Just a few years ago, DAC technology existed exclusively on a lab bench. This year the industry raised over $1 billion in VC funding, with over 50 funded startups in existence.
While there are still technological hurdles to overcome to bring CDR to scale, funding also needs to be diversified and innovated, something we’ve discussed before on this show.
Tech money continues to pour into CDR. Just this week, two large new funding mechanisms for CDR companies have been announced.
Terraset is a new philanthropy that aims to fill CDR’s ‘funding gap.’ They aim to pool $1 billion by 2030 to fund startups directly. Early announced funders are Tim Ferriss and Segment co-founder Calvin French-Owen.
Propellor is a new VC fund that announced its first seed round of $100 million to invest in ocean-based climate tech.
We’ll discuss both announcements with our regular business panel, Susan Su and Na’im Merchant.
On This Episode
Susan Su
Na’im Merchant
Radhika Moolgavkar
Resources
Brian Halligan
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.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Hello, everybody, and welcome to our October 27th Carbon Removal Newsroom focused on business. Today, I’m glad to have Susan Sue back. She’s a partner focused on climate investing at Toba Capital. She also serves as a board member at the Carbon Business Council, some folks we had on last week, and a board advisor to the Environmental Voter Project. Hi, Susan. How are you?
Susan Su: I’m doing great. It’s great to be back.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yes, we’re happy to have you back on the show. And then Na’im Merchant, who runs Carbon Curve, a consultancy that works with NGOs and startups on scaling up carbon removal solutions. He also publishes The Carbon Curve, a newsletter and podcast about the carbon removal industry and the new carbon economy. Hi, Naeem.
Na’im Merchant: Hey, Radhika. Great to have you back, Susan.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And then, as always, I’m Radhika Moolgavkar, the Head of Supply and Methodology at NORI. So we’re just going to dive in because things, as always, are moving fast on this business side of CDR. Just a few years ago, that DAC technology basically was only on the lab bench. This year, the industry raised over a billion dollars in VC funding with over 30 funded startups in existence. And while there are many hurdles still to bring CDR to scale, funding also needs to be diversified and innovated, something we’ve discussed before on the show.
Tech money continues to pour in a CDR. Just this week, two large new funding mechanisms for CDR companies have been announced. Terracet is a new philanthropy that aims to fill the CDR quote unquote funding gap. They’re looking to pool about a billion dollars by 2030 to fund startups directly. Early announced funders are Tim Ferriss and segment co-founder Calvin French-Owen. In addition, Propeller is a new VC fund that announced its first seed round of $100 million to invest in ocean-based tech. So we’re going to talk about both of these announcements with Susan and Naeem, and we’ll start with Terracet.
Naeem, first question for you. Terracet founder Alex Rotter, I hope I got his name right, said he wants the organization to act as an independent source of demand. Is this something that we currently need in the CDR ecosystem?
Na’im Merchant: Well, you know, I think if they’ve figured out the legal elements to making a tax advantage donation like this, I think that’s great. But I mean, at present, demand for CDR far outstrips supply. But I think, on the other hand, long term, we’re going to need to see demand grow substantially. And right now, only a small percentage of philanthropic funding goes to climate in general, and only a small percentage of that goes to carbon removal. So I think it’s great that it brings online new funding for CDR companies. So yeah, I’d say something like this is needed.
But what I’m curious to see or where I have reservations is because of the tax advantage and nature of donations like this, how might that maybe distort the CDR market where at present individuals and companies are kind of used to buying carbon credits or carbon removal credits and not getting any kind of tax benefit from that. So I think this is a good idea. I’m sure smart people have figured out how to kind of work through the legal elements of being able to make a tax advantage donation that I guess finds itself, finds its way to a company at the end of the line.
But I think it’s when we think about how high net worth individuals are often making purchases of carbon removal credits or, you know, They’re not currently doing that on a tax advantage basis, so I think there’s, I guess there’s an open question to see how does this affect the carbon removal market, especially when supply is so thin and the market is so masoned when something like this comes along.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, that’s a great point, like it is hard for me to Fully wrap my mind around the tax advantage status of buying from a corporate. But like you said, Naeem, I’m sure smarter minds than mine have been thinking about this. So Susan, curious from your perspective, because you’re so deep into the public or private funding. I mean, do you feel like with all the public and private money that we’re hearing announced that we also need a nonprofit mechanism? And why a nonprofit mechanism? What do you think they’re trying to solve?
