Europe has a lot happening for carbon removal, and on several different levels. What is the state of CDR policy and industry?
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
Resources
"Decoding the Net-Zero Industry Act – Implications for carbon removal" by Carbon Gap
"Envisioning a carbon removal strategy for Europe" by Carbon Gap
Full Transcript
Announcer: You’re listening to Carbon Removal Newsroom, a weekly show about current events in the world of carbon removal, from technology and innovation to policymaking and job growth. Brought to you by Nori, the carbon removal marketplace.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Hello and welcome to a special edition of Carbon Removal Newsroom. As anyone who’s been following this space knows, the European Union has been bustling with activity as lawmakers have been crafting regulations for the burgeoning CDR industry. And just a few days ago, announcing some funding as well. With an increased focus on capturing and storing vast amounts of carbon dioxide, the EU is stepping up its efforts as never before. Carbon Gap is an advocacy group at the forefront of this policy movement working to advance the CDR industry in Europe. Today, we are joined by Sylvain Delers, the Associate Research Director from Carbon Gap.
He’ll give us the latest updates on European CDR policy and discuss how his organization is working to accelerate the industry’s growth. So welcome. Thanks for joining me from France, Sylvain.
Sylvain Delerce: Yeah, thanks. Thanks for having us.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, glad to have you. And I want to start kind of badly, which is CarbonGap’s general strategy for advancing CDR in Europe, which was released last month. So obviously across the world, the EU included, the CRA industry is just getting off the ground. So what do you think needs to happen for carbon removal to be included in the investment that the EU is making in energy transition and the climate fight? Or maybe you think it shouldn’t be included and should be its own separate bucket?
Sylvain Delerce: Yeah, so that’s a very important document indeed that we released some time ago now. The idea is really to provide the EU with a vision of what could be a more cohesive plan for CDR in Europe. It starts with the observation that I think we probably share actually across the Atlantic that CDR is somehow at crossroads now. There is significant momentum that has been built in recent years with more companies. More companies, more purchases, more investments, and all this looks very good. We are also seeing a CDR policy slowly emerging, particularly in the EU.
So all this is very good. We see a risk that the momentum could be lost, particularly based on the remaining ambiguity that exists on the long-term objectives and vision for CDR, particularly in the EU. We still see some confusions and CDR being lumped with CCS in specific texts, or even with reductions. That was the case at the beginning of the day. So the process of identifying CDR as a separate climate tool is not yet complete. There is a lack of support, particularly in the EU, from fundamental research to innovation and deployment and scale-up.
Which is starting to become a strong bottleneck. The lack of vision, I mentioned it, it’s hard to tell what will be the shape and rules of that trillion dollar market that we discussed often. So yeah, again, the EU has made We have had significant progress in recent years with the CLCF, the strategy on industrial carbon management, green claims, and other important texts. But this policy remains fragmented. Initially, the text on green claims and the CRCF were not even connected or referring to each other. Our efforts together with other organizations have contributed to improve this, but that’s to show a little bit the concerns.
So yeah, we are convinced that now is the time for the EU to put forward a cohesive plan to address the remaining gaps. So this vision builds on the progress already made, particularly on what we call enabling So that refers to setting targets to provide a clear direction of travel for the sect. Clarifying the rules. So that’s what has begun with the CRCF on certification, but More needs to be done. And then also that the last enabling condition is around CO2 infrastructure or transport and storage, which of course is an important element.
And on the top of this, this document and Vision explore four specific pillars where we think the EU needs to go next to provide more vision and clear regulations. One is around funding or research and innovation. We have actually tried to quantify the gap between what is currently spent on CDR research and what should be spent and also comparing with the US. The funding on research is It’s both needed and strategic for the EU. The goal is to reduce the uncertainty by building demonstrators, gathering data and learning more on how far we can go with the different CDR methods, broadening the range of existing CDR methods, potentially researching new ones, but also optimizing the ones that exist.
I’m thinking DAC particularly and the energy consumption. And also unlocking some similar approaches that are currently blocked or will be very soon based on the lack of assessment of the ecosystem impact and the problem of acceptance. And also research on governance that we think is key to build the sector on a very strong basis and to build trust in the market. The second pillar focuses on deployment incentives. So here the channel is really to bring carbon removal methods from the lab to the field. And yeah, I guess the EU is a little bit late.
