In July, over 40 carbon removal startups announced the launch of a new industry group: The Carbon Business Council. Since then, the list of members has grown past 70 companies.
The group’s goal is to serve as a “resource for our members, lawmakers, the energy industry, and the environmental community to advocate for the responsible growth of the carbon management industry.”
They recently published an Ethical Oath to Restore the Earth, which many members have signed.
This pledge states that signed member companies will adhere to a set of ethical guidelines, such as a commitment to ensuring that the industry grows to benefit communities and that companies will support emissions reduction efforts. CO2BC Executive Director Ben Rubin likened it to a Hippocratic Oath for CDR.
Ben joins this episode alongside regular policy panelist Chris Barnard.
On This Episode
Chris Barnard
Ben Rubin
Radhika Moolgavkar
Resources
CBC’s Ethical Oath to Restore the Earth
DAC Hub Regional Manager job opening
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 the October 13th episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom. Today we’ll be covering policy, and I have with me Ben Rubin, co-founder and executive director at the Carbon Business Council. Ben, thanks for joining today.
Ben Rubin: Thanks so much for having me here, Radhika.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And then, as always, Chris Barnard, policy director at the American Conservation Coalition.
Chris Barnard: Thanks for having me again.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Well, we love having you, Chris. You’ve been here from the beginning. And myself, Radhika Moolgavkar, Head of Supply and Methodology at NORI. So today we’re going to talk a little bit about the Carbon Business Council, which in July, over 40 carbon removal startups announced the launch of this new industry group. Since then, there’s been huge growth with well over 70 members of the Carbon Business Council. The group’s goal, of which to be full disclosure, Nori was a founding member, is to serve as a resource for our members, lawmakers, the energy industry, and the environmental community to advocate for the responsible growth of the carbon management industry.
We also are all subject to an ethical oath to restore the earth And that pledge basically states that signed members, companies will adhere to a set of ethical guidelines, such as a commitment to ensuring that the industry grows to benefit communities and that the companies will support emission reduction offsets and efforts as well as carbon removal. Ben likes to talk about it like the Hippocratic Oath for CDR. So with that, I will just get started and let Ben, you can just kind of jump in and tell us a little bit about the Carbon Business Council, the ethical oath, and why you put this group together.
Ben Rubin: That sounds great. Yeah. And thanks again, Radhika, for having me on the show. Looking forward to being here today and to the conversation with you and Chris. So yeah, the Carbon Business Council, like you covered, Attica, is a nonprofit trade association for innovators in the carbon management ecosystem. We just responding to the scientific need that the world needs to remove and manage gigatonnes of CO2 to help stop the worst impacts of climate change. We think that innovators are uniquely positioned to lead that charge. We see that innovation happening and we are a forum to bring together the community to bring these innovators to the policy table.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So Ben, as you’ve mentioned before, the Carbon Business Council is big tent or Tech neutral, basically, from a CDR perspective. Curious how you think about it. Does that include nature-based, engineered, more on the manufactured side, but all sorts of manufactured solutions? And so far, has that caused any tension within the group?
Ben Rubin: Yeah, what’s been great is the idea of tech neutrality Really originated from our members of different companies working on different approaches to carbon management, just generally feeling like the carbon management industry, especially at this juncture, benefits from a level playing field. By having a level playing field and letting different forms of carbon removal move forward, we’re able to have innovation happening across the ecosystem. And really, it’s going to take that innovation to help bend the technology cost curve, make sure that the supplies of carbon removal and management that we want to see continue to scale up.
And that support has been, it’s been working really well among the companies to have a company that might be working on nature-based solutions, standing alongside a utilization company, working with a marketplace, working with a direct air capture company. It’s been great to see these points of connections happening. And it’s also been great to see, even since the time that we launched, policies being introduced and moved forward that are tech neutral for the industry, that affirm this need for carbon management, but don’t Necessarily put the finger on the scale towards one particular technology or approach.
And one particular example I’d call out is something like the RD&D budget that has $1 billion for carbon dioxide removal that was passed in the CHIPS Act, bipartisan legislation that was signed. This doubles DOE’s current RD&D budget for carbon removal. And this is encompassing of all forms of removal. And so we’ve obviously been thrilled to see tech neutral efforts like this coming from the federal government.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So Chris, I know that we’ve sort of talked about how CDR has been relatively bipartisan on the federal side. I’m wondering if that continues to be the trend, especially with upcoming elections happening in November, or are you seeing sort of the interest in CDR continuing, or is the government pivoting away?
