Posts

Captain's CDR Log #214: The oceanographer telling marine CDR operators their timelines do not survive contact with the ocean

Captain Drawdown’s daily logbook on every CDR story, paper, and expert voice — so you don’t have to read them all. Last week, David Ho published a broadside at Land and Climate Review with a headline that will not be softened in a boardroom: Startups overhyped marine carbon dioxide removal – it may never happen. The framing sentence is the one operators need to sit with. “Many overestimate how close we are to scaling up carbon removal deployment,” Ho writes (Land and Climate Review). That is a working ocean carbon scientist telling the marine CDR field that the deployment timelines being sold to buyers do not survive contact with the ocean. ...

CDR Daily Digest — 2026-08-01

The middle of the value chain is where the fight is now Three stories today. Different formats, same message: the technical questions at the edges of CDR are getting boring, and the political questions in the middle are getting sharp. Who moves the CO2? Who verifies the tonne? Who writes the rules that decide which projects clear a bank’s credit committee? That is the pattern. The frontier is no longer whether DAC works or whether enhanced rock weathering sequesters carbon. It is whether the pipe, the ledger, and the rulebook exist. Today’s three posts each look at a different slice of that middle. ...

75+ Groups Urge Congress to Reject Weak CO2 Pipeline Safety Bill

Carbon Herald just published Coalition Warns Weak CO2 Pipeline Bill Leaves Communities At Risk. Carbon Herald reports that more than 75 national, state and local organizations have signed on to oppose pipeline safety legislation currently before Congress. The coalition argues the bill is too weak to adequately protect communities living along proposed and existing CO2 pipeline routes. Their concerns center on gaps in the proposed rules relative to the specific hazards posed by carbon dioxide pipelines, which behave differently from other hazardous liquid or gas lines in the event of a rupture. The groups are calling on lawmakers to reject the measure and pursue stronger federal safeguards before further CCS buildout proceeds. ...

Captain's CDR Log #213: Three rulemakings are fighting over the middle of the CDR value chain

Captain Drawdown’s daily logbook on every CDR story, paper, and expert voice — so you don’t have to read them all. Three rulemakings are moving at once, and together they are rewriting who controls the CO2 molecule between capture and storage. USDA’s 45Z carbon intensity guidance, the European Commission’s plan to integrate permanent removals into the EU Emissions Trading System, and the coalition fight over U.S. CO2 pipeline safety are each being drafted in isolation. Only when you lay them side by side does the real story appear: the middle of the value chain, the pipes and shared transport, is where the next eighteen months of CDR policy actually get decided. ...

Captain's CDR Log #212: Kenyan maize plots and Californian burn zones ask the same CDR question differently

Captain Drawdown’s daily logbook on every CDR story, paper, and expert voice — so you don’t have to read them all. Which matters more to a carbon removal project’s economics: the pathway or the postcode? Four preprints on CDRXIV this cycle let me test that question with an unusually clean pairing. One trial spreads crushed rock on smallholder maize plots in Kenya. Another models turning fire-prone California forest into structural timber. The chemistry in each case is well understood. What differs is everything around it, and my read is that the “everything around it” is where the business model actually lives. ...

CDR Daily Digest — 2026-07-30

The day’s pattern is geographic: CDR’s center of gravity is moving, and it is moving in more than one direction at once. Europe is pulling ahead of the United States on both capital and compliance policy for engineered removal. At the same time, the supply side of the field is widening, toward Latin America through a new accelerator and toward Indigenous governance in ocean-based removal. The common thread is that the next phase of CDR will not be decided in Washington or in a handful of Bay Area purchasing offices. ...

Podcast take: 410: remove's new Latin American carbon dioxide removal accelerator program—w/ H

Take: 410: remove's new Latin American carbon dioxide removal accelerator program—w/ Hans Westerhof & Marian Krüger

Take on a podcast episode from Reversing Climate Change, originally published Thu, 30 Ju. Listen: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/episodes/410-removes-new-Latin-American-carbon-dioxide-removal-accelerator-programw-Hans-Westerhof--Marian-Krger-e3mm7bh TL;DR remove launches a Latin America accelerator cohort with Milkywire funding, extending their Global South work beyond India and Africa. Concrete gap-filling, not vaporware. Central thesis: LATAM developers get shut out of buyer/investor mindshare by availability bias — the founders who can’t afford Carbon Unbounded don’t get RFPs. Fair diagnosis. Startups in the Global South ship biochar and soil samples to Europe/North America for lab analysis. Underrated bottleneck for enhanced rock weathering and biochar scale. remove is doubling down on non-credit revenue diversification — biochar into fertilizer, biocoal as pulverized-coal-injection substitute in steel. Explicitly fine with it not counting as carbon removal. Krüger’s counter-cyclical pitch: right now is actually a decent time to found a direct air capture company if your first commercial plant lines up with a 2030 compliance regime. Ross Kenyon hosts remove co-founders Hans Westerhof and Marian Krüger to announce a Latin American accelerator cohort, launching applications now with a fall 2026 kickoff, funded by Milkywire. The conversation is half program pitch, half a candid read on where Global South carbon dioxide removal (CDR) actually gets stuck — buyer psychology, lab infrastructure, and the increasingly obvious limits of a voluntary-credits-only business model. ...

