Earlier this year, the think tank and polling organization Data for Progress released polling that showed that voters all across the political spectrum support federal procurement of carbon removal.
Researchers conducted two polls, one of New York voters on statewide legislation there and another of voters nationwide on pending Federal legislation. These two similar bills would compel the government to directly purchase carbon removals. In a February episode, we discussed the specifics of these bills with policy advocate and co-author of this report Toby Bryce.
Data for Progress also released polling last year, which also found support, though low recognition, for CDR and government investment into it.
This week Radhika and Chris talk with Celina Scott-Buechler of DFP about how this research was conducted, what the researchers found, and what she makes of the prospects for CDR procurement legislation.
On this episode
Celina Scott-Buechler
Chris Barnard
Resources
-Forbes article “The Top Five Legal Barriers To Carbon Capture And Sequestration In Texas
-Manchin-Shumer permitting reform legislation
-Susskind et al. research on renewable energy siting
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 back from our summer break. We’re starting it off with our policy episode this week. It’s September 8th, so Hope everyone had a wonderful long weekend and is ready for fall to start. Today we have with us Selena Scott Buchler. She’s a Senior Resident Fellow at Data for Progress. Hello, Selena. Welcome.
Celina Scott-Buechler: Hi, it’s great to be here. Thanks for having me.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Yeah, we’re very excited to chat with you. Also returning, my longtime co-host, Chris Barnard, Policy Director at the American Conservation Coalition, Also a UK citizen and in England right now. Chris, how are you doing? Are you okay with the bad news about the Queen’s passing?
Chris Barnard: Yeah, it’s a hard time. And I’m actually technically not a UK citizen. I lived here for five years and I have a UK heritage, but I don’t actually have citizenship.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Apologies, apologies.
Chris Barnard: But I still consider her my queen.
Celina Scott-Buechler: And I have no association with the UK, but she’s my queen as well.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I know it’s it is a for me it’s very sad because she’s also like one of the last links to the greatest generation which you know it’s. Something that I actually kind of feel which is strange as a Indian and American I don’t know where it comes from, but anyway. Let’s get started on actually stuff related to carbon removal. So earlier this year, the think tank and polling organization Data for Progress released polling that showed that voters all across the political spectrum support federal procurement of carbon removal. And this is the organization that Selena is with, and she did a lot of this work.
They conducted two polls. One was of New York voters on statewide legislation, and another was of nationwide voters on pending federal legislation. So back in February, we talked about these bills, particularly the New York bill with the policy advocate and co-author of one of these reports, Toby Bryce. So now recently, Data for Progress also released polling, which showed support for CDR, but low recognition of it. So I guess I will start it off with you, Selena, to kind of get a sense of what these polls told you about CDR generally within the country and anything that was either surprising and or kind of novel.
Celina Scott-Buechler: Yeah. Thanks. A really, really good question. So as, as is probably unsurprising to most of your listeners, the vast majority of people had not heard of carbon dioxide removal. And even those in the roughly 40% of people who said they knew kind of some, or, you know, a lot about carbon removal when we asked them, well, what, what is carbon removal? What would you consider to be carbon removal? Many of them included recycling or other sustainability efforts among carbon removal approaches. And this was also done in a morning consult poll.
They found very similar things. And so there’s kind of some name recognition that we’re seeing pop up, which is exciting because had we done this poll five years ago, I imagine that people wouldn’t have even heard the term People are now starting to encounter it, but don’t exactly know what it is. When they’re presented with information on it, there’s generally positive responses. And this is kind of, if we just ask about it as a concept, what do you think about it? Folks across the aisle tend to have high favorability. And this is higher favorability than we see for Clean energy deployment, even for other climate related topics, which is really exciting to see that there is bipartisan support.
And that was also mirrored in the state level polling that we did for the Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act, which would be a New York State bill that would have a reverse auction in order to procure carbon dioxide removal, and the bill would be funded primarily by repealing an existing corporate tax break for commercial aviation fuel. And in talking with folks outside of the kind of official poll, this funding mechanism was a real draw for folks. And when we also did a polling question on The Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act, which is based loosely on the New York State bill, but was introduced in the House by Representatives Tonko and Peters, we found similarly that there was a 71% support rate across demographics, across parts of the country, across party lines, and that even a majority, a Slim majority, 59% of Republicans were in favor, which for climate things, for us, was really exciting to see.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Before I jump to Chris and his reaction to the poll, quick question, just for kind of context, what inspired you guys to even ask this question? Why were you thinking that CDR was even ready to ask people about?
