You've Been Warmed

Offset The Individual Emissions Of Your Purchases w/Antero Vartia, CEO of Compensate

Episode Summary

Antero Vartia (Founder & CEO of Compensate) joins the show to discuss his background as an entrepreneur in fighting climate change, what he learned from being a member of the Finnish Parliament & how Compensate works with companies to help their clients remove the carbon they've emitted from the atmosphere.

Episode Notes

Antero is a serial entrepreneur who has been set on tackling climate change for a long time. Several years ago he joined the Finnish Green Party and was a member of Parliament for 4 years (2015-2019).

He is the founder Compensate - a non-profit which aims to bring people and companies together to stop climate change. They want to enable companies to offer their customers effective ways to offset their emissions and even overcompensate for them by removing more carbon than they've emitted.

Antero managed to synthesize his world view and offer simple analogies for the complex situation the world faces. We spoke about his background and Finland's 2035 carbon neutrality targets, we went into the inner workings of Compensate and what its overall vision for the future is and we discussed what the best methods for carbon removal are (not surprisingly he has the same conclusion as other guests on the show).

Finally, he also explained the structure behind Compensate being a non-profit and why he believes this is the best indication that it's a project for the benefit of everybody on this planet. I encourage you all to give go on their website and look up their solution.


Compensate Website -

Compensate Twitter -

Antero's Twitter -


2:45 - His Background & Involvement With The Finnish Green Party
9:00 - The Global Shift In Awareness When It Comes To Climate Change - But Is It Enough?
14:57 - What People Need To Do To Fight This Crisis & How Compensate Helps With That
19:58 - Compensate In Detail + Overcompensating
23:56 - Their Focus On Carbon Capture via Photosynthesis
27:03 - How Market Economies Will Help Scaling Of Carbon Removal
29:44 - Other Promising Carbon Capture Solutions
33:31 - Science vs Business vs Politics vs Society
38:34 - How Compensate Works As A Non-Profit


Episode Transcription

Antero Vartia: (00:00)
Whenever we started talking about what needs to be done, it was always somebody else's fault. It was somebody else's responsibility to do something about climate change and usually the answers were that it doesn't matter what we do here in Finland because China is admitting anyway or we can do this because they are not doing that. And my question was that whose responsibility is it to stop climate? 

YBW Intro: (00:28)
Ladies and gentlemen, you've been more, it's time to figure out the climate crisis with the top scientists, activists and entrepreneurs helping us get out of this mess. Now let's welcome your host that I, gosh, in three two one 

Dragos: (00:52)
today's you've been warmed episode features [inaudible] the founder of compensate Antero is a serial entrepreneur who has had climate change on his mind for a while. He even joined the green party in Finland and was a member of the parliament for four years. He founded compensate in 2018 as a nonprofit with the goal to bring people and companies together to stop climate change. They want companies to be able to offer their customers effective ways to offset their emissions and even overcompensate for them by removing more carbon than they've admitted. Our conversation had really good flow and Antero managed to synthesize his worldview and offer simple analogies for the complex situation the world faces. We spoke about his background and Finland's 2035 carbon neutrality targets. We went into the inner workings of compensate and what its overall vision for the future is, and we also discussed what the best best methods for carbon removal are. Not surprisingly, he has the same conclusion as other guests on the show. Finally, he also explained the structure behind compensate being a nonprofit and why he believes this is the best indication that it's a project for the benefit of everybody on this planet. All right, let's dive straight into it. All right, so I'm joined now by [inaudible], CEO and founder of compensate. Hey Ontario. How are you doing today? 

Antero Vartia: (02:20)
I'm good, thanks. How are you? 

Dragos: (02:21)
Awesome. Very good, very good. Very excited to talk to you. I was digging through your LinkedIn profile and I saw some really interesting stuff that I didn't expect from a serial entrepreneur. So I'll, I'll ask you about that in a bit. But first, if you just want to kind of tell people your story, how did you end up focusing on climate change and what's your, what's your ultimate goal is, uh, with your company? 

