You’ve been shaping carbon removal policy since before it was even part of the national conversation – from co-founding Carbon180 to now leading the Carbon Removal Alliance. How has the narrative around carbon removal evolved since those early days, and what still feels misunderstood about this space?
When we started Carbon180, carbon removal was a single sentence in the IPCC’s fifth assessment report — a simple recognition that we had emitted so much carbon into the atmosphere that we needed to clean up billions of tons of it. That fact had yet to break through into the mainstream climate conversation, but as we began to outline the role of carbon removal in our climate strategy, we were met with confusion, skepticism, and to be honest, distrust.
Since then, carbon removal has become a core pillar of our climate strategy, alongside emissions reductions and adaptation efforts. We’ve seen thousands of companies launched to develop new technologies, billions of dollars in global RD&D funding, and a robust civil society to help guide the field. The conversation has shifted from “what is carbon removal and why do we need it?” to “how do we develop and deploy carbon removal — at scale, at cost, and with a high degree of credibility?” — which is an exciting place to be.
As the field matures and more projects come online, there is still a lot more education to be done. Efforts are needed to emphasize the diversity of carbon removal approaches, better substantiate non-climate co-benefits, and answer tough questions about MRV, market structure, and incentives.
The Carbon Removal Alliance has become a leading voice in Washington, connecting carbon removal experts with policymakers. What have you learned about getting people on different sides of the aisle to work together on such a technical and complex issue?
Carbon removal is a unique beast in Washington. It has experienced quite a bit of historic bipartisan support in the United States, largely because of the similarities between DAC and traditional carbon management technologies. These synergies meant that in just a decade, we went from zero carbon removal funding to billions of dollars in RD&D funding, tax credits, and government procurement.
These policies were passed with the support of less than a dozen Congressional champions and levels of funding still lag orders of magnitudes behind other climate solutions like solar and wind energy. To unlock the next generation of carbon removal policies, we need to take carbon removal out of the climate math and into the real world.
At CRA, that means connecting carbon removal to issues that are top of mind for members of Congress and their constituents — topics like energy availability, job creation, agricultural productivity, wildfire management, American competitiveness, and clean air and water. We bring members of Congress out to real carbon removal facilities, publish fact sheets on cutting edge work happening in states across the US, and highlight the economic impact of carbon removal deployments across the US. The more carbon removal is seen in partnership with other efforts, the faster we can move.
You helped secure major milestones like funding for DAC hubs and the first federal carbon removal research program. Looking ahead, what do you see as the next big policy lever needed to take carbon removal to full-scale deployment?
Carbon removal is unique because there isn’t a preexisting or incumbent market for companies to access. The voluntary market currently has low willingness-to-pay and limited buyers interested in carbon removal (as opposed to traditional avoidance or reduction offsets). That poses all kinds of challenges for technology development and project finance today, but long-term, it risks stunting deployment and missing the gigaton scale required by climate math.
Policy is needed to help generate that demand for these companies and that likely won’t be just one policy, but rather a patchwork of policies that together can encourage deployment. Some of that may come in the form of compliance markets, others in price subsidies or incentives for voluntary markets, pay-for-practice schemes, and industrial integrations.
There’s often tension between speed and standards in climate tech — the desire to deploy quickly versus the need for rigor and trust. From your perspective, how can the industry strike the right balance?
Carbon removal is in its “build era”. Many companies are building first- or second-of-a-kind facilities that secure critical learnings, drive down costs, and build social acceptance and trust. This kind of learning-by-doing cannot be underestimated. At the same time, it’s important that these projects are high-quality and instill trust in the carbon removal field long-term. If not, there’s a risk that we create technological or market lock-in for uncredible technologies or chill investment and purchases indefinitely.
That being said, I think the carbon removal industry sees standards and oversight as a key foundational element for the carbon removal market. The carbon removal industry should:
- Consistently update standards and best practices as new real-world lessons are learned
- Be honest and transparent when projects might make concessions today for near-term deployments (e.g. around feedstocks or renewable energy availability)
- Work with academics, quality assurance providers, rigorous verifiers, and other partners to validate their efforts.
- Collaborate across the carbon removal field to encourage consistency
There’s no way that we’ll get carbon removal 100% right out of the gate — it’s more important that we create systems that reward good actors, allow for learning, and encourage transparency.
What inspired you to join Absolute Climate’s advisory board, and how do you see your experience in coalition-building and policy shaping helping to strengthen the foundation for a more trusted carbon removal market?
Peter Minor is the smartest person I know and has assembled an incredible team. I often turn to them for feedback, new ideas, and good conversation so I’ll take any opportunity to work more closely with them! Absolute Climate is doing work that is critical to the long-term success of the carbon removal field — no market, customer, or demand lever can exist without standards and trust.
From my perch, I’m excited to work with Absolute on harnessing the expertise and experience of the US federal government in setting and enforcing standards, as well ensuring that new carbon removal policies are designed to reward credible actors. There is a long history of the US federal government serving as a key partner in regulating and overseeing markets like this one. For example, the Department of Energy has helped administer programs like Energy Star for household appliances and the Security Exchange Commission (SEC) provides oversight for the financial industry. It will be critical to learn from these experiences and ensure there’s strong communication between the government and private sector on carbon removal. Together, the public and private sector can create a more effective, scalable market.