We relate on that compared to other geographies, particularly the US. So we’ve explored different approaches and we are focused on one, which is to create a pilot procurement program that would evolve over time to start with public money and then progressively involve more private money and then eventually evolve into what we call the carbon clearinghouse. The third pillar is about looking a little bit longer into the future and create what we call the enduring policy framework. And to create that long-term logic we need for buying CDR in large amounts. So you may be aware that the EU is already considering or looking at the option of integrating carbon removal into the ETS or the Emission Trading Scheme, which is the mechanism we use to decarbonize carbon intensive industries in particular.
Cap and trade market that is finally successful with the prices that have gone up. This option was a little bit the starting point for this conversation and for the pillar, but we significantly broadened the conversation and in the third Peter, what we suggested that the EU needs to look at diversifying the compliance mechanisms it is looking at to increase the demand for CDR and stacking them, so not betting on A particular one, like ATS could be, but really looking at diversifying, so potentially looking at embedding more carbon removal into the existing legislations and economic activities, much like, for example, what was In the state of New York with concrete, a lot of other sectors could be, could reveal similar opportunities, I guess.
And finally, the fourth pillar is around, you know, creating the conditions for a fair and inclusive governance of this new industry that is CDR. And yeah, we think this is more like a cross-cutting, yeah. Condition in a way to be successful for the EU to build the trust in the market among investors and all stakeholders. Actually, it is also a commitment that the EU has already made in a way to adjust an inclusive green transition, particularly in the European Green Deal. And so we have a series of recommendations for all these different pillars, 18 in total.
And I invite everyone to go and check them.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, I read your report and I thought it made so much sense. So Silvette, I’m wondering how you think about individual European commitments, country commitments versus the EU. Explain for the US audience a little bit who’s not as familiar with how these Different governments interact, how a EU policy might impact an individual European country who’s maybe approaching it slightly differently or has started working in it already, in CDR already.
Sylvain Delerce: Yeah, that’s very much what’s happening so far. And different countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, even the UK have put forward early policy proposals to boost the CDR sector and organize its growth. More recently, actually, Germany has also started to develop its own CDR strategy, which is due, I guess, by the end of the year. That is very helpful so far, I would say for the EU as like an experiment or a set of experiments that I know the EU Commission is looking at with great interest to see, you know, what’s working, what are the approaches that are effective and all this.
Now, what happens then is that if the EU pass a piece of legislation, for example, the carbon removal certification framework, it sets the bar at a certain level that the EU members need to comply with. They can go beyond, but this is like the minimum, in the case of certification, the minimum quality the markets would need to meet. So that’s typically how it works. And that’s where, again, there is like an interplay between member state action and EU action where both can foster or encourage each other, depending, you know, who’s ahead, I would say.
So yeah, these particular cases are very helpful and help moving the EU as a whole forward more or faster.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So it’s sort of akin to our state to federal relationship, it sounds like, where states can experiment. The federal government might implement some of those ideas or they might pass legislation that usually is the minimum threshold that you have to beat if it applies. That makes a ton of sense. So I’m curious also... Why do you think the EU, you know, you mentioned it’s sort of fallen behind the U. S. in terms particularly of maybe research dollars. Of course, we’ve also, the U. S. has put in a lot of money into procurement dollars recently per CDR.
What has held the EU back from some of these funding versus more like regulatory proposals? So, and do you expect that to change in the next six months to, you know, year or so?
Sylvain Delerce: Yeah, hopefully. Actually, yeah, I guess the US and the EU have different approaches to technology and clean tech in general, so there have been We have some investments and support in the EU, particularly through the Innovation Fund for projects like the Koda Terminal in Iceland for CapFix. It’s a big project, but overall it’s very limited compared to what’s happening in the U. S. where you have a combination of different measures from tax credits So I think that’s where we’re a little bit behind. It could change because I would say typically the EU will start regulating and then deploying.
So there is a window of time in, as you say, probably the coming one or two years where the EU could shift gears. And, you know, start deploying some supports, particularly for the more mature, probably CDR methods and catch up. We do have a very active ecosystem of enterprise. So I know of several startups that have not even raised their first round with very cool concepts, you know, that could be somehow game changing on different metrics for different scenario methods. The EU should support them. And cool things could happen. If not, then we could have a migration or we could also lose momentum, which is something that I know is a little bit concerning within the ecosystem for the coming three to five years, depending what happens and what doesn’t happen.
