The State of California has set a goal of becoming net-zero by 2045. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's researchers have produced a report called Getting to Neutral: Options for Negative Carbon Emissions in California, detailing the various pathways available to California using actually-existing carbon removal technologies needed to do so. Carbon180's Managing Director, Giana Amador, is on the show to explain how this process works, the report's contents, and what happens now.
Full Transcript
Ross Kenyon: Hey everyone! We are doing that podcast thing now and launching a Patreon. You can find it at patreon.com slash noripodcasts. There are various tiers with different types of goodies available. Do you want to receive a special newsletter digest of what Norinauts are reading that week? Be a part of a Nori book club? Get special access to Nori events? Go take a look at patreon.com slash noripodcasts for what we’re offering. And in that spirit of being lean in that startup kind of way that, you know, we like to do, this list of goodies is subject to change, and we’d very much like your feedback.
Is there something that you’d really like to see, but it isn’t listed here? Honest feedback does a lot to help us shape what we offer to you. You can send an email to podcast. nori.com or fill out our podcast survey anonymously in our newsletter, which you can find at nori.com slash subscribe. Hello and welcome to Carbon Removal Newsroom. I’m Ross Kenyon, the lead strategist with Nori Carbon Removal Marketplace. Today I have with me Giana Amador, Managing Director of Carbon 180. Giana, I think you’ve been on this a couple times and reversing climate change.
You are just a regular fixture here, I think.
Giana Amador: Yeah, I’m definitely a veteran at this point, but thanks for having me.
Ross Kenyon: Absolutely. Well, we saw that there was a big report that came out of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory called Getting to Neutral. And it is about California’s possibilities to deploy existing carbon removal technology and become carbon negative and lead in this space. Of course, this report is a couple hundred pages long. So we read it. And maybe you listening do not have time or don’t want to dive into that depth. So I wanted to Put this in a consolidated bite-sized form. So Giana, maybe you could help explain what exactly is this report?
What happens with it? Why is it significant? Et cetera.
Giana Amador: Yeah, very happy to explain it. I think this is a landmark report that really can pave the way for California’s ability to meet its 2045 net zero goal. And California is really one of the only jurisdictions that has set such an ambitious goal that really aligns with the timescale in which we need to take action on climate change. And this report sort of fills in that missing gap of how do we reach net zero by employing carbon removal solutions. And so this report maps California’s carbon removal potential across all sectors of the economy, across a number of different solutions.
And really the sort of kicker for the report is that California has huge potential to remove carbon on the order of 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year from the atmosphere. In order to do so, we can actually do that at a pretty low cost and in ways that actually benefit communities across the state.
Ross Kenyon: Wow, that would be a big deal if California would do this. And it seems rather par for the course. California is, of course, one of the jurisdictions in the world that leads on climate and environmental goals. They seem to do everything first or mostly everything first. I guess first, is that even a true perception or is that a little too rosy, an impression of California? And then also, do you think carbon removal, if that impression is true, will follow this trend?
Giana Amador: Absolutely. California is often regarded as sort of a policy laboratory. They are one of the first states to employ what is now at the federal level a CAFE standard. So that’s the fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. They’re also one of the first states to adopt a renewable portfolio standard, which now in California has a goal to reach 100 percent. Clean electricity. So California is often one of the jurisdictions that sort of tests out the policy details, revises them, shows sort of what the art of the possible is, and other states then follow suit.
So for them to sort of take these first steps around carbon removal could be really impactful and show that this can be a meaningful wedge of climate action and not just something that’s theoretical and included in the models, but actually something where we’re breaking ground And we will get into exactly what is on the table for California to practice carbon removal as a state.
Ross Kenyon: But I guess a more foundational question before this starts is I feel like I always have to ask really basic questions here, which is, what happens in California? So reports can sort of have a varying life depending on, you know, who writes them, what kind of engagement they do and what kind of engagement they’re legally allowed to do.
Giana Amador: I think this report has been accompanied by a ton of really great and important communications around the findings of the report. So I know that the Lawrence Livermore folks did a lot of engagements with NGOs who work in this space to try to empower them to actually take action and do more direct advocacy around some of the recommendations in this report, which Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory isn’t really allowed to do. They also did some engagement in Sacramento with California lawmakers and did a briefing about what the findings of the report are.
So it’s my hope that this report won’t sit on the shelf. It won’t sort of become an artifact, but actually something that, you know, NGOs, California lawmakers, and even lawmakers at the federal level really take into account and use to spur action.
Ross Kenyon: Cool. Okay. Thanks for explaining that. I always feel like such a rookie whenever stuff like this comes up and I need to ask the basic question. Hopefully someone listening also doesn’t know how reports coming out of national laboratories are utilized or fail to be utilized. So maybe that makes sense to them. But Giana, maybe we should dive into what exactly is contained in this report. What types of carbon removal might California be able to lead on?