Susan Su: Yeah. And before I get into that, I just want to, my head’s been so stuck on the nonprofit part. Like I’ve just been spinning on that and the cleverness there that I actually overlooked the point that Naeem was trying to make about supply and how this might shake things up in an already limited supply landscape. So I just want to touch on that again, because I think it’s such a good, like I hadn’t even thought of that myself. So thank you, Naeem. And it’s, A very, very important point because, you know, I think if you read the protocol article, Alex says, you know, this is really, I think, is it Alex?
I think Alex said it, not Shashank who said, you know, it’s really important because we need to actually show that demand is there. I think that’s absolutely true, but at the same time, we actually have You know, in the overall balance of the marketplace, we probably have an overabundance of demand at this point and a dearth of really high quality supply. So I don’t think that... I think that sounds really good to say it, and it’s very smart to say, but I think the real problem is probably more along the lines of, is this going to help spur higher quality supply to be motivated to come into the market?
And I think that’s going to be TBD, and hopefully, fingers crossed, that’ll be the outcome. And I think that’s definitely the goal of something like Terracet. Now onto the question of the nonprofit status. Is this needed? I think it’s not really a question of, is it needed or not? I think it’s a question of like, and then if you ask, is it needed? It’s a really important follow on to say by whom? I don’t necessarily think that companies, there’s plenty of financing out there, private financing. I don’t necessarily know that companies are in great need, the high quality ones that actually stand a chance to make a dent in this problem.
But I do think that on the sort of persons of wealth side of the equation, actually there is a need. And I would say that it’s because to go right now to Climeworks or to, I don’t know, South Pole or any of these organizations that let you buy credits, it’s actually a team effort. You can’t really go as a private individual very easily And do any sort of purchasing at scale. You would have to have quite a lot of self-confidence. I mean, there are services out there to sort of like let you offset your e-commerce purchase or offset your personal footprint.
But if you’re sort of like one step above that, and I think of the uber wealthy as sort of one footprint level above the standard individual and below a corporation. We’re talking about people that may be flying on private jets, that may be holding really big events with their other philanthropist friends, things that probably the people on this podcast are not as familiar with in our day-to-day. These are sort of bigger footprint things. And I commend people for wanting to either offset or even just, not even offset, but make a dent in those kinds of emissions.
But it’s not something that you can actually really easily do In a retail fashion today. And so I think TerraSet by making it possible to just sort of, you know, bypass a little bit of that admin around it is doing something really smart. And then to get onto the 501c3 nature, I think that’s incredibly clever. It’s actually quite... Sly, if I may say so myself, because, you know, pretty much all of philanthropy, and this is where I will be getting to the plain speaking version of this podcast, but pretty much all of philanthropy is, you know, part meant to do good and part of tax haven.
It’s not, it wouldn’t be philanthropy if it weren’t a tax haven. Let’s just be honest about that. And so this is the first time that it’s been made retail that you can actually kind of get that tax haven benefit and also support carbon removal. And I think that is, it’s like you read it and you realize, oh my God, aha, Alex, this is genius. This is actually a genius move. And I think it’s probably going to be really successful. So I do think it’s needed in some sense to just make it easier for people to participate who aren’t corporations, who aren’t teams.
But who have a larger need than, you know, average consumer. And I also think that the nonprofit status really, really clinches things for this whole movement.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So Susan, I want to follow up with you because one thing I think a lot about is the fact that we want to democratize carbon removal, like we don’t want to make it harder for people to enter, we want to make it easier to scale the marketplaces. And so By perpetuating the need for this type of diligence and scientific rigor that’s only available maybe to the ultra-wealthy or to corporations, could that do more harm than good in the long term? Because we’re not finding ways to allow carbon removal to really spread to the masses, if you will.
Susan Su: Yeah, I think that’s a really important consideration. I also think that it’s probably not the place of a terra set to solve for that specific problem. I think what we would look to is, you know, right now it is kind of the purview of those with really deep pockets, whether they be corporate entities or super wealthy individuals. And that’s how it starts. And ideally, what we see is a proliferation of more of these platforms. You know, they exist out there already. There’s REN, there’s everything that patch integrates with. Of course, you can go directly to Nori.