Celina Scott-Buechler: Yeah, so we work on kind of, you know, both public polling questions as well as sort of policy analysis and policy advocacy and with an express progressive focus. And in talking with progressives who are working on legislation, we found that there was sort of increased Awareness, again, name recognition among organizations that are working on climate related topics, but that often there was some confusion about what exactly CDR is, what its role could be, and how the general public sort of felt about it. And so we decided to sort of, you know, back up some of the Work that we were starting to do in this space with some kind of baseline numbers of just, you know, taking the country’s pulse.
How are voters thinking about this? And do they know about it? We were actually quite surprised to see that many people sort of associated the name, even if then they got the definition a little wrong.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So Chris, curious what you thought about it. I mean, I think it’s particularly good news, right? That 59% of Republicans seemed in favor of CDR. What did you think of it and what did you make of those numbers?
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I think this is not necessarily surprising. A lot of polling in general has shown that Republicans and Independents and Democrats tend to like these kind of technological solutions to climate issues and a carbon carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture and storage and all those those kinds of things, especially when explained, kind of have this futuristic high tech sound to them like this is a way that we’re going to tackle climate change and reduce emissions without requiring huge sacrifices on your behalf. And I think that’s the kind of climate policy that appeals to Republicans, broadly speaking.
The other thing is, obviously, this is like specifically New York, I believe. Right. Whereas in other states like Texas and more in the south where they produce a lot of oil and gas, places like that, the people there do realize that this is one of the ways that what they consider their industry might actually be a part of the solution rather than just be vilified. So there is an interesting dynamic there that a lot of these companies are investing in carbon capture and storage because they see it as one of the ways for them to remain relevant.
So I’m really not that surprised. Doubly encouraged by the fact that there is widespread support for this.
Celina Scott-Buechler: Yeah, if I may, we also ran a Wyoming state level poll, and we’re coming out with some of those results soon. I won’t spoil everything. Folks can find that on our blog soon. But we found, interestingly, that the vilification of carbon in places that are reliant or have been traditionally reliant on fossil fuels Is something that sort of has rubbed people a bit the wrong way. So even where we were proposing carbon dioxide removal or CCS and CCUS work that we were finding, we were hearing that folks were sort of Like pushing back against this idea that carbon needed to be managed in the first place.
And so that I think complicates some of these things that we see at a national level where there is overwhelming support. But I think there’s more work to be done to look into some of these key demographics to ask, okay, how are farmers thinking about this? Especially people with agricultural roots. We’ve heard as we’ve been having more of these conversations Folks sort of saying, well, you know, agriculture needs carbon and carbon is an essential building block of our way of life. And so if you’re going to be taking that carbon away, what’s going to happen to agriculture?
And so there are these, you know, interesting sort of nuances. I think top line numbers are really important and certainly at a policy level kind of Tell you what your constituency is, but as you sort of dig a little deeper, there are all sorts of associations that folks have.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, just to just quickly add to that as well. I think there’s probably an interesting semantic difference between saying carbon dioxide removal, implying that something needs to be removed and carbon capture storage and utilization. Because the reality is that it might be controversial, but there are ways that carbon can be used for enhanced oil recovery or just purely like in cement or like other things. Like I know a company that is turning carbon into baking soda and selling that on the market. And so there’s like really cool applications where you can turn what is considered the waste product into economically beneficial products.
And so there’s like a better positive connotation with that, which automatically will translate into broader public support.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I find it interesting, Selena, the conversation you were just having about farmers, because as you may know, Nori works with farmers directly, and I’ve never heard that argument. And I’ve heard a lot about, I don’t believe in climate change and that, but to us, it’s bringing carbon down is making the soils healthier, which allows you to grow more. So to Chris’s point, it feels like it’s almost a misunderstanding of what carbon removal really is and the benefit that it could have For them as individuals in society more generally. I did want to follow up on one question though, when you were talking about like the demonization of carbon removal a little bit, you know, there are quite a few progressives who are particularly in certain, you know, advocacy groups, environmental justice groups who really feel like carbon removal isn’t the right way to move forward.
