Frontier v2

This is version 2 of "Frontier Climate: a bug report".

Frontier Climate: A Bug Report v.2

Context

In 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that exceeding 2 degrees Celsius of planetary warming would have catastrophic impacts. To keep the planet stable, they argued, global warming must be limited to 1.5 degrees. With the world currently on track to far exceed those limits, a reduction of carbon emissions alone (based on the current rate) will not suffice. The IPCC therefore proposed that in order to prevent global devastation, the removal of carbon already present in the atmosphere would be required to address rising temperatures.

The circulation of the IPCC’s 2021 report at the Twenty-Sixth United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) brought renewed attention to carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Amid intensifying state reliance on technological solutions during the COVID-19 pandemic, CDR quickly garnered the support of the European Union, which led to a surge of financial activity by both political and corporate climate actors. Their actions were aimed not at reduction in fossil fuel emissions but instead toward investing in and building infrastructures for the removal of carbon. In April 2022 the IPCC released explicit support for “the deployment of carbon dioxide removal,” and within two months Frontier Climate—established by Big Tech companies to oversee “advance market commitments” for carbon removal—was launched.

The anticipatory techno-solutions proposed by Frontier are explicitly not focused on reducing emissions from fossil fuels or on halting new carbon extraction. Instead, they serve as justification for corporations and governments to “balance” emissions in their “carbon budgets” while continuing to increase fossil fuel use and carbon extraction. This solutionist response continues business as usual by means of techno-fixes.

Concretely, this has resulted in:

• the increased circulation of greenwashing narratives such as “net zero,” “carbon removal,” “carbon neutrality,” and “carbon positivity”;
• an investment market for carbon removal—through which oil and gas companies (the largest owners of carbon removal infrastructure) can increase their revenue, giving investors the opportunity to symbolically divest from oil and gas markets and reinvest in CDR;
• the construction of new large-scale experiments in carbon-removal infrastructure;
• new regulations and policies in the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, and Switzerland (among others) around certification, validation, and carbon removal;
• an increase of investments in oil, gas, Big Tech, and metal-mining companies that are involved in carbon removal technologies and infrastructures;
• the emergence of a number of Big Tech–led initiatives to manage these processes via computational infrastructures: the Microsoft Climate Innovation Fund, Stripe Climate, Amazon Sustainability, Google Sustainability, Meta Sustainability, as well as coalitions or consortia such as Frontier Climate; and
• making carbon removal and climate action “platform ready,” expanding and accelerating the financialization of all aspects of life.

What Is Frontier?

The Frontier narrative is constructed around the supposed need for carbon dioxide removal as the core solution for climate change. Carbon removal claims to go beyond carbon capture, in the sense that it promises permanent storage of carbon (i.e., for a thousand years or more). To do so involves many untested technologies—risky interventions that have yet to scale.

Frontier Climate is an enterprise owned solely by Stripe, a multinational company developing online payments infrastructure, financial services, and software as a service (SaaS). Legally, Stripe is set up as a limited-liability company (i.e., a for-profit social interest company), and its founding members are Meta, Alphabet, Shopify, and McKinsey. Together they constructed a platform that has amassed more than $1 billion, a sum aimed at accelerating the testing and scaling of carbon removal. Instead of calling for donations, Frontier uses the construction of advance market commitment (AMC), which allows partners and members to invest in start-up companies that pledge to remove amounts of carbon at an agreed price in the future. As a way to call in donations from their customers, Stripe also created an application programming interface (API) for their business clients.

Why This Bug Report?

We are a group of researchers, activists, artists, and technologists concerned about business-as-usual attitudes toward climate change that rely on techno-fixes. We are writing this bug report as a collective action directed against Frontier Climate’s advance market commitment (AMC) for carbon removal. It is urgent to point out “bugs” in the operations of enterprises such as Frontier Climate, to address them collectively and in a transdisciplinary manner, to call attention to their workings and implications, and to join forces and report widely on the violent bugs of global computational infrastructures, which monetize climate change as the most profitable of damages. Of course, Frontier’s bugs are not the result of an error.

