This week’s read submissions are like that. They amplify, reflect, and oppose one another. I enjoy seeing accidental harmonies, though the dissonance and randomness of submissions other weeks is amusing in its own way. The reminder of commonality is linked to a reminder of how unique our own time here.

To that effect, here’s perhaps my favorite lines ever penned on this gap between individual experience, language, and collective understanding:

But you must be the judge for yourself.

Here are the submissions for this week:

1. The VC model isn’t working. The timelines for a VC fund (10 years to generate returns) don’t align with the longer timelines to invent and commercialize super challenging very hard CDR technology

2. I am annoyed at increasing suggestions that funding for novel CDR is a diversion from finance that should go to more proven climate technologies. Is this not how capitalism and voluntary markets work? VC is shouldering much of the burden. Until we hit a compliance market, can we lose the snark about where private companies put their investments?

3. I entered the CDR space with a novel solution in 2021. It was obvious that the world was in climate crisis and my solution would support needed change to bring us back in balance. Back then the message was clear: "If you build it, they will come." I've spent my own money to build out and validate the solution.
   
   Since then I've surmounted all the hurdles: the acronyms "TEA, LCA, PDD, etc"; Undergone audits; Registered credits with credible third registrars; Demonstrated all the normal requirements like additionality, financial additionality, measurability, durability, natural and social co-benefits, bankability, reversal management, etc. Through my registrar I've issued the credits. The credits are available on the spot market.
   
   And yet there is insufficient demand. Turns out I was wrong. I built it and they have not come. Governments, businesses, institutions and individuals have not stepped up to purchase CDR. It was all a lie. I should have used my retirement funds for retirement instead of assuming the future of our planet is of interest to its inhabitants. I could have at least enjoyed 10-20 years of fun before we all burn to a crisp. Too bad for my children though.

   ---

Thanks so much for listening and/or reading. I am so glad to have you here.

If you enjoyed this episode, please share it with your network and help it find more of those who will love it.

Sincerely,

Ross Kenyon

Share

Subscribe now

Today’s show has submissions covering both the highs and the lows. But even in saying that, I wonder if I start to cross my own editorial standards that I discuss in the podcast version of this episode.

Someone left a review on Apple Podcasts that made me think—should I be commenting upon the submissions? So far I haven’t been. I’ve been publishing them and letting them stand on their own. I worry that if I say too much I might misinterpret, or point people away from their intended meaning. Or, potentially worse, distract from their truth with my own commentary.

One of the other creative projects I work on is Carbon Removal Memes. It’s biggest on LinkedIn but starting to stand it up on Substack. I started it and built a writer’s room while at my previous company, Nori. It continues on with a rotating cast of meme writers where we workshop our pitches.

While I do occasionally have to reign in an editorial take on an issue I think is beyond what is supportable, I mostly try to help people find their funny. I’m not trying to grind my own ax more than theirs. Even if I don’t connect with something they made, if they find it funny and stick up for it, I’m willing to give it a shot. If it connects with them, it will likely connect with someone else.

It’s one of the few rules of making art that I know of—if you don’t like what you made, it’s unclear who else will. Or at the very least, you will be unable to tell if it is good or not unless someone tells you. That is a difficult aesthetic position to be in.

And while I don’t agree with the editorial line every meme takes, I don’t view it as my role to be the final arbiter of truth. My job is to help others express themselves and make work of which they are proud.

That ethos has also prepared me for Climate Workers Anonymous. These are unverified takes people send in. I’m not checking for corroborating sources. This is impressionistic; not journalistic. My work here is to enable others to create and share what they have experienced as true. That leads me to think I should minimize the amount of direct commentary on post submissions.

If you think I’ve made a wrong turn, feel free to comment or send a message. I’m still figuring this out and I want it to be the best version of itself that we can make it.

Carbon Removal Memes

We work in a serious industry that needs to laugh. Also, carbon removal is funny.

By Ross Kenyon

Submissions

1. I get incredibly frustrated listening to industry experts and scientists because they are among the worst communicators.
   
   Coming from the healthcare space there are very few absolutes when talking about scientific intervention. Both industries like to go on and on explaining nuance, trade offs, unintended side effects, and all through the well intended belief that people should make informed decisions.
   
   In reality the important go/no-go decisions are made because of well thought out marketing campaigns, tribal dynamics, and incentives.
   
   If carbon removal is going to be taken seriously we need to bring in the worlds best communicators who aren't just posting on Linkedin. They need to be out in the real world finding ways to connect this to peoples everyday lives.

2. The climate companies I worked at were, hands down, the most toxic cultures I experienced in 15+ years. It feels like the previous gold rush in climate tech funding (RIP) attracted really narcissistic personalities, even by tech founder standards. Some of those "impact tech founders" have now pivoted into AI; follow the money, I guess.
   
   I'm much more content now day to day after switching into working on a climate-adjacent topic that doesn't self-glorify the way carbon companies did. I'm working on something that helps real people. However, I still get a front row seat to how close to collapse our systems are. And I struggle with guilt about having participated in what I now consider to be greenwashing efforts.
   
   I used to be way more technocratically optimistic. Unfortunately these experiences have convinced me we are truly f*cked. The private sector seemed like the only front of the war where things were moving for awhile & now I have no faith. Everyone's in AI psychosis and staying really busy in the remaining normal years we have left, while our governments enable crazy men extracting whatever we have left before their bunkers are ready.
   
