Carbon removal is sometimes thought to be enjoying policy tailwinds. But is it anywhere close to what we need to avoid the worst of climate change?
A new report from the Rhodium Group suggests the CDR industry is receiving about 1% of what it would need to reach a one CO2 gigatonne/year capacity! Our regular panelists, Drs. Holly Jean Buck & Wil Burns discuss the challenges of government budgeting, politics, eminent domain, profit-sharing Community Benefits Agreements, and so much else as this industry tries to scale.
On This Episode
Resources
Rhodium Group's "The Landscape of Carbon Dioxide Removal and US Policies to Scale Solutions" report
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 the April 23rd edition of Carbon Removal Newsroom. Your regular host, Radhika, is out this week, so I’ll be filling in. I’m Carbon Removal Newsroom producer Asa Kamer. So since our show has been around, we’ve seen a significant increase in U. S. government support for CDR. Over the same period, we’ve seen war, inflation, deficits, and many more challenges pulling at Washington’s focus and purse strings. So while they have a lot of issues to focus on, this spring did see some encouraging CDR initiatives from the feds, such as approval of a new ocean alkalinity enhancement project in North Carolina, New DOE support for private buyers of CDR and some modest support in the 2024 budget from Congress.
However, this month also saw the release of a new Rhodium Group report that finds that government support for carbon removal is currently only 1% of what it needs to be for the U. S. to remove a gigatonne of CO2 by 2050. The report’s authors say the government will have to greatly increase support for CDR for the country to meet its climate goals. Today, I’m joined by two experts in carbon removal policy, Holly Buck and Wil Burns. They’ll help us understand what aspects of U. S. policy are effective, which are falling short, and what the latest developments mean for the future of the CDR industry in the United States.
Welcome, Will and Holly.
Unknown speaker: Thanks.
Asa Kamer: Okay, so we’re going to talk about this Rhodium Group report. Last week, the consulting group released a report titled The Landscape of Carbon Dioxide Removal and U. S. Policies to Scale Solutions. And this organization evaluates the CDR industry in the U. S. quite a bit. Holly, I wanted to see what you thought about their findings and if there was any surprises or you had any takeaways from this finding that government support is way off track for us to get to a gigatonne by 2050 here in the US.
Holly Jean Buck: Honestly, I didn’t find anything too surprising. I thought it was nice to have an updated look at all of this. But, you know, we’re way behind schedule for all sorts of climate action. So I don’t think CDR is unique here. And I mean, even when I wrote my book in 2019, you know, I was writing about how we have these sort of boutique level things. Um, initiatives that I call level one CDR, which is, you know, in the thousands of tonnes, we’re getting these pilots going, um, they make good headlines, but there’s a huge gap between that level and what I was calling level two, like the gigatonne level.
I mean, it’s a really huge lift. It’s really transformative and it’s really cool to see, you know, a widespread recognition of that. I don’t think we should be Great.
Asa Kamer: All right. Well, let’s not be daunted. That’s always good advice. So will the authors of this report believe that voluntary markets alone will not get the US to a billion tonnes and that the government will have to treat CDR as a public utility in order to meet that goal? Do you agree? And should this be a policy goal of CDR supporters right now?
Wil Burns: Yeah, you know, when I saw that headline, you know, treating as a public utility, first of all, given the fact it was the Rhodium Group, I almost fell off my seat because that’s not how they roll. And then, of course, reading it, I realized, no, that’s not what they meant. If they actually wanted it to be a public utility, I would agree. I thought what the report called for was virtually more of the same, which was more government support, more pouring money in. And I don’t think that’s what That’s what we need.
I think we need a public utility model. The climate crisis is a public crisis. I view carbon removal as waste that we both produce and also benefit from I think society needs to set up a public utility model by which we pay for it, which will include some kind of emitter liability requirements or carbon take back obligations, but also the public paying for it. Beyond driving the actual amount of demand that we need to get to where we have to be, Compared to the laughable amount we have, and quite frankly, the laughable amount that their proposals would give us, we have to start sending signals to the public of the need for carbon removal and the need to address reducing emissions.
And I think an actual utility bill associated with the weight Well, I’m glad you did right now.
