This week on Carbon Removal Newsroom, we’re discussing the latest IPCC Report, the $1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill, and pressure for companies to reach net-zero.
Returning panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition join host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori for this episode.
Full Transcript
Announcer: You’re listening to Carbon Removal Newsroom, a weekly show about current events in the world of carbon removal, from technology and innovation to policymaking and job growth. Brought to you by Nori, the carbon removal marketplace.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Good afternoon, Carbon Removal Newsroom fans. It is our August, what date is it? August 12th show. And I am here with Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo. I think freshly back from San Francisco and happily having survived the tornado watch in DC the last time we chatted. Thanks for being here, Holly.
Holly Jean Buck: Yes, so glad to be here.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And I am also here with Chris Barnard, policy director of the American Conservation Coalition, also freshly back from getting married and Hawaii. So Chris, so nice to have you back. Welcome and congrats.
Chris Barnard: Thank you very much. Happy to be back.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, you missed a little excitement in our last show if you didn’t listen, which I wouldn’t expect you to on your honeymoon. There was a tornado alarm going off in the background as he was talking to us and the sky got pitch black and we were like, what is going on there? That’s pretty exciting.
Chris Barnard: I wish I could have seen that.
Holly Jean Buck: Climate change is just a nonstop adventure.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I mean, Chris, you would have experienced it if you’d been in D. C. because she was in D. C. at the time. That’s where it happened. So, and I am Radhika Moolgavkar, Head of Supply and Methodology at Nori. So thanks everyone for being here and for our listeners for tuning in. First thing I wanted to kick off was talking about the infrastructure bill because Chris, I put it off Because I was really curious about your perspective. It’s kind of old news now because we’ve moved on to the budget and there’s going to be a big fight.
But it was a $1 trillion infrastructure bill was passed on Tuesday with quite a bit of bipartisan support. So curious about your perspective, Chris, you can describe it a little bit and maybe say what it does for the environment and carbon removal.
Chris Barnard: Sure, yeah, I mean, so as you said, I think it passed 69 in favor, 30 against, so a pretty solid majority there. And beyond the usual kind of infrastructure stuff for roads and bridges and all that kind of stuff, there are some interesting environmental things in there that We add at the American Conservation Coalition are supportive of and so just kind of rattle through some of the some of the funding that’s there is 12. 5 billion for carbon capture technology, a little over 2 billion for pipeline funding to transport captured carbon.
There’s a further 6 billion for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. And then also interestingly, there’s a bunch of money, I think in total like six or seven billion for natural climate solutions. So there’s some for a billion for the Great Lakes restoration. There’s 2. 13 billion for the departments of the interior and agriculture for ecosystem restoration. And also really importantly, there’s almost a little over 3 billion for wildfire mitigation and better wildfire practices, which obviously is something that’s very important now. Given everything that’s been going on. So, I mean, I think it’s good that there was able to be some kind of compromise around a lower figure that both a majority of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate could be comfortable with.
And we’re pretty happy that a bunch of environmental provisions made it into it, which are the right type of environmental provisions from our perspective. So that’s really kind of my initial thoughts on that.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And the staggering amount, which is in addition to the budget, Didn’t bother you guys at the ACC? You’re comfortable with the dollar figures and government involvement?
Chris Barnard: I mean, we’re comfortable with the fact that we were able to reach a compromise. And I mean, obviously not every bill, we’re going to be 100% in favor of everything in it. But given that infrastructure was something that was going to happen anyway, we’re a lot happier with a bill like this with some good climate provisions than a 3. 5 trillion one, like the one that they’re going to try and discuss shortly. So We’re kind of cautiously optimistic about it and happy that at least some kind of compromise was able to be reached.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So yeah, that brings up a nice segue to you, Holly, because the progressives in the House are kind of tying the passage of the infrastructure package to the budget. So I’m kind of curious on your perspective on maybe why they’re doing that. Is that a good tactic and what that means for the environmental provisions in this, which They say aren’t enough, but yet are at least a start, right? So why torpedo it if it’s a start?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, I understand why they’re doing it. I think we probably all do. I mean, just the risk that the reconciliation thing won’t move ahead. Otherwise, whether it’s the right tactic, I’m just, I’m just like too stressed out about it to even have something intelligent to say on that. And I’m not even one of those people that’s scarred by Waxman Markey. Like a lot of my colleagues are, I guess.