   Whereas it used to feel powerful to be driving these topics in the tech economy, it now feels taboo. Overall I feel incredibly lonely; there are very few people (just a couple friends and former colleagues) who I can talk to about this stuff openly.

3. I may be more group therapy-ing here than confessing. But forgive me nonetheless. Also I did dictate to and then put it through an LLM in an attempt to anonymise it a little more (which I would argue is a fair use of an LLM, by the way).
   
   So:
   
   I increasingly think that in the work of carbon removal, of climate action, and of tending the wider bounds of this Earth, that we must keep faith with people.
   Faith with humanity.
   
   It is easy to lose it. One looks upon many institutions, upon quite a few ‘fashionable’ organisations, upon some leaders of the hour, strutting and fretting their brief turn upon the world stage.
   
   One often sees ignorance, vanity, fear short reckonings, and the cold arithmetic of the zero-sum game. One sees much that would invite despair.
   
   Yet as the years pass, I find myself believing the opposite about my fellow Homo sapiens.
   
   I think these harmful behaviours - vivid and gravels they can seem, are not the rule, but the exception.
   
   The rule is that most people are decent.
   As Rutger Bregman and others have written, the true tale of humanity is often not the one we tell. The real Lord of the Flies (and I recommended looking up the real Lord of the flies) is not a descent into savagery, but people cast ashore who learn to help one another. They quarrel. They disagree. They grow angry and must walk apart for a while. Then they return and speak again.
   
   They resolve things, they heal, they carry on together.
   
   The cruel person, the sociopath, the one whom old myths would call wicked, is rarer than we think. They command attention because they are loud. And because, annoyingly, they still seem a bit too good at getting into positions of power. But they are not the multitude.
   
   I could offer many examples from my own brief passage upon this Earth, but I shall leave you with one.
   
   For a time I volunteered as a musician at my church. Between songs, we would stand at the back and listen to the sermon. One day I found myself and my band mates off to the side near a water point.
   
   There was a young girl, seven or eight years of age. She kept coming to fill up cups of water, and then go back and give them to other children and parents in the kids areas. It was such a small yet immeasurably kind act. Nothing remarkable, perhaps, except that it was.
   
   Later I learned that she and her siblings were refugees. I learned also that she was being bullied at school.
   
   I can take care of myself, and these days my heart can often feel quite hardened. But I still feel very moved thinking about that vivid example - and frankly many tens of thousands of interactions I’ve now had with others that basically reflect that game-theoretic structure.
   
   In my least-worst moments, I work to remember that the vast majorly of humankind would have once been like that little girl.
   
   Even the hardest among us was once a child.
   
   Even the ruthless executive. Even the cut-throat trader. The corrupt politician. Even the squanderer of tomorrow who spends the future as though it were petty cash.
   
   Even the person who wounds others and, perhaps, themselves.
   
   Chances are that once they, too, tried to be kind. Once they, too, desired only to belong. Once they, too, were a small child trying to bring some water to others.
   
   I know this is not always so. There are dark things in the world. One of the great tasks of our age is to solve our problems of coordination and to help the collaborative, helping majority prevail over the predatory, harmful few.
   
   Yet I believe with all my heart that most people, when given knowledge, opportunity, and agency, wish to help.
   
   They wish to care for the carbon cycle and the climate. They wish to protect the living systems upon which all lives depend. They wish to leave a fairer inheritance than the one they received.
   Give people the chance, and most will not turn away.
   
   Give them the tools, and many will do beautiful things.
   
   And when I am cynical, when I am frustrated, when I am feeling just so very tired and alone, I try to remember all this.
   
   Then I try again to do my small part towards helping nurture a more safe and just future for all, and - where possible - reversing climate change.

If you are truly a completist, here’s a link to Gertrude Stein.1 I am not sure if this is in fact an apt comparison, but it stands as a thought.

Thanks so much for reading and listening. I am glad you’re here.

Sincerely,

Ross Kenyon

Subscribe now

Welcome to Climate Workers Anonymous, where those who work in climate get to share their anonymous and unverified feelings, experiences, and analysis. Today’s episode has two longer pieces that were submitted.

Before I get into those, I wanted to share an additional reflection about the origins of the show’s name. A friend of mine said it and I cottoned onto it right away, and I didn’t quite make the connection that it might also have to do with my admiration for the Catholic Worker Movement and Dorothy Day, in addition to my respect for the various addiction treatment mutual aid organizations that end in “Anonymous”.

What I love about both organizations is that they don’t use a hierarchical charitable orientation. The addiction groups are run by an ethos of equality, and that all are addicts, and it is addicts helping one another. For the Catholic Worker, their focus is on works of mercy that recognize the inherent dignity and equal worth of all people, and that any of us might just as easily be in a position that needs this kind of help.

This recognition of moral luck renders judgment and hierarchy irrelevant, since it simultaneously encourages us to see ourselves as a fallen sinner as equally as those we “help”, and (if not secular, which many participants in Catholic Worker houses are) to recognize Christ in the “least of these.” The dual nature of humans as both entirely equal and plain, as well as being a locus for divinity to break through everyday reality, is a paradox I like to think a lot about.

Here’s the famous verses about the works of mercy if that’s of interest. Even if non-religious, it is a beautiful passage.

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

— Matthew 25:40-45, King James Version

Ideally, that gives some additional context for why I am attracted to this kind of work.

Here are the submissions.

