You're listening to the reversing climate change, podcast by the team at Nori. The carbon removal Marketplace. This is a show about the innovators and entrepreneurs developing solutions to climate change. Hello and welcome to the reversing climate change podcast. I'm Ross Kenyon today I have with me dr. Jan, masaryk a senior director at climate Works Foundation, Jan, you lead the carbon dioxide removal fund. Their thanks so much for being here. Oh, it's a pleasure Ross.
Thanks for having me. I'm happy to have you. It's been a long time coming. I am happy that you have such an illustrious career in climate and also in carbon removal, sometimes people think of nori as being involved in carbon removal for a long time, but it's only been a few years and maybe just carbon removal has grown so much the last couple, but I think you've been there basically, since it really began. Is that a correct understanding?
I think we're too. Really pretty well synced up right around the time of the Paris cop. I think everyone saw that in order to stay within sustainable temperature bounds, we needed to start thinking seriously about carbon removal and I must also tip my hat to know a die attach and Gianna Amador as well as Julio Friedman. They have been our trusted advisors and partners from the start. Okay well fair enough and
they've all been on the podcast. That's all My it's about time to have the others getting the gang together. All right? Yeah. Well, how did you find your way into carbon removal? What has your career been like? Well, I started a very long time ago. Next year marks my 30th year in the climate and energy space and mostly in nonprofits in DC. I like to refer to myself as a husband, but I'm one of those people who spent the early part of my career working on.
Carbon pricing systems both in Congress as well as here in California. Where former Carpenter Nichols brought me into the air resources board to help Implement ab32, which is not just carbon pricing but a whole Suite of other measures. Although there are any number of states as well as National level, as well as multi, you know, multi-nation trading system regimes. They've been a little bit late in coming and haven't been
Distantly ambitious. And so, in addition to taking emissions, to zero with pricing mechanisms and standards and other regimes, we now find ourselves and the unenviable position of having to remove carbon from the atmosphere as well as eliminating emissions. So you're saying it's your fault that we have carbon. It is I it is entirely my fault. I I worked on systems that for whatever reasons resulted in big Active action problems and free ridership problems.
So yes it's my fault and so it's a / it's entirely appropriate now that I'm working on the removal piece, I'd love to hear more about that. What kind of collective action problems and free? Ridership problems. Did you encounter and how might someone working in this space? Now try to avoid that and I realized is it higher show on
its own, really? It's a great question and somebody actually, very, very smart and the UK during a webinar earlier this morning sort of pose the same question, It's like if we can't get all nations to agree to join in a global carbon pricing system where we impose a price on fossil Laden, fuels and reward fossil free Endeavors. What makes us think that we can somehow create a commensurate system for removal which because although there's excess CO2 in
the atmosphere. It's much more diffuse and takes a lot more energy. To try to pull it back down to earth, than just capturing it at the sort of end of pipe flue gas stream. What makes us think that we're going to be more successful. That, and my short answer is
that. I tend to be a bit of an optimist and I look at what people said 30 and 40 years ago about solar and what they said about ATVs and now you know, musk oscillates as being one of the wealthiest people in the world because He's designed something fabulous that people want to drive and it has that added benefit of not releasing
any tailpipe emissions. And I am not going to say that that Society should innovate its way out of problems because sometimes when we innovate, we create new problems for ourselves. Right? You know, fossil eliminated horse manure on the streets, created climate change in the process. But that being said, when I look at people such as Noah died Chand ji on Amador and Patron. Matt Rogers, who invented the nest thermostat? I am eternally optimistic.
And I think one of the great things about carbon removal that we don't talk about very often is that we can create carbon devalue. And I know that's a topic.
That's very popular among your listeners and many are engaged in that, but it's a narrative that I find creates a lot of Hope for people, that we can bring CO2 back down to earth, and either lock it up permanently or that we can turn it into really You know, cool things that's not carbon - it's sort of carbon circular, but it makes people feel much more in control of a problem that otherwise seems almost hopeless.
To stuff is a way of perhaps generalizing out from that, entrepreneurship and technological development is a potential solution to the collective action problems, basically policy. It's, what many, but yes, it is. And, you know, another is a Rich, Innovation environment. And of course I've, you know, lamented for years. The fact that the u.s. spends more on potato chips and it does on rd&d and there is that big valley of death.