Did you see any of that kind of dichotomy within your polling?
Celina Scott-Buechler: Yeah, we see that mostly in sort of the conversations that we have with organizations. I think there is a real concern about kind of the moral hazard of CDR. I’m sure that’s something that, you know, we’ve all talked about extensively sort of in the CDR world, but that is a real concern. And we’re digging more into sort of how the public views that sort of what role They view decarbonization versus carbon removal. But if we look at California sort of as a case study, they recently sort of had this battle over, well, how much of our net zero goals should be carbon removal versus decarbonization?
And that was organizations, but also, I mean, there were community organizations representing large groups of people. And the feeling was really, We need to define the role for CDR and not kind of over promise with it. And so that’s something that we do hear a lot from progressives is, is this going to be a door left open to fossil fuel companies? And are we going to put all of our eggs in the carbon removal basket at the expense of decarbonization? And that was the primary reason that Data for Progress got into this work in the first place was we thought that this was a real opportunity to present a progressive approach to carbon dioxide removal that could address these concerns head on while presenting a way forward on carbon removal that allows us to meet these needs that are now enshrined in IPCC modeling.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So I’m going to pivot a little bit back to you, Chris. And I know we’ve talked about different types of procurement models, and I know you’re a fan of the one in the New York state legislation, the reverse auction you had, if I remember our conversation correctly, from February. But what are other types of government support or types of support generally and policy interventions that you think Selena and other pollsters should be asking about? And what are things that you think both sides of the aisle could agree on?
Chris Barnard: Yeah, that’s a good question. I mean, I’m not sure, like obviously I work on policy, so I’m not sure what, like this might be more specific, like what are the policies that like legislators should implement rather than like pollsters asking about, but obviously there’s a connection there. But one of the things that like we’ve really focused on at the American Conservation Coalition is some of the regulatory hurdles that are in front of these projects to remove carbon dioxide at scale. There’s this really interesting article From 2019 actually in Forbes and it’s called the top five legal barriers to carbon capture and sequestration in Texas and the example specifically uses Texas because there is so much potential there, but I think a lot of it applies across the country that some of the stuff is about how the permitting for some of the wells to.
Inject CO2 is pretty convoluted and needs to be streamlined. Like what I was talking about earlier, CO2 is actually classified as a waste and so it doesn’t qualify for a lot of the legal benefits of being able to do certain projects and whatnot. There’s all kinds of issues with liability and just Like property rights and what all that would look like. And so there’s just a lot of regulatory streamlining that needs to happen for these projects to be able to unlock at scale. That’s one thing. The other thing is obviously, I’m a big fan, broadly speaking of carbon markets and being able to buy and sell these things on the open market.
And I think there’s a role for the government there to help streamline that process to make sure that there is kind of a central verified process to do those things. I also think that, broadly speaking, doing public-private partnerships with our national labs, investing in these technologies and innovations is a really good thing. And I think it’s not just a good thing from a climate perspective, but I also think there will come a point at which this is commercially viable that you can start exporting and selling this technology to countries like India or China or others and helping them reduce their emissions, but then also getting the economic returns for We’ve talked about that a few times, Chris, and it’s just not like Interesting enough, it feels like for policymakers to want to take seriously because they don’t get the big announcements, they don’t, you know, at least that felt like some of my experience working in government too, right?
Radhika Moolgavkar: The nuts and bolts sometimes are harder to push through than the funding packages.
Chris Barnard: Yeah. Although right now, permitting reform is top of the agenda in DC with the whole management consumer deal. So we’ll see what comes out of that. Yeah. Fingers crossed.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So Selena, kind of hearing Chris’s perspective on policy, are there other polling questions that you wish or would like to go back out and ask, whether it’s at a national level, a state level, a local level?
