Beyond 1.5 Series | Going negative: How much carbon can we capture?

Hello, everyone. On behalf of Woodwell Climate Research center, welcome to the third in our Beyond 1.5 virtual event series. I'm Heather Goldstone, Chief Communications Officer at Woodwell Climate. Could I possibly see a quick show of hands? And I know we still have people trickling in here. Quick show of hands. If you've been with us for at least one of our previous events. And of course, we'll have to do this with those virtual hands. If you can find the little raise hand at the bottom of your screen, just show us how many of you have been here for at least one of our previous beyond 1.5 events. This is terrific. We're at several dozen and quickly climbing, which is wonderful. Thank you to all of you who are returning attendees. To those of you who haven't been with us for any of our previous events, thank you so much for joining us today and welcome. If you are interested in those previous events, either watching for the first time or rewatching the they are all available on our YouTube channel and also on our website, woodwellclimate.org and we do hope that you will join us for our future events as well. Because this series really was designed as a process to be gone through together as a community of getting beyond this simplistic number of 1.5, understanding really what the full risks are that we face, what the choices are that we have in front of us and where that might take us, hopefully coming out of this not depressed and overwhelmed, but really with an invigorated sense of urgency, ambition, vision and motivation. And today is the midway point in that series and it's where we're going to shift our focus from the first two events, really being more about the risks we face, our understanding of what those risks really look like, and in this event, shifting from risks to solutions. Before we move into that, I would like to thank the Knub family for their support of this series. These virtual events really give us an amazing opportunity, as you will see on display today, to convene larger groups and more diverse panels to really bring you perspectives from literally around the globe on these issues. Groups that we probably would not be able to bring together in person as frequently as we are able to on these virtual events. I also want to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you today from the traditional and sacred land of the Wampanoag people, what we today call Cape Cod. The Wampanoag have lived here for thousands of years and we are glad are still a vibrant part of our community with their language, their culture, and their ways of life. Indigenous leadership at Woodwell Climate, we know, is invaluable to our global efforts to restore a safe and stable climate. And as we're talking about today, to preserving forests that store enormous amounts of carbon, I am a little disappointed. We had hoped that one of our colleagues from the Amazon indigenous organization COICA would be able to join us today, and unfortunately, that was not to be. But we do have a fabulous panel here to talk about how we might remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So, as I said, our first two events really laid out the scope of the challenge that we're facing and the fact that the actions we have taken to date, the decisions we have made to date, have committed us to at least 1.5 degrees C of total average global warming, and that we're actually on a trajectory right now for much more warming. And we got to the point in our last event of really reckoning with the fact that changing our course and averting the worst impacts of climate change will require, first and foremost, eliminating all the fossil fuel emissions, possible rapid and dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And I want to be really clear about that because that's one thing that in this event series, we don't have an entire event dedicated to switching to renewable energy or shifting our diets and other strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But that is absolutely the core of the critical work that we have in front of us. It is on top of that that we know we will additionally need to remove massive amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That's where we're going to pick up the discussion today. Sources as varied as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and McKinsey & Company, also represented here today, have done the math and determined that we really are going to need carbon dioxide removal in some form. Whether that's natural ecosystems, forests to fields, they are already absorbing and storing roughly a quarter of human greenhouse gas emissions. And this is really the only large scale carbon dioxide removal we have going at the moment. However, at the same time, engineers are developing carbon dioxide removal technologies, machines to do this work, and it is likely that we will need both. However, in both cases, there is a large gap for us to make up, and that is the gap between what is physically, biologically or technologically possible and what is feasible. And we'll dig into more of what feasible actually means, but what is cost effective or feasible to do on a large scale. Closing that gap is going to be one of the major themes of our conversation today. Without further ado, let me introduce the other folks that you're going to be mostly hearing from in the coming hour, our panelists, they are Peter Mannion, an associate professor at McKinsey & Company, working in the company's sustainability practice based in Dublin, Ireland. So thank you for joining us during your evening, Peter. Peter leads much of McKinsey's work on carbon markets, nature based solutions and negative emissions. And he's authored many of McKinsey's perspectives on these topics. So we're glad to have him here with us. Also, Gianna Amador, she is the co founder and policy director at Carbon 180, an organization that looks at carbon removal broadly. Gianna has worn many hats at the organization, from guiding the team's strategy and communications to more recently leading the organization's policy program. So obviously more on this issue of feasibility and how we actually make this happen. Across her work, Gianna is focused on connecting economic development, social justice and climate action. She's also a native of the Central Valley in California with deep expertise in agriculture and soil carbon sequestration, which is something that we have. Another expert on the panel, Jonathan Sanderman, last but not least, is a senior scientist here at Woodwell Climate who focuses on soil carbon. He has been involved with seminal efforts to estimate the global potential of natural climate solutions, from forests to soils, and is actively involved in developing tools and strategies, strategies to make carbon monitoring accessible and to make natural climate solutions just and effective. So we are thrilled to have all three of you with us and maybe to kick things off, Peter, I'll turn to you. As I've said, your work at McKinsey and McKinsey as a whole has done the math, has run a number of scenarios about what it might take to hit, for example, the goal of 1.5 degrees C. And in all cases carbon dioxide removal is involved. Can you just give us a sense of the scope of that need? What is it that that is that we might need to hit some of these goals and why do we actually need carbon dioxide removal in.

