Connect with us

Business

Ocean technology startup that sold 200,000 carbon credits faces scientists’ doubts

Published

on



The startup Gigablue announced with fanfare this year that it reached a historic milestone: selling 200,000 carbon credits to fund what it describes as a groundbreaking technology in the fight against climate change.

Formed three years ago by a group of entrepreneurs in Israel, the company says it has designed particles that when released in the ocean will trap carbon at the bottom of the sea. By “harnessing the power of nature,” Gigablue says, its work will do nothing less than save the planet.

But outside scientists frustrated by the lack of information released by the company say serious questions remain about whether Gigablue’s technology works as the company describes. Their questions showcase tensions in an industry built on little regulation and big promises — and a tantalizing chance to profit.

Jimmy Pallas, an event organizer based in Italy, struck a deal with Gigablue last year. He said he trusts the company does what it has promised him — ensuring the transportation, meals, and electricity of a recent 1,000-person event will be offset by particles in the ocean.

Gigablue’s service is like “an extra trash can” where Pallas can discard his unwanted emissions, he said.

“Same way I use my trash can — I don’t follow where the truck that comes and picks up my trash brings it to,” he said. “I’ll take their word for it.”

‘Hundreds of thousands of carbon credits’

Gigablue has a grand vision for the future of carbon removal. It was originally named “Gigaton” after the one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide most scientists say will be necessary to remove from the atmosphere each year to slow global warming.

The company began trials in the South Pacific Ocean last year, and says it will work with country authorities to create a “sequestration field” — a dedicated part of the ocean where “pulses” of particles will be released on a seasonal basis.

Gigablue says its solution is affordable, too — priced to attract investors.

“Every time we go to the ocean, we generate hundreds of thousands of carbon credits, and this is what we’re going to do continuously over the upcoming years and towards the future, in greater and greater quantities,” co-founder Ori Shaashua said.

Carbon credits, which have grown in popularity over the last decade, are tokens that symbolize the removal of one metric ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On paper, companies that buy credits achieve a smaller carbon footprint without needing to reduce their own emissions — for instance, by paying another vendor to plant trees or capture carbon dioxide from the air.

Only a few countries have required local industries to purchase carbon credits. Most companies that buy them, including Microsoft and Google, do so voluntarily.

The credits have helped fund a band of startups like Gigablue that are eager to tackle the climate crisis, but they are also unevenly regulated, scientifically complex, and have in some cases been linked to fraud.

Gigablue’s 200,000 credits are pledged to SkiesFifty, a newly formed company investing in greener practices for the aviation industry. It’s the largest sale to date for a climate startup operating in the ocean, according to the tracking site CDR.fyi, making up more than half of all ocean-based carbon credits sold last year.

And it could beckon a rapid acceleration of the company’s work. Gigablue hopes to reach a goal this year of capturing 10 metric tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of particles it deploys, Shaashua said. At that rate, Gigablue would disperse at least 20,000 tons of particles in the ocean.

Gigablue wouldn’t reveal what it earned in the sale, and SkiesFifty’s team declined to be interviewed for this story. Most credits are sold for a few hundred dollars each — but a chart on Gigablue’s website suggests its prices are lower than almost any other form of carbon capture on the market.

A mission to save the world

The startup is the brainchild of four entrepreneurs hailing from the tech industry. According to their LinkedIn profiles, Gigablue’s CEO previously worked for an online grocery startup, while its COO was vice president of SeeTree, a company that raised $60 million to provide farmers with information on their trees.

Shaashua, who often serves as the face of Gigablue, said he specializes in using artificial intelligence to pursue positive outcomes in the world. He co-founded a data mining company that tracked exposure risks during the COVID-19 pandemic, and led an auto startup that brokered data on car mileage and traffic patterns.

“Three years ago, I decided to take the same formula, so to say, to climate,” Shaashua said.

Under his guidance, he said, Gigablue created an AI-driven “digital twin” of the ocean based on dozens of metrics to determine where to release the particles.

Chief technology officer Sapir Markus-Alford earned a bachelor’s degree in earth and environmental sciences from Israel’s Ben-Gurion University in 2021, shortly before founding Gigablue.

Markus-Alford said she began her studies and eventual path to Gigablue after seeing bleached coral reefs and other impacts of warming waters on a series of diving trips around the world.

“I understood that the best thing we could do for the ocean is to be able to remove CO2,” Markus-Alford said.

A spokesperson for Gigablue did not answer whether the other co-founders have graduate degrees in oceanography or environmental science, but said the company’s broader team holds a total of 46 Ph.D.s with expertise in biology, chemistry, oceanography, and environmental science. Markus-Alford said that figure includes outside experts and academics and “everyone that supports us.”