Antero Vartia: (02:45)
Well, I don't know where to start in order to keep it short enough. Uh, as you mentioned, I've been an entrepreneur all my life and, uh, at some point I felt like doing something else and I decided to join the green party here in Finland. And two years later I found myself as a member of the Finnish parliament. And, uh, the reason why I got into politics was climate change. I felt like I should do my share as well. And, uh, aim politics. One of the things that I learned was that here in Finland, everybody says we need to stop climate change. But whenever we started talking about what needs to be done, it was always somebody else's fault or somebody else's responsibility to do something about climate change. And usually the answers were that it doesn't matter what we do here in Finland because China is emitting anyway, or we can do this because they are not doing that. 

Antero Vartia: (03:43)
And my question was that, whose responsibility is it to stop climate change? And to me it seems like we're pushing the responsibility to governments and businesses, which is right. They need to do their shares. But essentially, uh, governments and businesses are just abstract formations, stories that bring people together. And in the end, it's always human beings who are causing climate change. And if we don't not understand that it's human action, individuals doing something through companies or governments, it's easy to think that somebody else should be taking care of this. And, uh, I remember thinking, for instance, I was sitting in the economic committee, uh, and we spoke a lot about energy's use in itchy topics. And then we spoke about climate change, that if I would spill a glass of milk on the table at home, it will be clear to me that I cleaned it up myself. 

Antero Vartia: (04:50)
Or then I would ask someone to help me, uh, pay someone to come and clean it up. But I would never end up staring at the state of milk thinking that there's milk on the table. Why doesn't anyone do anything about it? And especially where all the politicians, why don't they come and take care of this? And to me it seems like this is how we approaching climate change, that we, we are worried for very good reason and we're worried that we're not taking action. But at the moment it also seems to me that we expect it to be someone else. And here the problem is the individuals. We don't have good tools and systemic tools to take part of this. And then another thing that I was thinking about, uh, on top of like having people involved in the fight against climate change was that at the moment we're talking about becoming carbon neutral in Finland 2035 which is an ambitious goal and more ambitious than in many other countries. 

Antero Vartia: (05:52)
Yet again, I feel like we approaching the whole question from the wrong perspective. On another example, if I would throw a tress into a park every day and then one day I realized that I'm about to ruin the park, that it's starting to smell, it's full of trash, I need to do something about it, but I can't solve the problem by deciding that, okay, from now on I'll only throw a trash every other day and this is how I feel like we're approaching climate change, that we think that it would be enough to reduce the emissions we're producing. No, there's already too much of carbon ducks. I did the atmosphere today and we still keep on adding more. Even if we cut our emissions in half, we'd still be adding more during the time when the planet seems to be starting to burn. So we need to change the whole approach and realize that nothing gives us the right to that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

Antero Vartia: (06:50)
Obviously we can't get rid of the emissions today, but we can take carbon dioxide out. But in order to really understand the magnitude of what we need to do about it is that we need to have a paradigm shift here and understand that we have the responsibility. Every one of us obviously work through businesses and governments, but the responsibility is now on us. People know aliens are going to come and do this for us. If people don't stop climate change and we need to change the approach and instead of thinking that we're going to slowly throw, throw trash into the park slower and slower, and by the year 2035 we're going to start picking up. We need to realize that the park is smelling bad already today and we need to stop taking more fess out of the park. Then we're throwing it and that's how I came up with an idea. Instead of waiting for the politicians to act, uh, how about building something on a voluntary basis? And I came up with compass with the idea that let's build a voluntary carbon tax where the money that is being collected is earmarked for fixing the problem so that if somebody asks for carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, they can pay this, uh, basically carbon tax that is be useful taking the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. 

Dragos: (08:05)
Gotcha. Yeah. Um, I saw this video, really interesting video. It has tons of views on YouTube with this guy describing the psychology of climate change. And he was saying that it's in, in a way it's the perfect problem because human beings are conditioned to react to immediate threats. And climate change in a way is not something, I mean it's, it's kind of becoming immediate now cause you see the fires in Australia and all that and you see the, the awareness starting to raise, but for so long it's only been something that kind of existed in, in theory. I mean a lot of people were aware of it, but a lot of the decision makers just thought it existed in theory and that kind of impedes any action to be taken. Um, I definitely agree with you. I, I was curious know if you could expand a bit more because I think your, your perspective is very interesting. 

Dragos: (09:00)
You're part of a country that by all accounts in, from what I've read in the news and with the new parliament, uh, with the new government, sorry, um, being in place, it's very ambitious and you have the aforementioned 20, 35 carbon neutral target, which is the most ambitious. So one of the most ambitious in the world. And even if you look at energy patterns in Finland, you guys use a lot of renewables. Um, you're not really admitting that much compared to other countries. And yet you're here saying that the parliament is not doing enough. Are you, like what's the, what's the perspective in Finland right now? And are you referring to Finland as a country or more so internationally? 

