This is episode #400 (?!?!) of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also listen to it/watch it in its entirety right below this paragraph.

Quick Takeaways

• Vaulted Deep takes contaminated organic waste—sludgy, PFAS-laden, moisture-intensive material—and permanently stores it thousands of feet underground via deep well injection, a technology commercialized over 15+ years in oil and gas waste disposal before being applied to carbon removal.

• Julia Reichelstein came to carbon removal from venture capital, not from a lab. She was at Piva Capital investing in climate and deep tech, went down the carbon removal rabbit hole, and couldn’t stop.

• The business model is waste management first. Vaulted gets paid to take waste that currently goes to landfills, incinerators, or land application. The carbon removal is real and durable, but the waste disposal revenue is what makes the business sustainable and scalable.

• They don’t compete for clean biomass. Their feedstock is genuinely contaminated material like biosolids and PFAS-laden sludge that has no productive alternative use. This sidesteps the looming biomass competition problem entirely.

• Scale is real and accelerating. Over 25,000 tons of durable carbon removal to date, on track for roughly 50,000 tons in 2026 alone. They went from two trucks a week at their Kansas site to fifty trucks a day.

• The Microsoft deal is transformational. A nearly 5 million ton contract signed in 2024, extending to roughly 2040. Combined with the Frontier deal (~115,000 tons through 2028), this gives Vaulted the demand signal to build new sites. The company’s north star is a megaton by 2030.

• New site development is now the main focus. Vaulted looks for co-location opportunities right at the paper mill, wastewater treatment facility, or landfill, where there’s good geology, available waste, and a local environmental problem to solve (PFAS contamination, nutrient runoff, odor, methane).

• Julia’s leadership philosophy centers on a question: “What does the company need me to be?” Rather than shaping the company around her strengths, she adapts to what each stage requires. The skills for painting a vision and raising a seed round are different from the skills for scaling operations and managing a growing team.

• The spinoff model is unusual and difficult. Vaulted spun out of co-founder Omar’s existing company, Advantek. The process took over a year and required convincing the parent company that spinning off would create more value than keeping the technology in-house. Julia now runs a spinoff founder support group because so few exist.

• Spirituality and intuition play a real role in how Julia leads. She talks about “front of brain” (analytical, action-oriented) versus “back of brain” (connected to broader wisdom), and how her trail runs (now up to two hours) are where the best decisions come from.

What kind of leader does my CDR company need me to be?

There’s a version of the carbon removal origin story that goes like this: brilliant scientist invents novel pathway in a lab, raises money, struggles to commercialize it. Julia Reichelstein’s version goes differently. She was a venture capitalist who got so obsessed with carbon removal that she couldn’t talk about anything else at work. She met someone who had been doing large-scale carbon removal for years without anyone in the CDR world knowing about it.

The largest carbon removal project nobody had heard of

That someone was Omar Abou-Sayed, her now co-founder, who had commercialized deep well slurry injection for oil and gas waste through his company Advantek. One of their projects in Los Angeles handles 20% of the city’s biosolids every year (human waste, post-treatment), pumping it over 5,000 feet underground where it stays permanently. It was great waste management. Julia saw immediately that it was also great carbon removal.

This is the kind of insight that comes from looking through a different end of the telescope. Most CDR founders start with a technology and ask how to commercialize it. Julia started with a question about what actually makes a viable, scalable business and found a technology that fit. The venture capital training of pattern recognition around what makes companies succeed gave her a lens that most climate tech founders don’t have.

Nobody’s outbidding you for PFAS-laden sludge

What makes Vaulted’s position distinctive is the feedstock. They take genuinely contaminated waste: biosolids, PFAS-laden sludge, moisture-intensive material that can’t easily be dewatered for energy, can’t be used as fertilizer because of contamination, and currently goes to landfills, land application, or incineration. They don’t call it a byproduct or a residue. They call it waste, intentionally, because they get paid to take it just like a landfill would.

This matters for a few reasons. The biomass competition problem that looms over much of the bio-based CDR space doesn’t apply here. Nobody is likely going to outbid Vaulted for PFAS-laden sludge. The waste disposal revenue stream gives the company a real business independent of carbon credit markets. And each site solves a tangible local problem: communities dealing with odor, groundwater contamination, or the downstream effects of land-applied sewage sludge get a better option.

Two trucks a week to fifty trucks a day

The scale numbers are striking for a company that’s technically only two and a half years old (four if you count the spinoff process). Over 25,000 tons of durable carbon removal delivered, with roughly 50,000 tons projected for this year. Their Kansas site went from two trucks a week to fifty trucks a day. The Frontier contract covers about 115,000 tons through 2028. And the Microsoft deal—nearly 5 million tons extending to roughly 2040—is the kind of demand signal that lets you start planning ten new sites rather than optimizing one.

What does the company need me to be?

But what I found most interesting in this conversation wasn’t the business mechanics. It was Julia’s answer to a question about CEO survival. Most founders get replaced at some point because the skills that start a company aren’t the skills that scale it. Julia framed it differently: “What does the company need me to be?” Not how to shape the company around her strengths, but how to continuously evolve to match what the business requires at each stage. The storytelling and vision-painting of the early days gave way to operational excellence and team management, and she expects it to keep changing.

Front of brain, back of brain

She credits the people around her (board members, mentors, a coach) but also something less commonly discussed in carbon removal circles: a spiritual practice. She talks about “front of brain” and “back of brain,” where the front is the analytical, action-oriented mode that startup culture celebrates, and the back is something quieter and more connected to broader wisdom. Her trail runs keep getting longer the more complex the company gets, and she’s clear that those runs are where the best decisions come from.

This might sound like it belongs in a different conversation than one about waste injection infrastructure, but I think it’s actually deeply relevant. Vaulted is building real industrial operations with real safety implications for workers at sites, for truck drivers, for communities living near facilities. Moving fast and breaking things is not appropriate here, and Julia argues that the intentionality that comes from a more contemplative leadership style is actually a better match for infrastructure-scale carbon removal than the Silicon Valley default.

The spinoff nobody thought would work

The spinoff story is its own fascinating subplot. Vaulted spun out of Advantek, Omar’s existing company, and the process took over a year of picture-painting and analysis before getting the go-ahead. The parent company had to be convinced that creating a separate entity would generate more value than keeping the technology in-house. Lowercarbon led the seed round and helped navigate the intellectual property valuation. Julia eventually started a spinoff founder support group because she couldn’t find one, and the fact that one didn’t exist should have told her something about how rare and difficult the model is.

The range this industry needs

What stays with me from this conversation is the combination of hardcore operational ambition—a megaton by 2030, fifty trucks a day, sites co-located at paper mills and wastewater treatment facilities—with a genuine openness about the interior life of building something this consequential. Julia wonders whether a new wave of leadership is coming that leads from a different energetic place while still building big, profitable businesses. I don’t know if she’s right about that, but I’m glad someone’s trying it while simultaneously pumping sludge five thousand feet underground. That’s the kind of range this industry needs.

Subscribe now

Transcript

Ross Kenyon: That’s me drinking water on the record.

Julia Reichelstein: Am I allowed to drink coffee on the record? Then?

Ross Kenyon: You are allowed to drink coffee on the record. Yeah. Thanks for coming on, Julia.

Julia Reichelstein: Thanks for having me. I’m really excited to chat.

Ross Kenyon: I’m too, I was happy we got a chance to hang out in Vancouver at Carbon Unbound. It was really nice to get a chance to meet in person. I always like going to those events too. So many of these people I see, it’s like the disembodied torso of everyone I know. And then I get to see the rest of everyone, which was really nice.

