We planned an episode this week about carbon removal policy in the next Congress. At the time of recording we still don’t know which party will control either chamber. Since it looks most likely that the GOP will win at least the House of Representatives, we focused this episode on the prospect for bipartisan CDR policy opportunities.
While Joe Biden and the Democrats retain control of the White House, they likely can’t pass legislation without Republican votes like they’ve been able to do for the last two years. All legislation, including the annual budget, must be agreed upon by both parties.
The U.S. invested a lot in CDR during the last congress…
-Some of that the Democrats passed alone, like increases to the 45Q tax credit included in the Inflation Reduction Act,
-but some were done on a bipartisan basis, like the direct investments in CDR found in the Infrastructure bill and CHIPS Act.
What can we expect from Federal Government in the next two years? Will divided government bring more or less support for CDR?
We have two special guest panelists here to discuss this with us today, Savita Bowman, a Program Manager at Clearpath, and Karly Matthews, the Communications Director at the American Conservation Coalition.
Chris Barnard is away at COP27 this week and Radhika Moolgavkar is away. This episode was guest hosted by CRN producer Asa Kamer.
On This Episode
Savita Bowman
Karly Matthews
Resources
American Conservation Coalition
Increases to the 45Q tax credit
CDR in the Infrastructure bill and CHIPS Act
Growing Climate Solutions Act stalls
US Climate Targets Achievable if Congress Flips
Subscribe to Climate Workers Anonymous
My other show, Reversing Climate Change
Books referenced in the podcasts, at Bookshop
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.
Asa Kamer: Hello and welcome to this week’s edition of Carbon Removal Newsroom. My name is Asa Kamer. I’m the producer of the show and our normal host Radhika is Not with us this week, so I’m going to be filling in. Today, we are going to be talking about carbon removal policy in the next Congress. And we had planned to talk about what the prospects are for carbon removal policy in the US over the next two years. And things are not quite clear what the composition of the Congress is going to be. So that does complicate it a little bit.
We’re recording here on Thursday afternoon. But I think we have a general sense and enough to kind of lead into the conversation. And we’re going to kind of talk about bipartisanship anyway. So I think that’s probably where that’s going to lead. So joining us this week is Savi Bowman, Program Manager at ClearPath. Hi, Savi.
Savita Bowman: Thanks for having me.
Asa Kamer: Yes, wonderful. Carly Matthews, Communication Director at the American Conservation Coalition. Hi, Carly.
Karly Matthews: Hey, thanks for having me.
Asa Kamer: The last two years have seen a lot of advancements for carbon removal policy in terms of the federal government. The Democratic Party, when they controlled the Congress and the White House, did some of that unilaterally, and there was also some bipartisan legislation that supported carbon removal. In terms of the Democrats passing a loan, there was the significant increase to the 45Q tax credit that was included in their Inflation Reduction Act. And in terms of bipartisan legislation, we also saw CDR funding in the infrastructure bill as well as the CHIPS Act.
So what can we expect from the federal government in the next two years? Will what will probably be divided government? I think most likely we can say the Republicans are going to win the House. So assuming that we have a divided government, is that going to bring more or less support for CDR? So just to start with, I would love to hear from both of you Your reactions to this election from the perspective of climate and if possible, carbon removal, certainly not the top of the headlines, you know, today, but when you think about climate legislation in the next couple of years and carbon removal, what does the election make you think we might be looking at in the next two years?
So Savi, I’ll kick to you first.
Savita Bowman: Yeah. So thank you so much for your question and great question. Um, While, as you currently mentioned, we don’t really have a decision, we can kind of make that prediction that the Republicans are likely going to take the House. And while there’s still a lot of uncertainty, what’s clear is that bipartisan cooperation is going to be essential to advance any meaningful policy in the next Congress. Even in the current Congress, most of the major energy legislation that was enacted was either enacted on a bipartisan basis or contain provisions that have historically enjoyed bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, technology innovation has always been a bipartisan space, so I am optimistic about carbon removal because I think it’s a technology area that both parties can support. The CRUST Act, or the Carbon Removal and Emissions Storage Technologies Act, which was introduced by Senators Susan Collins from Maine and Maria Cantwell from Washington State, is actually a great example of how to advance carbon removal policy on a bipartisan basis.
