Podcasts about beccs

Beccs Riley influenced politisch, berät systemisch, und gründete Minzgespinst – und kennt die alltägliche Aufzug-Absurdität an großen Bahnhöfen nur zu gut. Beccs kann in zehn Minuten ein komplettes Make-up zaubern und brennt für Sprachen – ganz egal ob Programmiersprachen, Mongolisch oder sogar Elbisch.Ich will von Beccs wissen: Wie schaffen wir wirklich inklusive Teams, ohne nur halbherzige Lösungen zu basteln, wie zum Beispiel Lego-Rampen? Wir sprechen darüber, warum Resilienz nichts mit „einfach härter sein“ zu tun hat, sondern sichere Räume und gelebte Solidarität braucht.Und wir bleiben optimistisch: „Die beste Rache ist ein gutes Leben“, sagt Beccs. In diesem Sinne – Aufzugtür auf für Beccs Riley!Beccs Empfehlung: unverschämt unbequem Podcast, Caliban und die Hexe, I Hope We Choose LoveDiese Folge wurde dir präsentiert von Schindler Aufzüge. Willst du noch mehr über Aufzüge erfahren und vielleicht mit uns ganz nach oben fahren, dann steig gern ein. Unter schindler.de/karriere findest du viele Möglichkeiten für Einsteiger und Senkrechtstarter.Steady: So kannst du meine Arbeit unterstützenHier findest du mehr über mich: WebsiteInstagramTwitterLinkedInDieser Podcast ist eine Produktion von Schønlein MediaProduktion und Schnitt: Tim RodenkirchenCoverart: Amadeus Fronk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Diese Woche mit Verena Kern und Susanne Schwarz Anfang der Woche hätten die Vertragsstaaten des Paris-Abkommens ihre Klimapläne für das Jahr 2035 einreichen müssen. Nur 13 von 195 Ländern hielt die Abgabefrist ein. Große Emittenten wie China, Japan, Indien, aber auch die EU fehlen bislang. Vor fünf Jahren, als die Klimapläne für 2030 vorgelegt werden mussten, war die Bilanz allerdings noch schlechter. Der Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) hält die Folgen der Erderhitzung für eine der fünf großen externen Bedrohungen für Deutschland. Die Klimakrise sei ähnlich gefährlich wie der Terrorismus oder ein "aggressiv-expansives" Russland. So die Risikoabschätzung, die Geheimdienst, Bundeswehr, Auswärtiges Amt sowie Forschungsinstitute gemeinsam erstellt haben. Es ist der erste Bericht dieser Art. Welche Länder weltweit am stärksten von Klimarisiken betroffen sind, zeigt der neue Klima-Risiko-Index von Germanwatch - mit überraschenden Ergebnissen. Für die Pariser Klimaziele muss neben einer schnellen Reduktion des Treibhausgas-Ausstoßes auch CO2 wieder aus der Atmosphäre geholt werden. Eine Möglichkeit ist eine Technik namens BECCS. Das Kürzel steht für "Bio-Energie mit CCS" - man baut Pflanzen mit schnellem Wachstum an, verbrennt sie, bindet das freigesetzte CO2 und speichert es. Allerdings: Das Potenzial dieser Methode ist nicht sehr groß, zeigt nun eine neue Studie. -- Das klima update° wird jede Woche von Spender:innen unterstützt. Wenn auch du dazu beitragen willst, geht das HIER https://www.verein-klimawissen.de/spenden. Wir danken hier und jetzt - aber auch noch mal namentlich im Podcast (natürlich nur, wenn ihr zustimmt).

Editor's note: In honor of all the frying oil we'll be using this Thanksgiving, we're re-running an episode on biowaste. There's also increasing investment in biofuels from oil majors, especially for sustainable aviation fuel. So we're revisiting an episode with Julio Friedmann, chief scientist at Carbon Direct, on the possibilities and perils of using biowaste for biofuels.  Biomass. It's the organic matter in forests, agriculture and trash. You can turn it into electricity, fuel, plastic and more. And you can engineer it to capture extra carbon dioxide and sequester it underground or at the bottom of the ocean.  The catch: The world has a finite capacity for biomass production, so every end use competes with another. If done improperly, these end uses could also compete with food production for arable land already in tight supply. So which decarbonization solutions will get a slice of the biomass pie? Which ones should? In this episode, Shayle talks to Julio Friedmann, chief scientist at Carbon Direct. They cover biomass sources from municipal solid waste to kelp. They also survey the potential end-uses, such as incineration to generate power, gasification to make hydrogen, and pyrolyzation to make biochar, as well as fuel production in a Fischer-Tropsch process.  In a report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Julio and his co-authors propose a new term called biomass carbon removal and storage, or ‘BiCRS', as a way to describe capturing carbon in biomass and then sequestering it. Startups Charm Industrial and Running Tide are pursuing this approach. Julio and his co-authors think of BiCRS as an alternative pathway to bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS).  They then zoom in on a promising source of biomass: waste. Example projects include a ski hill built on an incinerator in Copenhagen and a planned waste-to-hydrogen plant in Lancaster, California.  Shayle and Julio also dig into questions like: How to procure and transport biomass, especially biowaste, at scale?  How to avoid eco-colonialism, i.e. when wealthy countries exploit the resources of poorer countries to grow biomass without meaningful consent? If everyone wants it, when is biowaste no longer waste? And when there's a shortage of waste—like corn stover, for example—what's the  risk of turning to raw feedstocks, like corn? How to pickle trees? (yes, you read that right)  Catalyst is brought to you by EnergyHub. EnergyHub is working with more than 70 utilities across North America to help scale VPP programs to manage load growth, maximize the value of renewables, and deliver flexibility at every level of the grid. To learn more about their Edge DERMS platform and services, go to energyhub.com.

In this episode, we speak with Andrew Hall, Managing Director and Head of the Carbon Market Advisory at TD Securities, about the world of project financing, carbon credits, green bonds, and how banks like TD are stepping in to support BECCS and other emissions-reducing initiatives.To learn more, visit TDSecurities.com

In this episode, we speak with Jonathan Rhone, Co-founder and CEO of CO280, about what makes a good CDR project and how CO280 is building partnerships to tackle the hardest part of the journey to net zero.To learn more, visit CO280.com

This year, Land and Climate Review's first investigative series has documented more than 11,000 breaches of environmental law at North American wood pellet mills. Alasdair MacEwen speaks to Camille Corcoran, whose recent reporting was published with The Times in the UK, and Bertie Harrison-Broninski, who normally co-hosts with Alasdair, but here discusses Land and Climate Review's Canadian investigations, which were featured on BBC Newsnight. They discuss the process of uncovering environmental violations at wood pellet mills owned by Drax Group, which operates the UK's largest power station, and how residents in Mississippi and British Columbia say they have been affected by the pollution from the mills. Audio engineering by Vasko Kostovski and Podcast House. Read the investigations: ‘Drax-owned facilities broke environmental rules more than 11,000 times in the US', Land and Climate Review, November 2024‘The Dirty Business of Clean Energy: The U.K. Power Company Polluting Small Towns Across the U.S.', The Intercept, September 2024‘Drax's pellet mills violated environmental law 189 times in Canada', Land and Climate Review, May 2024‘Drax faces penalty after Canadian biomass plant fails to submit pollution report', The Independent, October 2023Related episodes: Are Canada's sustainable forestry claims accurate? - with Richard Robertson from Stand.EarthDoes bioenergy increase CO2 emissions more than burning coal? - with John Sterman from MITWhat is BECCS and what does it mean for climate policy? - with Daniel Quiggin from Chatham HouseClick here to read our investigation into the UK biomass supply chain, or watch a clip from the BBC Newsnight documentary.

Description: Stephan Herrmann, Co-founder & CEO of Reverion, and Sebastian Heitmann, Co-Founder and Partner at Extantia Capital—an investor in deep decarbonization technologies—joined Nick for a live discussion in New York City to explore breakthroughs in Reverion's biogas energy technologies and discuss the state of energy and climate tech in general across the world. Reverion is redefining biogas, enabling up to 5x revenue additions for biogas plant operators by converting excess renewable energy into green gas, all while enhancing grid stability.In this episode, the trio discusses the following:Biogas Tech Evolution: Biogas has evolved beyond traditional combustion engines, with Reverion integrating fuel cells and electrolysis to maximize efficiencies. Reverion's tech enables biogas plants to operate when renewable power is scarce and then flip on a dime to produce green methane when there's an excess of renewable power, transforming downtime into additional revenue and benefits for other stakeholders from the plant to the grid.The Role of Biogas in a Decentralized Grid: As power grids shift to include more intermittent sources like wind and solar, biogas offers dispatchable energy that can balance grid demands. Stephan and Sebastian explain the unique benefits of Reverion's solution and how it can help meet the needs of modern, dynamic energy systems.Market Fit and Commercialization: Stephan shares his journey from PhD research to piloting the first plants and securing customer interest across Europe and beyond. Reverion is now poised to expand across markets, including the U.S., where biogas remains an underutilized resource.Diverse Climate Impact and Benefits: Reverion's systems offer not just power but pure CO₂ streams for carbon capture and utilization. This positions it as part of the bioenergy ecosystem alongside solutions like biogas carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Versatility is a crucial strategy for business building or climate outcomes, like reducing carbon dioxide and methane emissions and producing dispatchable clean energy for a resilient power grid.Broader Climate Tech Landscape: Nick and the guests wrap up with a discussion on geothermal, carbon capture, geological hydrogen, and much more, including the macroeconomic environment and the outlook for energy and climate tech solutions.Listen in for insights on balancing innovation, energy demands, a changing world, and expanding climate solutions globally.Timestamps:00:02:07 - Live Podcast from Climate Week NYC00:03:07 - Guest Introductions00:04:14 - Stephan's Journey to Reverian00:07:35 - Extantia Capital00:10:12 - Technical Overview of Fuel Cells00:13:41 - Market Applications of Fuel Cells00:16:59 - Summary of Energy Grid Transition00:20:10 - Introduction to Biogas00:24:20 - Importance of Methane Emissions00:25:50 - Reversion's Commercialization Journey00:28:00 - Technical Components of Reverian's System00:33:35 - Hydrogen and Methane Production00:36:39 - Series A Fundraising00:39:44 - Audience Q&A: Logistics and Transportation00:45:08 - Audience Q&A: Ideal Customer Locations00:46:26 - Audience Q&A: Efficiency Comparison00:48:18 - Audience Q&A: Green Ammonia ProductionLearn more about Reverion here: https://reverion.com/…and Extantia Capital here: https://extantia.com/If you love listening to The Keep Cool Show, please leave me a 5-star review on Rate My Podcast:

BECCS betyder Bio-energy Carbon Capture and Storage, eller koldioxidlagring från biomassa - en metod som kan skapa negativa utsläpp och som lyfts av IPCC som en viktig pusselbit för att klara klimatmålen. Svenska AirZyme tar rygg på den här utvecklingen genom att ta en roll som underleverantör till branschen. Produkten är ett enzym som påskyndar och effektiviserar hanteringen av koldioxid - precis som i den mänskliga kroppen. Vi möter medgrundare Roshan Purshafiri för att ta reda på mer kring bolagets innovation och vart tekniken är på väg. Avsnittet produceras i samarbete med Startup 4 Climate, en tävling där AirZyme är en av åtta finalister. Finalen går av stapeln den 14 november 2024 i Stockholm. // Programledare: Christian von Essen // Läs mer på hejaframtiden.se och prenumerera på nyhetsbrevet.

Apologies for the delay, the lost podcast has been returned and is ready for release.'Don't Waste Buildings' should be a straightforward proposition. It seems obvious. Especially so in the face of the climate crisis. Unfortunately, the business of the built environment is not yet on board completely. Our guests for this episode are the founders of UK-based campaign group Don't Waste Buildings, Will Hurst (Architects Journal) Leanne Tritton (Ing Media), and Richard Nelson (Abyss Global).They're a group who are seeking to remedy this challenge by pressuring government and persuading business to both do better. They're doing some really interesting work and they're new, so they need support.Please note: the graphic we refer can be found here (about 15 minutes in). I'll update this reference with a link to the Passive House Plus article once it's published. Notes from the showDon't Waste Buildings on LinkedIn (the best starting point)The Don't Waste Buildings holding page (a proper website is imminent, so keep an eye on www.dontwastebuildings.com)Will Hurst on LinkedInLeanne Tritton on LinkedInRichard Nelson on LinkedInZero Ambitions - Construction's embodied carbon problem: how do we incentivise retrofit over 'demolish and rebuild', with Joseph Kilroy (CIOB)The AJ article by Kunle Barker that Will refers to: Without architects' close expert involvement, government plans to retrofit millions of homes will be prone to unintended consequences such as mouldSomething about that 'burning fossil fuels to save the planet' nonsense that Jeff was referring to Future Energy Scenarios 2023 Released, sadly he couldn't find the actual article he rememberedHe found this as well: Ability of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) to generate negative emissionsThe Indy Johar LinkedIn post that Will refers toLRB's James Butler article about Grenfell: ‘This much evidence, still no charges'**SOME SELF-PROMOTING CALLS TO ACTION**We don't actually earn anything from this, and it's quite a lot of work, so we have to promote the day jobs.Follow us on the Zero Ambitions LinkedIn page (we still don't have a proper website)Jeff, Alex, and Dan about websites, branding, and communications - zap@eiux.agency; Everything is User ExperienceSubscribe and advertise with Passive House Plus (UK edition here too)Check Lloyd's Substack: Carbon UpfrontJoin ACANJoin the AECB Join the IGBCCheck out Her Own Space, the renovation and retrofit platform for women**END OF SELF-PROMOTING CALLS TO ACTION**

Die Highlights aus unserem G'SCHEITHOLZ-Podcast. Folge #2: Prof. Michael Obersteiner, Universität Oxford über die Rolle und Chancen, BECCS (Bio Energy Carbon Capture and Storage) als Schlüsseltechnologie für den Klimaschutz einzusetzen und somit negative CO2-Emissionen zu generieren. Bei BECCS erfolgt eine Abscheidung von Kohlenstoff aus dem Abgas der Biomasseverbrennung oder aus dem Verarbeitungsprozess von Biomasse. Durch BECCS kann sowohl fossile Energie ersetzt als auch Kohlenstoff in der Erdkruste eingelagert werden. Es kommt zu einem Doppeleffekt: einerseits die Substitution fossiler Energieträger und andererseits negative Emissionen.

