Podcast appearances and mentions of holly jean buck

A UK government agency recently announced it would spend £57 million on a controversial project to develop geoengineering technologies.   The Exploring Climate Cooling Programme will fund 21 international research teams to conduct small-scale, controlled outdoor experiments to thicken Arctic sea ice and brighten clouds, to prevent global warming from increasing past irreversible tipping points. Geoengineering has long been a point of contention amongst scientists, environmental academics and conspiracy theorists - each firm in their beliefs about whether such interventions are necessary, effective, or risk irreversibly damaging the planet. Alasdair speaks with two academics studying geoengineering - Albert Van Wijngaarden and Adrian Hindes - who call for nuanced understanding and more productive conversation between the advocates and opposers of such radical interventions. They discuss the history of polar and solar geoengineering, the risks involved, and the lack of global governance. If you enjoyed this episode, stay tuned - we plan to explore geoengineering in more detail in the future. Further reading:  Plans to cool the Earth by blocking sunlight are gaining momentum but critical voices risk being excluded, October 2024, Albert Van Wijngaarden and Adrian Hindes Do-or-Die: Should we be talking about geoengineering?, December 2022, Land and Climate Review Soviet and Russian perspectives on geoengineering and climate management - Oldfield, J. D., & Poberezhskaya, M. (2023). .Wiley Interdisciplinary ReviewsControversial geoengineering projects to test Earth-cooling tech funded by UK agency, May 2025, Nature Not such a bright idea: cooling the Earth by reflecting sunlight back to space is a dangerous distraction, March 2024, The Conversation  Securing the ‘great white shield'? Climate change, Arctic security and the geopolitics of solar geoengineering, August 2024, Nordic International Studies Association After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair and Restoration, 2019, Holly Jean Buck, VersoClick here for our website to read all our most recent Land and Climate Review features and pieces.

Could we create an atmospheric sun shield to halt the effects of global warming? Should we? Neil deGrasse Tyson, Chuck Nice, and Gary O'Reilly are joined by climate scientist Daniele Visioni and sociologist Holly Jean Buck to explore the science and ethics of deliberately altering Earth's climate.NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://startalkmedia.com/show/changing-the-world-literally/Thanks to our Patrons S Harder, Evalange, Pat Z., Victoria Hamlin, Jacob Silverman, Lucia Leber, The Fabulous Mr Fox, Meghan Lynch, Gligom, Joe Ingracia, Physche, Jeremy Astin, ThizzRyuko, KK, Justin Costa, Little Blue Heron, Andrew Sparks, Patrick, Austin Becker, Daniel Tedman, Enrique Vega, Arrun Gibson, GSC, Jim Minthorne, Hayden Upton, Bob Loesch, J Mike, TreesSway, Mitchell Joseph, Griffin Stolp, Eric Sundberg, Jeff Bombard, Serenella Argueta, Jack Hatfield, lindsey, Cake Bytes, SuperVedos, C.Spinos, Audrey Anane, Jim B, Frederic R. Merchant, C., Curry Bäckström, Rory Cardin, nathan morrow, Harinath Reddy K, Joel Campbell, tia tia, Tyler Hanes, Joan Lozier, MythFinder, Big_Gorem_Hero, Kirk Zeigler, and Daysha Denight for supporting us this week. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of StarTalk Radio ad-free and a whole week early.Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus.

Send us a textDavid & Ed chat with Dr. Holly Buck about Conspiratorial-Environmentalism's connection to climate & geoengineering; the anti-vax movement; and what it tells us about mainstream environmentalism & climate politics.(03:08) Skip Intro(09:12) David's personal experience with Conspiratorial-Environmentalism(27:15) Social Media and monetization(38:58) What do we do when environmentalists turn to conspiracies?(46:33) Audience QuestionsDetailed show notes available on episode page About Our Guest:Holly Jean Buck is an Associate Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo. She is an environmental social scientist and human geographer whose research focuses on public engagement with emerging climate and energy technologies. She holds a Ph.D in Development Sociology from Cornell University, and is the author of the books Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough and After Geoengineering. Currently, she is a 2024-25 Radcliffe-Salata Climate Justice Fellow at Harvard University.About Your EvC Co-Hosts:David Keith is Professor and Founding Faculty Director, Climate Systems Engineering Initiative at the University of Chicago. He is the founder of Carbon Engineering and was formerly a professor at Harvard University and the University of Calgary. He splits his time between Canmore and Chicago.Sara Hastings-Simon studies energy transitions at the intersection of policy, business, and technology. She's a policy wonk, a physicist turned management consultant, and a professor at the University of Calgary and Director of the Master of Science in Sustainable Energy Development.Ed Whittingham is a clean energy policy/finance professional specializing in renewable electricity generation and transmission, carbon capture, carbon removal and low carbon transportation. He is a Public Policy Forum fellow and formerly the executive director of the Pembina Institute, a national clean energy think tank.Produced by Amit Tandon & Bespoke Podcasts___Energy vs Climatewww.energyvsclimate.com Bluesky | YouTube | LinkedIn | X/Twitter

Producer's Note: The following episode of the podcast was recorded prior to the 2024 presidential election. In this week's episode, host Daniel Raimi talks with Holly Buck, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo and climate justice fellow at the Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability at Harvard University. Buck shares insights from interviews with 100 experts, government officials, and members of the public across diverse industries and regions of the United States about strategies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Buck also discusses the broader energy transition, the effect of the federal policies related to this transition, and the challenges that communities face in implementing lower-carbon technologies. References and recommendations: “100 Conversations on Carbon Removal, Decarbonization, and Desired Futures” by Holly Jean Buck and Travis Young; https://www.decarb.social/ “Fulfillment: Winning and Losing in One-Click America” by Alec MacGillis; https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374159276/fulfillment

Holly Jean Buck joins Geoff Shullenberger to discuss her new Compact piece “The Rise of Green MAGA." https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-rise-of-green-maga/ Compact Magazine is reader-supported. Become a member and gain unlimited access. https://compactmag.com/subscribe

A very warm welcome to Helena McFadzean, who is joining the Disintegrator wrecking crew. This week's episode features one of our favorite artists, Tega Brain. In this episode, we talk through two of our favorite pieces, both of which are not just great exercises in conceptual design, but are actual practical engineering projects whose artistry consists in real solutioning. References from the pod: Sam Lavigne is an artist and engineer and educator whose collaborates frequently with Tega Brain. Both his creative technical work and his writing are highly recommended.The two pieces we talk about most are Cold Call, a collaboration with Sam Levine, and Solar Protocol, a collaboration with Alex Nathanson, and Benedetta Piantella, among others.Tega references the Critical Engineering group (Julian Oliver, Gordan Savičić, Danja Vasiliev), whose manifesto is very much worth reading, and 100rabbits, whose blog and methodological work are super super engaging.In climate-related discussions, we talk about Dark Emu by Bruce Pascoe, Robin Wall Kimmerer's Breeding Sweetgrass, Holly Jean Buck's Ending Fossil Fuels, the concept of ‘feral computing' from Austin Wade Smith, and the data work by Crowther Lab on forest development.Marek briefly mentions Joshua Citarella's absolutely phenomenal ‘A Public Option for Social Media'.Thanks for your patience while both Roberto and Marek were in mega-travel mega-project mode. We will be releasing something very large in the next few weeks to make up for it. :) 

On disinformation, misinformation and the popular will. Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo, joins us to talk about her recent pieces arguing that the climate movement's focus on disinformation is misguided. We discuss: What is disinformation and misinformation in the climate context? Are there parallels to be drawn with anti-disinfo campaigns on vaccines during the pandemic? How is the deterioration in trust in elites and scientific institutions to be responded to? What do Holly's focus groups tell her about popular views on climate politics? Does the return to industrial policy mean we should focus on "people who know how to make and run stuff"? And what is solar radiation management, carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide removal, and related technologies? Links: Obsessing Over Climate Disinformation Is a Wrong Turn, Holly Jean Buck, Jacobin A Climate Disinformation Focus Takes Us the Wrong Way, Holly Jean Buck, Jacobin Of Course "Misinformation" Isn't the Cause of Climate Change, Alex Tremblath, Breakthrough Institute Books: After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration, Holly Jean Buck, Verso Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero is Not Enough, Holly Jean Buck, Verso

How do we conduct science when there isn't a single isolated variable? What does that mean for carbon removal not taking place in a controlled environment? How does science even work?! Today's show originated from a question of how open-system carbon removal research can be conducted given that in a less-controlled environment, isolating for a single variable with replicability is less obviously possible. Does the scientific method really demand that, or is that some sort of pop culture understanding of science that needs to be challegned? To answer that question, host and co-founder of the Nori carbon removal marketplace, Ross Kenyon, asked Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Anu Khan of Carbon180, to read two books and come on Reversing Climate Change to discuss them. The two texts are some of the foundational works of modern philosophy of science: Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and Paul Feyerabend's Against Method. Kuhn argued that paradigms are the collection of foundational beliefs we have about how science and knowledge production is conducted, and that they are quite hard to see outside of since most people work so deeply within them. It can often be a generational effort, as older scientists die and new ones take their places. Feyerabend goes further, arguing that we shouldn't just look for where one paradigm supersedes another, but be protective of competing systems of knowledge and the valuable ways of seeing that they unlock. The show applies their learnings to the state of the CDR industry, and attempts to ferret out carbon removal's existing paradigm, whether the world is ready for credits that are not tonne-denominated, and how much time we can afford in retooling and letting "normal science" work within an imperfect paradigm vs. trying to create an entirely new paradigm ex nihilo. Resources Anu Khan Holly Jean Buck Carbon180 Against Method on Wikipedia The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on Wikipedia The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman Historiography Connect with Nori ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Purchase Nori Carbon Removals⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori's website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori on Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Check out our other podcast, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Carbon Removal Newsroom⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Carbon Removal Memes on Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Carbon Removal Memes on Instagram --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/support

Carbon removal is sometimes thought to be enjoying policy tailwinds. But is it anywhere close to what we need to avoid the worst of climate change? A new report from the Rhodium Group suggests the CDR industry is receiving about 1% of what it would need to reach a one CO2 gigatonne/year capacity! Our regular panelists, Drs. Holly Jean Buck & Wil Burns discuss the challenges of government budgeting, politics, eminent domain, profit-sharing Community Benefits Agreements, and so much else as this industry tries to scale. On This Episode ⁠⁠Wil Burns⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Holly Jean Buck⁠⁠ Asa Kamer Resources Rhodium Group's "The Landscape of Carbon Dioxide Removal and US Policies to Scale Solutions" report 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

Celebrate Xmas day with Holly, discussing Solar geoengineering research in the global public interest: A proposal for how to do it https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223005481