Radhika Moolgavkar: What’s stressing you out, Holly? Tell us like what, what part of it is stressing you that it won’t pass or?
Holly Jean Buck: I’m just a few things. I mean, mainly that, yeah, this is like our shot at transformative things. I don’t know for sure that we’ll get another one in the next several years. And I’m also worried about, you know, what does inflation look like some months down the line? What’s going to be the appetite for spending? There’s just a lot of unknown. So I’m just kind of biting my nails to see what happens like many of us.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Would you, I guess to put you a little bit more on the spot, would you prefer this bill go through as it did as a bipartisan, with bipartisan support of the Senate, or maybe the earlier bill with no support from the Republicans, but just ramming it through like the original package before the negotiations?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, it really doesn’t matter. Like I understand like the two-track Deale and the process, why it is the way it is. I don’t see that there’s, I mean, the main problem is that progressives don’t have enough political power. Full stop. I think that’s the underlying dilemma. So you do what you can.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah. I mean, I have to say, I think that we should just pass this bill personally. You know, I don’t align myself as a progressive. I try to be a pragmatist, as I’ve said many times. And This to me seems like a practical, pragmatic approach to getting something started. And I don’t like perfection to be the enemy of good, as I’ve also said many times. So I’m really hope that the house finds a way to get this through because it is a big step forward. It may not be as big as what some people want, but it’s not as little as other people want.
So at least we got something rather than nothing, which I think is Really important. And the other question I have for you, Holly, is how are you know, I know there’s a little bit of maybe despair about some the carbon capture measures that are funded in this bill. So how are you feeling about that? I mean, I think it’s 12. 5 billion for large scale deployment of carbon capture, which, as our listeners know, is often used by the oil and gas industry to do point source capture. So anyway. How are you feeling about that?
Holly Jean Buck: It really depends on the details, which I haven’t seen. I mean, we’re going to need a lot of carbon capture and storage for industry, probably some for blue hydrogen, while green hydrogen is still expensive. I’m less certain about that. But I mean, there’s definitely a role for it. Um, but if it’s, I mean, a lot of the stuff that has been drafted has been for coal, which I’m not excited about, you know, gas, maybe you can make a case if you’re doing some like, um, cycle type plants, but yeah, it’s really about the details.
And I’m also skeptical about the 2. 1 billion for the CO2 transport system, because you have to have planning before you build those pipelines and also The public has no clue about CO2 pipelines, what the risks are, you know, what the deal is with that. It’s just so unfamiliar, and I don’t really see that working very well on the ground right now before there’s more education and dialogue about it.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, that’s a really good point because, you know, what the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, right, she said It could explode and it’s going to end up in rural and tribal communities, potentially, and there’s a lot of unknowns and danger. So you can understand why communities wouldn’t want it in their backyard. On the other hand, it’s probably necessary to really do meaningful carbon capture and movement. So it’s a dilemma that needs to be figured out. And I guess it’s good that we’re thinking about it and maybe making some progress on it, but It’s going to be the next like kind of nuclear battle, it seems like in a way, you know, nuclear, nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard, even though we all know it’s probably one of the only ways to get to net zero emissions from a grid perspective.
And so I don’t know what that, what that looks like. Chris, any other thoughts about the infrastructure bill or anything else you want to highlight?
Chris Barnard: I mean, I just found it interesting that now, obviously, the progressives that tend to be the loudest, especially in the House, are now talking about this 3. 5 trillion one that they’re hoping to ram through. And you have people like Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Democrat, they might as well be a Republican, who’s really kind of saying that he’s very worried about What that would do, especially to Democrats’ chances in 2022. I think that’ll be like really interesting political calculation for Democrats is to what extent will people actually enjoy the fact that there will be like a huge cash infusion into the economy or will like the concomitant inflation and all those things and kind of what they’re feeling at the gas pump and all that kind of stuff.