Alle reden über Dekarbonisierung, doch die Umsetzung geht viel zu langsam voran. Hilft uns eine breitere Sichtweise? In dieser Folge erfahren Sie, wie wir parallel zur Reduktion auch CO2 entfernen können - mithilfe bekannter und neuer Methoden. Experte Sebastian Manhart erklärt Ihnen die wichtigsten Ansätze des Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) wie Renaturierung, Direct Air Capture, BECCS, Pflanzenkohle und beschleunigte Verwitterung. Mit Planetary Business-Host Stefanie Hauer spricht er darüber, wie in Europa eine neue Branche entsteht, die Hoffnung macht. Wie das den einzelnen Emittenten und der Wirtschaft insgesamt auf ihrem Weg zu Netto-Null hilft. Und welche bahnbrechenden Maßnahmen von der Politik kommen.Sebastian Manhart ist u.a. Gründer und Vorstandsvorsitzender des Deutschen Verbands für negative Emissionen https://dvne.org/, Senior Policy Advisor von https://www.carbonfuture.earth/ sowie Gründer von CDRJobs, Senior Fellow des Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy und Board Member der US Biochar Coalition.Weitere Informationen finden Sie in der Studie des DVNE und der Boston Consulting Group https://negative-emissions.bcg.com/home/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dvne2024&utm_description=organic&utm_content=pressreleaseInfos zum Podcast, der Podcasterin und mehr finden Sie auf der Planetary Business Website: http://www.planetary-business.orgFolgen Sie Planetary BusinessLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/planetarybusiness/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/planetarybusiness/Haben Sie Fragen, Anregungen oder Vorschläge für überzeugende Gesprächspartner? Schreiben Sie uns unter: mail@planetary-business.org

In Ausgabe 85 gibt es einen Mitschnitt von "Frag die Science Busters live - alles rund ums Klima" vom 11.12.2023 auf Radio FM4. Kabarettist Martin Puntigam, Florian Freistetter, Astronom & Andreas Jäger, Meteorologe, Moderator & Wissenschaftskommunikator bsprechen, warum man auch in Sachen Klimaschutz einen Drogendealer nicht zum Therapeuten von Süchtigen machen sollte, welche Partyspiele spielt man am Hüttenabend einer Klimakonferenz, ob warmer Hansel das Lieblingsgetränk in der Klimakrise wird, welcher Christbaum am nachhaltigsten ist, wo es Humus ohne Tahini gibt, was Bier von der Klimakrise hält, ob man das Reinheitsgebot gentechnisch verändern wird müssen, wie CO2-neutral Rülpsen ist, ab wann es Tablettenbier im Bambusbiergarten geben wird, ob BECCS besser ist als Becks, wie sinnvoll Energieplantagen sind, ob man dem DACS trauen sollte oder es eher Luftgulasch mit Papierknödel als Klimaschutzmethode darstellt, in welche Stollen man CO2 lagern könnte, warum Photosynthese besonders technologieoffen ist, wie der Stundenplan für die Kipppunkte aussieht, wozu man Korallen benötigt, wie wichtig Zehntelgrade beim Klimaschutz sind, ab wann die Welt AMOC laufen könnte, warum die Grillparty der Feind der Pflanzenkohle als Klimaschützerin ist & ob Schwerter zu Pflugscharen eigentlich umgekehrt gehört.

Vi fortsätter idag att prata om BECCS i Sverige givet att Regeringen nu fått klartecken att auktionera ut 36 miljarder till den anläggning som bäst kan sätta en koldioxiddammsugare (BECCS) på sin skorsten. GROT-uttag innebär tillväxtförluster samtidigt som bl.a. Stockholm Exergi redan börjat sälja kolkrediter till bl.a. Google. Självklart ska du som skogsägare då ha del av denna intäkt.

Episode 204 On this week's episode of the YMC podcast, your happenin' hosts Jay Gilbert and Mike Etchart  breakdown these important music industry stories: "We've Got To Rethink Music Festivals" (An Op-Ed From By Will Page for Music Business Worldwide); "The New Model For Building Crazy Fandom - 8 Lessons From Fred Again" (Rob Abelow From His 'Where Music's Going Blog'); "Record Labels Have Tried To Get A Radio Performance Right For Decades. Is Anything Different This Time?" (Billboard Magazine).   Plus audio drops from the artist Beccs on mental health, Meng Kuok, CEO & Founder of Caldecott Music Group: BandLab Technologies on the Principles for Music Creation with AI, and Will Page on his Op-Ed "We've Got To Rethink Music Festivals".   Subscribe to the newsletter! YourMorning.Coffee    

12 grader och regn och första julipodden för 2024. Vi pratar idag om inflation och konsumentmakt men också om EU-diskussioner som just nu förs på Skogsforum i flera trådar. Vi hinner med BECCS också, ändå tills Fredriks kamerabatteri tar slut (igen)...

This week, we welcome Beccs!  She is a talented singer-songwriter known for her emotive voice and poignant lyrics. Blending soul, pop, and alternative sounds, she explores themes of identity and empowerment. Her powerful performances and authentic storytelling have led to her all-new 5-track EP, stay moist out June 29th. The post Beccs appeared first on idobi.

En fredagspodd på en torsdagkväll. Så blev det detta avsnitt då vi båda är upptagna med annat under fredagen när du lyssnar på detta. Vi pratar idag om varför inte SLU har med gallringsuppföljning i sin Skogsdata och vi förbryllas över kluvna tungor inom skogsindustrin. Skogsfredag är också en podd där vad som helst kan hända. I detta avsnitt får ni vara med om när ett batteri tar slut för oss.

Lots of news in carbon removal this past week! Frontier made their largest-ever purchase of $58 million from relatively new BiCRS company Vaulted Deep, Climeworks unveiled their Mammoth facility in Iceland, and Microsoft purchased 3.3 million tons of CO2 from BECCs in Sweden. These deals represent significant private market volume in CDR. But a new report in Nature called The carbon dioxide removal gap” highlights some of the policy needs that remain to get carbon removal where it should be to keep us on track for our climate goals. Listen in today to learn about VCM and policy updates from the world of carbon removal, and understand some of the biggest deals this space has yet seen. On This Episode ⁠⁠⁠Wil Burns⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠Holly Jean Buck⁠⁠⁠ Radhika Moolgavkar Resources Nature report, "The carbon dioxide removal gap”⁠ Connect with Nori ⁠⁠⁠Nori⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠Nori's X account⁠⁠⁠ Nori's other podcast ⁠⁠⁠Reversing Climate Change⁠⁠⁠ Nori's CDR ⁠⁠⁠meme X account --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

'Klimaneutral' ist fast ein Tabuwort geworden. CO₂ dauerhaft zu binden ist allerdings relevanter als je zuvor, wollen wir unsere globalen Klimaziele erreichen. Und auch für die Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie eines jeden Unternehmen sind Investitionen in negative Emissionen und solide CO₂ Zertifikate unerlässlich. Zudem weitet sich der verpflichtende Emissionshandel in Zukunft auch auf bisher nicht betroffene Industrien aus. Zeit also für einen Deep Dive in das Thema negative Emissionen, CO₂ Zertifikate und die relevantesten Begriffe, Regulationen und Technologien zum Thema. Was ist zum Beispiel der Unterschied von klimaneutral und net zero? Die Antworten holt sich Podcast-Host Zackes in dieser Folge von einem absoluten Experten in dem Gebiet: Sebastian Manhart. Vorsitzender des Deutschen Verbandes für negative Emissionen. Sebastian erklärt ihm: ✅ Der wichtige Unterschied von CO₂ Vermeidung, CO₂ Verminderung und negativen Emissionen. ✅ Warum ist Pyrolyse zum dauerhaften Binden von CO₂ so hoch im Kurs? ✅ So funktioniert der verpflichtende Emissionshandel (ETS) und so der freiwillige Emissionshandel (VCM) und das wird das Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) verändern. Und natürlich kommen wie bei jedem anspruchsvollen Nachhaltigkeitsthema auch die Akronyme nicht zu kurz: DACCS, BECCS oder CCS? Nach dieser Folge weißt Du, was sich dahinter verbirgt und kannst in jedem Small Talk unter Sustainability Professionals locker mithalten. Diese Folge ist ein Deep Dive in ein Thema, an dem kein Nachhaltigkeitsmanager vorbeikommt. Kapitel (00:02:55) Kein Net Zero ohne negative Emissionen. (00:06:06) Der verpflichtende Emissionshandel (ETS) und der freiwillige Emissionshandel (VCM). (00:15:35) Skandale und übliche Missverständnisse im CO₂-Offsetting. (00:18:45) CO₂-Vermeidung oder negative Emissionen? (00:22:42) Wohin mit dem CO₂: Pflanzenkohle (Pyrolyse) oder ins Meer? (00:29:06) Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) vs DAC (Direct Air Capture). (00:35:42) Die großen Preisunterschiede der CO₂-Zertifikate. (00:38:56) Diese EU Regulationen musst Du kennen: ETS 2 und Green Claims Directive. (00:42:42) Kurz erklärt: das Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF). (00:44:24) Darum sollten Unternehmen in Carbon Removal investieren. (00:50:20) Zum Greifen für Deutschland: Der riesige Markt des Carbon Removals.

It may come as a shock, but it turns out the climate crisis has not yet been solved. So joining me for an update is Ketan Joshi, a researcher and communications consultant who works on climate-focused comms.We discuss why the atmosphere is a bathtub, why bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is absurd, and why more rain and snow doesn't mean things aren't warming up. We also talk about some dodgy statistics relating to hybrid vehicles, and Earth Day.And, sad to say, we riff off one of Ketan's blog posts to talk about Elon Musk and X — but trust me, it's interesting.This conversation was recorded on 22 April 2024Full podcast details and credits at:https://the9pmedict.com/edict/00218/Please support this podcast by considering a tip:https://the9pmedict.com/tip/https://skank.com.au/subscribe/

Over the last decades, burning wood for energy has expanded in the EU, as have proposals for implementing Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). The origins of this questionable boom can be found in accounting loopholes, which allow burning woody biomass to be classed as carbon neutral and BECCS as carbon negative. Based on these loopholes and large lobby power, (woody) biomass has received generous subsidies and been counted towards renewable energy targets in the EU. A large international supply chain has developed, with wood pellets being shipped all the way from forests in the U.S. Southeast to generate energy in the EU. In this episode, we discuss all these issues with ecologist Dr. Mary Booth, founder and director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI). PFPI is a small non-profit organisation in the US working on forest biomass, energy, and climate issues. Hosted by Matilda Susan Gettins. Edited by Aidan Knox.

What are the impacts  of new flying technologies? Are policymakers and the aviation industry taking the right steps to avoid global warming exceeding 1.5 degrees? Alasdair speaks to Dr Daniel Quiggin, senior research fellow at the Chatham House Environment and Society Centre. Dr Quiggin is an expert in the analysis of how national and global energy systems will evolve to 2050 and author of recent research on Net zero and the role of the aviation industry.Further reading:Net zero and the role of the aviation industry, Chatham House, November 2023'First net zero flight takes off but decarbonisation remains on runway', November 2023Link to the Chatham House webinar on the research:3pm GMT on Wednesday 31st January 2024Click here to visit The Future Unrefined, our curated collection of articles and podcasts on raw materials and extraction. Find more podcasts and articles at www.landclimate.org

Plants capture hundreds of gigatons of carbon every year in timber, crops, and other forms of biomass. Much of that carbon gets released back into the atmosphere through natural processes and human intervention. But there are a few ways that we can lock it away for good, like biochar, bio-oil, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS — all processes that fall under the umbrella of biomass carbon removal. The International Panel on Climate Change calls carbon removal “unavoidable” — and biomass is a leading carbon removal contender. But everyone wants a slice of the biomass pie. Airlines want it for jet fuel. Midwestern legislators want it for ethanol. Homebuilders want it for construction. Oh, and humans want it for food. By 2050 potential demand for biomass could far outstrip supply.  So what kinds of biomass should we use for carbon removal — and where should we get that biomass from? In this episode, Shayle talks with Dr. Bodie Cabiyo, senior forest scientist at climate science consultancy Carbon Direct and lead author of A Buyer's Guide to Sustainable Biomass Sourcing for Carbon Dioxide Removal. They talk about topics like: How carbon removal is already competing with other uses for biomass. The complicated question of what counts as “waste,” which some BECCS companies are using to claim carbon reductions. Principles for sustainably sourcing biomass for carbon removal, like tracing chain of custody and avoiding market distortions. The environmental and carbon math tradeoffs involved in different sources of biomass. What Shayle would do with biomass if he were an omnipotent global leader. Recommended Resources: Carbon Direct: A Buyer's Guide to Sustainable Biomass Sourcing for Carbon Dioxide Removal Catalyst: From biowaste to ​‘biogold' Energy Transitions Commission: Bioresources within a Net-Zero Emissions Economy: Making a Sustainable Approach Possible Sign up for Latitude Media's Frontier Forum on January 31, featuring Crux CEO Alfred Johnson, who will break down the budding market for clean energy tax credits. We'll dissect current transactions and pricing, compare buyer and seller expectations, and look at where the market is headed in 2024. Catalyst is supported by Antenna Group. For 25 years, Antenna has partnered with leading clean-economy innovators to build their brands and accelerate business growth. If you're a startup, investor, enterprise or innovation ecosystem that's creating positive change, Antenna is ready to power your impact. Visit antennagroup.com to learn more. Catalyst is brought to you by Atmos Financial. Atmos is revolutionizing finance by leveraging your deposits to exclusively fund decarbonization solutions, like residential solar and electrification. FDIC-insured with market-leading savings rates, cash-back checking, and zero fees. Get an account in minutes at joinatmos.com.

In the second half of the discussion with Dr. Joseph Romm, hosted by Michael Barnard, the conversation focuses on sustainability and the critical examination of various climate solutions.They delve into the challenges and potential pitfalls of relying on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), emphasizing its inefficiency and the unrealistic land requirements for scaling it up. They point out that solely planting trees won't suffice to address climate change or achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, highlighting the need for a holistic and long-term strategy.Dr. Romm and Barnard discuss the limitations of carbon capture and storage systems, underscoring the significant energy input, infrastructural needs, safety concerns, and the limited impact they can have on global warming solutions. They also critically evaluate direct air capture technology, pointing out the massive energy requirements due to low atmospheric CO2 concentrations.The dialogue then shifts to the inefficiency of direct air capture as a method for CO2 emission reduction, advocating for a comprehensive approach to emission reduction, which includes transitioning to electric ground transport and decarbonizing the grid. The potential of heat pumps and the sequestration of carbon through mushrooms are also mentioned as part of the broader solution.Dr. Romm, a senior research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media, concludes the discussion by urging a focus on proven solutions to climate change and debunking the viability of certain methods like BECCS. He encourages looking into his published papers, available now, via the University of Pennsylvania for a more in-depth understanding. Link to Joe Romm publications: https://web.sas.upenn.edu/pcssm/publications/

Avskiljning och lagring av koldioxid genom BECCS och CCS kan bli avgörande för att nå klimatmålen. Men hittills har det funnits svaga drivkrafter att införa sådan teknik. I en ny SNS-rapport förklarar tre forskare varför. Medverkande Karin Comstedt Webb, vice vd Heidelberg Materials Sverige Malin Dahlroth, vd och koncernchef på Sysav Anders Egelrud, vd och koncernchef på Stockholm Exergi Jytte Guteland (S), ledamot i miljö- och jordbruksutskottet samt i EU-nämnden Filip Johnsson, professor i energiteknik, rymd-, geo-, och miljövetenskap vid Chalmers Tekniska Högskola Kenneth Möllersten, forskare vid IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet och Kungliga Tekniska högskolan Helena Storckenfeldt (M), miljö- och klimatpolitisk talesperson samt ledamot i miljö- och jordbruksutskottet Lars Zetterberg, forskare vid IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet Samtalet leds av Charlotte Paulie, forskningsledare SNS.