The company’s staffing has expanded from Israel to hubs in New York and New Zealand, Shaashua said.

In social media posts advertising open jobs, Gigablue employees encouraged applicants to “Join Our Mission to Save the World!”

Trapping carbon at the bottom of the ocean

The particles Gigablue has patented are meant to capture carbon in the ocean by floating for a number of days and growing algae, before sinking rapidly to the ocean floor.

“We are an elevator for carbon,” Shaashua said. “We are exporting the carbon from the top to the bottom.”

Algae — sometimes referred to as phytoplankton — has long been attractive to climate scientists because it absorbs carbon dioxide from the surrounding water as it grows. If the algae sinks to the deep sea or ocean floor, Gigablue expects the carbon to be trapped there for hundreds to thousands of years.

The ultimate goal is to lower carbon dioxide levels so drastically that the ocean rebalances with the atmosphere by soaking up more CO2 from the air. It’s a feat that would help slow climate change, but one that is still under active study by climate scientists.

Gigablue’s founders have said the company’s work is inspired by nature and “very, very environmentally safe.” The company’s particles and sinking methods simply recreate what nature has been doing “since forever,” Shaashua said.

Gigablue ran its first trial sinking particles in the Mediterranean in March last year.

Later, on two voyages to the South Pacific, the company released 60 cubic meters — about two shipping containers — of particles off the coast of New Zealand.

Materials kept a mystery

While Gigablue has made several commercial deals, it has not yet revealed what its particles are made of. Partly this is because the company says it will build different particles tailored to different seasons and areas of the ocean.

“It’s proprietary,” Markus-Alford said.

Documents provide a window into the possible ingredients. According to information on the permit, Gigablue’s first New Zealand trial last year involved releasing particles of pure vermiculite, a porous clay often used in potting soil.

In the second New Zealand trial, the company released particles made of vermiculite, ground rock, a plant-based wax, as well as manganese and iron.

A patent published last year hints the particles could also be made of scores of other materials, including cotton, rice husks or jute, as well as synthetic ingredients like polyester fibers or lint. The particles contain a range of possible binding agents, and up to 18 different chemicals and metals, from iron to nickel to vanadium.

Without specifying future designs, Markus-Alford said Gigablue’s particles meet certain requirements: “All the materials we use are materials that are natural, nontoxic, nonhazardous, and can be found in the ocean,” she said. She wouldn’t comment on the possible use of cotton or rice, but said the particles won’t include any kind of plastic.

When asked about vermiculite, which is typically mined on land and heated to expand, Markus-Alford said rivers and erosion transport most materials including vermiculite to the ocean. “Almost everything, basically, that exists on land can be found in the ocean,” she said.

The company said it had commissioned an environmental institute to verify that the particles are safe for thousands of organisms, including mussels and oysters. Any materials in future particles, Gigablue said, will be approved by local authorities.

Shaashua has said the particles are so benign that they have zero impact on the ocean.

“We are not changing the water chemistry or the water biology,” Shaashua said.

Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who has spent decades studying the biological carbon cycle of the ocean, says that while he’s intrigued by Gigablue’s proposal, the idea that the particles don’t alter the ocean is “almost inconceivable.”

“There has to be a relationship between what they’re putting in the ocean and the carbon dioxide that’s dissolved in seawater for this to, quote, work,” Buesseler said.

Buesseler co-leads a nonprofit group of scientists hoping to tap the power of algae in the ocean to capture carbon. The group organizes regular forums on the subject, and Gigablue presented in April.

“I left with more questions than answers,” Buesseler said.

Scientists raise questions

Several scientists not affiliated with Gigablue interviewed by The Associated Press said they were interested in how a company with so little public information about its technology could secure a deal for 200,000 carbon credits.

The success of the company’s method, they said, will depend on how much algae grows on the particles, and the amount that sinks to the deep ocean. So far, Gigablue has not released any studies demonstrating those rates.

Thomas Kiørboe, a professor of ocean ecology at the Technical University of Denmark, and Philip Boyd, an oceanographer at the University of Tasmania who studies the role of algae in the Earth’s carbon cycle, said they were doubtful algae would get enough sunlight to grow inside the particles.

It’s more likely the particles would attract hungry bacteria, Kiørboe said.

“Typical phytoplankton do not grow on surfaces, and they do not colonize particles,” Kiørboe said. “To most phytoplankton ecologists, this would just be, I think, absurd.”

The rates at which Gigablue says its particles sink — up to a hundred meters (yards) per hour — might shear off algae from the particles in the quick descent, Boyd said.