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah, it’s awesome and it’s fun to see what feels sometimes like an old group of friends. We were there, a lot of us were there at the beginning of an industry and it felt really magical and pretty unique in terms of this call to action of, we need carbon removal and the IPCC report came out and we need shots on goal as Frontier says. And then there was just a lot of people that heeded that call. And so now I feel like, in those early days of the market, there were not that many suppliers and you could look around the room and you’re like, I kind of have been in these trenches trying to help collectively grow this industry with these people for five plus years now and that’s pretty special. I feel like I have never been a part of an industry like that before and I feel pretty grateful to be a part of it.

Ross Kenyon: You came in through a strange way too, where you were an investor and I think you probably cycled through ideas. Engineered something that would get to the right volume and price dynamics. People don’t really do that for carbon removal. People usually start with like, I really like biochar and I live in Oregon and therefore I’m doing biochar in Oregon. Or there are scientists who came up with a novel electrochemistry pathway and then they’re going to commercialize that. And you had the benefit, I think, of that extra layer of what actually makes sense to do, that’s a viable commercial enterprise. Am I reading you correctly? Is that how you did it? This is like your mythology that I’m recounting to you.

Julia Reichelstein: I mean, to some degree, honestly, it’s giving me probably more credit than is due. I didn’t have a spreadsheet of a hundred ideas and the cost benefit analysis. But yeah, I was a venture capitalist before I started Vaulted, co-founded Vaulted. And just being a VC in general is the most magical job to be a founder, right? Like, I couldn’t imagine a better job if you want to be a founder because you’re getting this bird’s eye view of businesses in general. And I was at PVA Capital, so we invested in climate and deep tech across all industries, anything that sort of touched climate or deep tech. And so I was seeing companies grow, everything from seed to I think series C. So pretty good stage of development. But you just get to discuss businesses and what makes them successful and theories of how they’re going to win and how they’re going to attract the right capital, how they’re going to grow. HR, people, all of it together. And that was a pretty magical experience to be like, oh, I understand now some pattern recognition of how the companies paint that through line of growing up and getting to be big and successful and hopefully have a good exit.

And so I already had that in my brain after a couple of years of just being a venture investor in general. And then I got pretty lucky. I was at PVA at a time, like 2020 when carbon removal markets were really starting to take off and Stripe was putting $8 million. I remember the first $8 million purchase, I think from my now board member, Ryan Orbuch. And he was like, we’re going to put this forward and start purchasing durable carbon removal. And yeah, it was just this huge call for innovation and so I got pretty deep down that space. I kind of went down the rabbit hole and all of a sudden that was all I wanted to do at PVA was talk about carbon removal and talk to carbon removal companies.

And it was early days and I remember talking to Noya and Charm and Heirloom and just understanding all the business models. And then I got pretty clear that I wanted to kind of join them. I was like, this is such an exciting space. We need it so badly. There’s so much room here for innovation. There’s great new ideas kind of coming out every other week. And I loved being an investor, but I had always wanted to be a founder. It was deep in my heart. And so I left, and they were so supportive. They agreed to sort of support me as an entrepreneur in residence for I think almost an extra year. And so that was incredible. And it was actually someone at the fund who introduced me to my now co-founder.

And so it was this pretty serendipitous thing. We actually got introduced about something totally different. Not about carbon removal, not about the technology at all, but my co-founder Omar sort of took an invention by his father, which is slurry injection—deep well slurry injection. And he really had commercialized that in the oil and gas sector using it for oil field waste disposal. And he was sort of telling me about most of the oil field work. It wasn’t quite relevant to what I was thinking about at the time. But then he told me about this project in the city of Los Angeles that takes 20% of the city of LA’s biosolids every year. So it’s human waste, post waste water treatment facility. And he was kind of telling me about this and it was like, it’s really good for the environment. We’re taking that waste, it’s co-located, it’s right there on site. We slurify it, we put it 5,000 plus feet underground. It stays down there forever. It’s safe. It doesn’t cause earthquakes, it doesn’t leak. We’ve been doing it for 15 plus years safely. And it’s just much better for the environment, right? Anything that site doesn’t take gets trucked almost 300 miles round trip to the Central Valley where it’s kind of spread on land, not productively used because it’s human waste. So it has PFAS, has other contaminants in it. And that’s going into, obviously it’s decomposing and back into the atmosphere. So the CO2 is being rereleased, there’s methane, and then obviously anything that’s in that waste is going back out into local land, air, and water as it’s just sort of decomposing and going into groundwater.

And so there’s some climate change benefits from putting it underground, right? You’re obviously trapping that carbon really deep in the subsurface. You’re avoiding methane and then you’re also helping protect local land, air, and water because those pathogens or anything that’s in that waste is not going back out into local communities.

Anyway, he was telling me all this and he was like, yeah, it’s the first project in the world to do deep well injection of organic waste. We’re the first company to try it. Never been tried before. And I remember on that phone call, I remember being like, whoa. I thought I had talked to every two guys in a lab thinking about carbon removal, and I feel like I just met this person who was doing, to some degree, one of the largest carbon removal projects that nobody had ever heard of. And I was like, take a step back. This is waste. He was a waste management company. He’s like, yeah, we get paid to put it underground. It’s really good waste management. We’re saving disposal and processing fees and we’re helping protect local environments. And I was like a hundred percent. It’s great waste management. It is also great carbon removal because it is durable, it is measurable, it has co-benefits. It’s low cost, it’s efficient. And we know it can work and it’s safe. And I just was like, that is a great carbon removal idea. And we kind of just linked up. He came with the tech and the operating side and I came with the like, this is how you can think about carbon removal markets and the sales aspect and how you actually build both a CDR and a waste management company.

Ross Kenyon: Wow. What was the idea that preceded it? What was the top contender before you got into contaminated biomass injection? Is that even, can I say it that way? Is that allowed or am I wrong in some way?

Julia Reichelstein: I just say deep well disposal. Yeah, waste disposal.

Ross Kenyon: I think what I like about it is so many other companies that deal with biomass in the future, they may be competing for biomass that has alternative uses that are pretty fine. Maybe you’ll compete with pyrolysis for biosolids. Maybe that’s a future I would like to live in, a future where people were actually trying to bid that resource up. That might actually be a future that was net positive in some way. But you’re not going to be fighting over forest residue, sawmill stuff. That’s not going to be you. And that’s sort of a nice place to be.

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah, I totally agree and I use the word waste pretty intentionally. We really are taking real waste. And I say that like I know it’s a waste because for the most part, we get paid to take it. And we are a waste management company that does waste disposal as a service. Just like you would pay a landfill to dispose of your waste, or you would pay a waste management company to dispose of your waste.

And I like that better for a number of reasons. I like those wastes, one because they happen to go really well with the technology. A lot of the waste that we get paid for are moisture intensive, so they’re sludgy. I say the word sludge. Moisture intensive, oftentimes contaminated, pretty aggregated. And so they don’t make great energy feedstock because you’d have to dewater them. They don’t make great fertilizer because they’re oftentimes contaminated. And so right now they’re going to landfills or land application, maybe incineration.

And so I like taking those wastes because yeah, they don’t have a better use. You can get paid to take them, which is really important, I think, to build a scalable, durable, profitable company. And you’re solving a really tangible, local problem. When there is a waste management issue, you’re solving a tangible, local problem for that company that has the waste. And then also for that community that’s feeling the impacts of wherever that waste is going today. You put it in a landfill, it’s not gone, you still smell it. There’s still leachate issues. You spread it on land, you’ve still got groundwater issues. Incineration, you’ve got air quality issues.

So I really like the specificity of waste because it’s saying, yeah, that local problem, they’re paying for it. And then, yeah, it’s not, I don’t call it a byproduct. I don’t call it a residue, because we’re really focused on literally the waste piece of it. Does that make sense?

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Waste as a concept here is something that’s a little bit too nebulous. I think liability biomass is maybe a better term for a lot of this, but then also all of the same stuff gets lumped into it. And also the endless taxonomical churn, it doesn’t really matter what we call these things. Half the time people think if we found the one right phrase, it’ll unlock all of the social dynamics around who has to host these projects and why. So whatever, waste, liability, whatever. Okay. I want to go back to this question though of what preceded it. Were you already in the biomass gang? Were you like, this is a category that I want to explore further? Or were you even considering direct air capture, other pathways previous to Vaulted?

