This week on Carbon Removal Newsroom, we’re starting off with an overview of biochar and discussing the main questions and concerns around this technology, including:
How does biochar compare to other Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods?
There is a lot of interest in making biochar, but does the market exist to use it?
What can governments do to help scale up the use of biochar as a carbon removal technique? Are any governments taking action yet?
Next, we transition to the CDR policy agenda in the United States. We look at the California Climate Crisis Act (AB 1395), which would Codify California’s commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and no later than 2045. If passed, this bill will set California on course to design a more comprehensive policy framework for CDR than exists in any state so far. The bill language is explicit in planning for technological as well as natural CDR methods and calls for measurable, durable CO2 removal.
We also cover geoengineering and its controversies, looking at the Politico article, “The problem with playing God to fix the climate: It might not work.”
Finally, our good news to round out the episode is that the team at ClimateScience has created a free online course on the science of carbon removal, with illustrations and quizzes along the way.
Panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition join host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori for this episode.
Resources
Introductory Webinar: Methodology for Biochar Utilization in Soil and Non-Soil Applications (Verra)
Biochar Protocol (Climate Action Reserve)
Does biochar accelerate the mitigation of greenhouse gaseous emissions from agricultural soil? - A global meta-analysis (ScienceDirect)
The waste product which could help mitigate climate change (ScienceDaily)
Net-Zero Emissions Bill Advances in the California State Senate (EDF)
With the Climate Crisis Act, California can lock in a safer pathway to net-zero emissions (EDF)
Amid the Misery of Hurricane Ida, Coastal Restoration Offers Hope. But the Price Is High (Inside Climate News)
The problem with playing God to fix the climate: It might not work (Politico)
Why Geoengineering Is ‘Untested and Untestable’ (The Nation)
Climate Science: Carbon removal courses
Full Transcript
Radhika Moolgavkar: Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Thursday, September 9th edition [music] Carbon Removal Newsroom. I can’t believe the summer is over and we are through Labor Day and we’re back to normal, kind of. At least my kids are back in school, which helps. I am joined here today as always by Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo. Hello, Holly. How are you?
Holly Jean Buck: I’m very well. How are you?
Radhika Moolgavkar: You know, it’s good to have the kids back in school, like I said. Back to a little routine. And Chris Barnard, Policy Director from the American Conservation Coalition, kindly joining us all the way from across the pond in the UK. Hey, Chris, how you doing?
Chris Barnard: I’m good. You managed to say all those words that are very similar without stumbling, so progress.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, that’s right. I’m getting better. It’s only taken six months. And I am Radhika Moolgavkar, Head of Supply and Methodology at NORI. So today, we’re going to do a bit of a dive into biochar because there are a lot of proponents for this type of carbon dioxide removal, but it might have been having a hard time finding its footing, though I’ve had some loyal listeners who’ve asked me to talk about it, so we’re finally bringing it onto the show. Also, we’ll look kind of at what impact states can have on CDR adoption, specifically There’s a bill in California and then also after Ida hit the state of Louisiana, some of the CDR restoration efforts.
How did they hold up in face of a gigantic storm? And finally, a little piece from Politico about geoengineering, which I know is one of Holly’s topics of passion. So I saw it and I wanted to make sure we got a chance to talk about it. To start off, let’s talk a little bit about biochar. So Holly, can you give our listeners maybe a little introduction to biochar and how it compares to other maybe CDR methods?
Holly Jean Buck: Sure. So with biochar, you heat biomass residues that could be wood chips, it could be manure, compost, rice straw, whatever. In an oxygen-starved environment over a period of time in a biochar paralysis unit. And what you get out of that is a stable form of charcoal, which could then be put into soils and it has benefits for the soils. You know, it can build organic carbon in the soil by up to 20% in one study, can reduce nitrous oxide emissions from soil. It has these co-benefits with agriculture, which is kind of one thing that makes it special in the CDR landscape.
And so how does it compare to other techniques? I mean, what metric do we want to compare it on? I think that, you know, it has, if you want to compare it on like tonnes of carbon stored, there’s an IPCC special report on climate change in land. That said that it could mitigate between 300 million to 660 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year by 2050, which is, you know, if we achieve that, that would be pretty great. It’s not nothing. It’s like more than the state of California’s emissions, for example.