This report is published out of concern for:

1. the use of the narrative of carbon removal to create new financial mechanisms and market expansion for both Big Tech and Big Oil;
2. the normalization and financialization of carbon removal as justification for further “frontiers” of fossil-fueled accumulation;
3. the move of Big Tech initiatives to gain leverage on the management of planetary resources and climate governance;
4. the use of the global climate crisis to generate over $1 billion in donations, absent transparency or oversight;
5. the deployment of an overarching financial infrastructure to funnel research and capital away from addressing core drivers of this crisis, erasing the socioecological impacts of fossil fuel extraction through the narrative hegemony of infra-solutionism;
6. the extension, instrumentalization, and intimate impacts of computational infrastructures, from smartphones to vast sensor networks of carbon measurement, not least through the massive implementation of an online payment infrastructure;
7. the manufacture of dependence for collective survival on systems of computation, financing, and management that are fundamentally colonial, extractive, and opposed to the flourishing of life; and
8. the capture of other sociotechnical futures by the imaginative monopoly of carbon removal, repackaged according to the size and manners of US–Silicon Valley worldviews.

---

Disclaimer: This bug report is not meant to fix Frontier. It is a provocation for critical discussion and further research into the damaging and limiting agenda proposed by Frontier. It is also not fixed on Frontier. Rather, it proposes bug reporting as a method for reporting on dynamics where large-scale consortiums are using their power and resources across geopolitical contexts to co-opt and exploit genuine concerns, as a strategy to divert resources away from resistance and struggle. Here we report on the diversion from climate struggles and calls to end reliance on fossil fuels, but this is also a pattern that we observe in other contexts of resistance and struggle. Please use this report to fuel conversations and direct actions

---

Areas of Evidence

The following areas of evidence articulate the concerns listed above. They have been written collectively, hence their polyphonic tone. We understand them as beginnings for developing further interventions.

Knowledge gap reversals

Frontier invites readers, users, interested researchers, potential clients, and/or stakeholders to “explore a database of 100+ knowledge gaps across the field of durable carbon removal.” The database, in spite of its pretentious interface, is in reality simply an extensive spreadsheet that contains surprisingly few entries, categorized in five areas or types of gaps, ranging from “fundamental science” to “novel CDR [carbon dioxide removal] pathways”—a move by which Frontier also proposes to build and control an epistemic infrastructure.

A gap is a negative volumetric entity, a lack of occupation—something that is perceived as empty, despite what could have been there, or what is there that does not count. The database is a tool to render knowledge gaps into voids of absence.

By positioning the knowledge around CDR as a void to be filled, Frontier not only ignores the long history of carbon removal but also tunes out all current historical intelligence around planetary survival, ecosystem care, and practices of survival and of (partial) repair. The rendering of these knowledges into gaps while a full industry is being invented “from scratch” is epistemicidal. Here, there is no such thing as a void. There is, rather, a continuation of erasures, dispossession, and depletion on the one hand, and a continuation of accumulations, densification, and superimpositions on the other.

As we have learned from the dense legacies of colonialism, exploration hardly ever implies the distribution of care and reparations. That such a database is addressed to a group of such diversity (readers hand in hand with users? interested researchers shoulder to shoulder with potential clients and/or stakeholders?) clearly sets it up either as an operation diffusing the possibility of solidarity or as a scam circulating in plain sight.

Why does this project try so hard to attract research? How did it come to understand itself as an optimal place to compile knowledge and fill gaps? Why does it need to self-legitimize as a para-agency for scientific research? Perhaps scientists contribute because of a lack of national funding or job prospects, or (in some places) the explicit withdrawal of funding for climate research. Or perhaps they do so because they believe in Frontier having a positive impact. The negative infrastructure of defunding climate research expands the ways in which Big Tech and Big Oil influence the scientific research agenda—one on which they already have a significant impact.

Of course, the slick interface of the Carbon Removal Knowledge Gaps database aligns with the contemporary aesthetic norms of the “cloud” and its performative inclination (i.e., providing an impression of ultimate flexibility while in fact stating what can and can’t be done). It proposes to capture the unknown into an all-too-familiar, efficient interface, serving up small glittery bits of ready-made pseudo-science. Here, “pseudo-science” refers not to the powerful grassroots para-academic or disobedient research procedures but to the not-to-be-discussed, the not-to-be-peer-reviewed, the not-rigorous-enough—that which is not subjected to discussion or proactive dissent. The outrageous arrogance of the index includes the too-benign invitation to “propose gaps,” without specifying how Frontier’s framework will address them. Indeed, the Knowledge Gaps database is not simply an innocuous distraction.

