World’s First Multi-Million Dollar Carbon-Capture Plant Does Work Of Just $17,640 Worth Of Trees—It’s The “Worst Investment In Human History”

climeworks, a swiss compay, has opened the world's first carbon capture plant in Hinwil, switzerland

Climework‘s Built the World’s First Carbon-Capture Plant in Hinwil, Switzerland

On May 31, 2017 the world’s first commercial carbon dioxide capture-plant was opened in Hinwil, Switzerland.

It’s designed and operated by a Swiss company called Climeworks, and uses a modular design that can be scaled up over time.

The company says that the plant will remove 900 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year by passing it through a special proprietary filter that isolates carbon dioxide molecules from the ambient air—as opposed to industrial exhaust, where the concentration is (obviously) much higher.

What will happen to all of this carbon dioxide?

Some of it will be cycled into nearby greenhouses to help the plants grow better (ironic), which will increase crop yields.  Apparently they grow a lot of lettuce in the area.

They also plan to market the carbon for use in carbonated beverages—I guess we’ll have to start drinking more Coke and Pepsi in order to save the planet.

Of course, neither of these uses will do anything to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—all the carbon will simply fizz out of your drink.

The rest will be sequestered underground deep in the Swiss Alps, never again to see the light of day.

The company says their technology could be used to stop climate change.

Could Ambient Atmospheric Carbon-Capture Plants Prevent Climate Change?

Of course, these plants are next to useless when it comes to addressing the perceived problem of climate change.

For example, Climeworks estimates that 250,000 carbon capture plants would be necessary to capture enough CO2 to meet the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change‘s goals of capturing 1% of global emissions by 2025.

Hear that?

One down, only 249,999 more to go—and probably hundreds of billions of (taxpayer) dollars.  Although this really is par for the course when it comes to liberal environmental projects.

But all told, this may just be the worst idea that liberal environmentalists have ever had—or ever will have.

And this includes green schemes such as: giving poor farmers in India free solar panels, to re-freezing the Arctic using thousands of windmills, and (NEE’s personal favorite) planting new forests and then burning them for fuel instead of oil.

Why is that?

Because trees exist.

Trees are great.  They’re beautiful, they provide shade and fruits, they smell nice—but most importantly, they take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and replace it with breathable oxygen.

They’re good at it too.  In fact, it only takes an average of 98 trees to remove 1 ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year.

That means that this carbon capture facility is worth only 88,200 trees per year (never mind the fabrication costs for all the parts, which probably have an enormous carbon footprint).

Although we can’t compare the costs because Climeworks doesn’t state the cost of their plant on their website—probably because it’s egregiously high, we do know the cost of planting trees.

You can sponsor charities to plant trees for you at a grand total of 20 cents per tree.

Granted, they’re saplings—but once relatively mature they’d do the job.

Remember, there are 2000 lbs in a ton.  Divided by 98 trees, this equals 20.4 lbs of growth a year—this is actually very reasonable in most climates.

And of course, nothing’s stopping us from planting even more trees.

That means that only $17,640 worth of trees could do the work of the multi-million dollar Hinwil carbon-capture plant.

This is lunacy, pure and simple.

According to Spencer P Morrison, this paper’s editor-in-chief, the Hinwil carbon plant may be “the worst investment in human history”, and is “symptomatic of a complete disregard for common sense, and utter contempt for the working man”.

No disagreements from your humble columnist.

And if we’re being honest, we probably don’t even need to start planting more trees, we just need to stop burning them down to make room for new development and ranch land—better land management is actually our cheapest, and most effective option at preserving the environment.

The fact is that the entire green energy market is a scam that plays on people’s emotions to get them to give money to greedy handout billionaires.

Fossil fuels are not only more efficient and cheaper than renewable energy, but they’re also better for the environment, when you consider all the other factors.

Share Me

Leave a Reply

16 Comments on "World’s First Multi-Million Dollar Carbon-Capture Plant Does Work Of Just $17,640 Worth Of Trees—It’s The “Worst Investment In Human History”"

Notify of
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

What a waste of time, money, and technical talent, based on the FRAUD of manmade global warming!


Because we have infinite space to grow trees and trees mature in five seconds?


Considering the amount of deforestation, probably.

As far as mature trees go, that’s a valid point, but averaged out over the life of the tree, I don’t think it’s relevant. Like it won’t do as much for the first 10 years, but the other 90 it’ll do way more work.

Tree growth isn’t geometric, it’s exponential (to a point). It’s a good long term investment.


I thought this was just too dank to be real. But the math checks out.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.


I am really curious about the power consumption of the plant. How much energy is required to maintain filtration levels and where is the energy coming from. Is the power source generating any co2 and if so, how much? Is the amount more or less than what the plant can filter?

Konya McCall

Land Conservation and planting more trees sounds much more cost effective and healthy. These enormous machines are. Not. The answer

Len Mullen

At least my money will not be funding these things. #MAGA!


CO2 capture and sequenstration is highly used and important in the oil industry. Injection of CO2 to produce oil. CO2 lower the viscosity of oil and enhanced its mobility. Oil companies buying CO2 and it is very expensive. Approx. 28$ of scf of CO2 to produce 1 barrel of oil.


Don’t the same people who want to build shit like this also want to stop using oil? If the globalists get their way then this is a dead option.

Spencer P Morrison

I live in oil country, but have never heard of that particular use on a commercial scale, other than to get around regulations to make oilfields carbon-neutral. As for making them more economical, sand, steam, water, sure; CO2, not sure.

Sean Williams

Not sure? It is absolutely a thing. Just look up “enhanced oil recovery”. I’m not sure living somewhere is a credential. 🙂

Spencer P Morrison

Sorry I wasn’t very clear.

I’m aware that they use natural gas & other lighter hydrocarbons (CO2 being one of them) to percolate the oil deposit, but I have yet to hear of them filtering CO2 from the atmosphere and injecting it into wells.

My point was where it’s coming from, because I just don’t think filtering CO2 from the air is economical, when you could simply use other fossil fuels to do the same job.

But maybe I’m wrong. Cheers.


CO2 is NOT one of the lighter hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons have hydrogen and carbon atoms in them.

Christopher Munroe

I have not been able to post this article to Facebook. Every time I try, Facebook keeps claiming that it “cannot find the URL.” I suspect that they are lying and simply want to suppress and censor you.

Spencer P Morrison

That’s very peculiar.

I was able to share it on the NEE facebook page. Will it let you share our post?

I wouldn’t be surprised regarding censorship, however. Larger sites than us have experienced suppression on facebook.