Cost is probably the main thing that’s resulted in its lack of adoption, but we could say that for many CDR techniques.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, I mean, the other thing that I’ve heard about biochar related is that the cost is high. And then for a farmer, the yields aren’t so great that it makes up the cost differential for applying biochar. So you have what is a great carbon dioxide removal tool, but maybe yet hasn’t found its economic legs, if you will, a way to make it usable in a way that... Is practical for farmers, at least. So, Chris, what do you think? Do you think there’s a market out there to use it? How would you propose to get it more acceptable or more used within the population?
Because it sure has some very passionate proponents, but it’s not really broadly used right now, I would say.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I mean, one of the things that I was reading while kind of researching into biochar is obviously it’s somewhat of a complex idea. It’s obviously existed for thousands of years, but a lot like your average person doesn’t really know what it is. And there’s probably still a lot of farmers that don’t really know exactly how to leverage this solution to the best effect. Because I mean, some of the studies show that You can actually increase your crop yield between 10% and 42% by using biochar. And so you’d assume that there is a pretty significant economic upside there as a result.
But apparently a lot of farmers and people kind of that would benefit from this just don’t really grasp the potential of it, nor the techniques on how to use it. And so one of the things that I’m particularly excited about with this bill that passed the Senate recently, the Growing Climate Solutions Act, is that it would direct the U. S. Department of Agriculture to actively have technical training and assistance for farmers to learn how to implement techniques like this. And obviously for the Growing Climate Solutions Act, it can be from like Cover crops to no-till farming, but then also include things like how do you actually produce biochar and how do you use it to its maximum effect?
So I think that’s a really, really good step in the right direction. And I think additional funding for programs specifically for this would be very beneficial because as I said, like the crop yield growth is very significant. I think the potential is huge and it merits investment.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So on a side note. Just curious how the Growing Climate Solutions Act is going right now. I haven’t heard much. Is it stalled in the House? Any late breaking news about that, Chris?
Chris Barnard: Yeah, so it’s passed the Senate and it still hasn’t been brought up for a vote in the House yet. And I know that we as an organization have been working with some people, especially on the Republican side, that have had some doubts about it to try and get them over the finish line to support it, but we’re cautiously optimistic about it.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Cool. Back to Biochar, the subject at hand. So Holly, what do you see as other things maybe the government or local organizations can do to help foster fairly mature techniques like biochar and get them more into the mainstream? What do we need to be thinking about?
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, I mean, right now the market in the US for biochar is kind of a boutique market. I might say I’ve heard figures like 50,000 tonnes a year. So, you know, there’s some producers, I think a growing number of producers that are passionate about biochar, but the government really has a few different roles. One is just in education, in spreading the word, helping farmers, but also with helping farmers with the startup costs of learning. It’s not just, you know, learning, but having some initial programs that help them get going. And then we can think about demonstration scale or even larger scale facilities.
You can think about loan guarantees. There’s some programs under the Department of Agriculture that are with kind of biofuels, but also include bio-based products. Biochar can fit into a couple of places here and there, also within state grants, but we really need to up that support too. And then also research and development funding.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah. Well, one of the things that I think about is the fact that right now there’s not a very cost effective way of measuring the amount of biochar, additional carbon that biochar sequesters in the soil. So hopefully I’ll get this right. Anybody who’s a scientist out there. And please correct me if I’m wrong, but biochar kind of sequesters carbon in two ways. It sequesters the actual biostock that’s used to create the biochar, which is one type of carbon removal. And then when it’s put in the soil, there is what we believe is an increased amount of carbon sequestered by the soil.
So there’s almost a twofold carbon removal. And at least from our study and work, we haven’t found very good Effective methods of measuring that second piece of carbon sequestration. So I think that would also help in terms of being able to monetize biochar. That being said, both Vera and the Climate Action Reserve have both proposed protocols for biochar that would create carbon credits for users of it. Additionally, Puro, which is based in Europe, has a full biochar protocol out there. So it’s definitely a Gaining traction, I would say, and I’m hearing a lot more about it than I did even maybe six months ago.