The mix? Thank you so much, Heather, and great to be here. I should probably say I'm not a professor because it's important to manage expectations on such things, but thank you. Warm introduction. I think you put it very well that, you know, in all of these conversations we should start with a very clear statement that emissions reduction are clearly the first priority and the primary way of delivering a one and a half or two degree ambition. And you know, the heuristic of 50% reduction in the next decade and net zero by 2050 is pretty accurate and pretty helpful. But even as you look at all those pathways, you know, we have developed one at McKinsey and there are many, many others, but in all cases they rely on removing CO2 from the atmosphere as well as delivering those deep emissions reductions. Our one at McKinsey relies on about 5 gigatons of removal in any given year. You know, very approximately one eighth of total emissions today. And there are many IPCC scenarios that rely on a much greater level of removals in some scenarios right up to 10 gigatons or about a quarter of all emissions today. So these are a really important part of all of those pathways that get us to one and a half or two degrees. And I think the reasons are quite straightforward. Firstly, they help to neutralize emissions that are just very, very difficult to eradicate. So think about things like in the agriculture sector, the application of nitrogen causes emissions, which, you know, there's no current technology that enables the levels of food production that we might desire that wouldn't require some next application. There are also things like in industry sectors that are very, very difficult to decarbonize because the replacement cycles are so long, the technology doesn't exist. Or, you know, just in reality, there will be some processes or some machinery from today that would still exist beyond 2050. And then of course, in things like aviation that even where sustainable aviation fuel or hydrogen might be able to deliver significant decarbonization, there will still be some residual emissions from those type of applications. So the first big thing is there'll be some emissions that will remain and they would need to be offset even in the long run. But I think there are other reasons as well that all of these models that we talk about that get us to within a temperature boundary, most of them rely on some amount of overshoot. So the assumption is that we go a little bit beyond one and a half degrees and then we draw it back and that drawback is done through carbon removal or negative emissions. And then finally we might think about, you know, negative emissions or carbon removal is something that we want to have in our toolkit in the case of, you know, a need to stabilize the climate in the very long run, in the case of needing to draw down the temperature after we pass a certain threshold to stabilize something closer to what we have today, a long term stabilization of the cloud. I think there are some of the reasons why this topic is so important and potentially.

Under explored. Thanks, Peter. I want to turn to you, Gianna. As I said, Carbon180 works on carbon dioxide removal both Natural systems and technological systems. The need that Peter was mentioning there something on the order of an eighth or maybe a quarter of current emissions. We've already said that's actually in the realm of what natural systems are doing right now. What need do you see for technology beyond natural systems? What mix of those two do you envision.

Going forward? Absolutely. I think Peter gave a really great overview, not only of why we need carbon removal solutions, but also like what is the goal that we're shooting for as a globe in order to meet our climate goals. And of course that varies by what climate model you're looking at, how fast we decarbonize, what our temperature target is. But I think at carbon180 we like to think of, we imagine that we would need to remove on the order of 10 gigatons of carbon removal annually by 2050. And really we think it's sort of too early to know what the final mix is. But we know that a full portfolio approach is important because each of these technologies and solutions has limitations in its own. So for example, on the land sector side we know that nature based solutions face limits of scale. We just don't have enough land area while also preserving our urban areas, land autonomy for indigenous people as well as food production. And at the same time we face a number of challenges around durability. We know with increasing climate impacts we're going to see one, increased wildfires as well as increased released carbon from soils just due to temperature increases and other climate impacts. So it's really important that we have a diverse portfolio of solutions so that one, we're hedging against any of those potential reversals, but two, that we just sort of have a really well balanced set of solutions. On the technological side, of course these solutions also face challenges, I think in particular around high costs and they also don't have a ton of mature markets today. So there are very few companies out there who are purchasing CO2 from Direct Air capture machines. They exist, but they are few and far between. And so that's a challenge for these companies to get.

To scale. We are definitely going to dig into markets and obstacles both for natural and technological systems. More this hour. But I, I want to jump to you Jonathan, and you actually were a co author on a publication that I believe just came out last week, looking globally, but at a regional scale, going region by region and ecosystem by ecosystem almost what are the different types of natural climate solutions that we have available to us? Preserving forests, rebuilding forests, restoring ecosystems, coastal systems, agricultural lands, and kind of assessing where is the greatest potential and where is the greatest feasibility? Could you give us a couple of takeaways of that? Where do we, if we were to look around the world, where could we see some of the greatest potential for carbon removal by.

Natural systems? Yes, certainly. And I should recognize the lead author of that paper is Stephanie Rowe at ClimateFocus and it was a team of 34 other individuals, one of these massive data compilation effort. And actually I just wanted to touch on. Heather, you said earlier, introducing the question to Gianna, that the land is removing a lot of carbon and so the land is responsible for removing about a third of the carbon right now that would otherwise be residing in atmosphere. But the land is kind of doing that on its own. And so when we think about natural climate solutions, we're actually thinking about either protecting, restoring or better managing the land to draw down additional carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So it's in addition to this kind of natural carbon sink that the land as a whole has become over the last 40 or 50 years. And so it's this broad natural climate solutions is this broad portfolio of interventions that means something different depending where you are in the world and what ecosystem you're thinking about, whether it's protecting or restoring tropical forests, protecting, restoring coastal wetlands, or just man doing a better job managing the billion plus acres of land that we have under active agricultural management. And so all these levers can be applied differentially around the world. And so that was really the heart of this paper, was trying to say like, well, where is the most potential for which types of these solutions? Whether it's protecting, managing or restoring the land base. And so kind of the top level finding was that feasible amount of mitigation is about 20 to 30% of those numbers Gianna and Peter mentioned can be likely achieved from natural climate solutions. And so this potential, it's really exciting that land just under better management can provide that much of the solution. But it's also I think doubly exciting that by better managing the land we have this additional suite of environmental and social co benefits that come with nature based solutions which we don't with other kind of more technological fixes for drawing carbon out of the atmosphere. And obviously I think we'll dive into a little bit more. There's a lot of drawbacks about thinking about land as a repository for carbon and we can go into that in more detail later. But I think for me the big takeaway of the report was really looking at this differential potential around the world. So we see clearly that most of the Potential is in the Global south. And we could contrast that to the fact that most of the global emissions occur elsewhere. And so this simple observation really underscores the need for these really strong north south partnerships and really the flow of finance and support to local efforts that are protecting, restoring and just doing a better job of managing agricultural land in the Global South. And another kind of interesting finding, especially coming from my background, really looking at how we better manage agricultural lands is in the developed temperate zone countries. More than half of the potential comes from better management of working lands, where almost all of the potential in the Global south comes from protecting or restoring tropical forests and mangroves and other high carbon.

Density ecosystems. John, that gives us maybe a little inkling of what this might look like. But I'm wondering if you and then Gianna can help us really get a visual in our head of what some of these solutions look like. How different might a farm look or a given piece of land look if we were to, as you said, manage it better so that it's storing more carbon. And what would some of the benefits give us? One.