Asa Kamer: Excellent. Thanks. And Carly, what do you think?
Karly Matthews: Absolutely. I’d echo everything that Savvy said. Obviously, we didn’t see a red wave. And anytime there’s a narrow majority, as Democrats experienced the last Congress, you have to work with the other party nine times out of 10 if you’re going to get anything done. So I’m really looking forward to seeing what bipartisan legislation can be enacted and what legislators are willing to work on together. On NBC News election night, Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina suggested maybe something could get done on energy. And when I think energy, I think energy innovation, which to me includes CDR and R&D on carbon removal technologies.
So I’m optimistic. We’ll see what happens. But I’m hoping that both parties will be willing to work together.
Asa Kamer: And, you know, this might be more of like a narrative thing. I don’t really know how legislators actually end up thinking about it. But to me, you kind of think if there’s a narrow win on some ways, does that suggest that voters are maybe sending a message of moderation? They’re not necessarily giving a huge thumbs up to the president. They’re not necessarily, you know, going all the way with the other parties. There’s some, you know, I guess I would like to think legislators might take to heart a bit of, yeah, work together, you know, kind of Figure out some of these core issues that Americans are obviously facing, energy prices being a huge one.
So, I mean, you guys are both in D. C. , you’re very plugged in. Is that true or is it just kind of back to, you know, back to the bunker, fight for everything?
Unknown speaker: Carly, take a stab.
Asa Kamer: Okay, go for it, go for it.
Karly Matthews: Yeah, it’s a good question. I mean, I think when it comes down to it, a lot of legislators really are friends across the aisle and want to work together on things. At ACC, we try our best to work across the aisle as much as possible. And we did an event, I believe it was last year, with Abigail Spanberger and Don Bacon, who are really good friends and were able to work on the Growing Climate Solutions Act together, which passed the Senate, but it doesn’t look like it’ll make it through the House this session.
So I really do think that there are Opportunities for legislators to really work across the aisle. I think that the best legislators we have want to do that. And politics gets in the way sometimes. But I think that a lot of folks here in Washington want to do what’s right. And I think what’s right is working across the aisle.
Asa Kamer: Savvy, anything to add?
Savita Bowman: Yeah, I think that was a really great summary. And if anything, As we see with policy movement, the bipartisan solutions are the ones that get across the finish line without any concern or heartburn later of like, is there going to be any backsliding or any issues with the policy later on? So I think bipartisanship is something we strive for as well to have that communication across the aisle. But of course, politics sometimes, of course, gets in the way. So it’s just sometimes the moment and trying to figure out How we can leverage relationships and how we can also work to get what’s clean tech and what’s needed through and out the door.
Asa Kamer: Very cool. And they say the best climate legislation is the one that can pass. Savvy, I’ve got another question for you, which is that It’s kind of related to what we’re talking about. Your work with Clear Path, I think with legislators, you work on some pretty esoteric and some pretty complex energy issues. I would doubt that every member of Congress is fully in the weeds on some of this stuff. In terms of carbon removal, what is their general level of familiarity and what kind of questions are they asking?
Savita Bowman: That is another really great question. And it’s interesting because it varies. And it’s exciting to see so many policymakers from both parties interested in carbon removal. Everyone knows that trees capture carbon dioxide, but carbon removal is still a new topic. We’re no longer just doing the tried and true method of planting a tree. Now we have companies like Charm Industrial that’s pyrolyzing biomass residue and turning it into bio oil to store underground. We have director of capture companies like Carbon Engineering, Carbon Capture Inc. That are Taking out CO2 from the air in Texas and Wyoming, if I remember that correctly.
