy grid.
In summary, Caravaggio's findings suggest that while renewables may play some role in the energy mix, nuclear power currently offers a far, far more effective and reliable means of replacing fossil fuels. The data supports the argument for using nuclear energy as the cornerstone in strategies aimed at achieving a grid with less fossil fuels.
This study empirically explores the impact of executives' financial background on corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance, with a particular focus on the mediating effect of corporate financialization. By selecting a sample of non-financial Chinese listed companies from 2008 to 2022, this paper finds a significant negative correlation between executives' financial experience and corporate ESG performance. Notably, corporate financialization plays a crucial mediating role in this relationship. Furthermore, the study also reveals that managerial overconfidence and financial regulation exert significant moderating effects on the link between executives' financial background and ESG performance. Additionally, the results indicate substantial heterogeneity in the impact of executives' financial background on ESG performance, depending on whether the company adopts a dual leadership structure (where the CEO and chairman are held by the same individual) and whether the company issues a standard audit opinion.
Our take: If you view ESG as fundamentally flawed, as we do, this study supports our position: it shows that financially literate executives, those presumably trained to focus on measurable value and shareholder returns, are less inclined to pursue ESG, implying they may see ESG as less aligned with core business success. In essence, the study reinforces the idea that ESG can conflict with sound financial judgment.
Changes in the Competition Act meant to reduce 'greenwashing' may in fact be causing firms to stop reporting or even drop green initiatives.
As climate-concerned central planners continue to discover, their actions have unintended consequences — some of which work completely contrary to their stated intentions. The latest example: as the result of changes to Canada’s Competition Act that were cheered on last year by environmental organizations like Greenpeace, RBC is now scrapping some of its environmental commitments and disclosures. Last week, the bank, which has Canada’s largest corporate market cap at $237 billion, announced it was “retiring” the “sustainable finance commitment” it made in 2019 and would no longer disclose its energy supply ratio, citing the Competition Act changes as a reason for its decision.
Article content
The changes in question require companies to substantiate claims about their environmental performance according to “internationally recognized methodology.” Canada’s largest oilsands companies denounced the policy, writing that the prescribed “internationally recognized methodology” for environmental reporting “may or may not exist,” which “opens the door for frivolous litigation.” Alberta’s Minister of Environment, Rebecca Schulz, called the legislation “an attack on freedom of speech” and the Saskatchewan government called it a “gag law” on oil and gas companies.
There are other examples of climate-focused central planning producing unintended environmental consequences. For example, National Review reports that in the United States “small, efficient cars are increasingly rare, thanks to overly aggressive fuel-economy standards.” Beginning in 2009, the Obama administration expanded automobile regulation and under its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, a vehicle’s physical footprint determined its fuel efficiency targets. Since smaller cars were given much more stringent regulatory targets, small efficient cars “became regulatory casualties”: their government-mandated targets were so aggressive “that selling them became impractical.” According to National Review, sedans have shrunk to only about six per cent of sales by major American manufacturers, versus approximately half 20 years ago. Average vehicle size has bloated.
In general, any kind of government regulation, whether environmental or otherwise, that restricts consumer choice or adds to the cost of manufacturing new vehicles will have negative unintended consequences. When governments add cost and inconvenience to the manufacture or sale of new cars, drivers will naturally react by keeping old cars on the road longer, which has negative effects on both the environment and safety. To avoid these negative unintended consequences — in automobiles, financial services, the oilsands or any other industry — the solution is simple. Stop the central planning.
Our take: It’s heartwarming to see that in their quest to save us from speculative future weather, our enlightened planners are perfectly willing to plunge us into actual, measurable economic hardship today. Who needs affordable energy or functioning markets when we can bask in the moral glow of climate virtue-signaling, preferably by candlelight? Apparently, the road to Net Zero is paved with unintended consequences… and very expensive ones.
Our take: Mondelez is famous for their Ritz crackers and other snacking brands. Upon reviewing Mondelēz International's 2024 "Snacking Made Right" report and related disclosures, it appears the company has adopted prevailing climate change frameworks and policies without conducting a comprehensive, human-centric, and unbiased due diligence process.
The company's climate strategy aligns with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and the United Nations' Race to Zero campaign, aiming for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across its value chain by 2050. There is no indication of an independent assessment of the scientific validity or economic implications of these targets. The reliance on external frameworks suggests an adherence to established climate ideologies rather than a thoughtful evaluation of their applicability to the company's operations.