A power-grabbing partnership

Frontier Climate, a for-profit limited-liability entity owned solely by Stripe, was founded together with a group of powerful US-based actors: tech companies Alphabet, Meta, Shopify, and the global consultancy McKinsey Sustainability. This initial partnership was later joined by JPMorgan Chase bank, retailer H&M, cloud management software producer Workday, and 3D engineering software company Autodesk. Between them, these actors have an explicit, vested interest in streamlining finance, crafting narratives, building infrastructure, reorganising tech labor, and software production.

While Stripe is busy setting up infrastructure to become the main supplier for digital payments, McKinsey is serving Big Tech by producing “green transition” stories for corporate actors and nation-states. The consultancy firm set up its sustainability branch for building the narrative that popularizes net zero and positions carbon removal as the leading option for addressing climate change. Workday, for its part, signed a multiyear sponsorship deal with the McLaren motor racing team as an official partner. Meanwhile, Alphabet’s copious income from ad schemes is largely built on advertising campaigns by Big Tech companies for carbon removal and net-zero technologies. Oil and gas industries are one of the biggest purchasers of ads designed to look like Google search engine results (for example, for the search terms “NetZero” and “Carbon Storage”). Meta also generates large amounts of advertising income from these industries.

We could add many more contradictions to this list, but the point is clear: the power grab this consortium represents is immense, and it positions Big Tech and friends as the central players in efforts to address climate change, affording them an advantage at the bargaining table.

A CRaaS fata morgana market

Frontier describes its mission as building a new market for carbon dioxide removal for investors, researchers, and entrepreneurs. This involves the scaling up and development of payment apps and carbon dioxide removal infrastructure across the planet to cover potential future demand. Frontier promises to have the planetary reach, global financial infrastructure, and geopolitical access to operate these building blocks.

Like delivering education over Zoom videoconference, healthcare over QR-code apps, Microsoft Teams for border control, Google Forms for signing statements, or the digitization of payrolls and other essential public services, the Frontier consortium takes the already-legitimized, recognizable role of a Big Tech consortia “as the one to provide the service.” In the same way that Microsoft, Google, and Amazon Web Services have positioned themselves as the only providers able to deliver services for education or health, Frontier seeks to establish itself as the only one capable of filling the research gaps that stand in the way of funding and scaling up carbon removal. In this sense, they describe their mission to sell climate change mitigation as a service, facilitated by API, dashboards, and mobile interfaces. However, “carbon removal as a service” (CRaaS), as it has come to be known, is a mirage: a fata morgana. Just like a heat-induced hallucination or optical distortion, CRaaS emerges in an overheated worldview, floating above the horizon, just out of reach. One might speculate that Frontier is not the climate savior it claims to be; indeed, perhaps it cares as little about carbon removal as Zoom cares about education or Google about healthcare.

Why is this a mirage? Through Frontier’s development of “carbon removal technologies,” the company has devised a computational payment system to “pre-order carbon removal tons.” From reading their website, we might assume that Frontier is proposing a future service in which businesses can buy carbon removal, then resell it to other businesses and buyers. However, the core aim of Frontier appears to be the creation of a monopoly over “digital wallet,” financial infrastructure, and future capital purchase capabilities. Since launching in 2022, Frontier has already received over a billion dollars in “advance market commitments” from their founders and partners—money that may well be deployed for other purposes entirely. Although Frontier continuously boasts of their $1 billion commitment for carbon removal, our analysis of the purchase agreements and other contracts available on the developer platform Github shows that only a small percentage of the pool of committed money has been paid out to carbon removal companies as capital investment and as future commitment to payment for carbon tons removed. With the launch of Stripe’s carbon orders, businesses can now also order carbon removal by the ton, paying today for a future delivery. All this begs the questions: What happens in the meantime to the money committed to carbon orders? Is it being used for something else? Is it being deployed to directly expand and support more software development? And if so, for which specific applications? As a corporation with a track record of acquiring other companies, will it be used to further the goal of Stripe as a fintech giant? Indeed, in the years leading up to 2022, Stripe purchased or took over most key payment infrastructures globally, including Paystack, RunKit, Index, Touchtech, Kickoff, Totems, TaJar, Bouncer, Recko, Payable, and OpenChannel, drawing accusations of monopolizing global financial infrastructure. It is clear that some funds must go toward the development of the new Stripe API dashboard (see above), which will allow businesses to capture future payments by providing the digital wallets needed for carbon removal trading. Wherever the money is, and whatever it is being used for, carbon removal is a mirage that obscures the expansion of software development for financial payments and the making of a transnational financial infrastructure fully owned by Stripe.