Celina Scott-Buechler: Yeah, one of the things that we’re sort of curious about is sort of how do voters think about how projects should be funded, right? I think like we talk a lot about kind of procurement, government procurement, both at the state level and also at the federal level. And one of the areas of pushback we’ve sort of had is, well, you know, why is it that sort of taxpayers should be footing the bill for a cleanup problem that was largely created by a few key industries? And so some of the things that we’re sort of digging into is, you know, what are funding mechanisms that might be able to help scale these really, really important technologies?
And I’m using technologies as kind of a neutral term, both the sort of industrial processes, but also land-based options. And how do voters think about, you know, what that should look like moving forward? And then the other key area that we’re looking at or hopefully going to be looking at is how are people thinking about what the government’s role should be in terms of carbon accounting and in terms of setting benchmarks? And how does the government work alongside the private sector in order to set really, really rigorous goals and be able to meet them in ways where we’re not encountering leakage or double counting or any of these things that, you know, we’re starting to sort of see as we, you know, learn as we go in kind of carbon markets.
And so those are two things that I’m really curious about and I think would be impactful for policy audiences.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Well, it definitely seems like one area of agreement between probably progressives and Republicans is why is the public taxpayer paying for a problem we didn’t create? I don’t know. It seems like a common ground, a common seed that can be worked from to get CDR up and running in a more meaningful way. I’m going to sort of pivot to some of the CDR legislation now, which Selena, I was hoping you could maybe tell us how things are going both in New York and maybe Chris, if you know what’s going on with the federal or Selena, maybe you both do the federal legislation.
I’ll start with you, Selena.
Celina Scott-Buechler: Yeah, thanks. It’ll be interesting to see how the New York legislation goes. My understanding is that in large part through open air collectives efforts, there’s been a lot of support that has been raised. Whether it’s enough is what we’re going to see. I think often we see sort of a domino effect in state level policy. Once one state enacts something, another state is more likely to follow. And California setting these really stringent demarcations between decarbonization and carbon dioxide removal. And setting aside funding for meeting those carbon removal goals, I think is hopefully going to push New York State lawmakers along in thinking about, well, how are they going to scale this carbon dioxide removal sector that they have already implicitly agreed to scale because they’ve agreed that 85% of their net zero goals are going to be met through decarbonization and 15% through other means, including carbon dioxide removal.
And so I think that kind of interstate competition, but also sort of collaboration, learning from each other is going to be an important dynamic to follow. And I’m hopeful that New York State will be able to pass that. And in terms of the federal legislation, We’re seeing increased interest from folks who haven’t traditionally engaged in CDR. CDR has often been sort of a very kind of centrist or even right of center policy priority for some of the kind of especially infrastructure based approaches And I think the coalition behind CDRLA at the federal level has done a really good job of, you know, identifying what some of the weak points of like technology neutral legislation is, namely, you know, whether it can go toward enhanced oil recovery, sort of, you know, on what time scale, like which are the agencies that get involved.
And so I feel hopeful about that legislation, though the pattern with Congress is that, you know, must pass packages or omnibuses are sort of the legislative tool for these things. So I don’t think we’ll see a CRLA on its own, but potentially, you know, coupled together with some of these other legislative priorities.
Chris Barnard: And unlikely to see it before the end of this year with the, with the election and everything that’s, that’s happening. Yeah, on the federal level, like CDRLA is sponsored solely by Democrats at this point. So it’d be, it’d be cool for them to reach across, and I’m not sure to what extent they are doing this, but to reach across the aisle and try and get some bipartisan co-sponsorship of that. And there might be kind of a deal to be struck there, like if they come on board with this, they can look into some ways to clear up some of the regulatory stuff to help cite this and what all that would look like.
So I think obviously IRA had a lot of good climate investments, but it was very one sided in terms of the like it was it was just one party. And I think the most durable, best climate policy going forward will be bipartisan.
Radhika Moolgavkar: So hopefully they can have those conversations together and get some Republicans on board and Chris, what do you think Republicans would want to see in the CDRLA to make them? I know you talked about the permitting, but are there other things that might make it more attractive to them? Is it about the way it’s funded? What’s your sense?