O sistema de captura e armazenamento de carbono pela rota da bioenergia (BECCS, na sigla em inglês) é considerado um elemento importante para a meta global de zerar as emissões de CO2 até 2050. Ainda inédita no Brasil, a técnica a partir da biomassa vem conquistando o interesse de grandes empresas de etanol que visam ter uma produção de biocombustível carbono negativa. Junte-se a Camila Dias, diretora da Argus no Brasil, e Laura Guedes, integrante do time da publicação Argus Brasil Combustíveis. Elas conversam sobre o funcionamento dessas tecnologias e o potencial do etanol carbono negativo no mercado internacional. A Argus oferece relatórios de preços e notícias sobre os mercados de biocombustíveis, insumos e biomassa incluindo pellets de madeira, cavacos de madeira. Descubra mais em: https://www.argusmedia.com/pt/bioenergy

Welcome to another episode of "Redefining Energy Tech," hosted by Michael Barnard. Today, we have the pleasure of having Dr. Joseph Romm, a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media. Dr. Romm, with a rich background in physics and public policy, has significantly contributed to our understanding of climate solutions, especially in areas like direct air capture and offsets.Dr. Romm shared about his journey, recounting his time working closely with Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute, and his role as the Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of Energy. Post his tenure at the Department, he dedicated himself to climate communication, contributing to the Climate Progress blog until its unfortunate closure. Following this, he took up his current position at the Center under the leadership of Michael Mann, where he is actively involved in research and is in the process of writing three papers focusing on bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture (DAC), and carbon offsets as potential climate solutions.The discussion started with the concept of carbon offsets, their limitations, and their role in the broader climate change mitigation strategy. Dr. Romm highlighted the concerning trend of organizations opting to pay for projects in places like Brazil or investing in tree planting and deforestation prevention as a means to offset their own emissions. He emphasized the distinction between voluntary market offsets and regulated offsets, pointing out the lack of oversight in the voluntary market which has led to a decrease in price and quality, and the more robust, yet expensive and complex nature of regulated offsets under agreements like the Paris Accord.The conversation touched upon the 2015 Paris Agreement, its goals, and the challenges in achieving them, specifically addressing the complexities of trading and offsets. They discussed the developments since the agreement, including the introduction of authorized offsets in November 2021, and the concept of corresponding adjustments to prevent double counting of emission reductions. The example of Brazil was highlighted, demonstrating how countries could sell offset credits while maintaining their official emission levels through corresponding adjustments. However, this practice raises concerns about the future, especially for poorer countries that might find themselves at a disadvantage, potentially being pushed out of these markets.The first half of the discussion concluded with the importance of genuine emission reductions, the challenges associated with offsets and corresponding adjustments, and the need for careful consideration to ensure that the mechanisms in place truly contribute to global emission reduction efforts without exploiting poorer nations.Read Dr. Romm's paper on offsets, bioenergy and carbon capture and direct air capture to prepare for COP28. They are available from the University of Pennsylvania.LInk to Joe Romm publications: https://web.sas.upenn.edu/pcssm/publications/

Removing carbon directly from the air might seem like a technology of the distant future, but ‘direct air capture' is increasingly becoming a reality, especially as companies try to figure out how they're going to meet their net-zero targets. How does DAC actually work, and how seriously should we take it compared to other means of carbon removal? On today's show, Dana sits down with Sharon Mustri and Brenna Casey from BNEF's Sustainable Materials team. Together they take a look at the companies that are investing in DAC, the cost of this technology as well as its rival carbon removal methods, and how one can go about storing all that carbon once it's been filtered and captured. Today's episode draws from the BNEF research note Direct Air Capture: Market and Cost Outlook, which assesses the DAC market through 2050. Complimentary BNEF research on the trends driving the transition to a lower-carbon economy can be found at BNEF on the Bloomberg Terminal, on bnef.com or on the BNEF mobile app. Links to research notes from this episode: Direct Air Capture: Market and Cost Outlook - https://www.bnef.com/insights/32021 Amazon, Microsoft Boost Demand for Carbon Removal Tech - https://www.bnef.com/shorts/s16pkct0g1kw01 Occidental's Big Buy May Alter Path of $150 Billion Market - https://www.bnef.com/insights/32055See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Metin Seyrek ist Teil der vierköpfigen Führungsspitze der Markenagentur BECC Agency mit Sitz in München Schwabing. Als Mitinhaber leitet und gestaltet er zusammen mit Leif Geuder, Sabine Kraus und Katharina Kraus die Geschäfte und führt ein Team aus 50 Mitarbeitenden. Der diplomierte „Produkt- und Kommunikationsdesigner“, der an der Kingston Universität London sowie an der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Schwäbisch Gmünd studierte, entwickelte sich im Laufe seiner über 20-jährigen Berufserfahrung zum Markenexperten. Im Kern seiner vielfältigen Tätigkeiten für international aufgestellte Konzerne, Unternehmen und Organisationen unterschiedlichster Branchen – von Automotive, über Logistik und erneuerbare Energien, bis hin zu inklusiven Sportveranstaltungen – steht vor allem die Konzeption von Markenstrategien und -identitäten sowie deren Übersetzung in greifbare Markenkontaktpunkte. Dabei stellt Metin stets den Menschen in den Mittelpunkt, nicht nur beim Erschaffen von Markenerlebnissen, bei denen es heutzutage mehr denn je um Beteiligung, statt nur um den Blick aus der Zuschauerperspektive geht, sondern auch im eigenen Unternehmen. Engagement ist für ihn mehr als nur ein Wert für die Erfolgsmessung der Wirksamkeit von Strategien, es ist der Treibstoff von Transformationsprozessen jeglicher Art, auch in den eigenen vier Wänden. Mit seiner Mannschaft bei der BECC Agency gewann er von 2012 bis 2022 für verschiedene Projekte den Red Dot Award und wurde mehrfach mit dem German Design Award sowie dem IF Communication Design Award ausgezeichnet. Die Entwicklung des Brand Designs der Special Olympics World Games in Berlin in diesem Jahr, zählt zu den absoluten Herzensprojekten von Metin Seyrek, für das die BECCs in einem inklusiven Designprozess zusammen mit den Athlet*innen völlig neue Wege gegangen sind. „Eine Marke unvergesslich werden lassen und tiefe Bindungen zu ihr aufzubauen“, keinen geringeren Anspruch hat Markus Mögel an seine Arbeit als Kreativdirektor. Seit über 12 Jahren schafft er mit seiner Leidenschaft für die perfekte Verschmelzung aus herausragendem Design, neuester Technologie und menschlicher Emotion, zusammen mit seinem Team, innovative Lösungen für ganzheitliche Markenerlebnisse der Kunden der BECC Agency. Das Fundament für seine Karriere in der Kreativbranche legte er zunächst durch das Studium von „Design und angewandter Kunst“ an der Akademie für Kommunikation in Stuttgart, bevor er an die Hochschule für Design in Schwäbisch Gmünd wechselte, um mit dem Diplom zum „Kommunikationsdesigner“ abzuschließen. Mit mehr als 20 Jahren Berufserfahrung auf Agentur- und Unternehmensseite für Brands aus den unterschiedlichsten Branchen, kreiert Markus durch die Entwicklung digitaler und analoger Exponate, medialer Bespielkonzepte sowie Pre-, Post- und Live-Kommunikation, eindrucksvolle und wirksame Interaktionen zwischen Mensch und Marke.