Julia Reichelstein: No. I almost wish I was as methodical as maybe the question implies.

Ross Kenyon: Are you kind of gut driven? Are you pretty intuitive? Is that what it is?

Julia Reichelstein: Yes. I’m very gut driven. Yeah. I’m very gut driven and I’m very, I do this work because I am impact driven. I feel that very strongly. To me, impact is what is the good you’re creating in the world, multiplied by the scale you’re doing it at. And so while I’m very impact driven, I am very business driven at the same time, because this actually ties to your question. I spent the first part of my career in international development. I lived in Peru. I lived in Nairobi, Kenya for a bunch of years, and I was working primarily with the unbanked population, people that don’t have credit scores and don’t have access to formal financial services. And I was working with a lot of smallholder farmers in rural Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, a little bit in Somalia. And doing sort of parametric crop insurance or financial inclusion, FinTech work, which was amazing and I loved it.

But I saw kind of two things. One, I saw climate change is very real in that part of the world and it’s happening now and it’s causing a lot of distress in terms of droughts and floods and food insecurity and conflict and migration and a whole host of stuff that we know. So that really led me to want to work on climate. But then too, I saw a lot of smaller social enterprises that had great impact intentions that could never really get profitability there, and they never really scaled.

And so for me, I felt very clear, I want to build a very impactful business, but it needs to be a good business that is profitable, that can make a lot of money, that can really hit the scale that’s important for climate change and important for what I wanted to build.

So my lens was in that vein a little bit more. And actually the other idea I was working on was, I actually went back to Nairobi for a couple of months in that time and was looking at how to build some of the infrastructure layer around getting carbon projects in emerging markets better access to the VCM and to registries and doing more of the MRV quality stuff.

So it was totally different. It wasn’t going to be a project developer specifically, but I really loved—one of the things I love about carbon removal is it’s fungible in some ways. You can remove a ton in East Africa and you can remove a ton in California and the atmosphere doesn’t care where it comes from, which is an amazing potential opportunity for emerging economies. And ways to build economies in that way and have investment and job creation there. So I was really interested in that. And I was sort of looking at something there too. But then once I started really working with Omar on Vaulted and we sort of got it going a little bit more, it became clear that was the thing that I really wanted to spend my time on.

Ross Kenyon: Okay. But there wasn’t another carbon removal pathway that maybe you felt called to intuitively, but to a lesser extent. It was sort of taking a broad survey, less methodical than maybe I’m presenting it, but then once you came upon this organic slurry injection, you’re like, this is the thing I’ve been waiting for. Everything else I’ve been looking at previously was on a similar plane of curiosity, and this is the thing. Is that an appropriate characterization?

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah. I also would say I met Omar three days after leaving my job. So it was really kind of serendipitous, magical timing. And yeah, I think in my mind, you’ve got to listen to the timings of the universe. I’m pretty instinct driven in that way too, so I kind of listened to it.

Ross Kenyon: Let’s talk about that. I am also that way. I’m pretty analytical too, but I often think I make my best decisions when I’m able to access things that are less articulable, things that kind of just feel right. I try not to betray myself. There have been times in business where I’ve allowed myself to be talked out of my gut by colleagues in various ways. Those I look back on like, I really wish I had stood my ground, even though I didn’t always have the perfect convincing language to do so. And you’re nodding your head, you probably feel similarly. How do you know you’re doing that for the right reasons though? Because I can imagine someone also weaponizing this intuition and vetoing things that maybe they’re doing for the wrong reasons. How do you actually ferret out what’s happening and when is your body really smart and when is it not really that smart?

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah. Wow. I love that question. I think for me it’s a hard one to get right. And I think for me it’s how do you get enough space to really sit with it. I think as a founder, as a CEO, there’s a lot of pressure and a lot of instinct to move super quick and be super action oriented and you’re facing opportunities and threats and distractions all day, every day.

And I think for a lot of us, being in execution mode is actually more comfortable, right? We’re good at it. I love action. I love moving fast. I love being on that super quick speed. And in some ways it feels amazing and you can feel like you’re getting a lot done. I think what it can do sometimes is disconnect a little bit from the gut when you’re moving so quickly.

And so I think for me, I’ve had to learn, and it’s been a journey, like, okay, how do we move slower from a human perspective? Me, as Julia, as the CEO, how do I create enough space so I can really sit with it? And then really ask yourself those hard questions. Where is this really coming from? Is it really that good gut instinct and you want to listen to it? Or is there some ego in there? Is there some fear in there? Is there something else clogging those gears that you should maybe really look at and reflect on and say, hey, we’re going to sit with this a little bit more.

So I don’t know. I try and do that. For me, I’m a big trail runner, so I do that a lot in nature. Even as CEO, it’s been crazy the last couple of years at Vaulted. The crazier it got, the longer my runs got. I started, at first it was like half hour, then I started doing an hour. Now my runs are like two hours. People are like, how do you find the time? And I’m like, it’s the best thing I do as CEO, go on those long runs and really meditate on some stuff. And try to really keep yourself honest, like really what is happening here for me. Try and make the right decision.

Ross Kenyon: I think people would imagine that for project developers like Vaulted or some of the other very successful carbon removal project developers, the job gets easier at a certain point. You have major offtakes, you have some amount of financial security, it is presumed by outsiders. Things are probably going well enough where, I don’t know, if the teams at Frontier or Microsoft or Google have vetted you enough to link their reputation to yours, you’re probably on the right track, and therefore it’s easy. But I know enough to know, I know many of these people and it isn’t really like that. One, why do you think people do think that? And what is it really like? Why are your runs getting longer? Surely they should be getting shorter. You should just be going on a five minute, let your dog pee in the yard kind of walk at this point. Isn’t it good for you now?

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah. It’s just different. It’s just different. I don’t know if it’s easier or harder. It’s different problems and I think it takes a different skill. And I think actually that’s one of the coolest things about being a CEO and being a founder is there’s so much personal development that happens because you have to learn how to be the right CEO for that stage of business.

In the early days it was like, okay, the skill sets were storytelling and painting a picture, painting a vision that people could understand and get behind. Because all there was was a pitch deck. It was so early. And convincing people that you were going to be a good steward of their money and a good investment. Or, for us, we spun out of my co-founder’s company, so there was a lot of, how do you—that company had to decide that they wanted to bless this spinoff and that we were going to create not destroy value. And of course that took time and sort of vision painting. So there’s storytelling and then obviously early team formation. It’s a lot of doing it yourself. And there was a lot of just doing. My days were jam packed and I was moving a mile a minute and I was trying to do a lot myself and then get early people on board.

And then as the company grows, yeah, it’s much more about human development and being a good manager and figuring out how to be the right leader for the right stage of company. For your leadership team and developing that team and making sure that you’re functioning really well as a team. Good organizational health, good management systems, good boundaries, a good culture.

And then I think for us, really continuously learning. The early stages were really getting our existing sites ramped up, and I think we did a pretty good job of that. We’ve got two sites we work with. One in Hutchinson, Kansas, our Great Plains facility, and then one in Los Angeles, California, the one I mentioned before, which we work with Advantek, the company we spun out of, our partner on that one.

But both of them now are really ramping up and so there’s a lot of, okay, how do you really operationalize carbon removal? How do you get from that site in Kansas, when we started, was doing two trucks a week. We do fifty trucks a day. So how do you do that ramp up? And there’s a lot of operational nuts and bolts learning that takes a really different team than the team that’s going to take the playbook and execute over ten sites.