But I'm cautiously optimistic now that this new incoming Administration, particularly looking at the new Biden Harris, budget numbers, and I will fly again. Excellent blog that Gianna published today on it. Recognizes the Importance of supporting early stage technology, such as director capture to bring them down the cost curve. But I think, you know, government rd&d as well as entrepreneurship are two Pathways that have incubated any number of great breakthroughs.
And I'm cautiously optimistic that we can do the same here. We've had so many pessimists on lately chance. Oh, thanks for sticking your neck out. I'm usually a Debbie Downer. I don't know. Yeah, we've been wanting to do an episode about what is happening with the Biden Administration and carbon removal. This might be a good chance for us to open that topic up. Some, what are you seeing?
Well, I'm absolutely delighted that so many of our top, former grantees and partners and others have been appointed to really important posts in the Biden Administration. And I won't say that that has anything to do with their affiliation as former Grant. Use of climate works.
I think it's just that they were standouts in the field to begin with, but it's delightful to see them sprinkle throughout the Biden, Harris Administration, and creating a whole-of-government approach to thinking about removal. Let's, uh, let's talk about the American jobs plan and what we're seeing in there. What? You're looking forward to some good things about 45 q and their, yes. You know we're very optimistic about 45 Q is and you know so we can talk about sort of executive
Branch action. We can talk about developments on the hill. I think in sort of looking at the Biden Harris climate, agenda as a whole first, you have to look at the executive orders that came out in January. The most recent stimulus that was passed, the December stimulus, which contained all kinds of fabulous, Provisions for director capture, even though it was still the Biden
Harris transition. At the time, the American jobs plan and then most recently, the Biden budget and when You look at those things, those measures as a whole, they are poised to make historic strides on climate writ, large, particularly climate mitigation, but also elevating Justice and labor as part and parcel of climate progress in a way that I've never seen before. So that's historic.
But I also think that it's, you know, it's very remarkable putting the executive orders aside to look at the degree of ambition, coming out of goe and I don't think, A coincidence.
They have their first female Deputy in the office of fossil energy, dr. Jenn Wilcox, whose magnificent and we've seen announcements already out of goe for a hundred million dollars for deep decarbonization and Advanced Technologies as well as 24 million dollars for director capture applications that use less energy.
And as Gianna notes in her most recent blog, the Biden budget has also proposes additional funding for the office of fossil energy, as well as an Name change to the office of fossil energy and carbon management and funding specifically for deck. So that's very exciting. But, you know, the technological side of removal is just one part of the equation.
We're very excited to see Robert Bonnie back at the US, Department of Agriculture. He's a thought, leader in the space of carbon removal on the land side but he comes at it with a jobs lens primarily. So we're super excited to see 161 million dollars there for potential funding to make sure that the carbon that we're both mitigating and or avoiding as well, as removing from soil is more accurately measured reported and verified. That's very, very important.
And also demonstrates how the u.s. can model leadership in going into the international discussions on the NDC side, we have really good confidence about how much we can do on the B-side to meet our Paris commitments, but the natural side of the equation is always beset by greater scientific uncertainties about how much you're storing. And removing I'll just pause there for now. But we're also very excited about the appointments at the
department of interior. We see our partners on tribal lands as vital to carbon removal as well as attendant co-benefits in the form of freighter Forest Health and greater soil health. It did notice this and often times there's a split pose between these two camps of industrial carbon removal and ecological but it seems like the bind Administration is very all of the above which makes me wonder if that is actually true.
And what actually is not included in all of the above within their carbon removal plans, they just made a very very important appointment on oceans but our newest area Climate works of exploration. And again we're not necessarily proponents but we want to make sure that you know, when and where removal happens is very thoughtful and that the opportunities outweigh the challenges. And so as many of your listeners probably know and you must also know Ross, as we become more successful.
In removing carbon with technology and with trees and soils. Unfortunately, the ocean has been storing up a surplus of O2 and it's going to give some of that back and it's also suffering greatly from that additional CO2, in the form of acidification, which harms shellfish, and other marine life, and inevitably will also alter human livelihoods. Oh Jenna, you're supposed to be The Optimist here, but I'm waiting and hopeful that the
bind them. That, although the vitamin station, I think has a very deep bench of talent, both on the technological side and the natural side and the And we're also hoping to see equal levels of ambition on the ocean side. Hopefully, also around ocean removal. Climate Works has been funding, the National Academy of Sciences to complete a workshop on Ocean CDR. And we're very much looking forward to that publication. As a way of calling attention to that important topic as well.
