Mission Zero Technologies

Does the core business genuinely avoid or reduce emissions, or build climate resilience? Share of revenue that is actually 'green'. Fossil-dependent models score low.

Core technology directly removes historical atmospheric CO₂ and is designed to run on 100% renewable electricity, giving it a strong theoretical climate impact — but actual removal volumes across all three deployed systems total only ~750 tCO₂/yr at best, and no independent lifecycle analysis or verified removal certificates have been publicly disclosed, leaving the real net-removal figure unconfirmed.

Credible, science-based targets (SBTi), a real net-zero plan with progress to date, and CDP disclosure — not just a dated press release.

No SBTi-validated targets, no CDP disclosure, and no published net-zero roadmap with interim milestones were found; the company's public commitments are limited to aspirational product-roadmap language ('megatonne capacity by end of decade') without independently verified science-based emissions reduction targets for its own operational footprint.

Operational footprint, labour and social practices, and governance quality across the company's own operations and supply chain.

The company is a ~44-person London-based startup with climate-aligned investors (Breakthrough Energy Ventures, World Fund, 2150) and stated intention to use only renewable energy in operations; no labour controversies or governance scandals were found, but no formal ESG reporting, gender pay gap disclosure, or supplier code of conduct is publicly available.

Quality of disclosure, independent third-party verification, and how much hard data backs the company's claims.

Public disclosures are primarily marketing materials, investor announcements, and blog posts; no audited sustainability report, no CDP response, no independently verified lifecycle analysis of energy consumption or net CO₂ removal per tonne, and no third-party-validated removal certificates have been publicly identified — the claimed 62.5% energy savings versus incumbents appears only in investor materials without citing peer-reviewed or independently verified data.

Controversies, litigation, pollution, fossil-fuel lobbying, conflict-zone involvement and governance scandals. Higher means cleaner.

No controversies, litigation, pollution incidents, fossil-fuel lobbying, or governance scandals were identified; the company explicitly acknowledges the risk of DAC being misused to enable continued fossil emissions and states it is 'being extremely careful about the end use of its technology'.