And so I think there’s just been different stages of the company and of the progression. But to me, one of the coolest and hardest things is, what does the company need me to be at each one of these stages and how can I figure out how to be that leader that’s effective at that stage? Because it’s night and day from two years ago, frankly, from a year ago. It’s night and day. It hasn’t stayed the same for more than a year. So I think that’s a really cool part of the job too.

Ross Kenyon: It mirrors what you said earlier about selecting Vaulted and this particular pathway where other people come in looking through the other end of the telescope and they’re like, I have this technology, how do I commercialize it? And I think a lot of people make their companies in their own image for better or for worse. And sometimes that results in CEOs that last the duration and get to—what’s the old line? You rarely get to be both rich and the king and only a few people get to be both. Zuckerberg is one of the people who gets to be both. And it’s not that common. A lot of CEOs get fired by their board much earlier because the person who found something is not the same person who’s necessarily the best at growing it. But I think a good portion of the way that one might be able to blunt that threat as the CEO is to ask a question of what does the company need me to be? Not how do I fit the company around my strengths and weaknesses so much as, okay, I’m a person who can learn and grow, how do I be the right leader in this context? And I don’t hear people ask that question that often. I think that’s a really emotionally and intellectually wise way to do things. You could have that beaten into you by experience, or how do you possibly learn such a thing?

Julia Reichelstein: I am so grateful to the people I have around me, honestly. Some of my board members, my mentors, my coach. I’m pretty spiritual, my spiritual life and that practice. I have a huge team that’s helping me figure this out. And I feel endlessly blessed to have them and have them in my ear and have them supporting and coaching. But I also think, and that’s honestly like 99% of the answer, and then I also think there’s something in there of what I actually said earlier—I think you’re right—is I do this work because I want to be in service. It’s really important for me. The reason I’m doing this is because we want to have a positive impact on the world and be in service of a planet that is habitable and safe for everyone, for generations to come.

And so the reason I did this work and started this work was to be in that service. And then I’m like, okay, the point is about the company. The point is Vaulted and Vaulted being successful because I really believe in what we’re doing is so good for the planet and so good for community health and for local environments. And so it’s like, what can I do to be in service to the company so the company can grow and be successful? And as much as I can change and try and be an effective leader, let me do that. If there’s a time where I’m not the most effective leader, no problem, Vaulted is first. That’s the very clear north star that I feel and that I actually think the team feels too. And that just keeps us focused and grounded.

Ross Kenyon: Great answer. Less common than maybe one would hope. Alright, since you dropped the hard S, I have to ask though. Spirituality—this impacts your work. You’re like a hardcore nuts and bolts, operational excellence, scaling a company. Are you even allowed to talk about spirituality? Julia, how does it impact your work at all?

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah. Am I allowed to? Yeah. It’s a huge part of who I am and I think it probably does show up in the company. It must. I think a lot of being spiritual for me is about feeling that connection to the broader world, the universe. I mean, you can take that in whatever way you want. If you want to say God, if you want to say the energy flows, if you want to say just humanity, whatever. I just feel it and I can tap into it. And I think when you feel how connected we all are, if you really see yourself of, we are really the same, we are one. And you can feel that to some degree.

Then it makes it pretty clear. It comes to the service part. Of course we want to help each other, and of course we want to contribute because it’s not me being benevolent and saying, hey, I’ll help out over here. It’s like we’re the same. It’s fulfilling in that way. And I think it’s good for our souls to be a part of contributing too. So I think it must show up really prominently in the ethos here.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I feel pretty similarly. I connect to that too. I’m smiling. I hope you don’t read that in a patronizing, mocking kind of way. I also think this is a big part of the work and people are better off when they can acknowledge it in their own way. Okay. But then I have to take it to one extra level, which is a little bit stranger. So it’s also possible this doesn’t make it into the show, but this focus on big, hard questions requiring more exercise, more being in a condition of physical extremity or exertion at the very least. Do you ever feel like some of these ideas, solutions, things come to you that don’t feel endogenous to your own brain, but maybe more like answers that come to you in a spiritual way outside of just, I’m super smart and I’m running? Does creativity find you? Do you resonate with this at all?

Julia Reichelstein: A hundred percent.

Ross Kenyon: I like that too.

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah. I kind of have this, we can figure out if we want this in the show or not, but I kind of have this front of brain—

Ross Kenyon: This is like front of house, back of house.

Julia Reichelstein: The back of house that’s connected to this broader wisdom and this broader universe. That’s where the magic comes. And so I think a lot of the time I’m like, my job is to quiet front of brain so I can hear back of brain. And that’s where the best things come from and also the things that are rooted in the right stuff. It’s not the ego and it’s not the fear and it’s not that stuff that can get cloudy. So a hundred percent.

Ross Kenyon: I’ve said this on a number of podcasts previously, but so much of my life has been about cramming more knowledge into my brain, and I think at some point in the last couple years I realized there are serious diminishing returns from that. And actually I need to be cultivating open space, intuition, wisdom, and noticing how different those two things are. And I’m working on trying to develop that because I feel like I have the raw ability to harness that. And I actually think that’s a universally, democratically accessible way of processing information. It’s not like you have to be special or touched by the divine in some way to do that, but I’m trying to create more space for creativity to find me and for the less analytical, more intuitive part of my processing to take over because some really important insights have come from that. How can I better harness that? And what advice might you have for people listening who, this might sound a little bit woo, or at least semi-woo as Emily Swaddle recently called it, but I think it’s also true woo, as she also called it. How do you actually do that and operationalize it in a way that makes actual business sense that you can say with a straight face to your very serious board of investors?

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah. How do you create it? I think that’s a muscle and a practice and a prioritization. That is, what is your spiritual practice? For me that’s, I go to church, but I also trail run, and that’s just honestly just as much a part of the religious practice as the church part. And space. And then, do you create that time? And you honor it. There’s ritual there. You have to protect it, and you have to honor it, and you have to believe in it and put some work into it. So I think all of that.

But from a business perspective, honestly, one of the things that is really important, I think, for what we do, for what Vaulted does, is remembering, a lot of waste management companies or carbon removal companies, this is real tangible infrastructure and jobs and lives and safety. It’s safety of humans at an industrial site. It is safety of truck drivers. It is safety of local environments. When you’re doing something new with where waste goes or where carbon goes. And you have to be really careful and intentional and safety oriented and thoughtful. It is not a move fast and break things industry, or it shouldn’t be. I think there is a lot of danger there. Danger not only for people in environments that we’re trying to protect—I mean, the point of what we do is to try to protect humans and environment—but also danger for the industry. If you move fast and break things and you’re a young industry, you’re not going to build the credibility and the proof point that you need to grow.

And so the intentionality, I think, that spirituality brings and that clarity, it’s a little bit slower maybe than a Silicon Valley software startup. And it’s a little bit deeper. And I think that’s a great match for what we do at Vaulted and a lot of other developers do, which is real world operations. Care for the humans that work at the company and around the company and the environments as well. So I almost feel like it flows really well. It’s almost aligned from a business perspective of what we should be doing and also where it comes from.

And I also, this is a little bit of a tangent, but I think we have an opportunity right now of just leaders, especially in America and globally, maybe leaders figuring out how to lead in a different way. I’ve seen, I think we’ve seen a style of leadership for the last 20, 30 years that has been a little bit more, I’ll call it nuts and bolts, business perspective. This is what we should do, action oriented, a little more front of brain. And I think one of the coolest things that I’m interested in right now and a part of my job and one of the most rewarding is, how could you think about being a different type of leader that leads from a different place and is still incredibly effective and still builds a great big profitable business? But come at it from a different spiritual place, different energetically, and what could that mean for the company that you’re creating and the business that you’re trying to build. And I don’t know what the answer is to that yet, but to me that’s the most exciting journey that we could be on, that I could be on in terms of my own career.

