Frontier v2 - Revision history

Nani&friends at 14:19, 27 April 2026

2026-04-27T14:19:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:19, 27 April 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	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.<ref>In the Paris Agreement, signed in 2016, 1.5 degrees Celsius was set as an upper limit for global temperature rise.</ref> 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.		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.<ref>In the Paris Agreement, signed in 2016, 1.5 degrees Celsius was set as an upper limit for global temperature rise.</ref> 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.<ref>Emma Parry et al., “Now That the IPCC Has Recognized That Carbon Removals Are Critical to Addressing Climate Change, It’s Time to Act,” ''McKinsey Sustainability'' (blog), June 10, 2022, ~~[https://www.mckinsey.com/~~ mckinsey.com].</ref>		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.<ref>Emma Parry et al., “Now That the IPCC Has Recognized That Carbon Removals Are Critical to Addressing Climate Change, It’s Time to Act,” ''McKinsey Sustainability'' (blog), June 10, 2022, mckinsey.com.</ref>

	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.<ref>Consider, for instance, the promise that new carbon removal will balance emissions from the expansion of coal and gas extraction in the UK. Fiona Harvey, “New Cumbria Coalmine Likely to Break UK’s Climate Pledge, Analysis Says,” ''Guardian'', January 17, 2023, theguardian.com.</ref> This solutionist response continues business as usual by means of techno-fixes.		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.<ref>Consider, for instance, the promise that new carbon removal will balance emissions from the expansion of coal and gas extraction in the UK. Fiona Harvey, “New Cumbria Coalmine Likely to Break UK’s Climate Pledge, Analysis Says,” ''Guardian'', January 17, 2023, theguardian.com.</ref> This solutionist response continues business as usual by means of techno-fixes.
Line 74:		Line 74:
	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.”<ref>Miriyam Aouragh et al., “The Extractive Infrastructures of Contact Tracing Apps,” ''Journal of Environmental Media'' 1, no. 1 (June 2020): 9.1–9.9.</ref> 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),<ref>We also use this term to refer to “capitalism removal as a service.”</ref> 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.		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.”<ref>Miriyam Aouragh et al., “The Extractive Infrastructures of Contact Tracing Apps,” ''Journal of Environmental Media'' 1, no. 1 (June 2020): 9.1–9.9.</ref> 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),<ref>We also use this term to refer to “capitalism removal as a service.”</ref> 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.”<ref>See “Pre-order Carbon Removal Tons,” h[https://stripe.com/en-ch/climate/orders ~~ttps:~~/~~/stripe.com/en-ch/climate/orders]~~, accessed November 26, 2024.</ref> 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.<ref>“Purchase Agreements (Stripe),” Carbon Removal Source Materials, available at ~~[https://github.com/frontierclimate~~ github.com/frontierclimate].</ref> 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.<ref>Rohan Gupta, “Deep Dive: Stripe,” ''Contrary Research'', updated March 9, 2023, research.contrary.com.</ref> 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.		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.”<ref>See “Pre-order Carbon Removal Tons,” <nowiki>https://stripe.com/en-ch/climate/orders</nowiki>, accessed November 26, 2024.</ref> 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.<ref>“Purchase Agreements (Stripe),” Carbon Removal Source Materials, available at github.com/frontierclimate.</ref> 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.<ref>Rohan Gupta, “Deep Dive: Stripe,” ''Contrary Research'', updated March 9, 2023, research.contrary.com.</ref> 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?'' ====		==== ''Dark kitchens and digital wallets for climate change?'' ====

Nani&friends at 09:59, 27 April 2026

2026-04-27T09:59:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:59, 27 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This is ~~second~~ version of "[[Frontier\|Frontier Climate: a bug report]]".		This is version 2 of "[[Frontier\|Frontier Climate: a bug report]]".

	== Frontier Climate: A Bug Report v.2 ==		== Frontier Climate: A Bug Report v.2 ==

Nani&friends at 09:59, 27 April 2026

2026-04-27T09:59:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:59, 27 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This is ~~v.2~~ of "Frontier Climate: a bug report~~", access v.1 [[Frontier\|here~~]].		This is second version of "[[Frontier\|Frontier Climate: a bug report]]".

	== Frontier Climate: A Bug Report v.2 ==		== Frontier Climate: A Bug Report v.2 ==

Nani&friends at 09:56, 27 April 2026

2026-04-27T09:56:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:56, 27 April 2026
Line 41:		Line 41:
	# 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.		# 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.''		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
			----

