In this week’s science-focused episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom, hosts Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori and Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo are joined once again by co-host Dr. Jane Zelikova, executive director of the Soil Carbon Solutions Center and joint faculty in crop and soil science at Colorado State University.
We’re looking at two recently published studies which explore the challenges and opportunities around managing croplands and rangelands to draw down and store atmospheric carbon while making agriculture more sustainable.
We start by answering the questions, what is soil organic matter? How is it related to carbon? Then we look at how the results of the first study link to the broader fields of conservation agriculture, soil health, and soil carbon sequestration.
Next we look at the second study, which examines how management of cover crops in temperate climates influences soil organic carbon stocks.
Last, we discuss the upcoming USDA policies that might affect soil carbon, and finishing the episode with a good news story of the week.
Resources
Soil organic matter protects US maize yields and lowers crop insurance payouts under drought. Daniel A Kane et al. 2021, Environmental Research Letters, March 2021
Management of cover crops in temperate climates influences soil organic carbon stocks: a meta-analysis. McClelland et al. 2020, Ecological Applications, December 2020
Off-Season 'Cover' Crops Expand as US Growers Eye Low-Carbon Future
USDA Launches First Phase of Soil Carbon Monitoring Efforts
Soil Health Congressional Bill Tracker
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, all my Carbon Removal Newsroom listeners. Welcome to 2022. I can’t believe that the year has started. I am optimistic that 2022 will be more positive than 2021. And kicking us off this year, I have Dr. Jane Zelikova, Executive Director of the Soil Carbon Solutions Center and Joint Faculty in Crop and Soil Science at Colorado State University. Hi, Jane. How are you doing?
Jane Zelikova: Hey, happy 2022. Yep.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And I have Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo. Hey, Holly.
Holly Jean Buck: Hello.
Radhika Moolgavkar: How’s the weather in Buffalo? Is it cold?
Holly Jean Buck: I wouldn’t know. I’m in D. C. , but it’s cold here. It’s going to snow again.
Radhika Moolgavkar: After a very warm fall, the winter has finally arrived, both in Colorado and D. C. And this is Radhika Moolgavkar, Head of Supply and Methodology at NORI. So... Let’s get started. This week, we’re going to talk about something that’s near and dear to all of our hearts, on this panel at least, and that’s agricultural lands and soil carbon. And so over the millennia of human beings, we have converted native grasslands and forests for agriculture, and we have lost about 100 billion tonnes of carbon over the last 12,000 years in that transition.
So obviously, Agriculture is extremely important and we need it, but it also directly contributes to our rising atmospheric GHG concentrations. We think and we hope there are opportunities to manage croplands and grange lands to draw down and store atmospheric carbon while making agriculture more sustainable. And it’s obviously an appealing idea if you’ve ever heard of Chris the Ground and all of the soil carbon markets out there. A lot of people are wanting to tackle it. But the science continues to evolve and the science isn’t always super clear. So today we’ll be discussing two recently published studies which explore the challenges and opportunities and also maybe have a brief conversation about their policy implications.
The first paper we’re going to talk about is Soil Organic Matter Protects U. S. maize yields and lower crops insurance payouts under drought. This was Daniel A. Cain et al. 2021 and in the environmental research letters. So I will let Jane, maybe you can give a quick overview of what that paper was all about to get us started.
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, happy to. So this paper came out last year and what Dan Cain and his colleagues did is they compiled data from Publicly available data from 754 counties across the Corn Belt region of the US, the Midwestern part of the US. The data encompassed years between 2000 and 2016 and the data kind of pertain to what the dominant land use was for those areas and they also use publicly available soil carbon data. And what they were looking for was the relationship between soil organic matter and corn yields or maize yields, and especially looking at those relationships during periods of drought or water shortages.
So it’s really important work because, you know, the majority of global agriculture is in these rain fed non-irrigated systems. And so these systems are You know, potentially more vulnerable to the impacts of drought and other kind of extreme weather events like extreme heat. We know climate change is affecting and increasing the incidence of both. And so it’s really important to kind of assess the relationship between soil organic matter, which is something we’re trying to manage for in agricultural lands and whether or not increasing or bolstering soil organic matter helps mitigate and provide some resilience to climate change.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So for our listeners who are maybe less scientifically inclined, Jane, could you just explain what soil organic matter is and maybe how it relates to carbon removal or carbon retention in the soil?