Ross Kenyon: What is it about saying something like that that puts you in a position of vulnerability that you may want to take it out of this show? Is there—I feel like what you said is totally sensible. I would want to work with someone who was tuned into this stuff and emotionally not a maniac. And I’ve worked with plenty of CEOs who are straight up maniacs and I would not take another job if I caught a whiff of that. At this point, I’m like, I don’t want to do this and I don’t think we’re going to get along if I do this. And so you telling me this makes me trust you more. I’m like, okay. Julia is someone that I would follow into this with because I know that the matters of the heart that are so important that people always neglect and say are for big, stupid softies are not appropriate for a leader. That’s like, we need someone who’s really good at making hard decisions, and that’s not someone who’s soft. I actually do not think that’s true at all. It’s a bad meme. I would like to see that meme replaced with something better than it, but you feel like even if you know it’s true, it’s hard for you to say that out loud in a business context.

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah, and I totally agree. There’s, to me, there’s nothing—maybe there’s a softness and an intentionality in part of it, but there’s not a, we’re not going to make hard decisions and we’re not going to make the tough calls or have those tough conversations.

To me, there’s how do you lead in a place where you’re just as if not more effective from a business outcomes perspective? You’re not losing. To me again, the north star is it has to be a big, impactful, profitable business to matter on an impact scale. So I’m not in conflict there. And that’s one of the things I love most about Vaulted is there is that really deep alignment. We make money when we put tons underground, which is the impact that we want to have. So it’s colinear in the TPG framework.

But I think there’s a keeping a focus on being a really effective business leader that is building a big, profitable, successful company. Could you actually do that just energetically from that different place? I have this instinct—I’m talking about instinct—I have this instinct that this is where we’re headed. My hope is that this is where we’re headed as a society. That maybe we did decades and decades of this old leadership style that caused a lot of people a lot of pain, and it was very profit over everything and it was profit maximizing. And I’m wondering if there’s a new wave of leadership coming that I would be excited to be a part of. That thinks about it differently. And that’s kind of when I think about the world in 20, 30 years, I’m like, maybe we’re headed in a really cool direction from that standpoint.

Ross Kenyon: What is happening at Vaulted now, what’s next for you all? And then we will find ourselves at the conclusion of this episode that went in a bunch of unexpected ways, I think, for both of us.

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah. Sure did. I loved it. I absolutely loved it, but it was definitely not what I thought we were going to talk about. Me neither. That’s awesome.

Okay. What is Vaulted doing now? So as I mentioned before, and as you know, Vaulted, at the core of it, we’re really a waste management company. We take organic waste that today goes to landfills, incinerators, or land application, and is really just being disposed of. And we take that and we find a better home for it. We put it really deep underground where it’s permanently stored. And that’s better for climate because we’re locking away all that carbon and it’s also healthier for local environments.

And so we’ve been doing that, as I mentioned, in both Great Plains and our Hutchinson, Kansas site, as well as with our partner Advantek in Los Angeles. So a big piece of what we’ve done in the last couple of years is really showing that we can do carbon removal at scale from those operational facilities. We’ve done over 25,000 tons of durable carbon removal to date. We’re on track to do, I hope, fingers crossed, something like 50,000 tons this year alone. I’m really here for scale. If it’s not here for scale, to me it really matters that we can show it.

Ross Kenyon: You’re big. Those are non-biochar numbers too. Those are good.

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah. And that’s also one of the great gifts of being a spinoff. We’re only four years—technically we’re only two and a half years old. I’ve been working on Vaulted for four years because the spinoff took some time, as you can imagine, to get right. But one of the magical things is that we spun off with a mature technology and these two sites that we were able to kind of press play on really quickly. So we kind of, my co-founder did 15 years of tech development so we could get to a place where we could press play and get to that scale.

So we’re really focused on just continuing to make it more and more efficient. We’re finding new ways to get more efficient, even at our current sites and ramp up trucks and figuring out how to lower emissions with every ton. So there’s more processing there in terms of efficiency at those operating sites.

And then what we did the last couple of years was really, as you know, build that carbon removal reputation and brand and had some good success in selling to some of the bigger buyers. So with Frontier, we signed with them, about 115,000 tons that takes us I think 2024 to 2028-ish. And that was sort of a really good chunk of our first deliveries out of our operating sites. We then had sort of a landmark deal with Microsoft of nearly 5 million tons, which we signed last year. That really gets us nearly to 2040.

And so that’s just this magical, revolutionary, I really believe it, contract where we can then say, okay, we know we have demand to really do this at scale. We know we have a technology that works. Let’s go build those sites. Let’s go get more sites online so we can really do this. A megaton by 2030, that’s the north star of the company.

And so most of the company is focused on new site development. Most of the company’s going and finding, okay, across the US and North America. And then the world one day. Where are those good sites? Good geology, waste, where we can actually solve that problem. Ideally there’s a local problem to be solved. Maybe there’s a PFAS issue, like forever chemicals. Maybe there’s a nutrient runoff issue. Maybe there’s an odor issue or a methane issue. Where can we go in and actually say there is a local environmental contamination issue because of waste that’s being disposed of? We can come in and be that partner that’s not only better waste management and a better disposal solution, but also we can solve that local environmental contamination issue or community health issue. So we can come in and really say, there’s a reason why we’re here. We’re not just here to fight climate change broadly. We’re here to help you not smell that on the way to work or not have PFAS in your drinking water.

And that also really helps to get the trust and the engagement with the communities. And then of course we always work under class five permits with EPA. So then of course we’re always finding, where’s there a permit? Where’s the waste and where’s the geology?

And so most of the team time now is, okay, let’s go look at those sites and work with our waste partners to go find those really good co-located sites. So we like to be right at the paper mill or right at the wastewater treatment facility or right at the landfill so we’re not trucking. And it’s the most efficient, cost-effective waste management and carbon removal that we can be.

Ross Kenyon: What’s it like having a company spin out of an existing company within carbon removal?

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah. Does—

Ross Kenyon: Does that work?

Julia Reichelstein: Yeah, it’s its own thing. It’s its own thing. I’ve actually now started a spinoff founder support group where there’s only founders that have done spinoffs.

Ross Kenyon: Wow. How many others are there even?

Julia Reichelstein: Not just in carbon removal, in general. Mostly climate tech founders, but it’s a really different, interesting journey.

So I could talk about this for a long time, but yeah, it’s pretty different. You get this amazing headstart in a lot of ways, depending on what you’re spinning off, if it’s a technology or a team or a plant or whatever it might be. And then there’s also a lot of dynamics that come with that. You’ve got a company that you spun out of that has their own perspective and thoughts and feelings and needs from all sorts of angles.

And I think you have to be really clear about why you need to spin off. What can you do as a separate organization that they couldn’t do or didn’t want to do or that you could do better at? And so you’ve got to get really clear, really early. I think it forces a lot of good intellectual rigor around what are you trying to build? Why are you trying to build it? What can you bring that other people can’t bring? What’s your theory of change? All of that was forced pretty early because I couldn’t just be like, okay, we’re going to get going and just start doing stuff. You had to do a year and a half of picture painting and analysis to get the go ahead to spin off. So it was an interesting journey.

From that perspective, I think it forced a lot of really good discussion and a lot of alignment with the existing company. And then you also have to get capital that understands that journey. And I will say Lowercarbon led our seed round and they were fantastic partners to be a part of that journey with us to help us understand, how do you value intellectual property and how do you think about the value of this intangible thing within the company and then outside of the company? And sort of be a capital partner as we unlocked that spinoff. So it’s very interesting. There’s a lot of dynamics as you can imagine, with multiple stakeholders.

But if you can get it to work, which is a big—I think one of the things I learned was I stepped back at some point. I was like, oh. You actually don’t see that many venture-backed spinoffs. And that’s for a reason. I was trying to find, I was trying to find this support group that I started eventually, and I was like, ah, it doesn’t exist. I can’t find it because there’s not that many. And that should have told me something how hard it was. But I didn’t know. So I went ahead and we figured out a way at the end and I think we’re all glad we did.