1. There's a story in carbon removal that everything is getting worse in the near term. Microsoft pausing, not enough buyers, VC pullback and startup consolidation (politely failing), people leaving CDR and climate for greener pastures, some or all pathways are slower and more painful than expected. For the love of God, when will the holy grail of compliance markets bless us with more demand than we know what to do with? (Demand that is actually in line with what the world needs?!)
   
   I feel it. It's real. And I also see the people who've been through it in the space and, this is the crazy part, decide to double down and support the space, start new ventures, pull more money in. Some of them are doing the hardest part of project development with all their lessons learned. Many of them are making big bets on future demand.
   
   I often feel this is crazy. Are they just true believers who can't let go? People who we appreciate because they're trying to do something helpful in the world but also pity because of their upcoming failure? Or are we just short sighted and cynical, and they will actually make a real difference for the world and a shit ton of money in a decade?
   
   They are certainly right that someone needs to keep global capacity alive and maturing to do CDR. Other than that, no one knows anything about how it will go.
   
   But the hope of the people coming back for a second or third round, having learned some things and trying again means something. The hope of people staking their careers on doing something that matters and not always with financial certainty means something. The hope of all these new ventures that will mostly crash and burn but learn something on the way and pass it on to the next set of ventures means something. And what if we've already hit the bottom?
   
   If I can't predict the future, maybe betting on CDR isn't the worst decision. Maybe it's even a good decision that just feels bad right now.

2. Unrealistic targets for how much CDR can be achieved by certain years are delusional and only serve to drive collective hysteria and feed potential or actual moral hazards. We should greatly adjust our 2050 targets downward to just 2–3 gigatons of novel CDR and focus as much as possible on absolute decarbonization. On this thread, it would be even better for the climate to break out of the paradigm of using CDR to compensate for residual emissions and create a paradigm focused on reducing absolute emission as close to zero as possible while simultaneously scaling CDR not to “allow us to keep emitting” but rather to reverse the damage that’s already been done and that will continue to be done until we do hit zero emissions.

Sincerely,

Ross Kenyon

Subscribe now

Welcome to episode #4 of Climate Workers Anonymous, where those workers in climate can share their anonymous and unverified thoughts, feelings, and experiences about their work. What do you dare to think when you might not be judged for it? What’s your heretical thought, your foolish hope, or your hard-won experience? Share it here for publication on the written Substack and to be read in the podcast version.

In this episode’s introduction, I explain a bit more about the limits of the show, and why if you believe there is any sort of questionable behavior by specific parties you should consider contacting an investigative journalist whom you respect. They are much better equipped to evaluate truth claims in this way and typically have anonymity protocols far more sophisticated than what I can offer. I keep this show anonymous and unverified to make sure there is room to discuss the truth of experience and feelings without having to do the hardboiled work of others. I hope that makes sense!

Here are the submissions for this episode:

1. We should hit pause on any crediting of open-systems carbon removal pathways like enhanced rock weathering and ocean alkalinity enhancement. Due to the inability to directly verify carbon storage with these approaches, it is simply too risky to use credits from these pathways to compensate for any level of positive emissions. Some findings are already emerging demonstrating that actual removal was far less than previously thought, and there will continue to be high risks of such findings. This dynamic poses a severe risk to the climate, as we may end up using essentially phantom credits to compensate or even justify for emissions, which would also gravely harm the reputation and ultimate scalability of the industry. The most prudent thing to do is to hit pause on crediting and conduct more research, only to resume any kind of formal crediting once our full, end-to-end understanding of these processes is much better.

2. I've seen this whole climate action thing as a response to grief-denial for some years now. I even went back to graduate school to study it - building more grief in the process of involvement in academia - and continue to witness it throughout the polycrisis.
   
   How we respond to the fear of collapse or death influences whether we respond to the defoulment of the planet by moving toward stewardship head-on, at an angle, or in the opposite direction.
   
   I'm coming to see that the moments the deeper part, the part that is afraid, is touched, is where the real work is happening. So the stuff that's put on top of that should be about bringing us together so we can have more of these moments of contact. The denial of the position of grief in all of this plays a central role in the work.
   
   Pointing at each other and passing judgment is keeping us apart.

3. I wish people working in climate would virtue signal less. We are all working towards the same goal. Don't go out of your way to make someone feel less than for "not doing enough." We're all tired out here. Kind words go way further than backhanded comments.
   - Someone who has worked in climate their entire career

Thank you again to everyone who has submitted to the project!

Sincerely,

Ross Kenyon

Subscribe now

We’ve barely even started Climate Workers Anonymous and I’m already receiving such challenging and intriguing pieces of feedback, and so many submissions. Thank you to everyone who has participated to date and taken time to share something real with this project.

A friend of mine wrote me right before I recorded this episode and mentioned that he wanted fewer hot takes and more stories, and emotional content beyond anger. It set me to thinking about anger and how I understand its usefulness or lack thereof.

Anger can be a legitimate response to the unfairness of external results. It can be something pointed inward to something that needs psychological and/or spiritual attention.

If Christian, anger at others can be the ethical equivalent of murder. Jesus takes the old laws here and makes it so much more demanding:

If Buddhist, anger points to thwarted desire, and the need to eliminate that desire.

