Podcast-Take

Take on a podcast episode from The CDR Policy Scoop, originally published Tue, 30 Ju. Listen: https://shows.acast.com/the-cdr-policy-scoop/episodes/iso-sbti-and-the-lcaw-verdict-on-corporate-net-zero-with-kay TL;DR ISO Net Zero draft + SBTi v2 launched same day at London Climate Action Week 2026; Axelsson worked on both, argues they’re complementary not competing. Big CDR concern: SBTi doesn’t require removals purchases before 2035 — Axelsson calls this a cost-based decision, not a science-based one. ISO does require 5-year removals milestones, which is stricter on near-term CDR procurement than SBTi. Useful distinction that hasn’t been widely surfaced. Alleged SBTi communication flaw: merged short + long-term standards may let companies claim “net zero aligned” with only a short-term target. Worth watching. Next fight: governance of commodity certificates (green steel, SAF, cement) — mass-balance and additionality risks echoing prior voluntary market failures. Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme host Kaya Axelsson of Oxford Net Zero one week after the simultaneous 22 June launch of the ISO Net Zero draft standard and SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard v2. Axelsson worked inside both processes for three years, and the episode is essentially her post-mortem: what converged, what didn’t, and where the corporate demand signal for durable removals actually lands. ...

Take on a podcast episode from Reversing Climate Change, originally published Thu, 25 Ju. Listen: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/episodes/405-Does-Managed-MRV-imply-the-existence-of-Unmanaged-MRV--w-Varsha-Ramesh-Walsh--Offstream-e3l8cev TL;DR Offstream is repositioning from a DMRV (digital monitoring, reporting, verification) software vendor to “Managed measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV)” — they do the work, not just provide a dashboard. Useful naming of an under-articulated category. Walsh’s claim: the head-of-MRV in-house hire is often more expensive than outsourcing the whole function. Plausible for small biomass developers, untested at scale. Most operational data in carbon projects still passes through a human at some point — bills of lading, odometer photos, clipboard entries. Honest admission worth hearing from a vendor. Thesis: every owner of a physical asset eventually becomes a carbon project developer. Big swing; light on the path to get there. Long surveillance-capitalism tangent eats ~20% of the runtime. Skippable. Ross Kenyon hosts Varsha Ramesh Walsh, cofounder/CEO of Offstream, on episode 405 to explain why Offstream stopped trying to be pure software and embraced what Walsh calls “Managed MRV” — a services-plus-platform model targeting biomass-based durable CDR developers (biochar, lumber mills with waste streams) and increasingly 48E ITC tax-credit work. ...

Take on a podcast episode from Interchange Recharged, originally published Tue, 24 Fe. Listen: <> TL;DR Hyperscaler power demand has flipped carbon capture from a regulation-driven to a buyer-led market in ~18 months. Plausible, and consistent with the Meta/Hyperion-type deals. ION claims natural gas + capture + storage lands at ~31 kgCO2/MWh — competitive with solar+storage on a lifecycle basis. Aggressive; rests on a 0.75% methane leakage assumption that is below US field averages. Cost adder: ~$20–25/MWh for retrofits, $16–18/MWh for new builds, inclusive of transport and storage. Useful number if it holds. ION’s pitch on its amine solvent: doesn’t degrade in oxygen, so 99% capture is achievable without the usual exponential energy penalty. Worth probing. Execution risk — getting power purchase agreements to final investment decision — is now the binding constraint, not policy or tech. 45Q stayed at $85/t under the current administration. Bridget van Dorsten hosts Tim Vail, CEO of ION Clean Energy, for a fairly technical hour on post-combustion capture at natural gas plants serving AI data centers. The framing is unapologetically pro-gas-plus-capture as a “clean firm” option alongside nuclear and geothermal — if you want a skeptical take on that premise, this isn’t it, but if you want the seller’s most coherent version of the argument with actual numbers, it’s here. ...

