Giana Amador, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Carbon180, joins the show to discuss the growing profile of carbon removal within and through the Democratic Party's 2020 Presidential Primary.
Full Transcript
Ross Kenyon: Hello and welcome to Carbon Removal Newsroom. I’m Ross Kenyon. I’m the lead strategist with the Nori Carbon Removal Marketplace. Today I have with me Giana Amador, co-founder and managing director at Carbon 180. There has been so much in the news in the Democratic primary about carbon removal, or maybe we’re just desperate and cling on to every little nugget that we see. It could be either, right, Giana? But it seems to me that there is movement happening and that politicians are speaking about the importance of carbon removal for the first time that I can remember in my adult life or politically conscious life.
Well, thanks for being here with us to tell me how this all is working and what we should expect, Giana.
Giana Amador: Yeah, thank you so much for having me. I’m excited to chat about this and I definitely agree. I think we’re seeing a real uptick in The high level conversation around carbon removal and the need for carbon removal to help support the fight against climate change. And I think one of the reasons why we’re seeing this uptick in conversation is because climate change is You know, rising on sort of the voter priority list. And so as these 2020 Democratic primary candidates get serious on climate change, they also need to get serious on the science behind that.
And that means incorporating carbon removal into their climate plans and some of the other policy proposals that they’re putting forward.
Ross Kenyon: That all makes sense to me. I think one of the reasons why carbon removal may be rhetorically interesting is because a lot of the climate and environmentalist rhetoric that I grew up hearing seems pretty played out. And carbon removal does give politicians the benefit of seeming future-oriented and proactive in a way that recycling and cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, I feel like voters have maybe heard that a lot before. Maybe it’s comforting for that reason, but it isn’t necessarily as inspiring.
Giana Amador: Yeah, I definitely feel similarly. I think that’s one of the reasons why I was drawn to working on carbon removal in the first place, because it is very opportunity focused. It’s thinking about how we can turn this liability of carbon in the atmosphere into an asset and resource to power our new world and our new economy. So I definitely think that’s something that resonates with these campaigns who are really trying to run positive messages. But I think we’re more just seeing a shift in the way that climate is talked about in the public sphere.
We’re seeing a lot less of global warming terminology and a lot more about climate crisis or green jobs. And I think one of the reasons why policy proposals like the Green New Deal have been so powerful and so pervasive in the news is because They really hone in on this pairing of economic development, social justice and climate change. And those three things together pair these issues that voters care about on the day to day basis, like whether they’re going to be able to pay their bills or whether They can breathe in clean air with this sort of longer term problem of climate change.
And so I think that’s a really powerful motivator. And these campaigns are starting to catch on to that. And I think carbon removal really fits nicely into those frames.
Ross Kenyon: And we’re seeing these 2020 candidates That’s a very good way to think about it. Because when I think about looking at any candidate’s policy positions listed on their website, they’ll usually go through them one by one. But using climate change as a way to anchor all of this into a broader vision rather than a sort Peacemeal, here are all of my separate policies has been good. Sometimes I react a little bit against that because it doesn’t always feel as connected as it maybe could be or even should be. I like the cleanness of some things being separate, but at least I’m overusing this word in this podcast, but rhetorically it probably makes sense to have a grand vision where everything’s linked with climate change.
So the extreme example of this is someone like Jay Inslee, where everything is framed in this way. But I think the Green New Deal, I think you are correct, is at least partially responsible for people starting to bring all of their issues or many of them under this rubric in a unified climate change plan.
Giana Amador: Yeah, I definitely agree. And I think what we’re seeing is that hopefully these candidates give climate their own space and that they have their own dedicated climate plan. But they’re also thinking about ways that we can interconnect rural revitalization and health care and economic development as connected goals in those policy proposals. So I think maybe just to ground this in something real, we’re seeing Joe Biden, who released his climate plan that didn’t sort of mention anything in relationship to storing carbon in soils, but his agriculture and rural development policy proposal included a lot of language that I think is really powerful as someone who works on carbon removal.