You can go direct to Pachama. There’s a number of services already, but there isn’t anything that’s... And there are starting to be more and more that are integrated sort of at the point of sale or point of consumption. But it’s still very, very nascent. And I think that... And it’s actually a really great opportunity for this middle layer of services to really proliferate. And I think there it’s really exciting because it’s kind of still open field. And there’s a lot of opportunity for cool businesses to be built and for that problem that you’re describing to be solved.
I don’t think it’ll be solved by necessarily by a tarot set. Because, you know, for, I don’t know, speaking for myself, if I go somewhere and I want to do a donation, I mean, I’m no Bill Gates. So my donations are not going to make a considerable dent in my tax outlay at the end of the year. But for, you know, The average person, that’s probably not the thing that’s on the top of their mind. So I think there’s going to be more opportunity for new things to come in and make it easier to do this democratization that you’re talking about.
But I don’t think democratization is going to be a factor of the tax benefit. It’s going to be a factor of access. Is it at the point of sale? Can you do it at Ace Hardware, for example? Can you do it really, really easily without having to do all the research, just like you said? But again, that’s where those middle services can really offer value.
Radhika Moolgavkar: There’s still so much disagreement about how to verify different methods of CDR. I was actually just having this conversation this morning with one of my coworkers and how verification continues to be such a barrier. How would you advise an organization like this as they set up their systems to ensure that their philanthropic dollars are being used effectively and really that carbon is being removed?
Na’im Merchant: I don’t think that there’s a lot that an organization like this can do to set up their systems and ensure philanthropic dollars be used effectively. You know, aside from You know, ensuring that they’re kind of doing the research and able to justify some of the decisions that are made. I think that there’s an element of uncertainty that exists with making any kind of donation, right? So I think there’s a few things that need to happen. I think the organization, number one, needs to be upfront about the risks and uncertainties involved in donating into something like this in the first place.
I think that’s an important responsibility that they have. And then second, I think whatever this group does in terms of making the decisions around the projects that it supports needs to be as open and transparent about its selection process as possible. And then I’d actually encourage other entities to get involved in assessing the effectiveness of how those dollars are being spent, right? Like Terraset probably shouldn’t do more than be upfront about risk and uncertainty and be as transparent as possible. And then maybe groups that have been set up like GiveWell Or giving green can assess the merits of how Terraset makes their decisions.
And of course, all of that kind of assumes that they’re doing it transparently. But I actually think that there should be other actors that are involved in ensuring that philanthropic dollars are being used effectively. I don’t think Terraset has much of an incentive to do that other than just being, like I said, upfront about risks and open and transparent.
Radhika Moolgavkar: It is, to me, an interesting place for a nonprofit who has to assess the risks and uncertainties of a technology that is so nascent. And I can’t personally think of another area where you see like a nonprofit entering so early into a field, but haven’t done a deep thinking about it. But it will be interesting to see how they balance the unknown of the technology and how they think about the risks and uncertainties around it. It’s something I think we all struggle with who are in the marketplaces.
Na’im Merchant: I wonder if there’s an interesting analog to something like Funding novel cancer research or something like that, like maybe they’re like charities that might support research in other areas that’s where things are still untested, but you know that money goes towards. You know, to companies that are advancing research, I think maybe that’s a potential area where there’s something that’s relatively untested, but you know there’s tax advantage ways of supporting some of that work.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, that’s a really good point. Okay, last question about Terracet, and it’s to both of you, so I’ll start with you, Susan. You know, anybody can donate to Terracet. It’s not just for the ultra wealthy, even though it might feel like that on first blush. So if you were a philanthropist who wanted to support efforts to fight climate change, would this be the mechanism that you would prioritize, or are there other things that you would consider?
Susan Su: Well, The thing I always say about this, it’s so hard. I think we could have a whole separate podcast about philanthropy, and you’d probably want to invite better qualified guests than myself. I’ll just speak for myself. I won’t say anything about Naeem’s qualifications on this topic, but it’s pretty deep. Just on our last question about how do you make sure that the scientific rigor is there, how do you guarantee any accountability in philanthropy? Part of philanthropy and part of the big problem with it One of the challenges, I should say, not problem, is just around accountability in any category, whether you’re funding community centers, a library, cancer research, a food bank, or carbon removal.