And then rock weathering companies like Lithos. So innovators are getting very creative with the way that they’re trying to solve this Rubik’s cube and it can get kind of tough to keep up. And some congressional staff members and staff, sorry, are so well-versed That they’d like don’t need any one on one explainers before jumping into policy solution discussions while others have never heard of carbon. So I would say it varies, but the vast majority are eager to learn if they don’t know. And the questions that they’re asking, they’re asking, what is the case for government action?
Where is the technology now versus where it needs to be? How do we focus on the implementation of the programs like the director of capture hubs, which was recently passed in the bipartisan infrastructure package? And then in terms of policy structure, how is it going to interact with current policy mechanisms? Like you mentioned 45Q, or how do we structure programs to set them up for success and ensure competitiveness? So, um, something that I think is really unique about the Crest Act is that it is a great example of policy tackling the need to innovate and develop solutions, but then also scale them through a technology, inclusive, competitive federal carbon purchase program, but.
The key is technology inclusive. I think a lot of these solutions that we see out there in the policy space today have the focus on DAC. And I think seeing that shift to a lot of different carbon removal solutions is interesting because there are so many that are coming out. And congressional members and staffers, they work on so many different things like health care or defense. And so they need to know what this very specific thing is and how one process can Greatly differ from another. So it’s also important for policymakers to understand it because we’re asking for a lot of money to be put into these programs and rightfully so.
Um, but you know, Congress needs to know why it’s important. So they look for the experts to then tell them what the technologies are and why they matter.
Asa Kamer: Right. And since you mentioned it, are there, since you’re saying there are legislators who are very plugged in on carbon removal and their staffs are very knowledgeable, any that you want to shout out just for our curiosity right now? Are there any that are really in the weeds on this?
Savita Bowman: Well, gosh, I have to say that Molly Ryan at Senator Cantwell, or sorry, Senator Collins’ office is super plugged in. When we were going in and we were working with her on the Crest Act and we helped sort of develop some of the text behind it, She was so plugged in on the technologies themselves and was rather more focused on like, does this policy make sense? And that was so interesting of a conversation rather than actually having to spend the time talking through a 101 carbon removal. So that’s amazing.
Asa Kamer: And it speaks to how fast this is, this issue is getting, getting attention that there’s senators, staffers who are, who are that plugged in. So that’s really cool. Um, Carly, I want to kick it back to you here. So the ACC, the organization you’re with, it’s a leading right of center environmental organization. And do you get the sense there’s a lot of interest in carbon removal among Republicans? And we just heard about Susan Collins’ office, but is there legislation they might be interested in now that they probably control the House along with the Democrats controlling other parts of government?
Karly Matthews: Sure yeah I think that carbon removal generally is definitely really top of mind for both elected Republicans but also conservative climate advocates. And you know technological innovation has always been kind of at the heart of what a conservative climate approaches, so I think that carbon removal technologies fit really nicely into that, but I think we’re also seeing some kind of. I don’t know enthusiasm perhaps for natural climate solutions and even natural carbon carbon sequestration. I know savvy said you know we’re beyond the point where it’s just as simple as planting a tree but there is some enthusiasm for doing just that planting trees and restoring So some legislation that comes to mind for me on that is the Trillion Trees Act.
I mentioned the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which has a kind of agricultural focus. As far as technologies go, I think that Frank Lucas This has a bill. It’s called the Securing American Leadership in Science and Technology Act. And that really works on kind of the research side of what carbon sequestration technologies can do and what they can be. So I think there’s a lot of enthusiasm. I actually think this is not only a really bipartisan topic, but it’s also something that Republicans bring, you know, kind of some real enthusiasm, real willingness to come to the table on.