Yeah, I can't wait to read that. That's fascinating. I think for a listeners, they probably know about the basics of blue carbon. We did what? An episode on whale carbon once upon a time. Once we've also done mangroves, I think people know about kelp farming and Marine permaculture but I think there are also some new Industrial Technologies for ocean capture that are coming down. The pike, is that right?
Well I like to think of them as natural because you know, the way that the earth and the oceans have managed, the oceans pH and I like to think of it as you know, the ocean is kind of analogous to, you know. Blood pH because it's where ultimately life all kind of came from but as rocks that are highly basic I rode from rainfall they I'm oversimplifying but you know they washed out to sea and there's a very complex mixing process that takes place.
But that material buffers, the oceans in the same way that taking a Tums helps to reduce a tummy ache. When one has ingested too much lemonade or something. And there are at least Least theoretically approaches to accelerate that process but in order to think about whether or not those approaches are going to be safe, it's important that academics in particular start to undertake any number of studies to see what happens when you accelerate that buffering
process. That being said, I will say that many oyster hatcheries along the Pacific coast are ready. Buffer, the water. Because otherwise the oyster shells will dissolve and we're already seeing those effects of acidification and the Dungeness crab populations along the west coast of California. So the ocean is becoming increasingly acidic owing to increasing CO2 levels. There are natural processes that can address that.
There are already some commercial processes, as I mentioned, an oyster hatcheries that need to be done to apply to
that. So one can set up experiments using oyster hatcheries for example, as a way of seeing whether Whether there are any unexpected challenges to marine life that occur from these processes, but as many listeners and Ross, you also know, there are some companies that are, you know, going out and looking to Olivine approaches and that is something that we're still several steps behind and funding basic, academic research to look what happens to the Marine
Aquatic Life. When you accelerate this natural process, Fantastic. I know there's a lot of work to be done, just on the basic research side on, so many things are thin. Carbon removal, is there not an analogous process happening in the oceans with direct are capture. Is there anyone working on large machines? That separate carbon dioxide from, I guess, ambient water. What even is the term for that?
Doesn't make sense in a knot? I've often wondered about that is that direct are capture if it's from the sea and I know Under the Sea fuels, act the Navy in particular had been exploring that as an approach, I believe in a way that's kind of analogous for the Long Haul aviation industry and thinking about extracting the CO2 and converting it into a fuel.
And so, there's the sea fuels act, I am not directly, aware of other approaches to directly remove CO2 from seawater, but I'm certain that there are any number and listeners are probably aware of those, but that is an area that we haven't yet moved into in our ocean, CD our strategy, just because it's hard. Enough to get our arms and Minds around ocean. Alkalinity enhancement. There's a nice little video explainer on our website that we've developed for that approach.
And we're also looking at the phenomena of growing additional seaweed and the question. They're being, does it really sink down to the bottom of the sea and store the carbon as it needs to or does it dissipate and not achieve that effect? So we're looking at seaweed and ocean alkalinity enhancement, first and foremost. And then Then we'll look to the other ocean approaches as time and resources. Permit is the jury still out for you about syncing kelp to the
seafloor. You know, we have a very deep bench of experts who are as one might expect divided on that question. And some say, yes, it does sink and permanently stay down there and and others are still wondering about the economics of how one does that cost effectively. But it does science isn't in question so much as the economics of it making sense. I think, I think they're still very open questions around both and more funding research to get greater Clarity and to both.
Hmm and making the ocean more basic, as opposed to pulling CO2 out. Are you adding some basic materials into the ocean, right? That's right. So you know I mean you know stripe is funding project Vesta to look at the Olivine Beach approach and there. We're we're just finding basic science using one of the green sand beaches in Hawaii as well as natural upwelling in the
Santa Barbara channel. So we're not creating an experimental intervention, we're just kind of using nature and looking to see whether enhancing alkalinity has any effects on music, azam's, in the sea. Hmm, and you're saying in the binary ministrations, plans, overall oceans, having yet featured prominently at least compared to a terrestrial or industrial. That's right, and That's not surprising. It's a very novel approach.
We started off this session by talking about how for years feels like an eternity and carbon removal. But I would say that, you know, with respect to oceans and the need to think about removal there for most of us that's been a, probably, a one and a half year Endeavor, that we've had to, you know, stand up very quickly.
But, you know, the Administration has appointed distinguished, Oregon, State University, professor and former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric, Aspheric Administration Jane lubchenco to a prominent position. So I think that's a very helpful start.
