Thanks for promoting this Mr. Tercek. My suggestion would be for young adults to listen to the Volts podcast on a regular basis. It's exceptional and is an excellent introduction to a vast array of optimistic climate work. Here is the latest. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/volts/id1548554104?i=1000763095636
Hi Mark, so listening to the latest Volts podcast which is once again exceptional and he profiles a company called https://www.energea.com. Very curious to get your financial assessment on this question. Is my dollar better spent on a carbon offset project like this where the cost is $8.24/ton, https://www.cooleffect.org/project/buried-treasure or an investment with Energea where I support a solar/battery project and get a return? Thanks much. PS I plan to ask the same question to Claude. Very curious to see how your answer compares. ;)
Let me fetch both of these so I can give you an informed comparison.This is a genuinely interesting comparison, and the answer is more nuanced than it might first appear. I'm not a financial advisor, so I can't tell you which is the right choice for your situation — but here's an honest framework for thinking it through from a **climate impact** perspective:
---
**The Core Difference**
These two options do fundamentally different things with your money:
The **Cool Effect / Buried Treasure** project is a straightforward purchase. It captures and destroys methane from a Ciudad Juarez landfill — a gas with 80 times the global warming potential of CO2 over a 20-year period — and converts it to electricity for Mexico's grid, displacing fossil fuel generation. At $8.24/ton, you spend money, it's gone, and a verified, certified ton of CO2-equivalent is permanently destroyed. More than 90% of each dollar goes directly to the project, with a small 9.87% fee for administration and processing.
**Energea** works differently. You're investing in solar projects — once electricity is generated and sold, cash flow first maintains the project, then remaining revenue is disbursed to shareholders as monthly dividends. The platform has built solar projects backed by 20-year, inflation-adjusted power purchase agreements with governments and large businesses, and has realized a 12.18% average IRR since inception.
---
**The Climate Impact Question — Where It Gets Complicated**
This is where you have to think carefully, because the two options aren't actually doing the same climate work:
**Cool Effect's advantage:** The carbon reduction is *certified and verified*. Carbon credits are certified by third-party organizations with reporting requirements and analyses to verify the amount of emissions offset — unlike solar investing, where emissions avoided are estimates. The methane destruction is permanent and measurable. What you're paying for is real and audited.
**Energea's climate advantage:** Unlike ESG stocks and funds, every dollar you invest goes toward the construction of renewable energy assets. These are projects that wouldn't be happening without investors like you, meaning you're making more of a difference — this is the concept of "additionality," which matters a lot in climate work. You're not just buying a share of something that already exists; you're financing new clean capacity.
**Energea's climate caveat:** Solar energy built in Brazil or South Africa displaces emissions *there*, in grids that may or may not be heavily fossil-fuel dependent. The emissions avoided aren't independently certified, and the *amount* of climate benefit per dollar is harder to calculate than a landfill methane project where you can literally count how much gas was burned.
---
**The Financial Reality Changes the Calculus**
Here's the key insight for someone prioritizing climate impact: if Energea delivers even a 10% annual return on a $1,000 investment, that's $100/year you could reinvest in Cool Effect offsets — buying roughly 12 additional tons of verified carbon reduction *on top of* whatever emissions the solar project avoids. Over 10 years, compounding returns could multiply your climate impact significantly compared to spending the same $1,000 on offsets today.
But that only works if you actually reinvest the returns into climate action rather than spending them elsewhere.
---
**Risks to Weigh**
Energea carries real investment risks that Cool Effect does not. The biggest risk is currency fluctuations since projects operate in Brazil, South Africa, and other markets. Liquidity is limited — shares don't trade on an exchange, and while the company will try to help you sell shares held for at least three years, there is no active secondary market. You could lose principal. Cool Effect, by contrast, is a known, fixed cost with no financial risk.
---
**Bottom Line**
If your *sole* goal is verified, immediate, measurable emissions reduction per dollar spent, **Cool Effect wins** — the methane destruction is certified, permanent, and priced efficiently at $8.24/ton.
If your goal is to maximize *long-term* climate impact and you're disciplined about reinvesting returns, **Energea could deliver more total climate benefit over time** — but you're accepting investment risk, less certainty about the emissions math, and a longer time horizon.
The most climate-effective strategy might actually be a combination: use Energea for the bulk of your capital, and direct a portion of the dividends to verified offset purchases at Cool Effect.
At Project Weaselskin, we celebrated Earth Day in the traditional way: by planting trees, 5000 of them. What made this truly special was the involvement of our college and high school interns. They weren't just there for the manual labor; they were integral to the entire process—from the initial planning and fundraising to the launch of this unique agroforestry project at Snowcap Sod Farm as part of our larger private land conservation easement.
While we share common themes like regenerative agriculture and land conservation, Project Weaselskin is also defined by its "uncommon" layers. By integrating agroecology and agroforestry with the protection of old-growth forests and tribal sacred sites, we have created something far more powerful than the sum of our parts.
At Project Weaselskin, we do not just talk the talk about being in beauty, but walk the walk in beauty. It would be an honor to have you come walk with us.
Our doors at Weaselskin Wellness Retreat and Education Center in Durango CO are always open to all who look to connect to land, understand balanced land use and conservation of land.