Is climate change an impending existential threat, or a serious but manageable problem we can tackle with innovation and human ingenuity? Zeke Hausfather joins this episode of Faster, Please! — The Podcast to explain the basics of climate modeling and give a clear-eyed assessment of the risks we face and the measures we can take.Zeke is a climate scientist and energy systems analyst. He is the climate research lead for Stripe and a research scientist at Berkeley Earth.In This Episode* Human impact on the climate (1:11)* Global temperature forecasting (6:33)* Low-probability, high-risk scenarios (15:07)* Reducing carbon emissions (17:06)* Carbon capture and carbon removal (25:25)Below is an edited transcript of our conversationFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thanks!Human impact on the climateJames Pethokoukis: How do we know that our planet is warming? And secondarily, how do we know the actions of people are playing a key role?Zeke Hausfather: That's a great question. In terms of how we know it's warming: We've been monitoring the Earth's climate with reasonably dense measurements since the mid-1800s. That's when groups like NASA, NOAA, the UK Hadley Centre, my own Berkeley Earth group, have been able to put together reliable global surface temperature estimates. And we've seen in the period…That's since the 1980s?1850.1850. NASA was not around in 1850.No. But enough measurements were being taken both at weather stations around the world and on ships in the oceans that we can reconstruct global temperatures with an accuracy of a couple tenths of a degree going back that far. We know that the world has warmed by about 1.2 degrees centigrade since 1850 with the vast majority of that warming, about 1 degree of it, happening since 1970. That isn't in much dispute in the scientific community at all. Now, going further back is harder, obviously. We only invented the thermometer in the early 1700s. There are a few locations on land that go back that far, but to go back further in time, we need to rely on what we call climate proxies: things like ice cores, tree rings, coral sediments, pollen in lakes — various natural factors that are in some way related to the temperature when those things occurred.Those have much higher uncertainties, of course, but we do know using those reconstructions that current temperature levels are probably unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years and are at the high end of anything we've seen in the last 120,000 years or so. Certainly if current temperatures were to stay at today's levels for another century, they'd be higher than anything we've seen in 120,000 years. But it's harder to precisely make those claims because the time resolution of these indirect proxy measurements is very coarse when we go back further in time. You might have one ice core measurement reflect a hundred-year average period, for example, rather than a specific year. We know from the temperature record that the world has warmed. How do we know that human activity is playing a role? Well, we've known since the mid-1800s, due to pioneering work by folks like John Tyndall or Arrhenius, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane are critical to maintain a habitable planet. Without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, the Earth would be a snowball and life would probably not exist.We also know that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased pretty dramatically. We have measurements from ice cores going back about 800,000 years of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a reasonably high resolution. And because carbon dioxide is well mixed, knowing it in one location in one ice core gives us a good picture of carbon dioxide for the whole planet. And we know that prior to the year 1850, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere varied between about 170 to 280 parts per million. They're lower during ice age periods; they're higher during warmer interglacial periods. But since the 1850s, that value has increased dramatically. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 50 percent. It's gone from 280 parts per million, which was over the last 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age, up to about 420 parts per million today.And that reflects a huge amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I don't think people realize quite the magnitude we're talking about. The amount of carbon dioxide that humans have added to the atmosphere by digging up stuff from underground and burning it is roughly equal in mass to the entire biosphere. We took every single bit of life on Earth and burned it. That was about how much CO2 we put up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Or to put it another way, it's equal in mass to all of everything humans have ever built: the pyramids, every skyscraper, every road. We took all that mass and put it up into the atmosphere. That's the amount of CO2 we've emitted. And so that's had a pretty big effect on what we call the radiative forcing of our climate, essentially the amount of outgoing longwave radiation — or heat, in common parlance — that gets absorbed and reradiated back toward the surface. And the estimate…That's the key mechanism we're talking about here, right?Yeah. Sunlight comes in from the sun, which provides pretty much all the Earth's energy. It gets absorbed by the surface of the Earth and reradiated as heat. That heat goes back out to space. Ideally, those two things should be an equilibrium: The amount of energy entering the Earth system matches the amount that leaves the Earth system, and the Earth stays a happy, healthy temperature. What we've seen in the last century, and we can verify this over the last few decades directly through satellite observations, is the amount of heat entering the Earth system is larger than the amount of heat leaving the Earth system. So the Earth is out of thermal equilibrium and is heating up. Most of that heat is going into the oceans, about 90 percent of it. But about 10 percent of that heat that's trapped goes into the atmosphere, and that's responsible for the warming we've seen.The climate is a hugely complex system, and when you're trying to project the response of the climate to our emissions, you're dealing with a lot of uncertainty around what we call feedbacks in the climate system.Global temperature forecastingLooking forward, various climate models, which is what we use to forecast what's going to happen next, look at what we've already put into the atmosphere and what we're continuing to put into the atmosphere, and they make a forecast about how that will impact temperatures going forward. Do I have that part right?Yep.Okay. So based on what these models are saying, what is reasonable to expect in coming decades as far as temperature increases and their impacts?The amount of future warming we end up having depends largely on how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases we emit. If we keep emissions roughly at current levels for the rest of the century — we're emitting about 40 billion tons of CO2 per year — if we keep that steady, we don't increase it at all, we expect somewhere in the range of 3 degrees centigrade warming by the end of the century, so that would be a bit above 5 degrees Fahrenheit warming globally, relative to the pre-industrial period or 1850. We've already experienced 1.2 degrees C. We'd have another 1.8 degrees C or so on top of that by the end of the century. If we emit more, it could be higher than that. If we emit less, it could be lower than that.That said, that's sort of the average estimate across the 40 different modeling centers around the world that do these sort of exercises. In reality, the climate is a hugely complex system, and when you're trying to project the response of the climate to our emissions, you're dealing with a lot of uncertainty around what we call feedbacks in the climate system. As an example: As we warm the surface, we get more evaporation and the atmosphere can hold more water vapor before rain falls out as the air is warmer. This is a fairly well-known physical relationship. And so for every degree of warming, you get about 7 percent more water vapor in the atmosphere. Now, water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, and so that enhances the warming the world experiences. Because it's warmer, that water vapor can stay in the atmosphere — because usually the water vapor itself is very, very short-lived and can't force the climate by itself because it just rains out if you get too much.There are also uncertainties in how clouds respond to our emissions. More water vapor in the atmosphere leads to more cloud formation in some regions. Higher temperatures and changing wind patterns lead to changing cloud dynamics. Our emissions of other things like aerosols, small particles from burning fossil fuels also affect cloud formation. And how that all pans out and how those clouds change the balance of heat trapped versus heat reflected varies a lot across models. And for all these reasons, we like to give a range of what we call climate sensitivity, which is essentially, how sensitive is the climate to our emissions? And we usually define that as, if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere — which is roughly what we're on track for by the end of the century today, we've already increased it by 50 percent — how much warming do we get at equilibrium? And that value is generally around three degrees C per doubling of CO2, but with a pretty wide range. In the most recent IPCC report, we said it could be anywhere from 2.5 degrees C at the low end of the likely range to about 4 degrees at the high end, 2 degrees to 5 degrees is the sort of very likely range that we gave in the most recent IPCC report.I recently watched an Apple TV+ miniseries called Extrapolations, and it looked at climate change and how it would affect us over the entire century. That was the number they really fixated on: 3 degrees Celsius. The environment they showed was pretty chaotic: lots of very, very bad heat waves, hurricanes, flooding. Civilization wasn't going to get wiped out or anything, but it seemed pretty nasty. So are we talking kind of really nasty climate effects from three degrees of warming Celsius?When we say 3 degrees, it sounds like a very small number, especially to us Americans are used to talking about things in Fahrenheit. But even when we think about the temperature from day to day, it might change, let's say 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit tomorrow, and that's noticeably warmer; 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit is the difference between 85 degrees and a bit above 90 degrees, but it doesn't sound huge. But the problem is, that's a global average number and no one lives in the global average. In fact, the global average is mostly the ocean. It turns out that where people do live, on land, is warming about 50 percent faster than the world as a whole. So if we talk about 3 degrees centigrade — or let's talk Fahrenheit for a moment, let's say 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit — over land, increase that by 50 percent, so let's say 8 degrees Fahrenheit globally over land where we all live. Even higher than that in high-latitude regions like the Arctic. We have bigger feedbacks associated with snow melting and exposing darker surfaces, so some regions are going to see really big changes.To put this number in perspective, the last ice age, which I think everyone would acknowledge was a very different planet than we have today, was only about 6 degrees centigrade colder than current temperatures globally. Obviously it was much colder in the northern latitudes, which were covered by ice sheets, but the tropics were not that much colder. And so it averages to about 6 degrees difference. So that would have impacts. Exactly what those impacts would be depends a lot on the systems we're talking about and the adaptive capacity of those systems. The natural world, I think in many ways, is going to be the worst hit by these changes. There are a lot of plant and animal species that live in fairly narrow ecological niches. And particularly in a world that's very fragmented by roads and human habitation, it's a lot harder for those plant and animal species to migrate to more temperate regions to be able to survive. So certainly there's a concern around large-scale extinction of many plant and animal species that can no longer live in the ecological niches that they've adapted to over the last tens of thousands of years and can't migrate quickly enough to adapt to that.In terms of impacts to human systems, there's a lot of different impacts from climate change and the degree to which those are catastrophic is going to depend a lot on how wealthy we are and how well we can adapt to it. If by the end of the century we're in a world that's similar to today, that has huge amounts of inequality with billions of people living at a dollar a day, I would worry a lot about the ability of people in those societies to adapt to more widespread extreme heat events, larger floods associated with more water vapor in the atmosphere, sea level rise, some of these other impacts. If we live in a world where we're all very wealthy and relatively equal on a country-by-country basis and within countries, then we have a much bigger ability to build sea walls, to have air conditioning inside, to genetically engineer crops to be more heat tolerance, the many other ways that humans can adapt to these changes. And so I think in many ways I see climate change less as an existential risk by itself and more as an existential risk multiplier. If we are in a world of weak institutions, of failing governments, of high inequality, I see climate as something that could help push societies over the edge. But I don't necessarily think at least a 3-degree world would be one that is the end of civilization by any stretch of the imagination, if we get our act together on these other issues.What is what you described as what is sort of the “business as usual” forecast, and then what is the, we really get serious about policy, and we can talk about what those policies are, that reduce carbon emissions?The good news is “business as usual” has already been changing a fair bit. Nowadays, it looks like business as usual is global emissions staying relatively flat. A decade ago, it seemed like doubling or tripling global emissions by the end of the century would not be out of the question. Certainly if you extrapolated the trends from previous decades, that's where we were headed. Nowadays, global coal use has largely plateaued and arguably is going to shrink in coming years. We have cheaper alternatives. Electric vehicles are taking off. There are many other technologies that are being developed and becoming increasingly cheap. And so it's harder to imagine a world where we're still burning massive amounts of coal, oil, and gas in 2100.We can reduce emissions, we can develop new technologies, and we can get them widely adopted. And if we do that and if we get emissions to zero by, say, 2070 or so globally, then we limit warming to below 2 degrees.Low-probability, high-risk scenariosDoes that make the very worst-case scenarios that maybe we were talking about a decade ago just highly unlikely?It certainly makes the worst-case emission outcomes highly unlikely. If we look at 3 degrees, for example, that could really end up anywhere between 2 degrees and above 4 degrees if we get unlucky because of the uncertainty in how the climate system responds to our emissions, because the Earth is such a complex system. Climate change is both planning for the central outcome but also trying to mitigate those risks. In some ways, we want to reduce emissions not just to get that mean down, but also as an insurance policy against the 5 or 10 percent more catastrophic potential outcomes there. I don't think we're necessarily completely out of the woods on a 4 C world by the end of the century if we roll sixes on all the proverbial climate dice, but I think we have made a lot of progress in making those outcomes less likely.Today we're headed toward, as I mentioned earlier, about 3 degrees of warming if emissions stay relatively constant, or a little bit below 3 degrees. But we can do much better than that. We can reduce emissions, we can develop new technologies, and we can get them widely adopted. And if we do that and if we get emissions to zero by, say, 2070 or so globally, then we limit warming to below 2 degrees. If we get emissions to zero by 2050, which is going to be a much harder lift given the amount of infrastructure in place today that relies on fossil fuels, then we could limit warming to maybe about 1.6 or 1.7 degrees. And if we build lots of machines to remove carbon from the atmosphere, plant lots of trees, do other things to actually get negative emissions, models suggest we could get temperatures down to 1.5 degrees, only 0.3 degrees above where we are today, by the end of the century.We are really on this acceleration of private sector and government spending on these technologies. But I think government does play a role here. I think most economists would acknowledge that what we're dealing with here is an externality. Reducing carbon emissionsWhen I look at what our responses might be, I tend to think, what will happen to emissions in a world where our responses will be constrained by our low collective tolerance for suffering and pain and deprivation and sacrifice? To me, that's a pretty important constraint. If there's one lesson I think we learned from the pandemic, it's people don't like shortages. We don't like to rough it in any way. In a world where, at least in the West, that's our attitude, how do we get emissions down in a somewhat timely manner?I think a lot of it relies both on the combination of human ingenuity and governments playing a role in catalyzing that ingenuity and allowing these technologies to scale. We've seen the biggest successes in mitigating climate change in technologies that slot in nicely to replace things that we enjoy today. We don't talk about it much, but Texas is the renewable energy capital of the US today, because it's cheaper to generate electricity with the wind and sun there than it is to burn coal and gas. Similarly, we've seen an explosion of electric vehicles in places like China and Europe, and the US is catching up, not necessarily because everyone there is a tree hugger, but because they're really fun to drive and they perform better and are lower cost in some cases than conventional vehicles. The more we can follow that model of developing new technologies that don't involve sacrifice, that don't involve necessarily giving up things we enjoy today, I think the more successful we're going to be.And that's led to a lot of money being spent on these things. In the last year, the globe spent about $1.1 trillion on mitigation technologies: renewable energy, electric vehicles, nuclear power, heat pumps, all that sort of stuff. That's up from $200 million a year or so a decade before or 15 years before. And so we are really on this acceleration of private sector and government spending on these technologies. But I think government does play a role here. I think most economists would acknowledge that what we're dealing with here is an externality. And by an externality, I mean it's something that has a social cost, but no one individually pays for it when they put carbon dioxide or other emissions in the atmosphere. So there has to be some role of internalizing that externality, either through (as economists would like to do) a price on carbon, or in a world where you can't do that for many reasons, subsidizing the good stuff to essentially account for the benefits it has of displacing fossil fuels, both in terms of their affecting climate change, but also conventional pollution. I think we discount a lot, particularly living in a place like the US, which has done a lot of work on this, how disastrous fossil fuels are for public health. There's somewhere in the range of a couple million people dying prematurely globally from pollution, particularly outdoor air pollution. And if you go to a place like India or China and walk around outside, it's pretty catastrophic some days in terms of the brown soup that is the air. We get a lot of co-benefits by cleaning up these conventional pollutants, particularly in places like Southeast Asia or South Asia, as well as reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.Reducing emissions, going to zero emissions, pulling emissions out of the air: Do these scenarios work with just renewable energy sources or is this a world that's using nuclear energy in some form far more than we currently are?So I think we necessarily need a variety of energy sources here, and there's been a lot of work done in recent years by the energy modeling community on this front. Renewables are great. Solar is super, super cheap; to be honest, a lot cheaper today than any of us thought it would be a couple decades ago. Wind is increasingly cheap. But they're also intermittent. The sun doesn't shine all the time; the wind doesn't blow all the time. Batteries are part of the solution to deal with that, but they're not a perfect solution. We tend to find that you get a much lower cost in scenarios where you also have a sizable chunk, maybe 20, 30, 40 percent, of your energy coming from what we call clean firm generation. Things like nuclear, like enhanced geothermal, potentially fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, though those have some challenges in implementation, to support large amounts of renewable energy on the grid.You end up with a much more expensive system if you try to shoehorn in 100 percent renewables, and to be honest, it's pretty unnecessary. So I think we are going to see, and we're already starting to see, bigger investments in things like next-generation nuclear. I think we just need to figure out how to build them on time and on budget. The biggest problem with the nuclear industry in the US — certainly regulations have contributed to it — but I think it's just our inability to build these giant, bespoke megaprojects. Nuclear goes super over budget for the same reason the “Big Dig” in Boston does: You have this 10-year-long, many, many billion-dollar megaproject that has construction delays and all these other problems. The more we can learn from what renewables have gotten right, make things small, modular, pumped out in an assembly line, and less contingent on these giant construction projects, I think the better outcomes we'll see for things like nuclear.There's an economist, he passed fairly recently, Martin Weitzman from Harvard, and he wrote about the economics of climate change. And there's one quote that always sticks in my mind. He wrote that “Deep structural uncertainty about the unknown unknowns of what might go very wrong [with the climate] is coupled with essentially unlimited downside liability on possible planetary damages” and a “non-negligible” probability of a “collapse of planetary welfare.” He's talking about, you can't write off the possibility that we get some very bad outcomes. And I guess that's what worries me: If we're doing something to the atmosphere that we've never done before, what if the models are wrong and we get something really catastrophic, that really becomes a true existential risk? How much should I worry about that?I think we're all worried about unknown unknowns. For me, the odds of those happening, which are somewhat unknowable by definition, increase the more we push the Earth out of the climate we've seen for the past few million years. Right now we're around the range of what we saw in the Last Interglacial Period, about 120,000 years ago. If we get temperatures up to 3 degrees centigrade globally, we will be out of the range of anything we've seen for the last two million years or so, if not further back. And we know if we go further back into the Earth's history, there's some scary stuff back there. There are periods where we see very rapid increases of temperature associated with 90 percent extinction of all life on Earth, like the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum. And we don't have great explanations for all these things. A good example is, for warmer periods in the Earth's past, we think there's a mechanism where if temperatures get high enough, maybe 5 degrees above where they were in the pre-industrial period or a bit above 4 degrees above where we are today, suddenly all the stratocumulus cloud decks that cover much of the Earth's oceans disappear. And that leads to another 4 degrees warming on top of that. That sort of behavior seems to help explain some of these rapid warming events in the Earth's more distant past.Now, we think we're pretty far from experiencing something of that today. But maybe our models are wrong, or maybe the Earth is much more sensitive than we think. And again, rolling sort of sixes on the climate sensitivity and carbon cycle feedback dice leads us into those sorts of conditions. And so Marty Weitzman, who I did have the pleasure of knowing before he passed, had a great phrase to sum up that quote, which is that “when it comes to climate change, this thing is in the tail,” which is a very nerdy way to put it: The tails of these probability distribution functions, the low-probability but high-impact events, are really what should drive a lot of our concern around this and push us to reduce emissions more than we otherwise would if we were just planning for the most likely outcome.But whenever we talk about carbon dioxide removal, it is always important to emphasize that this stuff is expensive and it only makes sense to do at scale in a world where we're already cutting emissions dramatically. Carbon capture and carbon removalPeople will say, “What if the models are wrong?” and they assume they're only going to be wrong to the benefit of humanity. Maybe they're wrong to the detriment of humanity.We talked a little bit about reducing these emissions. You have carbon capture, where you pull it out of the air. How close is that technology to being something that can scale?When we talk about carbon capture, that's often a different thing than when we talk about carbon removal. Carbon capture generally means taking an existing fossil fuel plant…That could be trees too, right?Yeah, but carbon capture is mostly taking an existing fossil fuel plant like a coal, oil, and gas plant, sticking a unit on that captures the carbon coming out of it, and putting that underground. And there's a lot of funding for that in the new Inflation Reduction Act. The record on that over the last few decades has been a bit mixed. It's been hard for folks to make the economics work in practice. It's really complicated technically, but a lot of folks are confident that we can get there with some of those technologies. If a coal plant with carbon capture is going to be cheaper than a nuclear plant or renewable plant is a separate question. And I'm a lot more skeptical on the economics of carbon capture there.Now, carbon dioxide removal is a slightly different thing. And there we're talking about technologies that don't stop emissions from coming out of a smokestack, but instead take carbon that's already in the atmosphere and pull it back out. And most of our models suggest that we are going to need a lot of that down the road, in part because we can't fully get rid of all of the emissions from all of the parts of our economy. And the real challenge with climate change, or what I like to call the “brutal math” of climate change is that as long as our emissions remain above zero, the Earth continues to warm. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for an extremely long period of time; it takes about 400,000 years to fully clear out a ton of fossil CO2 we emit today through natural processes. So we end up needing a lot of carbon removal to both balance out what we call residual emissions and potentially to deal with overshoot. If we figure out that we really don't want temperatures to go above 1.5 degrees, but they're headed toward 1.7, we're going to have to pull a bunch of carbon out of the atmosphere to bring temperatures back down. It's only a small part of the solution. Maybe 10 percent of the solution to climate change writ large is carbon dioxide removal. But for a problem as big as climate change, 10 percent still matters a lot since solar is probably 20 percent, electric vehicles are probably 20 percent, heat pumps might be 10 percent. And there's a lot of technologies people are developing to do that. Direct air capture is the one that gets a lot of press: the sort of big fans that suck carbon out of the air, though they're incredibly energy intensive. But there are a lot of ways that leverage natural processes as well. Planting trees is a good one, though it has a lot of challenges in keeping the carbon in those trees in a warming world, particularly as we see more wildfires, more pine bark beetle outbreaks that used to die in cold winter temperatures and don't anymore. And so it's hard to justify planting trees as a way of permanently taking carbon out of the atmosphere, but it's still quite valuable. There's also a lot of interesting work being done around using biomass to sequester carbon, so taking residues from commercial timber operations, burning them, and putting their carbon content underground. Something called BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, that a lot of people are excited about.Then there are other interesting ways to leverage the natural carbon cycle. For example, over long periods, the weathering of certain types of rocks like basalt or olivine drives a lot of atmospheric CO2 absorption over the course of millions of years. And so a lot of scientists are trying to figure out ways to speed that up. If you take rock dust and spread it on farm fields, it can help manage the pH of soils, it can add some nutrients. And it turns out that as that basalt dust weathers, it absorbs carbon to the atmosphere, it turns it into stable bicarbonate and then flows out to the ocean and eventually forms limestone on the bottom of the ocean. Stuff like that, or adding alkalinity directly to the ocean to counteract ocean acidification, can also lead to more CO2 uptake from the air, because the amount of carbon dioxide the ocean absorbs in the atmosphere depends on how acidic the surface level of the layers of the water are. Scientists are working on tons of different technologies here. And actually my day job these days with Stripe and Frontier is helping support companies to do that. So there's lots of exciting stuff there. But whenever we talk about carbon dioxide removal, it is always important to emphasize that this stuff is expensive and it only makes sense to do at scale in a world where we're already cutting emissions dramatically. If you keep burning fossil fuels willy-nilly and spend a ton of money on a bit of carbon dioxide removal, it's not going to make any difference.Why are you interested in this subject?I think it's an underexplored area. Certainly until the last few years, no one was really putting any money or resources into it at scale. And it's something that is going to have to be an important part of the solution in the next few decades, and so I think this is the decade that we should be spending resources to figure out what works and what can scale for decades to come. We probably should spend about 1 percent of the money we spend on reducing emissions, but historically we've been spending a lot less than that.And why are you also more broadly interested in the entire topic of climate change rather than, I don't know, tax policy or something?I come to it from a scientific background. I just find the Earth's climate fascinating. It's super complex. It's hard to fully understand. We've really made leaps and bounds in progress over the last few decades, but there's so much we still don't know. And so it's just a fascinating area from a scientific standpoint, but it's also one where the importance to the society is quite large. I try not to wade too much into the policy solutions to it, but certainly helping understand the likely impacts of our actions affects a lot of choices that policymakers and others make. There's no one right answer. To your question earlier, people debate renewables versus nuclear and all these other things. Knowing what the impacts of climate change are, what the risks are, and how we can actually get to certain outcomes based on our decisions, I feel like is really important to set the stage for people to use the science in the real world. And it's exciting to work in an area of science where there is a practical, real-world application of it. And not just studying one plant species that lives on top of one mountain in a remote part of the world. We're looking at these big questions that affect everyone over the next century. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Antti Vihavainen is the Co-founder and CEO of Helsinki-based Puro.earth, a leading crediting platform and registry for engineered carbon removal. In 2021, NASDAQ acquired a controlling stake in Puro, helping further establish its credibility in the marketplace. Puro is actively offering engineered carbon removal credits today for a few dozen projects that primarily consist of biochar and bio-construction initiatives.In addition, Puro has an initiative called Puro Accelerate that enables buyers to purchase essentially futures credits for other forms of carbon removal that still need to produce at scale, but which Puro has deemed highly credible and likely to produce in the near term. Puro Accelerate's projects include efforts in direct air capture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (or BECCS) geologically stored carbon, woody biomass burial, and additional biochar projects.Antti and Cody trace how Puro came to be, and cover the details of their current registry offerings and futures offerings. They discuss Puro's business model and how they compare to other carbon credit and offset registries. Additionally, Antti shares his thoughts on how he sees carbon removal scaling in the years to come. In this episode, we cover: [02:46]: Antti's background and climate journey[04:14]: Starting Puro.earth and creating a new asset class [06:29]: Puro's focus on projects with measurable atom-level carbon removal[07:26]: The company's initial methodologies, including biochar, carbonated building materials, and woody elements[10:52]: Collaboration with NASDAQ [11:56]: How Puro issues CO2 Removal Credits (CORCs)[14:52]: How Puro Accelerate supports emerging carbon removal technologies[17:34]: Risks and benefits for companies buying pre-CORCs[21:18]: Qualification process for pre-CORC futures credits[23:02]: Early demand for pre-CORCs from pioneers and future market expansion[25:25]: Potential for third-party innovation to address verification, payment, and capitalization bottlenecks[29:36]: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)[31:41]: Speculative buying in pre-CORC space and innovations in bottleneck problems[34:59]: Potential for blockchain-based solutions in this space[37:05]: Research listings and supporting R&D for emerging technology, like enhanced rock weathering [39:08]: Antti's invitation to large companies and capital deployers to engage with PuroGet connected: Antti LinkedInPuro.earth Twitter / LinkedInCody Simms Twitter / LinkedInMCJ Podcast / Collective*You can also reach us via email at info@mcjcollective.com, where we encourage you to share your feedback on episodes and suggestions for future topics or guests.Episode recorded on Jun 14, 2023 (Published on Jul 31, 2023)