Furthermore, the report emphasizes reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and sustainable sourcing practices but lacks a thorough analysis of the trade-offs between such objectives and other aspects of human well-being, such as economic development and energy accessibility. Like most companies, this indicates an oversight in considering the full context of climate-related decisions.
One of the significant problems with green energy is the lack of energy. The other is the lack of green. So we are vaguely encouraged to get an email from Canary Media about “A new plan to recycle solar”. Especially as the article it links to concedes that solar panels are a major environmental hazard. Indeed, it states frankly that “Each time a hurricane batters Florida, the country’s second-largest market for solar energy, broken panels pile up in landfills.” Which seems to combine unreliability and pollution in one big ugly pile (and we can’t help noticing that hurricanes tend not to smash up gas-fired or nuclear plants). But then Canary Media announces that a Jacksonville company has a plan to “break down busted panels and turn the waste stream into a new domestic source of metals such as copper and aluminum at a moment when tariffs are set to hike the price of imported materials.” Which surely beats, say, relying on child slave labour in Congo or a capricious Chinese regime… which owns the Congo mines anyway. The problem as always is the economics.
Our take: this nails the absurdity of governments taxing productive sectors, laundering the cash through bureaucracy, then celebrating the return of a fraction as economic stimulus. It’s not investment, it’s circular PR with a leakage problem. As Robson implies, if this is a growth strategy, so is burning your house down to raise its insurance value.
The local elections have changed everything. As Simon Carr of the Guido Fawkes website has pointed out, despite having only five MPs, Reform UK is already setting the agenda in Parliament.
This is as true of net zero as it is of so many other policy areas. Twelve months ago, claims from the Government benches that renewables were bringing down energy bills would have been accepted without question. Now, when Starmer and Miliband say the same thing, they sound ridiculous.
Everyone now knows we have installed more wind and solar power than just about anyone else, and also that we have the highest electricity prices in the developed world. Everyone can see that our industrial sector, already decimated by years of decarbonisation policies, is rapidly disappearing entirely. Grangemouth, the Luton van plant, a major pottery in Stoke – the litany of disaster seems endless.
Our take: The Telegraph article laments Britain’s “voluntary deindustrialisation” under Net Zero policy, and it’s hard to argue with the diagnosis. In what reads like a cautionary tale with a dash of national self-harm, the UK has chosen to make its industrial base uncompetitive in the name of averting an imperceptible 0.07°C of warming by 2050, as Lindzen, Happer and van Wijngaarden have shown. While China, India, and even the U.S. race to secure cheap, reliable energy and grow their economies, Britain has opted to export its emissions, gut its manufacturing, and pin its hopes on offshore wind and climate virtue. It's not decline imposed from without, it’s deliberate decline by policy.
The preamble to the cost of energy inquiry says that ESNZ wants to consider how bills can be reduced for both domestic and commercial consumers. The first question asks if the costs and benefits of the energy system are reflected in consumer bills. We should first deal with costs as these are perhaps the most important topic for discussion. In September 2024, the Government published data about energy prices across the IEA in 2023 that showed that the UK has the most expensive domestic and industrial electricity prices in the countries covered by the study. UK industrial electricity prices were four times higher than the US and 2.6 times those of Korea. Domestic electricity prices were again multiples of those in the US and Korea and some 80% above the IEA median.
Turning now to benefits, these are much more difficult to discern. Our World in Data (OWID) shows that global coal, oil and gas consumption reached record levels in 2023 and world CO2 emissions rose to record levels as UK emissions fell to just 0.8% of the global total. OWID also shows that countries that reduce emissions the most grow more slowly than countries with a more measured approach and much more slowly than countries that are increasing emissions. In fact, per capita GDP in the UK has all but stagnated since the Climate Change Act of 2008 while emissions have plummeted, demonstrating that there are no benefits to the UK from rapid decarbonisation.
This analysis maybe surprising to some because of the misinformation promulgated by the Commons Library, the BBC and others who claim that renewables are cheap. Their analysis focuses on the low marginal costs of generation for wind and solar. While this is true, the misinformation arises because their analyses do not consider the full system cost of subsidies, grid balancing and backup nor the extra costs of new electricity transmission and distribution lines. As we saw above, these extra costs are considerable and will have an ever-increasing impact on energy bills.