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, absolutely. So soil organic matter is just dead and decomposing stuff, plant material, animal matter, That is decomposing on and in soils. That’s just what soil organic matter is. It’s sort of like the next stage of decomposition where you can’t really see and physically distinguish the specific things that are decomposing anymore. They’ve broken down enough to where they don’t have like a specific shape you can easily recall. And about half of soil organic matter is Or consists of carbon. So we use about like, you know, if soil organic matter is like 20, then we think about 10 of that is carbon.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Thank you. So one thing, and I’d love to get both of your thoughts on this, is this was obviously very much centered in the Midwest part of the US. So I’m curious if how relevant Do you think these findings are for the rest of the world? I mean, we’ve talked briefly about how soils are so different across the world and the way they respond and retain carbon will be different. So do you think that this paper has much use outside of the Midwest or at least outside of the US for the Global South, let’s say?
I’ll start with you, Jane, and then Holly.
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, it’s a really good question. I think the Midwest has some unique attributes. Some of which are applicable outside the US context. There historically were really fertile carbon-rich soils across the Midwest that sustained really robust grasslands that have been converted for crop lands. And so other areas that have similar kind of soil types and fertility potential would be really good analogs. It’s also an area where we grow a whole lot of corn, and that is a dominant sort of agricultural commodity across other parts of the world, but in terms of, and this area receives a lot of precipitation, so there are like a lot of agricultural operations that are rain fed and non-irrigated that could potentially be an analog for other similar areas, although I think globally, a lot more agricultural land is non-irrigated, but in more dry land systems that don’t receive as much rain.
So there are some limitations.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Holly, anything to add to that?
Holly Jean Buck: I don’t have too much to add, but I do think that it’s a region worth studying, obviously, for a lot of reasons, including that there are a lot of larger landowners. So if you have to change practices, maybe it’s easier to change A smaller number of landowners than, you know, people who are just holding a new career too.
Radhika Moolgavkar: You know, and this is another question that I sometimes think about. Do you think that papers written about the U. S. resonate across the world? Does it feel a little, I mean, I guess I’m thinking about like the paternalism aspect of it or the telling them what to do. Do people want to hear what we’re doing in the US or do they just want to figure it out on their own?
Jane Zelikova: Holly, I’ll leave that to you.
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, I mean, well, they’re very clear that our results are specific to the Corn Belt region of the US. We only examined impact of soil organic matter under drought on maize. So you could even talk about other crops. You could talk about different management practices happening that would also confer resilience on these rain fed Corn systems, right? I think that so they’re not like trying to speak beyond what’s going on, but it’s a really striking difference. I, with my research assistant, reviewed all the papers on soil carbon and farmer adoption.
Of which there were not very many, like a handful, like less than 50 papers. The majority of those were from the US, Europe, and Australia. There was maybe like 10 from other parts of the world. So there is definitely a huge research gap here.
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, I mean, I 100% agree. I think it speaks to the broader issues of sort of Research resources allocation, wealthy countries sort of having the research infrastructure and studying their own systems. I think there are also issues in going into other systems where you’re not based in those countries or familiar with the specific geographic and cultural context and doing kind of extractive science. So I can see both sides. But I mean, the corn, the U. S. corn belt is exceptionally well studied, especially like the cropland parts. So it’s always good to learn more about those systems because the levers we pull are really big there.
But at the same time, the applicability across the globe is limited.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So then how do you think about these results in the broader context of conservation, agriculture, soil health and soil carbon sequestration in From them, what kind of maybe policy recommendations would you think about for the Biden administration? Again, I’ll put that out to both of you and I’ll start with you, Jane.
Jane Zelikova: Okay, yeah. I can talk about the specific results, which I think are actually really interesting. And I do think have applicability beyond the specific system. And the main kind of result that I took away from this specific paper is that The response to drought conditions, especially as drought severity increases, is modulated by soil organic matter. So the more soil organic matter rich soils and systems and agricultural operations have experienced less loss of yield, crop yields, under more severe drought conditions and they were able to pretty well attribute that to soil organic matter and a lesser extent specific features of soil type and specifically like the amount of clay that’s in the soil.