Things like soil is the next frontier for storing carbon or language around ensuring that the ag sector achieves net zero emissions. And so I think this is sort of a way to get people who maybe are interested in the climate plan, but are interested in the ad plan to start thinking about those interconnections between the environment, the climate and sort of the issue that they care about. So I think we should reserve that space for climate. But this is a way to bring new champions into this space and get them excited about the climate solutions that also further the things that are really on the top of their list.
Ross Kenyon: Indeed, yeah. I mean, there’s definitely a kill two birds with one stone element that in some ways maybe trumps my desire for clean, straight lines. So yeah, I could see the appeal of that. And that makes sense why people would be thinking about it in that way. But most of the solutions I see brought up, and you’ve been referencing this with regard to rural revitalization and various proposals around that, but soil seems to be getting the most attention of anything. I guess we’ve seen some stuff with direct air capture with John Delaney and Andrew Yang.
Andrew Yang’s out there talking about geoengineering, which as far as I know, he’s the only one dropping the G word, dropping a hard G. But why do you think soil or just ecological methods in general have been getting so much play?
Giana Amador: I think it’s hard to sort of really hone down on one reason, but I think Soil health and soil carbon sequestration has been growing in popularity. And so I think we’re sort of reaching this moment where the soil carbon sequestration field has reached sort of enough maturity where we’re starting to feel really comfortable about understanding the barriers to adoption to full scale, but also having a lot of really powerful proof points on the ground. It’s really about scaling the practices that we know and implementing those practices on the ground rather than developing a new technology.
And so I think for a lot of reasons, that feels a lot more comfortable for these candidates to incorporate into their campaigns because it’s something that’s a little bit more tested and a little bit more proven than direct air capture. I also think just from like a pure communications perspective, it’s a lot easier to talk about soils, to talk about farms and food production than it is to talk about giant fans at an industrial facility that capture carbon and sequester it underground. I think both are equally important for the climate, but it’s just one has a little bit more of a communications challenge.
I also think I’m guessing that where a lot of these campaigns are getting their intel from are from traditional, very large environmental NGOs who have been a little bit slower to warm up to some of the engineered carbon removal solutions because of some of their concerns around moral hazard and the engagement of the oil and gas industry in the development of some of these solutions. So I think there’s sort of skepticism towards the technological side is warranted. But really, if we’re serious about the climate math, we need both the natural and technological carbon removal solutions.
Ross Kenyon: Indeed. And I can imagine going around to the I states and farming communities talking about farmers potentially being paid for sequestering carbon in their soils is a more attractive proposition than some sort of weird Silicon Valley fans sucking it out of the atmosphere and turning it into some mineralized sci-fi item. So that makes sense.
Giana Amador: Yeah. I mean, I’m from a farming community and I think You know, everyone loves farmers. We love the food that they put on our table and we love the role that they have traditionally played in, you know, conserving our land and conserving our ecosystems. And so this is sort of that next step is to engage them in the climate fight. And I think that’s something that can be really powerful and that I’m personally really excited about to see the areas in which I grew up in engage in that climate conversation, since they are the ones who are You know, on the front lines of climate change and dealing with drought and dealing with erosion and dealing with variable weather.
And so I think that part is really exciting. But like you said, it’s not enough. And so we need to sort of be making sure that these candidates broaden their scope of what they’re including in carbon removal.
Ross Kenyon: Indeed. And yeah, we’re very excited about soil carbon. That’s where Nori has started and begun our work in developing a carbon removal marketplace. We think farming is clearly a gigantic part of the picture. And I think farmers are going to get on board for this for all the co-benefits. And it’s time has come. Regenerative Ag seems like it’s going that direction and there’s good reasons to root for it and think that’s going to keep moving and developing. Have you seen, Giana, any proposals specifically from any candidates that have gotten you excited?
Which of the candidates are you watching that are carbon removal heroes, for lack of a better concept?
Giana Amador: I love carbon removal heroes. I think we should stick with that.
Ross Kenyon: All right, cool. Trademark. Let me run to the copyright office real quick.