Ross Kenyon: I love doing shows on alternative means of founding, funding, and exiting, and this has not been one of them. Is there a lot of opportunity to do this spinout model, or is it just pure luck that you’re here? It sounds like it probably is closer to that than anything, but are there opportunities that if people were looking in the right places, they might be able to find deals like yours and duplicate them?

Julia Reichelstein: Maybe. I think you definitely need some luck and you need, I think at the end of the day, you need a company. If you’re spinning out of a company, you need a company that can see and appreciate the vision of what you’re trying to build and why you need to spin out.

Because the status quo is that company owns a hundred percent of the thing. And I think a natural starting place is, why wouldn’t we just do it? We could build another business arm or we could have a subsidiary. Why would I go give up a hundred percent ownership to have this be its own little organism that then I don’t fully control and I don’t own a hundred percent of? And if it is going to be this really big, magical, valuable thing, why would I take that trade off?

And so you have to find, I think, a team on that company side that understands the value you can create when you’ve spun off. And make that really clear. And frankly, a lot of leadership teams, one, they’ve got to see it, which is hard. Takes some vision and some trust. And then they really have to trust you that you’re going to be able to do it. And you’re not going to go spin it off and then fail in two years and hey, they could have kept it.

So I think there’s some trust building that’s really important in that journey.

Ross Kenyon: Thanks for being on, Julia. Really appreciated having you, and thanks for letting me ask you some frankly bizarre questions. I’m glad we got to do this.

Julia Reichelstein: Thanks, Ross. I loved it. I had a great time and it was really interesting and thought provoking, so thank you for asking those questions. I don’t get asked those every day, so it’s pretty cool.

This is episode #399 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your shows. You can also listen to the full thing right below this paragraph.

Quick Takeaways

1. Taylor Insley has been on both sides: a decade as a fundraiser soliciting donors, and now at Terraset receiving pitches from developers. The single biggest mistake she sees is developers forgetting that buyers are people. Roughly 75% of her interactions at conferences skip basic human etiquette entirely.

2. Terraset looks for catalytic deployments where their capital (typically a couple hundred thousand dollars) unlocks a milestone, an investment opportunity, or a loan. They’re currently seeing 6-7x leverage on every dollar deployed. But they are not funding nature-based projects right now.

3. Taylor’s hierarchy for approaching buyers: first, know the organization and what matters to them. Second, be a normal human who remembers they have a name and a life. The first is essential. The second is what breaks ties and gets you expedited through the process.

4. Counter-signaling doesn’t work. Messy decks, jargon-heavy pitches, and “we’re too busy doing science to communicate clearly” reads as unprepared, not as rigorous. The story matters more than the technical language, especially for buyers connecting projects to donors.

5. First impressions are less important than relationship building. Taylor doesn’t take them that seriously. Things change fast in CDR, and a project that wasn’t ready in November might be perfect by May. The developers in Terraset’s portfolio feel like partners because they check in, they offer ideas, they help Terraset do its job better.

How to Approach a Buyer Without Making Them Hide Under a Hoodie

Taylor Insley spent most of her career as a fundraiser. She knows what it’s like to see someone from a major foundation floating around the coffee stand and think: how do I get in there without immediately saying “give me money”? That experience, she told me, has actually made her better at her current job as Director of Strategic Growth at Terraset, because she understands the impulse from the inside.

But now the turntables have turned. At Terraset, Taylor is the one being pitched, and the experience has been instructive in ways she didn’t expect.

The buyer hiding under a hoodie

Taylor told me that at a recent Carbon Unbound, she found a big buyer sitting at a bar with a sweatshirt hoodie pulled over his head because he needed a few minutes to breathe. She gets it. At the same event, she was trying to sit quietly in a back row when she watched four developers approach her in sequence, each sitting down across from her to deliver their pitch. The developer sitting next to her, watching this happen without knowing who she was, finally said: “I don’t know how you just did that.” He didn’t pitch her. They now have a relationship.

The developers who work their way into Terraset’s portfolio, Taylor said, are the ones who remember that she has two kids. Who ask where she flew in from. Who meet her over scones at Unbound rather than ambushing her with a video of methane leaking from a gas well. That’s not a commentary on the quality of their projects. It’s a commentary on what happens when you treat a buyer as a vending machine rather than a collaborator.

Should any of this matter?

I pushed Taylor on this. It feels unfair that diplomacy and charm should count for anything when the climate crisis is this urgent. Shouldn’t the science and the unit economics be enough? Shouldn’t it be a pure meritocracy where the best project wins regardless of whether the founder can make small talk?

Taylor’s answer was honest: yes, she might be the problem. But Terraset is a specific kind of buyer. They’re a nonprofit connecting projects to donors who care about impact and story. They have human relationships with every company in their portfolio. If you understand that about them and pitch accordingly, you’re going to be much more successful than if you pitch them the way you’d pitch Microsoft.

And that’s really the deeper point. Every buyer cares about something slightly different. Taylor quoted her co-panelist Lauren Wiley from Oliver Wyman: what Lauren’s looking for is probably different from what Taylor’s looking for, but you could get money from both of them if you pitched it the right way.

The hierarchy

I asked Taylor to rank what matters. Her answer:

Number one: know who you’re pitching. Understand the organization, what they fund, what they don’t, what stage they’re at, what a win looks like for them. This is by far the most important thing.

Number two, the nice-to-have: be a nice human. Take the time to build a relationship. Remember that the tie goes to the person who feels like a partner rather than a transaction.

She was clear that being difficult isn’t disqualifying. If a project is impactful, unique, and aligned with what their donors want, Terraset will fund it regardless of personality. But you’ll get expedited through their pipeline if Taylor can think of you when the right money comes in. That happens when she remembers you as a person, not as pitch number 347.

What Terraset is actually looking for

Taylor laid out what she wants developers to know:

They’re looking for catalytic deployments. Their capital, usually a couple hundred thousand dollars, should unlock something bigger: a milestone, a loan, an investment round. They recently did a £200,000 pre-purchase that unlocked a £1 million loan, then brought in an offtaker at another $50,000. That kind of deal structure is what excites them.

They’re not doing nature-based right now. Not for any philosophical reason, just that their diligence process currently removes those projects. If you’re nature-based, save yourself the time.

They’re a team of three with 450 projects in their pipeline. They can only go through them as fast as they can go through them. Anything you do to make their job easier, to help them understand quickly whether you’re a fit, is working in your favor.

The email I suggested

I offered Taylor a hypothetical pitch: “Hey, I’m not ready for a proper conversation with Terraset yet, but I want to be ready six months from now. What are the steps I could take to make sure that when the next opportunity comes around, this would be a fundable project?”

Taylor said it was the first time anyone had ever sent her something like that. She immediately had three things she’d say in response. The approach worked because it was honest about timing, it asked for help rather than demanding attention, and it treated the relationship as longer than a single transaction.

Counter-signaling is dead

I brought up the phenomenon of founders who counter-signal by having terrible decks and chaotic communications, as if being too busy to present themselves well proves they’re doing serious work. Taylor confirmed she gets these all the time. They don’t work. She and some of her donors are actually exploring whether Fortune 500 advisors could volunteer their time to help CDR companies with exactly this kind of thing.

The comparison I made was to Sam Bankman-Fried on stage with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair in gym shorts. At some point, not caring about presentation stops reading as confidence and starts reading as something else entirely.

First impressions and the minor leagues

I asked whether a bad first impression is fatal. Taylor said no. She doesn’t take first impressions that seriously. Things change fast in CDR, and relationship building over time matters more than nailing a single interaction.

But there is a lifecycle to pitching buyers. I’ve seen companies go straight for Microsoft or Frontier when they’re not ready. The natural progression, which I described somewhat embarrassingly through a baseball analogy, is to start with smaller, more accessible buyers like Milkywire or Terraset, get those stamps of legitimacy, and then approach the bigger players once you’ve been pre-vetted and have a track record.