So I think it’s really exciting. Anything else we want to talk about with biochar?
Chris Barnard: I’ll just add two very quick things. The first one is that there was this study by the University of South Wales published just last month showing that the kind of the average carbon removal of soil is about 3. 8% and biochar could push that up to about 20%. And so as much as it might be kind of technically difficult to calculate each plot of soil, For how much it actually additionally removes using those kinds of baseline figures from various studies might be a good way of kind of estimating that and taking that into account in a carbon credit market.
The second thing I’ll add, which to me is kind of one of the one of the big things to bear in mind here is Holly mentioned that there’s about 50,000 tonnes per year of biochar produced in the US. China does tenfold that. So 500,000 tonnes a year in China. And the reason why I bring this up is that as we kind of go into the next decades and we increasingly get hit with some of the impacts of climate change from floods to droughts to storms to wildfires, we need soil that is resilient enough to be able to continue feeding our population right and.
Biochar actually has a very significant role to play in that because it makes the soil more resilient. It allows us to have more nutrients to build. It increases crop yields, et cetera. And I fear from a kind of national security perspective, if we allow China to completely dominate that market, that they’re better positioned to kind of take in some of these impacts of climate change than we would be. So I think there’s like a really interesting angle that potentially some conservatives might be more interested in kind of getting involved in this debate is that We need to think about ways that we can make our agricultural system more resilient to these impacts of climate change, and biochar would certainly play a role in that.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yes, Chris, and that’s funny because your comments kind of lead us to both of our next topics, but let’s move on to the carbon removal because the reason why it segues nicely is that the policy agenda of states is In the US versus our federal response so maybe the answer in a country like the US isn’t that we’re going to be like China and have a federal or national response. But more of a state led response, because we are a state’s rights type of country so Chris maybe you can briefly describe what is going on in California right now.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, absolutely. Well, California has introduced this bill called the Climate Crisis Act AB 1395, which would essentially mandate that emissions in the state of California be 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and then 90% below 1990 levels by 2045, which would put them at net zero by 2045. And the interesting thing here is that it would effectively mandate the state to kind of Be committed to that goal and to implement policies that would help reach that goal.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And can you tell us what the state of the bill is right now, what’s going on in the California legislature with it?
Chris Barnard: So as far as I can tell and as far as I’ve been informed, the California state legislature is set to consider the bill probably by the time that you’re listening to this podcast and that they are optimistic about the chances, but that there’s still kind of few hurdles that need to be crossed for that to happen. So it is interesting that, you know, a state like California, considered one of the more progressive states in the union, is not kind of like actively jumping after this bill and like ready to put this into law, that there still are kind of some people holding out and then obviously presumably on the Democratic side as well.
But so, I mean, it’s a swing vote probably right now as to whether it will pass or not.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, Holly, I mean, as always, I’m very curious about this because you’d think if in any state this could get passed, it’d be California after their season of wildfires ongoing, the fact that they generally lead the country on environmental regulation, look at like the EPA and emissions from cars. So why is this even coming down to the wire? What’s going on, do you think?
Holly Jean Buck: I think there’s a few different things. This bill does something important, which I think that every net zero plan will need to do eventually is it has a specific number. It’s not just saying net zero. It’s saying they’re going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 90% below 1990 levels by 2045, which is something that New York has its 85%. In our law, Massachusetts did a similar thing. But generally, I mean, specifying that amount of allowed residual emissions, is a challenge, 10% for carbon removal or whatever. Compared to other jurisdictions, it’s pretty ambitious.