Giana Amador: Great. Yeah, I think, I mean, honestly... When I was looking, when I’ve been, you know, tracking and looking through these proposals, a lot of what these candidates suggest are very similar. So mostly the plans that have been introduced, I think so far by Warren, Beto, Gillibrand, Biden, Mayor Pete and Cory Booker have been really focused on increasing the funding around two specific titles of the Farm Bill. So that’s the Conservation Stewardship Program and the EQIP Incentive Program. And so I would say the majority of their plan focuses on just fully funding those programs.
So right now, those programs are underfunded at about 700 million dollars per year. And some of these plans with sort of Elizabeth Warren taking the cake on the biggest increase in funding, trying to bump that up to 15 billion dollars. So what we’re really hearing these candidates say is, hey, we have the programs that work and we just need to fund them and make sure that farmers are enrolling in them and make it as easy as possible for them to access these incentives. So I think that is sort of awesome to see that kind of consensus.
But I do think that this is maybe a little bit short of the policy gold standard that I as a carbon removal nerd would like to see. But I’m not really sure sort of what level of detail that we can expect from these campaigns as they’re, you know, just starting to flush this stuff out and get it moving.
Ross Kenyon: I’m curious what you would desire, like what’s on your wish list, basically? What would you like to see a candidate come out and support?
Giana Amador: Yeah, that’s a good question. I mean, so I will say that Warren and Beto have both and sorry, and Mayor Pete as well, have both suggested investing billions in dollars to research What I would say is soil carbon sequestration 2. 0. So they’re really thinking about how we take the success of the DARPA program at the Department of Defense and the ARPA-E program at the Department of Energy and do something very similar for agriculture, specifically focused on climate change. So how do we grow plants with deeper roots? How do we perennialize grains so that they store more carbon in the soils?
And I think That is 100% on my wish list. We should absolutely be doing more science and more research to confirm that the practices that we’re implementing in a specific region on a specific field with a specific soil type and a specific weather pattern is actually resulting in the carbon sequestration that we want and that we are willing to pay farmers for. So I think research is definitely on my wish list. And some of these candidates have begun to touch upon those things. I think there are some sort of greater questions around where that money would be allocated and whether that funding sort of is at the right level.
I think another thing that was a little bit disappointing about a couple of these plans, and I think perhaps Joe Biden’s plan in particular, is that They’re really sort of focusing on these sort of voluntary carbon markets and participation from the private sector, which I think is really important to encourage and can be a really powerful lever to support farmers in implementing these practices. But I think it’s going to take the federal government to use the resources and capacity that they have at the USDA with the NRCS to help support these farmers in practice implementation.
I think right now economics is one of the barriers. So how do farmers finance the implementation of practices? How do they buy new equipment? But I think another really big piece of this is just how do farmers learn about incorporating these practices? How do they talk to people who know what this means for their bottom line? How do they, you know, chat with their technical assistance providers or the folks who work at the extension service for their land-grant universities? So I think I guess what I feel like is a little bit missing from some of these proposals is sort of a lack of the full scope of barriers that farmers face in sequestering carbon in their soils, which extend very deeply into some social and cultural barriers and access to technical assistance.
Ross Kenyon: What about methods like enhanced weathering or besides Andrew Yang and John Delaney? Is there anything with direct air capture that we might expect? Do you anticipate any candidates later coming out in favor of this? Or is this something that we’re going to have to wait four years for? I know we have things like 45Q and there’s other incentives that are being bandied around for direct air capture, which is mostly used for enhanced oil recovery. But I don’t imagine that will always be the case. But is that just too far ahead of politics right now?
Giana Amador: Yeah. You know what? I hope not. And thanks for bringing me back on track with sort of the whole portfolio of solutions. I think my head has really been in the soil carbon space because that’s just where these plans have focused so far. But I would really love to see candidates, you know, sort of move forward with a whole research agenda around Carbon removal solutions. And as my colleague, I think Erin has mentioned on this podcast before, R, D, D and D. So we need not just research, but we also need demonstration and deployment.
And I think it’s really important for the federal government to be supporting first of a kind projects for direct air capture and some other types of carbon capture, including on industrial facilities. So I think that is like an area of growth that these candidates could move into as well. I also think forestry is a really easy space for for these folks to move into as well. And it makes a lot of sense because I think there is room to support You know, the revitalization of the lumber and forestry industry in the United States.
