Great proposal! Fully in support of this historic initiative!

Add NBO $2.22 into the playing field, and lets do this... WAGMI

Great idea ! Our planet thanks you and we, residents, too.

Great proposal. It is important to address our historical emissions. Fully support this initiative. .

Is there a TL;DR or flowchart somewhere that details how exactly this works from me buying your tokens to my carbon emissions being offset?

Offsetting historical emissions goes a long way to positioning the Ethereum blockchain as a financial infrastructure leader when it comes to sustainability. One only has to look at Polygon to see how this provides great benefit in terms of adoption from a lot of non web3-native companies which need to report ESG metrics to shareholders. If DeFi goes green it will help the entire Ethereum community and the adoption of blockchain technology more generally.

I hope to see this proposal go through!

json To add to these @n4n0 there's a handy animated flowchart that answers your question at the top of this FAQ: https://www.klimadao.finance/blog/klima-infinity-faqs

rittaaka yes pretty pictures that's what I signed up for. thanks!

In support of this proposal. No-brainer, and looking forward to seeing the fruits of this.

Not in support of this proposal and it's a poor use of capital. Carbon Offsetting is an illusion and these fictitious certificates of participation are nothing more than windowing dressing. So capital will be deployed into investments that have a good ESG seal of approval? Perhaps if there were investments in fossil fuel tech that lowers carbon emissions vs. strictly anti-fossil fuel alternative energy sources then I could support but these alternatives appear to be one sided bets on questionable ESG investments. Returns on ESG investments are horrible, why would Alchemix even consider something like this?

I feel like operations like this are too opaque to form a well informed opinion on. Klima basically relies on Verra not being a fraudulent org which is kinda it's own issue, really [1-2]. My concerns begin with the purchase of the carbon credits; essentially this provides liquidity to an organisation but from the things I looked at [3-5] there's no transparency how the money was actually used and in the end even Klima uses legal lingo [4] to not have to guarantee that the credits one would purchase are actually anything more than phantom credits.

Now Verra might be legit, all public shitflinging with Greenpeace et al aside, but reading more about the overall issuance, usage and trading of tokenized carbon credits [6-7] makes me wonder if this isn't just a plot by some to cash in a dank market.

So maybe some more data is needed.

[1] https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/05/04/carbon-offsetting-british-airways-easyjet-verra/
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/04/carbon-offsets-used-by-major-airlines-based-on-flawed-system-warn-experts
[3] https://carbon.klimadao.finance/
[4] https://www.klimadao.finance/blog/klima-infinity-faqs
[5] https://verra.org/datainsights/data-and-insights-july-2022/
[6] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-07/the-biggest-crypto-effort-to-end-useless-carbon-offsets-is-backfiring
[7] https://time.com/6181907/crypto-carbon-credits/

(also: accounts joining only to post "lfg" message are definitely not helping this kekw)

n4n0

Re point 1, I will just put Verra's response [1] to the articles you shared rather than die in a ditch of "public shitflinging". I suspect we won't find consensus between ourselves on the baselining issue here on the Alchemix forum. It's complex and I'd suggest there is perhaps no "right" answer to the debate (and it is not a challenge unique to the carbon markets! [2]).

In general, if one believes in the role of the carbon markets and that carbon credits can play in closing the emissions gap on our current trajectory of mid-century emissions and where we need to be to avert the worst impacts of global warming, then using Verra, or other ICROA-endorsed [3] carbon credits is typically considered best practice. This is the industry standard, and although there are alternative standards and approaches popping up, few (if any) have justified themselves yet over the med-term. We are watching keenly at KlimaDAO as new approaches emerge, and figuring it how and when to integrate them into our system.

I am not sure what 'phantom' credits mean, and need more from you to understand how to best answer that. I'll take an initial stab nevertheless. If you mean 'Zombie Credits', per Carbon Plan's inordinate article, I suggest checking out our deep dive into the BCT pool [4] for a measured counter perspective. If you are specifically referring to HFC-23 credits then check out our recent Press Release on the 'pool clean-up' operation [5] and I am sure you will be satisfied! If you are in general questioning the 'bridging' process and speaking to the risk of double counting, then I recommend checking out the Docs from Toucan [6], C3 [7], or Moss [8]; these are the organizations responsible for the bridging process and mitigating the double-counting risk (of which we are 100% confident they do so).