Or, anger can be sublimated sadness. What might be tears may start as fury. Sometimes people need to work their way through the anger to get to the well of despondency below. In climate, this is often a deep disappointment that we just cannot get our act together as a species. It is hard living with that fact. When I get past my own anger, what is down below is a plaintive child earnestly yearning for all of humanity to live well together and to treat one another with the kindness, patience, and mercy. We could have that world. And yet, we have chosen something so much worse. These thoughts point me to the puzzles of akrasia, and what causes us to choose something inferior as though this is all we might have, deserve, or just be capable of.

That simpleness is deceptively difficult to reach. I think it’s actually the point of this passage from the Gospel (not to be too Bible-y today, but if the shoe fits…)

Earnestness and simplicity are so jarring that I spent a decent chunk of time being wowed by just how simple ’s book Everything is Tuberculosis is in a recent Reversing Climate Change episode.

While we are seeing a lot of submissions that have the cut of anger about them, that’s okay. Anger isn’t a false emotion. Suppressing it isn’t the answer. But I do think we want to process through anger into what lies beyond.

This is not to discourage anger in your submissions—that likely needs to be expressed. But I would encourage you not to stop there. Feel what is beyond anger. Try to talk about that. Send me of your experiences in working through anger and accessing a different part of your relationship to climate.

If you do experience sadness and struggle with anger, go the opposite direction! Maybe you have been pushing your anger down. But it’s okay to be angry about climate and the direction of the world. You can share that here too. Perhaps this didn’t come through as strongly in the audio version of this episode, but we need you to feel those feelings that have been inaccessible or difficult to express as well. That is equally a part of this.

It isn’t exactly clear what the ultimate shape of this project will be. If you have an intuition that you should send something in, please do. Don’t let my prompts prevent you from saying something true. If I am able (and I really do try to pass along all of the submissions), I will help you say your true thing.

Submissions

Warning: these submissions are anonymous and unverified.

1. Even with all the BS in the carbon removal industry, I do believe deep down that society will one day achieve net-negative emissions each year. Even if it's a small amount, and even though there will be unfathomable and irreversible damage to the planet in the meantime, the cumulative impact of this across centuries will be beneficial.
   
   Our main challenge in some ways is to figure out how to prevent this promise from being used in any way to deter mitigation. With some emotional maturity, I think that's possible, but many people disagree.

2. CDR is not bipartisan for a good reason

3. I don't think the unit economics of e-fuels will every really pencil but I'm also worried about the risks and harms from continuing business-as-usual use of fossil fuels paired with carbon removal. But will electrification, efficiency, and demand reduction be enough for net zero? Sometimes, I just don't know and feel like it's not knowable and that we need to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. But that approach creates ripe conditions for fraudsters... Grrr

4. Consolidation in climate tech will be healthy. Founders will need to put their egos aside for a more peaceful process, however.

5. I think a lot if not most of the proposals being put forward right now to reform corporate carbon accounting standards are really just a race to the bottom and dilution in disguise. And I'm not sure the people promoting these changes would even be able to realize if this is the case.

6. Many folks I work with (across sectors in corporate climate strategy) are understandably concerned about about rising temperatures. Yet many of those same people escape from the city to the countryside for a break from the heat, while their investment portfolios grow through holdings in real estate, construction, and infrastructure that are doubling down on urban development with a hint of "green" that checks a few ESG boxes.
   
   Where's the climate science newsflash about pavement and urbanization as major causes of both warming and flooding? When I raise this with my climate colleagues — who are hyper-focused on carbon accounting, and not yet ready to question the logic of their paychecks — I'm teased as a climate denier.
   
   But to me it's like accounting and reality broke up a while ago and everyone forget they ever had a relationship.

7. mCDR researchers insist that open, transparent data sharing is critical to ensure that field trials are conducted safely and responsibly. But you know who actually digs up this data and stops to ask about it? Undergrads. Business developers. Engineers. Not the oceanographers and biogeochemists who are often the loudest voices of concern for potential negative impacts.
   
   That’s a real problem. We need real leadership to understand how mCDR is developing and to drive consensus on how it should be done— and that can’t come from the scattered workshops and slow publishing that is comfortable to marine scientists.

8. I'm tired of the fake concern for the planet from most people in the CDR/ climate space.  I worked for [a climate tech market intelligence company and the C-suite and marketing leadership kept flying between major cities without a care in the world about emissions.]
   
   They gave a f*** about emissions. They started the company because they had the skillset to build such a platform. Period. There was no love for the planet there.
   
   Similarly, CDR developers rushing to NYC/London climate week by taking a flight is ridiculous!!
   
   You are contributing to the very problem you are trying to avoid/remove.
   I also get it that meeting in person is needed but I think people should participate in local chapters instead.
   
   Linkedin is rife with people trying to show that they are participating in these events like its a cool thing, like going to an exclusive invite-only party or something.
   
   Point 2 from the anonymous feedbacks you received is very true. We are all screwed. I'm in fact buying a house in a city which has a river nearby so that when a drought hits, I might have some water for my baby. Ugh!!

   Subscribe now

   ---

Accidental Modest Mouse was indeed accidental, but coincidentally, I saw they just released a new album for the first time in a while.

Elder millennials, RISE UP.

Also, stay tuned for an episode of my other podcast, Reversing Climate Change, which will soon feature a fuller exploration of the Bhagavad Gita.

Reversing Climate Change

Podcast and publication from Ross Kenyon—a carbon removal and climatetech entrepreneur, political philosophy PhD dropout, pondering the Anthropocene and what the hell are we all doing here.

