Noah Deich of Carbon180 stopped by to talk about his perspective on the Green New Deal outline.
Full Transcript
Ross Kenyon: Hello and welcome to Carbon Removal Newsroom. I am Ross Kenyon, lead strategist at the Nori Carbon Removal Marketplace. Today I have with me Noah Deich from Carbon 180, where he is the executive director. Noah, we saw your tweet storm, I guess you could call it that, about the Green New Deal. Your take was interesting. We would love to have you share it with our audience.
Noah Deich: Yeah, thanks, Ross. Glad to be here and excited to see the Green New Deal resolution introduced earlier this week. I think a couple of things jumped to mind when I saw the resolution. First, related to the resolution itself, it seemed very encouraging and broad in its general take on how we need to tackle the climate crisis. And part of that was the resolution itself was just that it did not... Actually specify what policy levers would need to be changed. It simply said, here’s the types of things that we need to aspire to when we think about tackling climate change.
What I saw from a carbon 180 perspective that was so encouraging was the fact that the resolution clearly said we need to not just reduce emissions, but figure out how to clean up carbon in the atmosphere. And secondly, that the resolution itself was very open to different solution pathways that would get us there. Both on the natural side about how we harness forest and agriculture to be a carbon sink, but also on the technological side, which is how do we build out the machinery and industrial processes to capture carbon both from smokestacks in the air and convert that back into valuable products and store that deep underground as a negative emission technology.
So all of that was quite encouraging to see.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah, it’s funny that you pulled those elements out since the coverage I saw specified or was focused more, you could say, on 100% renewables and stuff like that. But it seems like maybe you’re reading with a close eye to the carbon removal angle to all of this. And there is a lot to look forward to.
Noah Deich: So I think it actually was quite encouraging in the resolution itself. What got a lot of media attention, at least within the energy and climate expert circle, is the fact sheet that Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s office introduced and then quickly pulled off their website, which was the exact opposite of the spirit of the resolution, which was it laid out explicitly The types of solutions that were in and which ones were out and ended up in many ways undermining the spirit and power of the resolution that was introduced in the bill. And that resolution was the one that said explicitly 100% renewable energy by a very aggressive timeline.
It’s explicitly said that it would not include carbon capture and storage technologies, just the natural solutions. And this is a take that is not supported by any of the researchers who are in the field at this point. And it’s one of the more old storylines that you hear in this space. And it was really great to see that it was taken down so quickly. I think there really is an interest to get this right. It’s just sad. Once you put something on the I do think that there’s opportunities going forward the policies That’s when the rubber really hits the road in my mind and there is an opportunity for that fact sheet to change and for us to have a much more constructive conversation going forward.
Ross Kenyon: Sure. And as much as I think it’s important to focus as much as possible on the carbon removal angle here, part of the hullabaloo that I’m sure you saw, and I saw a few of your tweets about this, is the alleged lack of focus or the tying in of social welfare programs into the Green New Deal. Do you have a take on that you might like to share?
Noah Deich: Sure. So I think it’s an interesting take from the progressive community where It really is a repudiation to the conventional democratic approach to climate change, which is have a very technocratic and economics-driven approach to climate pollution, basically. And that has failed to gain the political will to turn into successful policy. And so I think one of the questions is, why has that happened and what can be done differently? And this is the Progressive response at this point. I think, again, it’s all well intended, but what really matters is when there are specific policies on the table and how much will those policies cost, who pays for them, in what way.
This is when we start to get into real discussions. And so I think it’s an encouraging breath of fresh air from the progressive camp, whether it’s something that will gain political traction or I think is too early to say, and we’ll only be able to say once there are specific policies and political strategies on the table. Yeah, I wonder to what degree this is either ideologically driven, which is definitely possible, or if this is a gamble to energize a larger base to care about climate than is typically engaged by the left and moderates, because maybe they’re betting Yeah, I mean, I think it’s a very explicit strategy from the progressive side to the Do just that, is to appeal to a broader set of America, whether that’s conventional Democrats or not, using these progressive policies that do poll fairly positively, and in many cases across partisan lines.
So I think that’s where the rubber hits the road, is to what extent do policies that fare well in the general public and But potentially are misaligned with conventional ideologies of the parties. How does that translate into actual legislation, which is the hard path ahead? In my mind, what really matters is we have a set of policies that deeply reduce and then remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere ultimately. And that policy needs to happen soon in an equitable way and in a way that actually gets passed. So to me, I’m fairly open to what that configuration looks like.
And I think the more ideas that there are on the table, the better at this point, because quite frankly, there have been way too few.
Ross Kenyon: And if you were to forecast looking ahead, where might we see carbon removal in the mix? I know that matters a lot to you. Carbon 180, for listeners who do not know, used to be the center for carbon removal. And is it going to be focused on ecosystems? Ecological and soil carbon removal. You think direct air capture is going to have an increasing role to play. I know there’s people fight about carbon removal and whether or not it has a place in these policies. But it sounds like if I’m going to put words into your mouth, which I am, Noah, you’re thinking that this carbon removal is increasingly going to have a seat at the table.
Noah Deich: So I think there’s two things at a conceptual level. Carbon removal fits incredibly well with the framework of a Green New Deal. That at the end of the day, if we’re going to transform our forestry sector, our agriculture sector, our entire heavy industry and manufacturing sectors alongside a clean energy revolution, what we’re fundamentally talking about is restructuring work, investment, all of the social dynamics that go along with both of those two major pieces of the economy. And so, if incorporated from the beginning, carbon removal both on the natural side and on the technological side could be key elements of a Green New Deal.
I think what happens in practice really depends on how the broader carbon removal advocacy community, which is increasingly growing, Is able to sit down with leaders of this progressive movement and understand what their goals and objectives are and how carbon removal can fit into that pathway. Likewise, I think it’s incumbent on us to sit down with the business community and some of the other conservative groups that are thinking about aggressive climate action at this point and understand what it’s going to take to There’s definitely an opportunity for broad consensus around carbon removal, but I think it’s really imperative on us today to not assume that this will be a part of the deal, assume that it will be easy, but instead start doing that stakeholder engagement.
Listening about what the other side or not the other side, but listening to what stakeholders across all sides need and figuring out how to push forward policies that are broadly attractive to progressives that care about a great new deal to conservatives that want market driven solutions to climate change. I think carbon removal can fit in all of those and it’s essential for it to be part of whatever Ultimate climate policy or really set of climate policies is enacted.
Ross Kenyon: Great. Well, thank you so much for being here with us. That’s Noah Deich of Carbon 180. If you want to follow his work, carbon180.org. And also, Noah, you had the distinct pleasure of snagging at the Carbon Sync as your Twitter handle. You lucky man. That’s a good one.
Noah Deich: It was a wide open field back in the day, Ross. Thanks again for hosting and look forward to joining again soon.
Ross Kenyon: My pleasure. Thank you, Noah.