At a high-level, one of the reasons we want to bring this system to a public blockchain, is because the transparency that it brings is basically unrivalled. We created our carbon dashboard [9], so that there is no doubt for users of our ecosystem around the type of credits available, whether there is any risk of double counting, and what the fair & unobscured market price is. By including links to the Registry and the project documents on the Dashboard, users of KlimaDAO can go very deep indeed, and receive the assurances they require before participating in the carbon market; this is rarely possible in the "off-chain" market. We think this is a significant and exciting step forward for all involved in the carbon markets.

Re Bloomberg, in the interest of balance, again I'll just share our response to Akshat Rathi & Natasha White rather than rehashing old arguments [10]. Think the above commentary covers off the Time article; my general perspective on this type of commentary has been shared on Twitter [11], but TLDR is that the positive and negative press is roughly delineated by those who could be bothered to have a conversation with us prior to publishing their hot take, and those who couldn't.

Regarding your challenges around the integrity and transparency of KlimaDAO. First, I would ask if you listened to the Community Call? We covered a lot of this conversation during that session. The recording may help you understand where we're coming from here. We create Liquidity Pools for tokenized carbon credits, because we feel LPs are a better infrastructure for facilitating the VCM rather than the closed OTC market that is currently how units are transacted off-chain. We are not resellers or "cash[ing] in" on a "dank market". For transparency there is a 1% fee if you use our Retirement Aggregator to retire carbon credits direct from our LPs; this fee could be somewhere between 50% and 200% cheaper than in the off-chain world [12]. We think it is fair and modest fee. As discussed in the Community Call, we want to help projects who are interested in learning more about, and taking action/a leadership role in compensating for their emissions. In return, we hope to increase awareness and our adoption of our Web3-enabled ecosystem, as we do genuinely think it is superior to the obfuscated off-chain market.

If you don't think that there is any need to compensate for historical emissions, and/or you don't think there is a role for the carbon markets in enabling compensation, then fair enough. We're here to provide support and collab where it is wanted, but not force things on people who aren't bought into this sort of action.

And then finally, during the Community Call I volunteered to provide support to help select specific projects that may suit Alchemix's preferences (and quality requirements, e.g. around your baselining concern) using our carbon dashboard to give assurances around what would be used for the historical offset. I also said I'd be happy to jump on another Community Call to go into this more, so if you'd like to go deeper on any/all of these issues then let's do it! I think it may be quicker/more productive/more interesting than slinging the same old articles at one another!

P.S. I think you forgot one of your sources [13]

[1] https://verra.org/verra-response-to-guardian-article-on-carbon-offsets-used-by-major-airlines/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negawatt_market
[3] https://www.icroa.org/code
[4] https://www.klimadao.finance/blog/klimadao-analysis-of-the-base-carbon-tonne
[5] https://www.klimadao.finance/blog/bct-hfc23-cleanup
[6] https://docs.toucan.earth/toucan/bridge/carbon-bridge
[7] https://docs.c3.app/the-basics/carbon-bridge
[8] https://real-time-attest.trustexplorer.io/moss
[9] https://carbon.klimadao.finance/
[10] https://www.bloomberg.com/letters/2022-04-12/klimadao-responds-to-bloomberg-story-on-carbon-offsets
[11] https://twitter.com/0xy_moron/status/1563434502999142400
[12] https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2022/05/02/carbon-offsetting-market-climate/
[13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8zAbFKpW0

Whoa easy I didn't say Klima DAO were the ones trying to profit off of this; rather the bridging partners in between. No need to get mad. Thanks for the additional reading material though.

P.S. I think you forgot one of your sources [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPzvOjg-jdQ

I think for me it comes down to a few things:

1. ultimately, the total financial request here is rather small.
2. There are plenty of questionable antics with Carbon Credits
3. I think Klima has proven they at least intend to be a good actor in this market. That doesn't necessarily mean their system works (as it relies on other actors to be good), but we know at least Klima is trying to improve things.

So personally I think the value from this proposal comes largely from the time we got from Klima presenting in the fireside as well as the discourse here to educate the community on potential benefits and concerns with carbon credits and putting them on chain. I think the requested funds are well worth the information we're getting and to fund something that may not be perfect (or, depending on your source, may not even work) given the intent and effort is clearly there to make it work. Consider this dipping our toes in. If the ask was significantly larger my response would be far more measured tbh.

What ov3rkoalafied said