I think it’s a good number, but you could see how industry might have pushback against that hard limit. On the other hand, I think that people worried about climate justice would be concerned about support for Engineered removal for carbon capture and storage. And there’s stuff in this bill that tries to mitigate those concerns. It says that they’re going to prohibit the counting of carbon dioxide used in enhanced oil recovery from counting towards these goals, which I think is a really important progressive step, but it still might not be enough.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So how would you like to then discuss engineered removal in terms of like a DAC process? Type engineered solution versus the CCS solution. I mean, do you think there is argument even on the progressive side that DAC, that type of direct air capture that has environmental justice issues or is it just tied to the CCS conversation?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, I think people are concerned about that because that’s what they’ve heard. They’ve heard that it’s a false solution. They’ve heard for it’s a way for polluters to keep on polluting. They haven’t seen analysis about what would be the air pollution impacts, if any, from a DAC plant. That’s not information that’s circulating, right? Nor the impacts from the chemicals used in DAC or whatever. I don’t have a sheet I can hand people that has data on that, which is a big problem, I think, for advocates of CDR that we need to do those studies prepare those analysis share them in ways that are accessible, because otherwise this otherwise this narrative that it’s a false solution can just continue to circulate.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah and for our listeners out there, I think it was climb works right who just announced a huge. Huge DAC, well, four DAC, a big DAC facility, what, 4,000 tonnes a year or something at a cost of between $600 and $900 a tonne. So the technology is there and maybe that facility will provide some of the answers that progressives are looking for in terms of the other impacts from direct air capture that they’ve sort of lumped together with the CCS system. Conversation. Who knows? But it’s so early, it might be hard to have some of that information even available because it’s not yet there.
It’s not yet been studied. Chris, I’m curious if there are other things that you think states should be thinking about when they’re scaling carbon dioxide removal.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I’ll add one kind of quick anecdote. Yeah. I’ll dive into that because it reminds me of a story that Quill, who has been on this podcast before, he’s the vice president of my organization, and he’s from Seattle, Washington. And kind of the way that he got involved in environmental politics is that he campaigned for a carbon tax bill at the local level in Washington a few years ago while he was in college. And he might have told you this story himself because he likes to talk about it a lot.
But essentially, that bill, which would put a price on carbon, was killed by an alliance of climate skeptics and progressives that didn’t think it went far enough. And so I kind of see some parallels here with like, obviously you have industry and agriculture kind of being like this bill that California’s proposing would be anti-agriculture or like Make things more expensive for the average American California etc, and they also have the kind of the progressive that say. Oh, we can’t like these are some of these are false solutions like carbon capture and storage and things like that, so I wonder if it can be a repeat there were a pretty significant bill from a general climate perspective would be defeated again by.
Well, some would consider a pretty unholy alliance of people that you might not think would would join forces on the same side, but I digress. One one thing that kind of stuck out to me as I was reading actually the report from the Senate committee that the Senate Rules Committee in California that was working on this bill. There was a quote in there which said that it is unlikely that CCS could be scaled up at the pace needed due to the current regulatory framework for screening and authorizing projects. And that’s something that I’ve kind of talked about before.
There’s a really good Forbes article actually about the five laws that currently are a huge impediment to carbon capture projects in Texas. And it’s true that, I mean, you really can’t build these projects. You can only build these projects as fast as you can get the permission to do that from the government. And sometimes that takes years and years and years. And that red tape is really kind of holding back some of these projects. And that’s multiple different things from CO2 being classified legally as a waste product, which makes it a lot harder to build infrastructure for it, to the way that the time it takes for the permitting to kind of some of the classifications around this stuff.
And so it was interesting that even kind of in a state like California, the people that were proposing this bill were also saying, well, We need to look at some of the regulations around this if we want to actually make sure that we can leverage these solutions. And that’s the same around the country. So that’s something I think that states would have to tackle at the very beginning before they can even start kind of incentivizing some of these solutions, because if if there’s no regulatory framework that would allow them to unfold, then I don’t think it makes much sense to put money into them.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, which actually leads me to my other point of conversation, if you will, in this topic, is that in Ida, Ida hit, sorry, the Louisiana coast, as we all know, it was the first opportunity for some of the restoration efforts that the state and federal government have put forth in around the New Orleans coast to really see if the sort of nature-based solutions, which both have Restoration benefits and carbon dioxide removal benefits because they have more plants, better mangroves, things like that lead to carbon dioxide being removed from the atmosphere.