Asa Kamer: Yeah, I mean, that does really make sense, especially when you consider, you know, there are some solutions that will require expertise from oil and gas industry and take place, like Savvy was saying, in a place like Texas or Oklahoma or Wyoming. You know, Wyoming is leading the way in a lot of ways in terms of state preparedness for carbon sequestration. So, you know, it definitely seems like a natural fit. Just to go off of what you’re saying about the natural solutions, you’ve written about this and you have a piece that was titled The Urban-Rural Climate Divide Should Be Bridged by Nature, which is a very nice headline.
And can you tell us what you meant by that and what type of carbon removal approaches we’re talking about and You know, the thing that interests me, and this is something we’ve talked about with your colleague, Chris, a lot is, you know, carbon removal will imply investment. And so if it’s taking place in rural areas, theoretically, this is something that would be, you know, a boon to people who live there, be it in the form of jobs or whatever. So, I mean, what does that look like to you, this climate divide being bridged by nature?
Can you tell us about that?
Karly Matthews: Sure, yeah. So I’m glad you brought this up. It was definitely one of my favorite pieces I’ve written. Just for some background, I grew up in really rural Pennsylvania, and climate wasn’t really a topic that we talked about at all, but agriculture and environmental stewardship absolutely were. So when I started working for ACC, now I live in, I don’t want to call it the concrete jungle, but I live in a city now. I live in DC. So I kind of saw this divide of How rural folks think about climate and the environment, but then how people in urban areas think about it.
And I realized that in both situations, I wanted to be surrounded by green space and trees. And it didn’t matter if I was in DC or if I was back home in Pennsylvania. So kind of the idea of this piece is that natural climate solutions are really kind of that bridge of climate action that both rural and urban people can really get behind right in urban areas, you know you kind of crave. Green space kind of break up the asphalt and the concrete and actually it has some kind of co benefits.
Not related to climate per se, but, you know, kind of lowering on ground temperatures, improving air quality, things like that. And then in rural areas, you know, you’re always thinking about stewardship and making sure soil quality is high so that agricultural Natural practices are successful and bountiful. So natural climate solutions are by no means kind of a silver bullet, but I think that engaging in sustainable and regenerative agriculture is really kind of the gateway to climate action for rural communities, reforestation, proper forest management. Those things are common sense conservation tactics, but they’re also climate action.
And that was kind of the idea of the piece.
Asa Kamer: Very cool so savvy I’m gonna do a bit of a 180 here and go from natural solutions to technical solutions and talk about direct air capture the bipartisan. Infrastructure bill from a couple years ago, as you mentioned, had 3. 5 billion for DAC hubs. That’s now in the implementation phase through the Department of Energy. So do you think the next Congress is going to continue to support DAC? You kind of touched on this a little bit, but either through funding or sort of focused implementation of You know, the DAC hubs, uh, or are there other issues in terms of research or tax credits that DAC needs?
Because as all the projections show, it needs to scale really fast to have an impact. So do you think Congress is going to continue to look at that, that specific technology?
Savita Bowman: Yes, but the conversation is evolving even beyond DAC. You know, like I mentioned before, DAC is a wonderful solution because it has all the traits of high quality removal that folks are looking for. It’s additional, it’s measurable, it’s durable, but policymakers don’t want to pick winners. They want a level playing field for carbon removal solutions to compete based on those qualities and understanding what qualities we’re even looking for, generally speaking, because I think The conversation within the CDR community is various, like it varies from person to person. So getting that sort of understanding is also really critical and innovators are focused on scaling their solutions to meet that giga 10 goal, which seems far away, you know, 10 gigatonnes annually by 2050.
It’s like almost like this amorphous idea, but there are steps that we need to take in the interim and areas to tackle next. I would say our implementation of the programs that I mentioned Or DAC hubs, particularly permitting and scaling the technology while supporting the early stage R&D. So on the implementation side, you know, we’ve got the support now, but the Department of Energy, the Office of Technology Transitions, actually, in partnership with the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, just recently, I think on Monday, issued a notice of intent to issue a lab call on carbon dioxide removal measurement reporting and verification best practices and capabilities.