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Democracy in a Hotter Time: Climate Change and Democratic Transformation The first major book to deal with the dual crises of democracy and climate change as one interrelated threat to the human future and to identify a path forward. Democracy in a Hotter Time calls for reforming democratic institutions as a prerequisite for avoiding climate chaos and adapting governance to how Earth works as a physical system. To survive in the “long emergency” ahead, we must reform and strengthen democratic institutions, making them assets rather than liabilities. Edited by David W. Orr, this vital collection of essays proposes a new political order that will not only help humanity survive but also enable us to thrive in the transition to a post–fossil fuel world. Orr gathers leading scholars, public intellectuals, and political leaders to address the many problems confronting our current political systems. Few other books have taken a systems view of the effects of a rapidly destabilizing climate on our laws and governance or offered such a diversity of solutions. These thoughtful and incisive essays cover subjects from Constitutional reform to participatory urban design to education; together, they aim to invigorate the conversation about the human future in practical ways that will improve the effectiveness of democratic institutions and lay the foundation for a more durable and just democracy. Contributors William J. Barber III, JD, William S. Becker, Holly Jean Buck, Stan Cox, Michael M. Crow, William B. Dabars, Ann Florini, David H. Guston, Katrina Kuh, Gordon LaForge, Hélène Landemore, Frances Moore Lappé, Daniel Lindvall, Richard Louv, James R. May, Frederick W. Mayer, Bill McKibben, Michael Oppenheimer, David W. Orr, Wellington Reiter, Kim Stanley Robinson, Anne-Marie Slaughter Paul Sears Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Politics emeritus (1990-2017), Counselor to the President, Oberlin College 2007-2017, and presently a Professor of Practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of eight books, including Dangerous Years: Climate Change, the Long Emergency, and the Way Forward (Yale University Press, 2017), Down to the Wire: Confronting Climate Collapse (Oxford, 2009), Design with Nature (Oxford, 2002), Earth in Mind (Island, 2004) and co-editor of four others including Democracy Unchained (The New Press, 2020). He was a regular columnist for Conservation biology for twenty years. He has also written over 250 articles, reviews, book chapters, and professional publications. He has served as a board member or adviser to eight foundations and on the Boards of many organizations including the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Aldo Leopold Foundation, and the Bioneers. Currently, he is a Trustee of the Alliance for Sustainable Colorado and Children and Nature Network. He has been awarded nine honorary degrees and a dozen other awards including a Lyndhurst Prize, a National Achievement Award from the National Wildlife Federation, a “Visionary Leadership Award” from Second Nature, a National Leadership award from the U.S. Green Building Council, a Lifetime Achievement Award from the North American Association for Environmental Education, the 2018 Leadership Award from the American Renewable Energy Institute, and a Lifetime Achievement Award from Green Energy Ohio. He has lectured at hundreds of colleges and universities throughout the U.S., Europe, and Asia. He is a founder of: the Atlanta Environmental Symposium (1972-1974), the Meadowcreek Project (1979-1990), the Oberlin Project (2007-2017), the journal Solutions, and of the State of American Democracy Project 2017-present). He headed the effort to design, fund, and build the Adam Joseph Lewis Center, which was named by an AIA panel in 2010 as “the most important green building of the past thirty years;” . . . “one of thirty milestone buildings of the twentieth century” by the U.S. Department of Energy, and selected as one of “52 game changing buildings of the past 170 years” by the editors of Building Design + Construction Magazine  (2016). He was instrumental in the design and funding for the Platinum-rated Peter B. Lewis Gateway Center (hotel + conference center). His current work at Arizona State University is on the repair and strengthening American democracy Pete on YouTube Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page

A few weeks ago, the US government announced it would directly purchase carbon removal. The Department of Energy released news of a $35 million fund to procure CDR credits. The prize fund will take the form of offtake agreements and cover four pathways.  More and more governments are funding CDR pilots, supporting research, and adding CDR targets to their climate plans. CDR has quickly entered an era of widespread support throughout North America and Europe.  But while the support is wide, it is also shallow; most policies take the form of modest grants or targets, with a few more ambitious countries leading the way. Many CDR commentators have come to the conclusion that without a compliance market, carbon removal won't ever scale up.  On this episode we asked our policy panel about recent government actions on CDR: will they work, are they enough, and what more needs to be done? Are today's policies sufficient to get us where we need to go? Radhika is joined by Wil Burns, Co-Executive Director of the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy at American University, and Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo.   On This Episode Radhika Moolgavkar Wil Burns Holly Jean Buck Resources DOE Announces CDR Procurement National Academy Report on CDR Research DOE RFP for Responsible Carbon Management Congress Members Letter on CO2 Pipelines Heirloom commitment to DOE principles Boston Consulting Group Report Reykjavik Protocol 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

