This week's guests are Nori's Director of Corporate Development, Alexsandra Guerra; and Carbon180's Senior Policy Advisor Ugbaad Kosar, and Policy Advisor Vanessa Suarez.
Here are the topics and articles we discussed:
Microsoft's RFP for their carbon negativity commitments, and Apple's carbon neutrality commitment.
FARM Act (& its biochar provisions)
N.B. The self-titled Beyonce is the one Ross had in mind; crucial shownote, we know. Here is Carbon180's newsletter as well.
Full Transcript
Ross Kenyon: Hello and welcome to Carbon Removal Newsroom. I’m Ross Kenyon. I am the lead strategist at the Nori Carbon Removal Marketplace. I have one of my colleagues here with me, Alexsandra Guerra, Director of Corporate Development at Nori. Hey, Alexsandra.
Alexsandra Guerra: Hello.
Ross Kenyon: Hello. We’re going to do something a little bit weird. Alexsandra’s not feeling super well, so we’re going to let her do her piece first and then dismiss her. So we will not conclude the episode with you, but thanks for joining us anyhow, Alexsandra.
Alexsandra Guerra: Thanks.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah. And then we have two returning guests here, Ugbaad Kosar, Senior Policy Advisor at Carbon 180. Hey, Ugbaad.
Ugbaad Kosar: Hello.
Ross Kenyon: Hello. Thanks for being here.
Ugbaad Kosar: Yeah, I’m excited. It’s always fun to join the NORI podcast.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I have a lot of fun with it too. And we also have your colleague, Vanessa Suarez, who is a Policy Advisor at Carbon 180. Hey, Vanessa.
Vanessa Suarez: Hey, Ross. Thanks for having me.
Ross Kenyon: It’s my pleasure. There’s so much stuff happening in DC this week that I need you to run our audience through it. There certainly is a lot to cover. But as I stated, we’re going to start at the beginning with some news from the corporate front. Alexsandra, there’s news from Apple, Microsoft released an RFP. What is that? What exactly is happening over there? Why don’t you give people the rundown?
Alexsandra Guerra: Sure. So it’s kind of fun because now What is this? This is the classic rivalry in tech that you have Microsoft versus Apple. So for those who are just tuning in and have not been listening to our episodes before, Microsoft a while back had announced earlier this year that they’re going to go carbon negative by 2030 and then try and remove, or that they will remove all of their historical emissions by 2050. And this was a big deal. And then finally, Last week, Microsoft released an RFP. So they’ve been working diligently behind the scenes trying to figure out how are they going to procure all the carbon removal they need because they’re going to get started.
And they estimate that they’ll need 6 million tonnes of carbon removal in year 2030. And they’re going to start this fiscal year with 1 million tonnes. So the RFP is for 1 million tonnes. You can’t really describe more than that because they ask you not to in the RFP itself. But it is exciting, and I think a lot of people in the space are very much happy to apply to this. And a million tonnes is not a small number, and given the volumes available in the current voluntary marketplaces, I think that a lot of us will benefit from this.
And they plan to invest in all types of carbon removal, from natural-based, from nature-based solutions to industrial. So that’s a good thing. Hopefully they stick to that and still go the path that Stripe did, which they said the same thing and then went all industrial. And then, of course, Apple, the rival, they announced recently to think the same week that they are going to go carbon neutral by 2030. So Honestly, personally, it’s a little bit of a weaker commitment because they’re like, yeah, we’re going to be carbon neutral too by 2030, but Microsoft is like going full on carbon negative.
But what was really, it was nice to hear or see that Apple was trying to do this whole model that we have, which is to emit less, remove the rest. So not just paying for the avoidances of the remaining emissions. So they want to reduce their Operation and supply chain emissions by 75%, and then pay for carbon removal or support carbon removal projects for the remaining 25% of their emissions. And these, again, are in the millions of, you know, single-digit millions of metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, that’s... Sorry.
Alexsandra Guerra: Go ahead, Ross.