We've been covering a lot of US state and federal CDR policy in the last few episodes. Today we're taking a much-needed international trip and discussing some critical stories happening across the globe.  Zimbabwe's government has announced new regulations on voluntary carbon offset trading to prevent greenwashing and ensure that local communities benefit. Carbon credit schemes in Zimbabwe have been unregulated. The new policy mandates that all carbon projects register with the program, ensuring that a percentage of the revenue goes directly to local communities.  Deforestation rates in Brazil's Amazon rainforest have fallen by 33.6% during the first six months of 2023 under the new administration of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. This contrasts sharply with the record-breaking deforestation rates in 2022 under former president Jair Bolsonaro, who promoted mining and farming in protected areas. The UK government has announced comprehensive changes to its Emissions Trading Scheme: a program designed to decarbonize the country eventually. The ETS will now include more sectors, set new emissions limits for the power sector, energy-intensive industries, and aviation, and incorporate carbon removal technologies into the ETS. CDR solutions, like direct air capture, BECCs, and nature-based removals, will now be traded in the ETS program.  Today I'm with our regular policy panel of Holly Buck Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo and the author of Ending Fossil Fuels, and Wil Burns the Co-Executive Director of the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy at American University. On This Show Holly Jean Buck Wil Burns Radhika Moolgavkar Resources New Zimbabwe Regulations Amazon Deforestation Decrease Cerrado Deforestation Increase “Brazilian Amazon Indigenous Territories” paper Petrobras Increasing Oil Output UK ETS Changes Drax BECCS projects Our Episode on California's SB 308 Connect with Nori Nori Nori's Twitter Nori's other podcast Reversing Climate Change Nori's CDR meme twitter account --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

We explore the atmospheric carbon removal through: why air carbon removal technologies can help where reforestation is not possible and how, how Direct Air Capture (DAC) works, why the cost of Direct Air Capture (DAC) is still high, what bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (or else BECCS) technology is, where we are at now if we implement every possible carbon dioxide removal strategy and technology. Stay tuned for next Sunday's episode examining an overlooked and least expected approach for achieving equity, health, prosperity and security. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/panagiota-pimenidou/message

Brad Hartwig is CEO and founder of Arbor, and today's topic is BiCRS. No, not the people in black leather jackets cruising down the highway, but rather the acronym for the process of biomass carbon removal and storage, BiCRS. Arbor is developing a process that transforms organic waste from forest thinning to prevent wildfires. The company's process converts the carbon in the waste into stored CO2, while also producing clean energy and freshwater as byproducts. Specifically, Arbor's process runs wood waste through a light thermal treatment known as torrefaction, which is somewhat akin to roasting coffee beans. They take this torrefied biomass and gasify it into syngas and then combust it with pure oxygen to produce clean water and high purity CO2, which they then run through a highly dense turbine to create carbon negative electricity while injecting the CO2 into permanent sequestration.The plants that they will build to operate this process end to end will be significantly smaller than existing biomass energy facilities. And Arbor has an audacious vision to own and operate these carbon capture plants in a distributed nature near carbon injection wells and sequestration facilities, selling the excess power that they generate back to the grid or to the facilities themselves. We start the conversation going into Brad's inspiring background, which includes time as a rocket engineer at SpaceX and nearly a decade on the USA National Swim Team, while also volunteering for Marin County Search and Rescue and the California Air National Guard. We cover how he surveyed the entire carbon dioxide removal space before landing on the idea for BiCRS and how his aerospace background seemed particularly well suited for Arbor's specific approach.In this episode, we cover: [2:51] The movement of talent from the aerospace industry into climate [6:28] Brad's volunteer work with the California Air National Guard Rescue Operations and Marin County Search and Rescue[8:37] His personal background in aerospace and work at SpaceX[15:24] The importance of meaningful service work [19:57] Brad's motivations for getting into the carbon removal space and the thesis for Arbor[25:21] Differences between BiCRS and BECCS[27:47] How and where Arbor sources materials[31:49] Arbor's process for transitioning forest materials into biocarbon[35:07] An overview of torrefaction [40:37] The "trilemma" of biomass, CO2 storage, and load demand[43:38] How the company plans to scale based on organic waste feedstock availability[45:38] Arbor's integrated carbon sequestration and power generation business model[50:49] The carbon capture side of the business [51:38] Funding to date and plans for Arbor's future capital [54:27] The challenges of processing biomass[56:52] Who Arbor wants to hear fromGet connected: Cody Simms Twitter / LinkedInBrad Hartwig / ArborMCJ Podcast / Collective*You can also reach us via email at info@mcjcollective.com, where we encourage you to share your feedback on episodes and suggestions for future topics or guests.Episode recorded on May 5, 2023

The UK was the first major power to sign net zero into law in 2019, and was once considered a global leader on climate policy. After Brexit and a change of government, is the country failing to live up to its promises? Alasdair speaks to Dr. Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK's Chief Scientist, about the UK's place on the global stage, how its net zero policies are progressing, and how the country is taking dangerous risks with nuclear and aviation. Podcast editing by Vasko Kostovski. Click here to visit The Future Unrefined, our curated collection of articles and podcasts on raw materials and extraction. Find more podcasts and articles at www.landclimate.org

In this episode of the NTNU Energy Transition Podcast, we discuss "BECCS", or Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage. We explore the use of biomass for heating and capturing CO2 to be stored underground, and how it fits into pathways for reaching net zero emissions. I am joined by Fabian Levihn, the head of R&D at Stockholm Exergi and a member of the carbon removals expert group for the European Commission. Levihn explains how BECCS technology works and its potential as a negative emissions solution. We also discuss policy frameworks and market models needed to make BECCS and other negative emissions technologies economically feasible. — The NTNU Energy Transition Podcast aims to function as a knowledge hub that empowers individuals and organizations in Europe and beyond to tackle climate change and move our global society toward carbon neutrality. New episodes every other Thursday. The NTNU Energy Transition Initiative was established to deliver world-leading research on energy transition strategies, to achieve the Paris ambitions in an efficient and realistic way. Every March we organize the NTNU Energy Conference in Trondheim, Norway. You can find us on ⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠, ⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠, and on our ⁠⁠webpage⁠⁠. Please reach out by mail to ⁠⁠julius.wesche@ntnu.no⁠⁠.

Bertie speaks to Wijnand Stoefs, Carbon Market Watch's policy lead on Carbon Removal, about how EU policy is developing around greenhouse gas removals. They discuss the Carbon Removal Certification Framework, along with other legislation like the Innovation Fund and the Sustainable Carbon Cycles Communication, as well as talking about risks with bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and failures of France's Label Bas-Carbone. Futher reading: Read Carbon Market Watch's position paper on the Carbon Removal Certification Framework here. 'Environmental stewardship yes, ‘carbon farming' no', Social Europe'EU's carbon farming plan comes under fire', Politico'EU's Carbon Removals Certification Framework is certifiably problematic', Carbon Market Watch'EU member states' haphazard approach to carbon removals puts climate goals and nature at risk', Carbon Market WatchLe Label Bas-Carbone : outil d'optimisation ou de transition? , Le Réseau Action Climat [French]'What are the European Commission's plans for negative emissions?', Land and Climate ReviewClick here to visit The Future Unrefined, our curated collection of articles and podcasts on raw materials and extraction. Find more podcasts and articles at www.landclimate.org

Episode 20 of The Carbon Curve is with Marian Krüger, co-lead of the Remove Accelerator and Decarbonization Lead for Sus.Lab at ETH ZürichLet's hop over the Atlantic and talk about the carbon removal (or CDR) innovation and policy landscape in Europe. The EU is the world's third largest economy, and it's well positioned to have a major impact on the future of carbon removal policy and innovation. I wanted to understand Europe's potential in terms of what's in the innovation pipeline, as well as what systemic gaps need to be addressed to make Europe a carbon removal powerhouse.Today, Na'im speaks to Marian Krüger, co-lead of the Remove Accelerator and Decarbonization Lead for Sus.Lab at ETH Zürich. Remove is a new accelerator program designed to support carbon removal innovators while strengthening the CDR ecosystem.Sus.Lab or The Sustainability in Business Lab is a “Think and Do Tank” launched by the Chair for Sustainability and Technology at ETH Zürich. The lab was founded in 2016 with a mission to bring sustainability research into the real world through hands-on industry projects. The Remove Accelerator (formerly known as Carbon Removal ClimAccelerator before the rebrand) is Europe's first and only accelerator program purely focused on CDR startups. Originated as a project at ETH Zurich's Sustainability in Business Lab, the non-profit, non-equity program has supported more than 60 European early-stage CDR startups since its start in 2021 with coaching, expert matchmaking, ecosystem access and non-dilutive capital.In this episode, Na'im and Marian discuss:* The carbon removal work at ETH Zürich's Sustainability in Business Lab* The genesis and evolution of the Remove Accelerator (previously the Carbon Removal ClimAccelerator)* Country-level carbon removal policies in the EU and UK* EU-level policy progress and gapsRelevant Links:*  Sus.Lab at ETH Zürich* Carbon removal work* DemoUpCARMA & DemoUpStorage* Remove Accelerator* EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework* Luxembourg Negative Emissions Tariff* The L NET Straw Proposal - A Negative Emissions Tariff for Luxembourg and Beyond* Sweden's carbon removal strategy * Is Sweden becoming the world leader on BECCS?* Switzerland's long term climate strategy * UK greenhouse gas removal (GGR) business models About Marian Krüger:Marian Krüger has spent his whole career in impact entrepreneurship. First as a venture developer at the German green utility, Innogy, before founding his own startup, Ucair, to increase photovoltaic yield using drones and AI data analytics. After its acquisition, he went on to join ETH Zurich's Sustainability in Business Lab as Decarbonization Lead and co-founded and now leads the Remove Accelerator. Marian holds two Masters degrees, one in education and one in behavioral economics and sustainability from the London School of Economics.This podcast is created and published by Na'im Merchant. Episode production and content support provided by Lucia Simonelli.Na'im Merchant is the co-founder and Executive Director of Carbon Removal Canada, a policy initiative focused on scaling carbon removal in Canada. He previously ran carbon removal consulting practice Carbon Curve, and publishes The Carbon Curve newsletter and podcast. Every two weeks, Na'im will release a short interview with individuals advancing the policies, technologies, and collective action needed to scale up carbon removal around the world.If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to this podcast on your favorite podcast app or subscribe via The Carbon Curve newsletter here. If you'd like to get in touch with Na'im, you can reach out via Twitter and LinkedIn. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit carboncurve.substack.com

Find out more about this event on our website: https://bit.ly/3mqxHz9 Governments today are much less persuaded that subsidising the burning of biomass to generate low-carbon electricity represents good value for taxpayers – let alone a good deal for our Net Zero targets. Elsewhere, in the world of controversial technologies, Carbon Capture and Storage is still struggling to prove it will ever live up to the promises made on its behalf over the last 25 years. So what happens when you bring the two together, as Drax is now planning to do with its huge new BECCS investment at its Selby plant in Yorkshire? Is it possible to envisage ‘BECCS done well'? If so, on what terms? Speaker: Jonathon Porritt is an eminent writer and campaigner on sustainable development. In 1996 he co-founded Forum for the Future, a leading international sustainable development charity, working with business and civil society to accelerate the shift toward a sustainable future. In 2022 he chaired the High Level Panel on BECCS Done Well, which reported in November 2023: Read the report Jonathon is President of The Conservation Volunteers, and is actively involved in the work of many other NGOs and organisations. He was formerly Co-Chair of the Green Party (1980-83), Director of Friends of the Earth (1984-90), a Trustee of WWF-UK (1991-2005), a member of the Board of the South West Regional Development Agency (1999-2008), and a Trustee of Ashden. He stood down as Chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission in 2009, after nine years providing high-level advice to Government Ministers. Jonathon served a ten-year term as Chancellor of Keele University (2012-2022), and was a Non-Executive Director of Willmott Dixon until 2022. In 2017, Jonathon received Ethical Corporation's Lifetime Achievement Award at the Responsible Business Awards. He was awarded a CBE in January 2000 for services to environmental protection. His latest book, Hope in Hell (Simon & Schuster, 2020) is a powerful ‘call to action' on the Climate Emergency.

