This week's panelists are Dr. Jane Zelikova, Chief Scientist at Carbon180; Vanessa Suarez, Policy Advisor at Carbon180; and Aldyen Donnelly, Director of Carbon Economics at Nori.
Here are the articles we discussed this week:
Carbon removal represented in the Appropriations process in both Energy & Water and Agriculture.
The Biden-Sanders climate plan: "Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations: Combating the Climate Crisis and Pursuing Environmental Justice" [PDF].
"Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands" in Nature.
Full Transcript
Ross Kenyon: Hello and welcome to Carbon Removal Newsroom. I’m Ross Kenyon. I’m the lead strategist at the Nori Carbon Removal Marketplace. Today I have with me two Carbon 180 folks and Aldyen Donnelly here from Nori. Aldyen, you are the Director of Carbon Economics at Nori and welcome back.
Aldyen Donnelly: Great to be here.
Ross Kenyon: Happy to have you. And Dr. Jane Zelikova, Chief Scientist at Carbon 180. Thanks for coming back too, Jane.
Jane Zelikova: Thanks for inviting me back.
Ross Kenyon: It’s my pleasure. And Vanessa Suarez, Policy Advisor at Carbon 180, which I am told that this is your first podcast ever, Vanessa.
Vanessa Suarez: It is, and I’m really excited to be here. Thanks so much for having me.
Ross Kenyon: We’re so happy to be your first. I’m sure I’ll be the first of many. There is a lot of stuff happening coming out of D. C. this week in appropriations with the Biden-Sanders Climate Plan. And there’s also a very interesting paper in Nature about the combination of enhanced weathering With croplands. So there’s a bunch of cool things happening. In fact, there’s more stories that came out in the last week or two than we’re even covering here, which is good. I’m happy that there’s enough happening that I have to be choosy.
But in that spirit of being choosy and narrowing it down, these seem to be like they were the biggest things happening. And I will leave it to you, Vanessa, to set the stage for what is happening in DC and start with appropriations, if you will.
Vanessa Suarez: Thanks so much, Ross. So I’ll start with a brief backgrounder on the appropriations process. So the federal appropriations process, or APPROPS as we like to call it on the Hill, is essentially a yearly process in which Congress allocates money to fund federal agencies and programs. And there are three overarching phases, the executive, the legislative, and the finalization phase, as I like to call it. But aside from these From these roles within the government, NGOs and individuals can play a really big part in appropriations during the legislative phase. And this is where Carbon 180 typically has engaged.
We do so by submitting appropriations request forms to members of Congress. And we request certain funding levels for programs that we know work on technological and natural carbon removal solutions and provide directions for how that funding should best be spent to advance and scale these solutions. One little insider that I’ll give you all is that these forms can be a bit tricky at times. Each member of Congress has a unique form and a unique deadline requiring a lot of research in a small period of time. And at Carbon 180, we’re super familiar with this request process.
For fiscal year 21, which is for the upcoming fiscal year, our policy team submitted close to 300 requests for funding levels and for programmatic language requests regarding carbon removal. And so what’s been really exciting is over the past couple of weeks, the House Appropriations Committee has released bill text and report language for the proposed budgets that they have for these federal agencies. And we’re really excited at the amount of funding that carbon removal is receiving this year. We’re seeing new historic amounts of funding, both on the technological and natural side.
And it’s just looking really promising for meeting our climate goals and getting carbon removal into the limelight of the environmental space.
Jane Zelikova: I guess I just I want to follow up and say for folks that have never submitted appropriation requests submitting 300 is a huge undertaking and so it was no small feat and it’s really impressive how many of the appropriation requests that were submitted were actually really close to what was approved or what was put out by the House Appropriations Committee. So it’s a huge win for carbon removal. Huge win for Vanessa who worked so hard to submit so many requests.
Aldyen Donnelly: So Vanessa, if you wanted to pick, if you could pick three specific appropriations, what would they be?
Vanessa Suarez: What we did at Carbon 180 is we identified basically three agencies within the DOE and the USDA that we thought would best scale carbon removal. So within the Department of Energy, we focused on the Office of Fossil Energy, the Office The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the Office of Science. And at the USDA, we focus on the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the National Institute for Food and Agriculture, and the Economic Research Service. I think all six of these agencies, while I know that’s not necessarily like my top three, Are all really important for reaching what we need in order to scale up both soil carbon sequestration and agriculture as well as leading technological carbon removal solutions like direct air capture, like carbon capture utilization and sequestration, which is a really great vehicle for negative emissions technologies.