It is in many cases very hard to quantify and impact. Even if you can say how many meals were served, you actually don’t ultimately know What dent you made on like this very open ended problem of hunger in your community right. And so I would say like it’s interesting that we in the carbon removal community we are like so hard on ourselves about proving that this and I and I get it because there’s a like. And this is in the climate movement overall. I feel like we are so hard on ourselves because of what is that cognitive bias, the Dunning-Kruger effect?
It’s like where people who don’t know anything, they tend to overestimate their abilities. And people who know a lot about something tend to underestimate their abilities because they know too much. And I think it’s a little bit of that going on. But I also think that, by the way, it’s great to have that level of rigor, but I think it’s also okay to cut ourselves a break. And then in terms of like actually getting to your question, is this the right place to, is this the right mechanism to prioritize? What I wanted to say was that a lot of times what we forget is that any act of philanthropy, whether it’s at very large scale by somebody super wealthy or at small scale by an average citizen, it is also an emotional act It’s not simply, in fact, it’s primarily an emotional act rather than a rational decision.
And oftentimes, especially when there’s a scientific component to it, we believe that we need to really spreadsheet it out and get all the numbers right. But at the end of the day, why do people donate to Stanford so that they can have their name on a building? Why do people want the symphony to continue to exist? Are they actually able to quantify You know, the outcomes of those actions. I don’t think so. And in capitalism, you know, in our capitalist society, that’s sort of how things work with philanthropy. Philanthropy kind of goes hand in hand with that.
And this is a much bigger discussion, but I think, you know, Would I prioritize this? No, because I personally think that politics, not just policy, but politics are the most alarming, most important, most urgent aspect of the climate crisis, actually, because all of these things that, you know, where there’s a will, there’s a way. So we need to work on the will part. That’s my personal opinion. And that’s completely separate from any sort of actual mathing it out. And I think that to ask anybody that, we need to also consider their own personal sort of like emotional relationship with the problem and what previous experience they’ve had with it.
So I’ll just leave it at that.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I love that answer, Susan. I, you know, I think you’re so right. We often forget about the emotional, I think just generally like tie of all of this carbon removal work we do. We aren’t doing it just because we’re trying to make a buck, you know? Or donate a buck. But Naeem, your turn. What would you prioritize?
Na’im Merchant: I have a similar answer to Susan’s. I think at this stage, I wouldn’t prioritize this. I think it’s a cool idea. But at the risk of sounding political, if I wanted to support efforts to fight climate change, we’ve got midterm elections in a couple of weeks here. And I’m Canadian, so I can’t actually do this. But if I could, I would actually just donate to candidates who are going to advance a political agenda that would build on the progress we’ve made on climate policy, or at the very least, protect the gains that have been made.
So that’s what I would do. And I’d also say, if that’s not the route you’d want to go, I’d also take a look at a group like Giving Green, whom I’ve worked with before. And I think they do some pretty comprehensive research and analysis on How to best use philanthropic dollars to the extent that’s possible to address climate change. So that’s one group to look at.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, well, a plug to everybody who might listen to this podcast to go out and vote because as Naeem said, the midterms are just around the corner and it is going to be an interesting election if you’ve been following the news. With that, I will pivot to Propeller, whose name I actually kind of love. Which is $100 million fund founded in 2022 that wants to support entrepreneurs looking to address the climate change or climate crisis, excuse me, by advancing ocean carbon removal tech. The former HubSpot CEO, Brian Halligan, is a co-founder.
So a big wig there. Susan, you know, before the growing interest in ocean CDR, were ocean-based technology something that were particularly interesting to VCs? Are you surprised by both the size of the commitment and maybe the all of a sudden emergence of oceans as a VC recipient?
Susan Su: I’m just really surprised that Brian Halligan is behind this and I think it’s awesome. HubSpot is a great company. I’ve known tonnes and tonnes of people to have gone through the ranks at HubSpot, including at the VP level. And so I’ve heard the name Halligan, Halligan, Halligan for years in my career, even before I got into VC. And so when I saw that Brian Halligan was doing this fund, I was actually really surprised. It felt a little bit Not who I expected because I hadn’t heard his name that much in climate circles and I’m just extremely pleased.
