The projects are always in poor areas. Right now we are supporting one project that removes CO2 and one that plants trees. The project we remove / avoid CO2 through is located in Sichuan, China. There, many families are so poor that they cook over an open fire where they burn coal.

Coal emits a lot of CO2 and the smoke is bad for the health of families and is also expensive. It is especially unhealthy for the women because they stand for many hours a day in the kitchen and cook.

Most families also have a few pigs. The pigs' faeces emit methane gas into the atmosphere (the same gas that cows emit, a gas that is 25x worse than CO2).

But with our support, the two "problems" can solve each other!
Our support can advise families on a biogas plant. The plant is, so to speak, just a slurry tank dug underground.

Then the pigs' faeces go down into the tank where the methane is trapped. The gas is then led through a cleaner and up into the kitchen where it is connected to a gas burner which replaces the old coal stove.So in that way we capture gas, replace coal with clean energy and benefit both the farmers' health and economic situation. That's damn cool.

The second project is in Madagascar, where Climaider has their own forest. Here the locals are employed to plant Mangrove trees, which are a kind of trees that absorb 4-5 times as much CO2 as most other trees.

The locals who get jobs are extremely poor and many are unemployed. So it is very much also a project that is about helping some people out of extreme poverty - also because that extreme poverty is something that in the first place leads to deforestation. So through a normal membership, one actually plants 15 trees a month in Madagascar.

I do not think so - for example, the only thing the Climaider app is about is changing your own habits so that you also emit less CO2.

So there is nothing wrong with just buying a membership and then you have done everything you need for the climate. You buy a membership because it is one of the most effective things you can do for the climate and then of course you keep up with all the other initiatives.

Research also suggests that those who offset their emissions are also the ones who cut back most on their personal CO2 emissions. A bit like it is probably the greenest who vote for a green government, as opposed to if the biggest oil pigs voted green to get a good conscience.

Because one can make a much bigger difference for the same amount of money, elsewhere in the world.

Global warming is a global problem, so whether you remove CO2 in Denmark or in Africa may not matter. But there are just far more low-hanging fruit to pick in poorer places in the world. For example, the current project is about helping some farmers who are so poor that they still cook over an open fire .. It will be damn hard to find someone in Denmark who still cooks over an open fire. You could buy yourself a new stove that saved a few% power compared to your old stove, but it does not do as much for the climate as a stove in Sichuan that saves hundreds of kilos of coal a year.

Yes. The project that removes CO2 is verified and controlled by Gold Standard, which is the most stringent in the field of verification of climate projects. It also means that everything that happens in the project is registered in a large international database so you always know how much CO2 it has saved and such. This is, for example, the certification that CONCITO, Denmark's Green Think Tank, recommends.

In addition, it is certified by the UN Climate Panel's "Clean Development Mechanism" and is one of the climate projects officially used by the German government.

And the tree project is made by Eden Reforestation Projects, which are the same as giant tree planting organizations such as Ecosia use. They are UN world goal partners, have platinum ratings at Guidestar and get 100 out of 100 in the Impact and Result Score at Charity Navigator (81.2 / 100 overall).

As they say, we need to be a big organization if we are to make a big difference. The money is used on getting new members who will also support the climate and in that way it is well spent - the same reason as, for example, the Red Cross also buys advertisements at bus stops and such.

It simply gives the most money to the climate in the end. But they are also trying to do things in a different way, for example with this campaign.

This is because the first project (the one with the biogas tanks) is the one that officially removes CO2. So if you want to remove as much CO2 as you emit, then it happens through that project. It is checked and verified in accordance with all the current international standards and therefore they can also be officially called "climate compensation" and it is fairly easy to check and verify - you catch some gas and burn it off. When it is burned off, it is gone and you can not really dispute that.

The tree planting project, on the other hand, does not count as offsetting at all. Of course, it absorbs a lot of CO2, but Climaider does not count it. This is because IF something were to happen to the forest - a natural disaster, for example, they still guarantee that you have removed all the CO2 you needed, through the other project.
So the trees are just a bonus and something we do because forests and trees are important to the climate - especially mangrove trees like the ones they plant in Madagascar.