So experts should be engaging with these opportunities at DOE or even other federal agencies to provide their insights on how to measure net removals, improve the data modeling, transparency, and develop the best practices and protocols for the processes, because we are literally laying the groundwork now, and this is the really unique opportunity. So that engagement is really critical. And then on the permitting and storage permitting side, storage and infrastructure are going to be huge. We’re going to, as soon as we start capturing all the CO2, we’re going to need to put it somewhere and we’re going to be transported.
And right now, if we look at states with primacy for class six injection, there’s only two states. And just so you know, primacy is the ability for the state to process the permit rather than the federal EPA. And that’s North Dakota right now in Wyoming that have primacy capability, which is why it’s no brainer that like carbon capturing put their project in Wyoming. And then you have CDR tech deployment that’s needed through advanced market commitments that you can see in different sort of bipartisan legislation, particularly Crest Act again. And then we’ve, in terms of tax, you mentioned that earlier, we’ve already done a lot of tax, so there’s not likely to be a huge tax opportunity anytime soon.
But I think the last thing I would say is supporting the research development piece as well. Their CDR is all over the map. You have solutions that are ready to go, but you also have solutions that need further testing. So supporting that as we continue to develop is still going to be needed.
Asa Kamer: Great. And just in terms of the class six well issue and the primacy, could you I mean, I’ve heard that there’s like two classics wells that are functional right now in the country or something like that. And, you know, it’s a very long process to get, you know, to apply, to be able to use it and all this. And is that a bottleneck to scaling up DAC? And is that something that you think could realistically be addressed on a bipartisan way? Or is there some, you know, is there some aspect of politics that is making it, you know, sort of a bottleneck or is that something that could be fixed easily or what’s going on with that issue?
Savita Bowman: Yeah, thanks. Yeah, that’s a great question. And also, um, I don’t think people necessarily think of this too much because it’s kind of like, oh, it’s in the future. You know, we’re, we’re building DAC right now where we’re focused on scaling up and to be fair, we’re not even in the gigatonne scale zone of capture, you know, we’re still capturing in the hundreds of tonnes metric tonnes area. So In terms of the urgency, no, it’s not there, but as soon as you start capturing too much CO2 to actually have on site, you would need to put it somewhere and that’s where it’s going to come into play.
And especially with all these huge climate targets that a bunch of folks are putting forward to meet, you’re going to need, if these purchase commitments are met and the deliverables in terms of the purchase CO2 start getting rolled out, then you’re going to need that capacity for storage. And I think Permitting is a particularly bipartisan space. I think you’re going to get interest from Republicans who want to make sure that there’s opportunity to store a lot of this. And I mean, historically, there’s been a lot of bipartisanship in this space as well with 45Q, as you mentioned.
So I think, which has the storage component as well. So I think, you know, long term, it’s going to be more of a focus. And I don’t think People realize it will be a bottleneck, but with the current delays, like to put it into perspective for you to get an EPA permit federally, I think it takes something like six, it took six to seven years. And then if you wanted to get like a state permit, it’s like six to nine months, I believe. But don’t quote me on those numbers. That’s what I think I remember from reading documents.
Asa Kamer: And that probably brings with it a whole host of issues with Investment, too. I mean, companies are probably struggling. You know, might struggle to raise money if they have to tell their investors, yeah, maybe in seven years we’ll get approved and you can do what we’re going to do. But maybe that’s another another story. So, you know, thinking about the next two years, thinking about where we’re headed here for climate legislation, carbon removal. Carly, you mentioned the Growing Climate Solutions Act. Could you, you know, is there, I mean, it’s probably too soon to say, we don’t know who’s going to be in leadership, but is that something that you think will get brought up again?