So I think it’s really interesting because what it says is in these like sort of natural rain fed systems soil organic matter buffers against you know future drought. Conditions and that, you know, by affecting the loss of yield with clear implications, which they talk about in the paper for programs like crop insurance. So if you have an insurance policy that’s taken out on a specific operation that is doing what it, you know, what it can to increase organic matter and carbon in their soils, you would think the insurance premiums could be Sort of more favorable for those operations.
That is not currently the case in most states across the US.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Holly?
Holly Jean Buck: I don’t know. I mean, in terms of policy, I think some of this paper was aimed towards thinking about revising crop insurance. That’s all well and good. I mean, if your aim is like to make food systems more resilient to drought, I think there’s a lot of other areas also to focus on possibly. Switching to other crops besides corn or, you know, because it’s a drought sensitive crop, rethinking water management more generally. There’s way more stuff there than like I’m equipped to speak about.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So there was one point about water retention that they made a point to say the effects of soil organic matter on water retention isn’t the main driver of the effects they report. So what other causes are there for this robustness? And where would you want to focus research dollars to get more information in this area? Holly, I’ll start with you and then Jane.
Holly Jean Buck: Honestly, I mean, my reading of this paper was that, like, they said that there’s other influences here and their analyses can’t resolve them. So, you know. Jane might know more about what’s going on in systems.
Jane Zelikova: I think that there are lots of other studies that sort of dive really deeply into those other attributes of soil. What they were using were public data sets that reported on things like soil water holding capacity, but not other attributes that might have A more strong predictive power when it comes to the influence of drought and soil organic matter on yields. So I think it’s is that the public data sets they were using didn’t provide that other information, but there have been studies that have looked at like sort of which aspects.
So is it is it soil water holding capacity exactly or is it like increased soil aggregation? And other kinds of things that change, changing in bulk density and other things that change as you manage for soil organic matter specifically. And it’s likely that it’s those other things like cation exchange capacity and other attributes of soil that are the ones that are actually responding and mediating that response to drought. And so our holding capacity isn’t the kind of the governing variable that encapsulates all those other changes.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Converse true that as you, and it’s not obviously addressed in the paper, but just curious from your deep knowledge, Jane, is the converse true that as you build soil organic matter, you also are building resiliency to flooding and additional, you know, too much water?
Jane Zelikova: It’s a really good question. I was thinking about that too, especially thinking about some of the major flooding events that the Midwest experienced like Nebraska a couple of years ago. I think soils that are better aggregated and generally have more structure also tend to be more well-drained. So in those instances, it could... Sorry, there’s a dog. Hold on a sec. The dog is going to bark because someone dares to scrape off their car outside to go somewhere.
Radhika Moolgavkar: That’s the human element. We’re all at home.
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, that’s just how it goes. I think there is a limit to how much sort of those effects could help buffer against flooding. But there are studies that show that up to a point, more kind of structured aggregated soils help with drainage. I mean, if you have catastrophic flooding, there’s not much you can do regardless.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So was there anything surprising about these results to either of you or was this kind of What you would you what your instincts would tell you.
Jane Zelikova: I mean, I thought it was kind of interesting and not surprising that they put this caveat in the paper that because they did this analysis of like fairly large spatial scales at a county level, they weren’t really able to use the analysis and it wasn’t really applicable to like implementation of a particular conservation practice like cover crops or no till. And they also kind of noted that when you implement those conservation practices, the effects on soil organic matter might be smaller than what you’re picking up at larger spatial scales, which is just broader patterns of soil organic matter at regional scales.
And so they didn’t go as far as to say, and when you implement these practices that improve soil organic matter, you can expect these results, which I wasn’t surprised by, but that’s kind of naturally where my mind went, which is like, okay, so then what, The increases in soil organic matter they report, do they match up with what studies show with implementation of conservation practices, which is a really good lead way into the second paper, which actually dives into that.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yep, for sure. Holly, anything you want to add before we jump into the second paper?
