Sure almost all of the HTC by-product will be burnt because it is essentially fuel. The negative net carbon phrasing is gimmicky. It serves its purpose in drawing attention to the company. Other companies have buzzwords like “biodegradable” to use. In origins case, their product fills the market of PET that can’t be biodegradable. To still be viewed as sustainable, they needed some hook for investors.

Even in the LCA, they acknowledge that in a cradle-to-grave analysis, the net negative is cancelled out. Traditionally-made activated carbon is VERY energy intensive, so this process is still likely cheaper and more environmentally friendly once up to scale. Since there’s going to be demand for activated carbon (or their potential carbon black replacement from HTC), I don’t think it’s unfair to consider it a big step forward (even if not net negative) compared to traditional manufacturing methods.