Ross Kenyon: No, I mean, that’s not going to make an impact necessarily on the rate of climate change. A bunch of leadership tied up in there. And then I’m sure whichever carbon removal companies or asset providers that are selected by Microsoft, that’s a big jumpstart for the industry and for those companies in particular, which would be nice for them to get the press, same as what happened with Stripe.
Alexsandra Guerra: Absolutely. I mean, this is what we need. We’ve been like, there are Plenty of startups in this space, including Nori, and we’re not the only ones who have been needing more support and demand. And it just seems honestly to have happened overnight. And it’s fantastic answering our prayers. But there’s no real information in the announcement that Apple made in terms of what they’re going to do. So when Microsoft announced theirs back then, they were pretty clear that they were going to look for partners to provide projects. Honestly, Apple, they’re 100% renewable carbon neutral operations, and they have been for a while.
So it might look like what they do with their carbon removal might look like what they’re doing with renewable energy, where they’re providing their own projects. 80% of the renewable energy projects come from Apple. They’re Apple owned. So maybe they do an RFP like Microsoft. Maybe they don’t. And if someone has more information, Please, please let us know. I would love to know more about how Apple actually plans to work with other people in this space.
Ross Kenyon: Do either of our panelists from Carbon 180, do either of you think that this is a response to or influenced by regulation or potential regulation?
Ugbaad Kosar: I think there’s definitely a role. And to what extent, I’m not sure, but I think there’s definitely influence in policy, both at the state and the federal level. I think there’s just this idea of, you know, we know that public-private partnerships are essential. We know that they’re important. But we find ourselves in a bit of like a cash-22. You know, the government doesn’t really want to make a move without corporate sign-off. The corporate and the companies don’t really want to make a move without government, you know, subsidies and support. And so now that we see a lot of carbon removal in legislation, we see a growing interest.
I think it’s going to translate into companies getting a little bit more engaged and feeling like there are, you know, whether it’s through taxes, whether it’s through actual subsidies or whether it’s just through general policy that’s going to support them. I think there is definitely an influence. So I’m interested to see how this is going to grow. I’m not as familiar with the Apple piece either. And I got to go through the release and I found that definitely Microsoft gave a lot more detail on that piece, but Um, yeah, I think, I think it’s, I think they’re going to scale up together hopefully.
And so, yeah, I think there is a role that plays.
Ross Kenyon: Got to watch out for Apple though. They often release products with, you know, it’s like the Beyonce drop in lemonade, but for 10.
Ugbaad Kosar: At midnight.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah. There’s definitely Apple has a tendency to do that. So maybe it looks a little, little Spartan now, but who knows? Um, Alexsandra, shall we dismiss you? Is there any parting words you’d like to share?
Alexsandra Guerra: No. Thanks, guys.
Ross Kenyon: Okay. Well, there sure is a lot to cover here coming out of DC. Multiple acts, all of which are acronyms or initialisms. I’m still not clear what the difference is between those two things. But to start with, there was a full committee hearing. And Vanessa, maybe you can explain what is happening. It was all about direct air capture. What’s going on over there?
Vanessa Suarez: Yes, definitely. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing this past Tuesday on the development and deployment of large scale carbon dioxide management technologies in the US. And so this isn’t just specific to direct air capture. This actually also includes the suite of technological and natural carbon removal pathways. They also discuss carbon utilization and carbon storage. And so throughout this hearing, there were a lot of exciting developments and points that were made on the importance of carbon management and carbon removal for meeting climate goals and continuing US energy leadership.
And so the ranking members, Senator Murkowski and Senator Manchin both spoke on the importance of carbon removal. And specifically, Senator Murkowski pointed out that carbon removal is crucial for addressing climate change and reducing climate impacts and that with enough investment, the US can be a leader on carbon removal solutions. Similarly, Senator Manchin also made a great point that carbon removal is uniquely positioned to address carbon emissions, not just from the power sector, But from a myriad of other sectors that also emit carbon dioxide. So like the transportation sector, industry, commercial and residential, and agriculture, which as we know, these can be hard to decarbonize sectors.
