I'm surprised to not see these investments directed towards the voluntary carbon market, in which projects such as those REDD+ certified achieve more than 10X higher efficiency, with significant co-benefits in biodiversity and support to the local communities (here's an example I give often: https://standfortrees.org/).

It looks like the projects were chosen through the biases of Silicon Valley, chosen to be futuristic and technologically impressive rather than impactful.

Carbon credits markets sometimes have a bad press due to the abuses in carbon offsetting approaches, but since the approach here is voluntary action rather than offsetting, I see no reason not to use them.

What seems more sensible to you, financing Western entrepreneurs at $100/tCO2e, or financing nature preservation, energy transition and poverty alleviation in developing countries at $10/tCO2e? Thanks Stripe, but I'll keep buying carbon credits.