What's new in carbon removal? Join us for the 2024 Carbon Removal Newsroom kickoff!
Will 2024 see the emergence of universal carbon market standards? December saw a coalition formed by leading regulatory bodies.
We unpack the implications of California Bill 1305. How does this legislation mandate transparency in voluntary carbon offset marketing? What could this mean for combating greenwashing and ensuring data reliability?
The EPA resources for marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) and marine solar radiation management (mSRM) are now online. How do these resources address environmental risks, and what regulatory responsibilities are outlined for safe implementation?How might common principles for high-quality carbon credits reshape industry practices, and what's the significance of transparency and public participation in this process?
Join us as our policy panel takes a look at what’s cooking for CDR in 2024.
On This Episode
Resources
Crediting Program joint statement California Bill 1305
EPA MPRSA
mCDR and mSRM online resources
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: Welcome to the 2024 inaugural episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom. I ended the year with the policy panel and I start the year with the policy panel, so I’m excited. So it’s 2024, the year we see the development of universal standards for carbon markets. This past December saw six of the leading standards bodies form a coalition to amplify the impact of carbon markets in achieving real mitigation and supporting countries in implementing Article 6 and their nationally determined contributions. That is quite the sentence and goal. The coalition members include ACR, ART, CAR, GCC, GS, and VERAVCS, a veritable acronym soup, so if you kept up with that, good on you.
We’re also kicking off the year with the first-of-its-kind CDR policy from the West Coast, where California Bill 1305 came into effect on January 1st. The legislation mandates that businesses marketing or selling voluntary carbon offsets within the state must disclose specific information about the associated carbon offset projects. This includes details about accountability measures in the event a project is not completed or fails to meet projected emission reductions or removal benefits. Furthermore, entities purchasing or using voluntary carbon offsets and making claims about achieving net zero emissions or similar milestones are required to disclose specific information on their websites.
This encompasses the documentation of claim accuracy, progress measurements towards goals, and whether there is independent third-party verification of the company’s data and claims. Very recently, the EPA released web resources that include information about proposed marine CDR and marine solar radiation management activities. This includes further information on the EPA’s regulatory responsibilities for ensuring these emergency activities are conducted in a safe and responsible manner. So joining us to talk about these policy matters are Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo. Hi, Holly.
Holly Jean Buck: Hi. Hi.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And Wil Burns, Co-Executive Director of the Institute for Carbon Remover Law and Policy at American University. Hello, Will.
Wil Burns: Hi, Veronica. How are you?
Radhika Moolgavkar: Good, and Happy New Year to you both, and hopefully 2024 will be wonderful. All right, let’s dive into these new EPA resources for MCDR and MSRM. First of all, Will, how do you feel about having those two in the same body of regulation? I know you have some strong feelings about radiation management.
Wil Burns: Yes, I do. Despite that, I think it’s important that they acknowledge that, you know, there is ongoing discussion and there has been research in this context. And so I think it’s good that EPA is looking at both of them. That’s probably a realistic assessment of the landscape.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So how do you view these newly released resources? Do you think they’re going to help with an increased understanding of the potential environmental benefits and risks associated with ocean-based climate change mitigation techniques?
Wil Burns: Well, you know, I think there’s a couple of things. If you look at what they’ve provided for up there, right, it’s probably what most companies anticipated already, right? I think most of them realized that if they were contemplating depositing materials into the oceans, they were likely to be subject. To these two EPA regulatory frameworks, namely the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, and then MPDES under the Clean Water Act. In some ways, what I think the site does is it provides a good roadmap, especially maybe for smaller companies that don’t have outside counsel to rely on.
And I think it also communicates to the marine CDR community that EPA is amenable to entertaining proposals for permits, especially research permits. And that’s helpful. And, you know, I know we’ll get into it. There’s Some things in there, I think that they probably won’t like, but were probably inevitable given how, especially the NPRSA is structured.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Okay. So you have to define for us what the NPRSA is. What’s that acronym stand for?
Wil Burns: Yeah, so the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act. So, you know, we’ve talked on this show before about the London Convention and the London Protocol, right, which regulates the dumping of materials into the oceans and a regulatory framework that was established to protect the oceans in that context. And the fact that London became involved with marine CDRs Dr. Justin Marchegiani A purpose other than mere disposal. And then they set up a regulatory framework that required risk assessment, said that it couldn’t be for financial gain, had to minimize the risk and so forth, right?