My Labor's understanding of this this very well might be not true and perhaps you can tell me if it is or not, but the ocean is a more Dynamic environment than a terrestrial one answer and is thus potentially harder to measure and quantify. Also the I'm coming from a place of working on soil for the last couple years, and also not easy. So no, no, it's not. Yeah. I completely agree with you.
The ocean is so incredibly Dynamic, you know, one could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on academic research and still not subtle all of the questions that need to be settled. And that is beyond climate philanthropies resource capabilities. And something that we hope, you know, Congress and coming appropriation Cycles will think about supporting.
Hmm, there's a chance that that alienates potentially more conservative, otherwise, Guys supporters of something like this or it gets enough buy-in from everyone because jobs and dealing with long-standing issues could potentially be popular. How do you think this will play out? I think if we're very thoughtful about the political economy of carbon removal, that it creates
a win-win for everyone. And so on the natural side, we've been very cautious in our grant-making to lead with Rural resilience as opposed to climate or carbon removal because that's the frame that land owners, land stewards tribal communities care about. They care about jobs and they care about food security and they care about viable uses of potentially uneconomic trees for Mass Timber. And on the technological side, our grantees have done.
I think a masterful job of working in close partnership. Ship with the steel workers and other unionized groups to think about the potential job benefits of scaling, a director capture industry for example. So again, I think if it's approached in a thoughtful way it could be very powerful. You know. One of the things that we like to talk about in California is yes, you know. Let's keep fossil in the ground, but let's put those fossil workers to work. Taking carbon out of the air and
putting it back in the ground. Where up Yawns. Hmm, you think that the focus on jobs and job seems like the top level keyword. I'm picking up in a lot of this B Administration chatter. That is maybe a unifying approach to many of these things. That's how I see it. I to me if it I spent a kind of cut my teeth in Washington for many, many years working for someone who now is back in the Biden, White House, who coined the popular clinton-era phrase, It's the economy stupid.
And you know, I II still Ragin Cajun by chance. If people can't meet basic needs and have secure, well, compensated employment, it's very very hard to get their attention around any other top and pressing priorities including climate. Hmm. Insofar as you can say have the experiences that you've had with unions been supported of a transition length. You know, on the director capture side.
Absolutely, I think our grantees have done a masterful work in creating Partnerships with various Union groups and I think that that is unique because one of the challenges that we encountered a years ago with that round of stimulus is is that historically at least the wind and solar jobs, solar particular have been less unionized whereas if one were to build out Director capture ecosystem.
Well would imagine that that steel workers and pipefitters and other traditional unionized Industries would potentially stand to benefit and there's a very nice rhodium study that quantifies job creation potential. There was a really super panel that took place yesterday. I think by the Energy Futures initiative with former Energy, Secretary Moniz and are and a deep deep bench of of Union and other. Representatives on the Innovation agenda and so I'm hopeful.
What do you think are some of the lessons from might want to put words in your mouth Jam but I think since Kyoto or Inconvenient Truth or some of those earlier at least for my generation climate moments what went wrong during those times or wasn't successful enough such that we're here now and what should we learn from that time period and moving forward. That's a great question and it's one that keeps me up at night.
Having lived through those times as well as well as, you know being at the epicenter of trying to create a an economy-wide price on carbon and watching It. Ultimately that moment evaporate. Yeah sorry I didn't ask you an easy one. Oh no. I don't want someone asking me this in 20 years. So I mean I you know, clearly at the end of the day, Say, it comes down to who pays who benefits.
I think carbon removal may be one of those opportunities where you know the global North probably will need to bear, the cost of creating the tools and rules to pull carbon back down out of the atmosphere. And then deploy at much lower cost. Since it bought, these approaches down the cost curve, whether they're mrv for soil, or the price of director capture So that they're available to the
whole world. But also, I can Envision a system where, you know, those who admitted most mitigate the most and also bear the share of removal. It has eternally sort of split over that question of who admitted the most, and who is most responsible for both eliminating and mitigating emissions. But now also removing them. Yeah. It's a hard question. It seems like the kind Common Sense. Justice concern is that if you make a mess, you should be the one to clean it up, right?