I also think it’s really brave to be doing a first fund as somebody that comes from SaaS, from software technology, doing a first fund in ocean-based tech because To get to your question, has this been particularly interesting to VCs? No, it hasn’t been. It’s been one of the tougher areas, and it’s been one of the rarer areas to see any investment activity, and then thus, of course, also innovation activity. And some of the reasons for that are because it’s a bunch of different reasons, right? Who owns the oceans, first of all?
Who owns the coasts? Those are the answers to those questions are really complex and so already you’re looking at some regulatory hair that a lot of innovators don’t love to, you know, Get mixed up with, and that also funders don’t like to really put their dollars behind. And I think there’s also a lot of really nascent science around oceans and what happens when we ocean form. I wanna say like terraform, but it’s not really terraforming, right? Because it’s in the ocean. We don’t really necessarily know what happens when we start Messing with all of the, you know, kind of ecosystem balance that there is in the ocean, although that’s already happening, by the way, unintentionally.
So I think this is really, really unique. It’s filling a gap that’s quite large, and it’ll be interesting to see what sort of innovation activity it invites out of the woodwork. I would say to the question about the size of the commitment, look, it’s actually a hundred million dollar fund is, you know, A name like Brian Halligan should be able to command a $100 million fund in almost any category. I’m a little bit impressed and surprised that it’s an ocean-based technology, but it should be able, I’m sure as a GP, he’s probably committing a good amount of the capital himself, and that helps to give LPs confidence.
We don’t know who all is behind this, but he’s surely well-connected to a lot of potential LPs. You know, of course, for a first time fund, this isn’t like your $10 million micro fund. But again, a Brian Halligan would never be doing a $10 million micro fund in any category. So I’ll just also say that at the end of the day, $100 million is... Awesome as a start, but what we probably would really need to see coming out of this is more growth stage dollars. And if those growth stage dollars don’t materialize, then that 100 million actually doesn’t go too far.
It’s actually a tiny drop in the ocean, if I might say so.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I mean, I think what you were talking about, particularly around the regulatory piece, I would even expand it a little bit to say, you know, as we were talking about the emotion of philanthropy, the oceans, particularly the coastal part of the oceans, elicit very strong emotional responses from people both, and they’re very protective of it. So I feel like that’s a whole nother level of complication that oceans have in a way that maybe other types of technologies don’t have. So I’m really curious to see how they navigate All of these different unique challenges for oceans.
And then Naeem, what areas of Ocean CDR do you see as underfunded and what are the areas you might want Propeller to focus on in oceans?
Na’im Merchant: Yeah, that’s a big question. I think Without getting specific on different Ocean CDR methods, I personally think it would be really interesting and maybe catalytic to invest in areas that make emerging Ocean CDR methods more viable. So what can have a multiplying effect by potentially benefiting a number of Ocean CDR startups or companies? So maybe one area, and again, without getting into specific methods within Ocean CDR, but one area is companies that are developing technologies for better measurement reporting and verification of Ocean CDR methods. Or another area that would be focusing on finding ways to reduce or at least just monitor the ecological impacts of different Ocean CDR methods.
I think that what’s exciting about that is I think there’s a potential multiplying effect that can happen By addressing some of those challenges, they’re not specific to any one Ocean CDR method, but I think are going to be necessary to figure it out in order for more Ocean CDR methods to really, really thrive.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So Susan, you know, we just touched on a whole bunch of issues to scaling Ocean CDR. So including obviously MRP and regulatory and maybe the social dynamics around it. What is your instinct on a billion dollar Ocean CDR company really coming to fruition? Because as I understand it, that’s sort of the benchmark that VCs are looking for.
Susan Su: Yeah, and I think, you know, not all VCs are looking for a billion dollar valuation. It depends on your entry price, of course. So that’s where I think a seed fund or maybe even earlier, and I’m sure given that there isn’t as much competition to invest in this category of companies as there is in other categories, there might be some good cost basis to be had here. I would say that like, It’s really tough because we’re talking about, you know, who’s the customer. The customer is probably going to be governments, other really large technology incumbents like a Siemens or something like that.