Specific example. Yeah. So I could start with maybe an example from some of our work with the tropical team at Woodwell. This idea that there's already a huge amount of land under productive cultivation. Agriculture in Brazil. The idea if we could do a better job managing the land that's already in production, we could reduce the need to clear additional land. And so that includes each individual landowner in and around the Amazon basin is legally allowed to clear a certain amount of forest. Most of those landholders haven't cleared that amount of forest yet. And so can we develop incentive structures so that they can maintain their agricultural land base without further expanding into that intact forest, that is, they're legally entitled to deforest. So that would be one example that at Woodwell we're working to try to design a.

Program for. I'm happy to hop in with another example. I think from the US context this looks like farmers, for example, who are doing specialty crop production, let's say fruits and vegetables and row crop agriculture, implementing practices that protects and builds their soil health. We know that there's a really strong connection between soil health and soil carbon content. This often means implementing a suite of practices that tend to keep the soil covered and undisturbed. And that's sort of the way that we keep carbon locked in soils. So this could be in practices like implementing cover crops. No. And low till tillage, as well as, you know, buffers around the edges of the field to prevent Erosion and just sort of a whole suite of practices that is almost decided on an operation by operation basis of what fits the specific geography, climate and operation type that a farmer has and what they're trying to produce. And I think to Jonathan's point earlier, what are the other goals that they're maximizing for, whether that's yield or some other kind of ecosystem service that is potentially being provided by the farm, especially if they happen to be something like a range land.

As well. And Gianna, could you also then switch over to the technological side of things? And what do those look like? I mean, I think all of us can come up with some crazy ideas about what a direct air capture sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere might look like. What does it actually.

Look like? Yeah, there are actually a number of direct air capture plants that are operational across the globe today at carbon180. We actually have a map on our website that sort of links to each of the projects if folks are interested in learning more. But really, direct air capture tends to look like, effectively a giant fan. It's a technology that brings ambient air through a fan in which it comes in contact with a chemical filter. And that chemical selectively binds the CO2. So we're actually able to separate out a Pure stream of CO2. You then have the CO2 that you decide what to do with for the maximum climate benefit. We love to see that sequestered underground in geologic formations. This is what, for example, Climeworks is doing with their new ORCA project that's capturing 4,000 tons of carbon removal, or, excuse me, of carbon dioxide per year. But it also could be used to turn into valuable products like plastics, fuels.

And cements. Gianna, you said this word earlier. Markets. Right. And in addition to the land, the trees, the machines that would actually do the carbon removal, we need systems and mechanisms to incentivize the use of the deployment of these sorts of strategies. Peter, could you talk us through what carbon markets or what other sorts of mechanisms are being developed and might be needed to really see carbon removal go.

To scale? Yeah, for sure. I think the markets for carbon today, you know, particularly those that are not the kind of compliance or regulated ones where these types of technologies generally fall into. They're a little underdeveloped and they're kind of characterized by a lot of people doing over the counter type transactions where there's, you know, a bilateral agreement between two companies or an individual company. And I think for these markets to really scale, there are a couple of things that really need to be put into place. One on the supply side, there's a real need for a consistent definition so that when we talk about a ton of carbon removal to add up to the 5 to 10 gigatons that we opened with that, we have a clear understanding of exactly what we're referring to there. What does it mean in terms of how much emissions were generated in order to actually remove that tonight? How permanent is that going to be stored in the geological formation, the soil or the other form of nature? So there's a big point about defining really clearly what supply actually is. Then secondly, there's a markets question. You know, in that world, what I described, where everything is, you know, bilateral, there's, there's no real kind of traditional system for somebody to understand what the price would be or for importantly somebody to understand whether they can sell a futures contract of a carbon removal in a handful of years time. And even though they might sound like markets, questions are really important in ensuring that the project can be financed from day one. So only by having some certainty about your future revenue stream is it possible actually to make the day one investment that's so badly needed in many of these technologies. And then finally, there's a need for demand in this market. There's effectively no market without demand. And currently there's a little bit of a patchwork on the voluntary side. There are a handful of corporates, Microsoft, Spotify, Stripe are often cited as the examples, but there are a relatively small number of them that are leading and saying that we will actually buy the first round of carbon removal projects in order to make it possible to scale these technologies. And then on the kind of government or regulatory side, there's a patchwork of things. You've got 45Q in the US, you likely ets coming into the UK that is likely to allow carbon removal to meet a ETS obligation. But right now there's no kind of consistent orchestration of that demand to give potential suppliers the confidence that either through voluntary commitments or through government regulation or action, there's going to be enough demand to really make it worthwhile or even just possible to invest in the technologies on.

Day zero. I want to take just a moment here. Many of you have been with us for previous events and know the drill. So the Q and A and the chat are already alive with questions and comments which we love. Keep them coming as we're talking. If you've been with us before, you'll know that we get enough questions and comments that we can't possibly address each one individually. So I'll be scrolling through both the Q and A and the chat throughout the conversation, trying to pull out themes, regulation.

Or action. There's going to be enough demand to really make it worthwhile or even just possible to invest in the technologies on.

Day zero. I want to take just a moment here to many of you have been with us for previous events and know the drill. So the Q and A and the chat are already alive with questions and comments, which we love. Keep them coming as we're talking. If you've been with us before, you'll know that we get enough questions and comments that we can't possibly address each one individually. So I'll be scrolling through both the Q and A and the chat throughout the conversation, trying to pull out themes or, you know, if there are clarifications, clarification points, we'll definitely jump on those and trying to pull out questions and themes from what's in there. So keep all of that coming. It's terrific and it drives the conversation. I want to turn here. We're about halfway through the hour and I know time flies, but I want to turn a little bit from, okay, here's the potential that we have, which sounds really terrific, Peter, you're talking about some of the momentum and building different financial mechanisms and what's going on. So let's get the flip side of that coin right. What are some of the obstacles here? What stands in the way of. And we'll start with the finances. What stands in the way of having the financial mechanisms that we need to really scale carbon.

Dioxide removal? Is it.

That we. Yes, you can take first stab and then we'll let others.

Jump in. Yeah, Honestly, I think I keep it simple. It is that clear demand signal. It is the consistency around the definition of what's going to count as a ton of CO2 removal. If you have those two things, I think they will enable the financing to flow in order to start to build out the capacity. We could talk about nuances around those things, but I really think that they are the very big blocks of action that can help us to start to move the tanker in the direction it needs.