Dark kitchens and digital wallets for climate change?

Is it possible to speak of a “political ecology of carbon removal”—one that highlights the main connective tissue between stakeholders, marketing tactics, resources, environment, and methods for capital accumulation? If so, what are its main operations, ambits, and shapes? In Frontier Climate’s planning for a market beyond carbon offset credits, we can already see specific technical strategies and techniques of capture being put in place for this market-in-the-making. Not surprisingly, they align quite well with the wider and already-settled political economy of computational infrastructures as a whole, whether applied to food delivery or energy logistics.

In a (near) future market, the research startup companies who will provide the removal of carbon tonnage are similar to the “ghost kitchens,” arranged systematically in urban areas according to the same logistical logic as Deliveroo or Uber Eats—but now on a planetary scale. Unknown to the future buyers of carbon removal, they activate a new frontier in the distribution of forces and financial imaginations by expanding the computational infrastructure of the cloud. Like dark kitchens for climate change, carbon removal suppliers are distributed along different territories and switched in and out as demand, labor, and material conditions fluctuate. The carbon removal activity itself happens out of view, in deals made behind the dashboard. For example, Shopify will sell carbon removal via its “Planet” app.

Most prominent now is the integration of a “counteract climate change” payment product that can be enabled within Stripe’s API for e-commerce websites and mobile applications. Frontier Climate centers Stripe as a single solution for online payment, and given Stripe’s position as an established provider of a “software as a service” model for financial services, the role of Stripe as a leading actor in this consortium begins to emerge.

Stripe’s payment-product APIs provide an existing, relatively “seamless” capacity to manage the flows for committing resources to markets that are not yet established (carbon removal credits, carbon capture certificates, or whatever form proves conventional for this market’s traded goods). In doing so, Stripe—and, by extension, Frontier Climate—can fold the creation of an advanced market condition for carbon removal into their platformized payments system, paving the way for a massive market and infrastructural advantage in which Stripe and the consortium will be in a dominant position as both a go-between for users/buyers and products/suppliers, as well as a large funder/investor in these technical fixes for the climate crises, present and future.

Hence, the seemingly trivial function of a digital wallet—a centralized device for monetary operations involving banking entities, sellers, and a user-ized client as a way to offer carbon removal options for future payments—becomes a package deal for a ready-made and platform-ready infrastructure within the Stripe climate payment function. Given this consortium’s well-established legacy in regard to their digital offerings, its renewed hegemony in this market-in-the-making for carbon removal will very likely result in modes of operation oriented toward further extraction and monopolization. It is the purposeful expansion of a computational infrastructure that supports the global operations of Frontier. Part of a vicious cycle, this infrastructure is also among the major contributors to the problem it seeks to solve. The financialization and subsumption of climate issues into corporate cloud infrastructures will represent yet another of this consortium’s ongoing capture of so many domains of (ghosted) lives.

Creative accounting narratives

The narrative Frontier Climate builds around accounting needs to do a lot of heavy lifting. That is to say, if the narrative they produce is able to be accounted for within its own logic, then it maintains an image of Frontier as a viable economic and material solution within the rampant climate crisis. However, because Frontier Climate operates according to a propositional logic, this means that as long as they are able to account for their own narrative premise and maintain its logical coherence, they are able to function by receiving large sums of money and holding on to them indefinitely.

To draw a comparison to financing the development of vaccines, as Frontier does to explain the mechanism of its “advance market commitments,” is manipulative and inaccurate because it draws a direct equivalence between human health and the health of the planet. At the same time, what is backgrounded is the way that Big Pharma profits from AMCs by refusing to produce medicine for all at a fair price, breaking with precedent set by previously developed vaccines. The actual point of equivalence between vaccine production and Frontier’s use of AMCs is that they function to reproduce—and scale up—the harms they claim to be eliminating, by turning techniques for life preservation into yet another occasion for market exploitation.

Frontier insists on framing climate change as a budget issue, in terms both of carbon removal and of the money needed to address it at scale. Such a framing allows for gross simplification of the issues (social, economic, environmental), which are blended into a logic that builds a narrative around accounting that situates Frontier as the sole actor capable of offering solutions to these (distorted) issues. Transparency and accountability issues, like everything else, are included within that logic as straightforward budget questions, such that in the end only a single budget needs to be addressed. Accountability has been reduced to accounting.