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I think like we’ve talked about before, there has been a lot of bipartisan interest in CDR and funding that and funding the necessary R&D. We’ve seen a lot of that funding already come through, like Ben mentioned, and I really do think that for a lot of Republican members of Congress from places like Texas, Louisiana, et cetera, that are really oil and gas heavy states. They also realize that this is important to the future of their state, the future of the industries and jobs that are in their districts. And so there really is a big bipartisan interest in this.
I think like I’ve talked about before on the show, there’s really also some next steps on permitting reform and some of the legal challenges around this and making it easier to embark on these projects. And I’ll also just say that it’s exciting to see Ben’s group get started and this business council really because it shows a level of maturity for the industry. And typically when industries reach that level Maturity, they create their kind of like association to lobby and push for efforts in Washington DC and I think it shows growth of the industry that there are this many companies involved pushing for this now because the reality is they won’t just take.
Members of Congress waking up and being like, oh, let’s throw some money at CDR or let’s make this law or that law, it really will require the active participation of the industry. And so I think that’s a really exciting sign of maturity for this technology that really is crucial to tackling climate change.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, speaking of the permitting issue, Ben and I were on a panel a couple of weeks ago, and that was definitely a huge topic of conversation for early startups. I also just saw that Texas is looking to take primacy over their class six permitting. I think Ben, you put that in the Slack channel, which I think is an interesting pivot or maybe not pivot, but an interesting way for like a state to take control over their CDR fate, because like you said, states like Texas, Wyoming, You know, they’re perfect places to do storage of carbon.
So we’ll see how that goes. One thing, Ben, I kind of haven’t been watching as the carbon business council grows is it does seem like the nature-based solutions aren’t yet as engaged in the CDR. I mean, like the short term, like forestry. Why do you think that is? And how do we make sure that we don’t kind of split the two groups apart, which I think some people Are already doing in their discourse.
Ben Rubin: Yeah, yeah. That’s a great question, Radhika. I think one thing that is good is just as we’re looking at the different forms of approaches to carbon removal, some of the lines between technological and nature-based are becoming increasingly blurred, and that’s in a good way. There’s just so many approaches to We’re seeing a blurring of a lot of different approaches, which is a natural evolution of the ecosystem. And there are signals that there continues to be support and funding for nature-based solutions on the policy front as the Farm Bill continues to move forward in the next legislative cycle.
That will obviously be major action for nature-based solutions. And at the state level, just yesterday, The governor of New York announced $18 million in funding inviting nature-based solutions specifically. So we’re seeing activity happening on the nature-based solutions front. We’re seeing some nature-based solution companies increasingly weave and integrate in technological approaches. And the Carbon Business Council itself has been a forum for some of these conversations to be taking place between nature-based solutions approaches and technological approaches, ocean-based CDR approaches to see where there is alignment on policy and different opportunities.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, I mean, I’m really glad that forum exists because I do, like I said earlier, I feel like there’s sometimes people who are pitting the solutions against one another rather than just saying we need it all and that in some serve one purpose and some serve another purpose, but certainly they all are important. So I’m wondering, Chris, if you see within the Republican caucus and maybe within the federal government in general, Are the same folks who are interested in more of the technological solutions and R&D funding also interested in the Farm Bill and the nature-based, or is it kind of segmenting based on the interest of the state?
And like, you know, the Midwest senators are interested in the farm and the more like Western and Eastern Coast, coastal communities are interested in the technologically-based solutions.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, that’s a great question and I actually do think that there obviously there was always some kind of geographic variability with members and what’s relevant for their districts, but one of the cool things about nature based solutions is that they really are pretty widespread across the US and so a lot of it’s not just. Like oceans, it’s not just forests, it’s also grasslands and prairies and all those different types of ecosystems. And they really do exist in a pretty incredible array of diversity across the country. And there is enormous interest from Republicans on that.
