"Why" carbon removal beats "how" carbon removal

When I'm in the zone on "why", the "how" feels easy. It's obvious what needs to happen next.

Other times, "how" seems hard to wrap my head around. 

I was just meeting with a Launchpad team this morning. They're considering two different pathways for their business and how to proceed. I’m still thinking about it now and dang, I’m running in circles too.

I often end up hashing out the how. I'm more comfortable talking about how. It's more comfortable. And I like sounding smart talking about technical details. But it can be a trap.

So when I find myself getting stuck, I go back to the "why". For AirMiners, that's a stable climate, thriving human civilization by 2050. And our contribution to that is 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide removed cumulatively by 2030.

You've probably seen this "Start with why" TED talk by Simon Sinek. It's worth a watch or re-watch if you're feeling stuck.

If your next move in carbon removal sounds more like this chess grandmaster, go back to "why".

Hit reply and let me know if you're stuck on "how".

Tito

P.S. To continue our discussion about proving the need for carbon removal, I recommend Robert Höglund's article "How much carbon will we need to remove"