And is there other legislation regarding natural solutions that you’re looking at, that you’re hopeful for, that the ACC is pushing, that you think might have a chance in the next couple years?
Karly Matthews: Sure, yeah, I think GCSA certainly should be reintroduced next Congress. I mean, it made it through the Senate with, I believe, 92 yes votes. And so, I mean, that’s pretty stunning. I mean, I think the only times we see majorities like that are for like post office namings. So it really is a shame that it didn’t make it through the house, but we’d love to see that reintroduced. I think this will be the third Congress that the Trillion Trees Act is reintroduced. And then kind of related to that, the Save Our Sequoias Act is something that Republicans have been working on, specifically Weider McCarthy and Representative David Valadeo in California to really protect those sequoia forests, but also make sure that they’re properly managed so that if and when fires do break out, those trees aren’t threatened by, you know, Brush and other trees that are dying or dead, just kind of laying around ready to be set aflame.
So those are some things we’re looking at. As far as blue carbon goes, Senator Murkowski and Representative Brian Mast have both introduced the Blue Carbon for our Planet Act. So that’s something that we’re watching as well. Blue carbon has kind of a wealth of opportunities. We don’t even really know its capability yet. So that’s definitely something that we’re thinking about.
Asa Kamer: Wow, that’s cool. So you have Republican legislators talking about sustainable agriculture, talking about old growth forests, talking about blue carbon. I mean, not to insert my own opinion, but this is the kind of things I would love to hear them talking about more. And I know that’s what you’re working on, trying to get them to push them on that. You know, to the push, I do want to hear a little bit more about the Growing Climate Solutions Act. Can you tell us why it wasn’t able to pass the House? I mean, who’s holding it up?
I’d have to assume some Democrats if it was Democratic House. So what’s going on there?
Karly Matthews: Yeah, so it’s a little complicated what’s going on in the House. There’s definitely opposition from elected Democrats, but also some environmental groups because The Growing Climate Solutions Act is not a silver bullet solution. It’s a small bill. I think it sounds weird saying this is small, but it’s only like a couple million dollars of spending. So in the scheme of the federal government, that’s tiny. Um, but the idea of carbon markets can be, um, pretty controversial with some environmental groups. They see it as, you know, kind of opening the door to fossil fuels.
Um, we, of course, the ACC disagree with that and think that, you know, natural solutions, carbon markets are an important piece of the puzzle. Um, but it was just kind of held up in the House Agricultural Committee. Um, there was some opposition too from Republicans who are a little worried about, you know, kind of the So-called slippery slope of price and carbon. So it definitely took some heat from both sides and we’re hoping that next Congress that could be resolved.
Asa Kamer: Very cool. We’ll have to get an update from Chris or yourself about that because that’s one we’ve been following too. So another piece of legislation I want to ask you both about is a GOP senator from Iowa, Chuck Grassley, who I guess is a farmer himself. Has proposed legislation with a group of other Democratic and Republican senators representing mostly some of rural states. To do research into biochar. And so for the CDR nerds in our audience, which is most of you, you know about biochar, which is usually made from agricultural products and is then used as a field amendment and theoretically stores CO2.
But I don’t know, it’s not something I would think much about the wider world knowing about, let alone like the federal government. So Savvy, what’s going on there with Chuck Grassley talking about biochar?
Savita Bowman: Well, I mean, biochar is a particularly unique space. There is a lot of benefits to it. It’s getting a lot of momentum right now. There’s various sources for biochar where it can be made from, as many of you know, many of which is a result of agriculture and forest residue, which can be sourced from many rural communities, which a lot of these members are representing. And biochar has many benefits beyond just the carbon removal piece. So the soil health piece and the enhanced crop yield, which actually has the benefit of increased food production.