By Ross Kenyon

Hello! Welcome to the second episode of Climate Workers Anonymous. The goal of this show is to help those who work in climate to say the unsayable. That’s no small feat. These submissions are from brave people who work under challenging conditions and need to say. the. damn. thing.

A special note on today’s show and for really all subsequent shows: these submissions are anonymous and unverified. Because I cannot verify claims about specific people or entities, I have decided to edit some submissions to be sufficiently general. This is a collective art project about feelings, and not investigative journalism. For more details on this, listen to this podcast episode.

Today’s damn things that need to be said are listed below. There are fourteen of them in this episode! KEEP THEM COMING!

1. What's with climate events that serve meat, and sometimes mostly meat?? Still!
   It's such an easy win to go plant-based for an event and increasingly accessible. Sure, your org might be doing amazing work for climate solutions in the macro, but the micro matters too. It's not asking everyone to go hard-core vegan for life, it's showing that there are delicious plant-based options and that you care about the footprint of your event. Honestly, if an organisation is serving meat or ignoring other such low hanging fruit, it comes across to me as arrogance: "we don't need to bother with the little things because we're doing big important things that make a *real* difference". I'm not one to shift all responsibility onto consumer choices, that's not the road to real change. But it doesn't mean we should ignore the small things entirely, particularly if we're in a privileged enough position to have that choice. And in the case of climate events, it often isn't a personal choice, it's a corporate choice where all the little things added together can be huge.

2. All companies in the renewable industry are tripping over themselves to late1 AI into their work everywhere possible. They’re ignoring that we’re facing global water bankruptcy, gas turbines are being used to get data centers online as fast as possible, ai lobbyists are saying we need to abandon climate goals in order to achieve ‘supremacy.’ And they’re all keeping their climate promises up on their websites.

3. I'm pretty sure the company I work at is going to fail and that the founder is in denial about it.

4. I started taking antidepressants in part due to how bad things are in climate. They're working.

5. Sometimes I feel like I work on climate more for the trees and the bees than for the people who are [abusing] it.

6. The way they're currently implemented, nature-based solutions are primarily just a dirty deal between oil companies that want cheap offsets, developing countries that just need the money, and the registries that sign off on it all.

7. The logical progression from "let's do enhanced oil recovery" and "let's sell direct air capture-based fuels to the military" is "let's use carbon-cured concrete to build Israeli settlements in the West Bank."

8. I've participated in projects that wanted to push non-existent CDR credits onto the market. It's all too easy for the allegedly utilitarian logic of, "this is a one-off thing we need to do to survive, which will make the climate better off in the long run" is quite tempting but ultimately insidious and corrupting.
   
   Do your due diligence, folks.

9. There's a CDR company that [has issued many credits to date], this company warrants significant scrutiny

10. If you are conflicted about the word “climate”, if you worry about using the word “climate” because of how it might make you appear to others, if you’ve modified your language in this administration to avoid the word “climate” — then you aren’t working in climate.

11. Jon Foley is right

12. A majority of climate-tech founders are primarily focused on financial returns. They couldn't care less about environmental conservation, community benefits and making real impact. There's rampant fudging of numbers, inflation of claims and finding loopholes in registry protocols to make a quick buck. Saying this as someone from within the ecosystem, having worked very closely with multiple founders and seeing this all around me.

13. We should most certainly not condone using atmospheric or biogenic CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. While all CDR pathways will likely have some inevitable overlaps with various heavy or high-emitting industries, increasing fossil fuel consumption is one thing that is inherently incompatible with any meaningful future for climate progress. I believe some folks are going down this road right now out of a desperate attempt to make carbon management relevant to fossil fuel companies and right-wing groups, but these groups are not engaging in good faith at all on the climate front. There are many other, better coalitions to build to responsibly scale CDR than the folks literally trying to pump more fossil fuel out of the ground.

I skipped a number in the podcast so we ended up with a mistaken fourteen rather than a true thirteen, in case that puzzled you.

In case you’re a completist about references, here’s the Marc Andreessen post “Why Software is Eating the World”, I think that “podcasts are eating silence” reference was just an ephemeral note from Substack as I can’t find it now, go watch All the President’s Men, and here’s the Reversing Climate Change podcast episode "When Bad Companies Buy Good Carbon Removal”:

Reversing Climate Change

When Bad Companies Buy Good Carbon Removal

This is an episode summary of episode #378 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you enjoy podcasts…

Read more

8 months ago · 1 like · Ross Kenyon

Thank you so much to the submitters. I’m grateful that you feel comfortable doing this.

One thought I just had is that your syntax and unique way of writing may prove to be less anonymous in the future if AI continues apace. Be advised! I’ll mention this in the next episode I do as I’ve been thinking a lot about how the world will continue to change…

Subscribe now

Thank you for listening to and reading Climate Workers Anonymous. Subscribe above, and be sure to subscribe in whichever podcast app you use. An amazing rating and review on those podcast apps does a world of good. Would you please do that for me now? Here’s Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.

If you’d like submit your anonymous hopes, fears, or experiences to Climate Workers Anonymous, you can use this Tally survey or email climateworkersanonymous[at]protonmail.com, though I believe the Tally survey is more secure. Do not communicate anything you wouldn’t want a hacker to have access to, including an email address that could be linked to you if you email the account on Protonmail.

It is unclear what exactly these blogs will feature in the future! One obvious thing is that they can feature the text itself that was sent my way, so here they are in order of appearance:

1. I have so much optimism based on what I see working on a climate solution, and from the people I work with in my industry.
   