Chris Barnard: My sense would be that they would probably want an enhanced oil recovery to be called out specifically as one of the appropriate uses of removed CO2. I think, broadly speaking, kind of making sure that you’re supporting targeted innovation without recklessly spending a lot of money, especially with inflation and those concerns right now. So I think it would be relatively minor things like that, and the regulatory piece would be a big one too.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And then I want to go back a little bit to the permitting that you were talking about earlier, Chris. How I think we’ve talked about this before, but I’m wondering, as you’re seeing the mansion Schumer bill coming through and these sort of more discussion around permitting. How do you imagine you get communities on board to allow for these types of permitting? I mean, we see in Iowa, right, very conservative folks. Joining with very progressive people to try to kill a pipeline for CO2. So what do you imagine needs to be provided by the federal government or local governments to make it easier?
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I mean, it’s always tricky. The NIMBY mindset on a lot of this stuff is always very hard to overcome. I think being upfront with the ways that this could benefit communities and that there’s economic opportunities here, I think is a really important thing to get communities on board. I think also just being honest that this is just something that needs to be done as kind of a way that those particular communities can play a part and be a part of the solution. And depending on where you’re talking about this, if you’re talking about Texas or Wyoming or places like that, I think one of the ways to message this to the people on the ground there is this is a way for your industry that has employed your family for three generations now to be a part of this, to tackle this challenge together rather than just be regulated out of existence, which they’re all worried about.
So I think there’s definitely ways to communicate that, but I think we should also be realistic that there will always be kind of a little bit of a NIMBY mindset, and it’s hard to overcome that, frankly.
Celina Scott-Buechler: Yeah, if I can jump in, this is a topic that we’ve been working on a lot at Data for Progress is sort of, you know, both in terms of siting and permitting. But also then in terms of kind of community perceptions. And the things that we’re finding are that often developers just come in way too late for the community consultation. It’s called the DAD method, the decide, advocate, defend, or announce, defend. And communities then feel left out, like their needs aren’t being heard. And then that leads to feelings of ill will later on in the process.
And this can then lead to opposition. And so there’s a great paper in the journal Energy Policy by Susskind et al. Published earlier this year that looks at renewable energy siting. And it found that those projects that faced opposition were tended to be the projects that only engaged in community consultation kind of further down in the project development pathway and that when a project did face opposition. That elongated the project timeline by several years, if not canceling it altogether, and that the cancellation rate among projects that encountered opposition was approximately 50%.
And so the thing that we’re really trying to do in talking with developers and talking with businesses is to say, look, you know, Yes, you might have a process of sort of siting that you have traditionally followed, but actually it’s working against you, right? You know, that the problem that certainly some changes to permitting are needed, but that the approach to siting on the developer’s end is also something that needs to change. Communities need to be engaged and offered Community benefit agreements, project labor agreements, these kinds of things that are not just sort of tugging on people’s heartstrings, but really supporting communities economically and socially in meaningful ways.
We hear all the time communities saying, look, you know, renewable energy projects came in or X industry came in and they promised lots of jobs and they promised that we could be part of the solution. They didn’t deliver. Or they just sort of packed up and left. And so that’s kind of the landscape that we’re dealing with. And I think any project developer that is looking to cite CDR and especially then to scale it to be kind of gigatonne scale needs to be thinking about the sort of local Implications of a project and starting that before you’ve even like completed your blueprint of the project, have communities get in there early and tell you what doesn’t work or else you’re going to find out, you know, a year down the road and that’s going to mean five years of litigation or whatever.
Chris Barnard: Something that just came to mind as well is like obviously that piece I mentioned earlier about specifically the Texas situation made the case that a lot of the oil and gas companies already have like some of the infrastructure and the know-how and the kind of the regulatory legal Knowledge to navigate a lot of these challenges. I wonder if there’s ways for CDR removal projects to work with those companies, if not being led by those companies themselves, which I think they should be doing to help clean up part of their legacy.
But also for that partnership to exist because a lot of those companies will have existing relationships with local communities because they’ve just been there for so long and they’re trusted having provided a lot of the economic and job opportunities in those areas. And there might be ways to kind of sneak CDR in there and kind of have this as some kind of partnership. But that’s just an idea that came to the top of my head.
