Take on a podcast episode from Reversing Climate Change, originally published Thu, 03 Se. Listen: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/episodes/Removals--avoidances--and-what-Wendell-Berry-thought-of-making-tonnes-fungible-e3o9d89

TL;DR

  • Ross Kenyon’s solo reflection on Wendell Berry’s death, wrapped around an essay he wrote for Removr on removals vs. avoidances in one portfolio.
  • Mea culpa: Nori tried to build a “better” registry from scratch; Kenyon now says the convergence of legacy registry designs is structural, not a willpower failure. Useful concession.
  • Argues durable CDR’s cultural separatism from the broader voluntary carbon market has become a liability, not a moat. Fair, and increasingly the consensus.
  • Would pick rainforest protection over carbon removal if forced to choose. Provocative framing, thinly defended.
  • Name-checks Martin Freimüller (Octavia) and Robert Höglund as CDR-side voices moving toward portfolio thinking. Signal for where the discourse is drifting.

Ross Kenyon, Nori cofounder and long-running host of Reversing Climate Change, delivers a solo episode (link) that pairs an obituary for Wendell Berry with a piece he wrote for the Removr registry on why durable removals and avoidances belong in the same portfolio conversation. It’s part personal essay, part market commentary — you’ll get more of the former than the latter.

The load-bearing CDR content is a structural argument about registries. Kenyon: “I used to think I was better than you. And now I’m realizing that many of the hard parts of building integrity infrastructure in carbon markets is not about individual willpower. Much of it is structural.” His claim — that Verra, Gold Standard, and the newer entrants converge on similar designs not from lack of imagination but because competitive dynamics in credit issuance push them there — is worth taking seriously if you’re evaluating a new registry’s differentiation pitch. Nori launched in 2017 promising fungible soil-carbon tonnes and a cleaner marketplace; Kenyon now says the redesign didn’t outperform the incumbents on the dimensions that matter. That’s an honest post-mortem from someone with skin in the game, and it should inform how CDR buyers read registry marketing in 2026.

The second useful thread is the portfolio argument. Removr, per Kenyon, entered from avoidances and grew into removals, and he uses that positioning to push back on CDR’s tendency to hold itself apart from the rest of the voluntary market. He references Octavia Carbon’s Martin Freimüller as a direct air capture developer who has moved toward engaging avoidance developers, and cites Robert Höglund’s recent commentary in a similar direction. The weaker moment: Kenyon says he’d pick rainforest protection over carbon removal if forced to choose. It’s a rhetorical device, not an analysis — durability, reversal risk, and additionality asymmetries between the two are exactly the reasons the CDR/avoidance separation exists in the first place, and he doesn’t engage them.

For context on the structural-convergence claim, CDR readers may want to pair this with recent work from CarbonPlan on registry methodology quality, and with the ongoing debate around what “high-integrity” means when ICVCM Core Carbon Principles are applied across removal and avoidance categories. Kenyon’s Nori experience is a live data point on how hard it is to build a competing registry even with a clean sheet and a differentiated thesis.

Useful if you’re a CDR buyer or registry-watcher who wants an insider’s honest look at why new registries end up looking like old ones. Skip if you’re hunting for numbers, methodology critique, or buyer-side decision frameworks — this is an essay, not a briefing.