And so the London Convention is not what we call a self-executing agreement. It means that you have to have national legislation to implement it. And in the United States, we implement London, and we’re a party to London, obviously. We implement it through the NPRSA. And so if you’re taking materials from within U. S. borders and deposit them in the oceans, or if you’re a U. S. -flagged vessel that’s depositing these kind of materials, or if you want to place those materials in the U. S. territorial seas, you’re subject to the NPRSA, right?
And then The question that people had was whether things like ocean alkalinity enhancement or ocean fertilization or biomass deposits, whether it be macroalgae or crop residues, things like that, would fall under the rubric of the NPRSA. And most people were pretty certain they would. And now EPA has made that explicit. And those were the specific examples they gave under the NPRSA, ocean alkalinity enhancement, Fertilization, biomass, burial, whether it’s seaweed or crop residues. And so they said you need a permit. This could include a research permit and you’re subject to its provisions.
I think the thing that Probably the industry would be the most unhappy about in this context, and this based on companies that I’ve talked with, is that whereas the London Convention says if you’re engaged in research for MCDR and you meet all its criteria, it’s not dumping. Right. For the purposes of London. What EPA explicitly said on their site is no matter what your motivation is, if you’re depositing materials in the oceans, it’s dumping. Right. And the trepidation that some companies have is from a reputational standpoint, they’re afraid that investors or others We’ll not embrace projects that are denominated by a government entity as dumping.
But that’s that’s what EPA has said.
Radhika Moolgavkar: There’s dumping and then there’s dumping as defined by the EPA.
Wil Burns: Yeah, I mean, and, you know, again, it’s in my mind, it was a mistake on the part of the U. S. government when this was drafted, because I think the exception under the London Convention makes sense. Right. If what you’re doing is putting the materials there, For a purpose that could actually be salutary, it probably shouldn’t fit under the rubric of dumping. Still should be regulated, you know, closely. But when we operationalized the London Convention through the NPRSA, we did not take up that exception. That’s what people are going to face when it comes to that side.
And then there’s the other side, the Clean Water Act. So there’s yet another acronym. This one’s called the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits, right, under the Clean Water Act. Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. And this provides for discharges from point sources into waters of the United States, right? And so what EPA said in this case is if you were engaged with releasing Things such as alkalinity from outfalls, right? Then you would be subject to an MPD. So some of the electrochemical approaches that we’re talking about, for example, could fall under this rubric.
So they’ve provided guidance in that context also.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I mean, I have so many questions about how this is going to be litigated over time. We all know these these terms mean a lot when they write it and then they go to court and it becomes something totally different. Point source is in bodies, navigable bodies of the United States, all difficult definitions. But Holly, I’m going to turn to you because, you know. We are aware that CDR has some reputational risk, has some societal pushback, and the EPA has emphasized engagements with various local, state, tribal, and federal entities in the permitting process.
However, do you think that what they are talking about Will be collaborative enough that will overcome the hesitation that so many communities have around dumping, quote unquote, in the ocean and in their backyards and in their backwaters? Or how would you reframe it for a company trying to get through the social part of this?
Holly Jean Buck: Well, I don’t think the EPA is the right place for this. So first, I will say that it’s a good sign that they actually managed to put some clear information of any kind on their websites. And it’s kind of pathetic that I’m impressed by this because it’s like a baseline job of the government. But I really am. I know how much work it can be to get information online for the government. And Marine CDR and SRM are getting enough discussion that they really needed to have something on there. To reassure people that they do regulate these things.
Still, I mean, the EPA isn’t the right place to cite engagement efforts. That’s because once you’re in the process of permitting, the kinds of engagement you get for these permit requirements tend to be Public hearings where people show up and they have two minutes to comment on something that’s already fully conceptualized, that doesn’t really help all that much. Where you really need engagement is when you’re coming up with the idea and the design in the first place.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And a lot of people want to engage not just on the So Holly, I know I always ask this question and I’ll continue to ask it, but I’m wondering how these companies should go about having the right type of public engagement. When these ideas are so new, the companies are new, the technology is new, the outcomes are unknown. This isn’t like building a house in many ways, right? There’s just so many moving parts. So how do you recommend a startup that just wants to go from the bench to a field test approach this and do it meaningfully while within the constraints they obviously have?
Holly Jean Buck: Well, they need to have resources because... Chances are of their early stage, they’re not going to have somebody dedicated on staff with expertise there. And this is where both, you know, government, but especially philanthropy, I think right now should be stepping up and coordinating a bit more and putting those resources, you know, forward so that somebody at a company who isn’t sure what to do can consult with somebody else and get some support there. I mean, broad strokes. Yeah.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, broad strokes. And then, well, just a final question for you about the permitting. I’m curious how these permits interact with state and local permits. Does this allow companies to move forward or will there be state and local regulatory regimes they need to also deal with?
