🌱 Can nature based and engineered removals happily coexist?

🥊 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 all types of removals.

⌛ It became increasingly clear that the crux of the issue is durability / permanence. What is missing is a convincing, scientifically sound vision of how to use temporary and permanent removals together.

Thankfully, there has been incredible progress on this front. In particular, I would highlight three things:

1️⃣ The emergence of insurance, which can mitigate many of the risks associated with carbon removals, e.g. reversals or non-delivery.

2️⃣ Permanence trusts, which create a fund that allows automated and guaranteed replacements.

3️⃣ Contracted durability, which effectively builds a bridge between temporary and durable removals, taking liability off the buyer’s books.

🧩 None of these are mutually exclusive, they actually build on each other.

🏛️ Personally, I am really hopeful that we will increasingly see these concepts embedded in CDR policy, e.g. the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM), to create truly approach-agnostic, robust, holistic policies.

 If you want to dive deeper, make sure to check out the latest CDR Policy Scoop with Luke Pritchard where we dove deep into contracted durability in particular:

🎧 Podcast: https://lnkd.in/dr7z-gEf

▶️ Youtube: https://lnkd.in/d6rgU4GX

💚 I will certainly be researching, writing, and talking more about this in the future.

🤔 What is your take? How are you looking at this massive topic in CDR?

Follow the conversation