In fact, the only Forrester in Congress is Bruce Westerman, a Congressman from Arkansas, and he co-sponsored or introduced the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which would help a lot with this. He is also behind the Trillion Trees Act, and so he’s very much pushing nature as one of the big solutions that Republicans can get behind to also reduce emissions, increase community resilience, offer economic benefits to rural communities and all those kinds of things. So I really do think that on CDR, whether it’s natural or technological, there really is a very broad buy-in from both sides of the O.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So Ben, I’m going to take you back to the beginnings of the Carbon Business Council when you first talked to Nori. I remember how excited we were by the thought. As Chris said, it seemed like it was a moment in time that meant the industry was getting to a certain point of maturity. I’m wondering how your conversations with companies have evolved since the beginning to now, and what kind of questions are people, particularly the folks on the CDR side, asking, and what are the types of support that they need?
Ben Rubin: Yeah, it’s been great getting to interface with different companies, hearing their excitement, hearing the questions that come in about it. Broadly, when we connect with companies across the board, there’s been support to be able to connect and collaborate with others in the space. And folks who join the Carbon Business Council, I think, subscribe to the same belief that we have, that a rising tide can raise all ships. We have such big carbon removal goals to hit when it comes to the amount of carbon that we’re taking out of the atmosphere, when it comes to the amount of carbon that we’re managing or utilizing.
That companies in the space are realizing that they need to work together. And so I think companies are asking us about exactly what that collaboration looks like, how they can connect with other peers in the space, where approaches they might have might be relevant for others. When it comes to the responsible growth side of the equation, I think there’s generally been support to be able to sign on to that ethical oath for the earth and work on creating and channeling and marshalling towards responsible growth of the industry. When it comes to policy, Companies have been hungry to hear what’s coming down the pike and unpacking 45Q and unpacking other provisions within the Inflation Reduction Act.
And so we get a lot of questions about that. I will say that, interestingly, we do get questions from companies, especially if they’re an early stage company, questions of, I’m an early stage company. Am I ready to be part of something like this? In some cases for a company, it might be the first trade association that they’re joining. And I think it echoes this conventional idea that persisted in some elements of startups that a company As a startup for a while, and then at some point, they will be more a part of policymaking.
And as we tell companies when that question comes up for us, so much of this is moving right now. And we just see this really important role to have innovators at the policy table so that policies can be shaped to foster and really Help encourage the innovation that we think we need to see to hit the carbon removal targets that we need to hit. And so it’s great to have a dialogue back and forth with the companies about why now really is the time to be a part of something like this and hearing some of that, you know, is this the right time for me?
That’s one conversation we have.
Radhika Moolgavkar: But across the board, just I think a lot of enthusiasm and support to be able to partner with other So Chris, obviously you’ve been following the carbon removal industry for a while now, and so there’s A tonne more government support in the last year. It’s pretty phenomenal when I think about when I started back two years ago, how much has changed. But are there other things that you’re seeing that the public sector should be doing to help the industry grow? I know there’s a lot of parallels to solar, but do you see parallels to other types of industries?
Some companies are trying to make it more like a vaccine moonshot. So how do you think about that?
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I think right now, especially with the increasing business and private sector kind of engagement on this and in DC and through these kinds of initiatives, I really do think that the most important thing that the Industry specifically and kind of the public sector and private sector together need to demonstrate is that there is economic competitiveness for these types of solutions and to show a clear path forward that with the necessary support with kind of the rules and regulations and permitting being done in the right way that this is our vision for making this an economically competitive Solution to tackling climate change.
And I think that really is, should be the number one priority for the industry, because at the end of the day, like that, that’s what solar and wind proved, right, is that they, it was high upfront costs, but they were able to bring that down and they were able to show commercial viability. And I really think that is the most important next step for the industry.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, we’ve touched on permitting a few times. I think the other thing that I hear a lot, and I think Ben, you do too, right, is that Navigating the federal government is really difficult, and CDR does not fit neatly into any bucket within the different agencies. And so that’s one thing I would add that I hope the federal lawmakers start to consider is how to make it more streamlined for CDR companies, not only to permit, but to know what kind of access through regulations, access, technical help as they need it, and not feel like part of their program belongs under DOE and part of it belongs under USDA or whatever it may look like.
Because for small companies that’s really hard to figure out and navigate while also trying to innovate and they just don’t have the time and resources. But with that, I will pivot to the white paper because this is where some of the policy recommendations that the Carbon Business Council has started working on were put into writing and so As Ben well knows, a group of us, working group from this Carbon Business Council, just released a white paper that was titled, Unlocking Carbon Dioxide Removal with Voluntary Carbon Markets. We announced it at New York City Climate Week and had a great panel discussion about it as well as an event.
But Ben, when you first organized this group, what were you hoping to accomplish and what do you think are the key messages?