Wil Burns: Well, it depends on where these activities occur, right? If they occur in US waters, in theory, There’ll be some coordination with states, depending how far out the activities are occurring, tribal entities, also other federal agencies. If you have activities that could have impacts in terms of the Endangered Species Act, for example, or the Coastal Zone Management Act, they’re going to have to consult with those agencies also, right? And it varies geographically, but states also have authority over coastal areas, right? And so if you’re doing it close enough to the coast for some of those states, you’re going to be subject to state requirements also.
Tribal, as I said, and then all the concerns of other agencies. So it’s going to be a lot. And, you know, it’s going to be especially a lot, as is always the case for the first movers, right? And so it’s my hope that whoever are the first movers are those That are a little larger and are a little more staffed up in terms of legal capacity, because if they and EPA can work through this process and do it fairly efficiently, it will pave the way for future research permits to be probably executed more expeditiously.
Radhika Moolgavkar: We need some environmental law firm to take it on as a pro bono thing, you know, help companies figure out the regulatory regime that they’re looking at. OK, well, let’s turn to California, where Holly might or might not be next week. So, Holly, the new legislation out of California, which I have to say I completely missed. I had no idea this was coming. But curious how you feel about it, especially since you are such an advocate for increased transparency. Do you think that this bill is going to help address some of the greenwashing that’s been found in the voluntary carbon markets?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, it seems like a good step to me. They have to explain, you know, a company or somebody who’s trading in a carbon offset or removal has to explain the rationale behind their claims on their website, including whether those claims have been audited. And there are some civil fines for that. It seems like a pretty basic thing to require. And with a pretty short timeline too, I mean, they have to start this January 1st of this year. So already seems like that might be a challenging part for people to pull together, but ultimately I think it could help.
Wil Burns: One thing I’d add is very recently the bill sponsor added, I don’t know what it’s called in California, but it’s essentially an interpretive letter that appears To delay the requirements for reporting until January 1st, 2025. I think probably everybody freaked out. And as a consequence, I think they’re trying to move it forward a little bit.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So essentially you need to be collecting the data in 2024, but you can report it sometime or by 2025, you need to report it.
Wil Burns: Yeah. A lot of people were thinking they were going to have to report on January 1st, which was a real yikes moment.
Radhika Moolgavkar: It I mean, because, yeah, it wasn’t signed until, right, like the late fall or something?
Wil Burns: Yeah, December.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So I’m curious to hear from both of you because I think the idea of transparency is always lovely and regulatory bodies, you know, and governments put forth these requirements. But so much of it is about accessibility. I mean, like transparency without accessibility really means very little. So do you think that this language is enough to get this reporting accessible or is it just going to be buried on a website where a person has to click through a hundred links to find it? Well, I’ll start with you and then I’ll move to Holly.
Wil Burns: Yeah, I mean, I think the skeptic in me says that accessibility definitely could be a problem. It depends, I guess, who you’re talking about. I think if you are key stakeholders, shareholders, for example, other kinds of investors, right, law firms, That represent these companies, you’re probably going to be keenly aware now of what’s being reported and providing feedback. And so that may be helpful. If you get one or two steps beyond that in the concentric circles and start thinking about the general public, for example, or even most corporations, it may not make a whole lot of difference unless it’s really front and center and communicated very clearly.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Holly, anything to add?
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, I mean, you have these people that are positioned between the public and these companies, like researchers and NGOs, and I expect that they have the tools to extract meaningful information, even if it’s buried a few layers on a website.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Okay, good to know, because I was a little skeptical and could lie. So, Will, I want to go back to the bill’s stipulation for independent third-party verification. Do you think this will have an impact on the reliability of the data and claims? And also, I mean, I see some potential challenges, but I’m curious if you also see any or you think it’s just all benefits.
Wil Burns: Yeah, I don’t know. It potentially is a fig leaf in some ways. You know, my opinion is, is when you look at the, quote unquote, independent third party verification, as the bill sponsor had kind of intimated. It’s a bit of a Wild West sort of environment. And I think that some of the quote unquote independent verifiers have more stringent requirements than others. And the bill didn’t express Stipulate that there were, you know, preferred verifiers, right? And I think if they had been a bit more granular and said, you know, you have to embrace the Integrity Council’s Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework, for example, or the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative Framework as a third-party verifier to be qualified to proffer opinions on the integrity of these things, it would have been better.