It’s likely that some particles would also be eaten by fish — limiting the carbon capture, and raising the question of how the particles could impact marine life.

Boyd is eager to see field results showing algae growth, and wants to see proof that Gigablue’s particles cause the ocean to absorb more CO2 from the air.

“These are incredibly challenging issues that I don’t think, certainly for the biological part, I don’t think anyone on the planet has got solutions for them,” he said.

James Kerry, a senior marine and climate scientist for the conservation group OceanCare and senior research fellow at Australia’s James Cook University, has closely followed Gigablue’s work.

“What we’ve got is a situation of a company, a startup, upfront selling large quantities of credits for a technology that is unproven,” he said.

In a statement, Gigablue said that bacteria does consume the particles but the effect is minimal, and its measurements will account for any loss of algae or particles as they sink.

The company noted that a major science institute in New Zealand has given Gigablue its stamp of approval. Gigablue hired the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, a government-owned company, to review several drafts of its methodology.

In a recent letter posted to Gigablue’s website, the institute’s chief ocean scientist said his staff had confidence the company’s work is “scientifically sound” and the proposed measurements for carbon sequestration were robust.

Whether Gigablue’s methods are deemed successful, for now, will be determined not by regulators — but by another private company.

A new market

Puro.earth is one of several companies known as registries that serve the carbon credit market.

Amid the lack of regulation and the potential for climate startups to overstate their impact, registries aim to verify how much carbon was really removed.

The Finnish Puro.earth has verified more than a million carbon credits since its founding seven years ago. But most of those credits originated in land-based climate projects. Only recently has it aimed to set standards for the ocean.

In part, that’s because marine carbon credits are some of the newest to be traded. Dozens of ocean startups have entered the industry, with credit sales catapulting from 2,000 in 2021 to more than 340,000, including Gigablue’s deal, last year.

But the ocean remains a hostile and expensive place in which to operate a business or monitor research. Some ocean startups have sold credits only to fold before they could complete their work. Running Tide, a Maine-based startup aimed at removing carbon from the atmosphere by sinking wood chips and seaweed, abruptly shuttered last year despite the backing of $50 million from investors, leaving sales of about 7,000 carbon credits unfulfilled.

In June, Puro.earth published a draft methodology that will be used to verify Gigablue’s work, which it designed in consultation with Gigablue. Once finalized, Gigablue will pay the registry for each metric ton of carbon dioxide that it claims to remove.

Marianne Tikkanen, head of standards at Puro.earth, said that although this methodology was designed with Gigablue, her team expects other startups to adopt the same approach.

“We hope that there will be many who can do it and that it stimulates the market,” she said.

The road ahead

It remains to be seen whether New Zealand officials will grant permission for the expanded “sequestration field” that Gigablue has proposed creating, or if the company will look to other countries.

New Zealand’s environmental authority has so far treated Gigablue’s work as research — a designation that requires no formal review process or consultations with the public. The agency said in a statement that it could not comment on how it would handle a future commercial application from Gigablue.

But like many climate startups, Gigablue was involved in selling carbon credits during its research expeditions — not only inking a major deal, but smaller agreements, too.

Pallas, the Italian businessman, said he ordered 22 carbon credits from Gigablue last year to offset the emissions associated with his event in November. He said Gigablue gave them to him for free — but says he will pay for more in the future.

Pallas sought out carbon credits because he sees the signs of climate change all around him, he says, and expects more requirements in Italy for businesses to decarbonize in coming years. He chose Gigablue because they are one of the largest suppliers: “They’ve got quantity,” he said.

How authorities view Gigablue’s growing commercial activity could matter in the context of an international treaty that has banned certain climate operations in the ocean.

More than a decade ago, dozens of countries including New Zealand agreed they should not allow any commercial climate endeavor that involves releasing iron in the ocean, a technique known as “iron fertilization.” Only research, they said, with no prospect of economic gain should be allowed.

Iron is considered a key ingredient for spurring algae growth and was embedded in the particles that Gigablue dispersed in October in the Pacific Ocean. Several scientific papers have raised concerns that spurring iron-fueled algae blooms on a large scale would deplete important nutrients in the ocean and harm fisheries.

The startup denies any link to iron dumping on the basis that its particles don’t release iron directly into the water and don’t create an uncontrolled algae bloom.

“We are not fertilizing the ocean,” Markus-Alford said.

“In fact, we looked at iron fertilization as an inspiration of something to avoid,” Shaashua said.

But the draft methodology that Puro.earth will use to verify Gigablue’s work notes many of the same concerns that have been raised about iron fertilization, including disruptions to the marine food web.

