Carbon Capture Issues

Does anyone know the depth of Running Tide’s relationship with Framework? Running Tide has recently gotten into controversy and has had many issues in their operation (Running Tide is facing scientist departures and growing concerns | MIT Technology Review). I’m just concerned that it might blow back up on Framework if they’re too closely linked and I truly want Framework to succeed into the future.

1 Like

Same with the service they’re using to carbon offset their shipments. Seems cool but I have no idea if this company holds any merit.

I hope it (Running Tide) doesn’t blow back on Framework but I’m guessing they did their research before reaching out and selling it in their market place.


I think one thing that really set off my suspicion is that 1) MIT tech review is talking about, 2) Scientists have apparently left due to ethical concerns, 3) They’ve received investment from Mark Zuckerberg’s wife’s initiative (Mark being someone who we all know is a paragon of society and has never made any awful decisions that have negatively impacted society)


@Cheese Seems like Flexport also has worked with Fairphone which, in my book, gives it a bit more credence. Like you said, I’m just hoping that Framework doesn’t get implicated in some ESG greenwashing thing because that can get ugly, especially if regulations change against carbon neutrality and more emission reduction


Here’s a good video for the carbon offset issue.
Carbon Offsets HBO

Obviously, Framework can’t be everything to everyone so as long as it continues in the right to repair road I think it’s easier to soften the criticism of the carbon neutrality stuff. Though it is something that we as consumers should keep the company accountable for.

1 Like

Not to start the argument all over again but this was exactly the concern when first announced in the blog post, one of the few posts that has had to be locked on this forum. I actually meant to link to that Last Week Tonight video when it came out because of this implications here.

The more I read of the linked article, the more I grow convinced that “carbon capture” is just a cheat and a bad one at that to excuse polluting behavior. Furthermore, it’s just a fact of physics that there is no free lunch, energy must come from somewhere and the only places I know where we can get energy without serious adverse effects are renewables and nuclear power. Using those power sources we can think about converting carbon en masse back to hydrocarbons or something else. Asking plants to do it is just a cheat and obviously comes with draw backs since now you need to deal with the plants. How many times do we need to introduce a non-native species to an area to “solve” a problem only to create another problem that requires yet more intervention before we learn that the initial step was a bad idea to begin with?

1 Like

@GhostLegion I didn’t realize that there had been an uproar before, that’s a bit strange, why was it locked down?

Very well said on the matter of overenthusiastic geoengineering and energy sources, though I would still say that carbon capture is a very important field that will need investment. From most reports on climate it’s mentioned that we have to sequester carbon aside from emission neutrality, but like you mentioned having anything other than strict chemical or physical means, such as some form of carbonate reaction or form of ionizing carbon filter, isn’t much in the way of successfully locking away the carbon in the atmosphere. To be honest I was very interested in Running Tide and was considering working there with how ambitious their project was and the good it might do, but over time especially since reading conflicting reports, their scope shifted to heeding moneymen and corporate greenwashing instead of scientific authority. In my mind and in the material that I had read, it was my understanding that the carbon sequestration for the project would have been localized to Icelandic and Maine shorelines, which are already home to kelp forests as far as I’m aware, but since reading the article it seems like they wanted to end up doing ocean faring buoys across much of the North Atlantic. The article mentions how there were reports on the potential ecosystem disruption with introducing that much kelp to areas that otherwise would be home to phytoplankton and how that that might displace the natural footchain. I think the biggest red flag when I was reading the article was the investment from Chan Zuckerberg, that really just screamed here’s some slimy corporate scheme for greenwashing carbon offsets. It’s truly disappointing because I really thought that it would have been a good idea if they just tried to help existing kelp forests recover and grow.

I guess this was just a long winded way of saying that I got duped for a few months and should probably come up with a better way of vetting companies and ideas, though sometimes that seems to lean towards cultivating pessimism.

Also I would say that going forward, Framework might be better suited looking into aluminum anodization / smelting in iceland to reduce emissions. I believe that somewhere around 99% of their electricity is sourced from renewables, so it just seems like a better option than ecosystem tampering. However, I do understand that the logistics would make it much more difficult, especially with manufacturing in Taiwan, but still…

Politics always gets heated and originally this was seen as a universal good, those that questioned it kinda got shouted down

Linked thread for those that wish to view the archives as it were. Note I’m not trying to restart that thread, it was closed for good reason but it is relevant to the topic at hand.

1 Like

the aluminum isn’t anodized because of the environmental cost

Carbon Offset is a con. Trees grow. Artifical carbon caputer require a lot of energy opps! It the energy requirement that excerbates the use of resources.

Carbon is a resource, just happy that the framework is more repairable for the user. That’s plenty of resourse care for a computer.

1 Like

It will be interesting to see what data the “enhanced weathering” field trials end up with. There is already a lot of spoil being produced from mining and refining metals (and will increase significantly in the future as production of batteries increases). If that spoil can be redirected to this enhanced rock weathering, and be scientifically shown to capture CO2, then Framework might have another cost effective option to do some offsetting.

Of course this does not fix other toxicity issues, but it’s “less bad” than doing nothing.

Ah actually doing nothing is the better and only option. All activity is down to consuming and something, somewhere, sometime has to give.

One of the reasons I like Fairphone that has a focus on fair trade. If we are going to screw the hell out of this planet let’s give the poor a helping hand, why show we first world party goers have all the fun ~ that’s just not nice and reeks of fear.

@GhostLegion Good to know, I’m not too familiar with the natural resource side of aluminum so I guess the energy intensive side of it is smelting it from mined ore, right?

@GhostLegion Wow, that original thread got side tracked very quickly. That kind of thing is really better for reddit or discord :melting_face:

Also, if anyone is compelled to veer this thread off the rails again like before please read these in advance:

  1. IPCC Report

  2. Office of the Director of National Intelligence - Global Trends

1 Like