Will Republicans be able to point to a potential infrastructure bill and blame the Democrats for it, which would then result in kind of maybe a red landslide in 22? So there’s some really interesting political calculations behind all this.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, didn’t Joe Biden’s administration just today ask the OPEC countries to start pumping a little more oil out? Because I think that’s where the political, you’re exactly right. Like prices are high. I paid so much money for gas today. And, you know, I’m not the one who tends to be As aware, most of the time, because I just need to pump the gas, I have to go. But today, when I looked at my bill, I’m like, holy cow, that’s amazing. So I do think it will be an interesting calculation. And Holly, from a progressive perspective, I’m curious what you think of that, the potential that this sort of perspective or this sort of bully pulpit might lead to a red landslide.
Do you have fear of that? Is that causing some of your stress too?
Holly Jean Buck: I think, I mean, a lot of people just are going to vote for who they’re going to vote for, and it’s already said in their mind. And as far as the red landslide, I’m more worried about that in terms of some of the discourse around the response to COVID than I am with regards to this sort of thing.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, let’s not talk about COVID. I had COVID depression yesterday when I found out my husband’s hospital was, again, stopping elective surgeries in one of the most highly vaccinated counties in the country for like 75%. So that’s not a path I want to go down. Let’s talk just about something even more uplifting, the newest IPCC report, which while I feel like has been covered everywhere, I did not feel like we could be a true carbon removal environmental cause. So, Holly, do you want to kind of give an overview and your thoughts, if you have any?
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, I mean, this report is 3000 pages, so like if I’m talking too much, give me like a special face or something, right? But I just want to remind people. So, I mean, this is the first, this is working group one of this report. Working Group 2, which is about impacts, adaptation, vulnerability, that’s coming out in, I think, February. Working Group 3, which is about what we’re going to do about all of this. It comes out, I think, in March. And then there’s a synthesis report in October of next year, 2022.
So be ready for more of this sort of thing. So what was in this? This one is the physical science basis. Some key points. It’s unequivocal that humans have warmed the climate. There have been advances since the last assessment report in 2014 in terms of new observational data. New kind of paleoclimate evidence, more sophisticated modeling that have allowed scientists to be more certain and kind of straightened about what they’re saying. So, you know, CO2 in the atmosphere has reached levels not seen in 2 million years. I’m sure you’ve seen some of these headlines.
I guess what’s different about this assessment is that scientists can be more confident in attributing extreme weather to climate change. There’s a lot of talk about impacts that are likely to be inevitable and irreversible. So reversing climate change might have to rethink its name, right? There’s a lot in there about that reversibility point. There’s discussion about climate sensitivity. So it narrowed the range of this estimate of how much would the world warm if CO2 levels doubled? The answer, the central estimate is three degrees Celsius and there’s a likely range of 2.
5 to four. So the main point there is that some of these extremes on either end are being ruled out. There’s a lot more interesting stuff in there, but those are some of the main points people have been focusing on about what’s new with this report.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Chris, I’m curious. I mean, I know this isn’t like directly in the policy world, but kind of obviously related and related to the summit coming up in Scotland. I just saw your founder, Benji, on Twitter kind of making what I thought was a nice argument about how you have to be, you can’t have reactionary Language in these, or, you know, don’t cause panic, like that your group is trying to put forward practical solutions that work for a lot of different people. And so I’m wondering, from your perspective, how you felt about the coverage and kind of the language of Code Red and what your, you know, as an organization, how you would frame this to your Republican colleagues who might be put off by such discourse.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I mean, we as an organization, we find ourselves still in a very interesting position. Because on the one hand, there are still kind of some denialist voices on the right that we have to rebut. And Benji actually, who you mentioned, was he participated in a debate at Freedom Fest in South Dakota about a month ago, where he debated James Taylor from the Heartland Institute and Mark Morano, who used to be the communications director for Senator Jim Inhofe, who brought a snowball. And so what Holly was talking about, in the sense of that this report was able to State things with higher degrees of certainty, I think is very helpful from a scientific perspective to be able to give us kind of more scientific backing for our arguments that this is an issue that, yes, conservatives should care about too.