In this episode, environmental social scientist Holly Jean Buck discusses the critique of emissions-focused climate policy that she laid out in her book Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsOver the course of the 2010s, the term “net-zero carbon emissions” migrated from climate science to climate modeling to climate politics. Today, it is ubiquitous in the climate world — hundreds upon hundreds of nations, cities, institutions, businesses, and individuals have pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. No one ever formally decided to make net zero the common target of global climate efforts — it just happened.The term has become so common that we barely hear it anymore, which is a shame, because there are lots of buried assumptions and value judgments in the net-zero narrative that we are, perhaps unwittingly, accepting when we adopt it.Holly Jean Buck has a lot to say about that. An environmental social scientist who teaches at the University at Buffalo, Buck has spent years exploring the nuances and limitations of the net-zero framework, leading to a 2021 book — Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough — and more recently some new research in Nature Climate Change on residual emissions.Buck is a perceptive commentator on the social dynamics of climate change and a sharp critic of emissions-focused climate policy, so I'm eager to talk to her about the limitations of net zero, what we know and don't know about how to get there, and what a more satisfying climate narrative might include.So with no further ado, Holly Jean Buck. Welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Holly Jean BuckThanks so much for having me.David RobertsIt's funny. Reading your book really brought it home to me how much net zero had kind of gone from nowhere to worming its way completely into my sort of thinking and dialogue without the middle step of me ever really thinking about it that hard or ever really sort of like exploring it. So let's start with a definition. First of all, a technical definition of what net zero means. And then maybe a little history. Like, where did this come from? It came from nowhere and became ubiquitous, it seemed like, almost overnight. So maybe a little capsule history would be helpful.Holly Jean BuckWell, most simply, net zero is a balance between emissions produced and emissions taken out of the atmosphere. So we're all living in a giant accounting problem, which is what we always dreamed of, right? So how did we get there? I think that there's been a few more recent moments. The Paris agreement obviously one of them, because the Paris agreement talks about a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks. So that's kind of part of the moment that it had. The other thing was the Special Report on 1.5 degrees by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which further showed that this target is only feasible with some negative emissions.And so I think that was another driver. But the idea of balancing sources and sinks goes back away towards the Kyoto Protocol, towards the inclusion of carbon sinks, and thinking about that sink capacity.David RobertsSo you say, and we're going to get into the kind of the details of your critique in a minute. But the broad thing you say about net zero is that it's not working. We're not on track for it. And I guess intuitively, people might think, well, you set an ambitious target and if you don't meet that target, it's not the target's fault, right. It's not the target's reason you're failing. So what do you mean exactly when you say net zero is not working?Holly Jean BuckWell, I think that people might understandably say, "Hey, we've just started on this journey. It's a mid-century target, let's give it some time, right?" But I do think there's some reasons why it's not going to work. Several reasons. I mean, we have this idea of balancing sources and sinks, but we're not really doing much to specify what those sources are. Are they truly hard to abate or not? We're not pushing the scale up of carbon removal to enhance those sinks, and we don't have a way of matching these emissions and removals yet. Credibly all we have really is the voluntary carbon market.But I think the main problem here is the frame doesn't specify whether or not we're going to phase out fossil fuels. I think that that's the biggest drawback to this frame.David RobertsWell, let's go through those. Let's go through those one at a time, because I think all of those have some interesting nuances and ins and outs. So when we talk about balancing sources and sinks, the way this translates, or I think is supposed to translate the idea, is a country tallies up all of the emissions that it is able to remove and then adds them all up. And then what remains? This kind of stuff, it either can't reduce or is prohibitively expensive to reduce the so called difficult to abate or hard to abate emissions. Those are called its residual emissions, the emissions that it doesn't think it can eliminate.And the theory here is then you come in with negative emissions, carbon reduction, and you compensate for those residual emissions. So to begin with, the first problem you identify is that it's not super clear what those residual emissions are or where they're coming from, and they're not very well measured. So maybe just explain sort of like, what would you like to see people or countries doing on residual emissions and what are they doing, what's a state of knowledge and measurement of these things?Holly Jean BuckSo the state right now is extremely fuzzy. And so I'll just back up and say that my colleagues and I looked at these long term strategies that are submitted to the UNFCCC under the Paris Agreement. Basically, each country is invited to submit what its long term strategy is for reaching its climate goals. And so we've read 50 of those.David RobertsGoodness.Holly Jean BuckYeah, lots of fun. And they don't have a standard definition of what these residual emissions are, although they refer to them implicitly in many cases. You can see the residual emissions on these graphs that are in these reports.But we don't have a really clear understanding in most cases where these residual emissions are coming from, how the country is thinking about defining them, what their understanding of what's truly hard to abate is. And I emphasize with this being a challenge, because what's hard to abate changes over time because new technologies come online. So it's hard to say what's going to be hard to abate in 10 or 20 years.David RobertsRight.Holly Jean BuckBut we could get a lot better at specifying this.David RobertsAnd this would just tell us basically without a good sense of residual emissions across the range of countries, we don't have a good sense of how much carbon removal we need. So is there something easy to say about how we could make this better? Is there a standardized framework that you would recommend? I mean, are any countries doing it well and precisely sort of identifying where those emissions are and explaining why and how they came to that conclusion?Holly Jean BuckSo there's 14 countries that do break down residual emissions by sector, which is like the first, most obvious place to start.David RobertsRight.Holly Jean BuckSo, number one, everybody should be doing that and understanding what assumptions there are about what sectors. And generally a lot of this is non-CO2 emissions and emissions from agriculture. There's some emissions left over from industry, too, but having clarity in that is the most obvious thing. And then I think that we do need a consistent definition as well as processes that are going to standardize our expectations around this. That's something that's going to evolve kind of, I think, from the climate advocacy community, hopefully, and a norm will evolve about what's actually hard to abate versus what's just expensive to abateDavid RobertsKind of a small sample size. But of the 14 countries that actually do this, are there trends that emerge? Like, what do these 14 countries currently believe will be the most difficult emissions to eliminate? Is there agreement among those 14 countries?Holly Jean BuckWell, it's pretty consistent that agriculture is number one, followed by industry, and that in many cases, transport, at least short transport, light duty transport is considered to be fully electrified. In many cases, the power sector is imagined to be zero carbon. But I will also say that the United Kingdom is the only one that even included international aviation and shipping in its projection. So a long way to go there.David RobertsAnd this is not really our subject here. But just out of curiosity, what is the simple explanation for why agriculture is such a mystery? What are these emissions in agriculture that no one can think of a way to abate?Holly Jean BuckI mean, I think it varies by country, but a lot of it is nitrous oxide. A lot of it has to do with fertilizer and fertilizer production, fertilizer over application and I think obviously some of it is methane too from the land sector, from cows. So I think maybe that is considered a more challenging policy problem than industry.David RobertsYeah, this is always something that's puzzled me about this entire framework and this entire debate is you look at a problem like that and you think, well, if we put our minds to it, could we solve that in the next 30 years? I mean, probably. You know what I mean? It doesn't seem versus standing up this giant carbon dioxide removal industry which is just a gargantuan undertaking. This has never been clear to me why people are so confident that carbon dioxide removal is going to be easier than just solving these allegedly difficult to solve problems over the next several decades.I've never really understood that calculation.Holly Jean BuckI think it just hasn't been thought through all the way yet. But I expect in the next five years most people will realize that we need a much smaller carbon removal infrastructure than is indicated in many of the integrated assessment models.David RobertsYeah, thank you for saying that. This is my intuition, but I just don't feel sort of like technically briefed or technically adept enough to make a good argument for it. But I look at this and I'm like which of these problems are going to be easier to solve? Finding some non-polluting fertilizer or building a carbon dioxide removal industry three times the size of the oil industry? It's crazy to view the latter as like, oh, we got to do that because we can't do the first thing. It just seems crazy. Okay, so for the first problem here with net zero is we don't have a clear sense of what these residual emissions are, where they come from, exactly how we define them, et cetera.So without that, we don't have a clear sense of the needed size of the carbon dioxide removal industry. That said, problem number two here is that even based on what we are currently expecting CDR to do, there doesn't appear to be a coordinated push to make it happen. Like we're just sort of like waving our hands at massive amounts of CDR but you're not seeing around you the kinds of mobilization that would be necessary to get there. Is that roughly accurate?Holly Jean BuckYeah, and I think it follows from the residual emissions analysis because unless a country has really looked at that, they probably don't realize the scale of CDR that they're implicitly relying on.David RobertsRight, so they're implicitly relying on CDR for a couple of things you list in your presentation I saw and residual emissions is only one of those things we're expecting CDR to do.Holly Jean BuckThere's the idea that CDR will also be compensating for legacy emissions or helping to draw down greenhouse gas concentrations after an overshoot. I don't think anybody is saying that exactly because we're not at that point yet, but it's kind of floating around on the horizon as another use case for carbon removal.David RobertsYeah. So it does seem like even the amount of CDR that we are currently expecting, even if most countries haven't thought it through, just the amount that's already on paper that we're expecting it to do, we're not seeing the kind of investment that you would want to get there. What does that tell you? What should we learn from that weird disjunct?Holly Jean BuckFor me, it tells me that all the climate professionals are not really doing their jobs. Maybe that sounds mean, but we have so many people that are devoted to climate action professionally and so it's very weird to not see more thinking about this. But maybe the more nice way to think about it is saying oh well, people are really focused on mitigation. They're really focused on scaling up clean energy which is where they should be focused. Maybe that's reasonable.David RobertsYeah, maybe this is cynical, but some part of me thinks, like if people and countries really believed that we need the amount of CDR they're saying we're going to need, that the models show we're going to need, by mid century they would be losing their minds and flipping out and pouring billions of dollars into this. And the fact that they're not to me sort of like I guess it feels like no one's really taking this seriously. Like everyone still somewhat sees it as an artifact of the models.Holly Jean BuckI don't know, I think the tech sector is acting on it, which is interesting. I mean, you've seen people like Frontier mobilize all these different tech companies together to do these advanced market commitments. I think they're trying to incubate a CDR ecosystem. And so why does interest come there versus other places? Not exactly sure. I have some theories but I do wonder about the governments because in our analysis we looked at the most ambitious projections offered in these long term strategies and the average amount of residual emissions was around 18% of current emissions. So all these countries have put forward these strategies where they're seeing these levels of residual emissions.Why are they not acting on it more in policy? I think maybe it's just the short termism problem of governments not being accountable for things that happen in 30 years.David RobertsYeah, this is a truly strange phenomenon to me and I don't even know that I do have any theories about it, but it's like of all the areas of climate policy there are tons and tons of areas where business could get involved and eventually build self-sustaining profitable industries out of them. But CDR is not that there will never be a self-sustaining profitable CDR industry. It's insofar as it exists, it's going to exist based on government subsidies. So it's just bizarre for business to be moving first in that space and for government to be trailing.It just seems upside down world. I can't totally figure out government's motivations for not doing more and I can't totally figure out businesses motivations for doing so much.Holly Jean BuckWell, I think businesses acting in this R&D space to try to kind of claim some of the tech breakthroughs in the assumption that if we're serious about climate action we're going to have a price on carbon. We're going to have much more stringent climate policy in a decade or two. And when that happens, the price of carbon will be essentially set by the price of removing carbon. And so if they have the innovation that magically removes the most carbon, they're going to be really well set up for an extremely lucrative industry. This is all of course hinging on the idea that we're going to be willing to pay to clean up emissions just like we're willing to pay for trash service or wastewater disposal or these other kind of pollution removal services.Which is still an open question, but I sure hope we will be.David RobertsYeah, it's totally open. And this is another area where this weird disjunct between this sort of expansive talk and no walk. It's almost politically impossible to send money to this greenhouse gas international fund that's supposed to help developing countries decarbonize, right? Like even that it's very difficult for us to drag enough tax money out of taxpayers hands to fund that and we're going to be sending like a gazillion times more than that on something that has no visible short term benefit for taxpayers. We're all just assuming we're going to do that someday. It seems like a crazy assumption.And if you're a business and you're looking to make money, it just seems like even if you're just looking to make money on clean energy, it seems like there's a million faster, easier ways than this sort of like multidecade bank shot effort. I feel like I don't have my head wrapped around all those dynamics. So the first problem is residual emissions. They're opaque to us, we don't totally get them. Second problem is there's no evident push remotely to scale of the kind of CDR we claim we're going to need. And then the third you mentioned is there's no regime for matching emissions and removals.Explain that a little bit. What sort of architecture would be required for that kind of regime?Holly Jean BuckWell, you can think of this as a market or as a platform, basically as a system for connecting emissions and removals. And obviously this has been like a dream of technocratic climate policy for a long time, but I think it's frustrated by our knowledge capabilities and maybe that'll change in the future if we really do get better models, better remote sensing capacities. Obviously, both of those have been improving dramatically and machine learning accelerates it. But it assumes that you really have good knowledge of the emissions, good knowledge of the removals, that it's credible. And I think for some of the carbon removal technologies we're looking at this what's called MRV: monitoring, reporting, and verification.Is really challenging, especially with open systems like enhanced rock weathering or some of the ocean carbon removal ideas. So we need some improvement there. And then once you've made this into a measurable commodity, you need to be able to exchange it. That's been really frustrated because of all the problems that you've probably talked about on this podcast with carbon markets, and scams, bad actors. It's all of these problems and the expense of having people in the middle that are taking a cut off of the transactions.David RobertsYeah. So you have to match your residual emissions with removals in a way that is verifiable, in a way that, you know, the removals are additional. Right. You get back to all these carbon market problems and as I talked with Danny Cullenword and David Victor about on the pod long ago, in carbon offset markets, basically everyone has incentive to keep prices low and to make things look easy and tidy. And virtually no one, except maybe the lonely regulators has the incentive to make sure that it's all legit right there's just like there's overwhelming incentive to goof around and cheat and almost no one with the incentive to make sure it's valid.And all those problems that face the carbon offset market just seem to me like ten times as difficult. When you're talking about global difficult to measure residual emissions coupled with global difficult to measure carbon dioxide removals in a way where there's no double counting and there's no shenanigans. Like, is that even a gleam in our eye yet? Do we even have proposals for something like that on the table?Holly Jean BuckI mean, there's been a lot of best principles and practices and obviously a lot of the conversation around Article Six and the Paris agreement and those negotiations are towards working out better markets. I think a lot of people are focused on this, but there's definitely reason to be skeptical of our ability to execute it in the timescales that we need.David RobertsYeah, I mean, if you're offsetting residual emissions that you can't reduce, you need that pretty quick. Like, this is supposed to be massively scaling up in the next 30 years and I don't see the institutional efforts that would be required to build something like this, especially making something like this bulletproof. So we don't have a good sense of residual emissions. We're not pushing very hard to scale CDR up even to what we think we need. And we don't have the sort of institutional architecture that would be required to formally match removals with residual emissions. These are all kind of, I guess, what you'd call technical problems.Like, even if you accepted the goal of doing this or this framework, these are just technical problems that we're not solving yet. The fourth problem, as you say, is the bigger one, perhaps the biggest one, which is net zero says nothing about fossil fuels. Basically. It says nothing about the socioeconomics of fossil fuels or the social dynamics of fossil fuels. It says nothing about the presence of fossil fuels in a net-zero world, how big that might be, et cetera. So what do you mean when you say it's silent on fossil fuels?Holly Jean BuckYeah, so this was a desirable design feature of net zero because it has this constructive ambiguity around whether there's just like a little bit of residual emissions and you've almost phased out fossil fuels, or if there's still a pretty significant role for the fossil fuel industry in a net-zero world. And that's what a lot of fossil fuel producers and companies are debating.David RobertsYes, I've been thinking about this recently in the context of the struggle to get Joe Manchin to sign decent legislation. Like, if you hear Joe Manchin when he goes on rambling on about climate change, it's very clear that he views carbon dioxide removal as basically technological license for fossil fuels to just keep on keeping on. Like, in his mind, that's what CDR means. Whereas if you hear like, someone from NRDC talking about it, it's much more like we eliminated almost everything. And here's like, the paper towel that we're going to use to wipe up these last little stains.And that's a wide gulf.Holly Jean BuckI don't want to seem like the biggest net-zero hater in the world. I understand why it came up as a goal. I think it was a lot more simple and intuitive