Recently, I attended my first Carbon Unbound conference in New York, where I spent more time than I usually do talking about carbon markets with companies and buyers.
I couldn't agree more that it's critical to differentiate contributory purchases that intend primarily to advance the sector (e.g. Stripe, Shopify) from compensatory purchases that intend primarily to balance out emissions. The two goals require different approaches – and desire different results. It was so fun seeing you (and your daughter) at Unbound – hope we get to catch up again soon :)
100%. I think both approaches have their merits, but we shouldn’t conflate them. Especially when we’re at the beginning of the carbon removal field and what we do now will have an outsized impact on how the field grows.
I think about the 45Q tax credit as an example, where it’s had such a huge influence for so long in shaping ideas about carbon removal policy. We didn’t choose to focus on 45Q in 2015 because it was the best possible policy for carbon removal; we chose it because there were like 3 people spending any time at all on CDR policy in the US and there was already a bill moving to make changes to 45Q so it was the path of least resistance. My point isn’t to criticize 45Q or our decisions back then, but to emphasize that what we prioritize in the early stages of a field has a way of really fundamentally shaping the next decade or more of that field. We have the capacity to get it right in a way that we honestly didn’t have in 2015.
Agree that public policy needs to lead on CDR. Until then, the private sector is doing its best to fill the void and move the needle. There needs to be a much broader front than DAC, BECCS and biochar. Eg: We don't have the luxury of continuing to come up with excuses to ignore mCDR and the largest C reservoir on the Earth's surface.
Hi Greg — I certainly don’t mean this as a criticism of what the private sector is doing. To be honest, in many ways, they’re doing more on carbon removal than we have any right to expect of them, given the state of policy.
I do think it’s important, however, to understand the differences between approaches the private sector is taking in investing in carbon removal and to not conflate them. And then to not assume that market-based policies are the path to gigaton scale just because we’ve seen the benefits of voluntary purchases.
I couldn't agree more that it's critical to differentiate contributory purchases that intend primarily to advance the sector (e.g. Stripe, Shopify) from compensatory purchases that intend primarily to balance out emissions. The two goals require different approaches – and desire different results. It was so fun seeing you (and your daughter) at Unbound – hope we get to catch up again soon :)
100%. I think both approaches have their merits, but we shouldn’t conflate them. Especially when we’re at the beginning of the carbon removal field and what we do now will have an outsized impact on how the field grows.
I think about the 45Q tax credit as an example, where it’s had such a huge influence for so long in shaping ideas about carbon removal policy. We didn’t choose to focus on 45Q in 2015 because it was the best possible policy for carbon removal; we chose it because there were like 3 people spending any time at all on CDR policy in the US and there was already a bill moving to make changes to 45Q so it was the path of least resistance. My point isn’t to criticize 45Q or our decisions back then, but to emphasize that what we prioritize in the early stages of a field has a way of really fundamentally shaping the next decade or more of that field. We have the capacity to get it right in a way that we honestly didn’t have in 2015.
It was so fun to meet up in NYC!
Agree that public policy needs to lead on CDR. Until then, the private sector is doing its best to fill the void and move the needle. There needs to be a much broader front than DAC, BECCS and biochar. Eg: We don't have the luxury of continuing to come up with excuses to ignore mCDR and the largest C reservoir on the Earth's surface.
Hi Greg — I certainly don’t mean this as a criticism of what the private sector is doing. To be honest, in many ways, they’re doing more on carbon removal than we have any right to expect of them, given the state of policy.
I do think it’s important, however, to understand the differences between approaches the private sector is taking in investing in carbon removal and to not conflate them. And then to not assume that market-based policies are the path to gigaton scale just because we’ve seen the benefits of voluntary purchases.
And we’re huge fans of mCDR at Carbon180. We actually just released our 2030 policy roadmap on mCDR (https://carbon180.org/blog/road-to-2030-a-plan-for-scaling-ocean-carbon-removal/) and helped write and get a bipartisan, bicameral introduction for the first-ever mCDR bill earlier this year (https://carbon180.org/blog/first-marine-cdr-focused-bill-introduced-in-congress/).