We might be at risk of losing some projects.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah. It does feel like it sort of follows the same sort of same basic path as all things in the environment. The U. S. throws lots of money. The EU works on the regulations first. I’m curious, you know, you mentioned the report’s been out for a while. So I know you’ve had a series of events about it and also have probably talked to policymakers within the EU. So what overall has been the reception? Has there been anything that has been surprising that you’ve heard in response to the report?
Sylvain Delerce: Yeah, so indeed the preparation of the report, first of all, involved a series of consultation with peers, academic teams, and policy makers, CDR doers, typically on the question of the ETS integration, on the assessment of the funding gap, where we had a chance to exchange with the EU agencies running the Horizon program or the Innovation Fund. And to crush also our positions or propositions on the justice side, we had a chance to exchange with academics and civil society organizations. On the day of the launch, we had four We have, again, a set of diverse stakeholders, policymakers from the Commission, member of the European Parliament, members of the Parliament of, you know, member states as well.
Academics from Oxford, Lund University, Post-Arm Institute, and some stakeholders like CarbonX, South Pole of the Carbon Business Council. So that was very interesting. And the objective was really to make this more of a shared vision, because I think the reality is that most of stakeholders would benefit from a clear strategy from the EU. We’ve had a good reception of the report and the launch event. I think a lot of people were very interested and that includes, you know, interest already at the top EU level. So now we are more in a phase of dissemination where we are trying to engage with more policymakers, including in the member states, because I think the strategy applies also at this level.
And we are also now in the context of the EU election, which is due on the 9th of June. So we are also trying to engage with the candidates essentially to communicate this vision and empower them a little bit on this topic.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Oh, interesting about the EU election. I’m sure you don’t get the same question we always get, which is, if it flips, does CDR exist at all? Do you... Is that an issue for the EU or do you feel pretty confident that all candidates will support it? It’s just kind of the level of support.
Sylvain Delerce: Yeah, so I think the picture is a little bit different in this case. In the EU, the governance or lawmaking process involves three different organizations. So the Commission, the Parliament and the Council. So the election is for the European Parliament. So that’s only one of the three. And yes, there might be evolution of the composition of the Parliament. I mean, there might be a little bit less of a priority put on climate compared to the previous cycle where a lot of important bills were passed, you know, around the grand deal.
But so, yeah, it would probably change a little bit, but it’s not one or zero, I hope. And yeah, so very much looking forward to the results and to working with the new electives.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Well, I am glad that at least you’re not totally immune to some of the things that happen within the U. S. It’s nice to know we’re all in this together. I wanted to pivot just a little bit to some of the other work that Garbent Gap is doing because you guys do a whole bunch of stuff. And one of the interesting things that I always look forward to is your sort of the country specific CDR roadmaps. Yeah. Because it just educates me on so much. And so you’re based in France.
And I’m kind of curious, you didn’t mention France in your long list earlier, but how is France doing? What’s its approach? And, you know, what do you hope for the country?
Sylvain Delerce: Yeah, so this is a very cool project indeed. It starts with the observation that countries, many countries still have a hard time to figure out what to do with covering wool in a way. It’s hard for them to know How much CDR would make sense on the journey to net zero and beyond? Actually, you have those IPCC targets for the world, but then how does it translate at a local level? How much can they do? What they do actually, how much CDR can they deploy? Most of the time, this data is not available and how to do it, how to deploy this potential.
So with these country reports, which are largely inspired by the Renewable Readiness Assessments that are published by the International Renewable Agency. The idea is really to look into specific countries and do a bottom-up assessment of the existing resources, look at their actual availability and trends in the future. So, you know, we’re discussing water, bioglass, decarbonized electricity, and see what’s the outlook. To then try to come up with a first estimate, which is like the theoretical potential of how much carbon removal could be deployed, all methods considered. Then we also put emphasis in Considering what we call the social geography of the countries, that’s the social reality of each country, which is always very different.
And, you know, how people perceive the action on climate, where city are fixed in this picture. Are there some resistance, lack of awareness? All these things are very important because from a technical point of view, you may have a lot of potential, but if people are not on board with the project, you can’t do much. And the example we often use is the one of nuclear energy in Germany, where there is no technical constraint, but of course, a choice was made. So that’s the idea of the project. And yeah, in the case of France, which is the first report we released, it was on the 7th of March.