And that is, I think, a place where it makes a lot of sense for them to push forward policy proposals. And we’ve seen a little bit of that from Cory Booker and the race of his Climate Stewardship Act. But really, the level of detail around what the U. S. forest sector should look like, how do we harness public lands to sequester carbon is not there, in my opinion.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I wonder why that might be. My gut shooting from the hip right here is that trees and afforestation or reforestation of burnt lands just seems kind of, it also seems played out. We’ve been talking about how important trees are. That’s something that they’ve never heard of before. So it’s a nice mix of not being so sci-fi as direct air capture or nearly as expensive and also not so tried and true that it’s basically a played out trope of forestry at this point. Do you think I’m I’m on the money or near to the money for that sweet spot?
Giana Amador: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. Like we all know trees are good for the earth and that we should plant more of them. But you’re right. I think beyond that, people aren’t really interested in any level of detail beyond, hey, maybe we should have more trees and really thinking about like what it takes to operationalize that. I will say I think there’s one other area that can sort of capture either the public imagination or sort of the interest of one of these candidates. And that’s really about carbon tech products. So products that take captured carbon, whether that’s from an industrial facility, a power plant from a direct air capture machine and use that carbon to make valuable goods.
And I think what we’re starting to see from these candidates is an interest in using You know, the federal purse and using federal procurement standards to incentivize the purchase and therefore the manufacturing of products that are lower carbon or even carbon negative. And so we started to see some inklings in the climate plans for these candidates. But I think from my perspective, I would like to see that like explicit call out to using waste carbon to create valuable materials that then the federal government procures and uses in their I’m sure the first time someone in government uses the term carbon tech, you’ll be all over them.
Ross Kenyon: Carbon 180 written all over it.
Giana Amador: Yeah, we’re trying to wave the flag. We want that to be the term that people use, I think, because It really, you know, sets the mark and the standard for, you know, like I said before, like turning this liability into an asset. How do we take this waste carbon and use it to power our economy in our built environment, in our soils? So I would love to see some some policymakers use carbon tech. That would be awesome.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, that would be great. I like that focus too. As you said, the whole portfolio is important. We try not to play favorites. We think, you know, let a thousand flowers bloom as the old expression goes. Well, if someone wanted to keep up with your work on policy, just generally trying to make sure that carbon removal is as big a part of the conversation as it needs to be, where should they look?
Giana Amador: Yeah, I think the Carbon 180 newsletter is a really good resource for this. We’re actually publishing fairly often updates on both policy work that’s happening at the legislative level in Congress, as well as what the 2020 candidates are saying. Folks can subscribe on our website, which is carbon180.org, and they can also follow us on Twitter at at carbon underscore 180.
Ross Kenyon: Definitely do the newsletter. Everyone’s heard me pitch this thing a thousand times at this point. It’s a very good resource if you want to get weekly updates on the latest in carbon removal. Well, thanks, Giana. I’m grateful that you came on the show and were able to fill me in. I’m glad you’re tracking this as closely as you are. And hopefully you should come on when there’s more news, which... I feel like almost every month or every other month, there’s enough stuff happening with regard to this election that I always feel behind on the carbon removal news.
So please help me.
Giana Amador: Yeah, it’s definitely hard to keep up, but we’d love to keep you and your listeners updated. So just let us know how we can help and we’ll stay in touch.
Ross Kenyon: Great. Well, thank you. If you’re listening now, there’s a reversing climate change episode that we did with Zoya Tierstein of Grist, where she took us through a few months ago of the very beginnings of the various candidates and their climate plans. So there’s a lot of information in there that’s valuable. There’s also a carbon removal newsroom that I got to do with Andrew Yang, which was cool. And then there’s a whole bunch of others from Carbon 180 that you should check out that almost all, I’m pretty sure all of them focus on policy issues.
And then if you like the show, please share it with your friends. Please help us make carbon removal as big a part of the national conversation, the conversation about climate change as we can. We think it’s crucial. Without it, I don’t think we’re going to get where we need to go. You can help us out by rating and reviewing the show on iTunes, Apple Podcasts, or Stitcher. And thank you so much for listening.