than talking about 80% of emissions reduction over 2005 levels or like the kind of things that it replaced. But ultimately, this is a killer aspect to the whole idea, is not being clear about the phase out of fossil fuels.David RobertsAnd you say you can envision very different worlds fitting under net zero. What do you mean by that?Holly Jean BuckWell, I mean, one axis is the temporality of it. So is net zero, like, just one moment on the road to something else? Is it a temporary state or is it a permanent state where we're continuing to produce some fossil fuels and we're just living in that net zero without any dedicated phase out? I think that right now there's ambiguity where you could see either one.David RobertsThat is a good question. In your research on this, have you found an answer to that question of how people view it? Like, I'd love to see a poll or something. I mean, this is a tiny subset of people who even know what we're talking about here. But among the people who talk about net zero, do you have any sense of whether they view it as like a mile marker on the way to zero-zero or as sort of like the desired endstate?Holly Jean BuckYou know, it's funny because I haven't done a real poll, but I've done when I'm giving a talk at a conference of scientists and climate experts twice I've asked this question, do you think it's temporary or do you think it's like a permanent desired state? And it's split half and half each time, which I find really interesting. Like, within these climate expert communities, we don't have a clear idea ourselves.David RobertsAnd that's such a huge difference. And if you're going to have CDR do this accounting for past emissions, for your past emissions debt, if you're going to do that, you have to go negative, right. You can't stay at net zero, you have to go net negative. So it would be odd to view net zero as the end state. And yet that seems like, what's giving fossil fuel companies permission to be involved in all this.Holly Jean BuckYeah. No, we do need to go net negative. And I think one challenge with the residual emissions is that carbon removal capacity is going to be finite. It's going to be limited by geography, carbon sequestration capacity, ecosystems and renewable energy, all of these things. And so if you understand it as finite, then carbon removal to compensate for residual emissions is going to be in competition with carbon removal to draw down greenhouse gas concentrations. And so we never get to this really net negative state if we have these large residual emissions, because all that capacity is using to compensate rather than to get net negative, if that makes sense.David RobertsYeah. Given how sort of fundamental those questions are and how fundamental those differences are, it's a little this is what I mean when I sort of the revelation of reading your book. Like, those are very, very different visions. If you work backwards from those different visions, you get a very, very different dynamic around fossil fuels and fossil fuel companies and the social and political valence of fossil fuels, just very fundamentally different. It's weird that it's gone on this long with that ambiguity, which, I guess, as you say, it was fruitful to begin with, but you kind of think it's time to de-ambiguize this.Holly Jean BuckYeah. Because there's huge implications for the infrastructure planning that we do right now.David RobertsRight.Holly Jean BuckIt's going to be a massive transformation to phase out fossil fuels. There's a million different planning tasks that need to have started yesterday and should start today.David RobertsYeah. And I guess also, and this is a complaint, maybe we'll touch on more later, but there's long been, I think, from some quarters of the environmental movement, a criticism of climate people in their sort of emissions or carbon greenhouse gas emissions obsession. And when you contemplate fossil fuels, it's not just greenhouse gases. There's like all these proximate harms air pollution and water pollution, et cetera, et cetera, geopolitical stuff. And I think the idea behind net zero was, let's just isolate greenhouse gas emissions and not get into those fights. But I wonder, as you say, we have to make decisions now, which in some sense hinge on which we were going to go on that question.Holly Jean BuckYeah, I mean, it was a huge trick to get us to focus on what happens after the point of combustion rather than the extraction itself.David RobertsYeah, it says nothing about extraction, too. So your final critique of net zero fifth and final critique is that it is not particularly compelling to ordinary people, which I think is kind of obvious. Like, I really doubt that the average Joe or Jane off the street would even know what you mean by net zero or would particularly know what you mean by negative carbon emissions and if you could explain it to them, would be particularly moved by that story. So what do you mean by the meta narrative? Like, why do you think this falls short?Holly Jean BuckI mean, accounting is fundamentally kind of boring. I think a lot of us avoid it, right? And so if I try to talk to my students about this, it's really work to keep them engaged and to see that actually all this stuff around net zero impacts life and death for a lot of people. But we don't feel that when we just look at the math or we look at the curve and we talk about bending the curve and this and that, we have this governance by curve mode. It's just not working in terms of inspiring people to change anything about their lives.David RobertsYeah, bending the curve didn't seem to work great during the pandemic either. This gets back to something you said before about what used to be a desirable design feature when you are thinking about other things that you might want to bring into a meta narrative about climate change. Most of what people talk about and what people think about is sort of social and political stuff. Like, we need to talk about who's going to win and who's going to lose, and the substantial social changes and changes in our culture and practices that we need. We need to bring all these things in.But then the other counterargument is those are what produce resistance and those are what produce backlash. And so as far as you can get on an accounting framework, like if the accounting framework can sort of trick various and sundry participants and institutions into thinking they're in a value neutral technical discussion, if you can make progress that way, why not do it? Because any richer meta narrative is destined to be more controversial and more produce more political backlash. What do you think about that?Holly Jean BuckNo, I think that the problem is we haven't invested at all in figuring out how to create desire and demand for lower carbon things. I mean, maybe the car industry has tried a little bit with some of the electric trucks or that kind of thing, but we have all this philanthropy, government focus, all the stuff on both the tech and on the carbon accounting pieces of it. We don't have very much funding going out and talking to people. About why are you nervous about transitioning to gas in your home? What would make you feel more comfortable about that?Those sorts of relational things, the conversations, the engagement has been gendered, frankly. Lots of times it falls to women to do this kind of relational work and hasn't been invested in. So I think there's a whole piece we could be doing about understanding what would create demand for these new infrastructures, new practices, not just consumer goods but really adoption of lifestyle changes because you need that demand to translate to votes to the real supportive policies that will really make a difference in this problem.David RobertsYeah, I very much doubt if you go to talk to people about those things they're going to say, well, I want to get the appliance that's most closely going to zero out my positive conditions. You're not going to run into a lot of accounting if you ask people about their concerns about these things. So these are the problems. We're not measuring it well. We're not doing what we need to do to remove the amount of CDR we say we need. We don't have the architecture or the institutional structures to create some sort of system where we're matching residual emissions and removals.And as a narrative it's fatally ambiguous about the role of fossil fuels in the future and plus ordinary people don't seem to give much of a shit about it. So in this presentation you sort of raise the prospect that the whole thing could collapse, that the net-zero thing could collapse. What do you mean by that and how could that happen?Holly Jean BuckSo I think this looks more like quiet quitting than anything else because I do think it is too big to fail in terms of official policy. There's been a lot of political capital spent.David RobertsYeah, a lot of institutions now have that on paper, like are saying on paper that they want to hit net zero. So it seems to me like it would take a big backlash to get rid of it.Holly Jean BuckYeah. So I don't think some companies may back away from targets. There'll be more reports of targets not being on track. And I think what happens is that it becomes something like the Sustainable Development Goals or dealing with the US national debt where everybody kind of knows you're not really going to get there, but you can still talk about it aspirationally but without confidence. Because it did feel like at least a few years ago that people were really trying to get to net zero. And I think that sensation will shift and it'll become empty like a lot of other things, unfortunately.But I think that creates an opportunity for something new to come in and be the mainframe for climate policy.David RobertsNet zero just seems like a species of a larger thing that happens. I don't know if it happens in other domains, but in climate and clean energy it happens a lot, which is just sort of like a technical term from the expert dialogue, worms its way over into popular usage and is just awful and doesn't mean anything to anyone. I think about net metering and all these kind of terminological disputes. So it doesn't really I'm not sure who's in charge of metanarratives, but it doesn't seem like they're very thoughtfully constructed. So let's talk a little bit about what characteristics you think a better metanarrative about climate change would include.Holly Jean BuckFirst, I think it is important that we are measuring progress towards a goal for accountability reasons. But I think there needs to be more than just the metric. I think we have an obsession with metrics in our society that sometimes becomes unhealthy or distracts us from the real focus. But I do think there should be some amount of measuring specific progress towards a goal. I think that the broader story also has to have some affect or emotional language. There has to be some kind of emotional connection. I also think we have to get beyond carbon to talk about what's going on with ecosystems more broadly and how to maintain them and have an intact habitable planet and then just pragmatically.This has to be a narrative that enables broad political coalitions. It can't be just for one camp and it has to work on different scales. I mean, part of the genius of net zero is that it is this multi-scalar planetary, but also national, also municipal, corporate, even individual does all of that. So those are some of the most important qualities that a new frame or a new narrative would have to have.David RobertsThat sounds easier said than done. I can imagine measuring other things you mentioned in your book several sort of submeasurements other than just this one overarching metric. You could measure how fast fossil fuels are going away. You could measure how fast clean energy is scaling up. There are adaptation you can measure to some extent. So I definitely can see the benefit in having a wider array of goals, if only just because some of those just get buried under net zero and are never really visible at all. That makes sense to me. But the minute you start talking about a metanarrative with affect, with emotion, the way to get that is to appeal to people's values and things that they cherish and feel strongly about.But then we're back to the problem we talked about earlier, which is it seems like especially in the US these days, we're just living in a country with two separate tribes that have very, very different values. And so the minute you step beyond the sort of technocratic metric, which in a sense is like clean and clinical and value free and start evoking values, trying to create emotion, you get greater investment and passion in some faction and alienate some other faction. Do you just think that that's like unavoidable and you have to deal with that or how do you think about that dilemma?Holly Jean BuckI actually think people do have the same values, but they're manipulated by a media ecosystem that profits from dividing them, which makes it impossible for them to see that they do have aligned values. And I base that just on my experience, like as a rural sociologist and geographer talking to people in rural America. People are upset about the same exact things that the leftists in the cities I visit are upset about too. They really do value justice. They think it's unfair that big companies are taking advantage of them. There are some registers of agreement about fairness, about caring for nature, about having equal opportunities to a good and healthy life that I think we could build on if we weren't so divided by this predatory media ecology.David RobertsI don't suppose you have a solution for that, in your back pocket?Holly Jean BuckI have a chapter on this in a forthcoming book which you might be interested. It's edited by David Orr. It's about democracy in hotter times, looking at the democratic crisis and the climate crisis at the same time. And so I've thought a little bit about media reform, but it's definitely not my expertise. We should have somebody on your podcast to talk about that too.David RobertsWell, let me tell you, as someone who's been obsessed with that subject for years and has looked and looked and looked around, I don't know that there is such thing as an expert. I've yet to encounter anyone who has a solution to that problem that sounds remotely feasible to me, including the alleged experts. And it kind of does seem like every problem runs aground on that, right? Like it would be nice if people had a different story to tell about climate change that had these features you identify that brought people in with values and drew on a broader sense of balance with the earth and ecosystems.But even if they did, you have to have the mechanics of media to get that message out to tell that story. You know what I mean? And so you got one whole side of the media working against you and one at best begrudgingly working with you. It just doesn't seem possible. So I don't know why I'm talking to you about this problem. No one knows a solution to this problem. But it just seems like this is the -er problem that every other problem depends on.Holly Jean BuckYeah, I mean, we should talk about it because it's the central obstacle in climate action, from my point of view, is this broken media ecosystem and if we could unlock that or revise it, we could make a lot of progress on other stuff.David RobertsYes, on poverty, you name it. Almost anything that seems like the main problem you talk about. The narrative must be able to enable broad political coalitions, but you are working against ... I guess I'd like to hear a little bit about what role you think fossil fuels are playing in this? It seems to me pretty obvious that fossil fuels do not want any such broad political coalition about anything more specific than net zero in 2050, right. Which, as you point out, leaves room for vastly different worlds, specifically regarding fossil fuels. It seems like they don't want that and they're working against that and they have power.So who are the agents of this new narrative? Like, who should be telling it and who has the power to tell it?Holly Jean BuckSo I think sometimes in the climate movement we grant too much power to the fossil fuel industry. It's obviously powerful in this country and in many others, but we have a lot of other industries that are also relevant and powerful too. So you can picture agriculture and the tech industry and insurance and some of these other forms of capital standing up to the fossil fuel industry because they have a lot to lose as renewables continue to become cheaper. We should have energy companies that will also have capital and power. So I do think that we need to think about those other coalitions.Obviously, I don't think it needs to be all grounded in forms of capital. I think there's a lot of work to be done in just democratic political power from civil society too. What I'd love to see is philanthropy, spending more money on building up that social infrastructure alongside funding some of this tech stuff.David RobertsYeah, I've talked to a lot of funders about that and what I often hear is like, "Yeah, I'd love that too, but what exactly be specific, David, what do you want me to spend money on?" And I'm always like, "Well, you know, stuff, social infrastructure, media, something." I get very hand wavy very quick because I'm not clear on exactly what it would be. So final subject, which I found really interesting at the tail end, I think it's fair to say your sympathies are with phasing out fossil fuels as fast as possible. And there's this critique you hear from the left-left about climate change that just goes, this is just capitalism, this is what capitalism does.This is the inevitable result of capitalism. And if you want a real solution to climate change on a mass scale, you have to be talking about getting past capitalism or destroying capitalism or alternatives to capitalism, something like that. Maybe I'm reading between the lines, but I feel like you have some sympathy with that. But also then we're back to narratives that can build a broad political coalition, right? Narratives that can include everyone. So how do you think about the tension between kind of the radical rethinking of economics and social arrangements versus the proximate need to keep everybody on board?How is a metanarrative supposed to dance that line?Holly Jean BuckYeah, unfortunately, I think in this media ecosystem we can't lead with smashing capitalism or with socialism. It's just not going to work, unfortunately. So then what do you do? I think you have to work on things that would make an opening for that. Having more political power, more power grounded in local communities. It's not going to be easy.David RobertsEven if you let the anti-capitalist cat out of the bag at all, you have a bunch of enemies that would love to seize on that, to use it to divide. So I don't know, what does that mean? Openings, just reforms of capitalism at the local level? I mean, I'm asking you to solve these giant global problems. I don't know why, but how do you solve capitalism? What's your solution to capitalism? What does that mean, to leave an opening for post-capitalism without directly taking on capitalism? I guess I'd just like to hear a little bit more about that.Holly Jean BuckSo I think that there's a lot of things that seem unconnected to climate at first, like making sure we have the integrity of our elections, dealing with redistricting and gerrymandering and those sorts of things that are one part of it. Reforming the media system is another part of it. Just having that basic civil society infrastructure, I think, will enable different ideas to form and grow.David RobertsDo you have any predictions about the future of net zero? Sort of as a concept, as a guiding light, as a goal? Because you identify these kind of ambiguities and tensions within it that seem like it doesn't seem like it can go on forever without resolving some of those. But as you also say, it's become so ubiquitous and now plays such a central role in the dialogue and in the Paris plans and et cetera, et cetera. It's also difficult to see it going away. So it's like can't go on forever, but it can't go away. So do you have any predictions how it evolves over the coming decade?Holly Jean BuckWell, it could just become one of these zombie concepts and so that really is an opportunity for people to get together and think about what other thing they would like to see. Is it going to be measuring phase out of fossil fuels and having a dashboard where we can track the interconnection queue and hold people accountable for improving that? Are we going to be measuring adaptation and focusing on that? Are we going to be thinking more about the resources that are going to countries to plan and direct a transition and trying to stand up agencies that are really focused on energy transition or land use transition?I mean, we could start making those demands now and we could also be evolving these broader languages to talk about and understand the motion. So we have some concepts that have been floated and already sort of lost some amount of credibility, like sustainability, arguably just transition. We have Green New Deal. Will that be the frame? Is that already lost? What new stuff could we come up with? Is it regeneration or universal basic energy. I think there's a lot of languages to explore and so I would be thrilled to see the Climate Movement work with other movements in society, with antiracist movements, with labor movements and more to explore the languages and the specific things we could measure and then take advantage of the slipperiness of net zero to get in there and talk about something else we might want to see.David RobertsOkay, that sounds like a great note to wrap up on. Thank you for coming. Thank you for the super fascinating book and for all your work, Holly Jean Buck. Thanks so much.Holly Jean BuckThank you.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf, so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