Exactly, exactly. And I we've done okay, on, you know, bringing dramatically down the cost of wind and solar in part because our partners and China. Did a very, very good job of driving down the cost of solar panels, but here in the United States, and in Germany, we adopted feed-in tariffs and renewable portfolio, standards and I I'm very optimistic that we could do the same thing with
carbon removal. And once we drive down the costs of those rules and tools, it makes it much more palatable for, you know the public sector to then Implement programs and policies to bear the cost of that. Hmm. My admittedly basic understanding of the solar cost curve is that Germany's various types of subsidies really helped that go in addition to basic research from the Us and elsewhere is that broadly would
happen. And you think something similar might happen for developing carbon removal Technologies in the u.s., I hope so. I hope so. Yeah, then with research like this being done funded by the government because it typically come out as non-proprietary, anyone can use it and build a business around it. Or is that understanding wrong? I think that understanding is
correct. Okay. Yeah, you know I mean, the interesting thing and I don't want to oversimplify this Julio Friedman, and John Wilcox, and others can do a much better job on this. But I think, you know, one of the beauties of carbon removal is that it's fairly low Tech, right? I mean, you know, a director capture can be dry, sorban can be wet torben. There are advances that we can make on, you know, the sorbent materials and chemistry's.
We can certainly figure out much better ways to make them use, less energy energetically, it takes a lot of power to pull something. That's very diffuse in the atmosphere into a filter where it's Trapped, but this isn't a fusion reactor, right? And trees are very basic technology. The soil issue is tough just because soil the heterogeneity issues of soil bearing from 11 m to the next. But these are all sort of surmountable they're not wickedly hard problems.
And so the point of that is that I'm you know, I'm not convinced that there are that many breakthroughs that we need. I think we mostly on the land side. They're going to be Very thorny governance, questions associated with the amount of trees. We need to reforest and a forest and how that collides with other land uses.
Such as farming or indigenous dwellings on the technological side, they're going to be governance issues as well to be sure but as I said you know, these are lower Tech relative to some other types of applications. And so I think that we can drive the cost down. And primarily by scaling and learning by doing. You're making me feel so good right now with you're not being a wicked problem or set of wicked problems, not that many
breakthroughs required. We have had so many doors shows lately Jan, this is feeling like a breath of fresh air. Thank you sure. Given that you've worked so much on carbon pricing the hope of a carbon tax or a fee and dividend, was that this would be used the best of the market and
Isis to get action on climate. It would be appealing to people who are more right of Center. It would also have climate impacts which would be conventionally left of center but some people worried that it wouldn't have enough by in. There's not this focus on jobs and Equity that I think the by demonstration is really trying to get enough like emotional
attachment. Almost carbon pricing seems really thin and almost them that an economist would like, but maybe the average person finds really dating and talking to people inside the enough. But Yeah, that's right wildly. But do you think what do you think about that? Is that right? I think that carbon pricing is not in Vogue in the United States, to be sure.
And I also believe that because Justice groups were not brought to the table or early on in some places, around discussions pertaining to offsets that was a dreadful Dreadful missed opportunity and it has cast a shadow over carbon pricing. Efforts. I think there's also a sense that a carbon price is inadequate to drive deep decarbonization. And I think what that means is that if you have a carbon price, you have to set it very, very high to incent the types of things that we need.
I mean, if you took away, 45 Q in the low carbon fuel standard, you'd have to set a price of six hundred dollars a ton to do deck, right? Carbon pricing has this Goldilocks problem. No one wants the price to go too high. No one was surprised to go too low so you have to bring in all these other quote-unquote complementary measures. As we do in California, we have
a low carbon fuel standard. We have price on carbon, we have any number of other approaches designed to incent deployment of Technologies, such as UVS wind and solar. So carbon pricing is not having a moment in the United States but it is the EU ETS has just entered. Its second phase, incorporating Lessons Learned From initial design. Just, um, China's going doubling
down on carbon pricing. And so, I'm not advocating for carbon pricing, but I think a challenge is that, in the absence of a price, I see the debate in the climate Community, as devolving into madisonian infections. And so we have these groups that champion one form of technology or one form of removal approach over others. And it's just a waste of time and energy. As far as I'm concerned, we need everything we have to stop fighting each other. Each other over whether natural
is better than technological. Whether certain types of natural removal approaches are superior to others. It's just such a waste. It's like, and it's a distraction from actually making progress on the climate challenge. The clock is ticking. Wow. Did you just complain about the fights over industrial versus ecological carbon removal and bring up The Federalist Papers in a single comment? Are you just pandering to me / our audience?
