What if a Climate Crisis Solution Could Be Profitable?

Henrietta Moon leads Carbo Culture, a Helsinki-based startup focused on scaling novel carbon capture technology to help curb the effects of the climate crisis while offering a viable business to investors.
#Gamechangers #Climate #BloombergQuicktake
--------
Like this video? Subscribe: kzbin.info?sub_...
Become a Quicktake Member for exclusive perks: kzbin.infojoin
QuickTake Originals is Bloomberg's official premium video channel. We bring you insights and analysis from business, science, and technology experts who are shaping our future. We’re home to Hello World, Giant Leap, Storylines, and the series powering CityLab, Bloomberg Businessweek, Bloomberg Green, and much more.
Subscribe for business news, but not as you've known it: exclusive interviews, fascinating profiles, data-driven analysis, and the latest in tech innovation from around the world.
Visit our partner channel QuickTake News for breaking global news and insight in an instant.

[@jameswest4819]

Trees are a carbon sink. When a tree is cut down and turned into lumber, that lumber is then turned into houses. Those houses will exist for many years. Meanwhile, the forest is replanted and pulls more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere until the trees are large enough to harvest, whereupon the trees are again turned into homes.

[@obelittle530]

Earth currently is basically a super messy bedroom where you can barely see the floor and everyone refuses to clean up unless bribed.

[@ropro9817]

Sounds like teenagers 🤣

[@narsimhas1360]

@@ropro9817 We are also like teenagers because we as a species are going through a growth spurt, maybe it's related

[@sxli3340]

F 如何看索尼在7月7号发布新手机， 全面辱华？

[@obelittle530]

@@sxli3340 哇，你在互联网上到处都是。最近好吗？

[@danielmccray599]

Fine...bribe me. I have plenty of time on my hands. I will help if it is an environmentally sound idea

[@tamishgoyal5962]

But the biomass in forest also releases nutrients that make the soil more fertile and that in turn it will make more trees. Doesnt this will make the soil nutrient defecient?

[@TheBHAitken]

So long as she gets your money, what does she care?

[@Flpbvthmk2]

was thinking the exact same thing... I do not see the point of this solution... burning that biomass would release some CO2 in any event + require an awful load of energy to fire that furnace at 1,000 degrees whilst totally burning the nutrients for soil and insects which keep the soil alive for more trees to grow and survive. Furthermore, thinking about the "total footprint" of their solution including building it, transporting it and providing energy for the burning cycle, I have a feeling that the total balance of that solution might not be quite so great after all... but as others point out, she does not care as long as some greedy corp or VC just poor out cash without looking too much into the details

[@clumsytriangle2436]

Just google biochar and educate yourself instead of expecting factual answers in the comments.

[@clumsytriangle2436]

@@Flpbvthmk2 omg, did you actually bother to research biomass and biochar? the time it took you to write this comment, you could've easily found that your assumptions are incorrect.

[@SpencerGD]

@@Flpbvthmk2 when biomass is heated, in the absence of oxygen, it produces a gas-like fuel. A variant of this fuel, known as wood gas, which is produced by (you guessed it) heating wood, was commonly used during World War II to power vehicles, due to oil shortages. Presumably the biofuel produced by heating the biomass could be used to heat other biomass, allowing for a continuous loop, so long as biomass exists to be heated. Absolutely, burning that fuel would put some carbon in the air, but far less than the biomass itself would, if left to decay. Plus, the resultant biocharcoal is actually a great fertilizer. Think of it like diamonds: given enough time and the right conditions, the earth will produce diamonds on its own. Given enough ingenuity and the right motivation, man can produce higher quality diamonds than the earth produces and in a very small fraction of the time (2-6 weeks for flawless man-made diamonds vs. 1-3.3 billion years for natural diamonds). Similar to this, given enough time and the right conditions the earth will break down biomass and that biomass will fertilize the growth of new plants. Much like diamonds, though, man can give mother earth a helping hand by making the process faster, more efficient, and less damaging.