Giana Amador: One of the great things about this report is that it shows there’s really no silver bullet carbon removal solution that can get the state So all of the carbon removal opportunities are cited in-state. They don’t actually have to rely on any out-of-state or global offsets for carbon removal solutions. And they’re really spread across natural solutions, biomass. And new technologies like direct air capture. So the natural solutions that storing carbon in California’s forests and agricultural soils account for about 20% of the carbon removal potential. 70% of the potential comes from biomass that’s then used to produce clean fuels, power, and permanent geologic storage.
And then about the final 10% comes from direct air capture. And they sort of estimate that portfolio, the 20 land, 70% waste biomass and 10% direct air capture to be sort of the optimal mix to really reduce costs and also ensure that the biomass that’s being used is truly waste. But they also lay out a couple other scenarios as well.
Ross Kenyon: One of the ones that caught my eye because I was less familiar with it was the possibilities for using biomass to generate hydrogen. Can you explain this to listeners? I’m not sure how many of them have come across it since it’s less commonly mentioned.
Giana Amador: Yeah, I’m definitely not an expert in this area, but I think one of the really interesting things about this report and one of the graphics that I really appreciated is just the sort of maps that they show in the ways in which biogas And bio-mass can really be converted into different products. So like you said, it can be used to turn into hydrogen, municipal solid waste and other gaseous waste like from anaerobic digesters on dairies can also be turned into fuels or electricities. I am definitely not the person to explain the hydrogen process, but I think it’s really promising to see that waste biomass can actually be used across a number of different feedstocks and also a number of different end products.
And that’s really promising because it means that we can sort of embed carbon removal into many different areas.
Ross Kenyon: Indeed. And one of the things that we were talking about before we started recording, if you’ll allow me to put words into your mouth, and then you can correct me if I am wrong, is that a lot of these opportunities take place in more rural environments or less wealthy, less urban types of environments. This is where a lot of this carbon removal activity can take place. And this is a benefit as you see it of a report like this and California’s opportunity.
Giana Amador: Absolutely. I think this report really signals that the state should start making investments in the California Central Valley. I’m actually from a town in the Central Valley called Turlock. It’s a really small agriculture community as is much of the Central Valley where they’re already facing significant climate risk, high unemployment rates, poor air quality, and other environmental issues. And so I think That context really mapped with what this report is telling us, which is the bulk of the waste biomass, as well as the geologic sequestration potential, as well as the soil carbon storage potential really rests in the Valley of California.
So there is a really big synergy between those two opportunities. And I think one of the things that the state could act on now is starting to open those dialogues between the communities of the Central Valleys who are going to be on the front lines of the deployment of these solutions and make sure that they’re developed and deployed in ways that Really uphold the conditions that the people of the Central Valley want and need for their livelihoods, but also maximize whatever co-benefits come from these solutions as much as possible. And I think one of the things that this report claims is that there’s a huge sort of like jobs and economic potential from deploying these solutions, especially the tech solutions.
And I think we need to really sort of dive a bit deeper and understand Hmm.
Ross Kenyon: We actually have a full reversing climate change episode coming out on this, I think in some weeks or maybe a month from when this is released. And we get into this some, but maybe you give people a little preview here, Giana, of what sorts of environmentalists. Environmental justice concerns might there be with a report like this, or you’re talking about engaging with frontline communities. I imagine at least part of it is to make sure that people aren’t being asked or being imposed upon to accept some undue risk or burden in some other kind of way.
What do you think that people who are working on that should be on the lookout for?
Giana Amador: I think it’s really about co-creating solutions. So it’s not about saying, we’re going to come in here And deploy the solution in your community without asking you how that’s going to impact you or what conditions you need to see in order for those solutions to be deployed. And I think very rightfully so, a lot of these communities will have concerns with geologic storage. And I think it’s on the burden of the state as well as the NGOs who are working in the state to really, you know, educate and field questions about the safety of geologic storage.
I believe that we can do geologic storage safely and effectively and at low cost. And I think we need to start those conversations and dialogues with the people in the Central Alley.
Ross Kenyon: Indeed, the guests that we have on reversing climate change about this thinks that studies have shown that this is safer than is publicly perceived. But I think people will probably be concerned once you’re pumping carbon dioxide underground that it could have effects that freak them out about fracking or people are just generally concerned about seismological activity. But I think maybe there’s less concern about this than the evidence warrants. I’m not sure, though. I don’t understand the science well enough to say, but is that your impression, too?