Holly Jean Buck: Just that if I had a prior, it would be that more soil organic matter Correlates with better yields just from all of the regenerative agriculture people I’ve talked to over the past several years. So it’s nice to see it, you know, in a study.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, and so I just recently was in Iowa for the first time and We were at a farmer conference and he was talking about how it’s not about like displacing the water, but the infiltration of the water, which is what I was, was just where my question came from. I was thinking if there’s more soil organic matter, maybe it infiltrates better and therefore the water doesn’t cause as much damage. Obviously we were talking about dryouts in this paper, but that’s where my head went. And when I was in Iowa, I saw cover cropping for the first time, being a city girl from the Pacific Northwest, which is what our second topic is today, which is the use of cover crops and its increase in soil carbon.
So the paper’s called Management of Cover Crops in Temperate Climates Influences Soil Organic Carbon Stocks, A Meta-Analysis. It’s McClellan et al. 2020 in the Ecological Applications, December 2021. Magazine. So I will let Jane, you give us a quick overview because I think you know some of the people who are on this paper. You work with them directly and I’m sure you’ve discussed it with them. So go for it.
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, actually the paper ended up coming out in 2021. It was submitted in 2020. So, and the folks, the main authors of this paper are all CSU colleagues. So I guess in the interest of transparency, I know the authors and I am a fan of their work. So that doesn’t change the discussion we’re going to have about the paper. So what’s really cool about this paper, again, it’s a meta-analysis, which just means it’s an analysis of a bunch of different studies that have looked at similar kind of factors. And in this case, the meta-analysis included 40 different peer-reviewed publications, which yielded over 180 Unique observations or data points that were included in the study.
And what a meta-analysis does is it gives you kind of power to look at kind of broader, either spatial scales or with more data to kind of ask and answer questions at a bigger scale. And so what the meta-analysis here did is it looked at studies that looked at the impacts of cover crops on soil organic carbon and specifically tracking when cover crops were planted, when cover crops were terminated, What kind of cover crops were grown, how frequently in the cropping rotation, species diversity of the cover crops. And by focusing on temperate climates, they were able to kind of narrow the geographic range and narrow some of the variation because other studies have shown really positive, strong effects of cover crops in more tropical settings.
So this is focusing again on temperate climates, mostly focused on the US.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So maybe Holly you can give our listeners just an idea of what cover cropping is and maybe you know the numbers of how popular it is in the US maybe Jane knows those numbers I know it’s a fairly narrow segment of farmers right now.
Holly Jean Buck: Sure I mean cover cropping pretty simple idea plant a crop you know in between between the crops that you’re growing to harvest whether that’s corn or soy or whatever there’s And so it’s becoming more and more popular. There’s one statistic that the US acreage increased 43% between 2017 and 2021. There’s a number of reasons for why it’s become more popular. I mean, companies that have these carbon farming programs have some incentive payments like Bayer, Cargill, Land O’Lakes, et cetera. There’s also federal conservation programs that for many years have been paying farmers to set aside land and some incentives federally for cover cropping as well.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And Jane, so what are the main factors that determine whether cover cropping impacted soil carbon?
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, so in the study, the biggest kind of things that they found had the biggest impact Had to do with the growing window. So how long the cover crops were being grown and at what period of time. So like whether they were grown in the summer, in the fall, in the winter or whether cover crops were incorporated into the operation continuously year long. And that was kind of the biggest predictor. So basically if you were growing cover crops in the autumn or the continuous cover cropping had the biggest kind of positive effect on carbon.
And then growing cover crops in the fall and over winter had kind of the second biggest effect on carbon and I just want to say quick caveat that. While the incorporation of cover crops is increasing at a pretty like high level the US it’s still pretty low and most of the US like. It’s somewhere in the like one to 5% of acres are undercover crops, there are specific areas where that adoption rate is a lot higher somewhere in the. Sort of like more than 15% range for cover crops and there are specific kind of local programs that help farmers implement those practices.
It’s often kind of like state or even more local programs that are the incentives that drive adoption, I feel like the carbon markets payment side hasn’t kind of had enough time yet. To be implemented and few farmers that implement cover crops have actually seen any payments to date. So it’s like local programs and state programs and where you see those programs and incentives, you see the highest rates of adoption.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So yeah, do you think then it’s, it seems from a very naive and outsider’s point of view that cover cropping in a way is a no brainer, right? From what I Can tell and what I’ve learned is it reduces soil erosion. It creates more carbon in the soil. It gives you higher yields because you’re getting the right type of fixing in the soil and the nitrogen fixing, obviously, if you pair it with the correct row crop. What are the barriers to getting farmers to adopt these practices with all the benefits that appear on the surface, at least?
