Justice and equity–ensuring communities have a say in if and when projects are deployed, and then seeing tangible benefits of those projects–isn’t partisan. Maybe the terms are, but the specifics aren’t. They’re the only way we get continued support for CDR policy.
Either/or isn’t the pathway to the durable political coalitions that will be necessary for the coming decades. It’s also why people running away from justice and equity in climate honestly terrifies me.
Carbon removal can be both a climate solution and an economic driver. It can improve crop yields, build new supply chains in heavy industry, increase canopy cover in urban areas and create jobs. And we should be talking about all of these benefits all the time.
Cuts are coming and we need to be ready. Being ready, though, doesn’t mean ditching our talking points on climate to make a pitch solely about the economic benefits of carbon removal.
Carbon removal has always had bipartisan support, but I’ve been hearing more and more that this could mean current cuts to federal agencies might not come for CDR--that we can just keep our heads down. That misses the point and sacrifices an important opportunity.
Now is not the time for carbon removal to move away from climate as a raison d’être *and* we should always be talking about CDR benefits beyond climate. More from me via
@theguardian.com.
t.co/9kSXmgA5Iw
DAC can create jobs, be a part of revitalizing fossil fuel communities through building carbon management economies, remove legacy emissions, spur new carbon utilization industries. The bipartisan case for DAC is a whole lot bigger than EOR.
We need to do a much better job of building durable – bipartisan – political coalitions than just relying on the sort of flat idea that Republicans like EOR and that’s why they’ll like DAC.
Many states don’t have EOR, and plenty of conservatives don’t prioritize oil production. DAC policy must outlast political cycles, and EOR won’t hold interest for decades.
There may be value in making a case for DAC to EOR with the current administration. But long-term carbon removal needs bipartisan support that goes beyond oil.
More importantly—we want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, not put more in. A barrel of oil from EOR may have lower emissions than a conventional barrel, but unless we’re actively scaling back conventional production to replace it with EOR and then end it altogether, then what are we doing?
I saw Petra Nova succeed, then fail. (I even made a very low quality youtube video about it, I have never been cool.) tinyurl.com/3varnc3c
When oil prices tanked, so did its business case. Oil markets will stay volatile, and DAC needs a stronger foundation than EOR.
Been talking about carbon management and enhanced oil recovery for so many years now. Some thoughts on why tying DAC to EOR is at best a *very* short term solution—politically and economically.
www.theverge.com/news/616662/...
“You can get some unusual bedfellows together when you have an administration that’s trying to cut, say, all of the Department of Energy,” @carbon180.bsky.social's @erinmburns.bsky.social tells @emilypont.bsky.social.
A carbon removal advocate’s plan for how to use Trump’s term wisely ⬇️
Feeling thankful for the generosity of Carbon180’s supporters, who make our work possible — in a field that seemed impossible just a few years ago.
With Giving Tuesday coming next week, please consider giving to Carbon180. We have big plans for 2025 ➡️ bit.ly/4fKGmCG
Tomorrow is a big day for our fundraising efforts. We couldn’t build the policy + field needed for a carbon-removing future without the generosity of individual donors 🤗
We'd be honored to have your support on #GivingTuesday ⬇️
It’s giving … Tuesday ✨ 2024 brought DAC hubs awards, the first government purchases of CDR, and a roster of bipartisan bills.
We're ready to take it even farther in 2025, with your support: bit.ly/4fKGmCG
Exciting to see the Carbon Dioxide Removal Investment Act address the need for diverse & evolving CDR solutions, through a new tax credit that's structured with thoughtful guardrails. Thank you to Sen. @bennet.senate.gov and Sen.
@lisamurkowski.bsky.social for their leadership on this legislation.
Y'all @carbon180.bsky.social's @erinmburns.bsky.social is here! Give her a follow.