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.

The most useful substantive thread is LaGreca’s read on how the consulting demand curve has moved. In 2022-2023, the work was writing new methodologies for project types that had no registry pathway — “selling credits out of the back of their truck,” in his phrasing, made legitimate. That methodology-drafting boom has cooled. Now the inbound is split between (a) incumbent energy and corporate players assuming carbon markets behave like fuel markets (they don’t) and (b) surviving CDR developers needing help on registry selection, pre-audit diligence, and commercial positioning. If you’re a developer, the implication is that the easy methodology-creation arbitrage is gone; the value is now in execution detail and market navigation.

The hire-vs.-contract math is worth the listen if you’re a founder making that call now. LaGreca’s argument: a senior in-house expert costs $150-200k fully loaded for 12 months and gives you one perspective; a fractional consulting engagement runs one to six months, costs less in absolute terms, and gives you exposure to dozens of comparable projects. The honest caveat — which he says out loud — is that consultants oversell their range (“every consultant thinks they can do everything”) and you have to diligence the actual person assigned, not the firm logo. He also flags that refusing a feasibility study on your own project is a tell that you shouldn’t be hiring anyone yet.

For adjacent context: the registry-selection question LaGreca raises matters more than developers usually treat it, and it’s worth pairing this episode with anything you can find on Isometric, Puro.earth, and the methodology landscape on the Carbon Removal Standards Initiative. LaGreca’s point that EcoEngineers takes no equity in client projects is a real differentiator worth noting — most of the loudest CDR advisory voices have some skin in a portfolio, which colors their advice. The pre-mortem framing (do the diligence on yourself before an off-taker or auditor does it for you) is the most portable takeaway and applies whether you ever hire EcoEngineers or not.

Useful for: early-stage durable CDR founders deciding between a methodology lead hire and a fractional engagement, and for operators evaluating whether their current advisory spend is producing pattern-matched insight or just expensive reassurance. Skip if you’re past Series A and already have a methodology lead in seat — most of this will be familiar.