Frontier is also a specific legal construction: a public benefit LLC that allows its stakeholders to receive large sums of money under the guise of altruistic donation. Yet, they are not a registered charity and thus can accumulate profit under the framework of operating a business, holding on to the profits under the premise that it will be dedicated to future innovation. This triangulation of business–donation–innovation means that the accountability linked to each of the three constructions can be deferred according to the other two.

The conflation of Big Tech and Big Oil

Frontier is part of a narrative of carbon removal that creates new financial mechanisms and market expansion for both Big Tech and Big Oil. As Greenpeace explains in their report Oil in the Cloud, the interdependency of Big Tech and Big Oil runs deep: “Despite the biggest cloud companies’ commitments to address climate change, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon all have connections to some of the world’s dirtiest oil companies for the explicit purpose of getting more oil and gas out of the ground and onto the market faster and cheaper.” First of all, it is important to remember that many carbon removal techniques reuse technologies and infrastructures initially developed for and by Big Oil. The injection of carbonated water into almost-depleted oil wells, for example, is a technique to continue extracting fossil fuels—which can then be branded as “net-zero oil”!

One might wonder what Alphabet’s motives are for engaging with the Frontier carbon removal plans. Was their involvement based on the same urgencies that brought them to offer their cloud solutions to oil and gas companies Total, Schlumberger, and Aramco? Is “prospection as a service” their next frontier to continue and intensify extraction?

With smooth continuity, in a capitalism eager to greenwash and diversify, the same services that could be used as a way out of oil economies are rapidly being converted into a reinvestment in tech. In this sense, Google Cloud has diversified its business by entering the Saudi market in the days leading up to the Twenty-Eighth UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) and has recently committed to supporting the Saudi government’s Vision 2030 program, which aims to transform the Saudi economy toward tech and services, limiting the country’s dependency on the oil market. It goes without saying that this is largely a question of economic stewardship, rather than one of environmental responsibility, as Google claims.

Planetary prototyping

Frontier proposes interconnected forms of prototyping across financial, scientific, and software processes and test-beds them at “planetary scale”, throwing around extreme language with the normalcy of mundane conversation. In other words, it proposes technologies that are basically drilling the f*ck out of volcano formations in hopes of locking something “bad” inside them, with reckless disregard for the consequences. The consortium normalizes techno-solutionism and innovation as the only way out. Innovation, when nested in the fantasy of planetary prototyping, replicates the old, rational colonial logics of the pioneers, the inhabitants of the ever-reinvented last frontier. It reproduces an imaginary promise that a “new” planet B can be beta-tested and then simply emerge from a lab—namely, Frontier’s lab. This is not just a prototyping of carbon removal through the injection of capital but also a prototyping of its scale-up and distribution in return for investment, which companies can sell in newly invented carbon removal markets. Frontier garners these donations by prototyping a software payment system that deals with the future—a software-enabled planetary prototyping payment system readily accessible through mobile phones, supported by cloud-computational infrastructure. However, by design, in its dependency on large-scale computation, which allows Frontier to gather funds, the platform increases fossil fuel utilization and resource extraction, extending planetary damage and contributing to the climate crisis—which in turn require further investments in carbon removal.

Take, for instance, the story of Cella, a start-up from which Stripe pre-purchased over $333,000 worth of removed carbon. Funded by Stripe donations, Cella will prototype a “reverse fracking” operation to inject carbon dioxide into the voids of a basalt mass in Naivasha, a section of the Kenyan rift located in Nakuru County—a “Carbon Valley” to come. Cella experiments with a technique called “in situ carbon mineralization,” which involves injecting carbon dioxide kilometers deep into volcano rock formations underground, where it reacts with water and minerals within the rocks, turning into stone. In situ carbon mineralization requires huge amounts of water and energy. It also creates risks of local earthquakes (just like fracking!). However, perhaps the appearance of enormous new fissures in the ground poses no issue for Cella or Frontier—or Stripe, for that matter? Indeed, sizable cracks have already appeared in the region, including one that suddenly ripped through people’s homes in 2018, in a region where tectonic activity had previously led to flooding and displacement. Such a geological event might even create an opportunity for Frontier to fund another new start-up—perhaps called “Aperture”—to drill into the filled cracks, to inject them with more carbon dioxide, and to conduct further large-scale experiments on them!