To go. And Gianna, I mentioned at the top that your current role at carbon180 is overseeing policy. Obviously there's a role for policy in some of that demand signal and creating the foundation for these kinds of markets. What are some of the policies that you see as being needed to support.

Carbon removal? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think there's a sort of full suite of policy levers that we can use to incentivize both the development and the deployment of these solutions. I think on the incentive side we just need a sort of drastic ramp up in the sort of price and size of incentives that we see for different carbon removal solutions today. So, for example, we have the 45Q tax credit which provides a dollar per ton of CO2 captured and stored. And that number right now is sort of much too low to really incentivize direct air capture projects over something, for example, like traditional CCs. On the land sector side, much of our sort of deployment incentives are really centered around traditional conservation programs that are based in the Farm Bill. So we see things like the Conservation Reserve Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program, which provide farmers with incentives and financial assistance to implement these practices on their farm. But they're very conservation focused, which is not necessarily a bad thing. We should absolutely maximize all of the CO benefits that come with land based solutions, but they're not explicitly focused on making sure that we get long term durable carbon removal solutions. I think it's also really important for the federal government to invest in research, development and demonstration, especially for more nascent technologies, and then also provide more regulatory clarity and oversight, especially for things like geologic sequestration. It's very difficult to pump CO2 underground right now. And not that that difficulty is necessarily unwarranted, but these companies need certainty that they're actually able to develop these wells and, you know, secure geologic sequestration in a way that is in line with the communities in which these projects.

Are located. Jonathan, you're doing a lot of work right now on making sure that carbon markets actually work and do what they need to. Because even if you've got the right financial structure, there's a need for science there to ensure that, you know, when you say you've kept an added ton of carbon out of the atmosphere, that that's actually what has happened. Can you give us a sense of where you see some of those needs for science to ensure that carbon markets.

Work effectively? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think maybe just to step back up, I think both Peter and Gianna's responses were really good. Peter, talking about this kind.

Of the drive, the financial demand, what stands in the way of. And we'll start with the finances. What stands in the way of having the financial mechanisms that we need to really scale carbon.

Dioxide removal? Is it.

That we. Yes, you can take first stab and then we'll let others. We'll let others.

Jump.

In. Yeah. You know, honestly, I think I keep it simple. It Is, you know, that clear demand signal. It is, you know, that consistency around the definition of what's going to count as a ton of CO2 removal. And if you have those two things, I think they will enable the financing to flow in order to start to build out the capacity. We could talk about nuances around those things, but I really think that they are the very big blocks of action that can help us to start to move the tanker in the direction it needs.

To go. And Gianna, I mentioned at the top that your current role at carbon 180 is overseeing policy. Obviously there's a role for policy in some of that demand signal and creating the foundation for these kinds of markets. What are some of the policies that you see as being needed to support.

Carbon removal? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think there's a sort of full suite of policy levers that we can use to incentivize both the development and the deployment of these solutions. I think on the incentive side, we just need a sort of drastic ramp up in the sort of price and size of incentives that we see for different carbon removal solutions today. So, for example, we have the 45Q tax credit, which provides a dollar per ton of CO2 captured and stored. And that number right now is sort of much too low to really incentivize direct air capture projects over something, for example, like traditional CCs. On the land sector side, much of our sort of deployment incentives are really centered around traditional conservation programs that are based in the Farm Bill. So we see things like the Conservation Reserve Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program, which provide farmers with incentives and financial assistance to implement these practices on their farm. But they're very conservation focused, which is not necessarily a bad thing. We should absolutely maximize all of the CO benefits that come with land based solutions, but they're not explicitly focused on making sure that we get long term durable carbon removal solutions. I think it's also really important for the federal government to invest in research, development and demonstration, especially for more nascent technologies, and then also provide more regulatory clarity and oversight, especially for things like geologic sequestration. It's very difficult to pump CO2 underground right now. And not that that difficulty is necessarily unwarranted, but these companies need certainty that they're actually able to develop these wells and secure geologic sequestration in a way that is in line with the communities in which these projects.

Are located. Jonathan, you're doing a lot of work right now on making sure that carbon markets actually work and do what they need to. Because even if you've got the right financial structure. There's a need for science there to ensure that when you say you've kept an added ton of carbon out of the atmosphere, that that's actually what has happened. Can you give us a sense of where you see some of those needs for science to ensure that carbon markets.

Work effectively? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think maybe just to step back up, I think Peter and Gianna's responses were really good. Peter talking about this kind of the drive, the financial demand and the buyers and offsets and also then thinking about more policy incentive structures and I guess demand comes for carbon removal is coming from multiple places and there's at least. So my work has been focused really looking at these emerging voluntary markets around soil carbon and just agricultural greenhouse gas gas abatement that really there's over a dozen of these marketplaces that have sprung up in the last like 18 months now. And there's enormous interest in them, which is really, I mean, it's really nice to see that they're over. Over 3 million acres of land were enrolled last year in one of the largest programs alone. So there is a lot of demand. There was both, there's both a lot of interest in enrolling these programs and a lot of demand for buying these offsets. But really where we're focused right now, because this is in the voluntary space, there are no rules. So there, if it was a compliance market where the government set the rules, there would be really strict guidelines as to what's eligible, what's not eligible. So right now it's really whatever the buyer of that credit feels comfortable with goes and I think is creating the regulatory role to provide this high level oversight of these emerging soil.

Carbon markets. So we've been talking kind of about the big picture. What's the potential, what are the obstacles, policy and finance wise, how could we overcome some of those? I'm looking through the chat and the Q and A and I think maybe what we should spend a little time doing is just walking.

Kind of. I guess our worry as an environmental organization is as long as it stays in this voluntary space, the credibility that every ton of CO2 removed is real is going to be questionable unless there's a higher level of oversight in these emerging markets. And I mean to this government's credit, I mean that's really at the heart of the growing Climate Solutions.

Act is trying nuts and bolts through some of the terms that get thrown around when we talk about carbon removal. And just I see a kind of a hunger for just a realistic what's the real story here with with some of these things? So first of all, one hopefully quick question. When we're talking about carbon removal, is it really just carbon dioxide removal or could we remove other greenhouse gases.