Jane?
Jane Zelikova: I mean, some kind of simple barriers, and I think Holly would say a lot more about this, are that there is a cost associated with planting cover crops, whether that is seed, like buying extra seed and the time and effort needed to plant and help cover crops establish between sort of main cash crop seasons. In some instances, it requires additional water. In irrigated systems, it’s extra irrigation that maybe you wouldn’t Do an associated cost with that and so there’s a cost element to it there’s a technical kind of know how of like which cover crops to plant.
In which areas, what kind of rotations and it takes some trial and error, and I think a lot of times farmers need the technical assistance and need to be learning from other farmers that’s like the best way for farmers to kind of gain information and know how so. Those are the kinds of barriers like lack of information specific to the local context, lack of technical assistance, lack of financial incentives to pay for the initial upfront costs.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Holly, what would you add to that?
Holly Jean Buck: Yeah, so my understanding is that cover crops that are harvested, typically you can’t insure them. And if you harvest it, it creates insurance issues down the line. Plus, if A crop is harvested, you know, it’s not considered a cover crop under USDA rules, so they can’t get these incentive payments. So from the farmer’s point of view, they’re planting seed and then they’re pulling it up again. They can’t harvest it and, you know, get a profit from it. So that’s A different way of thinking about like what you’re doing on the farm.
It could be a mental roadblock. So I’ve heard. So there’s actually a study that asked is a poll by AgriPulse that asked farmers about, you know, why aren’t you doing this? And just like Jane said, 70% of farmers said cost that the biggest was the biggest reason that they wouldn’t plant these. But also 34% said that it was about availability of moisture, like dry land ag might not have the moisture to support this additional crop. And then another third said that, you know, the length of the growing season and uncertainty about whether it would be effective was another data point.
So all of those are feeding into it, but there’s things we can do to address it as well.
Jane Zelikova: One thing that I didn’t know about until a few years ago when I started kind of going out to these farms that were using cover crops is the way that you terminate the crop matters a lot. So as Holly was saying, some crops are harvested, which would mean they’re not necessarily considered a cover crop because they have this additional use and may have additional revenue associated with them. But there’s kind of a challenge of like, what do you do when you need the cover crop to go away to plant your cash crop?
And in that case, some people integrate animals and livestock into their operations to go in and graze, which adds like this extra element of having to manage livestock when you’re not really a livestock operation. So they’re like extra logistics associated with terminating crops. On the other hand, you can use herbicides, which for organic operations, that is a major problem. So the termination of cover crops is also like a logistical challenge that has to be overcome. And there isn’t clear guidance on how to do that everywhere.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, well, as we all know, agricultural systems are very complicated, lots of entrenched interests, but also, you know, people’s livelihood and change can be scary, even if you know that there are benefits at the end. It was really interesting at this conference, listening to people who used cover crops and hearing how passionate and how much they believed in it, but there were still a whole, even people who were Interested in cover cropping and choosing to attend a conference like this, you could see the nervousness and hesitation about the impact, the potential change to their, the way they manage their farms, their lifestyle.
So it’s like, seems to me like it’s even bigger than money sometimes, but it’s just the social, you know, like I said, it’s people’s livelihood. It’s what they’re doing every day and It takes a certain amount to make a big change like that. A certain amount of courage, I would say, to make a big change to something that you’re so dependent on.
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, I think courage and also like some ability to de-risk what you’re about to do, whether that’s like having a neighbor that’s done it, that’s willing to tell you all about it. Or, you know, having sort of like YouTube influencers, which I know a lot of farmers are really into YouTube. Something else I discovered a few years ago, and that’s where they kind of get the technical assistance they would have otherwise gotten from land grant extension or from NRCS or local conservation districts, which all of those have become really under resourced across the US.
So they’ve gone to YouTube and Follow specific people that are doing things and try to do similar things on their own operations.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, I just also found out how much their influencers are out there in the farm community. It’s pretty fascinating. Well, I think that can then maybe turn us to a quick conversation about the policies the USDA is putting forth. We talked a little bit about crop insurance and maybe there’s a reform to crop insurance that could happen. But what are some of the upcoming USDA policies and priorities that might affect soil carbon, Jane, that you might want to talk about?