It was very interesting to do this assessment. Eventually we identified a potential for France to deploy by 2050 between 75 and 146 megatonnes CO2 carbon removal per year, which would be It could be enough to meet the net zero goal, which is currently the climate goal of France, but also to go beyond. So that’s if France would stick to its emission reduction pathway, it could go net negative Interestingly, we see that the diversity of carbon removal methods is a real asset in this deployment. It involves a huge diversity of cellular matters and its balance between nature-based and more permanent removals and actually allows France to meet what we call durable net zero, which is a state where you are able to compensate the remaining fossil emissions with permanent removals.
We also see when doing these assessments quickly, which are the, you know, physical limits that cilia will face in Europe. And in France, it’s also true. Biomass is a very much constrained mechanism. Same goes for land. And so you quickly see where the limits are. And as a result, for example, DAX play a role in the scenarios that is potentially much more than what people would think. And because it uses, you know, less land and we already have decarbonized energy in France, which is in this case an advantage. So, yeah, we identified this potential, but of course, and yeah, there was There’s also another part of the project, which is about designing what would be a roadmap to deploy this potential.
This was done in a collaborative way with stakeholders, national stakeholders. Stakeholders to discuss, you know, what would be the right approach and most efficient way of deploying this potential. So we have a separate document, which is like an early roadmap that could inform also policymaking. But of course, reaching this potential will require significant engagement and proactive policymaking. That’s essentially the call to policymakers. And actually the report was published quite timely because France is about to review or publish the next version of what is called the low carbon strategy. It’s essentially the roadmap to net zero where reaching net zero is becoming increasingly challenging for France, mostly because the forest thing is impacted by climate change and is reduced in capacity quite significantly.
Radhika Moolgavkar: It’s fascinating and so in-depth, like the number of strands you guys are pulling together is amazing. One particular area I’m curious about working on the supply side of the world is how do you think about technical readiness for the carbon removal pathways you chose to evaluate? You know, one thing I learned earlier Yeah. So how do you factor like that complicated dance of technical readiness, scientific certainty when evaluating methods for countries?
Sylvain Delerce: Yeah, that’s a very good question. And in this case, of course, we had to go through this process and choosing which methods would be contributing to the scenarios and which not. TRL 3 is already quite good. I would say you’re lucky because in most of EU funding you can find, the bar is usually higher, which is even more of a problem. So in this case, for the report, the approach we’ve taken is to consider, of course, high TRLs, but also go a little bit beyond that. Essentially based on availability of data to estimate the resource requirements of the methods so that we can have a fairly good estimates of what is needed to run these methods and sufficiently comparable with other methods.
And also. You know, some methods are still ranked quite low in TRL, but in the reality, you have demonstrators being built, you have huge contracts being signed. So for us, it also shows, you know, certain level of readiness or maturity. So, but still, for example, we had to rule out some ocean-based methods because of, you know, low data availability essentially preventing us from processing. Creating good estimates. And so, yeah, that could be for version two of the report, I guess. But that’s also what makes us think that the numbers we put forward, we’re confident that it’s actually feasible because You do have a margin of error in both ways.
So of course, some of the methods that are in the scenarios could underperform or be delayed. But also we know that we had to rule out some methods that in fact might come And that’s true for CDR, but that’s also true for decarbonized energy, you know, small modular reactor, osmosis, you know, new things that are coming. We don’t know how fast, so that’s why it’s not yet in the scenarios, but it could perfectly materialize earlier than expected.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, the fun of CDR, I think, of this whole transition is sort of gamifying what’s coming and what’s not. All right. So the next thing I really want to quickly turn to is the Net Zero Industry Act. And maybe you could start by just telling our audience, what is the Net Zero Industry Act and its impact on European industries?
Sylvain Delerce: Sure. So the Net Zero Industry Act is essentially a response to the Inflation Reduction Act in the US and the massive part of money that has been put on, you know, clean tech in general. So this is. It’s a package that the EU has been negotiating and that has now been approved. It covers a wide range of clean techs like renewables, so wind, solar, heat pumps, hydrogen, battery. And CCS actually. So the idea is to support the re-industrialization and to support the development of these clean techs. For example, with strategic projects, accelerated permitting, what they call regulatory sandboxes.