Say methane? Another is creating the regulatory role to provide this high level oversight of these emerging soil.

Carbon markets form of carbon greenhouse gas.

Any takers? I'll give a quick answer. The answer is yes, we can absolutely remove capture and remove other gases. There is quite a bit of work around methane capture, especially when it relates to animal agriculture. That being said, carbon dioxide is sort of the.

Longest lived. So we've been talking kind of about the big picture. What's the potential? What are the obstacles, policy and finance wise? How could we overcome some of those? I'm looking through the chat and the Q and A and I think maybe what we should spend a little time doing is just walking kind of nuts and bolts through some of the terms that get thrown around when we talk about carbon removal. I see a hunger for.

Just pollutant and the one that is in the air at the greatest quantity. So I think the reason.

Why we feel realistic, what's the real story here with some of.

These things? So first of all, it's more heavily on carbon dioxide removal is because it sort of makes most sense for the long term climate math. But happy to have the other panelists provide a more.

Nuanced perspective. Yeah, I think the agriculture area is exciting. You're starting to see in.

Some indoor animal systems in the one hopefully.

Quick question. When we're talking about carbon removal, is it really just carbon dioxide removal or could we remove other greenhouse gases, say methane, another form of carbon greenhouse gas.

Any takers? I'll give a.

Quick answer. The answer is the air conditioning units trials with methane capture to those air conditioning units. But I think the point stands that one is measured in parts per million, the other in parts per billion. And I think therefore the I think challenge, you got to be realistic that it is likely to be more challenging in.

Dispersed settings. Okay, Jonathan, anything to.

Add there? Yes, we can absolutely remove capture and remove other gases. There is quite a bit of work around methane capture, especially when it relates to animal agriculture. That being said, carbon dioxide is sort of the longest lived pollutant and the one that is in the air at the greatest quantities. So I think the reason why we focus more heavily on carbon dioxide removal is because it sort of makes most sense for the.

Long term. I think they covered it well, but I was going to focus on that agricultural this besides it's kind of like with methane it's easy to prevent the release of it from especially like confined animal operations where you're pulling them in the air and stuff. So there's a lot of pretty. There's a lot of low hanging fruit to manage methane from point sources. That is probably actually the most developed from.

Climate math. But happy to have the other panelists provide a more.

Nuanced perspective. Yeah, I think the agriculture area is exciting. You're starting to see in some indoor animal systems in the air conditioning units. Trials with methane capture to those air.

Conditioning units. Climate mitigation strategies in.

Agricultural.

Space. Right. Contains But I think the point stands that one is measured in.

Parts per million, the other meaning it and preventing it rather than having to recapture.

It there.

Yeah, exactly. Okay, so then cost and of course the financial cost of something is hiding something deeper other costs and the two things that are coming up here is energy and land parts.

Per billion. And I think therefore I think challenge, you got to be realistic that it is likely to be more challenging in.

Dispersed settings. Okay, Jonathan, anything to.

Add there? I think they covered it well but I was going to focus on that.

Agricultural besides. Well, let's talk through and actually Jonathan, I'm going to start with you because I think you mentioned some of the land costs of natural climate solutions which I think can sound counterintuitive. What do you mean by that and what are some of the costs or you know, I guess drawbacks or limitations that we should be thinking about in the space of natural.

Climate solutions. It's kind of like with methane it's easy to prevent the release of it from especially like confined animal operations where you're pulling them in the air and stuff. So there's a lot of pretty. There's a lot of low hanging fruit to manage methane from point sources. That is probably actually the most developed climate mitigation strategies in agricultural space. Well, I think to start most natural climate solutions only provide a small amount of mitigation per acre. And so we were talking about deploying these natural climate solutions across tens of or hundreds of millions of acres of land for them to be these effective solutions that scale to the.

Pointing it and preventing it rather than having to recapture.

It there.

Yeah, exactly. Okay, so then cost and of course the financial cost of something is hiding something deeper other costs and the two things that are coming up here is energy and land. So let's talk through and actually Jonathan, I'm going to start with.

You because where they're making an impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. And so I think that fact alone I think gets lost in a lot of debates where you see others 10 billion tons of CO2 potential in natural climate solutions. There's also half a billion people that we need to convince to change their behavior in some small but meaningful way to get there. And so it's just.

Enormous societal. I think you mentioned some of the land costs of natural climate solutions, which I think can sound counterintuitive. What do you mean by that and what are some of the costs or I guess drawbacks or limitations that we should be thinking about in the space of natural.

Climate solutions? Well, I think to start for most natural climate solutions only provide a small amount of mitigation per acre. And so we were talking about deploying these natural climate solutions across tens of or hundreds of millions of.

Acres of natural climate solutions, which I think can sound kind.

Of counterintuitive. So land for them to be these effective solutions that scale to the point where they're making an impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. And so I think that fact alone I think gets lost in a lot of debates where you see others 10 billion tons of CO2 potential in natural climate solutions. There's also half a billion people that we need to convince to change their behavior in some small but meaningful way to get there. And so it's just enormous societal problem if we want natural climate solutions to be really a big part of.

The portfolio. And Gianna, you also got at this in one of your earlier comments talking about food production and places for people to live. I mean, there's an opportunity cost to preserve, you know, to natural climate solutions, to having that amount of land dedicated to that. So dig into that a little bit more and then we'll turn our attention.

To energy. Yeah, I think when it comes to thinking about, I think in particular private lands, oftentimes landowners are thinking about, you know, what's the highest value use of their land. And historically we have not valued carbon sequestration as sort of a core component of their business model, whether that's working land. So you know, farming ranching or excuse me, farming ranching or sort of like a timber production versus natural lands and sort of more conservation oriented approach. And so I think it's really about aligning the incentives to make sure that that land managers are able to make a decision that one optimizes for climate benefit but also doesn't diminish sort of the other values that they get from those lands, which could mean, you know, their economic income, but it could also mean, you know, biodiversity and animal habitat. And so it's really about sort of like managing these lands for a multiple number of benefits. And a lot of times that comes down to economics, which is why I think I focus so heavily on policies like how do we make sure to sort of align all those incentives and make sure that we're managing for that full suite.