Asa Kamer: So that’s actually a good segue. You know, like I was saying, the government faces a lot of financial demands. Obviously, we see that playing out right now, you know, day to day headlines about what Congress is and isn’t going to pay for. At the same time, climate change, solving climate change would be much cheaper than the alternative of not solving it. So how can supporters of CDR especially communicate the importance of this level of investment to policymakers who may have other priorities? Love to hear from both of you. Do either of you want to?
Either one of you want to take that one on? You want to go first, Hallie?
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, I mean, I agree with Will that we need to build Not just public support, but public demand for this. And it’s very far from where we are now in terms of public understanding of this and of other climate change, climate action solutions. So what do we need to do? I think, as I’ve said many times, we need to invest on the order of billions in public engagement, not specifically with CDR necessarily, but just with Decarbonization and the energy transition writ large. Otherwise, we’re going to stall out with building transmission, with energy storage, with a lot of other things.
People just aren’t concerned. We’re treating all these things on like a project by project level where we’re saying, hey, do you support yes or no on this project? And it allows people to veto projects. And we’re also very concerned with community engagement. But a lot of places won’t be having a CDR facility or another type of energy facility near them, right? So we need this broader public engagement to have support to pay the cost of what this will eventually cost. And strangely, I’m not seeing philanthropy or other actors who might be positioned to help catalyze that engagement really jump into that side of things.
Wil Burns: Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly with everything Holly said, including the public engagement. I think the philanthropies don’t consider that to be sexy, right? It’s procedural, and it’s not like a bells and whistles direct air capture facility or something like that, but it’s a... A critical component, right? And, you know, there’s a new study in Nature this week that says that they estimate now that by 2049, the climate change bill is $38 trillion a year. And it reduces economic growth 19% below what it would have been, and in developing countries, 61% below where it would have been.
This is a fundamental issue of equity and justice. And we need to start as a society focusing society on that fact. And given the fact the United States has, you know, incredibly high per capita emissions, we have historically the highest emissions, and we’re the second largest emitter in the world and largest industrial emitter. Right, we’re responsible for a large part of that of that damage right and so it’s, it is time to engage the public and talk about the fact that we’re going to have to pay for mitigation and we’re going to have to pay for waste right and.
A lot of the things that we have aren’t sending those kind of signals. There was a survey last week that said that 71% of the American people can’t identify any element of the Inflation Reduction Act, and that includes all the climate aspects, right? That’s not working, right? You know, a public utility model that says we now have to pay for this waste, and this is why we have to pay for this waste, right, could help do that. And I agree with Holly, we should scaffold In advance, billions of dollars of public engagement to try to raise that awareness.
And I’m not Pollyannish about what a struggle would ensue, right, in this society, right, where, you know, you couldn’t pass legislation that says puppies are soft and gentle, right, without massive conflict. But I think we have to do it. I mean, 38 trillion annually by 2049. We’re not doing it.
Asa Kamer: Wild, eye-popping numbers. We’re going to have to check that out, and we’ll find the link to that for our show notes.
Wil Burns: It’s in Nature this week, and I think the lead author is Max Kotz, K-O-T-Z, I believe.
Asa Kamer: It’s a great piece for everybody to read. And those have to be... I mean, this is a bit of a digression, but those numbers have to be well off of what the sort of SSPs and things are estimating or what climate economics is estimated the effect would be. So that... Sounds like possibly a sobering read. And I’m going to try to segue us into our next section here, but it might land with a thud after hearing you both call for massive society-wide change and investment in order to address the climate, because I want to talk a little bit about Congress’s 2024 budget, which included some CDR initiatives, although they were all to the tune of a couple million or even in the hundreds of thousands.
So... I don’t know if I ordered these quite right, but zooming in a bit to what did happen this year, or at least from this particular appropriations legislation, was there anything from this article that will include that kind of did a rundown that stood out to you? Any surprises? Or was the small scale of it just too overwhelming to say anything else about it, Will?
Wil Burns: Well, I mean, it was small scale, right? And again, I think it’s nibbling around the edge of a growing existential threat, right? Which frustrates me. But I think there were two aspects of it. But they were salutary. The idea of public procurement, again, I think public procurement isn’t quite a public utility model, but it does acknowledge the fact that the public should be actively engaged in trying to bring down costs and bring us down the knowledge and experience curve, right? That’ll help bring down the costs of especially the industrial approaches such as DAX.