Now on to question three about where the cost of decarbonisation should lie. We should note first that no country has yet successfully decarbonised its grid. This will never be achieved using intermittent wind and solar because as we have seen, the costs are prohibitive. The only solution that can deliver lower emissions and a reliable grid is nuclear power. Until Generation IV reactors come online that can vary their output, the grid will require some gas power plants to manage the fluctuations in demand. This will not deliver a Net Zero grid, but emissions will be very much lower, the overall environmental footprint will be much smaller than any alternative and the grid will be more reliable. This approach should reduce overall costs compared to the current approach. Of course, any transition costs should be borne by consumers but the transition should not be forced at an unrealistic pace.
In summary, the UK’s high energy prices represent an existential threat to the economy. Before making recommendations on how to reduce energy bills, you need to correctly diagnose the problem and then select actions that will directly cut the costs of energy, not simply change the pocket that the bills are paid from.
Our take: Turver cuts through the noise: energy prices are high because we’re deliberately making them so. The relentless push for renewables, taxes, and market distortions under Net Zero dogma has priced out affordability in favor of ideology. If we want lower prices, we need less ESG theater and more energy realism.
Several financial institutions and pension funds are backing a new initiative by some of Canada’s best-known sustainable-finance experts to bolster companies’ energy-transition plans as a way to win access to more global capital.
The idea behind the effort, called Business Future Pathways, is to give corporations guidance on international standards for developing business strategies that deal with climate risks and the shift to a low-carbon economy. The big investors will endorse the advice.
Several institutions have signed up for Business Future Pathways’s advisory committee, including Addenda Capital, Mackenzie Investments, Vancouver City Savings Credit Union, Desjardins Group, University Pension Plan Ontario, among others.
The group is launching at a time when sustainable finance progress has slowed to a crawl. In April, many large investors expressed disappointment when Canadian Securities Administrators suspended its work aimed at making climate-related disclosure mandatory for public companies.
The initial Business Future Pathways report will make the case for why climate-ready business strategies are important, how future profitability could be dependent on them and other macroeconomic themes, he said.
Our take: recognizing some of the people and institutions involved, our expectations of this initiative are that, like we see all over the world of finance, they will have accepted the climate alarmism ideology entirely, not having done a proper due diligence on it. How sad that our business leaders repeatedly fail in this vital task, and instead are arm-in-arm with anti-human ideologues.
The carbon capture company Climeworks only captures a fraction of the CO2 it promises its machines can capture. The company is failing to carbon offset the emissions resulting from its operations – which have grown rapidly in recent years.
Climeworks in Iceland has only captured just over 2,400 carbon units since it began operations in the country in 2021, out of the twelve thousand units that company officials have repeatedly claimed the company’s machines can capture. This is confirmed by figures from the Finnish company Puro.Earth on the one hand and from the company’s annual accounts on the other. Climeworks has made international news for capturing carbon directly from the atmosphere. For this, the company uses large machines located in Hellisheiði, in South Iceland. They are said to have the capacity to collect four thousand tons of CO2 each year directly from the atmosphere.
According to data available to Heimildin, it is clear that this goal has never been achieved and that Climeworks does not capture enough carbon units to offset its own operations, emissions amounting to 1,700 tons of CO2 in 2023. The emissions that occur due to Climeworks' activities are therefore more than it captures. Since the company began capturing in Iceland, it has captured a maximum of one thousand tons of CO2 in one year.
Sara Lind says she cannot answer questions about why CO2 capture is going so poorly that the company is unable to offset its own carbon footprint. She also cannot say when subscribers to the company's carbon credits can expect to receive them.
The Swiss founders of Climeworks were ambitious when they started in 2009. In a 2017 interview, they said that by 2025 they planned to capture one percent of all global emissions. That amounts to 400 million tons of CO2. Those plans have not been realised, and the company has never come close to achieving that. They also planned to reduce the cost of capturing each ton of CO2 from the atmosphere to about $100. Today, a ton of CO2 costs about $1,000, according to the Climeworks website – ten times more than the target this year.
Despite not achieving those goals, the company’s executives have set new, more ambitious goals. The company now says it plans to capture 1 billion tons of CO2 by 2050. Climeworks’ operations and ambitious goals have garnered worldwide attention, and the company recently ranked second on Time Magazine’s list of the 100 top green tech companies in the world. This is the first time Climeworks has made the list, but another unrelated company, which has operated in Iceland, made the list last year, Running Tide.