Of benefits. Okay, so let's turn our attention to the technological side of the equation. And there have been a number of questions and you, you said earlier just not cost effective at the moment. Why is that? What drives the high cost and is that to do with the amount of energy that's needed to drive these direct air.

Capture machines? Yeah, so direct air capture right now typically ranges in price from around 200 to about.

600 problem. If we want natural climate solutions to be really a big dollars.

Per ton of CO2, a lot of.

That cost part of.

The portfolio. And Gianna, you also got at this in one of your earlier comments talking about food production and places for people to live. I mean there's an opportunity cost to preserve, you know, to natural climate solutions, to having that amount of land dedicated to that. So dig into that a.

Little bit more and then we'll comes from sort of capital costs. So constructing the, the plants themselves, these are large major infrastructure projects as well as, you know, creating the chemicals that in which the CO2 sort of directly reacts. There is some cost associated with the energy.

As well. Turn our attention to.

To energy. Yeah, I think when it comes to thinking about, I think in particular private lands, oftentimes landowners are thinking about, you know, what's the highest value use of their land. And historically we have not valued carbon sequestration as sort of a core component of their business model. Whether that and these plants can either run off of electricity or waste heat. What a lot of these companies are trying to do in order to sort of lower that energy usage and also cost because energy can also be a limiting factor in addition to being a cost constraint. Working land. So you know, farming, ranching or excuse me farming is thinking about how can we pair these director capture facilities with potential either waste heat from industrial plants or renewable energy that is sort of being produced in excess at certain times throughout the day. So it's really about finding those ranching or sort of like a timber production versus natural lands and sort of more conservation oriented approach. And so I think it's really about aligning the incentives to make sure that that land managers are able to make a decision that one, you know, specific geographies in which we can use that waste electricity or waste heat to make these solutions more cost effective. But the good news is we do actually have a lot of optimizes for climate benefit, but also doesn't diminish sort of the other values experience bringing down the cost of technologies like solar, wind. And so I think there's sort of a playbook that we can follow to bring down the cost of direct air captures. What they get from those lands, which could mean, you know, their economic income, but it could also mean, you know, biodiversity and.

Animal habitat. Do you mind if I add briefly to that?

Because I. And so it's really about sort of like managing these lands for a multiple number of benefits. And a lot of times that comes down to economics, which is.

Why I fully agree and really useful to emphasize. I also maybe just add that one of the ways to bring down the cost of, for example direct air capture is a non technical one. It's to do with.

The cost. I think I focus so heavily on policies like how do we make sure to sort of align all.

Those incentives and cost.

Of financing. So a little bit linked back to our markets conversation, make sure.

That we're managing for that full suite.

Of benefits. So let's turn our attention to the technological side of.

The equation. One of the challenges is that it's very difficult or relatively expensive to.

Get financing. And there have been a number of questions and you, you said earlier just not cost effective at the moment. Why is that? What drives the high cost? And is that these types.

Of projects because the demand signal isn't clear. So you can actually have a meaningful impact on the cost per tonne by providing that clarity on the demand signal and therefore reduce the.

Financing cost. And Peter, why isn't that demand signal clear? Where should that demand signal be coming from and how do we bump.

That up? So I think if we're to stay in the realm of the demand technology based removals like the direct air capture conversation, you know, the reality is today you have a very small number of climate leaders that are, you know, committing to purchase. So I mentioned, you know, the Microsoft, the Stripes, the Spotify, they're the classic examples that people will use. And you know, they're characterized, you know, I think many of them are doing really helpful work in this space. But they're characterized by, you know, relatively low CO2, you know, per unit of revenue or per unit of profit. And for these technologies to really scale, you would need a demand signal that is one larger two that people are confident will last through a down cycle and Three, likely that is backed by some regulatory push in order to give kind of real certainty that if I were to provide the call it a billion dollars of financing to build a direct air capture facility, that there's certainty that somebody will want to buy the product, which is effectively a ton of removal over the course of the decades that that plant will.

Be active. There's a really interesting question in the Q and A that listening to you talking there, Peter, really just sparked. What's the scale at which we need to be working on this? The question was could we do carbon removal at a hyperlocal level and build this entire suite of different approaches and finance at a hyper local level? And I guess that sparked for me the question is this. I mean, Gianna, you've been talking about communities making decisions that are appropriate for their values, for their geography. Is this local, regional, global or probably? I'm guessing the answer is all of the above. But what's the.

Mix there? I think Jan imagined this kind of basket or portfolio. And I think because of that portfolio approach, I think there's absolutely relevance in almost every community. I think particularly on the nature side, the full suite of manage, protect and restore that Jonathan laid out makes it relevant for those in tropical forests and those in production agriculture in the United States. So I think it really does touch on all communities. I think for things like direct air capture or BECCs, they have a little bit more of an industrial flavor that they require relatively large facilities in order to be very efficient and likely also need to be co located with places where you can reliably store CO2 and often CO located with places where there's a risk from a community of an unjust transition. So for example, you could imagine locating direct air capture facilities in places where there's currently a large labor force reliant on the oil and gas sector with places where there's a risk from a community of an unjust transition. So for example, you could imagine locating direct air capture facilities in places where there's currently a large labor force reliant on the oil and gas sector. And because there's a reasonably high skill match between the skills they're doing in their job today, there's an opportunity to support or enable a just transition. And because there's a reasonably high skill match between the skills they're doing in their job today, there's an opportunity to support or enable a just transition for those workers to a new type of.

Industry here. John, I think you've had your hand up and I know Gianna you want to jump in.

Here John?

Go ahead. I was just going to add, I mean I think that especially kind of the managing of working lands solutions really needs a local, hyper local level of interest. Most solutions, there's no one size fits all solution for agriculture. It's like even when you say add cover crops, that means 100 different things in different regions of the world. And so having the peer to peer learning from your neighboring farmers is absolutely critical for disseminating appropriate technologies everywhere. So I really like that idea of focusing and scaling out from, for a lot of these land based solutions, really scaling out from these local centers to rapidly disseminate knowledge and share what works, what.

Doesn'T.

Work. Gianna, I mean I definitely agree with everything that's been said so far. I think there's a tendency on the tech side to sort of say like, hey, we have these big plants, we're just going to like put them in the middle of the desert and we'll be great. Which I think is also a mentality that we've seen from a lot of renewable energy technologies as well. And I would just say sort of the local community benefits, impact.