Antero Vartia: (09:44)
Well, to be honest, uh, the shift has been fast. If I look first is five years back, the way we spoke about climate change, uh, it wasn't like this, it wasn't, uh, in the news on or on everybody's mind all the time. And every day that has changed. But still I find that it's a lot about the talk that we need to do something about it, but we're still missing the actual action. And last year, for instance, our emissions here in Finland per capita went up not down, even though we have this goal to reach. And if we have, if we give us a 15 years to become carbon neutral, we really have to reduce our emissions annually a lot. And in order for that to happen, we need to change the laws and we have to take action. It starts from deciding what the goal is that we're still missing those concrete steps. 

Antero Vartia: (10:49)
And uh, when this thinking, how I see it has shifted because mainly because of the ice IPC reports and because the youth on a March, and also because companies have realized that the whole market economy will collapse unless we manage to solve this problem. And it's an excellent business opportunity as well because we know this mega trend where we're moving and these, uh, solutions that are cost effective, uh, the ways that we're fighting climate change, there's a massive work and we've never seen a market this global ambig before. So, uh, that is shifting. But at the same time, I feel like we still haven't understood that the problem with climate change is not that we're going to be seeing more flooding or storms or like hotter weather, rainy. They, it's not about whether it's about the system when people have built how we interact with each other. And, uh, let's say in Syria for instance, there was a sudden DRO and uh, it meant that many people had to [inaudible] discussion. 

Antero Vartia: (12:20)
Yeah. But, um, the, uh, in Syria there was sudden drought. People had to move to cities. They didn't do that well. And it escalated into civil war. And then we saw refugees coming to your, this was in 2015 what was so 1.3 million refugees coming to our continent with their 500 million people living. That was enough for us to start talking about a refugee crisis that was enough for us to hot enough values. And that has led to a situation where we're voting for even more populistic people into power. And we're going to start seeing our own Donald Trump's. And once we have Donald Trump's in power, it's too late to solve the problem because they are more focused on, uh, building, uh, fences or walls on the border and coming up with solutions that are not actually helping us at all, are pointing fingers blaming others. And it's the system. 

Antero Vartia: (13:18)
It's the market economy. For instance, Donald Trump's excellent that like blowing a bubble that will at some point burst. And that means that we're going to be seeing, uh, businesses going bankrupt, people being unemployed. And when they are worried about their future, they are even more likely to vote for these populists into power. So we're seeing that climate change is already affecting us like this. Now, let's say that there's more Southern drought and people have to leave the area where they are living. And if they would be coming to have four or 5 million people to Europe every year, that would change the whole, which is exactly, and that's already happening right now and maybe it might happen this year. So that's why whenever we're thinking that we have the time to adapt to climate change, if we have time to reduce the emissions and so on, it's not true. 

Antero Vartia: (14:14)
But in order to [inaudible], uh, make it possible for politicians to act, and in order to have politicians in power one to act, we need to change the way people are approaching the whole thing. Because in a democratic world, politicians always represents what people are thinking. So in order for politicians to change their mind, people have to change the thinking first. And that's what I also believe that we need to bring ways for people to be part of the fight against climate change in a systemic way, in a concrete way, in a way where they understand what their own share is. And that's a way to create the pressure towards politicians and also the willpower to change the way we are approaching the whole matter. 

Dragos: (14:57)
Correct me if I'm wrong. Um, it seems to me like your, your approach is not necessarily, so I want to talk about compensated and what you guys do so people understand, but it seems to me like your approach is not necessarily the individuals themselves. We'll we'll sort the situation out by reducing their own emissions. Obviously that's important, but by doing what you're doing, you're also contributing to education and awareness and that education awareness in turn will push people to demand better action from big businesses and from politicians, correct? 