Tell me how to do my job better

Taylor’s golden piece of advice, which she repeated several times in different forms: tell me how to do my job better. She’s not a carbon removal expert. She’s a philanthropy expert. She has a diligence process and advisors, but what she really wants is developers who understand Terraset’s vision, who can identify where their capital would be most catalytic, and who help her tell stories that bring more money into the space.

If you walk up to her and say “here’s how your $200K could unlock $1.2M for this project in Kenya, and here’s the story your donors would love to tell about it,” you’re speaking her language. If you walk up with a 30-second pitch and a business card, you’re one of the 75%.

She also offered, on the record, to spend 30 minutes reviewing any developer’s pitch deck. So there’s that.

Share

Subscribe now

Full Transcript

Ross Kenyon: Taylor, thank you for being here. We’ve been talking about doing a Terraset show for a while now, but your recent Carbon Unbound performance, I was going to say, your panel ship. What is like, how do I speak English about this? You were on a panel and you were talking about weird experiences of being a buyer of carbon removal credits and how for some reason that confuses everyone and it turns them, turns the thinking part of their brain off and they are behaving in ways that are counter to their goals, is maybe one way to say it. Is that pretty much what happened?

Taylor Insley: That’s a phenomenal way to put it. It does feel like they turn the thinking part of their brains off sometimes and forget that we are also just real people.

Ross Kenyon: Yes. Gosh, and what is your experience like as a buyer of credits? Part of the way that I conceptualize it is I imagine many people want to be famous, but then the stories of being famous sound really annoying. It’s like you can’t really go anywhere. Everyone notices everything you do. One time a friend of mine was in town from the East Coast and we were eating at a restaurant in LA. It was not that nice of a restaurant. It was like fast casual and kinda nice. And I saw someone out of the corner of my eye and it was Adam Sandler. We didn’t even see his face. I just knew. It was like, that’s Adam Sandler for sure.

Taylor Insley: Big.

Ross Kenyon: He looked like he did in Big Daddy, which is like long gym shorts and visor, that’s all. It was just real not trying. Everyone obviously notices him. This guy’s an A-lister and has been for a super long time, and so has to walk in. Everyone’s like, has their hand up for high fives, and he doesn’t stop and chat, but he goes the high fives. He can’t just exist. Everything he does is noticed in some way. And I’m wondering, do you connect with this experience? Do you have a Sandler-esque carbon removal experience?

Taylor Insley: I think you could say that Terraset is the Adam Sandler of carbon removal.

Ross Kenyon: You’re talking about Adam keeps a neck beard. Is that what you’re saying? He needs to shave a little more thoroughly?

Taylor Insley: Yeah, exactly. No, it’s interesting because I think we are this quasi-buyer where we move money in a very specific type of way that I think is really accessible to people. But I do think that it’s complex. It’s a little complicated for people to understand. And yeah, I think sometimes, we’re not the big Googles and the Microsofts, but I do think because we are a nonprofit and we try to be more accessible, we go to places like Unbound and we try to interface with developers and projects and other partners, and it can get a little pitchy off the bat. And I feel like some of the best partnerships I’ve gotten have come from those events. But it’s like running into somebody over scones at Unbound. It’s not the running up to me with a video of methane leaking out of a gas well. That’s interesting.

Ross Kenyon: I guess when people approach you, is there an attempt to proceed with normal etiquette? Is there like a “hi, how are you, how was your flight” kind of thing? Or is it just “this is my shot, as long as I don’t stop talking they can’t walk away” kind of thing? Tell me some anecdotes, sufficiently anonymized so you’re not humiliating anyone that we can identify, but tell me about it.

Taylor Insley: I think it is a lot. I’d say 75% of the interactions I have are like that. And I will say even anonymized, there was one point at a recent Unbound where I found a buyer, a big buyer, sitting by a bar with a sweatshirt hoodie over his head because he was like, “I just need a couple minutes to breathe.” Because I think it is this... But it comes from a good place. These companies need support. They need buyers. They need money. They need capital to move their projects forward. And so I totally resonate with that, especially as a fundraiser. I am also fundraising, so I know what it’s like, and I think in some ways it’s made me a better fundraiser because I realize what works and what doesn’t. But yeah, the ones that remember that I have two kids or the ones that remember I live in Boston and ask me about that, or even just say “hey, where are you flying from?” I feel like I’m way more likely to have those conversations than the ones that run up and say “hi, I’m going to give you my 30-second pitch, and here’s my card.” I will say one other one was, again anonymizing, but there was a period of time at Unbound New York, like two years ago, where I was sitting at a chair at one of the back rows, and I was just trying to breathe for a couple minutes, because it’s a lot. Post-COVID, it’s a lot of talking. And so I just needed a couple minutes, and I was sitting next to a developer, but I had no idea it was a developer. It was someone I had never met. And they watched four different other developers come over and sit in the chair across from me and pitch me. And by the end of it, the developer that was sitting next to me was like, “I don’t know how you just did that. That was crazy.” And he’s like, “And I was going to pitch you, but now I’m not going to pitch you like that.” And now that’s somebody that we have a relationship with because we were able to kind of endure that together.

Ross Kenyon: We should create some sort of augmented reality, virtual reality Taylor experience here of just what is it like to be you at one of these things. You feel like it’s really uncomfortable and it doesn’t work, and also, how do I get out of it? Are you going to want to hang out for a super long time if you can’t just have a normal conversation with someone? My guess is probably not.

Taylor Insley: Yeah. Here’s the thing. Like I said, I think this sector needs more buyers to be accessible, and I think being honest about the interactions that get you what you need out of buyers is more valuable than us just saying, “Well, we’re not going to go to these things.”

Ross Kenyon: Espresso.

Taylor Insley: So yeah, I get tired, but espresso gets me through, you know? Espresso and honesty.

Ross Kenyon: I can imagine someone listening to this and feeling frustrated that the personal, the diplomatic, the charm matters, because something as important as climate, you should just think that unit economics and the path to scale, those are the things that should matter, how good the science is, not whether or not you enjoy goofing around and talking about scones at the breakfast buffet. Why should that matter? Does it? Or is it maybe the problem with you and not actually with her?

Taylor Insley: Maybe I’m the...

Ross Kenyon: You are the... The call’s coming from inside the house, Taylor. Sorry.

Taylor Insley: Correct. Here’s the thing. I may be the problem. I will say that we, not to be like “we’re different,” but Terraset is different in the sense that we are a different type of buyer. We are a buyer, but we are different in the sense that we do care about the impact. We care about the intersectional approaches. We care about the stories that are coming out of these projects, and we have very human relationships with all of the companies in our portfolio. Because we’re connecting them to the donors who do care about impact. So I think for us, and one of the things that I talked with Lauren Wiley about on stage at that Unbound thing was that every buyer is going to care about something a little bit differently. I’m not saying that the science doesn’t need to be sound or the methodologies don’t need to be proven or the economics need to make sense, because all of those things are also true. But if you want to break in a little bit, you’re going to get a lot further with, I think, a lot of these buyers who are one-man teams or one-woman teams, by having relationships with us. And as somebody who fundraises, I get that. I have a lot better rapport with the funders that I know more about and I can get a coffee with or have that kind of relationship with. And I think right now this sector is in such a do-or-die moment that we forget that we are all in this together and we’re all aiming for the right things and the same things, for the most part.

Ross Kenyon: How would you approach it if a project developer came to you and what they were doing was incredibly impactful, but they were a difficult person? Their social niceties are not present. They aren’t necessarily someone that you’re having fun on a call with, but this technology and/or this project is really impactful. How do you determine whether or not it’s worth entering into a medium-to-long-term relationship with someone like this?