And influence for those workers to a new type of.

Industry here. John, I think you've had your hand up and I know. Gianna, you want to jump in here? John.

Go ahead. I was just going to add, I mean I think that especially kind of the managing of working lands solutions really needs a local, hyper local level of interest is most to do.

With the amount of energy that's needed to drive these direct air.

Capture machines. Yeah. So direct air capture right now typically ranges in price from around 200 to about $600 per ton of CO2. A lot of that cost comes from sort of capital costs. So constructing the plan are all super critical to making sure that we develop direct air capture in a way that's in line with our environmental justice goals and values. And I think, you know, direct air capture a lot of times we talk about the tech solutions as having less direct benefits. But as Peter mentioned, I think there are a number of, you know, high paying, hopefully high paying union jobs that are up for grabs here. And so how do we think really intentionally about developing industries in regions across the US and across.

The globe? We are rapidly nearing the end of the hour. I want to make sure we get to one more really important theme and that is time. Time is ticking. We need to dramatically reduce.

Greenhouse solutions. There's no one size fits all solution.

For agriculture. It's greenhouse gas emissions. We need to be According to the UN's estimates at carbon neutral.

At like even when you say add cover crops that means 100 different things or before.

Mid century. And so the, the question is how soon could these sorts of solutions that we've been talking about really come into play? I mean it takes time for trees to grow and for technologies to develop. So time wise, what are we.

Looking at? I would just jump in quickly and maybe this would be a great chance to introduce and hand over to Juan Carlos that obviously protecting themselves.

These are large major infrastructure projects as.

Well as high carbon dense ecosystems is something we could start doing today. So a lot of these land based solutions, I mean that's one.

Of the reasons there's some, you know, creating the chemicals that in which the.

CO2 sort of different regions of the world and so having the peer to peer learning from your neighboring farmers is absolutely critical for disseminating appropriate technologies everywhere. So I really like that idea of focusing and.

Scantily reacts. There is some cost associated with the energy as well. And these plants can either run off of electricity or waste heat. What a lot of these companies are trying to do in order to lower that energy usage and also.

Cost because interest in them is. It's not something that we need to scale. We need to scale the policies and incentives and education around them. But we already know how to.

Do it. Yes, well and Juan Carlos, thank you so much for joining us. We're thrilled that you're able to join us for a portion of our event today. For everyone with us, Juan.

Carlos for a lot of these blend based solutions really scaling out from with.

Koica, the coordinator of indigenous organizations of the Amazon River Basin. Juan Carlos we were just talking about the critical importance of local communities in determining how natural climate solutions are and climate solutions as a whole are put.

Into play. Local centers to rapidly disseminate knowledge and share what works, what.

Doesn'T.

Work. Gianna I mean I definitely agree with everything that's been said so far. I think there's a tendency on the.

Tech side. What is the role? Arguably indigenous communities have done the best job to date of keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. What role do you see for indigenous leadership in continuing and expanding that success globally and pulling as much carbon as possible out of.

The atmosphere. This energy can also be a limiting factor in addition to being a cost constraint is thinking about how can we pair these director capture facilities with potential either waste heat from industrial plants or renewable energy that is sort of being produced in excess at certain times throughout the day. So it's really about finding those, you know, specific geographies in which we can use that waste electricity or waste heat to make sort of say like hey we have these big plants. We're just going to like put them in the middle of the desert and.

We'Ll be. Thank you. Thank you Heather. And hello everyone. I'm sorry to be late. I am traveling here in my community close in Ecuador rainforest and yeah particular for your question. I think so. Well I know I am Juan Carlos from Koica.

Yes, great. Which I think is also a mentality that we've seen from a lot of renewable energy technologies as well. And I would just say.

Sort of the local the team following the international negotiation on climate change. So your question is very key question, very important question for us most of the indigenous people for many years I think so that we were trying to get engaged with these new perspectives with new concepts on the internationally under the climate change. For example, this particular position for us as indigenous peoples that we have some principles that we have to get together and then to work with sometimes with concepts about. Concepts about our forests and concepts about to understand how are the.

Some government community benefits, impact and influence are all super critical to making sure that we develop direct air capture in a way that's in line with our environmental justice goals and values. And I think you know.

Direct air capture specifically in or to recognize how we are what we are doing and how we are working with protects and how we are thinking with the forest and the protective of the rainforest and the different countries in the Amazon basin. So we need to understand that many of the indigenous organizations in the Amazon basin and many other indigenous even people are not contacted they understand they don't understand very well the concepts. So this is particular big key question and challenge. So but we are doing some experience on the ground and people who once is working with forest but the most important the limitation to try to that people recognize what we have legally. That's the first point that I can mention right now. And then I keep sharing or saying to you that another points of view but as Coica we are working on reading these concepts underground specifically in Peru.

Thank you. We are unfortunately coming to the end of our hour together and.

Sometimes you talk about the tech solutions as having less direct benefits but as Peter mentioned I think there are a number of hopefully.

High paying. I gave each of our panelists a heads up that I would end with this question but I know there's always really a desire to know okay, what is actually working right now and how do I get involved with that. And so that's where I would like to end, is if we could have each of you share with us one thing as large or as small as you would like, that you feel like as an example where we are moving in the right direction and how can people be part of that? Juan Carlos, I saw you nodding as I was asking that. Would you like to start? What's one example of something moving in the right direction.

Right now? Heather, as was mentioned, there is a lot nomenclature, a lot of acronym that even for us is difficult. It's a challenge to understand. But we are doing this job, we are learning even though we are. Some people even don't speak Spanish language as a national language. And English. Amazon Basin we are working with five languages I don't want to mention in other parts of the world, but especially in Amazon basin. French Guyana, Surina, Dutch, English Guyana and then the Spanish from Venezuela and Bolivia and then Portuguese. So we have one concept in common. Red indigenous of the Amazonia. Red indigenous in the Amazonia was the first concept that we get together in consultation. That was one principle for us is a free pure informed consent as a human right concept that we have to respect the human position, the human thinking as a cosmologist from that concept. Some people, some brothers and sisters, they don't want to go more forward. I respect that he has.