And so at Carbon 180, we’ve worked really closely with both of these offices on carbon removal work, including giving feedback on key pieces of legislation like the Blue Carbon for Our Planet Act. One of the first things that I want to highlight from this hearing is, as Senator Murkowski pointed out, just five or so years ago, there was relatively little buzz surrounding carbon removal on the Hill, and this hearing just confirms that carbon removal is growing, it has bipartisan support, and that it can really take U. S. leadership and innovation to the next level when it comes to Natural and technological climate solutions.
And throughout this hearing, we can also hear from the senators and the witnesses call out to several bills that have advanced carbon removal solutions. And carbon 180 has supported a lot of these, including the Effect Act, the Use It Act, the Future Act, and now the new Create Act, which was introduced by Senator Murkowski this week as well. And we’ll touch a bit more on that later. Continuing with the hearing, what we heard a lot about was current research development and deployment of carbon removal technologies, as well as important needs for scaling up carbon removal.
So some of the work that we’re seeing done right now, in particular at the Department of Energy, is development of geologic storage sites to hold 50 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide from industrial sources. As well as conducting of engineering scale testing for next-gen carbon tech for coal and gas plants, as well as development of direct air capture technologies and transformation of carbon into valuable products. Additionally, the Department of Energy has been providing grants to support the development of nine power sector carbon capture utilization and storage projects, as well as 14 non-power sector projects that are in various stages of development.
So it’s really exciting to hear about all of these current developments that are being made for technological carbon removal in the DOE. And then along with what’s being done right now, there were a lot of needs that were highlighted in order to advance carbon removal. So the key needs that we have been highlighted in this hearing are also things that we see are being worked on within the Department of Energy and across federal agencies in the US government. And at Carbon 180, we’re also working to address a lot of these key needs.
So for example, with our appropriations requests that we submitted for FY21, we included increased funding at the EPA to support CO2 storage infrastructure. Along those lines, we also released an innovation plan with the New Carbon Economy Consortium, which is an alliance of NGOs, universities, and research institutions. And this innovation plan laid out an agenda of key gaps that need to be addressed to scale carbon removal. And so one of those key gaps included the need for a cross-agency coordination, which was brought up in this hearing and which is also the point of the CREAT Act, which we’ll be talking about later.
And then lastly, I just want to touch on at Carbon 180, we’ve also released a report on the market potential for carbon tech, which is a term that we like to use for products that are made out of carbon. And so our report findings were actually really exciting. And basically our conclusion showed that the market potential for commercial products made out of carbon dioxide is immense. We’re seeing the potential for a $1 trillion market in the US alone. And then globally, we’re looking at $6 trillion. And so I think that just shows the importance of this hearing, the importance of the work that’s being done at federal agencies in the US, as well as how we’re really working to address the key needs that are being laid out by witnesses and members of Congress.
And so then lastly, I want to just highlight key themes for carbon removal that were mentioned throughout the hearing. Carbon removal solutions are an essential part of a portfolio of approaches for addressing climate and they have to be advanced together with emissions reduction strategies and so you know that’s why this hearing also included carbon capture sequestration and carbon utilization. They both I think go hand in hand in addressing climate change and the infrastructure that we can see for CCS can also be applied for direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration.
So CCS is a really important gateway in order for us to realize the full potential of these leading carbon removal strategies. And then I also want to mention that from this hearing, you know, we can see that the US has the potential to be a global leader in carbon removal solutions. But unfortunately, we’re just not where we need to be. And we really just need to be more ambitious. So with robust federal policy. We’re going to be able to deploy CCUS and carbon removal at the scales that they’re needed to be deployed at and invest in technological and natural carbon management across the board for our climate goals.
And so, you know, more than just our climate goals, like what carbon removal can ultimately do, I mean, it can help us address the climate crisis, but it can also help our ecosystems, our economy, Our communities. And so I think this hearing was like really essential in highlighting all of these key factors as to why we need large scale carbon management and how our federal government can go about in achieving these these wins across the board, like I said, for the American people and the country.