And that might have required that it be a bit organic as the standards sort of change. But I think as a baseline, that would have ensured that we know that third-party verification has at least a modicum of integrity. If you can find a fly-by-night verifier and quote-unquote get certified, in some ways it could provide a fig leaf that would unduly mislead the public. So it could redound our disbenefit.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So Holly, the bill places a significant emphasis on entities making claims about achieving net zero emission or similar milestones. So do you think that this provision will help make these claims more credible or do you see this impacting it at all?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, from a sociological perspective, credibility is kind of complex. So I don’t know if I could, you know, really weigh in on that without more research because there’s really a psychological component. There’s a component around like your cultural world and what other people around you find credible. But I do wonder about this, if it helps us move away from this compensatory model where, you know, Removals are compensating for emissions. Like if you don’t claim that you’re net zero and you make some other type of claim, then you don’t have to worry about some of this, I guess.
And so I wonder if that leads us towards framing the point of removals differently or focusing more on co-benefits. That’s just one thing I wondered about when thinking about what happens with this bill.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Sometimes I wonder, I don’t believe net zero is defined in the bill, but I wonder, has somebody defined it for the state of California? Because you can see lots of different definitions out there. I can’t define net zero right now very easily. So anyway, lots to consider and think about. Final question for you, Bill, or Will, about this bill. Is the potential implications more broadly? So, you know, everybody knows California leads and the rest of the country often follows when it comes to legislation. Do you think that this will be something that other states and other global governments might pick up or do you think it’s kind of just a California dream?
Wil Burns: Yeah, I mean, I could see other states picking it up, but I think probably most importantly, in the next year or two, we’re likely to see a wave of federal guidelines that will apply across the board, for example, the security in the Exchange Commission is finalizing its rules and would require companies to make disclosures regarding the use of carbon offsets, right? And, you know, that’s of course a kind of a shambolic process right now where there’s a lot of efforts to eviscerate what the SEC is going to require. So the devil will be in the details, but there will be Clearly, some mandates that are similar to those in California that will apply nationwide when those SEC standards are promulgated.
Also, the FTC is in the process of revising its green guides to provide more guidance on what qualifies as deceptive advertising for climate-related claims, and that could have teeth. One of the things that happened in California was Governor Newsom Vetoed another bill called SB 390 that dealt with truth in advertising. We required penalties for those that knew or should have known that the claims that were made constituted false advertising. And he said that was a bridge too far. But these FTC standards could potentially get us closer to there. And then the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced an environmental task force to promote integrity of carbon markets.
So they’ve been trying to regulate things like Bitcoin, and now they’re looking at carbon markets that could have an impact. And then the European Council’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive Is going to have an agreement that will require more integrity in terms of these claims and more granular sort of definitions of what they mean for things like durability and permanence and so forth. So I think this is the first salvo and could help provide some guidelines and maybe some lessons learned by the time these other entities start ultimately bringing these things to fruition.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Okay. Well, I am a little curious. What did Governor Newsom mean by it’s a bridge too far for the truth in advertising bill?
Wil Burns: Yeah, well, my understanding is that Newsom said it would catch up innocent entities, right? Those that didn’t really know that they were purchasing credits that weren’t high in integrity or selling credits that weren’t high in integrity. It provided for fines, as is true with, you know, the False advertising claims in general in California. And he was just afraid that I think especially sellers would not be able to distinguish low integrity sort of claims from others. I personally thought that he should have signed it. I think it would have put their feet more to the fire to really ensure that what they were purchasing had high integrity.
And since it was a new or should have known, if you really embrace kind of the highest quality integrity standards, including through some of these entities we were talking about before, I’m pretty sure you would have been held harmless in terms of liability, but you would have been required to do that. But there was a lot of pressure from the business community for him not to do that. And he ultimately, in my opinion, caved in.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Interesting. Not narrowly tailored enough, apparently, Will.
Wil Burns: Yeah.
Radhika Moolgavkar: All right, I’m going to turn to the final topic, which is this registry coalition. There are a lot of groups involved. And so Holly, just to start off with you, the statement emphasizes the importance of ensuring the environmental integrity of carbon credits. How do you think about this commitment when you’re thinking about in terms of these six different groups and will it impact the overall credibility of the offset markets?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, it’s a sensible move given that poor integrity threatens to wreck their whole business. But I personally didn’t find it very interesting. If they’re capable of doing all these things, why weren’t they doing them already? Or they’re just pledging to do it now? I don’t know.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Will, do you have any thoughts on that? Because I know you might. Yeah.