Jane Zelikova: Yeah, and I mean, Holly probably has an even more up-to-date view of this. But I think there are a few. I mean, the USDA has certainly been talking a lot about soil carbon since the Biden administration has come into power, including new programs, expanding existing conservation Programs, EQIP, CRP, et cetera, implementing a new monitoring program for soil organic carbon with their conservation programs, which helps because it requires folks that receive funding from those programs to monitor the soil carbon outcomes of implementing those conservation practices. They rolled out the initial three that are focused on, I think riparian areas.
Let me, I have to look. Yeah, just, but they’re planning to roll it out to other kind of practices that are included under conservation practices. With the USDA, there have been bills introduced in Senate and in the House that kind of focus on soil health and soil carbon, including, I think, the Growing Climate Solutions Act that you’ve talked about previously on this show. So I think there’s a lot of interest and movement in this space. All of it I think has really good intentions, but sort of the implementation and the devil is always in the details of how these like programs and sort of legislation are going to be rolled out matters a lot.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, Holly, so what are your thoughts about the Biden administration’s approach to soil carbon storage and have you seen, are you hearing about any new policies that they’re considering You know, what would you do if you if you ruled the soil carbon world the Biden administration?
Holly Jean Buck: I mean, I can tell you about what’s in Build Back Better if we want to be sad about the nice things that we could have in a better world. So that called for spending 27 or 28 billion dollars to help farmers And ranchers transition to more sustainable farming practices, which would have been the biggest investment in ag conservation programs since the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. It would have addressed cover cropping specifically with subsidies of up to $25 an acre to a maximum of 1000 acres for cover crops. And landowners would receive $5 an acre for cover crop funding.
There would have been 600 million for carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions quantification, which is obviously really important. It also was revised through the process to include advisors who can mentor farmers on how to use cover crops and other conservation practices. So you’re marking 2. 35 billion over 10 years for conservation technical assistance to get at some of these challenges of people knowing how to do this stuff and feeling confident about it. So too bad about Build Back Better. Joe Manchin.
Jane Zelikova: So hard to like, it’s so hard to know the nice things we could have and then not have them. Who knows? Maybe, maybe they’ll be resurrected at some point. Yeah. Maybe Joe Manchin had a revelation over the break.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Some of this would benefit his own state, I would think. But yeah. Anyway. Well, Holly, with that, I’m going to ask you to give us some good news to round out the first episode of 2022 and maybe lift our spirits after the sadness of knowing what could have been Well, this is some interesting news.
Holly Jean Buck: So in France, there’s a new regulation that will take effect in March, which requires automakers to include messages on car advertisements that encourage people to seek more environmentally friendly options. So there’s three messages they can choose between. Consider carpooling. For short trips, opt for walking or cycling or use public transportation for everyday trips. And they have to fix this hashtag, which I’m not going to try to pronounce because my French is terrible, but it equates to move, pollute less. And so they have to apply that to ads on radio, TV, and theaters, on the internet, and big screens, as well as print ads.
And they can Have a fine of about over $50,000 if they don’t include it. And they have to include a vehicle’s carbon dioxide emissions class in advertisements and ads for the highest polluting vehicles are going to be banned starting in 2028.
Radhika Moolgavkar: It’s like the smoker’s warning for cars, huh?
Unknown speaker: Yeah, can you imagine?
Radhika Moolgavkar: Well, I’m sure the car makers are scrambling to figure out how to deal with it. Do you know, does it tell you how they rate the most polluting? Is it based on French analysis or EPA analysis or miles per gallon? Did they say that? I’m just curious.
Unknown speaker: I don’t know, but I bet a lot of thought went into it.
Radhika Moolgavkar: All right. Well, with that... But I mean, it’s a pretty interesting idea. I gotta say, you know, like I can’t wait to see it implemented. I’ll have to find a YouTube video of it when it goes up into effect. No plans to go to France anytime soon. So, well, with that, Jane, Holly, as always, thank you so much for being here with me. I hope the rest of the day and the week is lovely for you both. And to all our listeners, we will be here next week chatting policy, I think.
So take care, everybody. Bye.
Unknown speaker: Bye, everyone.
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.