Sorry, so I think that's what you lose when you have a price on carbon because the price sort of make its technology agnostic. And if you take that away then when you get into these endless spats on Twitter and elsewhere we try to rise above it. We started with soil for our first methodology with u.s. crop lands but we ultimately want to support carbon removal. So long as it's ethical and credible and we want to support methodologies from many many, many different places.
I don't know. How should we be thinking about that? Sounds like you're validating our instincts, a little bit to stay out of some of these fights because they do get quite nasty. And I'm not always sure how productive they are exactly. I mean I just think we need everything and the kitchen sink at this point. I just really do think it is a waste of time and everyone's energy to argue about it and I think sometimes it may be masked
as a time and resource question. I think people worry that if too much Attention is paid to removal than mitigation will suffer. If too much attention, is paid to Renewables than preserving the existing nuclear Fleet will suffer. And again, we need all of it.
And I feel fairly optimistic that if we put our minds to something such as a vaccine for covid, we can get it done in a fairly short time frame, we just demonstrated that and I feel the same That should be the one great takeaway for the climate challenge. You say that, but I saw him the other day that had a West Side. Story photo and said, when the moderna gang sees the Pfizer boys. Something there is something about that though.
I think I usually attribute this more to humanity than to the actual arena in which is this technology. It's us, you know, we like very, very, very clever. And I always like to think back to, you know, 2001 and the bone. It can be a tool. It can also be a weapon but, you know, we figured out how to pick up and use it so that we could eat. But then we also learn how to whack each other over the head with it. And I'm not a technological Optimist, I'm a humanist.
Interesting, what do you think's going to happen in the next couple of years? Any wild irresponsible predictions. You'd like to make Well in the next couple of years, I feel as though we could go into International conversations with renewed ambition around the
urgency of these problems. I've been in this environmental space as I said, almost 30 years and so when I started I focused mostly on traditional pollution problems and things addressed, by the Clean Air Act, the Safe, Drinking Water Act, Act toxics and The Endangered Species Act. And so I will just say that when I was a child growing up in California, owing to DDT, I didn't know what a pelican looked like and because of wailing, I never saw a gray whales and we put rules very
stringent rules and tools in place to bring back those endangered. Populations and Pelicans are ubiquitous now and we're doing a pretty good job with the Condor and Tribal communities in California are reintroducing them to their lands. And so, you know, I do feel like when we, when we have a challenge, we typically know how to face it. But the problem with climate is that it's largely invisible, an indicator species is is a lot
more visceral for people. The polar bear hasn't quite worked as well as, you know, sort of the climate species. But we are now seeing directly. I think globally, the impacts of climate is having and even I'm sort of a staunch conservative communities, they need and I'll call it climate but they know something's happening to their soil. They know the nights are getting warmer buds aren't setting when they're supposed to their minds are flooding.
And so, when we start to feel the problem, viscerally, we typically do act. I think that's right. I hope you are. Right. That, that time is coming. Where do you think climate
Works? Fits into this mix The beauty of climate works is that, you know, we try to catalyze endowed philanthropies to you know, free more resources to tackle the climate crisis and we do that in a variety of different ways, some of which focus on really thorny decarbonization challenges around, you know, Transportation, we've made great strides on V's, but what do we do about Freight? What do we do about On call Aviation, what do we do about
shipping. So those are areas where my talented colleagues helped to create awareness, develop strategies to excite, philanthropies to put more resources into the space. And so, I think that we will continue doing what we do. I feel uniquely privileged that our funder Partners decided to enable climate Works, to create a carbon dioxide removal strategy and build the field. Old. I think that was incredibly
Visionary and courageous. And I feel so honored to to lead the work on the behalf of our partner philanthropies.
It's scary for some traditional climate funders to look at the space because particularly in Europe, there's so much concern about moral hazard but for the newer funders that are coming into this space new high net worth individuals, they really want to go to carbon removal because they see it as an under resource area and You know, we help to Marshal data and other statistics to help them understand, just how terribly under resource did is and grow new funders into the space.
So that's what we do. And that's how we look to kick-start progress, carbon removal in the United States. Certainly since the ipcc 1.5 degrees Celsius report pretty mainstream. At this point, it feels like here, but the people I know in Europe that I speak with they have an entirely different experience.