Antero Vartia: (15:30)
Yeah. There are many, many things that I believe that are critical here in order for us to get people involved in. One of the questions is that when I buy something, let's say, or I do something, I drive to another city, we'll fly to another country or I eat meat for a year. How much do I make? How much carbon dioxide am I adding to the atmosphere? I don't know. It's really difficult for me to find the information and if I'm able to figure it out, I get the inflammation and carbon dioxide tongs. We're talking about a transparent greenhouse gas. And in the end, I mean, whether the number's seven tons of carbon dioxide or 15, I don't understand what it means. I believe that we need to turn that number into euros, for instance, and explained that this is how much it costs to fix the problem. 

Antero Vartia: (16:29)
They only are starting to speak in a language that people understand that it's easier for them to also recognize their own responsibility. Now when it comes to compensating with compensator, our ideas to implement this into the everyday transactions so that I can go first this to a gas station and choose regular fuel, the regular compensate. And if I choose to compensate a fuel, I pay an extra fee. But the money goes in full through compass aid foundation into carbon capture. And it's our, uh, a duty here to figure out the most cost efficient ways of capturing carbon with high in high climate integrity. And uh, here the idea is that when people go and fill up the car, they can see how much it cost to fix the problem here. Or if they take the train, for instance, that they can see the relative difference in the pricing. 

Antero Vartia: (17:21)
They understand how much more driving a car impacts the climate. And I don't think that everybody's going to be compensating. Actually the number might be relatively small, but the fact that people would see how much it costs, that's the first step. And also I believe that the critical mass, how many people we need to start cleaning up after themselves. The number doesn't have to be that high, but that's where the chain starts. And if those, they are the ones who, if those people are the ones who speak about it and they talk to others, I mean that's what we need. Not the concrete action. But the first thing is that we convinced each other people that we could do more about it. And uh, in the end, I believe that this is the system that in politics we should have built a system that whenever I do something harmful, meaning adding more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the bare minimum should be that I should be responsible for the damage I'm costing. 

Antero Vartia: (18:20)
So I should pay someone to take the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Then this thing would be in balance. Well, it's really difficult for politicians to create a system like this, especially in a globalized world where different economies are competing against each other and we're worried about competitive edge and how, Oh especially energy intensive industries are doing, but our idea is that we can build the system on a voluntary basis and we can scale it and we can grow it big and the future that will be regulated a little by little. Let's say that the first it would be that the European union decided that it would be mandatory for gas station and change to provide a compensation method. It would not be a difficult politician decision to make by the politicians because it's not expensive. We're not forcing people to pay. It's not a big investment for the gas station change to provide a new method, but that might be the first step we can take can after a while people start thinking that shouldn't be shooting be the basic thing that everybody compensates and clean. 

Antero Vartia: (19:23)
Stop. As long as we're using fossil fuel and then we would make it mandatory for everyone to compensate for the [inaudible] damaged wood costing. But in order for people to want that, we have to understand first what it is about, instead of just saying that, uh, fuel, it's going to be more expensive than before because politics is, wants to tax here and punish you for things you're doing. If we tell them also, if we tell people what, why the cost is going up and how the money's being used, they're going to be more willing to accept it. And by this I hope in the end we're going to change politics as well. 

Dragos: (19:58)
I understand. So if people go to your website, they can actually, and this is fairly standard I've seen, I've seen other companies do this as well, but basically you estimate a person's carbon footprint based on different, uh, metrics such as how many flights they take, how much they drive, what they eat and so on. But what you're alluding to here and what I'm sensing your vision is it, what does it do you? So let's say for example, I make all my purchases through my phone and you can see what I'm purchasing. You can attribute a carbon cost to those items. If I'm, if I'm putting gas in or if I'm buying beef, let's say from the supermarket, and then the app can automatically prompt me to compensate for what I'm buying because it's, I'm emitting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and I can choose to offset those costs or overcompensate. Right? If I want to add multiple Stuart and those funds then get funneled to you and they go into carbon or a carbon offsetting projects that I get, right. 

Antero Vartia: (21:01)
Uh, not quite, but not that far away at the moment. We have a webpage, an option for people to do the emission calculation regarding their own lives, see how much they emit emit per year approximately, and then compensate on a monthly basis. The reason why we have that on a page is that to provide people, one way to get started with this, but the big idea, the vision behind compensated is that we should have this integrated into like everything. What would you advice. So we're working with companies and starting to limit there and we have ways how to scale this, uh, through other companies and make this a global thing. So it should be something that companies provide. And so that whenever you go and buy something, let's say you go to a grocery store, when you paying, you can choose to pay the normal price or you can buy the groceries compensated. So that's where you get the information and [inaudible]. 