So it was the first time they got to see whether these efforts worked. They, at face value, seemed to. But what struck me there was it seemed strange that it was a state-led effort because coastlines of that sort are needed Across all of the Gulf. And so does it make sense for the state governments to be leading this effort? Or really, do we need more of a federal policy, more like maybe what China’s doing? So how do you create a cohesive strategy at a state level for this kind of massive effort?
Either of you, any answers?
Chris Barnard: So I would say that it definitely... Is important to have kind of a federal strategy to kind of make sure that it’s going in the right direction, that there are. Two reasons why I think that also devolving a certain amount of funding, but then also authority over these things to states is quite important. The first one is obviously this idea that states tend to know better the specific issues facing their specific state and allowing funding and authority to be devolved to local authorities. That funding can still come from the federal government, but It should be distributed to people on the ground that can kind of the conservation groups already working on this or whatever that know those issues best and can work on them most effectively.
I think that’s just kind of a general argument for local action being superior in terms of effectiveness and local knowledge. The second thing is I do think there’s also a value in kind of some experimentation because like what works in Louisiana might be a little bit different from what works in Texas or somewhere else and different states being able to like Fine-tune different solutions in their own different ways might allow the experimentation necessary for the best solutions to ultimately rise to the top. And so that’s kind of this federalist concept of kind of states as laboratories of democracy.
And I think they could also be laboratories of natural solutions.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Chris, though, I’m curious in the system, you talk about how you prevent certain states from dominating who have more powerful legislative Delegations, louder advocates, whatever you want to say, and you ensure that there is equity between states that may have less power within the federal government. You know, what strikes me is Texas, Louisiana, and Florida should maybe be a coalition working together because they all are on the Gulf.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, no, that’s an entirely fair point. I think probably the most effective thing to do would be for the federal government to go to each one of these states that would be impacted and ask them to submit an assessment of what they think the challenges are, how much money they think they would need to fix it. And then have that assessment be evaluated by experts and then kind of distribute funds accordingly to that would seem kind of like a fair way to do it. Because I mean, obviously, there always is a problem that bigger states with more legislators will get more money, especially with earmarks and all that kind of stuff.
But I think trying to keep it as scientific and kind of methodical as possible, like this is what we need. This is what we’re doing, going to deal with the money, and then kind of submitting that as a proposal would probably be an effective way of going about it.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Holly, anything, any counter thoughts or additional thoughts?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, I think that the federal government could play a bigger role in kind of framing how we start to think about adaptation and carbon removal together. I don’t think that Many people are thinking about those together, but I wrote a paper with a bunch of colleagues last year called Adaptation and Carbon Removal, and we suggest a couple principles for integrating them, like identifying carbon negative opportunities, prioritizing adaptive value in choosing and designing projects, but also giving credit. So when a community or city or states implements a carbon negative adaptation measure, they could get credit for the carbon they remove.
So thinking about building those wetlands projects or even thinking about, you know, engineered coastal protection with low carbon concrete or whatever, you know, we should be thinking about how to put carbon removal into adaptation. But also thinking about times when carbon removal projects would maybe conflict with adaptation goals. And if we had a framework like that, I think, you know, we could make more progress.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Sounds like a very good project for you, Holly. Maybe you can bring the federal government around to it. But I am going to turn to our last subject, which is something that caught my eye because you and I, Holly, had a conversation, a brief one about geoengineering a few weeks ago. So Politico just released a relatively long article and they have a series right now on the way to COP. And so this is the second in a series of articles leading up to that. Can you tell us what geoengineering is and maybe why there is controversy around it?
And how does carbon dioxide removal fit into it? Three questions all at once.
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, geoengineering I think is kind of made up. So it’s a term that signifies interventions into the climate that are both intentional and planetary scale. So geoengineering That term, you know, it’s been hanging around since the 2000s. I mean, it goes back earlier, but became used more in the late 2000s. And it encompasses both solar geoengineering or sunlight reflection, basically methods that reflect some amount of incoming sunlight back into space to cool the earth and carbon dioxide removal. And so people, you know, say, I think, Quite reasonably that CDR carbon dioxide removal shouldn’t be considered geoengineering.