So, you know, it’s like few and far between super enterprise plays. Can those become Or maybe maritime and shipping companies. Can those become billion-dollar companies? Certainly. But is it going to take a really, really long time? Definitely. Is there going to be a lot of technological uncertainty if we’re talking about CDR? Absolutely. Is there going to be a lot of... Kind of selling and market based uncertainty, if we’re talking about software or business innovations, for sure, it’s not going to be easy to sell to Maersk or to Siemens or to Singapore.
And so I think there are going to be just a whole host of challenges here, separate from regulatory, social, emotional, There’s technological, there’s everything that goes along with scaling a company of any kind. So, you know, yeah, I personally see the billion dollar valuation as, as, you know, very possible, but also very, very hard in this category, because of some of those dynamics. But I think that’s okay, because, you If you invest at the right price and you’re early and de-risked and you are able to add value to that investment, it doesn’t, not every company, you know, by the way, valuation is just, it’s just a price on paper.
Not every company has to hit a billion dollar valuation, so to speak, in order to have an impact both on the portfolio and on the challenge at hand.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So last question for you, Naeem. Propeller is working with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, obviously renowned leader in ocean science. What do you think the Propeller VC team should be watching out for as they invest in companies that will both Help CDR grow, but maintain the ocean ecosystems in an environmentally responsible way as some of the least understood ecological systems on the planet.
Na’im Merchant: Yeah, I’m not an expert on ocean ecosystems, but I think this partnership’s a really smart move. And I think just more broadly, I think Propeller will need to be mindful about balancing the tensions that are going to exist between you know their investments their portfolio companies who want to kind of prototype and commercialize ideas quickly and then their research partnership here and the research partners who are going to want to spend a lot more time and focus on on the science. I think one of the risks that we see with Ocean CDR is That there are so many of these potential ecological impacts, MRV challenges, regulatory uncertainty.
There’s so many questions in this area. And the incentive model is like, how do we demonstrate we can get demand? And how do we scale as quickly as possible? And there’s that side of it. And then there’s the other side of it that’s like, actually, we have a lot of research questions that we still need to figure out before we start. I don’t know. Selling carbon removal credits. But both sides of this are important, figuring out how to commercialize your business ideas, the point of starting a company. But the partnership with this research institute is a really, really smart move.
But I think it’s going to be really difficult to find that balance, to get that partnership working in a way that is both environmentally responsible, but also You know, financially lucrative arrangement for Propeller. So I think that’ll be tricky.
Radhika Moolgavkar: It seems like Propeller is just going to have to be a very patient VC because there are so many unanswered questions and to dive into this space will require a certain amount of willingness to hold for the long term, I guess. It’s what I kind of hear both of you saying in your answers. Well, I want to turn it over to good news, which is Susan. So Susan, let us know your good news.
Susan Su: I just had a baby. Yay. So we’re all officially parents here on the carbon removal newsroom and things are going great. We’re almost at the two month mark, so I can’t believe it. We were just chatting about how unbelievably nostalgic I feel and how fast things go by you, but it’s just been an absolute amazing whirlwind. And, you know, of course, we’re just totally in love and doing surprisingly well. The things that you can kind of cope with that you didn’t know you were capable of before, it just really is impressive.
You know, our ability to operate on patchy sleep, amazing. So yeah, it’s been wonderful, and I look forward to being back on the pod on a regular basis. You might hear an occasional yell in the background. We didn’t have any today. I’m actually really surprised, but don’t expect that to always be the case. Yeah, and it’s great to be back.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Congratulations, Susan. You look amazing. You look, you’re just glowing. So I’m so happy that it’s been a wonderful experience for you. And hey, if any of the parents of young children have yelping in the background, I just think it makes us all smile and feel good.
Na’im Merchant: So congrats.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Thank you. And with that, that is the end of Carbon Removal Newsroom Business Edition. And thank you all for listening.
Announcer: Thanks so much for listening to Carbon Removal Newsroom. If you like the show, the best way you can help us is by giving us a great rating and review an Apple podcast, following the show on Spotify, and by sharing the show on social media. Tell your friends and help us spread the word about what’s happening in the world of carbon removal.