[@RefinerSimilitude]

5:23 What she means by "insanity target" is that at their current rate of 500lbs/hr, 1B tons would take 456,621 years.

[@maxhoweth]

and total emissions in 2020(which was significantly lower due to the pandemic) was 33 Gt. Not sure this is the answer

[@nituldeshptha99]

is the energy cost of turning those seeds into carbon really worth it?

[@jaredspencer3304]

4:38 In the production model, the energy comes from burning the seeds. It's energy and emission neutral.

[@SpencerGD]

The energy is almost certainly a result of syngas. Syngas is a byproduct of heating biomass. During World War II, syngas (in particular, wood gas) was popularly used for powering cars, due to gasoline/oil shortages. So, this system is almost certainly self-sustaining, so long as there is new biomass to heat/carbonize.

[@SK-pm4vq]

You make an intervention in nature cycle and it throws a new challenge up again to deal with it.

[@TheRustyLM]

Wait! What is the energy source that is creating the 1000F temp??? That has a cost. And is itself creating more CO2?

[@wltdo6930]

My thoughts exactly

[@luc_libv_verhaegen]

The flue gasses are burnt.

[@SpencerGD]

🤦‍♂️ syngas. It is produced as part of the process. Lookup "wood gas." It was used during World War II to fuel cars instead of gasoline.

[@TheRustyLM]

@@SpencerGD yes, but burning that wood just creates more CO2. This is no panacea you’re hyping.

[@vivthefree]

Environmentalism is profitable, and somehow we've come to believe the opposite. A sustainable economy means trade and commerce forever. Nature offers us a cheap bounty of goods if we don't push it too hard.

[@index7989]

How do you think this company generates revenues?

[@vivthefree]

@@index7989 I was speaking more generally - we tend to conceive environmentalism and profits as opposite things.

[@henrikjohansson6050]

@@vivthefree Agree! Just look at Blue Economy or Circular Economy

[@kiuk_kiks]

She’s doing something that all of the rural developing world does; making charcoal. How is this innovative?

[@saurabhkorgaonkar]

She went to nasa and did a 3 month course. Plus the real stable carbon that doesn't decompose for 1000 years is like a plastic waste. In large quantities when stored in soil nothing will grow out of it and render that land useless as microbes cant process the same and return the nutrients to the soil

[@MelaninMagdalene]

@@saurabhkorgaonkar So nothing 👍

[@Lee-xb7lb]

The idea is to break the carbon cycle and lock away the extra we put into the atmosphere.

[@daniele81]

This is a great idea, and I really like how she designed it from first principles. I have only one concern: with enough of this pure carbon around, it is very likely that some bacteria will learn how to decompose it.

[@romnempire]

Renewable energy technology does something that all energy technology does; make electricity. How is this innovative?

[@juanpabloperelmuter690]

Certified lib right moment

[@relevantthought1800]

government should turn this campaign of protecting nature in any parts of the world to be profitable !every body will be involved for sure ✅

[@nerdzartemic8213]

what kind of energy used to reach ultra high temperature to carbonize..???

[@Marz2695]

Just the first of many red flags

[@ryanbrown982]

Solar pv, concentrated solar, or just burning wood. It's not that difficult.

[@gr8bkset-524]

Carbon emissions is currently treated as an externality. That is, we are are treating our environment as if it was a sewer without paying for the damages that our carbon emissions does to the planet. If we price carbon into all processes, carbon intensive activities would cost more and processes that removes carbon would become profitable. Society would find ways to become less carbon intensive.

[@umbrellakitty6531]

Could be? It always has been. Everything, everything comes down to how people can profit from it. What a racket.

[@kenxiong6830]

All this tech and yet just growing plants is the easiest solution

[@sh7de553]

TLDR: We make charcoal. If they're really taking nature as an inspiration, why not just bury that waste and let it decompose in the soil? Turning it into charcoal seems like an unnecessary extra step. Making it takes energy, even if you use that coal as fuel and that's not even mentioning you're literally burning coal. Yet another dumb startup pitch.