Ross Kenyon: The strategy for bringing this into a coherent podcast is, Bugbot, if you wanted to run us through some of these various other acts that are now making their way through the legislative process, I think that’s a good way to go. Do you think that’s a good way to introduce these next topics?
Ugbaad Kosar: Yeah, I can just do like a quick bridge from the hearing into the legislation if that will make it smoother. I don’t know.
Ross Kenyon: Sure, that sounds great. Let’s do it.
Ugbaad Kosar: Okay, cool. Okay. So I think it’s important to just note that the hearing that Vanessa ran us through, it just does a really great job of showing, you know, growing momentum behind carbon removal. I think with Senator Murkowski, she made a comment early on that just a few years ago, the concept of carbon removal was really focused on planting trees. It wasn’t widely seen as a realistic approach that could be dramatically scaled. So when you acknowledge that there is a whole Senate hearing on CDR, when you hear the type of questions or the quality of the questions that are being posed during question and answer period, you can really see how up to speed policymakers and their staffers are on a lot of this.
And I think a lot of it has to do with engagement with Hill staffers. And that’s something that Carbono Navy does quite a bit, educating policymakers, making sure that policies that are going to move forward are rooted in the best available science. And lastly, I think this is really ties into the bigger picture in terms of carbon removal. So whether we saw it was making a splash in like the select committee report, like Vanessa mentioned, a lot of the appropriations language in the bills, the number of bills that were cited in the hearing, I honestly lost track at one point because there was just so much going on.
Ross Kenyon: You’re not alone. That was quite a list.
Ugbaad Kosar: It was, but it’s impressive to see that there is a lot there. It’s just a matter of getting it moving and getting it enacted. And then also the Biden Task Force, I think there was also quite a bit of carbon removal that we found kind of surprising, but like a good surprise. So I think all roads are kind of leading up to scaling up carbon removal solutions. I don’t know if it’s because I’m biased coming from carbon 180, but I think that, you know, there was a couple of bills just even this week that are showing growing momentum.
For example, the CREATE Act. I know that Vanessa teased that a little bit. And yes, it is another one of the abbreviations or the acronyms, I should say. It stands for Carbon Removal Efficient Agencies Technology Expertise, CREATE. And during the hearing, Senator Murkowski teased this bill. She was co-sponsoring it with Senator Sinema from Arizona. And it’s bipartisan legislation. And the whole purpose of it is to just really boost research and development for carbon removal technologies. So in this bill in particular, it establishes an executive committee at the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
And this will coordinate interagency efforts on carbon removal research, development, and demonstration. And in my opinion, I think it’s a heavy hitter because it touches on the natural and the technological pathways and really focuses on the idea of bringing in different agencies and their involvement. So, you know, the Department of Energy is listed, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. So it’s just really exciting to see this interagency approach, this whole of government approach. And they’re going to pursue a detailed CDR research development and demonstration program.
And they’re also going to look for ways to enhance existing programs across these different agencies and also figure out how to conduct and I guess enhance cross-cutting budgets and doing budget reviews. So very excited about this. You know, I can’t say it enough. Interagency, CDR, RD&D, that’s a lot of, you know, What is it called? A lot of, I keep saying abbreviations, but it’s acronyms. A lot of acronyms, but this is necessary to support the scale of the solution. So it was just introduced, just right after the hearing. So honestly, no idea of what’s to come of it, but just given how well the hearing went, the bipartisan nature of this bill, The fact that Senator Mikulski in particular is associated with it and is also the chairwoman of Senate ENR, which doesn’t hurt.
And just generally how well CDR just seems to be being received. We’re hopeful that this bill will grow legs and pass through. So we’ll keep our eyes peeled for any movements and keep you up to speed on it.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I sure would like that. What’s the level of interdependency that is present between these bills? Do you need all of them to pass? Would it be okay if some pass and some didn’t?