Dragos: (21:59)
Okay. So the business determines the, the additional price, not, um, your individual apps. So when you buy the items, the price is basically baked in if you want to compensate. 

Antero Vartia: (22:10)
Yeah. And you choose whether you compensate or not and the crisis based on how much has been admitted throughout the whole value chain. But now when it comes to compensation, that was also a very good thing. You pointed out the overcompensation because doing emission calculations, uh, there are a lot of uncertainties there to take everything into account because the value chains can be really long. And for instance, at the very beginning, there might be changing the land use. So, uh, that might be something that is really difficult to take into account that's uncertain. But what is even more uncertain is how the carbon has been captured, how the carbon has been stored, how long lasting it is, how additional it is that if we furnished this plant, new trees, uh, somewhere in East people in West might think that now we can start chopping more trees down because they are planting more trees over there. 

Antero Vartia: (23:09)
So all of these uncertainties are something that are difficult to estimate and that's why we're making a major overcompensation at the moment through compensate. If you compensate your initiatives, we make a five fold Rover compensation in order to be able to claim that we're doing more than you actually, uh, admitting yourself. And also this comes to the, uh, the whole approach that it's not enough to, uh, aim for carbon neutrality. It's like thinking that the park is full of trash and if I throw tressing they only pick up my own trash. No, we should take more trust out and we're throwing in. And that's why we should always say for carbon negativity here as well. And that means that we need to overcompensate. 

Dragos: (23:56)
Yeah, I mean all the, all the estimates from the IPC show that if we want to stay under this, the targets that we have, even two degrees Celsius, I think we need a negative emissions to be part of it. So that's definitely something that's necessary. I wanted to ask you, so after the funds go to compensate, um, you guys fund different projects or contributed different, different projects. One topic that I always see popping up is carbon offsets versus carbon removal. And you kind of touched on it in your previous answer because carbon offsets and off time if you say, Oh, we're going to plant more trees or we're going to build, um, um, uh, wind or something else, there's no way for you to know that those projects wouldn't have, have been built regardless if you investing or not. So offsetting, from what I've understood is quite problematic. Um, whereas carbon removal is still being, as far as I understand, it's still being explored, but it's the, the option that most people prefer because they're actually provably taking tons of carbon out of the atmosphere. What's your take on it and overall with compensate, do you have a certain preference for one of her? The other, 

Antero Vartia: (25:06)
at the moment we are focused on carbon capture, but by carbon capture, I don't mean technological solutions. I mean carbon capture footage this through photosynthesis because it's really cost efficient and photosynthesis has been tested for quite some time. We know that it works and we should enhance that. And uh, uh, you're right, the question is let's say, uh, in a developing country for instance, if we're trying to replace a burning coal for producing electricity that we, uh, invest into windmills for instance, it's difficult to prove that those windmills wouldn't have been built without subsidizing it through carbon offsets as well. And, uh, that is more difficult than showing that these trees would never have been planted without somebody paying forward. But, uh, when it comes to planting more trees and growing new forests, it takes a while. And that's also in order for us to prove that it actually happens. 

Antero Vartia: (26:16)
The, we buy carbon credits from the market, from these providers who do the carbon capture and they have been audited by third party and they get verified. And in order for them to form this carbon credit that we buy, they need to capture the carbon first. So they need to make the investment, they need to take the risk. So we are not giving anyone money and tell them go and plant trees and we'll see what happens. They need to take care of it and show that they actually capturing their carbon before they able to sell the service to us, which we again, we build a portfolio from different approaches and different methods and then we provide the service to based on the cities and just individuals. 

Dragos: (27:03)
So my next question then would be what's the status with in terms of the supply of, of carbon credits? Um, obviously something like compensate will stimulate the demand for buying those carbon credits. Right? But who's, who's basically taking care of the supply side so that they're planting trees and they're getting those carbon credits that then someone like competency can come in and buy them. Like, how do we stimulate that side of the coin? 