The Canadian company Planetary is currently seeking regulatory approval to release Magnesium Hydroxide into the ocean off the coast of Cornwall, England. Another ocean CDR firm, Running Tide, announced last week that they are partnering with global consulting giant Deloitte to evaluate the quality of their carbon credits. Last month, a research team at MIT received news coverage for their ocean carbon capture technique which they say is a breakthrough that is more effective than direct air capture. These recent announcements indicate real and widespread interest in researching techniques that pull CO2 from the ocean. But how is research into these approaches governed? And what important regulatory issues have yet to be resolved, that will have a big impact on the climate? On this episode, we'll take a look at the state of ocean CDR research governance with one of the field's foremost experts, Wil Burns. Wil talks us through some the main international agreements that govern the seas, and experiments within them. What does existing law mean for plans to test ocean CDR? The panel also discuss the recent news of a geoengineering experiment in England that was leaked to the press. Holly Jean Buck is also back with us as part of our regular policy panel. On This Episode Holly Jean Buck Wil Burns Radhika Moolgavkar Resources Planetary Experiment Planetary Project website Running Tide + Deloitte Coverage of MIT Ocean Capture announcement 2022 London Protocol Announcement on Geoengineering UN Treaty on Ocean Biodiversity Law of the Sea Convention Project Vesta Beach in Southhampton, NY Holly's Research on What Farmers Think of Carbon Sequestration in Soils Haida Salmon Music Video- “40 Million Salmon Can't Be Wrong” Connect with Nori Nori Nori's Twitter --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Blue carbon has emerged as a popular climate solution, with offset marketplaces like Verra and Gold Standard eyeing blue carbon methodologies and Salesforce and the World Economic Forum teaming up to announce their own blue carbon credit framework at COP27 last year. Crediting for blue carbon usually means protecting ecosystems like mangrove forests, seagrass beds, and salt marshes. It can also include restoring these ecosystems when they've been degraded or destroyed. A recent paper published in the journal “Earth Science Reviews” titled “Remote Sensing for Effective Blue Carbon Accounting” reviewed the potential for new technology to improve the remote sensing of blue carbon ecosystems. Carbon markets continue to grow, and billions of dollars will likely flow toward blue carbon projects. So how well can scientists even tell when ecosystems are sequestering CO2? And what is the promise of new technologies to improve those estimates? Joining Radhika on this episode are Holly Jean Buck and Shannon Valley. On This Episode Holly Jean Buck Shannon Valley Radhika Moolgavkar Resources Verra Blue Carbon Project Article about Gold Standard Blue Carbon Project Salesforce Blue Carbon initiative Paper: Remote Sensing for Effective Blue Carbon Accounting Bloomberg NEF Report on Potential Growth of Carbon Markets Vox Article about Palm Oil Industry WSJ Article about Indonesia Deforestation Inside Climate News Article on Satellite Monitoring of Flood Zones Report on 50 Years of Endangered Species Act Connect with Nori Nori Nori's Twitter Join Nori's Discord to hang out with other fans of the podcast and Nori Nori's other podcast Reversing Climate Change Nori's CDR meme twitter account --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Should carbon removal be included in institutional climate plans? It's a debate that's taken place across business, government, and science in recent years. The rise of the net-zero framework has sharpened the focus on how and when organizations should decarbonize. And how carbon removal fits in. Last week two influential organizations weighed in on how they plan to use carbon removal in the coming years. The Net-Zero Owner Alliance, a UN-convened group of 84 large investors, declared that their members will not be able to invest in carbon removal to reach their climate goals until at least 2030. And the European Commission released its draft Green Deal Industrial Plan, a new set of policy objectives to build out their climate infrastructure. It includes support for many decarbonization technologies, but at least one CDR NGO says it doesn't do enough for carbon removal. We're pleased to announce the return of long-time friend of the show Holly Jean Buck. Welcome back, Holly! On a less happy note, it is the last episode for Chris Barnard as a regular panelist. Chris, you will be missed. On This Episode Holly Jean Buck Chris Barnard Radhika Moolgavkar Resources Net-Zero Owner Alliance Glasgow Alliance for Net-Zero NZOA coverage from Reuters European Commission's Green Deal Industrial Plan EC's Q&A about new plan Carbon Gap Carbon Gap post about Green Deal Reuters article about US/EU trade dynamics Clean Energy is Cheaper Than Coal Across Whole US, Study Finds Connect with Nori Nori Nori's Twitter Join Nori's Discord to hang out with other fans of the podcast and Nori Nori's other podcast Reversing Climate Change Nori's CDR meme twitter account --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Extraído de la web de Bartlebooth: https://bartlebooth.org/Tras-la-geoingenieria "Considerada opuesta al decrecimiento, las energías renovables y la justicia climática, la geoingeniería es entendida como una solución temporal y radical para la eliminación del carbono en la atmósfera. Pero, ¿hay otros futuros posibles ante y tras ella? ¿Cómo pensar un proyecto de intervención radical y transformador en el clima que sea democrático, participativo y descentralizado? A lo largo de estas páginas, Holly Jean Buck recorre tecnologías, propuestas, expertxs, y proyectos en marcha a lo largo del mundo que están enfrentando los retos del cambio climático, el aumento de las temperaturas y las emisiones de CO2 en la atmósfera, abordando escenarios futuro y sus problemáticas técnicas, políticas y sociales. A la vez crítico y especulativo, a caballo entre la documentación más exhaustiva y la ficción más vibrante, el texto explora posibles futuros tras la geoingeniería, futuros nacidos de la transformación social y la justicia para enfrentar las complejidades de la actual emergencia planetaria". Alejandro Rivero-Vadillo, traductor de esta obra y responsable de varios programas donde tocamos lo ecológico en la literatura, nos acerca las disquisiciones del cambio climático a través de varios juegos narrativos, incluyendo un debate final sobre la utilización del lenguaje inclusivo. Redes de Bartlebooth: https://twitter.com/bartleboothorg https://www.facebook.com/bartlebooth.org https://www.instagram.com/bartlebooth_/ Para estar al tanto de futuras actualizaciones, estas son las redes sociales a las que debes acudir: https://linktr.ee/Vuelodelcometa Y si quieres apoyar este y otros proyectos relacionados: https://www.patreon.com/vuelodelcometa o a través del sistema de mecenazgo en iVoox. Han participado en este programa: Alex "Eldritch Horror", profesor en la Alcalá de Henares, en Instagram: @ariverovadillo y @kybergotisch en Twitter. Alberto "Láudano" Martínez de Noviembre Nocturno, podéis encontrarlo: https://linktr.ee/noviembrenocturno Miguel Ramírez. Su Twitter es: @themiguelaso. El bloque de intro y outro del programa fueron realizados por Luis Alberto Martín, locutor, actor de doblaje y voz y periodista: https://twitter.com/lamartinvoz Arte de Encho Enchev. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