Other scientists who spoke with AP see a clear link between Gigablue’s work and the controversial practice. “If they’re using iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth,” said Kerry, the OceanCare scientist, “then it is iron fertilization.”

For now, scientific concerns don’t seem to have troubled Gigablue’s buyers. The company has already planned its next research expedition in New Zealand and hopes to release more particles this fall.

“They mean well, and so do I,” said Pallas, of his support for Gigablue. “Sooner or later, I’ll catch a plane, go to New Zealand, and grab a boat to see what they’ve done.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

U.S. consumers are so strained they put more than $1B on BNPL during Black Friday and Cyber Monday

Published

on



Financially strained and cautious customers leaned heavily on buy now, pay later (BNPL) services over the holiday weekend.

Cyber Monday alone generated $1.03 billion (a 4.2% increase YoY) in online BNPL sales with most transactions happening on mobile devices, per Adobe Analytics. Overall, consumers spent $14.25 billion online on Cyber Monday. To put that into perspective, BNPL made up for more than 7.2% of total online sales on that day.

As for Black Friday, eMarketer reported $747.5 million in online sales using BNPL services with platforms like PayPal finding a 23% uptick in BNPL transactions.

Likewise, digital financial services company Zip reported 1.6 million transactions throughout 280,000 of its locations over the Black Friday and Cyber Monday weekend. Millennials (51%) accounted for a chunk of the sizable BNPL purchases, followed by Gen Z, Gen X, and baby boomers, per Zip.

The Adobe data showed that people using BNPL were most likely to spend on categories such as electronics, apparel, toys, and furniture, which is consistent with previous years. This trend also tracks with Zip’s findings that shoppers were primarily investing in tech, electronics, and fashion when using its services.

And while some may be surprised that shoppers are taking on more debt via BNPL (in this economy?!), analysts had already projected a strong shopping weekend. A Deloitte survey forecast that consumers would spend about $650 million over the Black Friday–Cyber Monday stretch—a 15% jump from 2023.

“US retailers leaned heavily on discounts this holiday season to drive online demand,” Vivek Pandya, lead analyst at Adobe Digital Insights, said in a statement. “Competitive and persistent deals throughout Cyber Week pushed consumers to shop earlier, creating an environment where Black Friday now challenges the dominance of Cyber Monday.”

This report was originally published by Retail Brew.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

AI labs like Meta, Deepseek, and Xai earned worst grades possible on an existential safety index

Published

on



A recent report card from an AI safety watchdog isn’t one that tech companies will want to stick on the fridge.

The Future of Life Institute’s latest AI safety index found that major AI labs fell short on most measures of AI responsibility, with few letter grades rising above a C. The org graded eight companies across categories like safety frameworks, risk assessment, and current harms.

Perhaps most glaring was the “existential safety” line, where companies scored Ds and Fs across the board. While many of these companies are explicitly chasing superintelligence, they lack a plan for safely managing it, according to Max Tegmark, MIT professor and president of the Future of Life Institute.

“Reviewers found this kind of jarring,” Tegmark told us.

The reviewers in question were a panel of AI academics and governance experts who examined publicly available material as well as survey responses submitted by five of the eight companies.

Anthropic, OpenAI, and GoogleDeepMind took the top three spots with an overall grade of C+ or C. Then came, in order, Elon Musk’s Xai, Z.ai, Meta, DeepSeek, and Alibaba, all of which got Ds or a D-.

Tegmark blames a lack of regulation that has meant the cutthroat competition of the AI race trumps safety precautions. California recently passed the first law that requires frontier AI companies to disclose safety information around catastrophic risks, and New York is currently within spitting distance as well. Hopes for federal legislation are dim, however.

“Companies have an incentive, even if they have the best intentions, to always rush out new products before the competitor does, as opposed to necessarily putting in a lot of time to make it safe,” Tegmark said.

In lieu of government-mandated standards, Tegmark said the industry has begun to take the group’s regularly released safety indexes more seriously; four of the five American companies now respond to its survey (Meta is the only holdout.) And companies have made some improvements over time, Tegmark said, mentioning Google’s transparency around its whistleblower policy as an example.

But real-life harms reported around issues like teen suicides that chatbots allegedly encouraged, inappropriate interactions with minors, and major cyberattacks have also raised the stakes of the discussion, he said.

“[They] have really made a lot of people realize that this isn’t the future we’re talking about—it’s now,” Tegmark said.

The Future of Life Institute recently enlisted public figures as diverse as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, former Trump aide Steve Bannon, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, and rapper Will.i.am to sign a statement opposing work that could lead to superintelligence.