Sista poddavsnitt för februari 2023 är här. I detta avsnitt pratar vi om Uppsala Universitet som satsar på hyggesfritt på 20 % av sin skogsareal och ämnar även börja forska på detta. Mångfald är bra och det vore bra om fler universitet startade skogsforskning. Vi pratar också en hel del om det som kallas BECCS och vi kan avslöja att vi inte är imponerade (ännu) av detta system. Det kan se "BECCSvart" ut...

On this episode of Free Range, Host Mike Livermore is joined by two University of Virginia Law students, Matt Disandro and Elizabeth Putfark, who have produced this explainer episode on the pros and cons of wood pellets as a replacement for fossil fuels. To make wood pellets, wood from trees is broken apart, heated to reduce moisture, converted to a fine powder, and compressed to form dense, short pellets. According to Daniel Reinemann from Bioenergy Europe, a nonprofit based in Brussels that advocates for biomass energy, wood pellets are the closest thing that the biomass market has to a commodity. (6:50-8:09) Dr. Knight, the Group Director of Sustainability at the U.K energy company Drax, explains the key difference between biomass and fossil fuels: fossil fuels take millions of years to turn biological matter into fuel; biomass, on the other hand, was carbon in the sky a few years ago. Disandro, Putfark, Knight, and Reinemann discuss carbon sequestration, the carbon dividend, and the potential technology known as “BECCS” – bioenergy carbon capture and storage. Many policies encourage the use of wood pellets, including the European Union Renewable Energy Directive. (8:10-19:57) The biomass industry doesn't just affect Europe; it also impacts wood pellet manufacturers in the Southeast United States, which is very rich in timber. To discuss the market for pellets in the Southeast US, Disandro and Putfark are joined by Professor Bob Abt, a forest economist at North Carolina State University. Abt discusses the tradeoffs and distributional consequences of the growing demand for wood pellets from the Southeast. (19:58-24:42) Notwithstanding support in the EU for wood pellets, conservationists have been raising alarms. Lousie Guillot, a journalist at Politico, provides some background on the controversy. (24:43-26:46) According to Dr. Mary Booth, the director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity's science and advocacy work, burning wood is not a carbon neutral energy source. Dr. Booth and the hosts discuss the urgency of reducing emissions now and the important role trees play in taking carbon out of the atmosphere. (26:46 – 31:20) One feature of the controversy is how the Renewable Energy Directive classifying wood pellets as a zero-carbon energy source, despite objections from some environmentalists. (31:21 – 33:27) An additional question is whether wood pellets are mostly derived from forest refuse -- which is the treetops, branches, and diseased trees left behind from logging – rather than whole trees. Heather Hillaker, at the Southern Environmental Law Center, explains her research on wood pellet sourcing in the U.S. Southeast. Using satellite imagery, SELC's geospatial team found that 84% of the hardwood material being used for bioenergy came from whole trees instead of refuse. Guillot shares details of similar problems happening in European forests. (33:28 – 38:49) Hillaker goes on to discusses the social and community impacts of the wood pellet mills on environmental justice communities. (38:51 – 44:59) Livermore, Disandro and Putfark wrap up the episode by discussing their own views on the pros and cons of wood pellets and what, if anything, the wood pellets experience teaches about broader issues in climate policy. (45:00 – 51:43)

The agricultural sector produces about a tenth of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and while most of that comes from livestock (about 2/3), emissions from crop production still total about 2.2 billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent. Interestingly, we only actually use about half of what we grow: this is not because of food waste (its own issue), but because more than half of any crop is residue: the stems, shells, husks and anything else left behind at the end of a crop harvest.Charm Industrial is a new company with a plan to convert those crop residues (~ half a billion tons in the US alone) from a source of greenhouse gas emissions to a sink. Crop residues are usually left on harvested fields to decompose (or are burned), partially restoring the soils, and partially returning all the CO2 they absorbed during the growing season to the atmosphere. Charm plans to harvest those residues and convert them into bio-oil and biochar. The biochar returns to the soils for restoration; the bio-oil can be buried for CO2 sequestration or replace fossil-derived fuels. Climate Now sat down with Charm CEO and Co-founder Peter Reinhardt, to discuss how their technology works, and why interest is growing in this approach to carbon removal.Follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram.Contact us at contact@climatenow.comVisit our website for all of our content and sources for each episode.

This week we are talking carbon capture and storage technology (BECCS) with Michael Brogle. Michael works as a Business Development Manager at Neustark AG. Based in Switzerland, Neustark is a BECCS company, which captures biogenic CO2 and permanently stores it in recycled concrete. Neustark's plants and processes are in use in Switzerland and various European countries, the company currently expands its international operations with a strong focus on the French market. They have a very unique approach from source to sink. We are delighted that they have chosen to come to Bio360 Expo to further their development and build up the international markets in collaboration with local biogas and concrete recycling partners.

"Das Klima”, der Podcast zur Wissenschaft hinter der Krise. Wir lesen den aktuellen Bericht des Weltklimarats und erklären den aktuellen Stand der Klimaforschung. In Folge 70 geht es um “sektorenübergreifende Perspektiven”. Das klingt sehr öde, weswegen wir stattdessen über Methoden reden, wie man CO2 direkt aus der Luft filtern kann. Was aber exakt so eine sektorenübergreifende Perspektive ist. Außerdem geht es um künstliche Verwitterung und andere Wege, die man “Geoengineering” nennen kann, die durchaus Potenzial haben, aber bei weitem nicht genug, um unser Klimaproblem lösen zu können.

"Das Klima”, der Podcast zur Wissenschaft hinter der Krise. Wir lesen den aktuellen Bericht des Weltklimarats und erklären den aktuellen Stand der Klimaforschung. In Folge 65 reden wir über den Wald. Und über die Felder. Es geht um Landwirtschaft, Forstwirtschaft, pupsende Tiere und die überraschend schlechte Kimabilanz von Reis. Wir schauen uns an, wo hier die ganzen Treibhausgase herkommen und was man tun kann, damit es weniger werden. Spoiler: Es lohnt sich wirklich, den Wald zu schützen. Und die Bioenergie sollte man auch nicht vergessen; selbst wenn sie nicht die optimalste Strategie zum Klimaschutz ist.

Join us for our second episode in English! This time Karolina Unger meets Angela Hepworth, Commercial Director at Drax and Phil Southerden, CTCO at C-Capture Ltd. Drax plans to transform Drax Power Station into the world's biggest carbon capture project using BECCS to permanently remove 8Mt of CO2 emissions from the atmosphere each year by 2030. The project is well developed, the technology is proven and an investment decision could be taken in 2024 with the first BECCS unit operational in 2027 and a second in 2030, subject to the right investment framework. C-Capture is the designer of the innovative chemical processes for carbon dioxide removal and is working alongside Drax with the BECCS project. C-Capture has patented a unique, safe, low-cost carbon capture technology that uses up to 40 percent less energy than current commercially available technologies. Take part of the interesting discussions about CCS technology, chemicals, research and the industry transition happening right now - and of course the next step for making the Drax project come through. Enjoy!

Skogsindustrikoncernen Holmen släppte idag sin kvartalsrapport för andra kvartalet 2022. Det är det bästa i Holmens historia och vinstmarginalerna drar upp emot 50 %. Vi pratar om den dysfunktionella virkesmarknaden i Sverige och att skogsindustrin faktiskt kan tjäna mer pengar per kubikmeter virke än vad det betalar skogsägaren för råvaran. Vi hinner också med att diskutera återvätning och BECCS där det verkar som att politikerna sviker skogsägarna samtidigt som de blir lurade upp på läktaren av skogsindustrin.

Vi är tillbaks i Sverige och poddar idag på två olika ställen. Vi reflekterar över norsk skog och skogsbruk och funderar på om tallskogen nära fjällen är kontinuitetsskogsbruk? Vi har också återigen förundrats över biokolets verkningar och politikens enfald. Varför satsas det inte på mer biokol i Sverige?

This episode is about the real world feasibility and consequences of two greenhouse gas removal approaches: first, large-scale afforestation, and second, biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). They both play the largest roles of any greenhouse gas removal approaches in future low emission scenarios that keep global mean temperature increase to below 1.5 °C and 2 °C.We have three guests for this episode Nem Vaughan, Clair Gough and Diarmaid Clery from the FAB-GGR team or the Feasibility of Afforestation and Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage for Greenhouse Gas Removal.Clair is senior research fellow at the University of Manchester where she has worked for many years on carbon capture storage, looking at everything from the social and political aspects to its role in decarbonising industry and removing carbon dioxide.Diarmaid is a research associate at the University of Manchester, and previously worked at the University of East Anglia. His background is in engineering, working on technical aspects of  biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), but now working on more social aspects of greenhouse gas removal, and industrial decarbonisation.Nem is an associate professor at the University of East Anglia where she works on greenhouse gas removal methods, from an earth system perspective through to public and policy.

In the international carbon offset market, the average price of removing one tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere is still below $15 USD, nowhere near enough to cover the costs of carbon capture and storage (CCS). As Dr. Sheila Olmstead (University of Texas, Austin) explained in a recent Climate Now podcast episode, this is why CCS is one of the few climate technologies not experiencing exponential growth. “Unless there's a market for captured CO2, then it doesn't make economic sense… to adopt these carbon capture technologies.” But what if, instead of making captured CO2 the only marketable product, the capture is accomplished while also producing other goods and services?Climate Now spoke with three pioneers developing startup programs in California that plan to use biowaste (that is, agricultural residues or vegetation cleared from forests to increase their resiliency to drought, fire or infestation) to produce hydrogen fuel and CO2. The technique is called 'bioenergy and carbon capture and storage,' or BECCS. The hydrogen can be sold and the CO2 captured and stored underground. Join us for our discussion with George Peridas of Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Jonathan Kusel of the Sierra Institute for Community and Environment, and Josh Stolaroff of Mote, to hear how this approach could make CCS economically feasible, perhaps even profitable, while also providing a benefit to local communities already experiencing the worst impacts of climate change, and an essential service for the well-being of our planet.01:40 - Introduction to BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage)02:06 - Introduction to BICRS (biomass carbon removal and storage)03:10 - Quick overview of carbon capture utilization and storage04:50 - Challenges of carbon capture 05:27 - George Peridas and Jonathan Kusel on the Indian Valley Wood Utilization Campus project14:57 - The importance of hydrogen15:47 - Joshuah Stolaroff explains how to produce hydrogen using waste biomass17:20 - Introduction to Mote28:41 - Carbon capture skepticism and risks

Biomass. It's the organic matter in forests, agriculture and trash. You can turn it into electricity, fuel, plastic and more. And you can engineer it to capture extra carbon dioxide and sequester it underground or at the bottom of the ocean.  The catch: The world has a finite capacity for biomass production, so every end use competes with another. If done improperly, these end uses could also compete with food production for arable land already in tight supply. So which decarbonization solutions will get a slice of the biomass pie? Which ones should? In this episode, Shayle talks to Julio Friedmann, chief scientist at Carbon Direct. They cover the sources of biomass, everything from municipal solid waste to kelp. They also survey the potential end-uses, such as incineration to generate power, gasification to make hydrogen, and pyrolyzation to make biochar, as well as fuel production in a Fischer-Tropsch process.  In a report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Julio and his co-authors propose a new term called biomass carbon removal and storage, or ‘BiCRS', as a way to describe capturing carbon in biomass and then sequestering it. Startups Charm Industrial and Running Tide are pursuing this approach. Julio and his co-authors think of BiCRS as an alternative pathway to bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS).  They then zoom in on a promising source of biomass: waste. Example projects include a ski hill built on an incinerator in Copenhagen and a planned waste-to-hydrogen plant in Lancaster, California.  Shayle and Julio also dig into questions like: How to procure and transport biomass, especially biowaste, at scale?  How to avoid eco-colonialism, i.e. when wealthy countries exploit the resources of poorer countries to grow biomass without meaningful consent? If everyone wants it, when is biowaste no longer waste? And when there's a shortage of waste—like corn stover, for example—what's the risk of turning to raw feedstocks, like corn? How to pickle trees? (yes, you read that right) Catalyst is brought to you by Arcadia. Arcadia allows innovators, businesses and communities to break the fossil fuel monopoly through its technology platform, Arc. Join Arcadia's mission and find out how you or your business can help turn a fully decarbonized grid into a reality at arca​dia​.com/​c​a​t​alyst. Catalyst is supported by Advanced Energy Economy. AEE is on the front lines of transforming policy that accelerates the move to 100 percent clean energy and electrified transportation in America. To learn how your business can play a key role in transforming policy and expanding markets, visit aee​.net/join.

Earlier this week the IPCC released its report on climate mitigation. It recommended enormous funding levels to deploy renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions from power generation while suggesting more funding still to research and invent the technologies needed to decarbonize other emitting sectors. Under any future scenario, carbon removal is necessary to limit warming. Any pathway that leads to 1.5 degrees of warming, and nearly all that lead to 2 degrees of warming, include large-scale use of forestry, BECCS, and DAC. The report finds that a wide range of stakeholders will need to move fast to deploy high levels of many different types of negative emissions approaches. Joining Radhika on this episode to discuss this 3000-page report is Simon Nicholson, the Co-Director of the American University Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy. Simon and Radhika take a look at the recommendations mean, how the report finds CDR scale-up might be achieved, and what are some of the implications for businesses, governments, and civil society? --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Today we're looking at the step beyond Net Zero: climate intervention or geo-engineering. Our interview guest says, “Geo-engineering in any form sounds like a terrible concept, until you peer carefully into the future and realise that not geo-engineering would likely prove worse.”

Sami Yassa, senior scientist at the US based NGO the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and their scientific lead on forests and forest biomass,  sets out NRDC research on the use of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) which looks at whether it can really produce negative emissions.  He also explains NRDC's work with the US Congress on biomass.Further reading from Sami Yassa:·         NRDC's recent research on BECCS·         Further explanatory documents and data from the research ·         NRDC US Congress work around biomass and ensuring scientific independence for US environmental agencies

Alasdair talks to John Sterman about his groundbreaking research that proved burning wood for energy will "increase atmospheric CO2 for at least a century". John Sterman is the Jay W. Forrester Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, the Director of the MIT System Dynamics Group and the Director of the MIT Sloan Sustainability Initiative. His team developed a model for dynamic bioenergy lifecycle analysis, which he hoped would prove burning "wood was part of the solution" for the climate. Instead, "it came out the other way". Further reading: ·         Professor Sterman's paper about the outcomes from his bioenergy modelling·         More details on the study, in reply to a comment on the paper·         En-Roads, MIT Sustainability Initiative's interactive climate simulator that allows users to explore the impacts of different climate policies·       Read more about bioenergy and BECCS, and listen to more podcasts on the topic, in ELCI's bioenergy hub

Will Gardiner has been a key architect of Drax Group's strategy to create a flexible, low-carbon, customer-focused power company. Alex and Will talk about the results from COP26, but also what's needed next to keep the goal of 1.5 alive. They explore a little of what's needed from international policy, how Drax's global operations are expanding to meet the decarbonization opportunity and Will's thoughts on renewables, voluntary carbon markets and the need for more support of permanent removal technologies. https://www.drax.com/carbon-capture/what-are-negative-emissions/www.decarbconnect.comTo see Will's panel discussion from the Decarb Connect Festival (Jan 22) get in touch. Thanks to Janno Media of their podcast production and support.