[@Shimulahmed100]

True..Doesnt really solve anything

[@upvotecomment2110]

("Helping" nature by diluting the nutrients the woods have before putting it into the soil) to "Shorten" the process of carbon in the atmosphere... they're pseudo-scientist

[@ObiWanKeighobi]

I guess because their charcoal doesnt decompose naturally for millenia. But like others have said why dont they go straight to diamonds? They're actually useful and I guess would need even more biomass to make a similar quantity due to greater density?

[@aimanrahman5768]

@@ObiWanKeighobi diamonds require huge electricity that is why synthetic diamond is not cheap

[@zooplanton]

If you can turn biomass into liquid fuel, you are a hero. Biomass has energy not just in carbon but also in hydrogen. You waste the energy in hydrogen bonds by converting biomass into pure carbon.

[@TheGreatMandalore]

Hey quick question what is the co2 footprint on this process? Heating to 1000c is no easy feat

[@ergoncardia]

What if a solution to the climate crisis could be profitable? The solution is to make a video and bombard it with advertising. . . and the more people watching, the more electricity will be used. . . and it will help a lot in the climate. . . and more profit for those who produced the video . . .

[@f1s2hg3]

Coal placed into a hot furnace creates Coke a charcoal used to make excellent iron! The product also provides other items by products that are used in energy products and fuels .

[@arwen169]

Almost like "profit" is the whole point of this "climate crisis"

[@ice9594]

Thank you.

[@CIARUNSITE]

Ya capitalists are hijacking a legitimate effort just to extract money. Yet you will blame the.people actually trying to make worthwhile change because the television told you burgers are going to be made illegal.

[@clavo3352]

This is a nice effort. I prefer the use of the ocean and alkaline additives to help the ocean sequester the carbon without adding heat. There are revenue generating ways to do this.

[@jaytang4954]

so she sells charcoal wow so innovative like people haven't been to doing that for at least a few thousand years

[@panama-canada]

So that’s coal.

[@danielmccray599]

Hello Henrietta. My name is Daniel. We have a X2 earth warmingproblem in the southwest desert region. Zero scaping our yards was thought to be a solution to weeds and mowing and tedious tasks of landscaping. PROBLEM...this has severely depleted natural ground cover of plants and trees that are attributed to photosynthesis. Please help!! We need more carbon esp. in Arizona. Help us!

[@Dujhxoqksgwowneb]

Can we all agree that trying to solve climate change shouldn’t be about profit, it should be about not suffering through an ecological and societal collapse. People need to understand there is so much more to life than endless production and consumption. Bloomberg is asking the wrong questions and being paid by a corporate sponsor (Cisco) to do as such.

[@foreverzeta6578]

As long as its traded on the stock exchange it will off gas.

[@Darth001]

Wow the possibilitys of this is even better than what they are doing it for. Now Imagen what that carbon can be used for in the future.

[@einerus]

So just burning energy to make useless charcoal out of something that would just decompose itself fueling other plants otherwise?

[@georgewright4285]

The key point here is the decomposition, you don't want that. But I believe that there may be other options instead of heating it to 1000 degrees

[@misruler9370]

"Remains stable say from one thousand years to let's say maybe up to a million years." Something about

[@TheGreatMandalore]

Hey Bloomberg. How much co2 did you release this year?

[@FinancialShinanigan]

Companies not taking necessary steps because they weren't profitable is exactly how we made the climate crisis worse.

[@SacristanRacing]

Someone had to say it. Does everything have to be profitable??

[@HeroOfTheDay16]

@@SacristanRacing yes thats capitalism 101

[@mrsneably2007]

@@SacristanRacing if it's not profitable then the model won't survive

[@SacristanRacing]

@@mrsneably2007 I guess that’s why trafficking children is still profitable, everyone must have a turn over

[@Hands0ap]

What are they actually doing? From the video all i get is that they are using alot of heat (from clean sources, i hope). To turn essentially carbon containing things that will take 1000 years to become CO2, and making them other carbon containing things that will last for a million years. How is this reducing CO2 emissions here and now?