Antero Vartia: (27:31)
Market economy's a beautiful thing. It's basically always the more there is demand for something, there will be also more supply. And at the moment, uh, the carbon capture market especially is really small, but it needs to grow. Just as you mentioned in the IPC report, land use and carbon sequestration on a massive scale is something that needs to happen. But in order for those trees and forests for instance, or farmland, in order for that to really store all the carpet in the future, we need to plant those trees now because it takes a while before they start growing appropriately and capturing annually the carpet that we're trying to do here. So, uh, what we're trying to do here is tell people that it can be done, that they can clean up after themselves, but also let like do our share in letting the world know that Hey, there's a massive, massive, massive business opportunity in carbon capture because the civilization doesn't have any other alternatives then to reduce emissions radically and also capture a massive amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 

Antero Vartia: (28:49)
But in order for that to happen, somebody needs to do it. And in order for somebody to do it, it needs to be profitable business. Otherwise they won't be hiring the people and doing all the work. Because at the moment I questioned where the politicians have the ability to do this or not. Mmm. And yes, there are many different ways for us to collect the money, but in the end, in order for that project to take place and in order for that to happen, it needs to be a business that somebody is interested in. And here again, it comes back to the pricing of the carbon dioxide Zon if there's not enough of supply, if there's not enough of those projects, we need to raise the cost of carbon dioxide Todd so that it becomes more intriguing for them. Just thought the business and using market in order to find the balance. 

Dragos: (29:44)
Yeah, I understand. Completely understand. One of the questions that I had, and I'm curious, aside from planting trees, um, do you see other promising carbon capture projects or methods? I know a lot of it is under research and if there were breakthroughs in these areas, it would be quite significant just because you seem to be quite focused on this area. So what's your vantage point? 

Antero Vartia: (30:11)
I'm not an engineer and we have other people in our team who are more specialized and better experts on this topic. But in general I would argue that there's nothing that will be as cost efficient as photosynthesis is for a long time. And when I'm talking about photosynthesis, it's really not limited to planting more trees. Uh, where I see huge potential is how we farm food just by changing the methods at the moment, uh, farming is more likely, uh, emitting in carbon dioxide, but we, you could make those, uh, the farm letting to a carbon sink by changing the way we are farming. But in order for farmers to change the way they do it, again, we need to incentivize them. We need to pay forward. But when they operating with the really small margins anyway, just if they can get additional income by, uh, doing it in different way, but still being able to do the core thing and producing the food and selling that as they did before, most likely they're going to change the way they're doing. 

Antero Vartia: (31:22)
And why see the big potential in farmland compared to forestry's that we know who owns the farmland. We know who the people are, whereas planting a new forest is always there. Often questions about who owns the land. And it takes a lot longer to get a [inaudible] those up and running so that we can really measure, improve that carbon has been captured. But then photosynthesis, when it comes to punish the seaweed, it grows really fast and we can start growing that on a massive scale. But in order for that to happen, there needs to be demand for it. There needs to be somebody who's willing to pay for it. So that's also something that I hope that we're going to be seeing the near future when the world realizes how massive the potential is because we don't have any other alternatives except creating the demand for carbon capture. But, uh, yes, the technology is there as well. We know we've known for a long time how to capture carbon, uh, atoms from the atmosphere, but it's just way more expensive than planting trees. And let's say that if we have, uh, 1 million euros, let's choose the method that even though, uh, 

Dragos: (32:40)
we can measure it quite as well as we can measure if we use technology, let's still plant those trees instead of using the technology because we know that it captures more. I had the Paul Gamble from Nori on the podcast and um, he's also quite quite, um, knowledgeable when it comes to carbon removal. And after all the research they did, they two ended up at the same, uh, same conclusion that regenerative farming is the way to go it, that is the most, he said it's the most cost efficient. And what they're doing now with their carbon removal marketplace is to incentivize, like basically find these farmers, teach them what they need to do and incentivize them to get their carbon credits, um, so that they can get paid. Um, so yeah, I definitely see two promising startups both on the same page. So that's definitely the way to go. 

Dragos: (33:31)
It's just a matter of scaling it, I guess from here on out and making people and these farmers more aware. Um, finally I wanted to ask you, you kind of touched on this throughout the episode, um, but it's the last question that I ask and I ask it from everyone. So kind of the, the minor OCD in me wants to ask it to you as well. Um, basically I ask every guest to rank the following sectors in order of importance to tackling climate change, one through four. There's politics and policy, um, society businesses and scientific research and innovation. You already kind of said that it all starts from, from society and how the actions that we all choose to take. So rank them if you want or if you just kinda want to conclude with, um, how they're all interrelated or how you see that relationship forming over the next few years. That would be really cool. 