I think it’s a small amount. It ratchets up over time, but it’ll probably always remain small. I thought that the spending on geologic storage is salutary. I think there’s three choke points for CDR. The first is building the technology. The second is conveying it via the pipelines. We’ve already seen And we were talking about, I know later in this episode, we’re already seeing issues associated with resistance to pipelines. And then the third is storage. And other than talking about class six wells, we really have an earnest talk. Talked about how titanic a task storage is going to be and the likelihood of more public resistance to some of the places we may want to do it.
And so I think this funding for characterization, right, which is a more granular sort of level of research than what we’ve seen to date in terms of the more general USGS surveys of what we have out there is a good thing.
Asa Kamer: Great. Okay. Thank you, Will. And Holly, when you look at news like this, when you see these government allocations, how do you think about their success? What metrics should we look for in these programs to see if they’re effective or not?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, a lot of this money is for R&D. So I think that with that, there’s a lot of different metrics. And because it’s science, it’s not just about Seeing positive results right negative results are also valuable so I think complimentary metrics are, you know, are we training early career people with that R&D money. And are those innovations or findings being distributed globally where they can have global impact things like that are also important.
Asa Kamer: And as part of the announcement, the DOE released notice of intent for their carbon removal purchase pilot prize, which is a great title for radio. All those P’s in there. So what is this program? And what is the sort of significance of what they’re doing here, the DOE?
Holly Jean Buck: So this started with $35 million in bipartisan infrastructure law funding. And basically the US government serves as the customer for CDR credits. And so applicants are asked to develop these carbon dioxide purchase agreements through a pilot project that’s going to deliver a third party verified CDR. And those could be companies, they could be nonprofits, academic institutions. If they meet the requirements, they can apply. And so they’re going to choose up to 10 teams. I think there are like 117 teams that applied. So 10 would be the grand prize winners and they would get $3 million.
And so that’s kind of the format. Those I think might be announced next week, possibly around Earth Day. So we’ll see what comes from it. But basically what happened in the budget is they said they can continue this for another year. So it won’t just be a one-off thing.
Asa Kamer: Great. All right. So that is some pretty direct government support, and we’ll have to follow up on this show and see who the winners are, because it sounds like they’ll be announced very soon. So, Will, there’s been a few marine CDR developments recently, and that’s sort of your forte, and some of them relate to public acceptability, which I think I can say, Holly, is your forte, so we’re in good territory here. One of the pieces of news is that the Army Corps of Engineers gave the green light to Vesta’s open ocean alkalinity enhancement pilot project in Duck, North Carolina.
So can you just give us a little bit of background here? Because there’s a lot of complicated regulatory issues, which you’re usually able to sort of cut through very clearly. And so why is the Army Corps of Engineers involved? And what do you think they were looking at when deciding whether to approve it? And why do you think Vesta chose this site in particular?
Wil Burns: So Vesta’s project in Duck, North Carolina entails the use of 7,000 cubic yards of olivine that are being utilized to construct a berm that is being put at the bottom of the ocean in 25 feet of water about three miles off the coast of North Carolina. And because that berm can help prevent coastal erosion, it is being characterized as a coastal protection device. And as a consequence, it is regulated directly. Under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act, not the MPRSA, and as a consequence, it is regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Now, if this project were further out than three miles, it might be a very different question, but this is how the law has been construed in this case. When it comes to construction of these kinds of devices, even if they might have multiple purposes, for example, in this case, the olivine could be construed as being deposited to sequester carbon. Also, it’s a question of effect. Rather than intent. And to the extent that the effect would be to prevent coastal erosion, it falls under the rubric of a coastal protection device and the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Asa Kamer: Yeah, it seems like there’s been sort of a trickle of news in the last, I don’t know, maybe few months of more and more field trials of marine CDR projects. And so I think we maybe need to dedicate a show to all this news that’s coming up because it’s hard to keep track of and it seems significant. And speaking of that, Holly, in other news from this organization, Vesta, social scientists affiliated with them released their findings. And so I just wanted to ask you, you know, what they found and what your reaction was to the sort of the study design and the approach that Vesta took here to do this kind of outreach.