I think these are some of the benefits that are kind of advantageous in supporting something like biochar. But I think there’s also interest in innovation at large in carbon removal. I don’t think it’s just biochar. So, I mean, you’ve seen a lot of interest in DAC. But there’s also interest in mineralization, in facts, in marine CDRs becoming more popular. As Carly mentioned just a second ago, you know, Senator Lisa Murkowski is super interested in blue carbon. And so is Senator Susan Collins. In her bill, she kind of expands, in Crest, actually expands a lot of provisions within research and development to look at ocean carbon removal pathways, like electrochemical separation of CO2 from seawater.
That’s something that, you know, we’re testing in labs. We don’t have a permitting landscape for. So there’s, there is interest and momentum broadly.
Asa Kamer: That’s, that’s super exciting. Um, Carly, anything you want to add about, about this biochar bill or R and D in general?
Karly Matthews: I’ll just add that you mentioned the bill in the Senate, but Congressman Bruce Westerman is the only licensed Forester in Congress. And if Republicans take the House, he is destined for the gavel of House Natural Resources. So I think that biochar is definitely on the top of his mind, and it’ll have some momentum in the House if it makes it pass the Senate.
Asa Kamer: Okay, great. Well, we’ll keep an eye on that. So speaking of Republicans controlling the House, it hasn’t been a top campaign issue, and I actually was reading an interesting article which I’ll put in the show notes about how after the cap and trade bill That the Democrats tried to pass in the 08, 09 session that they didn’t pass. It was actually, that attempt was actually the cause of a lot of Democratic congressmen and women losing their seats because it was unpopular. Whereas this time you really didn’t hear much about the Inflation Reduction Act at all and didn’t really come into play in the campaign.
So that’s a bit of an aside, but nonetheless, while it wasn’t a big campaign issue, you did have You know, you’ve had Republicans expressing skepticism about it, frustration, especially, you know, the spending elements of it, which they’re predisposed to generally not support, and they didn’t support in that bill. And, you know, if they do have the gavel, as they likely will, as Carly mentioned, they’ve promised oversight, at least over energy issues, including some of the spending involved in the IRA. And, you know, I have to wonder if they Let’s say, this is going even farther afield, but in 2024, if they’re to gain even more power, I mean, I think there is a fear among Democrats and climate supporters, you know, would they repeal the IRA?
Would they repeal parts of it? Would they not? We don’t really know, and it’s kind of impossible to know, but there is maybe a fear about backsliding on certain aspects of our climate progress that, at least on the Democratic side, they’re very excited about in the last year. So I just want to hear what you two think about that. Is that possible? Is that something they might do? Or is it too popular? Or do we not know? What do you think, Carly?
Karly Matthews: Yeah, it’s a great question. And I think the process by which the Inflation Reduction Act was passed was bad for bipartisan climate action, just to be frank. You know, being kind of chopped out of the process, Joe Manchin kind of flipping back and forth, you know, will he support? I think Republicans had kind of a sour taste in their mouth from the politics of it all. And it’s really a shame because there’s elements of the IRA that fit perfectly into climate and energy policy that Republicans support. So given that, my thought is that the IRA is fairly safe.
I don’t think there will be repeals. In fact, a lot of the money will benefit redder congressional districts, and we’ll see kind of the benefits reaped there. But there will be oversight, right? And there will be certainly some messaging that is unfavorable to at least the way that the IRA was passed and certainly some of the non-climate provisions of it, which I think were perhaps a little bit more controversial for Republicans. So I’m really hoping that come January, We kind of shove that aside and try to move forward. But, you know, I think there is a little bit of bad blood there of just kind of the way that it was passed.
And we’re already seeing that play out with permitting reform, right? That should have been, you know, a bipartisan follow up to that. But Republicans kind of put their foot down.
Asa Kamer: Right. Savvy, any thoughts to add?
Savita Bowman: I think Carly covered it actually really well. The only thing I would note is that Or maybe underscore is, you know, Republicans have historically been supportive of several provisions from the reconciliation bill, you know, 45Q particularly, which was expanded in the tax package. But I think ClearPath believes that a GOP-led House will be focused on solution-oriented policies that were laid out in the Energy, Climate, and Conservation Task Force Policy Framework. If you’d like to learn more about it, feel free to check out clearpathaction.org. It has a full rundown on sort of that framework.