   But we need more corporate and government actions, fast.

2. I feel like we’re f***ed.

3. There are so many climate solutions that are promising. And there is so much possible.
   And it’s so goddamn hard to build them (speaking first hand) because enough corporates won’t take a risk on solutions fast enough.1

4. Consumers don't care about climate, and they don't want to care about climate. Paraphrasing from a 2017 Tumblr post, "if your solution to a problem relies on 'everyone just...', then you don't have a solution. No one has ever 'just', no one ever will 'just'". Stop pitching climate to businesses like you're selling to a consumer, "this is easy, your friends will love it, the effects are immediate!".

5. There was a point in time where I was fairly convinced that sinking woodchips to the bottom of the ocean was somehow going to be one of the successful methods for carbon removal.

6. The CDR industry is stuck in a paradox. We want a flashy, well-funded, functioning market filled with high-quality tons, but markets inherently reward provision of cheaper services on the margins. As long as there are cheaper alternatives, whether those are emissions reductions or very low-quality removals, those will always edge out the higher-quality stuff across the entire population of the market. In this context, the venture capital model just won’t work for CDR as it inevitably results in monopolistic and anti-competitive behaviors, a race to the bottom in terms of quality, and attraction of profit-motivated individuals who cynically use science as a shroud for ruthless profiteering. The carbon credit game also feeds much of the moral hazard. No one wants to hear this, but for CDR to be truly successful, it needs to move away from a market-based model. Our adherence to it to date explains so many of the industry’s underlying struggles around buyers, funding, and scale. Building CDR should be a slow-and-steady, no-fail mission that avoids the boom-and-bust dynamics in commodities like oil and gold. It needs to be backed by policy, supported by local communities, rooted in environmentalism, and integrated into our way of life and industries in a way that can yield co-benefits beyond just CDR (although we’ll need a lot of pure-play CDR too). It’s not entirely clear what this would look like yet, but it’s our responsibility to build this.

I respect and admire the people who have already chosen to submit their analysis, stories, and feelings. You’d be very welcome to do the same.

Thanks so much for supporting this new project. It means a lot to me.

Sincerely,

Ross Kenyon

Subscribe now

Founding a company or working in the climate sector is notoriously difficult. Beyond the business mechanics, climate workers face a unique burden: they are actively trying to capture a dilute gas and stabilize the atmosphere for the survival of humanity, often while relying on an economic system that doesn’t reward this behavior at scale. (We still haven’t quite figured out how to even decarbonize…)

Workers and founders frequently have to project unwavering strength to buyers and investors. They have to suck up to companies that they might actively wish didn’t exist in the first place. Expressing this feeling, or any of the doubts, exhaustion, or frustrations can feel like a massive professional risk. Bottling up these feelings takes a severe emotional toll.

When I was a teenager, I really loved the collaborative art project PostSecret, which encouraged (and actually, still encourages), people to share their true feelings about things without attribution. Climate Workers Anonymous continues in this mold and invites you to share your hidden thoughts, moral dilemmas, artwork, and naive hopes without fear of career repercussions. Whether you are wrestling with the ethics of doing business with billionaires who seemingly don’t care about much of anything but themselves, or of pulling polluting companies into marginally better behavior, or are simply exhausted by the quickening grind towards a world immiserated by the rise of right-wing populism, this is a place to be heard.

Telling the truth about the reality of working in climate is a productive, necessary action. It is anti-authoritarian calisthenics. I hope you will join us in this experiment!

Send us your stories for audio and text publication here or at climateworkersanonymous@protonmail.com.

Thanks for listening!

Sincerely,

Ross Kenyon

• Recommended supplemental listening: “When Bad Companies Buy Good Carbon Removal” from my other show, Reversing Climate Change

Reversing Climate Change

When Bad Companies Buy Good Carbon Removal

This is an episode summary of episode #378 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you enjoy podcasts…

Read more

8 months ago · 1 like · Ross Kenyon

In today's episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom, producer and guest host Asa Kamer interviews Myles Gray, the program director of the US Bicohar Initiative about their 2023 Global Biochar Market Report.

Biochar is responsible for a huge amount of currently delivered durable carbon removals. It's more shovel-ready than other forms of carbon removal, which have much higher CapEx requirements and are betting more on future cost-curves than present deployment. However, some participants in biochar production can face challenges from those concerned about additionality, among other issues.

The discussion covers the production scale, market dynamics, economic challenges, and the growing number of biochar producers, particularly in the Global South. Gray also highlights the importance of high-quality standards, the role of innovative business models, and the need for better market development for physical biochar to help scale the industry globally. Listen in to learn more.

On This Episode

⁠⁠Asa Kamer

Myles Gray

Resources

US Biochar Initiative

USBI's 2023 Global Biochar Market Report

Connect with Nori

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori’s X account⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Nori’s other podcast ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Reversing Climate Change⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Nori’s CDR ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠meme X account

Today's show has Dr. Gabrielle Walker, Co-Founder of the carbon removal marketplace CUR8 and the Founder of Rethinking Removals, an NGO working to change the conventional environmental story around CDR. She is hosted by Nori's VP of Supply and Methodology, Radhika Moolgavkar.

Dr. Walker discusses her long history in the climate space, including time spent in carbon capture, and how she works to address questions from corporate buyers.