Take on a podcast episode from The Academic Minute, originally published Thu, 25 Ju. Listen: https://www.academicminute.org/p/petra-fromme-arizona-state-university TL;DR Petra Fromme (Arizona State University) describes nanoscale imaging of moisture-swing sorbents for direct air capture — material rearranges with humidity, controlling CO₂ uptake/release. Core claim: a porous resin sorbent performs especially well because its internal structure lets gases move more freely. Useful but unquantified — no kg CO₂/m³, no cycle data. Method angle (nanoscale imaging of structural changes under humidity swings) is the genuinely novel bit, not the moisture-swing concept itself (Klaus Lackner territory). Three-minute segment. Zero numbers on capacity, cost, durability, or scale. Treat as a research-direction pointer, not a result. Worth it only if you specifically track sorbent materials science for passive/moisture-swing direct air capture. This is a three-minute Academic Minute segment with Petra Fromme, Regents Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Arizona State University, on academicminute.org. She’s pitching work done with graduate student Gayatri Yoga Ganeshan on moisture-swing sorbents for direct air capture — materials that grab CO₂ when air is dry and release it when air is humid, avoiding the thermal or pressure swing energy penalty. ...

Take on a podcast episode from Reversing Climate Change, originally published Thu, 18 Ju. Listen: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/episodes/404-When-will-insetting-work-for-carbon-dioxide-removal-w-Tom-Mills--Stripe-Climate-Fellow-former-e3kugqp TL;DR Tom Mills (ex-Stripe Climate Fellow, now at Mati Carbon) argues insetting durable CDR into ag supply chains is harder than the industry assumes — useful reality check. Coffee is the first ag value chain where biochar insetting actually pencils, driven by EUDR pressure, unmixed supply chains, and willing-to-pay CPGs. Plausible. GHG Protocol forces removals onto a separate ledger from scope 3 reductions — a structural block on insetting demand that’s underdiscussed. Important. “Supply shed” remains undefined; practitioners are setting norms by just doing it. Honest, slightly alarming. Real insetting business model = stacking non-carbon benefits (yield, pesticide residue, nitrate leaching, biofortification), not selling the ton. Worth the hour for value-chain folks. Ross Kenyon hosts Tom Mills — former Stripe Climate Fellow, now at enhanced rock weathering developer Mati Carbon (XPRIZE Carbon Removal grand prize winner) — on episode 404 of Reversing Climate Change. Mills spent his fellowship year on a single question: when does embedding biochar and enhanced rock weathering into Global South ag supply chains actually work? The honest answer is “not yet, and here’s why.” ...

Take on a podcast episode from The CDR Policy Scoop, originally published Wed, 17 Ju. Listen: https://shows.acast.com/the-cdr-policy-scoop/episodes/with-dr-ruth-dagan TL;DR Climate-washing lawsuits up 70% since 2022; Grantham counts ~160 cases, 54 directly tied to offset-based claims. Useful baseline number. EU Empowering Consumers Directive (in force September) flatly bans product-level carbon-neutral claims; California’s AB 1911 goes opposite direction with a safe harbor for high-integrity credits. Apple Watch carbon-neutral case: lost in Germany (permanence only guaranteed to 2029 vs. an implied 2040 horizon), tentatively won in US, now on appeal. Registries — including Article 6.4’s PACM — explicitly disclaim that account-holders legally own the credits. Dagan calls this an unforced error throttling collateralization. UNIDROIT principles (due early 2027) would classify credits as intangible assets. The fix everyone in finance has been waiting for. Sebastian Manhart hosts Dr. Ruth Dagan (Herzog, formerly UNFCCC legal affairs) for a 30-minute tour of two legal bottlenecks chilling corporate buying: greenwashing litigation exposure, and the bizarre fact that carbon registries refuse to assert that account holders actually own anything. Eve Tamme is out sick. Episode link. ...

Take on a podcast episode from The Carbon Curve, originally published Thu, 26 Fe. Listen: https://carboncurve.substack.com/p/policy-wins-and-growing-pains-as TL;DR FY26 appropriations gave durable CDR (carbon dioxide removal) real wins: $45M for the DOE purchase prize, $70M+ for RD&D, despite the President’s budget zeroing them out. Genuinely surprising. DAC (direct air capture) Hubs took a hit: $1B of remaining funds repurposed to small modular reactors, leaving ~$800M. Obligated grants untouched. 1 million tons delivered milestone is mostly biochar — Peter Minor frames the concentration as a warning sign, not a victory lap. Sharp framing. Consolidation (Terradot/Ion) read as maturity, not panic — scale matters more in CDR than most industries for project finance and offtake credibility. Gianna Amador: per-ton price is the wrong KPI in the prove-and-learn era. Worth chewing on. Naim Merchant kicks off a new “Removers Roundtable” format on The Carbon Curve with Gianna Amador (Carbon Removal Alliance), Erin Burns (Carbon180), and Peter Minor (Absolute Climate). The hour is a US-centric stocktake: where federal CDR policy actually landed a year into the new administration, what the consolidation wave means, and whether the field’s talent and narrative survive the right-sizing. ...