Vanessa Suarez: The three bills that we’re hoping to touch on today, I think cover three different really important parts of scaling up carbon removal. So here we have like interagency coordination to advance research and development across technological and natural carbon removal solutions. The Replant Act, which we’ll get into more later, and the Farm Act both focus on forestry and agriculture in that order. And so I feel like, if anything, these bills, like, all together, they’re not necessarily competing, but rather they’re just, like, really promising and showing that all sides of carbon removal are gaining momentum on the Hill, and we’re able to now, like, see the hard work of Hill engagement come to fruition.
So, like, specifically with this CREATE Act, It reflects a lot of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, their report on negative emissions technologies and reliable sequestration, the Energy Future Initiatives report on clearing the air, as well as the new carbon economy innovation plan, which I mentioned previously. All three of these reports have called for federal cross-agency coordination. And so the fact that now we’re seeing a bill that is dedicated to that, I think Going along the lines of what Ubad said earlier, thanks to Hill Engagement and thanks to so much of the work of ENGOs, and of course, maybe I am biased because I’m coming from an ENGO, but I’d like to think that a lot of the work that we’ve been doing over the past years has really propelled the carbon removal agenda and made a lot of these bills just possible.
Ugbaad Kosar: Yeah, and just to layer into that, Vanessa, I think in terms of them competing with one another, especially any of the CDR bills that are on the Hill now or continuing to be introduced, I think if any of them get passed, it’s something. Right now, we’re at a place where we’re starting to get recognition and we’re starting to get momentum, but whether or not one of them gets passed or five of them gets passed, if any of them get passed, it’s still going to support The necessary, you know, funding requirements and the necessary movement that we need from the government.
So I would just be happy to see one or two, but there’s definitely certain legislation that are hard hitters and are really comprehensive. And I think the create one is definitely one of those, but yeah, I would just be happy to see any sort of any, any legislation that’s going to, you know, address the climate crisis in all honesty is, is, is important.
Ross Kenyon: This might be undiplomatic to ask, but Who are carbon removal’s enemies on the hill? Is there anyone who just hates carbon removal? Yeah, surely there’s someone who just hates it, right?
Vanessa Suarez: I think there is pushback on carbon removal because there has been some lack of distinction between carbon removal and geoengineering. And so I think at times when carbon removal does get lumped into Some of the geoengineering approaches like solar radiation management, it can really be off-putting for folks. And so I think that’s where a lot of the pushback comes when it comes to carbon removal. And carbon removal also, I think, can play hand in hand with carbon capture and sequestration, which is something that we talked about before. And there are a lot of environmental justice implications when it comes to how CCS is deployed.
And so I think in that sense, It makes sense why carbon removal sometimes can have a bit of pushback on it, but I think part of what we’ve been working so hard to do at Carbon 180 is try to decouple carbon removal from geoengineering and also try to see what are the EJ implications of carbon removal Solutions and then see like, are there benefits that we can identify? And I think especially along natural carbon removal solutions, we’re finding that, you know, carbon removal can really help communities and economies. And yeah, I guess that’s, that’s what I would say.
Ross Kenyon: Okay. That sounds, sounds good. Good place to leave it. And I think you did it with that Beltway Um, mellifluous speech that says nothing, um, but also answers my question kind of. So, so is that what it’s like there?
Ugbaad Kosar: Vanessa turned her, um, policy advisor hat on, definitely.
Ross Kenyon: Maybe, maybe a little. I’m, I’m 90% joking, but, but yeah, it was a hard question to be posed to in a public forum. Uh, okay. Ugbev, why don’t you take us to this next, take us to replant and explain what’s going on there.
Ugbaad Kosar: So in addition to the CREATE Act, there was another two CDR-ish related bills that came out on the natural side of things. So first there was the Re-Plant Act that was actually introduced yesterday. And it was introduced both in the House and the Senate. So it’s bicameral. It’s also bipartisan. It was led by Senators Udall and Portman and also Representative Panetta and Simpson, among many others. There’s quite a few co-sponsors. And it aims to address the reforestation backlog on federal land. So this is a massive issue. There’s a reforestation trust fund that’s under the US Forest Service, and it receives money from tariffs on imported wood products.