Ross Kenyon: Maybe this can tie into the next topic with the Biden standards climate plan that just got released, but I always have a hard time understanding the relationship between various things that are happening in the legislature of how does approach as you hip hill staffers call it. How does that interact with something like a presidential climate plan or even do they are they entirely separate.
Vanessa Suarez: Yeah, so that is a really great question. And I think what’s really key between these two types of plans is identifying which are the major agencies that we want to focus on in order to advance So, within the Biden-Sanders plan, we can see that there is a focus on innovation within technological carbon removal solutions, as well as a focus on agriculture and forestry. And while the Biden-Sanders plan touches on these different carbon removal solutions, what is really key is making sure that we’re developing recommendations within the right agencies that have funding, that have Directions laid out to make sure that what we’re doing is actually going to make a difference.
And so I think through this yearly process of appropriations, we’re able to build up the momentum to keep scaling up these programs so that they can be the best vehicles possible in order for Plans like the Biden-Sanders plan to really do the most that they can. Because unless we have the funding set out from appropriations, there’s not much that Congress can do if there’s no money in the right places.
Jane Zelikova: Right. That’s totally right, Vanessa. I sort of see as much as any presidential sort of platform or plan is a glimpse in priorities. I think this particular plan lays out a blueprint and a level of ambition. And so if we think about the presidential climate plan as a blueprint for what we’d like to see happen if this person were to be elected, the appropriations process and other ways, other vehicles for funding the US government, which is the largest spender of money in the US, those processes actually like Put the money where it needs to go to accomplish the blueprint.
So when the Biden plan says reward farmers for carbon they sequester on their land and for the greenhouse gas emissions that are reduced, that’s a really broad statement and you can reward farmers in a lot of different ways and we’ve chatted about that on this podcast before. But appropriation is a process by which we say reward farmers by Creating this incentive program, funding the NRCS to a really appropriate level, increase the capacity for technical assistance, provide further education, all of these things like that’s how we actually do the thing that’s in the blueprint, aka reward farmers.
Does that connection help kind of like understand why all these things are so important and how they work together?
Ross Kenyon: It helps me for sure to conceptualize these different levels or how specific certain levels of these policies are drafted and then actually administered and put into action. So yes, that distinction is helpful for me, I mentioned for the audience as well. We might have jumped in a bit to the deep end. So maybe we should zoom out a little bit and talk about what exactly this Biden-Sanders climate plan is. I know I saw a lot of chatter on Twitter. People are generally excited about it. And then also just the context of why was there Biden-Sanders parlay occurring at the time too?
What was the political context that led to something like this?
Vanessa Suarez: I think the political climate that led to this is that we really wanted to see a united front on the democratic side in approaching a lot of these climate solutions. And so coming out of this unity task force, I can say that we’re really excited to see such an ambitious plan that incorporates technological and natural solutions And we know in order to meet the ambitious goals and plans laid out in this unity task force, such as the net zero carbon emissions by 2050, eliminating carbon from power plants by 2035, and net zero greenhouse gas emissions for all new buildings by 2030, that these can only be achievable through carbon removal.
And reports point out to this, such as the IPCC’s report, the National Academy of Sciences’ report on negative emissions technologies. And so right now, what we’re seeing is a lot of great climate leaders. And at Carbon 180, we’re really looking forward to potentially working with the Biden administration on this. And we have a lot of recommendations for actions that the administration can take to scale carbon removal. But carbon removal is a multi-agency economy-wide issue. It’s not just about Democrats or Republicans. It’s not just about the DOE or the USDA or even specifics within those like forestry, agriculture, energy.
Our mission is ultimately to create an economy that removes more carbon than it emits. And so if there’s a new administration that’s interested in taking actions to advance carbon removal and meet climate goals in time, I mean, we can be more excited for that. I think, like, that’s exactly what Carbon 180 is working towards, and we have a lot of great plans that I think we could work with the Biden administration on.
Ross Kenyon: I mean, the split, as I understood it, too, was that, you know, obviously Bernie is left of Biden, and there’s this worry that maybe the more left-wing members of the Democratic Party were going to split or support some other candidate or abstain from voting, and this was an attempt to Really try to bring them into the fold. So Biden was pushed to be more ambitious on climate than he previously was. Is that understanding correct?
Vanessa Suarez: I believe that’s the general gist. I’m not super well versed in Biden’s climate plans before this unity task force, but my understanding is that the reason for Biden and Sanders coming together on this is to, like I said before, unify the left or the Democratic Party and have a more ambitious plan than what was presented before.
