Take on a podcast episode from The CDR Policy Scoop, originally published Tue, 20 Oc. Listen: https://shows.acast.com/the-cdr-policy-scoop/episodes/showdown-europes-cdr-strategy-bioccs-vs-tech-neutral

TL;DR

  • Motion: “Europe’s CDR strategy should put bio-CCS first.” Audience voted 70% against; tech-neutrality won.
  • Voss’s case: ~75% of durable offtakes to date are bio-CCS; it’s cheapest among 1,000-year pathways; its pipelines/terminals serve DAC later.
  • Collier’s case: concentrated tech = concentrated politics. Cites Australia’s 2013 carbon-price repeal as the cautionary tale. Useful framing.
  • Voss claims biomethane-to-CCS alone could reach 1 Gt/yr by 2050 on sustainable biomass. In-house number, unverified; treat with caution.
  • Northern Lights got 80% capex support from Norway — Voss’s core “storage is a utility” argument. Strongest point on her side.

The Carbon Removal Scoop (recently rebranded from The CDR Policy Scoop) runs its fifth live debate at Carbon Unbound Europe in London, moderated by Eve Tamme. Kaja Voss, CEO of Inherit — which captures CO2 from biogas upgrading and stores it via Northern Lights — argues Europe should deliberately prioritise bio-CCS (biogenic carbon capture and storage). Alastair Collier, Chief R&D Officer at biochar developer A Healthier Earth, argues for technology neutrality anchored in the CRCF (Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming regulation). Episode: https://shows.acast.com/the-cdr-policy-scoop/episodes/showdown-europes-cdr-strategy-bioccs-vs-tech-neutral

The substantive clash is not about technology; both debaters concede bio-CCS is already winning the offtake market. It’s about whether public policy should ratify that or stay neutral. Voss’s best argument is infrastructure economics: Inherit pays commercial rates to Northern Lights and finances itself through voluntary credit sales (Microsoft is the named anchor buyer), but none of that would exist without Norway fronting roughly 80% of the storage project’s capex. Her framing — CO2 storage as a sewage-style public good that markets won’t build unprompted — is the actual policy claim buried under the “pick a winner” rhetoric. She also notes the three-quarters offtake share represents future deliveries contingent on infrastructure that doesn’t yet exist, which cuts both ways.

Collier’s counter is political-economy, not engineering. Storage sits in a handful of North Sea member states; the public pays over €200/t; most terminals and pipelines are run by oil and gas majors. “Picture the farmer in rural Poland asking herself what climate policy has done for her farm.” His Australia parallel — carbon pricing built around CCS in 2009, repealed in 2013 — is the first time I’ve heard it deployed against EU CDR strategy, and it landed with the room. Tamme pushed back usefully: Poland itself is now exploring onshore storage, which weakens the exclusion argument. Collier’s honest answer was that he can’t predict which storage comes online, so policy shouldn’t assume it.

Weak spots on both sides: Voss’s 1 Gt/yr biomethane-to-CCS figure is an in-house analysis off IEA biomass data and covers only her pathway; when asked where the other ~9 Gt comes from, she deferred to an audience member citing 160 Mt/yr Nordic potential, 70% bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Collier’s “ask what if she’s wrong” close is rhetorically neat but dodges Voss’s point that CRCF neutrality still requires someone to fund storage. Nobody addressed whether biochar actually clears CRCF’s permanence bar, which is the real fault line between these two companies.

This sits inside the ongoing argument about whether the EU’s Industrial Carbon Management Strategy and the 2040 target architecture are de facto BECCS policies. Prior Scoop showdowns are archived on the show page. Watch how CRCF methodology sequencing — bio-CCS certified first, biochar and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) later — plays into exactly the “on purpose vs. by accident” distinction Voss drew.

Useful for anyone drafting EU member-state CDR positions or trying to understand why storage-poor capitals are wary of the current Brussels direction.