Ben Rubin: Yeah. And thanks again for your contributions to the White Paper Attica. It was great to have you as a co-op of the paper, along with several of our members who met on a recurring basis to develop the content. And we were fortunate to benefit from great feedback from the Carbon Business Council members, from expert reviewers outside of the Carbon Business Council. We came to this focus on voluntary carbon markets for our first white paper just because VCMs offer this promising pathway for carbon removal to enter into the market to create some of those economic opportunities that Chris was just talking about.
But where there’s opportunities, there’s also challenges with the market. And so with the current market as it is for carbon removal startups working to Enter it. And so we wanted to crystallize exactly what those opportunities are, what those challenges are, and put out a crystallized set of recommendations for how we thought for both on the policy side and the marketplace side for what we thought could happen to really help voluntary carbon markets unlock giga 10 scale removal. I think one of our goals from the outset in crystallizing this and putting together recommendations in one coherent place is that it can continue to be a resource now for both decision makers stakeholders, the larger.
Communities of folks engaging in voluntary carbon markets and by having this core set of recommendations we’ve we’ve. Just in the short time since white paper has been released I’ve really had an opportunity to take this and get it in front of some key. Decision making processes that are moving right now for voluntary carbon market so to call a couple out where we submitted. I responded to open consultations, responded to RFIs. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission out of the US federal government had an open request for information about if and how the federal government should provide oversight of voluntary carbon markets.
We were able to take and share our recommendations with them. The Integrity Council on Voluntary Carbon Markets is thinking about similar issues globally. We were able to take our comments and submit a response to that. And then, as the most recent response, the UNFCCC right now, ahead of COP27, has an open consultation about How carbon removal fits into Article 6, which is the mechanism for global markets under the Paris Agreement. And again, that was another area where we can take and socialize the findings of our white paper. And so it’s been great to have this document for us, which is very much actionable, meant to be taken off the shelf, used, put in front of these types of opportunities.
And so we will continue looking for these open consultations, responding to share the perspectives of carbon management innovators and how markets can really help Incentivizing gear up around carbon removal.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So, Chris, as Ben was just noting, there is a whole bunch of interest in voluntary carbon markets at the regulatory level, both in this country and in the EU and in the UK. So obviously, everybody’s expecting these to grow. Where do you see policymakers needing to step in, or do you even see there’s a need for policymakers to step in to help regulate these markets? And how do you think about the EU’s potential approach, if you’ve been following it all, and the U. S. approach, which the U. S. seems much more laissez-faire right now than at least I’ve heard of the EU’s thinking.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I think one of the broad issues with voluntary carbon markets that we’ve seen over the last few years is questions around either the additionality of the carbon removal or offset, which is basically, as you guys know, but just for listeners, whether that project would have happened with or without the funding through the marketplace. And so the whole idea of this obviously is to fund projects that otherwise wouldn’t happen. It’s not just Conserving forests that already were going to be conserved. It’s about like actually additionally removing carbon dioxide. And one of the issues has been that because we’ve all these kind of like scattered marketplaces and mechanisms around everywhere that it’s been difficult to make sure there is a good standard for additionality.
Another one is obviously permanence that if You invest in a forest being conserved. What happens if that forest burns down in one of the wildfires out west or whatever it might be? So that’s another question. So I think one of the big roles that the government can play is kind of being the convener and streamliner of these processes and providing a lot of transparency and kind of central direction when it comes to verifying particular projects or like what are the guidelines for doing this to make sure that these Carbon markets are actually doing what they’re intending to do.
So I think that’s really the most important role for the government to play, certifying and what are the standards and guidelines. I think one additional thing, which is something that Growing Climate Solutions Act focuses on, The technical assistance for the participants in these markets, not just the people buying or actually not really the people buying, but the people offering the credits, right? So your farmers, your conservation groups, whoever it might be that there are best practices that they can use and that information should be public and shared and try to help them figure out how they can actually Take part in these carbon markets.
And so I think some of that technical assistance will also be really necessary and the government can act as a convener to help disseminate some of that.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Ben, any thoughts?
Ben Rubin: It’s all great points from Chris. I think what Chris, just to expand on what Chris was talking about with additionality, I mean, that was something we were also pointing to in the white paper, just how we can harmonize and reach a common understanding of definitions of when, you know, you could have Two different folks saying additionality, but meaning two different things with that. And so the more that we can coalesce around markets and the meaning of them, just the stronger it can be and the easier it will be for different companies to enter the markets and sell carbon removal because there is this common set of definitions.
