CDR library

👀 Last week, I shed some light on the pretty shaky assumptions behind the BioCCS cost forecast in the EU ETS proposal. Today, let’s shift focus to the other CDR method eligible for integration into the ETS: DACCS. 💶 Unlike with BioCCS, I didn’t find the DACCS numbers intuitively off. In fact, I had a bunch of DACCS project developers tell me they were quite happy about those numbers, which might be even higher than what they could get on the voluntary carbon market (VCM). �

🎙️ Every week, I get to ask industry experts all my toughest questions on the CDR Policy Scoop. With almost 100 episodes down, we decided to flip the tables. 🫵 Now it is YOU who gets to ask Eve Tamme and I whatever you want. Policy, markets, technology, or the show itself - nothing is off limits. How to submit your question - do any of the below: 1️⃣ Drop it in the comments below 2️⃣ Send us a voice message and we might air you on the episode: https://lnkd.in/e-uyCTfu 3️⃣ P

💎 This is a real gem: the department leading carbon removal policy within the European Commission is hiring for a Policy Officer. 🇪🇺 DG Clima C3 within the European Commission has been driving cutting-edge CDR policy, amongst others the Carbon Removal and Carbon Farming Regulation (CRCF), and - more recently - the EU Buyers Club. 🫵 Now you can join them! Key tasks include: 🔹 Helping to implement the CRCF, including managing the Carbon Removal Expert Group 🔹 Contributing

💶 The BioCCS cost assumptions are the Achilles Heel of the current ETS CDR proposal. The numbers - see comments for a reminder - just don’t look right, with all the downstream implications they have. 👀 So I dove deep. Very deep. Three numbers are key to understand: 1️⃣ €172/t in 2020 - this forms the lower bound starting point (in 2023, using EUR2020) 2️⃣ €153/t in 2050 - this forms the single end point for all three (lower/average/upper) scenarios. 3️⃣ €314/t in 2024 - t

🔴 What is happening right now is tragic, terrifying, and - this is key - in many ways preventable. 🥲 Yes, wildfires have always been there, but no one in their right mind can look at the images coming out of North America or Europe right now and claim that there is anything "normal" about it. 🤷‍♂️ So will we be looking at even worse fires next year, and the year after, and the year after? ✅ Or will society finally act and do whatever it can to prevent these fires in the fi

🎙️ Mette Quinn heads up the team at the European Commission which has spent years thinking about the CDR integration into the EU ETS. Eve Tamme and I managed to get Mette on the CDR Policy Scoop to ask her all our hard, outstanding questions. 🎯 Sneak preview: yes, the 250Mt of CDR in the 2030s is a promise, not just an aspiration. 💡 There is much, much more. Mette was generous, clear, and insightful. I guarantee you will learn something you didn’t know. Make sure to check

🤷‍♂️ Here we go again: wild CDR costs in an official EU proposal (the Commission's Impact Assessment for the ETS Review, Annex 8 on Removals specifically). Only problem: this time it looks like the entire CDR integration into the ETS rests on these assumptions… 💶 Here is why: the EU is planning to sell 250 million EUAs to buy 250 million tons of CDR. As per the impact assessment, they assume that - by 2036 - the cost of an EUA will reach around €200 and the cost of CDR (esp

📈 Yesterday, I posted about the >€50b compliance market for CDR that the planned integration into the ETS would mean. 💶 The math was simple: the Commission suggested procuring 250Mt of CDR. At an average cost of €200/t, we’d be looking at €50b between 2031-2040. 🤔 The reality - as I understood today - is more complex, and worrying. 🔦 The proposal does not commit the EU to procuring 250Mt of CDR. It commits the EU to selling 250Mt of EUAs (+ an additional 10Mt contingency

‼️ CLARIFICATION: the mechanism is more nuanced than I had initially understood. The Commission is not committing to 250Mt of CDR. It is suggesting to auction 250Mt (+10Mt contingency) of allowances "to generate revenues for the purchase of an equivalent amount of domestic permanent carbon removal units". Should the budget be insufficient (possible), it could simply buy less removals. I wrote an update here: https://lnkd.in/d6jUuJzm 🇪🇺 The European Commission’s long awaited

🥊 Not one day goes by in which I do not see folks pitting these two approaches against each other. This then plays out in policy, where we see arbitrary hurdles, e.g. permanence thresholds or the lack thereof, created to lock one side out. 💬 And - to be honest - I used to be part of this problem too, actively taking one side only. But the more I speak to policy makers and corporate buyers, the more I realise that what they need is a holistic approach, one which encompasses

🌎 Applications are open for remove's first CDR accelerator dedicated to founders building in Latin America. The region has a strong case for durable carbon removal: ▶️ Natural resources ▶️ Industrial and agricultural systems suited to it ▶️ The world’s largest CDR company Exomad Green 🚀 What's been missing is dedicated program support to get early-stage teams from idea to delivery. 🤩 Introducing remove’s Innaugural Latin American Cohort Programme: an 8-month, two-stage a

🧪 Ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) is one of the most promising carbon removal methods. But it is complex, and its success depends largely on supportive policy. 💼That’s why Carbon to Sea Initiative - a nonprofit that funds and coordinates scientific research into OAE - is hiring a VP, Global Policy to lead the regulatory, financial, and field conditions OAE research and scale-up depend on. They’re looking for someone with: 🔹15+ years in senior climate / ocean / energy /