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, I think the way you phrased it, findings from a public outreach campaign, speaks to the complexity of this effort. And I’m sure glad I didn’t review this paper, though I’ll say a couple of things. I really empathize with the effort here. So they took two years, I guess. They did six focus groups. So with specific groups like a women’s collective, fishermen’s group, Beach guardians, government, handicraft, cattle ranchers. And then they did 42 questionnaires with key informants. And then they also did follow up sessions with the focus groups and 10 more interviews with people in those groups.
So, you know, this is a pretty good amount of work, like time intensive. And then I was wondering with all that work, why not publish it in a different venue than Frontiers? And I think it’s because it must have been complicated for reviewers the way it blurs the lines between social science research on perceptions and public engagement and developing a project. So some of the things they asked about were like supportive attitudes towards Vesta. Which is a kind of weird object, you know, what people think of a particular company versus what they think of a technology.
But they also did ask a lot of questions about perceptions of climate change. It wasn’t really clear Where they were going with that, but that would be a very familiar thing to do in a research context. And then they ask some questions in the focus groups, like how many of you are interested in becoming Vesta ambassadors and taking part in our training of trainers program to speak about Vesta in your community, which is from a research standpoint, a weird thing to include. So what I’m saying is that I think it’s challenging to partner so closely with a company on something like this.
And it would have been interesting to see a little bit more reflection from the writers about that process. The final thing I’ll mention about this is it brings up this question of what happens when you do engagement and the project doesn’t happen. So they ended up, after all that, not doing a deployment or Or however you might frame an experiment with Olivine there because of local site conditions identified during the initial phase of research. They decided this wasn’t a good site for CDR and the field trial was canceled. So then like what happened to those people who were engaged?
I’m left kind of wondering what they thought about it after all. And this comes up a lot because people are always asking like, When should we do engagement? We’re hearing the message that early engagement is really important, but if it’s too early, is that going to have some results like this? I don’t know. Paper brings up a lot of questions, and I encourage people to take a look at it.
Asa Kamer: Well, go ahead, Will, please. What do you think about this?
Wil Burns: Yeah, so full disclosure, I headed up Vesta’s initial advisory committee, right? And one of our, one of the three subcommittees that we established was on public engagement. So we strongly encourage Vesta To structure a public engagement process. And I think to their credit, they did. But having said that, I agree with a lot of the things that Holly said. I think it’s very difficult if the actual company that wants I hate to sound like the flaming socialist that I’ve become on this show, but I think ultimately you’re going to need government to establish protocols for public engagement and administer them if you’re going to have a fighting chance of these not being waylaid by those kind of considerations, right?
And so I think that was... I think that was problematic and kind of reflected in terms of the kind of results you got, including this recruitment for public ambassadors and things like that. That wouldn’t have happened if it was a federally structured program.
Asa Kamer: Very interesting. Thank you for sharing that, Will. And we are going to, in a second, get to A much more direct way of getting people to approve your project, which is just giving them money. And we can talk about that. But before we leave the marine CDR space, I want to ask you, Will, about some new guidance that was released by the EPA related to MCDR. And if you could tell us what new information was released and If you think this clarifies at all the process for CDR companies that are entering a very complicated regulatory process for U.
S. marine CDR projects.
Wil Burns: Yeah, so a couple months ago, the EPA released guidance for MCDR projects. And they essentially said that the regulatory purview could either be under the Marine Protection Section Research and Sanctuaries Act, which implements the London dumping convention for the United States right of which we are a party, or they said under other circumstances. The projects could be under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System of the Clean Water Act. And I’ll just very briefly explain what they said for each one, but it wasn’t groundbreaking guidance. It really was kind of summarizing what you could have seen if you hired counsel and had them look through the statutes and the pertinent regulations.
What I thought it did do is it made clear what EPA’s interpretation was of the statutes and regulations, and it indicated that it was open for business in terms of at least entertaining permits, right? And they’re looking at a permit right now. They’re looking at the Loch Ness Project, which is on the northeast slope of the United States that Woods Hole is working on. It’s an ocean alkalinity enhancement experiment, and that most likely I suspect will be the first permit that they issue, and that’ll be under the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act.