And so that’s what’s been really helpful about this report. The other flip side of that, which is interesting and kind of that sandwich I was talking about is that there’s a denialist, but then there’s also in our perspective, from our perspective, kind of the alarmists on the other side. Who tried to inflate some of the concerns and really kind of use this either maliciously to advance an agenda or just because they kind of get wrapped up in the apocalyptic talk about it. And then there’s a really interesting article about the fact that, like Holly said, they’ve actually ruled out most of the really extreme scenarios, which I think everyone should think is a good thing.
But at the same time, the difference between this report and the previous iteration of the report, the amount of times that the extreme scenarios were mentioned nearly like went up like 25 or 30% compared to the last report. Whereas at the same time, they scientifically said it’s much more unlikely that these extreme scenarios will happen. And in fact, talking about this, this idea of the climate sensitivity equilibrium, it was the first time that they reduced the top end of climate sensitivity. I think since 1990 or something. And so they’re saying that the most extreme scenarios of climate change, the ones that, you know, from our perspective, people on the far left tend to point to too often are actually being ruled out by the science right now.
While the science is also saying that it is certain that humans have an impact and that there will be severe consequences and that we do need to do something about it, but it might not be as bad as some people are claiming. And so it’s really that interesting dichotomy between yes, it’s bad, but no, we’re not all going to die. And so trying to like finesse between the different people that are arguing different things there. So that’s really kind of The way that I’ve been approaching it, a little disappointing that the report mentions the extreme scenario so much while at the same time ruling it out.
But I think overall it’s positive that there’s kind of more certainty and that they’ve ruled it out to start with.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah. So, Holly, how do you think the left has received this report? I mean, there is some good news in it, as Chris pointed out. I haven’t seen much of it highlighted maybe in mainstream media. And then I think there’s also been some pushback. I provided kind of a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by a former Obama scientist who’s also, you know, he’s known for being less alarmist and maybe some would say a climate, you know, denier, a climate warming denier. But kind of wondering how the left has received it, what the left is thinking about it and what your thoughts are.
Holly Jean Buck: Well, I think that the left has received it as confirmation that this is a really urgent problem and that we need to be doing something about it immediately, which I think is backed up by the contents of the report.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I guess what I’ve been struggling with a little bit is it’s this feeling that both sides are so entrenched in their positions in a way. I mean, I admire Chris’s work of trying to bridge the gap, but these entrenched positions seem to be very difficult to remove, to move forward from like even on the progressive side, while I agree with some of their visions it’s like the way they provide it and speak about it feels like it’s hard to then bring compromise. So how do you, how do you think about like that, you know, the world’s ending, we got to do something now, we don’t care about you in the cold country kind of is what you sometimes hear like that’s the message that you kind of hear.
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, I mean, this report is just the physical science basis, so I would expect the other sections of the report that are released next year to be more contentious in terms of debates about what we do about all of this. I think that, I mean, the one thing that this report says is that temperatures are going to stabilize very soon after we stop emitting carbon dioxide, so In a sense, that’s the one thing that I think dispels some of the doom. I mean, we still have a choice here. But I wouldn’t really have expected the coverage to go any other way than it did.
Yeah.
Chris Barnard: I guess my problem that tends to happen with the coverage, and which is why I do think this report is helpful, is that in the past, obviously these reports produce scenarios, right? And it’s easy to take the most extreme scenario and be like, climate apocalypse is maybe coming. But the moment you kind of talk about climate apocalypse, people are like, whoa, this is crazy. AOC will take that and be like, billions are going to die, et cetera. Whereas the reports clearly say, Could maybe that’s a scenario that’s not what’s going to actually happen and, for example, like the Washington Post like wrote an article saying that by the time.
Today’s infants are collecting social security average warming could be on its way to four degrees Celsius. But that is based on the very scenario that the IPCC is pretty much saying is very implausible and they’re saying that given kind of best estimates and current policies in the direction of the world is going to probably be 2. 7 degrees Celsius. Which is still too high, we should still try and get that down, but that’s nowhere near four. There’s a significant difference between 2. 7 and 2. 6, let alone 2. 7 and four.