[@sanjam8652]

one important question: how is it profitable? who would buy their carbon rock? and would it cover its high production cost?

[@robinhylands69]

Tax dollars, and corporate carbon offset schemes.

[@seshadrisrinath]

Its always profitable. The question is for whom ? It needs to be profitable for the person buying the item not the one selling the item. And yup, promises to be very profitable for the ones selling it. LOL.

[@danielmccray599]

Simple, desert regions need more grass and shrubs and trees...the earth surface temperature is rising at an alarming rate. Zero-scaping is harming, not helping.

[@eminentgold]

Isn't that just charcoal?

[@darkhorseman8263]

Biochar is a fair bit different. Its a couple steps above potash, which was what was responsible for the destruction of most pre history forests. Modern history hasn't recorded but a drop in the ocean of the true levels of deforestation.

[@ryanbrown982]

It's an extremely similar process, yes. The difference here is that instead of selling the resulting charcoal to be used as fuel, you bury it. That locks the carbon away from the carbon cycle for a few tens of thousands of years.

[@jerrinjoseph6374]

@@ryanbrown982 I'm just confused as to how this is profitable.

[@PeterKvrner]

@@jerrinjoseph6374 Exactly, this is not really said out loud in the video. My guess is that companies pay them for their carbon emissions by buying biocarbon to be buried. So in order to have carbon emissions, a similar amount of carbon is "removed" by this company in exchange for a fee. This is where all this "carbon neutral" statements come from. They are not going to cut emissions, but pay to remove carbon elsewhere.

[@jerrinjoseph6374]

@@PeterKvrner I see what you mean and you're probably right. But that's still not 'profitable' in the strictest sense. It's about as profitable as a PR stunt, and conventionally those are called successful as opposed to profitable.

[@johnc.bojemski1757]

What is the source of the super high heat that their plant uses? They've gotta get the energy from something? So? What they're creating basically is... ARTIFICIAL COAL! Why don't they go all the way and create DIAMONDS!

[@Nickle314]

I had the same idea. Carbon capture should concentrate on creating diamonds. Tonnes of them

[@nickyyyyy]

What for diamonds are cheap af

[@Nickle314]

@@nickyyyyy Just carbon, and carbon is cheap.

[@johnc.bojemski1757]

@@Nickle314 Yes... CARBON is cheap but the issue here is capturing it out of our atmosphere and storing it if possible so it DOESN'T readily return to the atmosphere. As pure "black" carbon it can still BURN. As a diamond? It also CAN burn too but NOT under the typical conditions we all live in on the Earth. It takes a TREMENDOUSLY HOT "flame" under tremendous pressure to combust a diamond. Whereas BLACK CARBON will ignite at a much lower relative temperature and like natural COAL release it's own high heat and the dreaded "GRENNHOUSE" outgasses (Think CO and CO2 here folks!) as it combusts with the OXYGEN in our atmosphere. It WON'T be a "clean burn" either. There will be "ash" left behind to be dealt with. Again NOT a great idea as it'll now probably be toxic too. NOTHING IS "CHEAP" when it comes to energy; especially when it involves the FOSDIL FUELS. THERE'S ALWAYS A PRICE TO BE PAID AND I DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN IN $$'s!!! You have to look at the WHOLE picture. If I'm WRONG about this new CARBON CAPTURE process please CORRECT me. No hard feelings. I SINCERELY hope I am.

[@deanmartin1552]

0% originality on the idea, but 100% on actually doing it

[@jmartinez2131]

This confuses me. Isnt there a big carbon footprint to heat up the biomass? Also, is this type of inert carbon a pollution in the soil, since it takes 1000 - 1,000,000 years to decompose?