The conversation covers the importance of portfolios in carbon removal strategies, the necessity of immediate action, and the challenges of gaining local and environmental community support.

Additionally, Dr. Walker delves into major stories in carbon removal for 2024, including the XPRIZE finalists, Europe's policy actions, and private industry investments.

On This Episode

⁠Dr. Gabrielle Walker

⁠⁠Radhika Moolgavkar⁠⁠

Resources

Dr. Walker's LinkedIn

Dr. Walker's Twitter

Rethinking Removals

⁠CUR8

Connect with Nori

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori’s X account⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Nori’s other podcast ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Reversing Climate Change⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Nori’s CDR ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠meme X account

Over 1000 teams worldwide have applied since the award was announced in 2021.

This month, XPRIZE released the detailed “Getting to Gigaton” report, which provided comprehensive data and analysis of the top 100 teams. A few weeks later, they announced the top 20 finalist teams competing for the grand prize.

The report and the selection of the top teams provide a state of play for the industry by showing what methodologies are most ready to grow to a gigaton scale, according to XPRIZE's expert CDR judges.

Today's show is with Nikki Batchelor, the Executive Director of XPRIZE Carbon Removal, and Mike Leitch, the Senior Technical Lead, about how they selected the top 20, what they found in this report, and what comes next for the competition.

On This Episode

Nikki Batchelor

Mike Leitch

⁠Radhika Moolgavkar⁠

Resources

“Getting to Gigaton”⁠ report

Connect with Nori

⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori’s X account⁠⁠⁠⁠

Nori’s other podcast ⁠⁠⁠⁠Reversing Climate Change⁠⁠⁠⁠

Nori’s CDR ⁠⁠⁠⁠meme X account

These deals represent significant private market volume in CDR. But a new report in Nature called The carbon dioxide removal gap” highlights some of the policy needs that remain to get carbon removal where it should be to keep us on track for our climate goals.

Listen in today to learn about VCM and policy updates from the world of carbon removal, and understand some of the biggest deals this space has yet seen.

On This Episode

⁠⁠⁠Wil Burns⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠Holly Jean Buck⁠⁠⁠

Radhika Moolgavkar

Resources

Nature report, "The carbon dioxide removal gap”⁠

Connect with Nori

⁠⁠⁠Nori⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠Nori’s X account⁠⁠⁠

Nori’s other podcast ⁠⁠⁠Reversing Climate Change⁠⁠⁠

Nori’s CDR ⁠⁠⁠meme X account

Mart de Bruijn is the Co-Founder and Director of Carboneers, a Dutch biochar company working to implement carbon removal solutions in India and Ghana.

The conversation covers the challenges of securing enthusiastic participation from local farmers, navigating cultural and regulatory landscapes, and the technical aspects of biochar production. Additionally, the episode sheds light on the crucial role of monitoring, reporting, and verification in ensuring the efficacy of carbon credits, alongside the future expansion plans and potential bottlenecks faced by distributed/decentralized carbon removal systems.

This episode is hosted by Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori's VP of Supply and Methodology.

On This Episode

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Radhika Moolgavkar⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠Mart de Bruijn⁠⁠

Resources

Carboneers⁠

Today's episode has Nori's VP of Supply and Methodology, Radhika Moolgavkar, on hosting duties, and Sylvain Delerce, the Associate Research Direct of Carbon Gap, joining the show to catch listeners up on Carbon Gap and the latest on European carbon removal news.

Sylvain highlights the European Union's efforts to structure and fund the industry amidst broader regulatory efforts, and how Carbon Gap fits into the ecosystem.

The conversation also covers the importance of distinguishing carbon removal from carbon capture and storage (CCS) in policy texts, the need for a clear EU vision on CDR, and the potential impact of the Net-Zero Industry Act and the Carbon Removal Certification Framework on the industry. Sylvain also discusses the role of individual European countries in advancing CDR and the potential for France to deploy significant carbon removal solutions by 2050.

On This Episode

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Radhika Moolgavkar⁠⁠⁠⁠

Resources

"Decoding the Net-Zero Industry Act – Implications for carbon removal" by Carbon Gap

"Envisioning a carbon removal strategy for Europe" by Carbon Gap

It was essentially a tabula rasa one could project one's carbon hopes and fears onto: would this lead to increased financing of sustainability efforts, or result in a race to the bottom of low-quality credits finding a new market? Something in-between, or just too early to tell?

In today's episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom, host ⁠⁠⁠Radhika Moolgavkar⁠⁠⁠, Nori's VP of Supply and Methodology, is joined by her business panelists ⁠⁠⁠Susan Su⁠⁠⁠, a venture capitalist at Toba Capital, and ⁠⁠⁠Na'im Merchant⁠⁠⁠, the Co-founder and Executive Director of Carbon Removal Canada, to make sense of this news.

They also cover other CDR industry headlines from April, including sustainable aviation fuel, biochar in the global south, and significant subsidy announcements from Denmark and Canada for carbon removal projects.