Take on a podcast episode from Reversing Climate Change, originally published Thu, 11 Ju. Listen: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/episodes/403-How-to-get-max-value-from-carbon-market-consultantsw-David-LaGreca--EcoEngineers-e3kkn5k TL;DR When to call a consultant: as soon as you have a concept beyond a napkin sketch — useful framing, mostly self-serving but honest about it. Claim: a 1-6 month consulting engagement often beats hiring a $150-200k FTE for methodology, LCA, registry selection work. Plausible for early-stage developers. EcoEngineers’ workload has shifted from drafting new CDR methodologies (2022-2023 peak) to advising large energy/corporate entrants and operating projects. Useful market-temperature signal. Rule of thumb: AI tooling gets you ~70% of the way on methodology drafting; the last 30% is where expertise compounds. First time I’ve heard it quantified that way. Registry choice (Puro vs. Isometric vs. Rainbow vs. others) is undersold as a strategic decision that determines credit volume, verification cadence, and labeling eligibility. Episode link. Ross Kenyon hosts David LaGreca of EcoEngineers — a sponsor of the show, which Ross discloses repeatedly — for an hour on how durable-CDR developers should actually engage advisory firms. The episode is half practical (hire vs. contract math, when to fire a consultant) and half industry-state observation from someone who’s touched roughly 10 CDR protocols across 7-8 mechanisms. ...

Take on a podcast episode from The Carbon Curve, originally published Thu, 11 Ju. Listen: https://carboncurve.substack.com/p/is-carbon-removal-stronger-than-the TL;DR Three Toronto operators (Amplify, Mangrove, CarbonRun) argue the durable-CDR vibes are worse than the fundamentals — useful corrective if you’ve been doom-scrolling. Venture was the wrong instrument for an infrastructure sector; the “missing middle” between VC and big-bank project finance is the real bottleneck. Accurate diagnosis, no easy fix offered. CarbonRun’s first verified river alkalinity issuances exposed how optimistic pre-audit limestone-to-feedstock ratios were. First time I’ve heard an operator say this out loud. 1,100+ permanent CDR companies counted across public lists — Vlaar predicts consolidation via acqui-hire, not a clean die-off. Plausible. Affordability framing in government budgets is the under-discussed existential risk for compliance demand. Worth taking seriously. Na’im Merchant’s Toronto Climate Week wrap puts Trish Nixon (Amplify Capital), Brandon Vlaar (Mangrove Systems), and Luke Connell (CarbonRun) in one room to take stock of durable CDR a year after the US political shift. It’s a finance/measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV)/supplier triangle, recorded live, and unusually candid about what isn’t working. ...

Take on a podcast episode from The CDR Policy Scoop, originally published Mon, 08 Ju. Listen: https://shows.acast.com/the-cdr-policy-scoop/episodes/taking-stock-the-state-of-cdr-fireside-chat-with-oliver-gede TL;DR Geden: only 2 countries (Australia, UK) name novel/durable CDR in NDCs through 2035; ~1/3 of long-term strategies for 2050 mention it. Damning baseline. State of CDR report puts CDR at ~16% of global mitigation effort — higher than the 5-10% often cited. Worth understanding why before quoting it. “Hard to abate” is partly politically hard to abate — CDR risks becoming a flexibility valve for politicians dodging transport/buildings decarbonization. Sharp framing. EU’s 5% international credits allowance: officially “no CDM mistakes round two,” but Geden expects criteria to be more lenient than current rhetoric suggests. land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) accounting hides the ball: net targets mask gross emissions (e.g. Germany’s 50 Mt/yr from peatland drainage, stable, now 8% of national total). Sebastian Manhart interviews Oliver Geden (SWP, IPCC WG3 Vice Chair, State of CDR co-author) live at NEP Summit Brussels, recorded the week the third State of CDR report dropped. Thirty minutes covering policy sequencing (foundational → supply → demand), the gap between net zero pledges and actual CDR planning, EU pillar architecture, and how the Iran conflict scrambles climate attention. ...