So definitely just wanted to Reinforce and call at that point, Chris was making, and I think what’s good to point to an example like what’s taking place in the EU is just an effort to add some of that definition and clarity so that there’s more certainty for the market and more, I think, clear ways for companies to enter and know what they’re getting into on both the buyer and seller side of that equation.
Radhika Moolgavkar: You know, I’ll just add one thing, since I was a co-author. I think the other thing, Ben, right, we were trying to stress is carbon removal is fundamentally different from offsets that have been traditionally sold, emission avoidance and emission, you know, reduction. We need to think about it differently. And it’s not that you can’t take some of the structures that existed from those mechanisms, those prior emission avoidance reduction schemes, but that they have to be thought of from a carbon removal perspective, which may fundamentally alter how you think about some of these definition standards approaches.
And so, you know, that is certainly like the premise that I took when writing my section, at least. Then finally, Last question about the white paper really quickly, Glenn, is like, how do other member companies view voluntary carbon markets? Is it their primary customer and, you know, what are the policy changes you think would be most beneficial or when you hear about most from those member companies?
Ben Rubin: Yeah, and also a great point Radhika on that, just to agree with you on that point that we underscored in the white paper about how important it is to make sure that how, you know, the differences that exist between what a traditional offset might be versus what a carbon removal credit might be. So agreed and appreciate you calling out that point. And yeah, great question about how member companies are looking at this. I think ultimately for carbon removal to scale up, companies are looking at How we can create multiple pathways to market.
VCMs are certainly one of them. They’re projected to grow to a $50 billion industry by 2050. And so companies are certainly looking at this, especially, and as we made some recommendations in the white paper, there are some forms of carbon removal that are not on the market today. And so how can we create a pathway for that to enter through having verification processes that you can give the market the assurance it needs. There are multiple other pathways that companies are pursuing in tandem. There’s obviously the compliance markets which exist parallel to voluntary carbon markets that some companies are looking at.
There’s the possibility of direct purchases from a company without having to enter a voluntary carbon market. There’s the possibility of government procurement, CO2 that is being Captured or removed can be utilized. And so there’s offtake agreements with some utilization companies. So there is a host of different pathways. And I think as different companies stand up their different business models, VCMs to varying degrees might be central to some companies’ business models or might play a complementary role with some additional areas they have from it. But we are just pleased to see multiple pathways opening up.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, so the last thing we’re going to talk about today are DAC hubs, which probably is one of the most tangible signs of the government’s investment in carbon removal. So for our listeners who don’t know, as part of last year’s infrastructure bill, Congress directed $3. 5 billion to the DOE. To build for DAC hubs. So, Ben, can you give us the status of the DAC hubs and is the Carbon Business Council got any involvement in their development at this point?
Ben Rubin: Yeah, thanks. Like you said, I do think it will be an exciting day when the funding availability notice on this comes out and we are expecting that any day now and it will be, it’s going to be a milestone moment for carbon removal and this comes to the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management out of the Energy Department has been working really hard on this and we’re grateful for everything that they’ve been doing on it. As far as the I guess, status of what this looks like. This was, like you said, triggered by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act.
And then in May of this year, the Energy Department released a notice of intent with additional info about what this funding availability notice might look like. That is online and an interesting resource to look to and expand on some of how the Carbon Business Council has been looking at that, thinking about that on behalf of our members. That funding availability, that NOI will be followed by the funding availability notice. And again, that’s coming down the pike soon. DOE is actively working on this and building out their team to have even more capacity to do it.
There’s actually an open job at the Energy Department right now to bring on a regional direct air capture hubs manager. So for anyone listening to this who wants to live And breathe and DACUBS every day. The application for that is 1017. And I think the energy department is looking for as wide a range of talented applicants as possible on that. So I wanted to call out that opportunity. And yeah, the Carbon Business Council has been fortunate to be in touch with the energy department, share some of our thoughts while obviously recognizing and supporting DOE’s autonomy to move that process forward in the way that they want to as a department.