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, I would say also the fact that this is presented as a unity climate platform. Again, a lot of what happens in DCNN policy is about signaling. And as much as any presidential plan can be thought of as policy, it’s just a blueprint for what priorities will be pushed when that person is in office. But I think this is really a big win for groups like the Sunrise Movement And for folks that maybe didn’t get everything they wanted, but a lot of elements of the Green New Deal are represented in this climate plan.
So I think it really speaks volumes to who is having influence and what sort of influence is driving the democratic sort of climate agenda. And at least to me, it seems like groups like the Sunrise Movement and some of the more progressive, bullish groups on climate are having a much stronger say In the ultimate direction of this presidential climate plan.
Ross Kenyon: So if this incorporates elements of the Green New Deal, does that mean that activism for the Green New Deal transitions into Biden presidential campaigning or and then hoping that his this climate plan becomes law and then God, this is such a stupid, what’s even the right way to put this question? What happens with the Green New Deal, basically, or these competing climate plans if there’s a Biden climate plan that includes some of the Green New Deal but not others? Does that just become the Green New Deal? Does that question even make sense?
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, so I think, well, the Green New Deal sort of exists separately and, you know, is not in and of itself the Biden presidential platform, right? The Green New Deal essentially incorporates across the entirety of like our economy and all the different sectors that influence climate. So that necessarily includes like energy infrastructure, but that also includes things like healthcare, access to like livable wage, And other really important social safety net issues and also issues of environmental and climate justice. And from what at least I saw in the Biden climate plan is a really strong emphasis on environmental and climate justice.
And I think something like 40% of the effort, the funding is supposed to be allocated to low income and marginalized communities of color to make sure that as we transition our economy to a more You know, circular green carbon removing economy, depending on what think tank you’re speaking from. As we transition to that economy, we are not leaving folks behind and we’re allocating, you know, almost half of all the resources to ensuring that those communities are able to not just participate in this transition, but really thrive and have a place in bringing it about.
Does that?
Vanessa Suarez: Yeah.
Jane Zelikova: So I think that’s the connection. And while not every single thing from the Green New Deal made it into the Biden climate plan, I think it’s a really strong signal of where the Democratic Party is right now in terms of priorities and positionality.
Ross Kenyon: Cool. Thank you for clarifying that.
Jane Zelikova: And again, I mean, I’m not a Democratic Party operative, so I’ll take what I say with a grain of salt. This is just my read on it.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, Vanessa, how does this interact with appropriations?
Vanessa Suarez: Yeah, that’s a great question. So I think similarly to the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force, we’re seeing a lot of wins for carbon removal in the appropriations space as well. So just for a bit of context, I would like to go over the past fiscal year, so for 2019, which is fiscal year 2020, before touching on what we’re seeing this year. So last year, we saw some pretty big wins for carbon removal as well. We reached historic funding levels. So in the Department of Energy, we saw $60 million in funding for negative emissions technologies, and this included Money for research and development, in particular $35 million for direct air capture, which was the first time we ever saw dedicated funding for direct air capture at all in appropriations.
We also saw $21 million for carbon use and reuse. Which was a huge jump because historically the Department of Energy has only ever allocated about 10 to 12 million dollars. So we saw some pretty substantial wins. Along that we also saw 8 million in funding in the Department of Defense for direct air capture and ocean capture as well. And I think these numbers really set a great stage for what we see right now coming out of the House Appropriations Committee for fiscal year 21. FY20 set a really great stage for what we’re seeing right now in fiscal year 21 and along the lines of what Carbon 180 submitted, Through appropriations requests, in the Department of Energy, we actually see almost $240 million dedicated for demonstrations of negative emissions technologies.
And this level of funding is monumental. I mean, we’ve never seen something like this in Congress before. And then not to mention, we also have $750 million for a commercialization program for carbon capture utilization and storage. To build onto that, we also have $95 million for research and development into negative emissions technologies. And that includes a $5 million increase from last year for direct air capture. We also see historic funding levels for carbon utilization at $30 million. And I realize that it might sound like I’m just throwing numbers out there, But the main point I’m trying to get across is we’ve never seen this much money before for carbon removal, technological or natural.