So that’s kind of where my frustration is. Like if you use language like could, maybe that doesn’t really matter. Those nuances get lost when you’re talking about apocalypse and like burning forests and like cities like getting killed and I don’t know, I’m losing my words. But anyway, I think that’s kind of like the problem with the nuance gets lost when we’re talking about projections and scenarios.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, Chris, you said it much more articulately what I was trying to ask, which is correct. I feel like there was actually good news in this article. There was a lot of bad news for sure, but it was nothing worse than what we’ve already figured out. And, you know, let’s focus on what is the most likely scenario and fix it rather than fixating on the worst possible scenarios and causing a lot of mass panic. And that’s what I find And I find that on both sides, whether it’s the Republicans will be like, oh, there’s no climate change.
Let’s bring a snowball to the House or the Senate floor. And then people on the left who are like, oh my gosh, we’re going to hit four degrees Celsius and my baby is going to die in a flood. And so I don’t know if that’s a meaningful discourse. And that’s what’s frustrating to me because you can’t move forward unless both sides actually have meaningful conversation about how to do it. Holly, do you have something to say?
Holly Jean Buck: Yes, I do. I’m very concerned about some of the findings of this report in terms of tipping points and these nonlinear feedbacks. And I think that if you’re going to approach this as, you know, looking at the risk profile, I mean, these are things that we really want to avoid those risks. And the other thing about this report, it says that, you know, it’s likely that greenhouse gas emissions contributed warming of one to two degrees. Other human drivers, like aerosols principally, contributed a cooling of 0 to 0. 8 degrees. So we have this looming problem about when we clean up the aerosol pollution and lose that cooling benefit, what do we do?
So, I mean, there’s just funny stuff in here that could really mess things up still.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, and I think that’s another really important point is the science is still... Very, very underdeveloped. It’s continuing to develop. We really don’t probably fully understand what we’re dealing with. And it’s hard to make policy in that kind of uncertainty, I would think, as well. So what you think is the right decision, like get rid of aerosols, may have a very unintended consequence. Of causing climate change to happen more rapidly. So I think we all should stick with our goal of reducing emissions, drawing down carbon, and going as fast as we possibly can.
Let’s just get back to basics and get moving. With that, the final thing I kind of wanted to talk about for a few minutes is what I’m calling the offset math. We’ve talked about this off and on, but I think this new IPC report is going to be putting pressure on companies to go to net zero. Hey, Holly, maybe you can give a quick overview of how you define net zero because I think that term kind of gets used in many different ways. And how do you think companies can reach it or can they reach it?
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, so net zero was discussed a bit in the IPCC report, and I’m not going to quote the way they presented it because it can be kind of wonky, but basically I see it as Balancing some amount of residual or positive emissions with an equivalent amount of removals and that’s how you get net zero. Pretty simple in theory. In practice, how are companies going to achieve it? I mean, it depends a lot on the sort of company I think it’s easier to achieve if you reduce all your residual emissions as much as you can, right?
And so different industries have different capacities for doing that. And most companies are probably going to procure carbon removal credits on some sort of exchange to balance their residual emissions. I would say there’s probably few companies that are going to be able to kind of do it all in house somehow. That’s my general answer.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And I mean, we don’t have to get into super details, but maybe you can give the listeners a feeling of why the accounting is so complicated, why it’s not so easy to say, I know I did this amount of carbon emission based on my supply chain. Why can’t they do that? Why can’t they just add it up and go forward?
Holly Jean Buck: Oh, I just, I mean, partly it’s a data problem, but I mean, the It helped to work through an example, wouldn’t it? I mean, I know you’ve mentioned some of them in the articles you suggested around Coca-Cola and other big companies that are struggling with this.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, I mean, we don’t have to go through an example, but what I was thinking about is the fact that you have scope three emissions that Are not your own, but are the result of your product. And so how you measure that you can imagine is very complicated because where does your scope three end and begin? And how do you measure supply chain for companies that you don’t own or control or manage? So you truck your Coke to a supermarket. How do you control for what the supermarket does, even if you own the trucking?