Giana Amador: That’s definitely my impression. I agree with that. I agree that there are very minimal safety concerns with geologic sequestration, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have those conversations or shouldn’t do that education.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I think at the very least, if people perceive that it is a risk, I’m sure it could do something like, you know, this is sort of a kind of basic example, but that could harm property values. And that’s an impact that would come upon people through no fault of their own. And so how do you address that? Is it just an educational component, something like that? I’m not sure.
Giana Amador: Yeah, I mean, I think it’s really just about Starting those dialogues and hearing what people’s concerns are and then coming up with principles that will guide the implementation of these solutions. I’ll also say that California has a really strong environmental justice movement that has been really rooted in the Central Valley. And the Central Valley, because of that, has been really opposed to offsets and the implementation of offsets because it’s allowed sort of bad actors or polluters to continue polluting in the Central Valley and sort of outsource those emissions reductions. So I think there’s an additional dialogue that should probably be started around how carbon removal fits into the full decarbonization space and that it’s really not an excuse for us to keep emitting, but that it’s an important part of us getting to net zero that can actually have all of these other benefits.
Ross Kenyon: Wronging one person and then being extra nice to someone else doesn’t really... Does the math of that even really make sense? I don’t think so.
Giana Amador: Well, and it depends on what we’re maximizing for. I think at Carbon 180, we like to think about not just solving for pure tonnes of CO2, like what’s the way in which we get the most tonnes removed, but how do we build a better future? The reason why we care about addressing climate change is because we want to build a better future. So how does the implementation of these carbon removal solutions in California better all of the other things we care about, like our economy, like our justice system, and our environment, and the air that we breathe every day.
So I think there are a lot of synergies that we can really touch upon and that I hope the state acts upon once they read this report.
Ross Kenyon: And how soon do you think we might see movement as a result of this report? Is this something that is, you know, 2045 is the goal for California for net zero. But what about before then? When might we see some of this technology hit the ground or these conversations start to happen?
Giana Amador: I’m thrilled to say that those conversations are already happening. Earlier this week, Nancy Skinner released a new piece of climate legislation. That would instruct the California Air Resources Board to establish carbon dioxide removal targets for 2030 and beyond. And that’s separate from California’s net zero goal and allows the state to be really transparent about emissions reductions and then acting on the recommendations of this report to scale a carbon removal industry. So that in itself is extremely promising. I think California has also laid an extremely strong foundation around Forestry approaches as well as agricultural approaches.
And so I think they’re really ready to hit the go button on the natural side and will just need to sort of get up to speed and start deploying on the more technical side.
Ross Kenyon: Okay, we will keep our eyes peeled for developments there. Oh, that’s not a very news anchor-y. I guess that’s a lot. I’ll keep that. But Carbon 180, you guys put out a very nice blog post on Medium about this. If you want a short condensed version that our friends at Carbon 180 put out and in the show notes also, I’ll put the original report. Is there any way else people can keep up with either what you or Carbon 180 do or just even this entire process? Is there some consolidated place to find it?
Giana Amador: We try to sort of put out regular updates on our social media channels. So on our Twitter, it’s at carbon underscore 180, as well as on our newsletter. So if you go to our website, carbon180.org, you can subscribe to our weekly newsletter. It’s called The Carbon Coffee. And we’ll be sort of monitoring this space and keeping tabs on where California is making moves. So that’s the best place for up-to-date information. I also personally think it’s very fun and hilarious to read. So I recommend all the listeners subscribe to that.
Ross Kenyon: Wait, you’re saying that the carbon copy is hilarious?
Giana Amador: I think just generally our newsletter is fun.
Ross Kenyon: Oh, yeah. I wasn’t disputing that. It’s a very cheeky newsletter. You clearly have fun writing it.
Giana Amador: It’s really fun. It’s definitely a full team effort. And I usually don’t toot our own horn that much. But I think the newsletter is the one place that we sort of all contribute, are all really proud of, and hopefully provides a really valuable service to the space.
Ross Kenyon: It definitely does. I read it. If you’re listening and you’re not subscribed, you totally should be. Well, yeah, thanks for being here, Giana. I really appreciate it.
Giana Amador: Yeah, thanks so much for having me. I appreciate it.
Ross Kenyon: Indeed, and if you like this show, please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. Tell a friend. We’re also on Patreon now. It’s patreon.com slash noripodcasts. And thank you so much for listening. Well, thank you so much for listening. If you like the show, please rate and review it in Apple Podcasts and or Stitcher. It really helps us a lot to get this content to a wider audience. If you think what we’re doing is useful, interesting, fun, hopefully all three, we’d certainly appreciate your rating and review. You can keep up with Nori at nori.
com where there is a newsletter. That’s nori.com slash subscribe. There’s podcast. There’s a whole bunch else. Or you can send us an email at podcast at nori.com. We are also now on Patreon at patreon.com slash noripodcasts if you’d like more content, engagement, and community. And thank you so much for your support.
