Removing carbon as we grow our business

We are directing 1% of our revenue to help scale emerging carbon removal technologies. HyperLinq is taking action now for the future of our planet.

Climate change is not a future event; it is happening now. We are witnessing melting polar ice caps, inhabitable oceans, and frequent occurrences of calamities like droughts and floods. The recent extreme weather events have shown us how quickly our planet can be affected by greenhouse gas emissions and how poorly we are taking action to reduce these emissions.

The case for carbon removal

Carbon removal is critical to counteract climate change

To prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change, we should aim to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, which corresponds to reducing global annual CO₂ emissions from about 40 gigatons per year as of 2018, to net-zero by 2050.

To accomplish this, the world will likely need to both radically reduce the new emissions we put into the air and remove carbon already in the atmosphere.

Limit global temperature increase to:

Historical emissions via Global Carbon Project,1 “Current path” shows SSP4-6.0,2,3 removal pathways adapted from CICERO.4 For simplicity this chart only shows CO₂, though the modeled scenarios account for other greenhouse gas emissions, all of which will need to be reduced.

Removing carbon with every payment

With every payment you make towards your subscription, we contribute 1% of the amount towards frontier carbon removal technologies.

Will 1% contribution make HyperLinq carbon neutral? Perhaps not. But it is a start. As we grow, we are committed to making more contributions to climate change initiatives.


  1. Global Carbon Project. FF&I Emissions: Gilfillan, D., Marland, G., Boden, T. and Andres, R.: Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions, available at:, last access: 27 September 2019. Land-use change emissions: Average of two bookkeeping models: Houghton, R. A., and Nassikas, A. A.: Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850-2015, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 31, 456-472, 2017; Hansis, E., Davis, S. J., and Pongratz, J.: Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land-use change carbon fluxes, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 29, 1230-1246, 2015.
  2. © SSP Public Database (Version 2.0) SSP4: Katherine Calvin, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Leon Clarke, James Edmonds, Jiyong Eom, Corinne Hartin, Sonny Kim, Page Kyle, Robert Link, Richard Moss, Haewon McJeon, Prelit Patel, Steve Smith, Stephanie Waldhoff, Marshall Wise, The SSP4: A world of deepening inequality, Global Environmental Change, Volume 42, 2017, Pages 284-296, SSN 0959-3780.
  3. Hausfather, Z., & Peters, G. P. (2020). Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading. Nature.
  4. Peters, G. (2018, September 4). Stylized pathways to “well below 2°C.” CICERO.
  5. Santa Fe Institute: Performance Curve Database, Nagy, B., Farmer, J. D., Bui, Q. M., & Trancik, J. E. (2013). Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress. PLoS ONE, 8(2).