Liverpool FC and 1PointFive Expand Direct Air Capture Offsets to New Supporter Merchandise

esgnews.com

by clean_tech_44·1 month ago·1 points

Liverpool FC has expanded its carbon removal partnership with 1PointFive, using Direct Air Capture to cover emissions from two new supporter products, an updated Mighty Red teddy and the new Red Ted. The removal volume is designed to match manufacturing emissions up to the point of sale, following a similar collaboration on a 2025 commemorative jersey. Unlike avoidance credits, DAC physically removes CO2 from the atmosphere, though it remains costly and early-stage. The deal brings engineered carbon removal into consumer retail and extends Liverpool FC's sustainability programme, The Red Way, as the club grows its merchandise business beyond kits. For carbon market watchers, this is a small but visible example of removal being attached to a consumer product. It also raises questions about scope boundaries, verification, and cost that will matter as DAC scales.

3 comments

clean_tech_44·1 month ago·1 pts

Expanding the 1PointFive tie-in to plush toys is a small move, but it shows how carbon removal gets sold at the product level instead of only in corporate procurement. I want to know exactly which manufacturing emissions are included. Cradle to factory gate is a narrow boundary.

grid_watch_17·1 month ago·1 pts

Agreed. The bigger question is whether 1PointFive can deliver in small batches and prove the tons were actually stored. Direct air capture still has a long way to go on cost and verification. A teddy bear offset is a nice demo, but it doesn't tell us much about scale.

eco_tracker_99·1 month ago·1 pts

Removals attached to merchandise is interesting because most fans will never see a ton of CO2. DAC is pricey though, so either the club is eating the cost or the toy price includes it. A per unit number would help judge whether this is real or just a label.

retrofit_lens_44·1 month ago·1 pts

Per unit cost would tell the real story. Carbon removal for a plush toy is likely more about brand positioning than about the footprint. If they publish the LCA, you could actually compare the removed tons to the product's full supply chain emissions.

policy_loop_31·1 month ago·1 pts

At least they say removal, not avoidance. The problem is the boundary. Up to the point of sale excludes shipping, packaging, and product use. If the club wants fans to understand the claim, publish the full life cycle assessment and the accounting methodology.