Tegmark said he would like to see something like “an FDA for AI where companies first have to convince experts that their models are safe before they can sell them.

“The AI industry is quite unique in that it’s the only industry in the US making powerful technology that’s less regulated than sandwiches—basically not regulated at all,” Tegmark said. “If someone says, ‘I want to open a new sandwich shop near Times Square,’ before you can sell the first sandwich, you need a health inspector to check your kitchen and make sure it’s not full of rats…If you instead say, ‘Oh no, I’m not going to sell any sandwiches. I’m just going to release superintelligence.’ OK! No need for any inspectors, no need to get any approvals for anything.”

“So the solution to this is very obvious,” Tegmark added. “You just stop this corporate welfare of giving AI companies exemptions that no other companies get.”

This report was originally published by Tech Brew.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Hollywood writers say Warner takeover ‘must be blocked’

Published

on



Hollywood writers, producers, directors and theater owners voiced skepticism over Netflix Inc.’s proposed $82.7 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.’s studio and streaming businesses, saying it threatens to undermine their interests.

The Writers Guild of America, which announced in October it would oppose any sale of Warner Bros., reiterated that view on Friday, saying the purchase by Netflix “must be blocked.”

“The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent,” the guild said in an emailed statement. “The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”

The worries raised by the movie and TV industry’s biggest trade groups come against the backdrop of falling movie and TV production, slack ticket sales and steep job cuts in Hollywood. Another legacy studio, Paramount, was sold earlier this year.

Warner Bros. accounts for about a fourth of North American ticket sales — roughly $2 billion — and is being acquired by a company that has long shunned theatrical releases for its feature films. As part of the deal, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has promised Warner Bros. will continue to release moves in theaters.

“The proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. by Netflix poses an unprecedented threat to the global exhibition business,” Michael O’Leary, chief executive officer of the theatrical trade group Cinema United, said in en emailed statement Friday. “The negative impact of this acquisition will impact theaters from the biggest circuits to one-screen independents.”

The buyout of Warner Bros. by Netflix “would be a disaster,” James Cameron, the director of some of Hollywood’s highest-grossing films in history including Titanic and Avatar, said in late November on The Town, an industry-focused podcast. “Sorry Ted, but jeez. Sarandos has gone on record saying theatrical films are dead.”

On a conference call with investors Friday, Sarandos said that his company’s resistance to releasing films in cinemas was mostly tied to “the long exclusive windows, which we don’t really think are that consumer friendly.”

The company said Friday it would “maintain Warner Bros.’ current operations and build on its strengths, including theatrical releases for films.”

On the call, Sarandos reiterated that view, saying that, “right now, you should count on everything that is planned on going to the theater through Warner Bros. will continue to go to the theaters through Warner Bros.” 

Competition from online outfits like YouTube and Netflix has forced a reckoning in Hollywood, opening the door for takeovers like the Warner Bros. deal announced Friday. Media giants including Comcast Corp., parent of NBCUniversal, are unloading cable-TV networks like MS Now and USA, and steering resources into streaming. 

In an emailed note to Warner Bros. employees on Friday, Chief Executive Officer David Zaslav said the board’s decision to sell the company “reflects the realities of an industry undergoing generational change in how stories are financed, produced, distributed, and discovered.”

The Producers Guild of America said Friday its members are “rightfully concerned about Netflix’s intended acquisition of one of our industry’s most storied and meaningful studios,” while a spokesperson for the Directors Guild of America raised concerns about future pay at Warner Bros.

“We will be meeting with Netflix to outline our concerns and better understand their vision for the future of the company,” the Directors Guild said.

In September, the DGA appointed director Christopher Nolan as its president. Nolan has previously criticized Netflix’s model of releasing films exclusively online, or simultaneously in a small number of cinemas, and has said he won’t make movies for the company.

The Screen Actors Guild said Friday that the transaction “raises many serious questions about its impact on the future of the entertainment industry, and especially the human creative talent whose livelihoods and careers depend on it.”

Oscar winner Jane Fonda spoke out on Thursday before the deal was announced. 

“Consolidation at this scale would be catastrophic for an industry built on free expression, for the creative workers who power it, and for consumers who depend on a free, independent media ecosystem to understand the world,” the star of the Netflix series Grace and Frankie wrote on the Ankler industry news website.

Netflix and Warner Bros. obviously don’t see it that way. In his statement to employees, Zaslav said “the proposed combination of Warner Bros. and Netflix reflects complementary strengths, more choice and value for consumers, a stronger entertainment industry, increased opportunity for creative talent, and long-term value creation for shareholders.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.