Wil Burns: Well, you know, I mean, I think probably one of the benefits is, you know, I feel this way, that we’re going to need governmental standards in this context instead of this patchwork of voluntary standards, which vary in terms of their stringency. I think that the fact that these entities are discussing what that common framework might look like could help provide a template for government as it moves forward because these entities have a lot of expertise. They have a lot of experience in terms of how these standards actually have been operationalized in the market and how they’ve worked and haven’t worked.
And so if that ends up providing guidance to government entities that ultimately establish or hopefully establish these uniform standards in the future, I think that’ll be salutary. And I think it’ll be salutary for the industry. I know the industry probably... A lot of times just coils away from the thought of, you know, federal regulation, right? But given how royal the voluntary carbon markets are, right? I think if they could get the imprimatur of the federal government in terms of the integrity of these markets, it’s in the long term going to benefit them.
So hopefully they’ll embrace it.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So, you know, Will, you said they have a long history and experience, but Their history and experience isn’t always the most positive, I would say.
Wil Burns: Yeah, no, it’s not. But hopefully you get some sense that if they’re coming together, you know, as I think Holly suggests, you know, why didn’t they do it before? Well, it may be out of desperation and expediency, right? But sometimes from that desperation does come, you know, better standards, right? And recognition that what they’ve been doing isn’t working. And hopefully it will lead them to establish standards that are better. Who knows?
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah. So this question is kind of for both of you, because one thing that I, every time I see this, you know, it feels like emission reduction and avoidance gets convoluted with carbon removal. And I think of them as fundamentally different in both what they’re trying to achieve and the mechanisms for approaching them. So do either of you have concerns that when you try to combine all of these into a single framework, you’re somehow going to lose the integrity of all these different types of offsets because they can’t all be Defined by the same standards.
So, you know, Holly, I’m curious what you think about that and then Will, what you think.
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, I mean, I think they should be separate things. I think we should just get rid of all the offsets. You know, they say in their statement, Countries can integrate the use of independent crediting programs, saving the need to build and maintain their own programs and allowing them to focus on setting their priorities for investment and sustainable development. I mean, this sounds really desperate to me. Like they, they know that there’s a risk that governments will just figure this out. They want to be parasites just. Get rid of them is my view.
And, you know, I figure like I’m deepening in this view. I was always skeptical about offsets just from the intellectual tradition I come from. Nothing I’ve seen in the last 15 years has really changed my mind, even though I try to update my priors on this. And I really think that the public should be involved. And this to me just looks like more Desperate corporate speak. Sorry.
Radhika Moolgavkar: No, I love it. I love it. Holly, I love it when you speak your truth. Will, what about you? Anything you want to add to that?
Wil Burns: Well, you know, I think the golden calf of voluntary carbon markets still remains everything but carbon removal, right? It’s a very small percentage. So I can see Why these folks have a vested interest in trying to protect the vestiges of what’s traditionally been the lion’s share of things in the voluntary carbon market. But I agree with Holly, it should be separated. And in the long term, the emphasis really has to be on carbon removal and avoided emissions is really kind of the skunk in the woodpile, right? It’s really hurting The image of this market in general, and everything’s getting conflated, right?
I just hear people all the time say, well, you know, if you see what happened at South Pole, it means it’s all BS, right? And if that’s what happens, it’s ultimately going to really imperil scaling up carbon removal. And so I don’t know if these entities are the ones that are going to save us given their Vested interests, right? In protecting the other things that have made them more money up to date, right? Which is again, why I think we need the federal government to come in and clarify.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah. So the federal government, they listen to these guys, right? I mean, in an interest because they are the ones who are established in these spaces in a way that the carbon removal policy is not yet at. I think it’s growing, but it takes time, it takes money, and it takes a certain maturity that the industry is still getting to. Yeah.
Wil Burns: Yeah, this is going to be a time I think where we’re really going to need to rely on academic researchers and others that are working on these issues in earnest, right? And the good news is that, you know, in the last five years, that bench has become a lot deeper, that I think there’s a lot of So we’re counting on you.
Radhika Moolgavkar: All right. Well, with that, because that’s kind of a nice and positive way to end, I’m going to wrap today’s show and say thank you to you both. As always, I have really enjoyed the conversation and learned a lot. And I look forward to seeing you both next month in February.
Announcer: Thanks so much for listening to Carbon Removal Newsroom. If you like the show, the best way you can help us is by giving us a great rating and review in Apple Podcasts, following the show on Spotify, and by sharing the show on social media. Tell your friends and help us spread the word about what’s happening in the world of carbon remains.