So what they said briefly was the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, they said anytime you have a vessel that’s depositing material into the ocean, it’s subject to the NPRSA. Unlike the London Convention that has an exception, That says that if you’re putting it in the ocean for a purpose other than merely disposing of it, at which point it doesn’t constitute dumping, the NPRSA says it’s dumping, per se, when you put it in the ocean. And so you’re subject to all of the regulations that they have in terms of characterizing the site.
They indicated that it is likely of the three kinds of research permits you can get in the NPR, say there’s a research, I mean, the permits you can get, there’s a research permit, there’s a general permit, and there’s a special permit that these would be research permits, right? And the criteria is, Would the potential gains in knowledge that we get outweigh the potential risks associated with the intervention, right? And so they outlined that. They talked about jurisdiction, right? It might surprise some people how broad our jurisdiction is under the NPR, say.
It not only includes the territorial seas and our exclusive economic zones, but it includes all waters Out to the next time you bump into somebody else’s exclusive economic zone. That isn’t earth shattering. It’s in the statute. But I think a lot of people don’t know that. And so they have broad jurisdiction. They have jurisdiction over vessels that load materials in a U. S. port and go out and engage in these. Any vessel that’s registered under U. S. , flagged under your jurisdiction is subject to the NPRSA. And if you want to deposit materials in our territorial sea, though notably not our exclusive economic zone, from another country, you’re subject to NPRSA, right?
And so... That’s essentially what they said, right? And so, as I said, we’ll get this first permit. They’ll have to prove they’ve minimized the potential harms associated with the operation. They’ll have to show the area that they’re in is not particularly dangerous to be deploying, and they’ll have to show that the scientific benefits outweigh the potential risks of doing it. The other regulation is not under the NPR, say it’s under the Clean Water Act, right? And that’s the National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System. And that’s for any discharge of materials from an outfall.
So that’s a dedicated Point source, right? And so a lot of the electrochemical things that we’re talking about, the things we’re talking about, reactor based approaches that then reduce alkalinity into the ocean would fall And so they’ll have to do the same kind of characterization for any of those approaches, which again, probably the first permits we’ll see will be for some electrochemical approach.
Asa Kamer: So I think EPA just So this is clarifying existing rules rather than making any new regulation that a company would have to have one or the other.
Wil Burns: Absolutely.
Unknown speaker: Absolutely.
Wil Burns: Zero new regulations.
Asa Kamer: Gotcha. So that’s probably, I’m just trying to imagine if I’m like a leading, a founder of a Ocean CDR startup in the US, this is probably more helpful than not.
Wil Burns: Yeah. I mean, it sends a signal. I think that they’re open to reviewing these and these are the criteria they’re going to apply. So it creates some certainty for And, you know, as was said, we’ll see what happens. I suspect there’ll be a learning curve for EPA and companies. And this first one will probably take longer than some of the others because everybody’s going to be extremely cautious. But if things go well, it may help to expedite this process in the future.
Asa Kamer: Great. All right. Well, thank you for giving us the rundown on that. I want to segue into our last segment here, which is about some news that came up recently, which is that the pipeline company called Tallgrass and local environmental groups in Nebraska struck a first-of-its-kind deal to offer community benefits to local communities affected by a proposed CO2 pipeline. And so this is not directly CDR per se, but it certainly has impacts for future CDR planning and modeling, which require Theoretically, it’s going to require CO2 pipelines, and those are pipelines that have faced resistance from community and environmental groups.
And so this is interesting. The company is going to be putting some money into the community in exchange for the Environmental groups who were opposing it, dropping their opposition and basically allowing the project to go ahead. So Holly, what did you think of this announcement? And did you think it was a good deal for the local communities?
Holly Jean Buck: So I’m not one to judge if it’s a good deal, but I’m glad to see it with some reservations. So a few things. This pipeline, it’s not necessarily breaking new ground. It’s an existing natural gas pipeline right of way. And I think that makes a difference for people on the ground in terms of how they perceive it. So this group was Bold Nebraska, which is an NGO that does advocacy, but also 11 farm groups signed this agreement as well. And basically under this community benefits agreement, Bold Nebraska will not oppose the project in exchange for The company’s commitment to spend $600,000 to train and equip first responders on the route, and also donate $500,000 to nonprofits in the counties along the route.
