Podcast-Take

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. ...

Take on a podcast episode from The CDR Policy Scoop, originally published Tue, 02 Ju. Listen: https://shows.acast.com/the-cdr-policy-scoop/episodes/the-state-of-cdr-2026-the-cdr-policy-scoop-verdict TL;DR Third edition of the State of CDR report drops: 300 pages, 75+ authors, two-year cadence now established as the canonical reference doc. Global novel CDR sits at 2.1 Mt gross — but the report finally shows per-pathway net/gross gaps (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) net is 68–98% of gross, DACCS 23–90%). Material for anyone quoting headline tonnages. 2025 reality check: first edition projected 11 Mt novel by 2025; actual is ~2 Mt. Hosts flag 2030 announcements (42 Mt) vs estimated delivery capacity (8.4 Mt) as the next gap to watch. Across IAM scenarios that actually reach net-zero CO2, CDR averages 16% of mitigation effort — higher than the 10% figure often cited in corporate target-setting. CDR captures 2.6% of climate-tech funding. Low enough to puncture the “CDR is eating climate’s lunch” narrative. Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme got an embargoed copy of the third State of CDR report and spent 30 minutes pulling out what surprised them rather than re-reading the executive summary. It’s a useful filter episode if you don’t have time for 300 pages this week. ...

Take on a podcast episode from Reviewer 2 does geoengineering, originally published Fri, 15 Ma. Listen: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reviewer2geoengineering/episodes/Viridas-Pressurised-DAC--El-Sayed-e3jct2c TL;DR Viridas pitches “pressurized DAC”: compress incoming air to ~70 bar so CO2 partial pressure jumps from ~400 ppm to ~2.8%, shrinking contactors ~70x. Sorbent is a cheap aqueous ammonia + alkali carbonate mix (carbamate formation + bicarbonate buffer), regenerated thermally at ~90–110°C. Sensible chemistry, nothing exotic. Core thesis: solvent R&D is hitting thermodynamic limits; the real lever is CAPEX, attacked by retrofitting gas-turbine turbomachinery as compressor/expander. Claimed round-trip efficiency target: ~97–98% (vs ~70% for current compressed-air energy storage). That’s the whole ballgame and it’s not demonstrated. No technoeconomic assessment shared, no pilot, no funding disclosed, Gmail contact address. Treat as concept-stage. The host of Reviewer 2 Does Geoengineering interviews Ahmed El-Sayed, co-founder of Viridas Technologies, about a pressurized DAC concept built around retrofitted gas-turbine machinery. The episode is recorded walking through a Cambridge park, which means a non-trivial fraction of the runtime is ice cream and hawthorn commentary — the substantive technical content is maybe 35 minutes. ...

Take on a podcast episode from The Carbon Curve, originally published Wed, 25 Ma. Listen: https://carboncurve.substack.com/p/why-carbon-removal-needs-a-new-story TL;DR Höglund argues CDR should shift from “speed and scale” to “prove and learn”: drive down costs, nail measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV), demonstrate at relevant scale. Useful reframing. Voluntary demand likely exceeds compliance demand through ~2040. EU ETS + UK ETS maybe a couple hundred million tons total by mid-2030s. First time I’ve seen the number stated that bluntly. Aviation and shipping legislation (ReFuelEU, FuelEU Maritime) effectively locks CDR out as a compliance pathway. Advocacy gap, not science gap. “Last resort” framing was a self-own. CDR is rate-limited, not stock-limited — building capacity today doesn’t deplete future capacity. High-profit/low-emission buyers (tech, finance) sustain the beachhead market; heavy industry won’t buy voluntarily and shouldn’t be expected to. Reflects reality, not aspiration. The Carbon Curve, Ep. 62 — Na’im Merchant interviews Robert Höglund (Milkywire, CDR.fyi co-founder, Marginal Carbon) for a state-of-the-sector check-in. The conversation is essentially Höglund’s argument for retiring the “we need 6–10 Gt by 2050, scale now” narrative and replacing it with a more sober “prove the methods, drop the costs, serve future decision-makers a credible menu” frame. ...

Take on a podcast episode from Reversing Climate Change, originally published Fri, 15 Ma. Listen: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/episodes/399-How-to-Pitch-Terraset-and-other-carbon-removal-buyersw-Taylor-Insley--Terraset-e3jd1gr TL;DR Taylor Insley (Terraset) says ~75% of developer interactions at Carbon Unbound are bad pitches — ambush style, no social grace. Believable and useful. Terraset claims 6-8x leverage per dollar deployed via its revolving fund model. First time I’ve seen that ratio cited publicly for them. Terraset gets ~450 projects in its intake pipeline against a team of three. Diligence bandwidth is the binding constraint, not capital appetite. Insley’s actual advice: relationship-building beats first-impression perfection; she discounts bad early pitches if the project matures. Ross’s “minor leagues” framing — Milky Wire/Terraset before Frontier/Microsoft — is the most operationally useful frame in the episode. Episode link. Ross Kenyon interviews Taylor Insley, Director of Strategic Growth at Terraset, the tax-deductible philanthropic CDR buyer. The episode is essentially a sales-craft conversation for developers pitching small-to-mid catalytic buyers, anchored on a Carbon Unbound Vancouver panel Insley did earlier this year. There’s also a long Ross monologue on status and in-group dynamics that you can safely skip. ...

Take on a podcast episode from The CDR Policy Scoop, originally published Sun, 24 Ma. Listen: https://shows.acast.com/the-cdr-policy-scoop/episodes/lulucf-carbon-farming-and-the-crcf-review-with-asger-strange TL;DR Carbon farming side of the CRCF (Carbon Removal Certification Framework) lacks the buyer momentum permanent removals have — no offtake equivalent of the Buyers Club in sight. Olesen pushes “performance certificates” as the right instrument for land that stays in production: an inventory-aligned reporting unit, not a credit. Useful framing. Strong claim: leakage and permanence have no role in this tool, and only simple stock-change additionality applies. Will be controversial but internally consistent. EU bottom-up inventory logic vs SBTi FLAG’s top-down benchmark is a real collision course — first time I’ve seen it spelled out this cleanly. Wishlist for Q4 national targets & flexibilities proposal: shift the buy-side obligation from member states to sectors/companies, keep Article 6 out, give CSRD↔CRCF a legal hook. The CDR Policy Scoop, hosted by Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme, brings back Asger Strange Olesen (International Woodland Company, EU Carbon Removal Expert Group) to walk through where the carbon-farming half of the CRCF actually sits after the recent CRCF Days. It’s a policy-mechanics conversation: methodologies adopted (soil, peatlands, afforestation), why credits are the wrong tool for most European farmland, and what the upcoming CRCF review and Q4 flexibilities proposal need to deliver. ...