What happens to dreams of the future that never arrive, yet still affect our society and culture so deeply? Is it possible to be haunted by failed visions or our own anticipations, and what does that mean? Today, Dr. Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo and author of the new book, Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough, comes back on the show for a bonus episode to explain the concept of "hauntology", its origin in Jacques Derrida's writing and later popularization by Mark Fisher in his book, Capitalism Realism: Is There No Alternative?, and to what degree these ideas might help us understand the worlds of carbon removal, climatetech, and our shared planetary future. Connect with Nori Purchase Nori Carbon Removals Nori's website Nori on Twitter Check out our other podcast, Carbon Removal Newsroom Resources Dr. Holly Jean Buck on Reversing Climate Change S2 Bonus Dr. Holly Jean Buck on Reversing Climate Change EP103 Dr. Holly Jean Buck on Reversing Climate Change S3E4 After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair and Restoration by Holly Jean Buck Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/reversingclimatechange/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/reversingclimatechange/support

In the fight against climate change, many are working to achieve net zero by 2050. And achieving net zero means leveraging quite a lot of emissions reduction, management, and carbon removal. But Dr. Holly Jean Buck contends that we should focus less on managing the byproduct and more on phasing out fossil fuels entirely by the end of the century. Dr. Buck is Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo and author of the new book, Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough. On this episode of Reversing Climate Change, she joins Ross to differentiate net zero from full zero and share her vision of a fully decarbonized, post-extractivist society. Dr. Buck discusses what we can do to overcome the political resistance to renewables and describes how critical theory concepts like ‘petromelancholia' can help us understand the challenges associated with the energy transition. Listen in for insight around the government's role in phasing out fossil fuels and learn how we can use net zero as a starting point to facilitate the fair transition to a bioeconomy. Key Takeaways [1:49] What inspired Dr. Buck to write Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough [3:17] Why we need to focus less on managing emissions and more on phasing out fossil fuels altogether [4:06] What differentiates full zero from net zero and Dr. Buck's argument for working toward full zero [8:41] What we can do to overcome the political resistance to renewables [10:12] Why nuclear energy might have fewer political repercussions than large-scale renewables [12:31] How Dr. Buck thinks about achieving net zero through degrowth [14:26] Dr. Buck's take on immersive reality replacement [17:43] Why Dr. Buck shifted away from using the term ‘managed decline' to describe the energy transition [20:55] The concepts of petromelancholia and petro-masculinity [22:21] Dr. Buck's insight on how fossil fuel jobs and benefits are gendered [23:33] How social analysis and critical theory help us understand the challenges associated with the energy transition [25:30] How a nation's government impacts its policy around phasing out fossil fuels [29:05] Why Dr. Buck advocates for big emitters like the US to be more ambitious so that less-developed nations can emit longer [31:59] What full decarbonization to true zero by 2100 might look like [33:12] Dr. Buck's vision of a post-extractivist society [34:58] Why the petrochemical industry was not inevitable and how we can make the shift to a bioeconomy Connect with Nori Purchase Nori Carbon Removals Nori's website Nori on Twitter Check out our other podcast, Carbon Removal Newsroom Resources Dr. Holly Jean Buck on Reversing Climate Change S2 Bonus Dr. Holly Jean Buck on Reversing Climate Change EP103 After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair and Restoration by Holly Jean Buck Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? by Mark Fisher --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/reversingclimatechange/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/reversingclimatechange/support

Holly Jean Buck is an expert on the social and political dimensions of environmental policies, and of strategies and technologies for preventing and adapting to climate change. Our conversation focuses on her new book, Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough. Holly, Pete, and Jesse discuss why we should strive for a future of no fossil fuels, the challenges to ending fossil fuels, the role of carbon dioxide removal, whether the alternatives could be worse, how to deal with legacy firms and stranded assets, the collective action problem, and practical next steps. We also touch on the whether to shrink the global economy through degrowth, public participation and engagement, bridging technological and social change, and reasons for optimism. Holly is Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo and also the author of After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration and co-editor of Has It Come to This? The Promise and Peril of Geoengineering on the Brink.https://twitter.com/hollyjeanbuckhttps://arts-sciences.buffalo.edu/environment-sustainability/faculty/faculty-directory/holly-buck.html https://www.versobooks.com/books/3879-ending-fossil-fuels https://fossilfueltreaty.org/ 

A lot of people advocate getting back to nature as the way to preserve the Earth but they may be wrong. Geo-engineering, in which we intervene artificially, may be more sustainable. Near Futurist Guy Clapperton asks visiting associate professor at Columbia Business School, climate economist, academic, and author Gernot Wagner and assistant professor of environment and sustainability at the University at Buffalo in Buffalo, New York, Holly Jean Buck, for their perspectives. This is part of the Dividing Lines mini-series of Near Futurist podcasts sponsored by Diffusion PR.

Is the net zero approach to climate mitigation working, or is it an unrealistic framework that does more to help corporations than the planet?Professor Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo in Buffalo, New York comes onto the podcast to discuss her new book, 'Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero is Not Enough' with ELCI Assistant Editor Bertie Harrison-Broninski. You can order the book here from Verso, or read Bertie's review of it here. 

Hello! This week we continue our foray into all things Web 3.0 by taking on NFTs, or Non-Fungible-Tokens. If you're lost already then don't worry, so were we, until we spoke to our enlightened guests Anthony Cuthbertson from the Independent, Holly Jean Buck from Buffalo University, and Andrea Baronchelli, from City University and the Turing Institute. We uncover exactly what NFTs are, how they're currently being used, and what potential they have for wider application across society. We discuss the environmental impact NFTs have, as well as what's being done to mitigate this in the long run. Plus Geoff comes out of isolation and Ed needs a hobby - beyond cold water swimming of course. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition join host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori for this policy-focused episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom. In April of 2021, Raj Kumar Singh, an Indian energy Minister, said at a UN conference that rich countries need to be net-negative and remove atmospheric co2 to account for historical emissions. While decades of climate diplomacy focused on emissions to come, Singh worked to shift the conversation towards pollution already emitted. Later last year, journalist and author of popular climate book The Uninhabitable Earth David Wallace-Wells penned Climate Reparations in New York Magazine. The long-form piece connected the inequitable effects of climate change, more drastically and quickly hitting tropical and global south countries, with the political outcomes made possible by carbon removal technology. He points out that half of emissions come from 10% of the world's population and that climate change has already decreased the GDP of some global south countries, while it has increased GDPs in the global North. This dynamic will continue and will widen already stark global wealth inequalities. Wells reviews the field of technical CDR and finds that while it could present temptation for delay, it also provides revolutionary possibilities if historical emitters are made to pay to remove their pollution. He calls this ‘climate reparations' and quotes philosopher Olufemi Taiwo (who coined that term) “It's just so clear to me that carbon removal is squarely the kind of thing that fits into the reparations framework.” In this episode, we discuss the Wallace-Wells' piece and zoom in on climate reparations and climate colonialism, defining these phrases in more depth and explaining how these approaches might impact policies and institutions. We also discuss the idea that carbon removal is not limited by physics, so what is carbon removal scaling limited by? We round out the episode with the good news and the interesting news of the week, then we bid a warm farewell to our beloved co-host Holly, who will be going on sabbatical for the year. We will miss you Holly and look forward to seeing you back on the show! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

In this week's science-focused episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom, hosts Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori and Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo are joined once again by co-host Dr. Jane Zelikova, executive director of the Soil Carbon Solutions Center and joint faculty in crop and soil science at Colorado State University. We're looking at two recently published studies which explore the challenges and opportunities around managing croplands and rangelands to draw down and store atmospheric carbon while making agriculture more sustainable. We start by answering the questions, what is soil organic matter? How is it related to carbon? Then we look at how the results of the first study link to the broader fields of conservation agriculture, soil health, and soil carbon sequestration. Next we look at the second study, which examines how management of cover crops in temperate climates influences soil organic carbon stocks. Last, we discuss the upcoming USDA policies that might affect soil carbon, and finishing the episode with a good news story of the week. Resources Soil organic matter protects US maize yields and lowers crop insurance payouts under drought. Daniel A Kane et al. 2021, Environmental Research Letters, March 2021 Management of cover crops in temperate climates influences soil organic carbon stocks: a meta-analysis. McClelland et al. 2020, Ecological Applications, December 2020 Off-Season 'Cover' Crops Expand as US Growers Eye Low-Carbon Future USDA Launches First Phase of Soil Carbon Monitoring Efforts Soil Health Congressional Bill Tracker Kiss the Ground --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

This week on Carbon Removal Newsroom, we're recapping a year of carbon removal— what went right, what went wrong, and what we're expecting in 2022. In 2021, terms like Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) entered mainstream climate discourse, corporate plans, and government agendas. The IPCC's 6th Assessment Report was released in August and underscored the need for carbon removal by highlighting the likelihood of global overshooting of the Paris goals. The United States supported DAC and carbon storage like never before with the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill passed in November. Climeworks launched its Orca facility in Iceland, which is making rocks underground out of our atmospheric carbon pollution as we speak. Nasdaq purchased a carbon removal marketplace. A growing share of the world's economy was covered by ambitious net-zero commitments, which imply that maybe, at some point, corporations and governments might start removing a lot of co2 from the air. Meanwhile, Exxon snapped up some prime carbon storage property in the Gulf of Mexico, United Airlines started assuaging travelers with advertisements of airline-sponsored DAC, and China said it might keep a few coal plants open down the line but cancel out the emissions by capturing atmospheric carbon. Those stories, plus so many more, made 2021 a landmark year for the field (and we didn't even say the words Elon Musk). Let's rundown the year that was and look ahead to 2022. Panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition join host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori for this episode. Resources: A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration Carbon Brief Newsletters CDR Primer 2021 The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere Climate Reparations (Intelligencer) --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

In this week's science-focused episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom, hosts Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori and Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo are joined by co-host Dr. Jane Zelikova, executive director of the Soil Carbon Solutions Center and joint faculty in crop and soil science at Colorado State University. This week we're discussing new research which explores the relationship between geology, climate, and weathering rates across the continental United States, as well as an opinion piece in the journal Global Change Biology, arguing that biological processes will also affect the carbon removal potential of enhanced weathering. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Fan of the show? https://www.patreon.com/newleftradio (Support us on Patreon)! Net zero is often thrown out as the answer to our climate nightmares, including right here in Justin Trudeau's Canada — but is it? We're joined by Holly Jean Buck to discuss just what 'net zero' is, what it is not, and if we can save ourselves by shooting for good enough when it comes to climate action. About Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero is Not Enough Around the world, countries and companies are setting net-zero carbon emissions targets. But what will it mean if those targets are achieved? One possibility is that fossil fuel companies will continue to produce billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 while relying on a symbiotic industry to scrub the air clean. Focusing on emissions draws our attention away from the real problem: the point of production.  The fossil fuel industry must come to an end but will not depart willingly; governments must intervene. By embracing a politics of rural-urban coalitions and platform governance, climate advocates can build the political power needed to nationalize the fossil fuel industry and use its resources to draw carbon out of the atmosphere.  https://www.versobooks.com/books/3879-ending-fossil-fuels (Buy the book here) About Holly Jean Buck Holly Jean Buck is a geographer and environmental social scientist studying rural futures, the politics of platforms, and how emerging technologies can address environmental challenges. She works as an Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo in Buffalo, New York, and has a Ph.D. in Development Sociology from Cornell University. She is the author of After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration and Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough. Stay connected with the latest from New Left Radio by https://newleft.us6.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=8227a4372fe8dc22bdbf0e3db&id=e99d6c70b4 (joining our mailing list) today! _________ Support this podcast

This week on Carbon Removal Newsroom, we're bringing you the most significant Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) policy updates from COP26. At the time of this episode's release, COP26 is coming to a close. Many countries are pledging to bring their emissions to net-zero in the next few decades. What are the specifics of these new pledges, how does CDR fit into all of this, and what needs to happen to push the CDR industry forward in a timely manner? Plus, last Friday night, House Democrats along with 13 Republican Representatives voted to pass the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal that their Senate colleagues had approved 87 days earlier. Included in the bill is $3.5b to build four direct air capture hubs— an amount that dwarfs all other federal support of DAC to date. The bill also provides $2.5b to build geologic storage sites for storing the gas underground and $2.1b to transport it via pipelines. Will this all be enough to create significant progress towards U.S. climate goals? Our good news story of the week centers around Biden's Carbon Removal “Earthshot” initiative, which has the goal of bringing carbon removal costs to $100/ton by 2030. We are joined by special guest host David Morrow, the Director of Research at the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy at American University, and Research Fellow at the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at George Mason University. As always, hosts Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori and Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo are here to weigh in on the latest carbon removal happenings. Resources Sustainable Carbon Removal Report (Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy) Why the BID is a BIG Down Payment on Clean Energy Buying down the Cost of Direct Air Capture U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Geoengineering and carbon drawdown: thinking through climate futures, with Holly Jean Buck, author of "After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration", and Zack Muddle, Workers' Liberty. Introductory and concluding speeches from a discussion by the same name at Ideas for Freedom 2021. More on this topic: https://workersliberty.org/geoengineering-readings Video of this: https://youtu.be/QneXgpw_A-U