Vi poddar idag direkt från hamnen i Lysekil som nu huserar fartyget Almirante Storni. Det var fartyget som fullastat med trävaror började brinna utanför Göteborg i slutet av förra året. Vi har vandrat runt och tittat på trävarorna som nu lastas av i Lysekil och blir lite förvånade över vad som verkligen fanns i lasten på båten. Naturligtvis blir det som vanligt också diskussion om skogsfrågor som varit aktuella under veckan som varit.

Konjunkturinstitutet har fokuserat på skogen i sin årliga miljöekonomiska rapport. De föreslår i princip ett Bonus Malus-system där skogsägarna föreslås få betalt för kolsänkan i levande skogar. Anledningen, enligt KI är att det finns ett systemfel i skogen när bara en nytta idag är prissatt på en marknad (virket). Vi pratar också om sulfat, sulfit och BECCS, även kallat Bio-CCS. Vi flaggar också för vår bössa i Musikhjälpen. Det är nionde året i rad som vi är med och stöttar Musikhjälpen.

What do Glenfiddich whisky, yoga pants and a trash-burning waste-to-heat plant in Europe have in common? They're all part of efforts to use emerging technologies to tackle climate change.  As companies and countries around the world pursue net zero targets, one big question is: How do you ensure the carbon removal technologies we will need 20 to 30 years down the road are available, affordable and easily scaled? In this episode of ESG Insider, we bring you the second part in our miniseries about emerging climate technologies. We hear how Scotch whisky maker Glenfiddich uses a part of its distillery process to power delivery trucks. We explore how biotech company LanzaTech is using bacteria to recycle gases into ethanol that is used to create everything from yoga pants to shampoo bottles to low-carbon aviation fuels.   And lastly, we learn how Fortum Oslo Varme's waste-to-energy trash-burning plant in Norway is being converted to capture carbon emissions and send them to be permanently stored deep under the North Sea. This technology is often referred to as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS, and can be used to help tackle climate change when done in a sustainable manner.  Photo credit: William Grant & Sons 

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Dr. Deborah Lawrence, a Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, about her research on land use and the connection between deforestation and climate change. In this discussion, Lawrence provides an in-depth explanation of the role forests play in affecting the global climate and then discusses how climate scientists use mathematical modeling to project the future of climate change. Professor Lawrence begins by describing how she developed her interdisciplinary approach to studying land use, which she calls “Food, Fuels and Forests” (2:30 – 5:30). This approach recognizes that the surface of the earth is a finite good, so the decision to use a part of it for one thing necessarily means it is not being used for another. Lawrence and Livermore then discuss the current state of carbon capture technology (5:55 – 13:25). Professor Lawrence explains that one of the fundamental flaws in most climate change models is the fact that almost every model relies on carbon capture and sequestration technology that is either unproven (direct air capture) or prohibitively expensive (like BECCS – bioenergy with carbon capture and storage). The conversation then shifts to a discussion of the importance of forests in relation to climate change on both a global and local scale, with Professor Lawrence offering a detailed explanation of the process through which forests cool the planet (15:00 – 24:15). Lawrence then explains the role of modeling in climate change science, generally, and in her work specifically (24:30 – 44:35). Finally, Professor Lawrence provides insight into her research on land use, how land use decisions fit within the broader considerations of climate change science, and the benefits of approaching land use questions from a multidisciplinary perspective (45:00 – 59:45). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

Protecting biodiversity and adopting nature-based solutions: Both play a critical role in addressing climate change and therefore cannot be ignored. This is a key theme we heard repeated at COP26, the U.N.'s big climate conference that took place in Glasgow over the first two weeks of November. In this episode of ESG Insider, we explore the emerging dialogue on climate change and nature-based considerations. For example, 92% of country climate pledges, known as Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, submitted for COP26 included nature in their plans, Capitals Coalition CEO Mark Gough tells us. The Capitals Coalition advocates for companies to identify, measure and value their impacts and dependencies on natural capital, social capital and human capital. "Climate change is a driver for nature change," says Mark. "But also, nature can help to drive the changes that we want to see in the climate to make improvements there." In this episode, we also talk with Sarah Bratton Hughes, Global Head of Sustainability Solutions at UK-based asset management firm Schroders. She outlines how the firm is moving to reduce deforestation risks in its portfolios. And we'll hear how hard-to-decarbonize sectors such as steel and chemicals use nature to help meet their climate targets from Anthony Hobley, who is co-executive director of the Mission Possible Platform, a partnership between the World Economic Forum and the Energy Transitions Commission. For further coverage of COP26, listen to the podcast episode on Article 6 here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/at-cop26-why-article-6-matters-to-companies-and-investors/id1475521006?i=1000539436647 And listen to the podcast episode where we interviewed the co-chair of the Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, or TNFD, here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-new-task-force-in-town-tnfd-co-chair-talks/id1475521006?i=1000528412510 Photo credit: Getty Images

At first, the idea of harvesting, harnessing, even burning our beloved biomass may seem counterintuitive, at least from a carbon removal perspective. Why not just leave biomass be? Well, as we've heard so far this season, the carbon cycle is out of kilter. Even with our best efforts of restoration and enhancement, relying on forests and soils alone for the carbon removal we need may be too slow, too short, too unreliable. This is where biochar and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) come in. While different, both offer to do more with biomass, for the sake of carbon removal and more. Can these really achieve carbon neutrality, let alone removal? Is there enough biomass out there? Are these the scalable, permanent and reliable silver bullets we've been dreaming of?! In this episode, Tom and Emily teach each other a thing or two about how to get the best from your biomass, for carbon drawdown's sake. Many thanks to our excellent guests in this episode: Dr Naomi Vaughan, Senior Research Associate at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change ResearchPia Henrietta Moon, Co-founder & CEO at Carbo Culture ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To learn more about The Carbon Removal Show, including further reading, sources from the episode, and our free newsletter head to: https://restored.cc/ Thanks to Patch for sponsoring the podcast.

Even with the best efforts, it will be decades before we see any change in global temperatures through our mitigation efforts. Given the pace of global heating and the time lag before our emissions reductions have any impact, scientists are exploring additional ways of reducing global temperature. Gaia Vince explores ways of actively removing carbon from the atmosphere. She discusses the idea of BECCS, biological energy with carbon capture storage, and DAC, direct air capture with Simon Evans of Climate Brief. Sir David King, Chair of the Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge University, explains how he is planning an experiment in the Arabian Sea that will allow the oceans to take up more carbon. Professor Rachael James of the University of Southampton talks about her experiments in enhanced rock weathering, where she finds ways of speeding up the slow continual process in which carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolves in rainwater, forming a weak acid that reacts with the surface of rocks. She hopes this will lock up more carbon and bring benefits to farmers and mining companies. And psychologist Ben Converse of the University of Virginia considers whether we might find geoengineering a socially acceptable approach to tackling climate change. Editor: Deborah Cohen Picture: Clouds, Credit: Gary Yeowell/Getty Images

In this episode, we get into some of the specific technologies that might be called upon to deliver negative emissions at scale. Specifically, we're looking at the advantages, disadvantages, and concerns surrounding BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage.)

With COP26 just two months away, our latest podcast continues our focus on the path to net zero. We consider the vital role businesses have to play in tackling climate change. And we focus in on how negative emissions can help to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.  In this episode  Will Gardiner, CEO of renewable energy company Drax Group, talks about how the company is using technologies including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) to hit its target of becoming a carbon negative company by 2030.   Simon Virley, Vice Chair and Head of Energy & Natural Resources at KPMG in the UK, gives his views on the importance of negative emissions to reaching net zero  Wafa Jafri, Director, Energy Deal Strategy, KPMG in the UK, takes on hosting duties. 

In this episode, Alasdair speaks to Dr Dan Quiggin, Senior Research Fellow at Chatham House  currently researching the implications of using Bioenergy with Capture and Storage or BECCS .He then asks Ember, Chief Operating Officer, Phil MacDonald [NB after 43mins] for his analysis of negative emissions,  BECCS and Dr Quiggin's findings.   They reach sobering conclusions about the potential impact of pursuing BECCS to remove carbon from the atmosphere. 

Biyoenerji kullanan çözümler neden iklim krizine çözüm olamazlar? Bu bölümde BECCS nedir ve neden çözüm değildir konusunu anlatmaya çalıştım. Biraz uzun, iki bölüm bir arada gibi düşünebilirsiniz...

Everyone knows there's just too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and we're heating up the planet at an unprecedented pace. More than 20 years ago, Norwegians helped pioneer an approach to dealing with CO2 that's still ongoing today— they captured it and pumped it into a rock formation deep under the sea. Now the Norwegian government is building on those decades of experience with a large-scale carbon capture and storage project called Longship. Will it work? Is it safe? And is it something that other countries can benefit from, too? Our guests for this episode were Olav Bolland, Philip Ringrose and Mona Mølnvik. You can find the transcript of the episode here.More resources/reading: Olav Bolland's book: Nord, Lars O.; Bolland, Olav. (2020) Carbon Dioxide Emission Management in Power Generation. Wiley-VCH Verlagsgesellschaft. 2020. ISBN 978-3-527-34753-7. You can read the White Paper from the Norwegian government about the Longship project here. Here's a press release from 15 December 2020 that reports on the Norwegian Storting's funding approval for the Longship project. This link takes you to a transcript, in English, from the press conference from 21 September 2020 in which Norwegian officials announce the Longship plan. Here's the official website for the Longship CCS project. You can read about the Norwegian CCS Research Centre that Mona Mølnvik is head of here. An older, but still good video about Sleipner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG5_WSXj1pI&t=271s   Philip Ringrose's group's most recent video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAAb1S4bqks&t=28s   A e-lecture by Philip Ringrose about CCS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eozVdrvejDs&t=400s   Selected popular science and scientific articles If the world can capture carbon, there's capacity to store it. Norwegian SciTech News, 13 December 2019 The world doesn't realise how much we need CO2 storage. Norwegian SciTech News, 5 December 2016 Carbon capture and storage essential to reach climate target. Norwegian SciTech News, 7 April 2014https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-20/norway-drops-moon-landing-as-mongstad-carbon-capture-scrapped Ringrose, Philip; Meckel, T A. (2019) Maturing global CO2 storage resources on offshore continental margins to achieve 2DS emissions reductions. Scientific Reports. 9 (1). Grethe Tangen, Erik G.B. Lindeberg, Arvid Nøttvedt, Svein Eggen. (2014) Large-scale Storage of CO2 on the Norwegian Shelf Enabling CCS Readiness in Europe, Energy Procedia, vol. 51, pp.326-333 Mai Bui, Claire S. Adjiman, Andre Bardow et al. (2018) Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ. Sci . 11, 1062 From the summary for policymakers, IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C (2018): “All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 GtCO2 over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and, in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). CDR deployment of several hundreds of GtCO2 is subject to multiple feasibility and sustainability constraints (high confidence). Significant near-term emissions reductions and measures to lower energy and land demand can limit CDR deployment to a few hundred GtCO2 without reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) (high confidence).” See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this latest 2020 episode, Aurora's CEO John Feddersen is joined by Will Gardiner, Chief Executive Officer of Drax Group – the UK’s largest renewable power generator. Will joined Drax as CFO in 2015 and was appointed CEO in January 2018, now playing one of the key roles in the decarbonisation of the British electricity system. John and Will discuss: * Will’s role and the most important trait of a publicly listed CEO * Biomass sustainability and its role in decarbonisation * BECCS, and if we can get to Net Zero without negative emissions technologies

Beccs and Henry watch the 2007 film Ghost Rider, Simp over Sam Elliot, give hair advice, and talk about the sexy things about the Catholic Church.*WARNING* This podcast contains SPOILERS for the movie! Don't listen if you are avoiding this!This is our first podcast and we hope you'll join us for further episodes!

Beccs & I chat about producing music under lockdown, bringing raw emotional texture to performance, and finding ways to sustain ourselves.Support the show (https://paypal.me/AstaParedes?locale.x=en_US)

All things geoengineering that caught our eye this week. We chat about lessons from the pandemic for geoengineering, California wildfires and the dystopian futures unfurling before us, methane munching bacteria, gene editing to curb GHGs, NETs in the EU ETS, the trade off between growth and age in trees (and people), more evidence doubting BECCS and news of attempts to broaden the NETs base in IAMS prior to AR6. Plus there are quite a few laughs and some useful news and tips for geoengineering folks. AND we have our own twitter handle now so please follow @reviewer2geo for all future episodes, news and for feedback and suggestions. We would love to here from you with comments and ideas. Papers discussed include: Holly Jean Buck 'Pandemic Politics -lessons for solar geoengineering https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00018-1 Forest carbon sink neutralized by pervasive growth-lifespan trade-offs R. J. W. Brienen, et al, Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 4241 (2020) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17966-z Working Paper: The Future of (Negative) Emissions Trading in the European Union Kiel Working Papers, 2164 https://www.ifw-kiel.de/experts/ifw/wilfried-rickels/the-future-of-negative-emissions-trading-in-the-european-union-15070/ Gene Editing for the Climate: Biological Solutions for Curbing Greenhouse Emissions, Val Giddings, Robert Rozansky , David M. Hart September 14, 2020 https://itif.org/publications/2020/09/14/gene-editing-climate-biological-solutions-curbing-greenhouse-emissions Managing Land‐based CDR: BECCS, Forests and Carbon Sequestration, Duncan Brack and Richard King First published: 06 September 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12827 Integrated Assessment Modeling of Carbon Removal at ICRLP https://research.american.edu/carbonremoval/2020/09/08/integrated-assessment-modeling-of-carbon-removal-at-icrlp/ Food security under high bioenergy demand toward long-term climate goals Tomoko Hasegawa, Ronald D. Sands, Thierry Brunelle, Yiyun Cui, Stefan Frank, Shinichiro Fujimori & Alexander Popp Climatic Change (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02838-8

A look into BECCS technology and how it can help mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

Making the headlines, some politicians, activists and commentators are calling for a green recovery. A changed world as we come out of COVID lockdown. There are endless arguments over what that actually means, how we do it, when we do it and whether we can do it. Meanwhile, some fossil fuel companies are accused of failing to meet targets, some are agitating for targets to be dropped and some politicians are quietly dropping them anyway. The word in the markets is that green investment is a success story and elsewhere the sun is shining on renewables, even if some of them are all at sea. (Oh, all right, it's a lake.) And then there's net zero. What does it actually mean, and could BECCS help? And we have a new patron.  (Nothing to do with cats although I do mention CAT)

Could CCS help us fight climate change? How much CO2 is it possible to capture? And what is the difference between CCS, BECCS and DAC?In this episode of Science on surfaces - a bigger perspective on the small we talk to Prof. Filip Johnson from the Division of Energy Technology at Chalmers University of technology, who’s research focuses on ways to reduce the negative impact of the energy system on the climate. In the studio, we also have Prof. Bengt Kasemo, Chalmers University of technology, who has worked a lot with sustainable energy and the energy system of the future. As always, we start with the basics and Filip tells us more about what CCS is, why it is needed and what negative emission means. We also talk about how CCS works in practice, from capture to storage, and what the captured CO2 can be used for. Finally, Filip shares his view on what challenges there are in terms of CCS implementation and what the future looks like.If you are interested in surface science and related topics, you should also check out our Surface Science blog!