So historically, there was a cap of about $30 million for this fund. But that’s extremely outdated. That was set decades ago in Congress. And so there’s been a lot of efforts to try to increase this cap. I think most recently there was legislation that was introduced to increase it about $60 million. But now this new bill actually calls to remove the cap altogether. And a lot of this is from pressure from, you know, advocacy groups and then even policymakers themselves that are really seeing the need for funds for reforestation. So like I mentioned, there’s significant backlog of reforestation projects and a lot of that has to do with just general strains of funding, but also this idea of fire borrowing where a lot of the money for forest management has historically been funneled to address the massive wildfires, particularly in the West.
And of course, like with the wildfires, you know, there’s increases in intensity and frequency and in duration. And so it’s just requiring a lot more time, a lot more money, and definitely a lot more trees that are needing to be replanted. So currently, just for context, there’s a backlog of about 2. 3 billion trees that are just waiting to be planted on our national forests. And so with this bill being hopefully passed in both the House and Senate, who knows, it’s brand new, but it will allow the cap to be removed and really open up funding potential from about $30 million to about $123 million.
So that’s gonna triple the reforestation potential. And I know that we definitely, listeners of this podcast, but in general, We know that trees are natural sequesters. They are natural carbon removal machines. And so I guess that sounds ironic to say natural machines, but regardless, they’re just staples in carbon removal. And so being able to really invest in reforestation, which is a huge priority for not just climate reasons, but of course that’s important, but also there’s By diversity reasons, there’s economic reasons. There’s a lot of reasons to be protecting and reforesting forests.
So I’m just really excited about this bill. And I hope that it has like a pathway forward because this is something that’s really needed. And with climate change, it’s really only going to get worse. So we need all the support we can get on it.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, but we know you love trees. We’ve covered this before.
Ugbaad Kosar: I do. I do. It has a special place in my heart.
Ross Kenyon: Anything to add with regard to replant, Vanessa?
Vanessa Suarez: I just want to echo what Upad said. As our listeners know, reforestation is such a crucial forestry management practice and it can increase carbon sequestration in forests and it can help reduce emissions. Forests are the powerhouse of natural carbon removal pathways. And so, you know, like mentioned, we can see so many co benefits from, you know, reforestation practices. And so like through addressing this backlog, we can help increase carbon sequestration. And, you know, we can also potentially bolster forestry related jobs and ecosystem co benefits. And so I just feel like This bill is getting us in a really great place to make the most of our forests and really hone in on the top natural carbon sequestration pathway.
Ross Kenyon: Cool. That sounds good to me. And then there’s one more, as I understand it, to cover, which is the Farm Act. What’s going on over there?
Ugbaad Kosar: So lastly, in our long list of legislation 101, Representative Harder from California introduced the Farm Act a few weeks ago. And this is really just targeted towards supporting agriculture efforts in fighting climate change. So I haven’t had a chance to dig deep into this one, but it essentially establishes two new programs and they’re designed to support farmers. So first is the Farm Fund. It’s a new fund that would be worth about $2. 5 billion. And it would be set up to help farmers fight climate change on the ground. And in particular, for carbon removal reasons, it would help support farmers adopt practices that help sequester soil carbon.
So really interesting piece. I think we always talk about the idea of creating financial incentives for climate-spired practices. And so this definitely caught my eye. And there’s also a paralysis program. Which sets about $10 million away to support 10 pilot programs across the country. And this would explore the idea of converting tree nut byproducts into biocarbon products to be reused. So my understanding is they’re targeting ways to rethink biomass waste from orchards in particular. And then figuring out how we can convert them into Products, I guess, or things of use.