On This Episode

⁠⁠⁠⁠Radhika Moolgavkar⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠Susan Su⁠

⁠Na'im Merchant⁠

Resources

"Inside the Controversy That's Divided the Carbon Offsets Market" at Bloomberg

"SBTi is committed to robust governance and will not shy away from debate" by Luiz Amaral, CEO, Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)

"Carbon Offset Market Faces Chaos as African Mega-Project Collapses" at Bloomberg

"Removals are better than some reductions - The case of electrofuels for aviation" by Robert Höglund

2023 Global Biochar Market Report

Captura's fundraising news

Mission Zero's fundraising news

A new report from the Rhodium Group suggests the CDR industry is receiving about 1% of what it would need to reach a one CO2 gigatonne/year capacity! Our regular panelists, Drs. Holly Jean Buck & Wil Burns discuss the challenges of government budgeting, politics, eminent domain, profit-sharing Community Benefits Agreements, and so much else as this industry tries to scale.

On This Episode

⁠⁠Wil Burns⁠⁠

⁠⁠Holly Jean Buck⁠⁠

Asa Kamer

Resources

Rhodium Group's "The Landscape of Carbon Dioxide Removal and US Policies to Scale Solutions" report

Connect with Nori

⁠⁠Nori⁠⁠

⁠⁠Nori’s X account⁠⁠

Nori’s other podcast ⁠⁠Reversing Climate Change⁠⁠

Nori’s CDR ⁠⁠meme X account

As they work to scale their operations, they face a similar challenge all ERW operations are dealing with right now. While the basic science of rock weathering is well understood, accurately measuring CO2 removal in real-world conditions remains a significant hurdle.

Ensuring trust in the process will require improved measurement and verification from what exists today- a problem InPlanet is working to solve. 

On this episode we’re joined by InPlanet’s Head of Carbon Matthew Clarkson who recently released pre-print research evaluating the different methods of measuring CO2 removal from rock weathering and made recommendations for areas of improvement. 

ERW is technologically ready, has co-benefits, and has already attracted significant investment. It is ready to grow to climate relevant scale- but only if it can be properly measured. 

On this episode we’ll talk with Matthew about his MRV research, working on the ground with Brazilian farmers, and what hurdles he sees to InPlanet’s goal of megaton removal in the next three years. 

On This Episode

Radhika Moolgavkar

Mathew Clarkson

Resources

InPlanet

Fundraising News

Matthew’s Pre-print paper

Enhanced Weathering Alliance

Bloomberg article on ERW funding

Connect with Nori

Nori

Nori’s Twitter

Nori’s other podcast Reversing Climate Change

Nori’s CDR meme twitter account

This show delves into the fluctuations in the European Union's Emissions Trading System (ETS) carbon price and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DoE) efforts to boost carbon dioxide removal (CDR) investments through a purchasing challenge. The discussion spans the voluntary versus compliance carbon markets, with a focus on how the EU employs regulatory measures whereas the U.S. leverages financial incentives to address carbon emissions.

The episode also addresses the impacts of these policies on multinational corporations, the potential effects on carbon credit pricing, and the interplay between public policy and private sector initiatives in driving innovation in carbon removal technologies.

On This Episode

⁠Wil Burns⁠

⁠Holly Jean Buck⁠

⁠Radhika Moolgavkar ⁠

Resources

"Carbon Removal Is Getting Gamified", Heatmap article from Emily Pontecorvo

Connect with Nori

⁠Nori⁠

⁠Nori’s X account⁠

Nori’s other podcast ⁠Reversing Climate Change⁠

Nori’s CDR ⁠meme X account

In today's episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom, host Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori's VP of Supply and Methodology, is joined by her business panelists Susan Su, a venture capitalist at Toba Capital, and Na'im Merchant, the Co-founder and Executive Director of Carbon Removal Canada.

A spirited debate ensues about Shell Environmental Product's purchase of biochar credits, SWISS and Lufthansa Group's support of Climeworks, as well as the Copenhagen Airport's carbon removal portfolio purchase from Klimate.co. This type of industry interest in carbon removal, while directionally correct, can trigger debate within the carbon removal community. Many are happy for the support in scaling the new industry. Others worry it is better to maintain CDR's independence. This question is unlikely to be settled any time soon, but tune in and listen to some hot and yet considered takes on the matter.

On This Episode

⁠⁠⁠Radhika Moolgavkar⁠⁠⁠

Susan Su

Na'im Merchant

Resources

The ETH Zürich report on DAC costs

Robert Höglund's response

Connect with Nori

⁠⁠⁠Nori⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠Nori’s X account⁠⁠⁠

Nori’s other podcast ⁠⁠⁠Reversing Climate Change⁠⁠⁠

Nori’s CDR ⁠⁠⁠meme X account

Today's episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom is hosted by Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori's VP of Supply and Methodology. She is joined by Romany Webb, the Deputy Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at the Columbia Law School.

They discuss the evolving field of climate law, its critical role in the development of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, and the unique legal challenges presented by ocean-based CDR methods. Webb highlights the growing interest among law students in climate technology and emphasizes the importance of legal frameworks in addressing climate change. The conversation delves into the complexities of international and local laws governing oceans, the innovative concept of Community Benefits Agreements for climate projects, and the positive feedback on model law proposals intended to regulate CDR activities safely.

The episode underscores the necessity of a diverse portfolio of CDR solutions to combat the climate crisis and explores the legal opportunities and challenges facing the CDR industry’s advancement.

On This Episode

⁠⁠Radhika Moolgavkar⁠⁠

Romany Webb

Resources

Sabin Center for Change Law at the Columbia Law School

Connect with Nori

⁠⁠Nori⁠⁠

⁠⁠Nori’s X account⁠⁠

Nori’s other podcast ⁠⁠Reversing Climate Change⁠⁠

Nori’s CDR ⁠⁠meme X account