Much faith is being put in the ability of negative emissions technologies to slow the pace of climate change. Glen Peters of Norway’s Center for International Climate Research looks at the potential of negative emissions strategies, and the steep challenges to implementing them.---The goal of the Paris Climate Accord is to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, the point beyond which the impacts of climate change are feared to be most severe and enduring. Staying below the 2 degree limit will require two complementary strategies. The first, mitigation, is now familiar, and involves limiting carbon dioxide emissions today by turning to cleaner energy and greater energy efficiency. The second strategy is equally important in limiting future climate impacts, yet has received much less attention in public dialogue and policy circles. Negative emissions doesn’t yet exist in any practical sense, yet it will be counted upon to remove decades worth of carbon dioxide emissions from Earth’s atmosphere by the end of this century. At their best, negative emissions technologies will play a vital role in holding climate change in check. But the technologies may also give us a false sense of security that today’s carbon emissions can reversed at some point in the future. Glen Peters, research director at the Center for International Climate Research (CICERO) in Oslo, Norway, takes a close look at negative emissions, from their potential to the political and economic challenges that need to be overcome if they’re to have a meaningful impact on the climate. Glen Peters is Research Director at the Center for International Climate Research (CICERO) in Oslo, Norway. His work focuses on the human drivers of climate change and international climate policy. Related ContentTargeting Net Zero Emissions https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/policy-digests/targeting-net-zero-emissions Negative Emissions Won’t Rescue Us From Climate Change https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/blog/2018/11/08/negative-emissions-wont-rescue-us-climate-change Geopolitics of the Global Energy Transition https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/blog/2019/01/23/geopolitics-global-energy-transition Can the U.S. Meet Green New Deal Emissions Targets? https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/blog/2019/02/27/can-us-meet-green-new-deal-emissions-targets The Inevitable Policy Response Theory https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/blog/2018/10/03/inevitable-policy-response-theory

Møde nr. 70 i salen 1) Forespørgsel nr. F 40: Forespørgsel til finansministeren om kommunernes prioritering af ældreplejen. (Hasteforespørgsel). Af Jeppe Jakobsen (DF) m.fl. (Anmeldelse 12.03.2019. Fremme 12.03.2019). 2) Besvarelse af oversendte spørgsmål til ministrene (spørgetid). SPØRGSMÅL: 1) Til justitsministeren af: Peter Kofod Finder ministeren det hensigtsmæssigt, at unge selv kan vælge, hvor og hvordan de ønsker at afsone en dom? (Spm. nr. S 623). 2) Til finansministeren af: Jesper Petersen Mener ministeren, at regeringsgrundlagets forslag til skattenedsættelser fortsat er dækkende for regeringens politik? (Spm. nr. S 619. Medspørger: Benny Engelbrecht (S)). 3) Til finansministeren af: Benny Engelbrecht Er ministeren enig med skatteministeren, når denne til PolicyWatch den 6. februar 2019 udtaler, at »Det er en pligtsag for en borgerlig regering at sænke skattetrykket«? (Spm. nr. S 627. Medspørger: Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen (S)). 4) Til finansministeren af: Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen Er ministeren uenig i justitsministerens udsagn i Børsen den 25. februar 2019 om, at topskatten er en misundelsesskat, og er ministeren endvidere uenig i det nuværende regeringsgrundlag, som i overensstemmelse med justitsministerens udtalelser fastslår, at regeringen arbejder for, at færre skal betale topskat? (Spm. nr. S 630. Medspørger: Jesper Petersen (S)). 5) Til udlændinge- og integrationsministeren af: Martin Henriksen Hvad er ministerens holdning til, at forældre og deres børn, der har fået inddraget deres opholdstilladelse eller nægtet forlængelse af en eksisterende opholdstilladelse, kan fortsætte med at blive boende i kommunen og deres børn kan blive ved med at gå i eksempelvis en almindelig folkeskole, og vil ministeren ændre på gældende love og regler, så de pågældende udlændinge overføres til et udrejsecenter, indtil de kan hjemsendes i overensstemmelse med myndighedernes afgørelse? (Spm. nr. S 586). 6) Til udlændinge- og integrationsministeren af: Christian Langballe Er ministeren enig med integrationsforsker Ruud Koopmans, der i en artikel i Berlingske fastslår, at muslimer er vanskeligere at integrere end andre grupper, at intet vestligt land har haft succes med integration af muslimer, og at årsagen er islam? (Spm. nr. S 594, skr. begr.). 7) Til energi-, forsynings- og klimaministeren af: Mikkel Dencker Hvorledes forventer ministeren at de britiske erfaringer med BECCS (bioenergi med CO2-fangst og CO2-lagring) kan anvendes i Danmark og bidrage til, at vi i Danmark opnår vores mål for reduktion af CO2-udledningen? (Spm. nr. S 530 (omtrykt)). 8) Til energi-, forsynings- og klimaministeren af: Søren Egge Rasmussen Vil ministeren forklare, hvorfor ministeren gentagne gange har sagt, at han ikke ønsker at indføre flyafgifter på nationalt plan, da regeringen i stedet vil arbejde for flyafgifter på europæisk plan, når regeringen i sidste uge afviste Belgiens, Luxembourgs og Hollands forslag om fælles europæiske afgifter på flyrejser? (Spm. nr. S 609). 9) Til energi-, forsynings- og klimaministeren af: Søren Egge Rasmussen Vil ministeren bekræfte, at det eneste, regeringen har tænkt sig at gøre i forhold til at minimere CO2-udledningen fra fly, er at satse på, at der udvikles ny teknologi, selv om vores nabolande Sverige, Norge og Tyskland allerede har indført flyafgifter og der fra flere lande i EU er ønske om at lave en fælles europæisk flyafgift? (Spm. nr. S 610). 10) Til sundhedsministeren af: Flemming Møller Mortensen Hvordan forklarer ministeren, at regeringens sundhedsreform ikke netop bliver »postnummerbingo«, når det står hver enkelt kommune frit for, om den vil være med i de fælles løsninger i sundhedsfællesskaber? (Spm. nr. S 555 (omtrykt)). 11) Til sundhedsministeren af: Julie Skovsby Kan ministeren garantere, at ambulancerne i Assens, Glamsberg, Salling og Ringe og paramedicinerbilen i Aarup, som borgerne i lokalområdet finder stor tryghed i at have, ikke nedlægges, ligesom ministeren har fredet det særlige akutberedskab i ministerens egen kreds på Nordals? (Spm. nr. S 559 (omtrykt)). 12) Til sundhedsministeren af: Astrid Krag Er ministeren enig med Venstres daværende politiske ordfører, Ellen Trane Nørby, der i 2011 advarede daværende statsminister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, mod at nedlægge regionerne med den begrundelse, at »hvis man kigger mod Norge, der i år 2000 nedlagde det, som svarer til de danske regioner, så er administrationen jo blevet dyrere, og det har ikke påviseligt skabt et bedre sundhedsvæsen«? (Spm. nr. S 620, skr. begr. Medspørger: Flemming Møller Mortensen (S)). 13) Til skatteministeren af: Jens Henrik Thulesen Dahl Mener ministeren, at det er rimeligt, at Assens Kommune er forpligtet til at tilbagebetale 50 mio. kr. i selskabsskat i en sag, der går tilbage til 2001 og dermed ikke er i overensstemmelse med de almindelige forældelsesfrister, samtidig med at kommunen i forvejen ikke er eller har været part i selve sagen? (Spm. nr. S 608). 14) Til skatteministeren af: Henning Hyllested Mener ministeren, at der er tale om fair konkurrence, når der er afgifter på brændstof til busser og tog, men der ikke samtidig er tilsvarende afgifter på flybrændstof, og vil ministeren på den baggrund helst genindføre brændstofafgiften for fly eller indføre afgifter på flyrejser? (Spm. nr. S 618). 15) Til skatteministeren af: Jesper Petersen Idet ministeren har udtalt, at de vedtagne nedsættelser af skatter og afgifter i årene frem til 2025 er et »minimumsbeløb« for skattenedsættelser, hvor meget mere mener Venstre så at skatter og afgifter skal nedsættes med, skulle man genvinde regeringsmagten? (Spm. nr. S 621. Medspørger: Benny Engelbrecht (S)). 16) Til skatteministeren af: Lea Wermelin Er ministeren – som Venstremand – i dag uenig i sit eget tidligere forslag om at nedsætte topskatten i Helhedsplanen fra august 2016? (Spm. nr. S 624. Medspørger: Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen (S)). 17) Til skatteministeren af: Jens Joel Er det fortsat som anført i »Helhedsplan – for et stærkere Danmark« regeringens politik at sænke topskattesatsen, såfremt der kan samles et flertal for dette? (Spm. nr. S 625. Medspørger: Lea Wermelin (S)). 18) Til skatteministeren af: Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen Er ministeren uenig i De Konservatives ønske om at forhøje topskattegrænsen betydeligt, eller mener han bare, at det er svært at finde flertal for det? (Spm. nr. S 631. Medspørger: Jesper Petersen (S)). 19) Til skatteministeren af: Lea Wermelin Udelukker ministeren som Venstremand at sætte topskatten ned i en kommende valgperiode, skulle man stadig have regeringsmagten? (Spm. nr. S 626. Medspørger: Jens Joel (S)). 20) Til skatteministeren af: Jens Joel Vil ministeren bekræfte, at han mener, at »det er en pligtsag for en borgerlig regering at sænke skattetrykket«, som udtalt til PolicyWatch den 6. februar 2019, og at en sådan politisk pligt også vil gælde, skulle Venstre genvinde regeringsmagten? (Spm. nr. S 628. Medspørger: Lea Wermelin (S)). 21) Til undervisningsministeren af: Simon Kollerup Jævnfør artiklen »Sparekniv truer Mors: Tæt på at give VUC dødsstød« fra nordjyske.dk den 27. februar 2019 mener ministeren så, at det er realistisk, at der fortsat vil være en VUC-afdeling i Nykøbing Mors, hvis regeringens omprioriteringsbidrag fortsætter? (Spm. nr. S 616). 22) Til transport-, bygnings- og boligministeren af: Henning Hyllested Er ministeren enig med energi-, forsynings- og klimaministeren, når han siger, at billetter til tog burde være billigere end billetter til fly, og skal det efter ministerens opfattelse gøres ved at give tilskud til at sænke billetpriserne for togene og/eller ved at indføre afgifter på flyrejser, eller hvordan tænker ministeren at regeringen kan være med til at sørge for, at dette sker? (Spm. nr. S 617, skr. begr. (omtrykt)). 23) Til uddannelses- og forskningsministeren af: Mette Reissmann Hvilke konsekvenser mener ministeren at regeringens besparelser på sygeplejerskeuddannelsen har for kvaliteten på uddannelsen? (Spm. nr. S 613).

Replacing forests with crops to be used for carbon capture technology may not be the best option, study says. Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is one of the technologies used to mitigate carbon emissions. It involves growing energy crops that can absorb carbon and can be later used to fuel power plants. The resulting CO2 from this process will then be stored underground, unable to enter the atmosphere. The caveat is that creating BECCS requires a big landmass, resulting in deforestation. However, University of Exeter [EK-si-ter] researchers found that maintaining forests can better keep CO2 levels at bay instead of clearing them to accommodate large-scale BECCS. This is after they used a digital model of the world's vegetation and exposed it to different land-use changes required to stabilize global warming within a prescribed limit. They discovered that BECCS can reduce CO2 in some regions but not in areas with mature forests that already store CO2. Burning or clearing these mature forests would facilitate the release of stored CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, the researchers recommend protecting and regenerating forests instead of clearing them in several areas. Currently, forests cover only about 31% of the world's land. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' recent report cited agriculture as the main reason for deforestation because trees are removed to accommodate growing crops. The report also found that less than 50% of the 35 examined countries address deforestation. But there is an urgent need for these countries to grapple with this problem in light of international treaties that aim to deal with climate change.

When the Paris Agreement set an ambitious goal of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the negotiators put climate engineering on the table, says Simon Nicholson, professor at American University in this week’s episode of Backdraft. Once the purview of science fiction, a majority of the models run by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) required large-scale use of climate engineering technologies to keep additional warming below 2 degrees. “Nobody who was arguing for that 1.5 degree target at Paris was thinking in their heads we should start shooting sulfate particles into the atmosphere,” says Nicholson. They were looking at the science and recognizing that without aggressive action a lot of people will suffer. But, says Nicholson, it’s not clear that the target is attainable through traditional mitigation alone. “The entire conversation is in some ways an unintended consequence of not doing enough. Very few people want to talk about doing climate engineering. The reason you get a growing number of scientists and policymakers [discussing climate engineering], is because the situation is getting pretty desperate.” There are two types of climate engineering technologies – solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. While carbon dioxide removal tends to be slow-acting and expensive, solar radiation management is fast-acting and seemingly cheap. “One thing to really pay attention to is that each of the technologies has its own risk profile,” says Nicholson, the co-founder of the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment. “We have to parse them out and discuss them one by one.” Both technologies have significant environmental, political and social, and existential implications. For example, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), a carbon dioxide removal technology used in the IPCC modeling, would require an immense industrial infrastructure to capture carbon and move it to storage. There would be massive changes in land use, which could generate political and social conflicts. Determining who gets a voice in the decision-making process will be extremely complicated and could increase the vulnerability of already vulnerable communities, says Nicholson. While faster-acting and less expensive than carbon removal technologies like BECCS, solar radiation management technologies, like stratospheric aerosol injection, could have devastating environmental consequences. “Even if we get it right, there is potential for downsides,” says Nicholson. “The biggest problem is the social and political transformation that’s needed so that long-term human beings and the way that we live are compatible with ecological realities,” says Nicholson. “Solar radiation is not a fix… And yet, one could imagine politicians and other actors try to sell it as a fix.” Currently, there is no formal governance system overseeing climate engineering, and Nicholson suggests that this may be an even bigger hurdle than even the environmental impacts. A successful climate intervention would require at least a couple hundred years to achieve a significant decrease in temperature, and stopping an intervention prematurely could lead to a spike in warming. “How do you build a system of governance that lasts across multiple centuries?” he asks. “It might not be the technological challenges that sink something like stratospheric aerosol injection; it may be that the political conversation is just too tough. We just can’t find a way to put together a governance arrangement that’s robust enough that the world community buys it.” “Although negotiators didn’t intend for this to be the case, now we’re kind of locked into a conversation where climate engineering is on the table,” says Nicholson. “If these [technologies] do start to come onto the table, then they can’t be used as cover for inaction. And that is perhaps the biggest political challenge in this space.”

Guest : Henrik Karlsson, Biorecro This week’s episode of Think Globally Radio features an in-depth discussion with Henrik Karlsson, CEO and co-founder of Biorecro, a Stockholm startup company in the renewable energy field. Biorecro creates negative emissions through the implementation of projects that utilize BECCS – bio-energy with carbon capture … more >>