So, you know, a very early tech can have some flexibilities for a number of years before moving back to market. And yeah, so the whole challenge with this NZIA for CDR was to be included in the list of key technologies that are covered by the Act. In the end, it was not the case. So CCS is part of the list of key technology. CDR is not. Which means that for now, carbon removal can only access what they call innovative technologies. So that’s a second list of technology, if you will, and CDR could access regulatory sandboxes, for example, but not the rest of incentives.
So it is a little bit of a missed opportunity and there is an opportunity for a revision in four years from now to see if CDR can be included.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Why was CDR not included? Is it too early? Or why was it in that second bucket you mentioned?
Sylvain Delerce: Yeah, it was probably too early, although not in our opinion, obviously. But yeah, there was a lot of negotiation on the key technologies. For example, nuclear was eventually included. But I guess the focus was on the other technology I mentioned. And in the end, carbon dioxide removal was probably not sufficiently known or not considered strategic at this point.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Interesting. Okay. The other provision that I’m particularly curious about is that the oil and gas industry must be responsible for building underground carbon storage infrastructure, I believe. And so that could in the long term benefit the CDR industry, I suppose. But You know, in this country, at least, there’s a lot of concern and pushback on that in local communities. So I’m wondering, one, if that’s even an issue yet within the within EU community, like engagement and pushback on things like this. And to what whether you think this rule will help the CDR industry eventually.
Sylvain Delerce: Yeah, this is a very interesting provision under Article 18 in the Net Zero Industry Act. So first of all, the act puts an objective to develop a capacity to inject CO2 on the ground about It’s about 50 million tonnes annually by 2030. And what is also quite new is the fact that it puts an obligation on the oil and gas producer to contribute to develop this capacity. In a way, one of the first occurrences of the concept of the carbon take back obligation that you may know, and it is essentially the idea of the political base with several objectives.
First of all, in the EU, we need to speed up the development of geological storage capacity. It is becoming a real bottleneck with not enough capacity and the capacity to concentrate it in the northern part of the EU. It is also an incentive to unlock the depleted oil and gas field with the obligation to disclose the data and then potentially tap into it to develop the capacity. So the burden somehow is placed on the oil and gas industry with some exemptions. For example, when a state already has enough capacity to meet the quota, then There can be exemption for the local producers and also small producers below a certain threshold would not be obliged to contribute.
There will be penalties for non-compliance, but they are still to be defined. So this is a very nice progress and very much needed, but it’s not completely...
Radhika Moolgavkar: Do you think generally local communities will be then supportive of this? Because this sounds more like a cleanup than something more like infrastructure.
Sylvain Delerce: It is hard to say, yeah, it is hard to say. Of course, the fact that the oil and gas in The industry is responsible for developing the capacity is new and potentially could help. But I think concerns on the safety are still very much widespread across the EU, for good or bad. So yeah, I think most of the countries and operators will start offshore just because it’s simpler and that’s what already exists in the EU. So it creates a precedent. The onshore part. It’s tricky, to be honest, and it remains to be seen how fast we can go in countries like Germany, France, Poland, where there is potential, but, you know, it’s also very densely populated.
And so, yeah, I think this debate is far from over.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, it is tricky. I mean, in this country, even where it’s not densely populated, there have been a lot, obviously, a lot of issues around Europe. Okay, so I’m going to move on to our final two topics. And really quickly, I want to come back to the CRCF, the Carbon Removal Certification Framework, in the sense coming back that in February, we talked to Sebastian about it. Obviously, now it’s a couple months later. So I’m just wondering the progress of the CRCF and if you’ve seen any follow-up from that yet, or is that still in the works?
Sylvain Delerce: Yes, so then maybe I can cover very quickly the basics because I’m sure you’ve already explored them, but essentially CRCF is a very important milestone for the EU and more broadly the CDR ecosystem because there’s, it’s kind of The first large scale effort to provide standards for certification. So the CACF so far has been voted, the first part has been voted, which is the general framework, which defines, you know, four different kinds of carbon removal, if you will, between, you know, actually emission reduction in carbon farming, removals in carbon farming products and permanent removals.