This science-focused episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom features hosts Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori, Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo, and Dr. Jane Zelikova, executive director of the Soil Carbon Solutions Center and joint faculty in crop and soil science at Colorado State University. This week, world leaders continue climate discussions at COP26 in Glasgow, with one of the recurring conversations focusing on protecting the world's forests. A new forest initiative called LEAF, or Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance, was supported by the US and UK governments as well as some large multinational corporations like Amazon and Unilever. LEAF would allow developing nations to sell forest carbon offsets in the voluntary carbon markets— but should these count as carbon credits? Is additional carbon being stored? We also look at forest carbon over-crediting in California, where research teams from several US Universities found that the state had over-counted forest CO2 by 30%. So who is responsible for this large quantity of excess credits? As always, we end the episode with a good news story of the week. Resources Systematic over-crediting in California's forest carbon offsets program Re-branding REDD: How the LEAF Coalition aims to greenwash Big Polluters like Delta Airlines, Amazon, Bayer, Nestlé, Salesforce, and Unilever --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Grace speaks to Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo, about her new book Ending Fossil Fules: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough. They discuss the meaning of net zero, the different trajectories we might use to get there, and how these different paths might ease or exacerbate other ecological, social, and political challenges the world faces today.You can support our work on the show by becoming a Patron. Thanks to our producer Conor Gillies for making this episode possible.

We're back with another business-focused episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom, hosted by Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori's Head of Supply and Methodology, along with Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo (P.S.— look out for Holly's new book, Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net-Zero Is Not Enough, coming out on November 16th!). Plus, we're joined by our co-host for business-focused episodes: Susan Su, partner focused on climate investing at Toba Capital and course creator for Climate Change for VCs, a course and community through terra.do. This week, we are taking a look at the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), the summit in Glasgow which begins Sunday, October 31st and lasts for two weeks. Specifically, we dive into the UK's announcement calling for a global net-zero commitment by 2050, and what the implications of this goal might be for the carbon removal industry. Next, we discuss some of the VC funding that happened in October, particularly for CarbonCapture, a modular DAC company, that landed a huge round. Plus, Anglo-Australian mining company Rio Tinto recently announced a plan to invest $7.5b by 2030 into decarbonizing their business. Does their foray into Direct Air Capture signal a trend that big emitters are ready to invest into this technology at the scale necessary to really bring down costs per ton? Or are they looking for a way to avoid emissions cuts? Or both? We finish the episode with two good news stories from Susan: the first is that electric car sales more than doubled year-over-year in August to over 516,400! Second is that turtle populations in Cape Verde rose from around ten thousand in 2015, to almost 200,000 this year after successful conservation efforts. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Grace speaks to Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo about her new book Ending Fossil Fules: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough. They discuss the meaning of net zero, the different trajectories we might use to get there, and how these different paths might ease or exacerbate other ecological, social and political challenges the world faces today.You can support A World to Win by subscribing to our Patreon, where you'll get access to full-length versions of the interviews. Thanks to producer Conor Gillies and to the Lipman-Miliband Trust for making this episode possible.

Grace speaks to Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo about her new book Ending Fossil Fules: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough. They discuss the meaning of net zero, the different trajectories we might use to get there, and how these different paths might ease or exacerbate other ecological, social and political challenges the world faces today.You can support our work on the show by subscribing to our Patreon, where you'll get access to full-length versions of the interviews. Thanks to producer Conor Gillies and to the Lipman-Miliband Trust for making this episode possible.

This week on Carbon Removal Newsroom, we're back with a policy-focused episode with panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo, Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition and host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori. First up, we're discussing an essay from Harvard professor David Keith in the New York Times titled, “What's the Least Bad Way to Cool the Planet?” Keith compares Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and geoengineering, pointing out that the two approaches operate on different timescales— CDR will take decades to build up, and longer still to have a significant impact due to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Solar Radiation Management, a type of geoengineering, could be done with today's technology and theoretically has an immediate cooling effect. There is a lot we don't know but his ‘hunch' is that geoengineering would work more quickly, be cheaper, and benefit the world's hotter regions more immediately. He calls for governments to fund more research into the topic so the two techniques can be more accurately compared. We debate David Keith's main points and Holly Buck describes the socio-technical systems that might be necessary to deploy geoengineering and larger-scale CDR most effectively. Next, we're looking at the Cement Decarbonization legislation passed in California that mandates the state's cement industry to become net-zero by 2045. According to the Climateworks Foundation's Rebecca Dell, this is the first time any US state has required an industry to eliminate its net greenhouse gas emissions. Cement production is the second-largest emitter of any industry in California, after only oil and gas production, and it also contributes to significant local air pollution. While the greenhouse gas mitigation from this move is notable, this law also has the potential to provide needed policy support to the carbon removal and carbon utilization industries. We discuss the types of incentives that might be most successful in moving the needle on hard to abate emissions, then end the episode with a good news story of the week from Chris— Japan is restarting several aging nuclear reactors in an attempt to meet its carbon emissions goals. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

In our first science-focused episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom, hosts Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori and Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo are joined by our new science co-host, Dr. Jane Zelikova, executive director of the Soil Carbon Solutions Center and joint faculty in crop and soil science at Colorado State University. First this week, we're looking at new research showing, “Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India,” and understanding why one researcher referred to the large-scale tree planting program in Northern India as a failure. We explain the significance of these research findings and the potential improvements necessary to ensure that tree planting achieves its stated goals of sequestering carbon dioxide, increasing biodiversity, and improving the livelihoods of local communities. Plus, a recent Twitter thread from German journalist Tin Fischer tells the story of a “Trillion Trees,” a figure that hardly held substance when first suggested, then took off in popular culture faster than climate scientists could shut it down. While it's a catchy idea, the scientific paper used to support Trillion Trees in 2017 was widely critiqued for miscalculations and ultimately rescinded. We look at why this idea gained so much traction and what the realistic role of large-scale tree planting might be in drawing down carbon and addressing climate change. Finally, we put reforestation up against the portfolio of carbon removal solutions, looking at where it fits in and how it should be funded. We close out the episode with a good news story from Radhika on the winning bears of fat bear week in Alaska! Let us know what you think of the show by reaching out to hello@nori.com, we'd love to hear your feedback! Resources The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting The Oxford Offsetting Principles & carbon removal, w/ Eli Mitchell-Larson on Reversing Climate Change --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Two articles from the climate pamphlet: The politics of carbon drawdown — Todd Hamer reviews "Under a White Sky" by Elizabeth Kolbert and "After Geoengineering" by Holly Jean Buck, Solidarity 599, June 2021 Carbon capture and storage? Not a help yet — Zack Muddle wrote this article for Solidarity 578, January 2021 More, a paper version of the booklet For Workers' Climate Action (4th edition), and a contents list, at workersliberty.org/climate-pamphlet

In this business-focused episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom, we're discussing the major carbontech funding announcements that occurred throughout September, along with the news from Norway's $1.4 trillion sovereign wealth fund that they'll be requiring their portfolio holdings to go net-zero. This episode is hosted by Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori's Head of Supply and Methodology, along with Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo. Plus, give a warm welcome to our new co-host for business-focused episodes: Susan Su, partner focused on climate investing at Toba Capital and course creator for Climate Change for VCs, a course and community through terra.do. *** We start the episode by discussing the news from Norway's sovereign fund: with $1.4 trillion of assets, this fund is the world's largest single holder of stocks, and is the latest pool of investment money using its influence to decarbonize the economy. The fund currently holds a position in several of the world's largest oil companies, so achieving ‘net-zero' may necessitate use of carbon offsets and carbon removal. Meanwhile in the carbontech start-up world, the sustainable chemicals company Solugen announced $357 million of new investment in a venture round lead by Singapore's sovereign wealth fund as well as Blackrock, Carbon Direct, and others. Solugen makes chemicals out of sugars, as opposed to the fossil fuel inputs traditionally used by the highly emitting chemical industry. In the future, the company aims to use CO2 as a feedstock, potentially creating a vast new market for CO2 utilization. Also in September, Prometheus Fuels announced a $1.5 billion valuation after a series B funding round led by shipping giant Maersk and BMW. Prometheus aims to sell ‘electro-fuels' by capturing CO2 directly from the atmosphere, mixing it with water, and then using proprietary catalysts and filters to restructure the chemical bonds to create hydrocarbons. They also say their product will be cheaper than fossil fuels very soon. Also, Droneseed's $36 Million A valuation is more evidence that the carbontech space is hot. On September 8th, Swiss company Climeworks held a launch event for their new Direct Air Capture facility named Orca in Hellisheidi, Iceland. Orca is now the world's largest DAC plant and plans to capture and permanently sequester 4000 tons of CO2 per year, and turn it into basaltic rock. Charm Industrial announced the delivery of 1000 tons of permanent carbon removal ahead of schedule using their bio-oil technology. Finally, Holly Buck finishes the episode with a good news story of the week. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Dr. Holly Jean Buck joins Breht to discuss her book "After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration". Follow her here: https://twitter.com/hollyjeanbuck Outro Music: "Wooden Soldiers" by Modest Mouse ----- Support Rev Left Radio: https://www.patreon.com/RevLeftRadio or make a one time donation: PayPal.me/revleft LEARN MORE ABOUT REV LEFT RADIO: www.revolutionaryleftradio.com

News from @gfuterman and @geoengineering1 covering IPCC, Holly Jean Buck & tribalism, Australian MCB trials, Andy Parker on slippery slope, and much else

This week on Carbon Removal Newsroom, we're starting off with an overview of biochar and discussing the main questions and concerns around this technology, including: How does biochar compare to other Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods? There is a lot of interest in making biochar, but does the market exist to use it? What can governments do to help scale up the use of biochar as a carbon removal technique? Are any governments taking action yet? Next, we transition to the CDR policy agenda in the United States. We look at the California Climate Crisis Act (AB 1395), which would Codify California's commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and no later than 2045. If passed, this bill will set California on course to design a more comprehensive policy framework for CDR than exists in any state so far. The bill language is explicit in planning for technological as well as natural CDR methods and calls for measurable, durable CO2 removal. We also cover geoengineering and its controversies, looking at the Politico article, “The problem with playing God to fix the climate: It might not work.” Finally, our good news to round out the episode is that the team at ClimateScience has created a free online course on the science of carbon removal, with illustrations and quizzes along the way. Panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition join host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori for this episode. Resources Introductory Webinar: Methodology for Biochar Utilization in Soil and Non-Soil Applications (Verra) Biochar Protocol (Climate Action Reserve) Does biochar accelerate the mitigation of greenhouse gaseous emissions from agricultural soil? - A global meta-analysis (ScienceDirect) The waste product which could help mitigate climate change (ScienceDaily) Net-Zero Emissions Bill Advances in the California State Senate (EDF) With the Climate Crisis Act, California can lock in a safer pathway to net-zero emissions (EDF) Amid the Misery of Hurricane Ida, Coastal Restoration Offers Hope. But the Price Is High (Inside Climate News) The problem with playing God to fix the climate: It might not work (Politico) Why Geoengineering Is ‘Untested and Untestable' (The Nation) Climate Science: Carbon removal courses --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