And so what we’re seeing are these plans being created that are interagency and cross-departmental in the Department of Energy that is Spending money to research negative emissions technologies. And so building this into what we’re seeing come from the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force, carbon removal is really entering the limelight of the environmental space as a leading climate solution. And that’s just for technological carbon removal. For agriculture, we’re also seeing huge increases in funding and prioritization. As a leading climate solution. So in the US Department of Agriculture, across the board, we’ve seen increases in funding for programs that focus on soil carbon storage, soil health, and a myriad of other conservation practices.
So some of these programs include The Conservation Operations Program within the NRCS. We can see these in the National Institute for Food and Agriculture. The Economic Research Service and Agricultural Research Service. And then also for detail on how to spend this We’re seeing specific calls out on the importance of soil carbon storage for dealing with climate change, which I think is personally, I find that super exciting that the House Appropriations Committee like agrees that soil carbon storage is necessary to meet climate goals. That’s what we’ve been saying for so long at Carbon 180.
And so to read that in a bill text is like one of the greatest things I think that we could ever read. So that’s super exciting. And along the lines of our Leading with Soil report that Carbon 180 released this year, we’re seeing a lot of the similar type of language within these report languages and bill texts coming out of appropriations. And so, yeah, I think fiscal year 2021 has been super exciting. We’re still waiting to see what will come out of the Senate Appropriations Committee But we’re feeling really optimistic after seeing what’s come out of the House.
And I think just looking forward, we’re going to continue to push our recommendations, doing congressional outreach, waiting to hear from the Senate side, as well as working to acquire funding through other avenues. So through the authorizations process, as well as stimulus packages, Because through stimulus, there are lots of jobs in clean energy. And the Rhodium Group actually put out a report recently on job potential within scaling direct air capture. And so I think just like planning for the future and tying in appropriations and all of these other plans that are coming out, it’s looking really promising for what’s going to come out of this year, what could come out of a future administration, and also planning for what will happen in fiscal year 2022.
Jane Zelikova: Well, that is an incredible, thorough and exciting rundown of all the things that are being appropriated and the funding that’s going to carbon removal. I just wanted to provide like a little bit of context. So that’s, you know, what’s the total sum that Department of Energy is going to be allocated to negative emission technologies, Vanessa? Do you know, do you have that total number?
Vanessa Suarez: So the total for DOE that we’re seeing right now.
Jane Zelikova: Wait, let me just, I’ll say the context and then maybe you can do the number. So for context, if we think about how much the federal government will be spending to develop and help commercialize carbon removal, removal solutions, technological, nature-based, et cetera. Stripe, we talked about the Stripe, the company that is essentially buying Carbon removal certificates from companies that are doing carbon removal. They allocated a million dollars to that program this year. And I know they’re going to be growing that over time, but a million dollars, while it’s really exciting and meaningful, is essentially a drop in the bucket compared to the spending power of the federal government.
And the fact that there’s almost a hundred million dollars being put into negative emission technologies across just one agency, the Department of Energy, in the coming years. I think it just shows the scale at which the federal government can be a really important mover of these technologies and also be a first customer for a lot of the new technologies that are being developed or new solutions that are coming down the line by setting different procurement standards and purchasing from those negative emissions companies. So I think for scale, it’s just like really, it’s a lot, it’s great.
Vanessa Suarez: Yeah, it’s certainly a lot. So to provide some high level specific numbers, in the Department of Energy, we’re seeing close to 240 million for demonstrations of negative emissions technologies, and then for research and development, 95 million.
Aldyen Donnelly: So can I go a little bit negative, Aldyen, on you? I don’t mean to. First of all, congratulations on the summary, and more importantly, On the hard work that carbon 180 has done, you’re certainly part of this success story and congratulations. I do want to say all of us who are committed to commercializing all forms of carbon removal strategies, both storing carbon in soils and direct air capture solutions, The other reality in the 2021 appropriations bill is after we net out appropriations to defense, in fact, the 2021 appropriation to water and energy infrastructure is $987 million less than it was in 2020.
And I think we should all be aware that what that means is in 2022, there’s going to be a lot of competition for The funds we’re talking about, given that almost billion dollar cutback on the water and energy infrastructure side. So we really only have, as far as I can see, a year to make and further solidify the case for investments in this direction, because there’s gonna be quite substantial competition for those dollars by the time we’re looking at 2022. So great work, but we have to keep our shoulder to the metal here.
Vanessa Suarez: Yes, that is a really great point. And I think just in response, I would like to say that while there is competing priorities for where a lot of this funding goes, the successes that we’re seeing right now are thanks to the efforts of lots of NGOs across the country submitting requests for carbon removal and making it a clear priority for Congress that this is where we want funding to go. And so I try to remain optimistic and thinking that if we continue to push for this, we’re going to continue to see wins.