On the other hand, people say that, well, if you did it at a large scale, it would have planetary effects on the global climate. So then it could be. And why is it controversial? I mean, I think, you know, we don’t know enough about what reflecting sunlight would do to even say whether it would be a good idea. But people are afraid that even pursuing research on that would give politicians and companies an excuse to delay mitigation further.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah. So Chris, the reason why your China comment spurred me to think about this geoengineering piece is that I have read that some people argue, you know, similar to you, like maybe national security issues will Spark the interest around sustainability issues for conservatives that some conservatives, instead of talking about sustainability, you talk about industrial breakthroughs, which maybe geoengineering is or could be. So I was wondering what you thought of that argument as a way to help conservatives along the sustainability path.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I mean, definitely a focus on things like innovation, the economic potential of clean energy, kind of scientific breakthroughs, giving us a leg up over kind of countries like China is certainly catnip for a lot of conservative audiences that might be more skeptical about sustainable claims. And so, I mean, we talk a lot about kind of the need for innovation in the climate fight and how we can actually benefit from this economically as well. I think Geoengineering is something that is so kind of abstract for a lot of people that focusing on that doesn’t really make a lot of sense for any audience, really.
I mean, my personal opinion is I’m not against experiments like the Harvard University, like setting up a balloon. Like, what is it they want to throw out calcium bicarbonate to see how it would interact with the air and things like that. I’m not very sciencey, but I’m not against the principle of doing those experiments. But I do think kind of in the long run. We actually kind of know what the technology solutions are that we would need to tackle climate change. And so I think focusing on them and kind of expanding them for me, that would be like nuclear energy, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and obviously battery storage with renewables would probably be a better bet than putting all our eggs in the geoengineering basket.
But I’m not against scientists exploring the possibilities there.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah. And this brought up another question for me. I mean, I’m thinking Is the fear of geoengineering a little bit like the fear of nuclear energy, where it’s a fear we might have to get over to get to the goals we want to get to? I don’t know. Maybe it’s too early.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, it’s possible that it is a similar fear. The thing with nuclear is that we have a track record. And kind of for the amount of energy is produced. And if you look at the amount of deaths, it’s the safest form of energy that’s ever existed. And the statistics are very clear about that. With geoengineering, we just simply don’t know. And obviously, like you can argue that with nuclear, we also didn’t know when we first pursued it that we now have nuclear and it was fine. And I think kind of pursuing that now more would make more sense than geoengineering.
But there might be a kind of a fear element there.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, Holly, what do you think? I see you nodding.
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, it would be kind of ironic if we eventually ended up doing geoengineering because we were too scared to actually deploy nuclear at a scale for clean energy. I mean, I think that there’s a dread factor there in both of those technologies. Will we have to get over it? I mean, hopefully we won’t need to employ it, but I want to say that, you know, the argument for Solar geoengineering is to buy time to scale up clean energy and carbon removal. So if we fail at decarbonization rapidly and building up CDR rapidly, then it seems more likely that in a few decades, people would be pressured to do some sort of solar geoengineering.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah. I mean, in some ways feels akin to me to some of the nature-based solutions we talked about. It’s not The final solution, it’s like a bridge till we get to the final solution and the final emission reductions and things that are all necessary to get to where we wanna get. Well, with that, thanks for the conversation. I want to end with just a little story that I saw from our friends at Carbon 180. They highlighted a team at Climate Science, which is an online charity Where kids and adults can go online and learn about the science of carbon removal, which I just thought was awesome.
I’ve looked at the site and I think I’ll have my kids do it. But anyway, it’s free. It’s a great way to learn more about climate removal or carbon removal. Excuse me. And, you know, I applaud everybody for all the different ways that they’re trying to make the science more accessible to the general public with that. Thanks everybody for listening. Thank you guys for participating, Holly and Chris, especially Chris from all the way across in the UK. I really appreciate it. And everybody have a great weekend. Talk to you later.
Announcer: Thanks so much for listening to Carbon Removal Newsroom. If you like the show, the best way you can help us is by giving us a great rating and review an Apple podcast, following the show on Spotify, and by sharing the show on social media. Tell your friends and help us spread the word about what’s happening in the world of carbon revolution.