This week on Carbon Removal Newsroom, we're discussing carbon's value in various forms. We start by answering the question, ‘What is carbon pricing?' and look at proposed bills in Congress that are attaching a price to carbon. We look at the value of forest carbon offsets in a world with unprecedented wildfires. We explore A Progressive Platform For Carbon Removal, then we close out the episode with a positive story of the week. Panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition join host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori for this episode. Resources The energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act America's Clean Future Fund Act The Climate Action Rebate Act The Market Choice Act A policy framework for achieving negative emissions (VoxEU) Operationalizing The Net Negative Carbon Economy (Nature) Wildfires are ravaging forests set aside to soak up greenhouse gases (The New York Times) 2021 North American Wildfire Season A Progressive Platform for Carbon Removal (Data for Progress) Activists Call It A ‘False Solution.' But UN Scientists Say We Need To Suck Up CO2 (The Huffington Post) --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

This week on Carbon Removal Newsroom, we're discussing the latest IPCC Report, the $1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill, and pressure for companies to reach net-zero. Returning panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition join host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori for this episode. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Guest panelist Peter Minor, Director of Science and Innovation at Carbon180, joins us in this episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom to weigh in on the Energy Sector Innovation Credit Act (ESIC), and panelist Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo returns to discuss the latest carbon removal news with host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori. Plus, stay calm during the unexpected tornado warning on Holly's side near the end of the episode— a coincidental and eerie emphasis of what the daily workday might look like in the era of climate change… (Holly is safe, not to worry!) Also covered in this episode: CarbonCure, a company that is reducing emissions in concrete manufacturing, announced it was carbon neutral in 2020 through carbon removal purchases from Running Tide, greenSand, Charm industrials, and Husk (P.S: To learn more about CarbonCure, check out an episode of Reversing Climate Change we did with Rob Niven of CarbonCure!). Black & Veatch, a global engineering company, was awarded $2.5 million in federal funding to advance direct air capture technology. The U.S. Department of Energy announced intent to fund direct air capture front-end engineering design (FEED) studies, showing the Biden administration's commitment to carbon removal. Chevron failed to hit the target with their troubled carbon capture and storage (CCS) scheme at their Gorgon liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project in Australia. The Energy Sector Innovation Credit (ESIC) Act of 2021 was introduced by Senate and House leadership on both sides of the aisle. This bill aims to create investment and production tax credits for technologies across the clean energy portfolio, including direct air capture. Listen until the end to hear the panelists describe their favorite type of carbon removal! Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

This week, we're discussing whether or not carbon removal hype distracts from the need to reduce emissions and looking at the EU's ‘Fit for 55' climate proposals. Panelist Chris Barnard describes the conservative climate rally put on by the American Conservation Coalition, and panelist Dr. Holly Jean Buck explains that our media ecology often rewards climate fear and doom over climate optimism. Our panelists discuss a recent article by Matthew Yglesias, 'What is the climate left doing?' and Holly Buck explains how her sociological research leads her to agree with Yglesias's perspective in the article. Other carbon removal news discussed in this episode: Carbon transformation startup Twelve (formerly Opus 12) raised $57 million in Series A funding. Twelve is pioneering a new market category called carbon transformation with its proprietary catalyst technology that transforms CO2 into critical chemicals, materials and fuels that are conventionally made from fossil fuels. Carbon Engineering, a firm looking to commercialize nascent "direct air capture" tech, just unveiled a new retail offering for its services in partnership with the firm BeZero Carbon. A recent cover story in Grist discusses soil and forest carbon and features two of Nori's farmers, Kelly Garrett and Trey Hill. The article describes some of the complications around soil and forestry carbon offsets. If you read it and have any thoughts or questions, Tweet us @nori. The European Union unveiled ‘Fit for 55' climate legislation proposals. Plus, we debate how much power low-propensity environmental voters (LPEV) have in elections. As always, the episode is concluded with a good news story of the week. P.S., we are releasing Carbon Removal Newsroom episodes on an every-other-week cadence through the end of August. If there are topics you'd like us to cover, reach out on Twitter or at hello@nori.com. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

The U.S. Senate passed the Growing Climate Solutions Act with a strong bipartisan vote. But what does the bill aim to do? And why were more Democrats against this climate bill than Republicans? Plus, a look at soil carbon sequestration's potential and other carbon removal technologies. Finally, carbon tax proposals are moving forward in Europe— what does this mean for the U.S. and the rest of the world? This episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom is hosted by Nori's Head of Supply and Methodology, Radhika Moolgavkar, and features panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

House Republicans launched the Conservative Climate Caucus on Wednesday and it's already the third-largest caucus in the House with around 60 members. Maine becomes the first state to order public fossil fuel divestment. A new paper in Nature Climate Change looks at the difference between avoidances and removals of CO2 (a more accessible summary of the paper was written for Carbon Brief). There is a proposal at the International Criminal Court to define a new global crime called 'ecocide.' All of this and more, discussed in this week's episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom. Host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori is joined by panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition for this episode. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition are back with host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori for another episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom! This week, our panelists examine the federal budget's climate change and carbon removal proposals and connect the dots between the budget and the infrastructure bill. We also address the G7 Summit, discussing concerns around whether G7 leaders are doing enough, and pondering why there is no end date for coal. Our panelists look at clean energy standards and President Biden's suspension of new oil and gas drilling leases on federal lands, then discuss the early heatwave and strained grid in Texas. As always, we conclude the episode with an uplifting environmental win— restored protections to the Tongass National Park in Alaska. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

In this episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom, our panelists look at the benefits and risks of nuclear power, attempting to find where the balance should lie between necessary safety precautions and overburdensome regulations. We address the grim accomplishment of the highest recorded levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere— 419 parts per million— and the real-world impacts of changes in the climate. With much of the west in drought, farmers and fish are competing for limited resources, and water rights along the Colorado River are under debate. We discuss the emergence of rare climate bipartisanship on carbon storage bills, and round out the episode with a positive story of the week. Panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition join host Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori for this episode. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

This episode of Carbon Removal Newsroom addresses the recent news in oil and gas including a court order for Royal Dutch Shell to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions from all of its global operations, and a vote from Chevron’s shareholders telling the company to reduce its own emissions and the emissions produced by customers who burn its oil and gasoline. Our panelists also discuss how nature-based solutions can help bridge the gap between political parties, and reflect on the film Kiss the Ground while looking at how soil can heal the earth and mend political divisions. We are joined by special guest panelist Quill Robinson, Vice President of Government Affairs at the American Conservation Coalition, alongside returning panelist Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and host Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori’s Head of Supply and Methodology. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Carbon180 released a new report, "Zero, Then Negative: The Congressional Blueprint for Scaling Carbon Removal," and this week on Carbon Removal Newsroom, our panelists dive into some of the report's details! Nori's Head of Methodology, Radhika Moolgavkar, hosts guest panelists Ugbaad Kosar, Deputy Director of Policy at Carbon180, and Lucia Simonelli, Senior Policy Fellow specializing in Direct Air Capture at Carbon 180. Returning panelists Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition also join in with questions and thoughts on the report. The discussion covers how direct air capture facilities might scale up, how a federal land link program could solve succession problems in farming, the role that prizes have played in human history and how they can be advantageous in the climate space, and why not every climate solution is appropriate in every place. Our guest panelists also describe their ideal three-course meal of carbon removal solutions and explain how tech and land-based solutions can work together to help society reach its climate goals. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

This week on the Carbon Removal Newsroom podcast, Nori's Head of Methodology Radhika Moolgavkar hosts Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University of Buffalo, and the Director of Sustainability at Bushel, Allison Nepveux. They discuss the Colonial Pipeline hack, how we can extract ourselves from our fossil fuel dependency, the impact of agricultural financing and crop insurance, and we hear some pushback on the Growing Climate Solutions Act. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

This week, Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University of Buffalo, Chris Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition, and Radhika Moolgavkar of Nori discuss in detail the Growing Climate Solutions Act, the relationship of unions to the The American Jobs Act, how a government-run carbon removal marketplace might work at least for agriculture, and Chris shares some optimistic musings to close us out. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

There was a lot to watch in the offset world this week! CarbonPlan, ProPublica, The Guardian and others reported on major issues with some California forestry credits allegedly being overestimated by a substantial amount. This episode also shares some reflections on the Texas electrical grid, and some hopeful thoughts on new national parks buoy us up! Carbon Removal Newsroom is hosted by Nori's Supply and Methodology Program Manager, Radhika Moolgavkar. This week's panelists are Dr. Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo; and Christopher Barnard, Policy Director of the American Conservation Coalition. Articles referenced: "Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets" in CarbonPlan "The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere" by Lisa Song of ProPublica & James Temple of MIT Technology Review "Carbon offsets used by major airlines based on flawed system, warn experts" by Patrick Greenfield in The Guardian "A New, Deadly Risk for Cities in Summer: Power Failures During Heat Waves" by Christopher Flavell at The New York Times "Texas Failed Because It Did Not Plan" by Robinson Meyer at The Atlantic "Inside Clean Energy: Some Straight Talk about Renewables and Reliability" by Dan Gearing at Inside Climate News "Mozambique Mints a New National Park — and Surveys Its Riches" by Jen Gunton at The New York Times "Meet America’s 63rd National Park" by Zack Montague at The New York Times --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

To kick off our season three premiere(!), yesterday was the big AirMiners conference, which the host platform shows 637 people attended! To discuss their takeaways from the event's diverse discussions are panelists: Dr. Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Buffalo; Christopher Barnard, Policy Director of the American Conservation Coalition; Ross Kenyon, Creative Editor at Nori; and the show's new anchor and Nori's Supply and Methodology Program Manager, Radhika Moolgavkar. We discuss the buckshot vs. silver bullet paradigms within carbon removal, the latest takes on policy and environmental justice, and why we need carbon removal memes and await the arrival of a coming carbon removal TikTok superstar. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Holly Jean Buck has released two books on the subject of geoengineering. After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration(https://www.versobooks.com/books/3091-after-geoengineering) focuses on the overwhelming questions that humanity now has to face as we begin, finally, to confront the reality of the climate crisis. Has It Come to This?, co-edited with J.P. Sapinski and Andreas Malm, (https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/bucknell/has-it-come-to-this/9781978809352/) looks at the “promise and perils of geoengineering” from a wide array of theoretical perspectives. In this conversation we talk about some of the complex social effects of climate solutions, how to develop a better language for phasing out fossil fuels, how we need to combine emotional methods for moving people with rigorous and ambitious system-wide planning for a future in which we are dedicated, long-term, to drawing down carbon, and what it means to resign ourselves to the scientific certainty that we need to take seriously solutions that seemed, to this point, completely utopian so that we can make space for futures where collective survival is possible.