	~~''Please use this report to fuel conversations and direct actions.''~~

	=== Areas of Evidence ===		=== Areas of Evidence ===

Nani&friends at 09:51, 27 April 2026

2026-04-27T09:51:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:51, 27 April 2026
Line 119:		Line 119:
	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.<ref>Ruth Wilson Gilmore, ''Abolition Geography'' (London: Verso, 2022). See INCITE! Women of Color, ''The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex'' (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017).</ref> 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.<ref>McKinsey Sustainability, ''How the European Union Could Achieve Net-Zero Emissions at Net-Zero Cost'', December 3, 2020, mckinsey.com.</ref> 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.<ref>See “2030 Climate Targets,” European Commission, accessed November 26, 2024, climate.ec.europa.eu.</ref> 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.		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.<ref>Ruth Wilson Gilmore, ''Abolition Geography'' (London: Verso, 2022). See INCITE! Women of Color, ''The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex'' (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017).</ref> 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.<ref>McKinsey Sustainability, ''How the European Union Could Achieve Net-Zero Emissions at Net-Zero Cost'', December 3, 2020, mckinsey.com.</ref> 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.<ref>See “2030 Climate Targets,” European Commission, accessed November 26, 2024, climate.ec.europa.eu.</ref> 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 don’t need more software infrastructure.
			We need to find ways to infrastructure and institute otherwise.
	We need to find ways to infrastructure and institute otherwise.		We need to end fossil fuel emissions now.

	We need to end fossil fuel emissions now.

	=== Acknowledgments ===		=== Acknowledgments ===

Nani&friends: /* Planetary prototyping */

2026-04-27T09:49:05Z

Planetary prototyping

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:49, 27 April 2026
Line 106:		Line 106:
	Frontier proposes interconnected forms of prototyping across financial, scientific, and software processes and test-beds them at “planetary scale”,<ref>See Cella official website, cellamineralstorage.com.</ref> 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.<ref>Petya Trendafilova, “New Startup Cella Mineral Storage Turns CO2 Into Rock,” ''Carbon Herald'', January 26, 2023, carbonherald.com. </ref> 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.		Frontier proposes interconnected forms of prototyping across financial, scientific, and software processes and test-beds them at “planetary scale”,<ref>See Cella official website, cellamineralstorage.com.</ref> 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.<ref>Petya Trendafilova, “New Startup Cella Mineral Storage Turns CO2 Into Rock,” ''Carbon Herald'', January 26, 2023, carbonherald.com. </ref> 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.<ref>“Cella Purchase Agreements,” Fall 2022, available at github.com/frontierclimate.</ref> 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.<ref>See Greater Carbon Valley official website, greatcarbonvalley.com.</ref> 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.<ref>Danielle Riedl et al., “5 Things to Know About Carbon Mineralization,” World Resources Institute, June 22, 2023, wri.org.</ref> In situ carbon mineralization requires huge amounts of water and energy. It also creates risks of local earthquakes (just like fracking!).<ref>US Geological Survey, “Induced Seismicity Associated with Carbon Dioxide Geologic Storage,” November 19, 2018, usgs.gov.</ref> 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.<ref>Sarah Gibbens, “Why This Giant Crack Opened Up in Kenya,” ''National Geographic'', April 2, 2018, nationalgeographic.com.</ref> 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!		Take, for instance, the story of Cella, a start-up from which Stripe pre-purchased over $333,000 worth of removed carbon.<ref>“Cella Purchase Agreements,” Fall 2022, available at github.com/frontierclimate.</ref> 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.<ref>See Greater Carbon Valley official website, greatcarbonvalley.com.</ref> 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.<ref>Danielle Riedl et al., “5 Things to Know About Carbon Mineralization,” World Resources Institute, June 22, 2023, wri.org.</ref> In situ carbon mineralization requires huge amounts of water and energy. It also creates risks of local earthquakes (just like fracking!).<ref>US Geological Survey, “Induced Seismicity Associated with Carbon Dioxide Geologic Storage,” November 19, 2018, usgs.gov.</ref> 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.<ref>Sarah Gibbens, “Why This Giant Crack Opened Up in Kenya,” ''National Geographic'', April 2, 2018, nationalgeographic.com.</ref> 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.		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.
Line 117:		Line 117:
	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.		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.<ref>Ruth Wilson Gilmore, ''Abolition Geography'' (London: Verso, 2022). See INCITE! Women of Color, ''The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex'' (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017).</ref> 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.<ref>McKinsey Sustainability, ''How the European Union Could Achieve Net-Zero Emissions at Net-Zero Cost'', December 3, 2020, mckinsey.com.</ref> 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.<ref>See “2030 Climate Targets,” European Commission, accessed November 26, 2024, climate.ec.europa.eu.</ref> 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.		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.<ref>Ruth Wilson Gilmore, ''Abolition Geography'' (London: Verso, 2022). See INCITE! Women of Color, ''The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex'' (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017).</ref> 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.<ref>McKinsey Sustainability, ''How the European Union Could Achieve Net-Zero Emissions at Net-Zero Cost'', December 3, 2020, mckinsey.com.</ref> 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.<ref>See “2030 Climate Targets,” European Commission, accessed November 26, 2024, climate.ec.europa.eu.</ref> 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 don’t need more software infrastructure.

Nani&friends: insert text and citations

2026-04-27T09:48:21Z

insert text and citations

Show changes

Nani&friends: start

2026-04-27T08:22:05Z

start

New page

Frontier Climate Bug Report Version 2

This is v.2 of "Frontier Climate: a bug report", which can also be accessed here: xxxx