Antero Vartia: (34:26)
Well, as you said yourself [inaudible] and we can't do one without the other, but a change starts from people. If people don't change the thinking, our approach won't change either. Because when we're talking about businesses, it's always people who make the decisions. When we're talking about governments, it's always, believe it or not, ordinary people making the decisions. So if they haven't changed their mindset and approach, they won't be changing the regulation or change it the way the business is acting. So that's the first thing. But when it comes to the society, uh, what worries me a bit is that the future seems quite gloomy. We've realized that climate change is happening faster than we realized, but our way out of there seems to be at the moment that we're blaming others, we're pointing fingers. And because of that, I also believe that we're going to be seeing more and more people looking for the yellow vests. 

Antero Vartia: (35:32)
And protesting against the change. And if the world becomes more polarized, we won't be able to the problem. We need to find ways that are more inclusive, but also we need a positive vision of the future. Well, we understand that we can do this well. We have ways and tools and mechanisms where we actually feel empowered and instead of telling others that you're not allowed to do that, we can do things ourselves and show with our own own inspiring example to others that, Hey, [inaudible] follow. We can do this. It's not actually that expensive. In the end we can see the results. It's actually pretty inspiring and we can really solve this because climate change, I mean we can fight against it, but it requires the action. But in order for that to happen, we need to have the platforms and business is obviously that place. 

Antero Vartia: (36:26)
And we also need, I mean we have many solutions in place that we still need more technology in scientific community involved as well and coming up with the most cost efficient ways of doing this. But in the end, climate change happens because there's a failure in the system. And the failure is that, for instance, uh, me as an individual, I'm allowed to add more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We know that it causes damage, but I'm not responsible or liable in any way. All of us can not trust as much as we want and there are no consequences whatsoever. That is what we need to fix. That's the root cause that we have a price, the externalities, and we think that it's someone else who's going to fix it. And we don't even know who that is. So in order to fix this, we need to change the regulation. And there's only one place where we decide where the regulation is and that's politics. But in order for politicians to act and change the rules of the system, people need to want at first, otherwise they won't deliver 

Dragos: (37:34)
loud and clear. Got the message. Thank you so much for, for an amazing episode. Where can people, so if people who are listening want to use compensate and offset their emissions, what you advise them? And also if there's any businesses, um, that are heads of business star listening to this, what would your message to them be? 

Antero Vartia: (37:56)
You can find us uncompensated, and now, I mean we launched this in Finland, uh, end of April, 2019 and we're about to go global now, uh, this spring 20, 20. And uh, we have the resources, we have the matron funding, helping us scale operations. And, uh, I believe that the more people in businesses get excited about what we're doing, the faster we'll be growing, but we won't be able to do it organically. So if there are any networks of people, influential people, we're going to need your help. So please contact us. Compensated con. 

Dragos: (38:34)
Awesome. And one thing, one other thing that I don't know if we mentioned you guys are a nonprofit and you advocate a lot for transparency, which I think is really, really cool.

Antero Vartia: (38:36)
. Yeah. I mean the model works. So that compensate foundation, which is a foundation owns compensate nonprofit, uh, liability limited company and the company has a business model because otherwise we won't be able to scale, run the operations because we would never be able to build something that big that needs to be built with grants. But nobody owns this business except the foundation. So I'm not making any money out of this myself and the reasons of why we cap the ownership with this, with the foundation that I believe that in order for people to speak for this, in order for people to promote this, they need to feel that this is done for the people. Otherwise there would be a limit on how we can grow. 

Dragos: (39:32)
Amazing. And on that note, thanks a lot and I hope we do this again soon. 

Antero Vartia: (39:37)
Thank you. It was pleasure. 

Dragos: (39:38)
Same here. Drago shear again, thank you so much for listening to this. You've been warmed episode. I really hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Now you can find all the episodes on our website and it's www dot you've been both in audio and written form. So you can find the transcriptions on there. I'd love for you to reach out to me on Twitter and tell me what your favorite episode has been thus far, or if you have any feedback on the episode they just listened to. My Twitter handle is at DRG Stephanie school, so DRG coming from draggish, my first name, and then Stephanie's school, which is my last name. And finally, if you want to get notified when new episodes are out, subscribe to this podcast and consider dropping a review for us if you enjoy the content that's all for now. See you soon.