[@andywang8106]

i dont quite understand the idea behind it i mean biomass is already stored carbon why you even spend effort to further condense it using other resources, the whole decarbonization idea should be like extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, right? and still she haven't really explained how come her business model can be profitalbe

[@luc_libv_verhaegen]

Read up on "biochar"

[@index7989]

How does this company make revenues?

[@MelaninMagdalene]

Trust fund?

[@einerus]

Not sure. Maybe they will get green certs for co2 reduction and then they will sell them.

[@robobrain10000]

Carbon credits?

[@glennalexon1530]

It's ironic that one of the common complaints that environmentalists have about plastic and other trash is that it doesn't decompose. This company is making a useless "product" that has only one quality: it doesn't decompose. Oh, and it consumes energy and gives off heat. Mmmmhhhh.

[@danielmccray599]

Also, it is said that We are the custodians of the earth...I have a broom

[@GavinLawrence747]

"So, your making charcoal?" Theranos/Elizabeth Holmes vibe. If your going to invest, invest in Nuclear - that's our best chance.

[@tassilohild8024]

And how do they make money?

[@dcarroll327]

Investors want quick profit, they aren’t interested in the long term investments that would be needed.

[@ExclemationMark]

Otherwise they can’t buy luxurious houses and cars when they’re 90 years old hehe

[@sathancat]

This is a great idea but it reminds me of the green propaganda of wind/solar power. Coke and biochar are nothing new, though it's a great alternative to coal in large quantities.

[@JohnDoe-nq9hl]

So... cut down trees to create to create products. How is this carbon friendly? When trees die most of the carbon goes into the soil not the air. Furthermore, the trees provide nutrients for the ecosystem. You might as well just use the wood for lumber.

[@valueinvestingwithconnor5581]

But it’s not.

[@luisgondim8283]

"What if a Climate Crisis Solution Were Profitable?" well, it wouldn't be a solution

[@narsimhas1360]

How so? Haven't watched the video yet but as long as it counters climate change, it qualifies as a solution.

[@joaomelo7018]

bro this is making charcoal lol

[@Barak911777]

But aren't you interrupting the natural carbon cycle here? This is the only healthy part about atmospheric carbon.

[@Gapetz]

Aren't we humans already interupted the carbon cycle by produxing excessive carbon dioxide and cutting down trees which converts them to sable carbon? This is a solution to trap carbon in the ground instead of the air.

[@Barak911777]

@@Gapetz Yes but this project seems like it is trapping carbon that the soil needs in order to regenerate

[@middle_pickup]

It HAS to be profitable or it won't get done. Welcome to capitalism.

[@Gazpolling]

Lol capitalism doesnt need profits

[@Gazpolling]

@@Friendo111 capitalism need A WHOLE FREAKIN LOT of profit, lol

[@upvotecomment2110]

they're pseudo-scientist Their company's process: Making charcoal ("Helping" nature by diluting the nutrients the woods have before putting it into the soil)

[@jeffperteet2327]

I'll be a very old person before the benefits are seen

[@Nickle314]

SO lets cut the subsidies to zero. Heck if its profitable, lets put lots of taxes on climate solutions. After all, more taxes solve every problem

[@seshadrisrinath]

This is brilliant.

[@joeylawell3590]

People have to want it more than money

[@capitalquest4076]

2:50

[@panama-canada]

And to heat the furnace, you burn fossil fuels or electricity that burns fossil fuels? The point is moot.

[@ryanbrown982]

No? She says in the video "you can use some of the energy from the biomass to heat it." This is just pyrolysis. You route the hydrogen that is released from the pyrolizing wood into the burners to heat more wood. Then you bury the carbon "ash."