Like I said before, we’re seeing money that we’ve never seen before for carbon removal. And as we can see, if there is an incoming Biden administration, carbon removal will be prioritized. And so I just try to maintain optimism and thinking about the funding that we could potentially get for the future.
Jane Zelikova: I love that, Vanessa.
Unknown speaker: It’s awesome.
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, and I think you’re definitely right that competing, I mean, it’s a zero sum game to some extent, because, you know, we don’t have infinite amounts of money, although the US government has close to infinite amounts of money. And so there will be competing interests. But I also think with the stimulus packages that are coming out and the strong emphasis on Building infrastructure and rebuilding greener and better. I think there are lots of opportunities to sort of envision. I mean, I guess we have to dream and envision a world in which we’re retrofitting existing infrastructure to do carbon removal.
That’s one option. Another is building new infrastructure that sort of integrates carbon removal into the design. So I think about like commercial buildings that have direct air capture units on the roof and the CO2 is captured and then using the HVAC system is compressed and piped to storage or to utilization. Like envisioning what that infrastructure can look like is really important and then asking for it. And appropriations is one way, but there are lots of ways to sort of make that vision a reality. We just have to like, we just have to envision it.
That’s step number one.
Ross Kenyon: Right. I think that’s a good place to put a pin in it for now. That was very detailed and good. I can imagine if someone didn’t know anything about these topics, this will be the resource that I send them in the future. So thanks for being so well prepared on that. And I’ll just pass it to you here, Jane, to explain this article in Nature that came out, a scientific paper called Potential for Large-Scale CO2 Removal via Enhanced Rock Weathering with Croplands, which is- An exciting title for a science paper.
More direct than others I’ve seen, certainly, yeah.
Jane Zelikova: Well, so this paper came out just recently, like in the last few days, and has already made quite a flash. I do want to note, like the paper was initially submitted in 2018, so it took a couple years to get it out. So this research isn’t necessarily super, super new, but I think it’s getting a lot of really interesting attention. So the premise is that enhancing Silicate rock weathering, which is essentially grinding up a specific type of rock into fine powder. And then what you do when you do that is you essentially expose more surface area of that rock to react with the atmosphere.
And in the process, this particular rock type has a high affinity for CO2. So the CO2 is sort of removed from the atmosphere because it reacts with the rock dust. Forming a solid or a liquid that is carbon, CO2 that is now inorganic carbon. So the idea here is you take this rock, you grind it up, and then you put it out on the landscape. The way that you increase surface area is you essentially just put it out on the landscape and it passively absorbs CO2 as it lays there. And the idea here is that you can do that and then essentially put that rock dust that is CO2 absorbing into croplands in the agricultural lands where we grow crops.
And it both removes carbon from the atmosphere and also can, in a lot of instances, enhance soil health and improve other carbon sequestering processes in the soil. And they can also take the carbon that is bound, convert it into an inorganic form that can dissolve in water. It rains and water flows through the soil. It grabs these inorganic carbon molecules that are dissolved and washes them out into streams, into rivers, into the ocean where they precipitate out and can be stored for hundreds of thousands of years. So it can be a much more stable form of carbon sequestration or it can help catalyze a more stable form of carbon sequestration in soil.
Of course, there are lots of questions that remain. This isn’t something that’s being done at scale or even being done in a lot of field experiments. It’s kind of in its infancy. There are some field experiments happening now, but they’re very few and they’re only in a few small geographies. So there’s one on the coast of California. There may be a couple of others across the world, but we still have a lot to learn about how this technique Will actually work when it’s done in the real world and not in the lab.
And what its potential is to both improve soil health and soil carbon sequestration and deliver the pretty large carbon mitigation promise at what is a pretty reasonable carbon removal cost of 80 to about $180 per metric tonne. Which is like on par of where some of the direct air capture and some of the other frontier carbon removal solutions are in terms of cost.
Ross Kenyon: Seems pretty neat to me, although I am not a soil expert. Aldyen, I imagine you probably have some thoughts on this too. I think it’s a cool mix of what I like about soils potential and also what’s neat about what groups like Project Vesta are doing with enhanced weathering.
Aldyen Donnelly: I really like the thought in principle. And as you’ve heard me say before, when it comes to drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere, I’m always biased in favor of solutions that see that carbon that’s recovered from the atmosphere converted into a solid, whether that’s organic or mineral, as quickly as possible. I tend to be skeptical of processes that promise that carbon stored in gas or even liquid form will eventually, over a long period of time, I like to see it get solid fast. So I like all of that about the story.