But I think to Carly’s point, it’s maybe going to take a little bit of time to get to a happy medium and the sort of bridge point where both folks are working together on these policies. But I think It’s, it’s going to be solutions focused and, and we want to focus on innovation and make sure that a lot of these technologies do get to scale. So there is definitely opportunity.
Asa Kamer: Cool. So for my last question for both of you, um, I just want to, you know, I just, just to give our listeners a bit of a sense of what kind of work you do. Tell us a little about your organizations and you know, the issues you’re focusing on that sort of thing. We kind of skipped past this at the beginning.
Savita Bowman: Sure. Well, so ClearPass is a DC-based nonprofit. We work on developing and advancing policies that accelerate innovations to reduce emissions in the energy and industrial sectors historically. So we’ve been around for, I think, about eight or nine years. And we work on white space technologies. And when I say that, think like nuclear, carbon capture, geothermal. In the last, I would say two to three years, we’ve expanded that to heavy industry because we identified that as another white space opportunity area. You know, a lot of eyes are focused on transportation or power sector.
And we thought, let’s go for the next big thing, industry. And so that’s one. And then of course, CDR. And so we work To, you know, inform pragmatic policy thinking and, you know, we engage with Republicans through our government affairs arm that works with us. But myself personally, I’m actually, my background is in private sector. So I used to work at Tesla doing solar and storage asset management, which was a great experience and I learned a lot. But I think after my master’s at Columbia University meeting Julio Friedman, actually, who is one of the leading thinkers in carbon removal.
He kind of got me excited about the space and that’s how I found ClearPath and have joined here. And now I lead on our carbon dioxide removal portfolio and support industrial decarbonization as well.
Asa Kamer: Great. Well, Julio gets a lot of shout outs on our show and a lot of mentions. So yet another way he’s influencing the field by getting you involved. That’s pretty cool. And Carly, can you answer the same question and tell us a little bit about what you do?
Karly Matthews: Absolutely. So the American Conservation Coalition was founded in 2017, and our mission is to engage young conservatives on the environment and to build the conservative environmental movement. So we’re a grassroots organization. We have branches of activists across the country, but we also have full-time staff, of which I am one. And so my day-to-day is all things media relations, messaging. Basically, I... Talk with our policy people and figure out how to say it in English and communicate that out to our base. So we have been really successful in kind of engaging this new constituency of young conservatives who, unlike their older counterparts, are really concerned about climate change and what climate solutions.
And that’s kind of been our strategy is building that movement and ensuring that it has political power.
Asa Kamer: Um, it’s been great talking with you both. We usually end our shows with a good news segment. So I’m just gonna pull something up here that I found to read for good news. So, um, there’s an organization called, or a group called America is All In, which is a coalition of businesses and local leaders. And I think Bloomberg, um, Mayor Mike, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and they released a report that found that, um, Even if Congress flips, which it looks like it will, that the U. S. climate target of reducing emissions by 50% by 2030 is possible.
So it’s still possible if Democrats who passed the last big legislation are not in power. And they found that the incentives that were passed in the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan Infrastructure bill were effective enough that we’re sort of already on the path with investment and build out of renewable energy and closing coal plants, notably to theoretically get to that goal by 2030 anyway. So I thought that was nice. I mean, when, you know, Congress can’t get in the way of something and it’s on its way on its own, that’s a comforting feeling.
Yeah, so that’s our good news. And hopefully by next week, we’ll know what’s going on with the election. I’m sure everyone out there is paying attention on their own. You don’t come to us for that sort of analysis. We haven’t branched out into that yet. But anyway, Savvy and Carly, thank you both so much for joining us. It was great to have you.
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.