Celina Scott-Buechler: Yeah, I think it depends on kind of which communities you’re talking about. In environmental justice communities, fossil fuel companies are largely mistrusted because extractive industries have not consulted communities, have not shared benefits, and have ended up polluting air and water and causing rates of cancer and asthma to escalate in predominantly black and brown communities and low income communities. And so There are some communities in which the fossil fuel industry has really been a locus for economic development. A lot of those attachments we’re seeing is more toward unionized workforce and culture of employment than it is necessarily to these industries.
There are certainly ties to industry. But that if you kind of look a layer deeper, there are these other things that, you know, people are kind of associating with fossil fuel jobs that I think can be replicated, certainly in carbon dioxide removal projects. And also, I think if we’re looking at sort of, you know, where we want to be siting CDR, and if the answer is In communities that have had a past and a bad past with extractive industries that relying on a partnership with a fossil fuel company is going to make your project a lot more difficult and potentially something that you want to rethink.
Chris Barnard: Yeah, obviously there’s certain areas where it’s not particularly appropriate or relevant and that totally makes sense. I was thinking specifically of the example when I visited a coal town in Utah and they were developing in partnership with DOE. A carbon capture technology for the coal plant. And it was just really interesting talking to them about how, like what you said, there is this kind of culture of culture of the industry where my father and my grandfather, my grandfather all worked in this coal mine, it was it’s what sustained this community for generations.
And now we’re being vilified as the bad guys, whereas we want to be part of the solution. And like, I think really specifically giving them the opportunity to be part of the solution in some communities would be very appropriate, but obviously recognize in some places, it would not be very appropriate. But yeah, good point.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I think what we can agree on is that earlier and more meaningful interaction with these communities and understanding where their perspective is, is really the key to actually making these projects move more quickly and getting the community buy-in that you need to really help with both the permitting and the lack of litigation. Again, a little kernel that maybe the conservatives and progressives can use to help this nascent industry So with that little bit of good news, I’m actually going to turn it over to Chris to give us our real good news of the week or the of the episode.
So Chris, what do you have on tap?
Chris Barnard: Yeah, I mean, so since it’s our first episode back, I thought I’d dig a little bit further than just the last week. But a lot of the times that I bring good news, it revolves around nuclear energy. So I’m going to I’m going to talk about California Being to finally deciding that shutting down Diablo is bad for California, bad for the economy and bad for climate change. So really excited to see that there.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I was wondering, Chris, if you were going to talk about nuclear, because it’s been a good month overall for nuclear. It has been.
Chris Barnard: It has been. Thank goodness for that. Germany is still being a little bit stupid, but hopefully they hopefully they get the memo that going to coal is maybe not the best answer when when it comes to a crisis like this.
Celina Scott-Buechler: California actually passed like a suite of climate policies recently that are really, really exciting kind of at the very, very last minute in this kind of like very like cinematic way. The legislature like passed several like enormous pieces of climate related legislation that are really going to move the state forward. Including what I was saying, you know, setting the 85% decarbonization target, but also ensuring that new oil and gas wells are, you know, far enough away. I think it’s like, you know, 3,000 feet or more away from communities and from schools.
Yeah. Providing incentives for renewable energy, EVs, all sorts of really, really exciting things. So I’m also, I’m a California native, so I get a little proud when we talk about these things. Diablo was a great save and would have been a climate catastrophe had we not been able to keep it online.
Radhika Moolgavkar: Well, and as you said about states competing, you know, I’m up north in Washington and we have a governor who thinks he’s the climate governor. So I anticipate he’s already talking about 2035 for EV. So I anticipate a lot more stuff coming from across the West Coast as they all compete to be the most climate friendly, which is not a bad thing. With that, go ahead.
Chris Barnard: I was going to say, and the climate governor emissions have gone up every year. He’s in office. I’m not salty about that. I mean, that’s just Benji, who’s the ACC’s president, being very critical of your governor.
Radhika Moolgavkar: I know. I know. I mean, but he still has that for his, you know, ethos, if you will. With that, I want to thank Selena for joining us for the first time. Thank you so much. Anytime you want to join again, you have any more breaking news from Wyoming or any other state, please let us know.
Celina Scott-Buechler: Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me. This was a lot of fun.
Radhika Moolgavkar: And Chris, as always, I enjoy seeing your smiling face and chatting policy with you and, you know, enjoy the rest of your trip.
Chris Barnard: Thank you so much.
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.