Thanks for promoting this Mr. Tercek. My suggestion would be for young adults to listen to the Volts podcast on a regular basis. It's exceptional and is an excellent introduction to a vast array of optimistic climate work. Here is the latest. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/volts/id1548554104?i=1000763095636
Hi Mark, so listening to the latest Volts podcast which is once again exceptional and he profiles a company called https://www.energea.com. Very curious to get your financial assessment on this question. Is my dollar better spent on a carbon offset project like this where the cost is $8.24/ton, https://www.cooleffect.org/project/buried-treasure or an investment with Energea where I support a solar/battery project and get a return? Thanks much. PS I plan to ask the same question to Claude. Very curious to see how your answer compares. ;)
Here is what claude said.
Let me fetch both of these so I can give you an informed comparison.This is a genuinely interesting comparison, and the answer is more nuanced than it might first appear. I'm not a financial advisor, so I can't tell you which is the right choice for your situation — but here's an honest framework for thinking it through from a **climate impact** perspective:
---
**The Core Difference**
These two options do fundamentally different things with your money:
The **Cool Effect / Buried Treasure** project is a straightforward purchase. It captures and destroys methane from a Ciudad Juarez landfill — a gas with 80 times the global warming potential of CO2 over a 20-year period — and converts it to electricity for Mexico's grid, displacing fossil fuel generation. At $8.24/ton, you spend money, it's gone, and a verified, certified ton of CO2-equivalent is permanently destroyed. More than 90% of each dollar goes directly to the project, with a small 9.87% fee for administration and processing.
**Energea** works differently. You're investing in solar projects — once electricity is generated and sold, cash flow first maintains the project, then remaining revenue is disbursed to shareholders as monthly dividends. The platform has built solar projects backed by 20-year, inflation-adjusted power purchase agreements with governments and large businesses, and has realized a 12.18% average IRR since inception.
---
**The Climate Impact Question — Where It Gets Complicated**
This is where you have to think carefully, because the two options aren't actually doing the same climate work:
**Cool Effect's advantage:** The carbon reduction is *certified and verified*. Carbon credits are certified by third-party organizations with reporting requirements and analyses to verify the amount of emissions offset — unlike solar investing, where emissions avoided are estimates. The methane destruction is permanent and measurable. What you're paying for is real and audited.
**Energea's climate advantage:** Unlike ESG stocks and funds, every dollar you invest goes toward the construction of renewable energy assets. These are projects that wouldn't be happening without investors like you, meaning you're making more of a difference — this is the concept of "additionality," which matters a lot in climate work. You're not just buying a share of something that already exists; you're financing new clean capacity.
**Energea's climate caveat:** Solar energy built in Brazil or South Africa displaces emissions *there*, in grids that may or may not be heavily fossil-fuel dependent. The emissions avoided aren't independently certified, and the *amount* of climate benefit per dollar is harder to calculate than a landfill methane project where you can literally count how much gas was burned.
---
**The Financial Reality Changes the Calculus**
Here's the key insight for someone prioritizing climate impact: if Energea delivers even a 10% annual return on a $1,000 investment, that's $100/year you could reinvest in Cool Effect offsets — buying roughly 12 additional tons of verified carbon reduction *on top of* whatever emissions the solar project avoids. Over 10 years, compounding returns could multiply your climate impact significantly compared to spending the same $1,000 on offsets today.
But that only works if you actually reinvest the returns into climate action rather than spending them elsewhere.
---
**Risks to Weigh**
Energea carries real investment risks that Cool Effect does not. The biggest risk is currency fluctuations since projects operate in Brazil, South Africa, and other markets. Liquidity is limited — shares don't trade on an exchange, and while the company will try to help you sell shares held for at least three years, there is no active secondary market. You could lose principal. Cool Effect, by contrast, is a known, fixed cost with no financial risk.
---
**Bottom Line**
If your *sole* goal is verified, immediate, measurable emissions reduction per dollar spent, **Cool Effect wins** — the methane destruction is certified, permanent, and priced efficiently at $8.24/ton.
If your goal is to maximize *long-term* climate impact and you're disciplined about reinvesting returns, **Energea could deliver more total climate benefit over time** — but you're accepting investment risk, less certainty about the emissions math, and a longer time horizon.
The most climate-effective strategy might actually be a combination: use Energea for the bulk of your capital, and direct a portion of the dividends to verified offset purchases at Cool Effect.
At Project Weaselskin, we celebrated Earth Day in the traditional way: by planting trees, 5000 of them. What made this truly special was the involvement of our college and high school interns. They weren't just there for the manual labor; they were integral to the entire process—from the initial planning and fundraising to the launch of this unique agroforestry project at Snowcap Sod Farm as part of our larger private land conservation easement.
While we share common themes like regenerative agriculture and land conservation, Project Weaselskin is also defined by its "uncommon" layers. By integrating agroecology and agroforestry with the protection of old-growth forests and tribal sacred sites, we have created something far more powerful than the sum of our parts.
At Project Weaselskin, we do not just talk the talk about being in beauty, but walk the walk in beauty. It would be an honor to have you come walk with us.
Our doors at Weaselskin Wellness Retreat and Education Center in Durango CO are always open to all who look to connect to land, understand balanced land use and conservation of land.