Union jobs that are up for grabs here. And so how do we think really intentionally about developing industries in regions across the US and across.

The globe? So we are rapidly nearing the end of the hour. I want to make sure we get to one more really important theme and that.

Is time. You need to respect that. But there are some other groups who say, hey, I need to know more about that. I want to work with these concepts. I want to, I want to, I want, I don't want that people from outside, they just thinking only in carbon because we are carbon is one point. But the forest for us is not just carbon. Forest for us is a system of life assist us as, as that we.

Are connected. Time is ticking. We need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need to be, According to the UN's estimates, at carbon neutral at or before.

Mid century. And then we can live, we are living with that water.

Forest, everything. But the question is how soon could these.

Sorts of. We don't want the people from outside or some governments, they are thinking there is carbon. We need to industrialize us, we need to market that. This is something that we need to be very sensitive and respect. And the concept that human indigenous People, rights and respect positions. So from that moment we.

Have examples and solutions that we've been talking about really come.

Into play. I mean Andre region in Peru, Amazonian region, that they are working with these concepts. So with ndc, how much indigenous territory, with demarcation with titles, the governments are recognizing how much we can contribute. Yeah, well, how much we can do it and then we.

Can talk. But it takes time for trees to grow and for technologies to develop. So time wise, what are.

We looking at in respect a human rights concept. In respect indigenous people rights and local communities of course. So this is something particular that if we want to go in details, we have data. We have data specifically that we can bring in the table. We are doing our work at homework very well. But also we have other.

Groups that I would just jump in quickly and maybe we this would be a great chance to introduce and hand over to Juan Carlos that obviously protecting intact high carbon dense ecosystems is something we could start doing today. So a lot of these land based solutions, I mean that's one of the reasons there's so much interest in them is it's not something that we need to scale. We need, we need.

To scale. They don't want to go more forward because maybe they need time. This is something that we cannot go. We don't can make pressure because they need time. The holistic and the indigenous time is different but we need to have patience. But sometimes we know we are in this hurry up but even though we are not guilty, but we have the solution. We are doing this and we see how it's in transformation and getting damaged the environmental biodiversity in our territories. Thank.

You Heather. Thank you so much Juan Carlos. So much in there. Respecting diversity of perspectives and.

Beliefs, working in respect and the policies and incentives and education around them. But we already know how.

To do it collaboration and really wonderful to hear what you're doing. So thank you so much for that perspective and for joining us. Peter, I guess you're next to Juan Carlos on my screen, so I'll go to.

You next. So in terms of what's exciting.

I think. Yes, well and Juan Carlos.

One, there's like much better understanding of how climate, nature and carbon removal topics are intertwined and not separate topics. So one, we've made a lot of progress understanding recently. I think we've also made a chunk of progress on commitments. I think John mentioned some of the corporates in the US who are trying to move large volumes of acres to regenerative style practices and we're seeing more and more corporate Commitments around net zero, roughly doubling in the last year. So that.

There too. Thank you so much for joining us. We're thrilled that you're able to join us for a portion of.

Good steps. I think obviously the next step is to action and that's where you know, we really haven't seen traction that's sufficient yet. But you know, hopeful that given the first two steps have improved so much that that is where we're.

Going next. Terrific, thank you. Gianna, what's one thing that you feel like is going right at.

The moment? I think it's really incredible.

To have witnessed portion of our event today. For everyone with us, Juan.

Carlo Just the amount of federal interest and funding that has increased around carbon removal over the last five years. There's been a significant increase in research and development and demonstration funding across the whole portfolio of solutions. And even in the most recent bipartisan infrastructure package there's 1.5 or excuse me, $3.5 billion for direct air capture hubs. So I think we're starting.

To see the U.S. lucencia act with COICA, the coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin, Juan Carlos. We were just talking about the critical importance of local communities in.

Determining how federal government take these solutions seriously. And I think in connection to all of the folks in the audience today, just continuing to work on electing and electing really strong climate driven candidates and also speaking to your representatives about the importance of climate and carbon removal and especially in a way that is connected to.

Your everyday natural climate solutions are and climate solutions as a whole are put into.

Play life. If you are connected to a natural ecosystem, to a farm, to a formerly fossil dependent community, what are ways in which this issue is personal for you and.

Your geography? Terrific. Thank you Jonathan. Last but not least, sure.

I was going to offer what is.

The role arguably indigenous communities.

Have done? The US perspective what Juan.

Carlos was touching on the best job to date of keeping carbon out of.

The atmosphere. Food is produced by individuals that are generally struggling to get by. They work really hard, like farmers in the United States work really hard and they respond to price signals and it's really consumer demand for low food prices that's really squeezing farmers to eke out every bushel on their land. There's a lot of what.

Role do you see for indigenous leadership.

In farmers that are working really hard to manage their land better and that better means including for climate benefits. But it really involves this massive effort of educating people to inform policymakers start making better choices and incentivizing better land management. So really just getting to know where your food comes from and not necessarily casting a farmer as the boogie, industrial farmer as the boogeyman. They work really hard, most of those farmers in the Midwest, and they're doing as good as they can, a lot of these farmers under the system that they're kind of.

Working under. So I love the common themes between what all four of you in continuing and expanding that success globally and pulling as much carbon as possible out of.

The atmosphere.

Thank you. You just offered in the cooperation thinking about our climate solutions not only as climate solutions, but holistically as part of social solutions and social systems as well as ecological systems, and then really coming at this from the lens of what's right for a community and making that happen. So thank you so much to all four of you for joining us this afternoon and to the couple hundred of you who joined us to watch this conversation live this afternoon. And we hope that you will all join us same time two weeks from now for our next conversation where we will be tackling an even more contentious potential tool and what we need to know about it to even start to answer the question of whether or not we should be using that, that is the tools of solar radiation management, sometimes called geoengineering or climate intervention. Again, thank you to everyone who joined us today. Thank you to all of our panelists for your perspectives. I wish you a good rest of your day and we hope to see you back here in.

Two weeks. Thank you, Heather. And hello everyone. I'm sorry to be late. I am traveling here in my community closing Ecuador rainforest. And yeah, particular for your question, Annie. I did some. Well, I know. I am Juan Carlos from Koica. Yes. I'm part of the team following the international negotiation climate.