Radhika Moolgavkar: You know, one thing I think is interesting is like this 3. 5 billion, I don’t know, it didn’t seem to get like the attention that a frontier group gets or anything, but it like it, the funding just dwarfs anything we’ve seen really. And it’s for one type of carbon removal. So it kind of speaks to the power of the federal government to move an industry forward, at least with funding and which is kind of key to all of these things. I do know that the one question, as you were saying, Ben, that the DOE is probably wrestling with is what is the definition of DAC?
And so I’m kind of curious from both of you, what do you think are the considerations these experts within DOE should be considering, especially in light of it probably having fairly significant consequences for future government decisions? And so, Chris, I’ll start with you and then I’ll move over to Ben.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I think some of this is quite technical that I might not be best placed to answer and Ben is probably much smarter on this than I am. But the one thing I will say kind of from a policy perspective is I would caution against kind of the approach that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission took with nuclear plants and regulating the safety of those. So what happened essentially was they took what is called a prescriptive regulatory approach as opposed to a standards based Regulatory approach. What that means is essentially they set out saying, okay, this is exactly what a plant needs.
It needs X amount of this X amount of that. It needs to meet these particular criteria. And so what happened is that they actually came up with like a one size fits all approach. And they said, every project has to fall under these specific criteria laid out in advance. Whereas a standards-based approach says you need to reach this certain level of safety or in the case of DAC hubs, you need to reach this certain level of carbon removal with like technology measures through direct air capture, whatever it might be, but to set out specific standards that need to be hit.
And then for the industry to be able to come up with the best and most efficient ways of reaching those standards that allows for a lot more innovation and also allows for a lot more direct buy-in from industry leaders. That’s kind of my hunch when it comes to this, but Ben might disagree or have kind of a different perspective on that.
Ben Rubin: I appreciate everything you called out on that, Chris. We’re in alignment there. I think that... The more that we can have innovation encouraged across policy is just beneficial to reach these gigatonne scale targets that we want to see. In the case of the DAC hubs, there is a stipulation that the hubs need to each be removing 1 million tonnes of CO2 each year from the atmosphere, which is a significant amount when we multiply that out across the four hubs that there will be. I would call out that the notice of intent Just to refer back to that, and again, that’s on the DOE’s website if anyone wants to refer to it, mentioned four particular types of carbon removal that they were looking at as part of the NOI.
And just to specifically mention these four, it was chemical direct air capture technology, what I think some folks tend to think of when they think of DAC, but it also included biomass carbon removal and storage. It included ocean-based carbon removal, as well as enhanced mineralization. And we are looking to see if this set of approaches will be included in the Funding Availability Notice or if it will take a more narrow definition of direct air capture. We think the broader a definition that’s taken, the more we can encourage and have innovation as being part of the table.
And I think to a point that you asked when you were asking the question, Radhika, The definition of exactly what direct air capture is, as the NOI shows from the evolution of the NOI to this upcoming FOA, it’s something that continues to evolve. And so we’re looking closely at that. The Carbon Business Council will be putting out a statement and resources for the community when the DACA’s FOA is announced. Just recognizing that, you know, however broad or narrow the FOA is, we’re operating under this direct air capture and the hubs.
And while it’s exciting and a milestone to see this moving forward, we’ll need to see similar action keeping pace on all forms of carbon management to really keep pace with the removal that we want to be seeing.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, and I’m going to be particularly curious, you know, with the requirements around the number of tonnes that have to be removed, how they also navigate, as we’ve touched on a few times, the permitting issues for this, you know, whether they’re going to cite these and like particularly the traditional DAC hubs in places where permitting doesn’t become an issue, you don’t need a pipeline. So there are also so many other interesting regulatory issues that come along with these DAC hubs beyond just the All right. Well, with that, I am going to just do a little bit of good news, uh, for the week, because you know, who couldn’t use a little good news last week, if you were listening, you might’ve heard our new hosts, love of otters.
And she went on and on about otters this week. I’m keeping up the animal theme and talking about fat bear week. I don’t know if anybody here votes, but it is super fun. And it’s, uh, basically something that happens. From the 5th of October through the 11th of October, where you vote on the fattest bear. It’s kind of like the NCAA, you know, it’s a bracket system and they’re bears up in Alaska. And if you can even find a webcam watching them eat their salmon, but this year, 747-1, he may be one of the largest bears known In a Brown Bears known to man.
And, you know, congratulations to him. It’s a fun little thing that my family likes to do. And so next year, maybe some of our listeners will want to participate as well. With that. Thank you, Ben. Thank you, Chris, for joining as always really appreciate your time.
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 production.