You have any idea why that might be That's a great question and you know, I think it's multifaceted, you know, on the one hand they are not as technologically optimistic as we are in the US. Perhaps I think that's one piece of it. I also think that our colleagues in Europe are very, very passionate about the role that natural solutions can play in carbon removal but they They worry that corporations and fossil producers in particular will use carbon removal to avoid, phasing out fossil
extraction and they're deeply. Deeply concerned about that. Do you think those concerns are? Well, placed or overstated? Because I lack the unique vantage point of sitting in Europe and observing industry Behavior. It's harder for me to say, I do know that at my partners who operate any number of decks startups, this is no secret to them, but I would prefer to think about Aviation and other sectors scaling director capture.
I would rather see, you know, grow houses, scale director capture then Director capture be used for enhanced oil recovery. I know that narrative was very popular with the previous administration but it did a lot of damage. I think the perception of Deck with the base and I think that the Europeans were looking at that very carefully and felt skeptical about that as well. Who exactly was that supposed to appeal to, I guess the oil and gas companies?
People Roughnecks, I guess they probably liked the eor carbon removal angle. I try to be optimistic about that one. Just thinking that, that making money off of this is not the greatest place to end, but it might be an okay place to start. But then other people like David Roberts was on the show and thought that you might extend the lifespan of these industries in this Pursuit for an extra decade or something. Yeah. And that's I think that's the primary concern of our
colleagues across the pond. Yeah well then you yeah hmm I feel like people don't really like oil companies in the United States very much either though, mortal. And, you know, I think if one were clever, you know, one could construct a kind of a quid pro quo regulation, you know, that's what the toxic substances Control Act banned substances that were harmful to humans and, you know, driving diminished populations of animal species and sometimes it really does
take a carrot and a stick. And so, you know, I don't think it has to be moral hazard. I think that there would there could conceivably be ways where you incent Dak by putting a binding requirement on fossil extraction numbers and you you don't need to retrain an oil worker. Who's been taking oil out of the ground too much? I don't think and I maybe I'm getting way out of my depth here to harness the same infrastructure to take CO2 and
stick it back in the ground. Just not force does not use the CO2 for cor back up. So are you favorably disposed towards something like a carbon take back obligation on its relatively new to me, but it could be as simple as if you mobilize a ton of carbon dioxide you must demobilize a ton of carbon dioxide. That's if you're going to use it
at all dramatic. Yeah. Yeah. He just like it say yes let's do it. Well I you know I think about something you know a little bit more you know Draconian where it's Where you don't have license to continue to pollute, but it's more the atonement of past emissions, right? So, it would be a carbon take back obligation but for your historic emissions as well, right? Yeah. I mean, that Microsoft had in that direction. That's right.
Imagine others will be to God. Some of those companies that are highly admitted, that sounds ownerís of that was on your balance sheet. It might just crush your company, though. I think. Well, not if you could set up a system that would compensate you for doing it. Yeah, that's true. People also complain about that too and that some of the complaints are ill-founded but that they're going to make money off of cleaning up their past mistakes. Jan, I thought you cared about Justice.
How could you support that? Well, I don't think necessarily if the jobs go to Frontline communities and that activity is done in. To a way where it doesn't pose disproportionate risks to the workers in that sector that it would necessarily be unjust, right?
If we took the entire sort of petrochemicals industry in Texas, and Louisiana, and overtime converted it from an extractive production industry into one that takes CO2 out of the atmosphere, turns it into products and where appropriate locks it away and geologic. Formations, I don't necessarily see that as being being a bad thing. I also keep seeing discussion of carbon removal and Frontline communities especially from carbon 180.
This your brother come back on for an update to, it's been a while. Did you maybe some up? What? Exactly people mean by that? And what the relation between these two things are our experience with the cabin traits estimate.
And with offsets, as I mentioned earlier, in our conversation, led us to understand that the more groups that are at the table At the early stage of a conversation about the climate intervention, I think the greater likelihood that the intervention will actually translate into action.
And so carbon 180 has been working with any number of Frontline communities, to start to build those bridges and provide resources and multiple languages, so that we can hopefully create more or voices in the carbon removal conversation and also build greater understanding of the perceived opportunities and challenges associated with removal. I don't think I asked you that many easy questions a day Jan know, you have it? That was a softball. That was a softball. Yeah. All right.
Yeah. We're very, we're very proud of carbon 180s work in that space because it started in 2019 and wasn't just the work was well underway before the events of last year. Certainly wise now, Carbone 80 has had a lot of leadership in the kinds of conversations that happen within carbon removal. And I think they're a great place for people to Oh, and catch up on that too because I think linking environmental justice and carbon removal. I'm from before carbon 180 started, dealing with it.