So things like biochar or fuels. And so just off the top of the head, I think $10 million for 10 pilot projects makes sense. And I think it would just be interesting to dig a little deeper into what the program entails and how they’re planning on deploying these pilot projects.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I’m quite interested in the biochar element of this. I can’t think of any other policy that relates to biochar so specifically, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but most of the time when I’m looking at either buying stoves for my own usage to convert waste biomass into biochar, or if I’m looking on the market for a soil amendment that’s biochar related, it seems like many of the manufacturers are quite small, seems like a cottage industry. So is this potentially a way of looking for something that is Much more scalable or just large scale?
Is that a correct interpretation of what’s happening?
Vanessa Suarez: I think the only thing that I can touch on, Ross, is the first thing that you mentioned, which at least as far as I know, there aren’t many policies right, or sorry, there isn’t a lot of legislation right now on the Hill that specifically addresses biochar. And so I think the inclusion of that in the Farm Act is pretty exciting.
Ross Kenyon: Biochar, people are super passionate. I’m sure when they find out about this, they will be quite curious. Yeah, we’ll just cover this in a future episode to greater depth. And I’m sure there’ll be more to talk about as time goes on, more is released and more is written about it. So I think that’s a good place to end it, Bugbot. Or Vanessa, do you have any final thoughts on any of these things that you’d like to share with our listeners?
Ugbaad Kosar: I’ll take you, Vanessa.
Vanessa Suarez: All right. Sorry, I was just, I didn’t want to interrupt anyone. Yeah, I guess just final thoughts. This week was really promising for carbon removal. You know, having a Senate hearing on CDR just really shows the bipartisan support that’s growing across the federal government. And the introduction of these three acts is also really exciting. And I think, you know, our work at Carbon 180 Is really reflected in a lot of the stuff that, you know, getting, getting out on the hill. And I think we’re just really excited to see a lot of these developments.
And like we said earlier, if any of these acts can make it through, like, we’ll be super happy because, you know, carbon removal is growing. It’s needed. It’s real. Like Senator Murkowski said, like Senator Manchin said. And so, I just feel like we’re really getting to a promising place now at the federal government with the House Select Committee and the Biden-Sanders Climate Unity Act and everything that we’ve seen this week. I think we’re heading in a really promising direction and I’m really excited to see what comes next for carbon removal.
Ross Kenyon: This is somewhat anecdotal, but my experience is definitely in trying to choose stories from the week or every other week. Some of them are definitely dominated by news coming out of policy rather than technology or business or other places. It does seem to me, from where I sit, quite a lot of movement in this space is being driven by policy right now.
Ugbaad Kosar: Yeah, I think that’s super fair to say. I think no matter what, you’re going to need to push certain policy levers to move across all those different factors. Whether it’s technology, you need funding, you need to make sure that you’ve got the policy in place to really push that. Likewise with businesses and you make sure that you’ve got the subsidies and the incentives in place or creating markets, like all of that really just leads back to the idea of being able to create policy that creates basis for this. So yeah, I definitely agree with you.
I think all roads do lead to policy.
Ross Kenyon: Fair enough.
Vanessa Suarez: I think there might be one quote that I would like to highlight. So Julio Friedman, who was one of the witnesses for the Senate hearing this past Tuesday, he had an amazing quote for the committee. And he essentially asked them to think of carbon dioxide removal as the biggest market of all time. And I think that’s a great way of picturing it.
Ross Kenyon: Wow. We got to have Julio back on. He was on reversing climate change back in the day. And I think the carbon wrangler must return. What a quote. Saying that in Congress, too. That’s cool. Okay, well, let’s wrap it up. [Twitter plug cut from the transcript. It’s still in the audio.] Is there anything else that you’d like me to put in there, or is that good?
Vanessa Suarez: I think that’s perfect. That’s great, yeah.
Ross Kenyon: Great. Well, thank you so much for being here. And Alexsandra too, in absentia.
Ugbaad Kosar: Thanks for having us, Ross. Really appreciate it.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Thanks for being here. If you like the show, tell your friends, rate and review us on iTunes, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher. And thank you so much for listening.
