Not guilt. Not sin. Your logic is specious parroted re-hash from George Monbiot's failed thought leadership from the mid-2000's. Carbon dioxide is pollution and waste just like household garbage, recycling, and compost. When you offset you're cleaning up after yourself.
As with more tangible-seeming waste, it's always better to avoid and reduce before paying another party to deal with it. Yet CO2 is demonized because global warming is a collective externality. Because it's invisible doesn't make it intangible. Because the reductions can be counteracted by an entity that's in another location doesn't make a difference, either!
Beware b2b with large corporates, especially those that have already professed leadership and concern on climate change. Google, Disney, Microsoft, Apple, UPS, and... Interface. They will wear you out. Maybe they'll have a soft spot for your YCombinator gloss, but don't count on it. Most companies you would pursue are already partnered up w/Natural Capital Partners, NativeEnergy, Carbonfund, etc. It's very rare for them to switch. That gold rush happened long ago. There are of course exceptions and other pockets of opportunity. Don't think you're different, special, better... that "it's different this time" or that hey offsetting is a neat space where buyers can granularly allocate their buys across many different providers. Theoretically true, doesn't happen. Save your energy for companies with newly-announced neutrality commitments. Even then, in our experience, those dialogues move slowly (2+ years), usually involve RFI's and RFP's, and then you're up against 20+ incumbents who have been doing this for over a decade.
Hi! Thanks for putting in the time to respond to so many of the comments on this thread! You've all been in this space for so long and it's really valuable to hear your perspective.
>Beware b2b with large corporates
Just a note on b2b, we aren't going after large companies. Right now we are just responding to inbound interest from users who want to offer Wren as a benefit to their employees. We don't do offsets in scopes 1 through 3 because we're focused on individuals, and as you said there are 20+ incumbents who have been doing this for over a decade, and much better than we can right now.
>Don't think you're different, special, better... that "it's different this time"
I don't think we're under the illusion that we are special. We are only trying to build a good product to get individuals engaged who haven't been reached before. We are also not trying to put down any organizations that are already offering offsets to individuals by building Wren. I don't think we're going to get anywhere by competing internally when the vast majority of the world doesn't know what can be done on an individual basis to take action, whether that's lifestyle changes, political action, activism, offsets, etc. We are here to contribute, not take away from or hurt the space. Whether it's changing our organization structure, margin, projects we're working with, whatever it is, I'd love to hear from you about what you think we should be doing better. Please email me at mimi@projectwren.com if you'd like to continue the conversation!
COTAP here... Thanks to thisjustinm for getting us into the conversation : )
Not to rain on the parade here, just a cautionary tale that is intended to be helpful...
I would say take a look at Cool Effect which launched in early 2016. Charity at a glance, but it's also a bottomless-pocketed family from Marin. It cuts itself checks from the Overlook Intl Foundation, run by the same people. Both orgs have same CEO. All fine...
But look at the 990s... They have thrown the kitchen sink at this and have probably dumped $10+ million by now. $800K+ in PR and marketing before they even launched.
Yet they've only sold well under 1 million tonnes over 3 years. In other words, back of the envelope they've lost $9 per tonne, even when being a charitable donation.
Also, divide their 838,715 cumulative tonnes noted on their home page by their 533,115 cumulative members. 1.57 tonnes/member over 3 years, or a half tonne per member per year. Not anywhere close to the average US footprint.
Half the country doesn't believe in climate change, or it's not a priority, or is living paycheck to paycheck, or all of the above. Offsetting is not anywhere on the horizon of their hierarchy of needs. Offsetting is complex, misunderstood, and controversial (see our op-ed's n TheHill.com for a taste).
When you finally get beyond those nesting subsets, there's enough market size to go around in theory but it's extremely competitive.
I hope my answer didn't come off as ignorant to the COTAP story - I'm sorry if it did.
Thanks for sharing the backstory on Cool Effect. Their effort on marketing to me also reflect the type of marketing that don't work. After spending 5 years at the growth team of Airbnb I'm more convinced than ever that marketing have to have strong ROI that can be measured. If it does, it's an excellent way of growing something. And because of Google and Facebook's dominance, more and more this is becoming one of the very few ways to go really big. I know Wren isn't spending money on marketing yet but having a foundation where that is possible is a great chance to make a really big impact.
I totally agree that educating the rest of the country and policy etc are the top priorities but at the same time you have millions of individuals who want to take individual action but don't know exactly what to do. Both you and Wren seems like great options for them to be involved.
One thing that might help is if we publish all of our spending online in a transparent way. There are probably legal/accounting considerations we'd need there but I'd imagine it would be safe to post that after each year.
So far, we have spent less than $200 on marketing and PR, mostly to test Google Ads. We realized pretty quickly google ads weren't effective so we shut them off. Since we're setup as a business we can't afford to lose money on each ton.
They're a 501(c)3 private foundation, similar to a 501(c)3 public charity like COTAP. This makes offsetting contributions tax-deductible. The point is by making it tax-deductible, along with other things like helping folks offset monthly, they've already tried to make it as compelling and easy as possible to offset, but no dice relative to time/effort/$ put in. Similar to StandforTrees.org. I'm basically saying I don't think Wren is different enough, other than charging higher margins, something not in their favor. It is good they're transparent about margins, but that's not unique either.
As with more tangible-seeming waste, it's always better to avoid and reduce before paying another party to deal with it. Yet CO2 is demonized because global warming is a collective externality. Because it's invisible doesn't make it intangible. Because the reductions can be counteracted by an entity that's in another location doesn't make a difference, either!