But the thing that’s even more interesting to me about this agreement is that the landowners on new pipeline laterals, instead of getting Like a lump sum payment for that right of way at the beginning, they get a yearly royalty check based on the volume of CO2 being shipped. So I think that’s an interesting way to put revenue back in over time. However, I don’t think it’s an optimal situation where companies have to pay groups not to sue them. Generally speaking, we need to really figure out a way out of this paradigm.
And I also think that this issue of training and equipping first responders really needs a much larger federally funded coherent solution when it comes to CO2 pipelines. We can’t expect every single route to negotiate a CBA for that. We really need the government to be funded to provide comprehensive training for all of the pipeline and also the storage and so on.
Asa Kamer: Yeah, so Holly, I was curious to hear what you were going to say about this. And I’m wondering if you, it sounds like you see some pros and cons in it. Do you think this like sort of, Predicts anything for how CO2 pipelines are going to be deployed in the future or negotiated in the future? Because you’ve talked about that on our show, assuming that’s really important, the public outreach component of getting acceptability for pipelines, theoretically. So do you think this changes your feeling about how things might play out? Or what do you think?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, I think it’s great to see an actual community benefits agreement and have that precedent. I’m not sure that it will transfer to other CO2 pipelines just because this one was unique in terms of already having the natural gas pipeline there. And in general, I’m a bit concerned about relying too heavily on community benefits agreements the tool. I think this is basically a neoliberal paradigm where We’re in a situation where we don’t just tax companies and have elected officials decide how to allocate that money and what benefits to have happen.
I would much rather see that than have non-elected representatives who self-nominate to represent these communities be the ones negotiating all this.
Asa Kamer: Yeah, it’s interesting. And it really reminds me of how housing works in a lot of, I guess, more liberal cities in the US, where at least where I live, for every new apartment building, there’s a negotiation with kind of a similar dynamic of whoever is going to come oppose it and say, what rate are we going to make? So Will, this pipeline, I’m going to go to you, is going to cost $1. 5 billion and the benefits agreement is around So this is not a drastic cost to the company, though theoretically it probably added to their timeline to have to do this negotiation.
So kind of similar question to you, what does this announcement say to you about the future of CO2 pipelines or does it say anything at all?
Wil Burns: Yeah, I don’t know what it says. I mean, one of the things that this agreement does not do is preclude eminent domain challenges by landowners still, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens. Nebraska has the second largest number of ethanol plants in the country behind Iowa, and so there’s likely to be a lot more of this. I think eminent domain may still be where the rubber meets the road. So we’ll see what happens ultimately in terms of those negotiations. At the same time, I think there’s salutary aspects to it, right?
Pipeline companies are realizing that you just don’t run over the local communities with these things, which is all to the good. They’re acknowledging the fact that given the fact that there are some impacts associated with these projects, there probably should be community benefits that flow from it. And, you know, I can’t opine upon the adequacy of it because I think the local community has to try to determine that, and hopefully they determined that this was a reasonable amount in terms of what they got, right? I’m glad there’s funding and training for first responders.
That was one of the problems we had in Satarsha, Mississippi, right when the CO2 pipeline exploded. Clearly, the first responders were not prepared in a way that was necessary to deal with this. And we hopefully won’t have a lot of these accidents in the future. But if we do, CO2 has a very unique sort of footprint in terms of its manifestations that’s different than natural gas or oil. And we need first responders trained for it. So I’m glad there was funding for that also.
Asa Kamer: All right, well, is there anything else you two would like to add before we wrap up here?
Wil Burns: Nope, that was good 360, I think, of CDR.
Asa Kamer: Yeah, that was a bit of a grab bag, but I want to thank you both, Will and Holly, for joining us this month on our policy show and looking forward to talking to you guys again in a month or having our host, Radhika, talk to you guys. And thank you so much for joining us.
Unknown speaker: Thanks, Asa. Thanks, Holly. Thanks, take care.
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 in Apple Podcasts, 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.