I don't know, I guess Holly Gene bucks been on that for a long time. I suppose she has and our partner at climate Works whose with climate and land, use Alliance Tracy. John's has been making, I think very important grants to youth voices, we're planning a workshop. With representatives from indigenous communities and has been funding other groups worldwide. And with the point of bringing other voices, into this dialogue, which is really
important. So I would say that it's imperative on the land conversation, particularly, as well as on the technological side, beyond the basic, pretty obvious concerns that carbon removal if not done correctly. A could actively harm people. So set that one aside for a
second. I think there's also a really big risk if carbon removal isn't done properly that, for instance, I think it's safe to say that red plus and avoided deforestation does not have a sterling reputation and at least part of it is because of some of the land use issues in the global South and the interactions between indigenous peoples and those policies. And we don't want to Annette could discredit for a long time. Quite a lot with, in carbon removal in that same kind of way.
Is that, is that a correct way of understanding this to yes. When we first created this carbon removal portfolio, we brought together any number of representatives from our Global Network and I remember hearing a very Vivid presentation from one of our colleagues in Brazil and he said, look, we don't want to
be your Your sink. Whether it's, you know, for avoided emissions avoided, deforestation or a forestation vis-à-vis, Carver removal, and that stuck with me ever since because I realized the enormity of the challenge. And I think people who have been working for years and years just on the avoided, deforestation peace with all of the complexities around communities that rely on the forests and the lands for their livelihood. It's a very tough challenge.
Generally sitting in the global North to go to the global South and tell people how their land can and can't be used. It's a very thorny and vexing Challenge. And so one of the ways in which followed to be addresses, It Is by a very decentralized, Global Network of grant-making to get a better understanding of needs on the ground, but that's highly imperfect. Well, sure.
And, and even if we take it out of that context, you know, look what's happening and Wales. Or farmers are being told that they need to give up some of their agricultural land for reforestation. It's not being well received hmm, if those stakeholders were brought in earlier as you've alluded to a few times, do you think we would have done things with them differently or we have chosen approaches that wouldn't
have included them at all? If they were brought in earlier we probably would have not chosen approaches that they would find. It would have taken a lot longer to get to the solution because it would have been a lot more discussion but I don't think that any of these Solutions can be imposed by sort of Fiat or eminent domain right there will
be a terrible backlash. Just look at the protest, the the yellow vests protests in France, for instance, Yeah, that did not seem really go very well. Yeah, I think so that validates. As far as I can tell the by the administration's thesis of focusing on jobs, getting by, in having these conversations having a eminent place for justice discussions in all of this. So, it seems like some of these lessons have been learned.
It seems like it is, you know, we, there's always, there's always so much more room for learning for growth For improvement as the events of last year and ongoing events are demonstrating. I think it takes 250 times of repeating, something for the average, human brain to learn something. So, progress is slow, and sometimes we slip backwards, but I think broadly in looking at any number of advancements that we've made around Public Health eliminating or driving down steep.
Lee certain forms of disease nutrition. The overall trajectory is upward, that's a good place to start wrapping up Jan, if someone wants to follow your work and that of climate Works, how should they do? So they can go to our website. We have a landing page on the carbon dioxide removal program where we post blogs grantee reports and you know other pithy items and and on occasion we also Host, webinars and other Outreach activities.
Pretty nice. Well, thanks so much for being here with me. I'm so happy that we have your brain working on carbon and I'm so happy that we have yours. Thank you for the very thoughtful questions. I really appreciate it. I very much enjoyed our conversation. Me too. If you're listening and you also enjoyed it, please give us a great rating and review on iTunes or apple podcasts. It means a lot to us. Helps us get conversations like
this to a greater audience. Audience and thank you so much for listening. Thank you so much for listening. If you like the show, please rate and review it in apple podcast and or Stitcher. It really helps us a lot to get this content to a wider audience. If you think what we're doing is useful, interesting fun. Hopefully, all three, we certainly appreciate your rating and review. You can keep up with Nori at nor e.com, where there is a newsletter that's nor e.com.
Subscribe, there's podcast. There's a whole bunch else or you can send us an email at Podcast at nor e.com. We are also now on patreon at patreon.com slash Nori podcasts, if you'd like more content engagement and community and thank you so much for your support.