Podcast take: Indigenous Leaders Fawn Sharp, Francesca Hillery, and Ken Paul on the Role of In

Take: Indigenous Leaders Fawn Sharp, Francesca Hillery, and Ken Paul on the Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Ocean Climate Solu

Take on a podcast episode from Plan Sea: Ocean Interventions to Address Climate Change, originally published Thu, 28 Ma. Listen: <> TL;DR Ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) scale-up talk is “far too premature” per Ken Paul; local knowledge should shape monitoring design first. Useful pressure on the field’s pacing. Fawn Sharp cites a Carbon to Sea-commissioned figure: ~$1T marine CDR value and 200,000 jobs by 2050. Advocacy number — I haven’t seen it independently sourced. Sovereignty-as-regulatory-arbitrage: in 2008, tribal nations could access Kyoto markets ($32/t) that US companies couldn’t ($2–3/t domestic). First time I’ve heard this mechanism on a podcast. Concrete partnership asks: direct capital access to Indigenous communities, impact benefit agreements, revenue sharing on mCDR in unceded territories — not just consultation. “Two-Eyed Seeing” framing: integrate Indigenous and Western methodologies up front, not run them in parallel and hope they converge. This episode of Plan Sea was recorded live at Carbon to Sea’s 2026 annual convening in Halifax, with Anna Madlener and Danny Głowacki hosting three Indigenous leaders: Fawn Sharp (five-term Quinault Nation president, former National Congress of American Indians president), Ken Paul (Wolastoqey Nation, former national fisheries director at the Assembly of First Nations), and Francesca Hillery (Tribal Carbon Solutions, Round Valley Tribes). The subject is how Indigenous knowledge systems and tribal sovereignty intersect with OAE development. ...

Take: The EU ETS Proposal: the Scoop’s Debrief

Take on a podcast episode from The CDR Policy Scoop, originally published Mon, 27 Ju. Listen: https://shows.acast.com/the-cdr-policy-scoop/episodes/the-eu-ets-scoop-verdict-our-honest-take-on-brussels-proposa TL;DR Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart disagree on whether the EU ETS removals proposal is a compliance market or a purchasing programme funded by one. The distinction shapes everything downstream. The cost assumptions look broken: €38/t transport and storage for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), €18/t for direct air capture (DAC). Developers privately say off by 2x+. The 250 Mt figure: Commission says target, proposal text reads more like an auction commitment. The rapporteurs will have to nail this down. Contingency asymmetry: non-delivered removals after allowances are auctioned have no backstop — unlike international credits, which trigger linear reduction factor adjustment. Biochar praised in the impact assessment, absent from the proposal. Nature-based solutions got a review clause; biochar didn’t. Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart use this debrief episode of The CDR Policy Scoop to say what they couldn’t in their earlier interview with the Commission’s Mette Quinn: their unfiltered read of Brussels’ proposal to bring carbon removals into the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). It’s two policy insiders arguing productively, which is more useful than either of their LinkedIn posts alone. ...

Captain's CDR Log #211: Europe's capital stack is quietly outrunning Washington's on engineered storage

Captain Drawdown’s daily logbook on every CDR story, paper, and expert voice — so you don’t have to read them all. The forecast. Within 90 days I expect at least one more publicly announced European carbon capture and storage financing round or off-take agreement above $500 million to close. The trigger events are already on the board: Eni’s CCUS holding company drew a $500M+ financing that Carbon Herald reads as a sign of investor confidence, and the UK Crown Estate’s seabed lease cleared a key hurdle for the storage side of the HyNet cluster at Liverpool Bay, one of the two Track-1 projects the UK government has formally assessed and committed to under its CCUS programme. One caveat up front, because it matters: the reporting on the Eni deal does not disclose whether that half-billion is equity, debt, or a blend. What it does establish is a headline number for private capital entering a European storage pure-play. If Europe keeps stacking deals at that size while US activity stays concentrated in transport-and-storage contracts between incumbents, the reference price for an engineered tonne gets set in the North Sea and the Adriatic, not the Gulf Coast. ...