The definitions have been improved along the way and are now more inclusive and future-proof, so that’s good. And the framework sets a basic quality criteria, which is about the quantification, additionality, long-term storage, and sustainability of the methods. Also good or interesting features, there is a liability mechanism in case of reversal. So the activity and monitoring periods are distinguished and then the credits will exist as long as the monitoring period And also the CRC app will establish a common and transparent EU-wide registry, which will be very helpful to track the lifecycle of the credits and see, you know, what kinds of transactions are made on the So the overall CNCF has been approved and is now entering into force.
So now we are moving into the phase of developing the methodologies specific to each CDR method. And that’s something that the EU Commission is in charge of doing with support from expert group, which is a set of about 70 organizations gathering on a regular basis to provide You know, insights, learnings and data on what are the existing methodologies, which ones are working and so on. We actually had a meeting of the expert group last week in Brussels, a three days workshop. And so the first methodologies are expected for 2026. So right now there is a discussion around prioritization of the methodologies and also, of course, the scope and how they will work.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Well, things are moving. So that’s exciting. And I assume they’ll announce the methodologies before they actually write the methodologies. So I’ll be excited and curious to see how they choose, which is always an interesting process, at least here at Nori, it is all the things we think about. All right. Final thing I want to ask you about is green claims. I’ve touched on this before on the show, but there is a lot of new legislation out there about making green claims. And so the committee from the European Parliament released a report on how green claims should be governed and adding additional rules to reduce greenwashing.
So first question is, why is this important and how does it relate to carbon removal specifically? I’ll start there.
Sylvain Delerce: Actually, it’s a very good segue from the former question on CRCF because one of the blind spots of CRCF in a way is what we call the use cases for these units that we will certify. It is not really well-defined or covered In the CLCF, what these units should or could be used for. And that of course makes the work on defining the methodologies a little bit harder because of course, depending on the use case, you know, the methodology can be defined accordingly with different So what’s nice about green claims is that this is a piece of regulation to rule.
Put some rules around green and environmental and climate related claims, which is one of the use cases for CDR potentially. So claims are a useful tool to motivate private spending on climate, but it’s also, there’s also the risk that they can just create green rushing and generate no actual climate benefits. So with this piece of regulation, the EU intends to better regulate claims to protect consumers and limit rain washing. So in the green claims, the provision says that claims should This should be made only on the compensation of residual emissions, first of all, and that the carbon credits that could be used for this should be CRCF compliant.
So mostly CRCF certified or certified. Other equivalent standards if approved by the commission. And another interesting provision is that it introduced the concept of like-for-like principle so that remaining or residual fossil emissions can only be compensated by permanent carbon removal.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So this will be my final question for you, which is this idea of like, for like, I think most people are familiar with it, but how do you at Carbon Gap think about the need for very immediate action and the delay in time for the permanent removals? You know, obviously these are residual emissions, but we want to go as fast as we can. And so how do you balance those, what I sometimes feel like are intention goals?
Sylvain Delerce: Yeah. So this concept of MAC4-like principle really stems from how the carbon cycle works and, you know, the long and short carbon cycle and how we need to reestablish or rebalance the carbon fluxes to head towards durable net zero again. It is really important, particularly for the case of compensation, but compensation is only one use case for carbon removal. And that’s another of our favorite topics at Carbon Gap. We’re trying to really expand The landscape of use cases so that, you know, we don’t only discuss compensation and, you know, the potential impacts, for example, on the voluntary carbon market and can be too restrictive.
And what do we do, for example, with less permanent removals and all these things. The reality is that you have many potential use cases and many ways of creating demand and supporting the expansion of CDR. So we think that the like-for-life principle is very important if we want Again, to generate real climate benefit. And in parallel, you need to create these other use cases and other demand streams so that we can actually scale up very fast those methods that are already made true. I’m thinking, of course, nature-based solution with potentially other use cases so that, yeah, we can both move fast on the mature solution and create a strong, you know, market case.
And it also sends a clear price signal for fossil emissions, you know, essentially saying that this will not be cheap to compensate anymore. So it also reinforced in a way the incentive to decarbonize, which is I think also very important.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, I couldn’t agree with you more. Well, it has been lovely talking to you. It’s the first time on the show, but I certainly hope that you come back and keep us up to date on all the work you guys are doing and all the work in the EU. Thank you so much, Sylvain.
Sylvain Delerce: No, thank you very much. Really good to you and Nori for all what you’re doing. I’m a big fan of this show. Thanks and see you. See you next time.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, maybe hopefully in France.
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 removal.