[@-Teca-]

So just burning walnuts 😐

[@uriludger6392]

I haven't undertood

[@Shimulahmed100]

Whatever man..Our future generation is doomed Because of us..Car sector is seeing some light..But in energy sector im not seeing any alternative besides Nuclear energy..Govt should look at this sector,and should make nuclear safest possible.. But people hates nuclear because its devastation, but it is stable and quite cheap Compared to others

[@sal075_3]

Wind + natural gas is also cheap combonation and potential solution in the medium term, potentially long term if synthetic fuels are success

[@Shimulahmed100]

@@sal075_3 Economically and environmentally nuclear energy proven to be most cheap and less damagefull compared to any other energy methods...Nuclear waste ,And nuclear disaster is an issue but with modern technology this problem is solved

[@aletheiai]

People fear nuclear because our overly-emotional species sucks at risk analysis.

[@Shimulahmed100]

@@aletheiai I dont see any energy alternative besides nuclear..Wind every year kills so many birds,Coal kills hundred of thousands of poeple every year(not to mention climate change),And talking about natural Gas.The branding natural gas is the biggest lie in human existance..The natural Gas(fossil gas) that contribute largely to climate change...Now talking about nuclear..How many people die because of nuclear energy from past 100 years...People should just see the data..Thats all

[@sal075_3]

Nuclear power has great potential but the construction of the nuclear plant is enormous challenge with todays standards especially in the europe. For example finnish olkiluoto 3 nuclear plant is today the second most expensive construction, original price estimate was 3.2billion euros and it should have been completed in 2009 13 years late and +5billion euros in extra construction costs it is probable that such projects are not as attractive as they used to be at least in europe.

[@MilesBellas]

Contrarian position : "What if it was more profitable to destroy the planet for selfish gain than long term species survival ?" See the animated short "MAN" BY STEVE CUTTS.

[@Nickle314]

What if climate change is a con? What if it's wrong? Who compensates the victims of the con? For example, if the evidence is contrary to the climate change predictions.

[@CIARUNSITE]

@@Nickle314 Yes there are lots of idiotic questions a child might post on KZbin.

[@Nickle314]

@@CIARUNSITE So perhaps then you can explain. Ice caps melting, sea levels rise because of thermal expansion. All cause the moment of inertia of the earth to increase, and that slows the rate of rotation. Why has the rate of rotation increased?

[@me0w_me0w]

Then it wouldn't be called crisis anymore

[@nickmhc]

Shouldn’t we use the carbon as raw mat? I feel like burying enough pure carbon would mess up ground chemistry. Intriguing overall

[@iamdmc]

it's inert

[@mr.comments3941]

So selling burnt walnuts . .

[@nikhileshkv9869]

How do you know that it stays stable for a billion years?

[@egbekweinspire]

Amazingly fantastic!!! 🙏

[@yourstruly5706]

Let's fix the title at the very least. It should be was profitable not were profitable.

[@vthilton]

Save Our Planet

[@CarlaJenkinsTV]

Staying alive is profitable so yes we'll take that. Death is one and done you know.

[@keagsinthemix]

That’s all it is. It is being pushed for 💴

[@wendlerkurt]

Lots of climate crisis solutions are profitable. Climate solutions made me a millionaire. Just look at Tesla.

[@Ohmriginal722]

None of this explained why they look like walnuts…

[@oksowhat]

elon is taking us to mars, yay no climate change there

[@KaiseruSoze]

:( Pay me and I'll make charcoal and sell it!

[@TheBHAitken]

Must be nice to be born rich.

[@Lexman509]

They still harping on this? Hey, according to my child-hood predictions, half of us are underwater now.

[@caine7024]

Climate change predictions can be wrong but they are getting more and more accurate. What qualifications do you have to disagree with so many scientists?

[@Lexman509]

@@caine7024 No.

[@kanwalhr1781]

Another con looking for easy tax money from public office

[@glennalexon1530]

Never trust a person who introduces herself as "the co-founder" of her business. When you have a small business with no profits, "founder" seems like a little too grand a title.

[@brucecarter8296]

if the rich valued a healthy, peaceful planet, they wouldn't be asking this question

[@benjaminlam1585]

It already is profitable. Blame Elon Musk for his savvy attitude and promotion of controversies and conspiracies.