I still have a bunch of questions and they might be easy to answer. I just don’t know the answers yet. I have to admit that I intuitively get a little bit nervous about strategies that rely on runoff into rivers and water bodies. I’m not seeing A problem in the explanation that’s there, but I’d like to learn more than I know, which is displaying my ignorance about biological demand, oxygen demand and other impacts. I want to understand the rainwater runoff side a little better.
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, I actually had, I mean, I had a couple of questions around this solution and the reliance on dissolved organic and inorganic carbon was a really Big one, the idea that this carbon is just going to get flushed out into the ocean into streams. The field site where I work in Costa Rica has streams that get a lot of dissolved organic and inorganic water runoff. And they’re like, they’re pretty like cloudy and kind of milky looking streams. So I know like what that can actually look like physically, but I’m not a hydrologist, so I don’t fully understand all of the interactions With changing the pH of stream water and of the ocean, frankly.
So that’s a big question I also have. I mean, the other questions I have are about like where this can be deployed and what the right conditions are. I think that’s a really important question. And yes, like just because something is technologically feasible doesn’t mean we should do it. So there’s just a lot of like questions about Where this basalt rock comes from, whether it’s mined or whether it can come from sort of like waste material. In the paper they talk about the fact that some of it can come from waste material and there may actually already be a pretty large stockpile of material that could do this.
And so we may not have to expand mining. I also have to think a lot about how to do this process without creating more carbon emissions. So the paper talks about the fact that you can power these steps of crushing the machines that crush the rock, et cetera. You can power that with renewable energy. And I’m just sort of wondering about what that looks like at scale. And then I have a lot of questions because, as you know, I have been on the podcast before. I talk a lot about microbes.
I think a lot about sort of like when you’re adding something to a living system, are you affecting Sort of biological relationships, what are the impacts on microbes? I don’t think people have data to show that yet, but I know studies are underway. So while I’m excited about this opportunity, and it sort of brings these interesting carbon removal solutions together, and in the paper they talk a lot about the reinforcing potential of bringing these two solutions together and how they can be They can be really helpful in carbon removal when they’re deployed together.
I want to see some data about what this looks like in the real world and also to consider all the geographic variation. Not all basalt rocks are the same. Thinking about the agricultural variation and the rock variation and the soil variation, my brain just explodes a little bit. That’s what science is about. It’s like pushing boundaries and figuring out what we need to know to answer these questions. So for that, I’m really excited about this paper. I think it’s pushing us in a direction and pushing us and our thinking about carbon removal.
Ross Kenyon: I don’t feel like we need to exhaust it entirely right now because I’d like to just do a full proper reversing climate change episode on the topic since it is new or if not entirely new. I don’t hear much about this at all and I suspect many other people do not either Vanessa and Jane, you made my job incredibly easy today. Thanks for knowing so damn much.
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, thanks Vanessa for knowing everything there is to know about appropriations. Awesome.
Ross Kenyon: Shocking amount. Yeah, that was great.
Vanessa Suarez: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for letting me dive into the details.
Ross Kenyon: It’s my pleasure. Is there something that you’d like to point people to besides just the Carbon 180 website and your personal Twitters?
Jane Zelikova: I mean, you might want to visit the Carbon 180 Twitter. There have been some epic Twitter threads lately, including one on house appropriation for carbon removal. And just general, I feel like the humor of the Carbon 180 Twitter and the website and newsletter cannot be overemphasized. The humor is real.
Vanessa Suarez: Yeah, I was going to point out, if you do make it to our website, I would highly suggest you consider subscribing for our carbon copy newsletter. You can get a rundown of a lot of the things that we talked about today and other carbon removal movements on the Hill and in science as well.
Ross Kenyon: A good chunk of how I keep up to date on things too. And Aldyen, thanks for being here too. [Twitter plug cut from the transcript. It’s still in the audio.] Anything else you were Also, quite quiet today. Is there anything else that you’d like to say?
Aldyen Donnelly: No, no. I wanted to be quiet today because I think I was too noisy the last few podcasts. So I’m trying to get some balance.
Ross Kenyon: Your contrition is noted. That’s good. No, that was fine. It worked out great. Well, thank you so much for listening. If you like the show, please rate and review us on iTunes, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher. Tell your friends. Get them excited about carbon removal. And thank you so much for listening.