Such an imagination of a planetary laboratory is, unfortunately, not a novel fantasy. What is perhaps new, though, is the scale of the projects afforded by Big Tech, which deludes us into thinking that effective reversal of extreme planetary damage is possible.

The capture of other futures

Frontier promises the capture, removal, and enclosure of carbon. But which resources for alternate futures are also captured by the very apparatus of Frontier? Beyond the ostensible target of carbon removal, what else is disposed of? How, in other words, does the future promised by Frontier depend on the permanent foreclosure of a plurality of futures, including the (techno)political imagination necessary to make these other futures possible? How does the capture of these futures affect communities on a local scale, even though Frontier’s services function on the level of an institution or company?

In the near term, the solutionist and market-oriented approach Frontier offers already constrains the possibilities for a plurality of post-carbon practices. The examples set by corporations affect the ways in which the public understands their role in contributing to climate solutions. This turns Frontier into a cultural device that participates in determining which kinds of solutions are thinkable and which are not.

In the face of climate chaos, local communities are attending to a variety of ways to organize and resist: care for the planet through decentralization and the forging of new solidarities, energy realities, and food practices—in other words, building collectivity from the bare bones of human existence.

What are the effects of Frontier’s proposal on public institutions and collective life? As geographer Ruth Wilson Gilmore reminds us, we have already learned that the revolution won’t be funded. Institutions involved in health, housing, migration, or education in the European Union and elsewhere are under state, regulatory, and public pressure to reduce carbon emissions through evidenced and validated methods. As Frontier offers carbon removal as a service, schools, hospitals, and universities can pledge a percentage of their future income to fund Frontier––instead of funding a community farm, a forest, or pedagogical projects. As they conform to regional sustainability directives, such institutions might trust Frontier to meet 2030 climate targets and banks’ demands that they prove their resilience—further increasing the public money paid to Microsoft Teams or Zoom for everyday organizational purposes. Frontier will quickly become the answer for the market these institutions unwillingly committed to creating. Their donations to Frontier’s growing planetary financial software infrastructure shift the burden elsewhere and divert support away from other, grounded approaches that might build community and collective attempts to discontinue the use of fossil fuels and address carbon emissions.

We don’t need more software infrastructure.
We need to find ways to infrastructure and institute otherwise.
We need to end fossil fuel emissions now.

Acknowledgments

Frontier Climate: A Bug Report was prepared by The Institute for Technology in the Public Interest (Miriyam Aouragh, Seda Gürses, Helen V. Pritchard, Jara Rocha, and Femke Snelting). TITiPI (ttipi.org) is a trans-practice gathering of activists, artists, engineers, and theorists that operates as an activist research infrastructure to collectively articulate, activate, and reimagine what computational technologies in the “public interest” might be when “public interest” is always in-the-making.

The report was written collaboratively in the winter of 2023 with Cassandra Troyan, Elodie Mugrefya, Eric Snodgrass, Martino Morandi, Therese Keogh, Aggeliki Diakrousi, Fred Carter, and Livia Cahn. This updated 2025 edition, published by Logic(s), was illustrated by Emma Lu, designed by Raya Hazell, copy-edited by Sam Smith, and fact-checked by Simi Kadirgamar. The AEIOU Traductores cooperative took care of Spanish translation; Claire Zuo and Sam Smith managed production.

Thank you, Joan LLort, Guillemette Legrand, Harun Morrison, and Donald Jay Bertulfo for your comments, and Khadijah Abdurahman for making this Logic(s) edition happen.

The writing of the bug report was supported by CHANSE through SoLiXG: The Social Life of XG and by the Generalitat de Catalunya through the project CLaaS (Climatized Life as a Service).

Colophon

This bug report is a collective action against Frontier Climate, a consortium of Big Tech companies established to manage so-called “advance market commitments” for carbon removal. We call for businesses, institutions, communities, science labs, and consumers to divest their money, time, energy, and trust from this enterprise. Instead of payment systems for carbon removal, we call for an immediate halt to the logistics of racial capitalism that make fossil fuel extraction unavoidable. We must work urgently toward the abolition of the computational infrastructuring of the Big Tech industrial complex, and toward the establishment of mutual aid proposals for infrastructuring otherwise.