So this is where the complications around accounting really happen. And that’s why it’s so difficult to figure out how to get to net zero. And that’s why it’s so important to make sure that when you’re buying a carbon offset, it is truly removing carbon, though maybe it doesn’t remove. And then measuring carbon removal is a whole nother area of complication in terms of accounting. But that being said, Holly, you did write an interesting article about why you think removing carbon from the atmosphere must be explicitly political. I heard about it in a different webinar and I was like, Holly, I haven’t read this one that you wrote.
So I went back and read it immediately and I thought it was really interesting. So I was hoping you can maybe talk about why you think it must be explicitly political rather than maybe driven by companies, which is sort of what we’re in right now where companies are pledging net zero and politicians aren’t really providing a framework.
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, part of that is just realism in recognizing that it’s going to be political no matter what, that it has a politics. But I think that unless there’s a political demand around carbon removal and around net zero, but carbon removal is going to be required for net zero, I just don’t think it’s going to happen. I don’t think... That the private sector is going to accomplish this on its own without huge demand that drives public support in kind of a large scale way.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So Chris, curious about your perspective on that, because I would think that’s a little bit antithetical to your views, but maybe I’m wrong.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I mean like specifically like about the SEC requiring banks and Wall Street and companies and whatnot to like produce reports about their carbon emissions and like exactly like you were saying it’s just how would they like we already struggle at the governmental level to and the scientific level to really accurately calculate how much We the emissions are and when it comes to business, it’s so hard to calculate because obviously it’s not just your own business things, but then the like knock on effects and the other things that are all tied to your business.
It’s just I wonder how much of a barrier would Put on business to have to like accurately measure and collect data and report it all and how much extra that would cost and who would have to pay for those kinds of things, et cetera. And one other thing I was reading that was really interesting is if the SEC would try and force companies to do this, there’d probably be huge amounts of lawsuits from shareholders that would obviously hold this up, but then that would also just cost a ton of money and time and all those things that were Really going to be really inefficiently spent because it’s just a lawsuit rather than something productive.
So I think there’s just a lot of problems around it that would have to be figured out first.
Holly Jean Buck: I think there should be public investment in some of the basic science that’s going to make all that monitoring and tracking cheaper. Because looking ahead in the next couple of decades, there should be advances in machine learning to model some of this stuff, internet of things, supply chain tracking, remote sensing, monitoring of biological stuff. I mean, I think that it’s feasible to do this in the near to midterm. But it would help if the public sector is investing in basic technologies that will enable it.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah. I mean, it does feel like maybe what the SEC is proposing right now might be a little bit too far ahead of where we are in terms of the technological curve. So the SEC has put out some proposals for comment about Basically creating a regulatory regime around carbon accounting and net zero, which I think is important because I do think that to be efficient in this, you need some basic rules about what net zero means because every company sort of interprets it in a way that is most favorable to them.
So I think that is a place where government could definitely play an important role in basically creating a foundation for what net zero means. But on the other hand, I wonder if you get too particular right now, we’re not yet where we need to be. And the government needs to invest in sort of the technologies and things, as you said, Holly, to help us monitor and model and just figure out how much carbon is actually going into the air on a daily basis, you know. But with that. I am going to wrap it up because we all have fun things to do.
It is blisteringly hot for the Pacific Northwest again today. So yay, climate change again. Rears ugly head during our show. But Chris, why don’t you kind of give us something that made your week or made your day or made you feel good?
Chris Barnard: I mean, I read an article in Live Science. Is it Live Science or Live Science? I don’t know. One or the other. Which I think is somewhat related to what we do is they found apparently microbes in cow stomachs that can help digest and recycle plastic, which is pretty cool. Especially because there is a carbon element to plastic or primarily methane from landfills and things like that. And obviously the incineration of plastic creates a lot of So if we can use microbes in cows to eat plastic, that would be a pretty neat solution.
So that was just something I read. Yeah.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Nature-based solutions rule, right? We’re all about them.
Chris Barnard: Cow-based solutions.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Cow-based solutions. They also like kelp, right? That was the other thing I read a few months ago. And that released less methane.
Chris Barnard: Yeah.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Less cow burps. All right. Well, guys, thank you so much for your time. And thank you for everybody who has listened. We will be taking next week off like we have all summer. So we’ll see you in a couple weeks.
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.