Taylor Insley: I mean, that’s not a reason to not fund someone. I think if they have a project that’s really interesting, impactful, unique in the space and it aligns well with what our donors are looking for, it’s worth pursuing it. I think my point is more that anyone can apply through our intake form online, and we will evaluate all of them based on merits and diligence, and we will reply to them based on whether or not they fit. You’ll just be expedited through that process if I can remember, “Oh, we just got $500K that’s meant for biochar in Kenya,” and I remember talking to this person that was really wonderful for whatever reason. I want to reach out in that moment and think about them, not the people who were just through our intake.

Ross Kenyon: I will get this request sometimes of “who can you introduce me to with the buyers?” And my response, which I’m hoping you can either confirm or tell me that it doesn’t work this way, but the response that I’ve believed for a long time is that these people all have RFPs out for the most part. They want to find good projects. Your job is to do a really good job responding to the RFP, and me trying to help you backchannel or cut in line in some ways is not super helpful. In fact, you should probably spend all of your time making your application good, and then maybe a little chat after you’ve read this document super well, know what they’re looking for, and can connect with them. Maybe at that point it’s worth a conversation. But also, it’s probably just best to follow their protocol, walk through the front door with a really good app, and if it’s a fit, you will get a meeting. You don’t necessarily even need my help for this. Is that true?

Taylor Insley: Yes and no. I think for big buyers, yes, that is true. You trying to backchannel to Microsoft’s team, probably not going to be it. But I can’t speak for them because I’m moving way lower dollars than they are. For us, it is actually because we have 450 in our pipeline that have applied to us. We’re going through them, but we’re a team of three, so we can only go through them as fast as we can go through them. I think the one part I really do resonate with what you’re saying is, yes, I think there is a backchanneling that is useful. If you came to me and said, “Hey, Taylor, I know this really cool company that I think would be perfect for Terraset’s pre-purchase model,” I would absolutely take a call with them because I trust you and I trust your judgment. There are plenty of times where developers will come to us or even apply to us and be asking for $2 million in a certain type of capital that we don’t provide. And so I think there is real value to looking at just as simply as looking at a website before you talk to buyers or before you apply through their portal or intake. But yeah, I would also say not all buyers have RFPs. Some are still building. I think through our revolving fund, we’re finding it’s an on-ramp for a lot of companies that are more small and medium-sized that have never done this before, and so it’s their first time, and they don’t even know where to start. And I know Tito is running a lot of really good work with Air Miners around education for that. But a lot of that is just through relationship building and trust of other people, other peers saying, “This is what I’m doing, and I’ll go in on this with you for a first or second time.” So yes and no is my answer to you.

Ross Kenyon: There are some points at which myself or someone who has a relationship with buyers can help, but there’s also a limit to it. I can’t really browbeat Aiden into making Milky Wire do something that they’re not going to do. If the application is half-baked, then it’s probably still going to get rejected. You still need to do the work. You can’t jump over the hard work of doing a really good application, I would say. Unless, have you ever seen an application that counter-signals where it’s like, “We’re too busy to focus on communication, and we’re too busy doing the science and engineering this so well that we don’t actually have a beautiful pitch deck”? Is that...

Taylor Insley: 1000%. All...

Ross Kenyon: Oh, no. Oh, you’re saying you get that, but it doesn’t work. Or does it?

Taylor Insley: Oh, it doesn’t work, but I get them all the time. Yes, 1000%. And I think one of the things I’ve been talking about, we have these two donors that are really, they do a bunch of business advising and startup advising, and they have been like, “Do you know any companies that we would offer our time or donate our time to provide guidance on how you do some of that?” And so that’s something I want to work on with our donor network. There’s not really a way to volunteer in this sector, but that could be a very interesting way to support, you know, these are big Fortune 500 type companies that could help.

Ross Kenyon: I wrote this section of an essay recently that got cut for space that I love. Sorry, do you want to finish your thought before I go on this?

Taylor Insley: No, I want you to tell me your thought.

Ross Kenyon: In startup culture where counter-signaling was super prominent, and it would be probably closer to late 2010s, where it was like, “We’re too busy making cool product. And comms are what the dumb people do, and we don’t really care about that.” Flash is associated with less rigor. And the high water mark of that for me was seeing Sam Bankman-Fried on stage with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, and he was wearing the gym shorts and the dad shoes and a T-shirt. “You’re with former statesmen. It doesn’t do what you think it does. If this is counter-signaling, it’s dead.” It’s receded since then. I see it way less common. But even still, there are people and companies that I work with, even recently, where I’m like, “I know you’re a brilliant scientist, and I know your technology’s really cool, and I’m happy to work with you on it. This slide deck looks like it was made for GeoCities, and no one is going to give you extra credit because you’re so busy doing other stuff. You need to hire someone. You need a designer, or this is not going to work.” And sometimes they take that advice, and sometimes they disagree with me.

Taylor Insley: But it’s also, I guess it’s the designer and the making it look pretty. I mean, Terraset has a pretty simple brand on purpose. One of our board members was the head of brand at Stripe. She’s very intentional about our brand. But I think it’s less about graphic design and more about storytelling or how to communicate information. I will always go back to this. The majority of my career has been in conservation and environment and climate, and I barely knew about carbon removal. I knew what it was when you think about the bathtub, but I did not know until I took this job what ERW was. And I think so much of this field is this technical and scientific jargon that is so inaccessible, and we just assume that other people are going to do their own research and figure it out. It’s just not how it works. And so if you want to bring in new buyers to the space who have never done this before, it’s incredibly intimidating to be throwing around these scientific and technical words and phrases that make no sense to anybody else. And I remember it was my first week at Terraset and somebody showed me a video of something that was on fire and was telling me it was biochar, and I remember being like, “This doesn’t feel like a climate solution. I’m not understanding.” Because they just dove right into the science instead of being like, “No, the story here is that we’re creating something that’s going to help these farmers in this specific region, and it’s going to bring these jobs.” And I think that is the stuff that people are caring about more and more. Whether that’s more of a burden on companies or not, I think that’s a whole conversation. But it is important to be able to tell those stories better.

Ross Kenyon: I think it feels unfair to a lot of people, especially if they’re not naturally loquacious, someone who likes running their mouth on a podcast on a regular basis. I think at some point in my life I realized that diplomacy counts for potentially way more than it should, and it may not actually be fair. But some of these intangible, humanities-based, feelings-based things, they do count. And I think people who come from STEM fields have a harder time making sense of why that might be, if not fair, then just woven into the fabric of reality of interpersonal human relationships in a way that they are not naturally advantaged to succeed at, and that is very frustrating. So we should try to give some positive advice here. Let’s imagine that they are maybe someone who’s very passionate about what they’re building, but they don’t feel as comfortable with social niceties, or they feel like this is their shot and they better get this sentiment out right now. Can we coach them into... Do you watch Love on the Spectrum?

Taylor Insley: Of course.

Ross Kenyon: There’s like a coach in that show. Some of this does require a little bit of coaching. Okay, you’ve gotten by on your smarts to date in your scientific and technical engineering life, and now you’re coming up on a situation where that still matters quite a lot, but it’s not everything. How do we make sure that people at Carbon Unbound approach you in a way that might actually feel restorative, relational, good to you in a way that you would want to keep a conversation going?

Taylor Insley: Yeah. I feel like such a jerk now that I’m like, “If you want to talk to me, you have to say...” That’s not what I mean. Because here’s the thing, at the same time, I’m also thinking, I would look at anyone’s deck and give them, if they genuinely wanted feedback on, as someone who does storytelling and communications, I would have no problem taking 30 minutes to look at 15 different decks of companies who don’t have comms capacity. Asking in partnership for that, I think just to answer directly your question, you walk up to me or another buyer that happens to be at Unbound, I think asking, “Hey, you work at Terraset. What’s important to you guys right now? What’s something cool that you’re working on?” And then that answer should inform or will inform how you pitch your project, and I think some of that is just human connection. And some of that is, I also think there’s just a general etiquette bit about if somebody’s talking to somebody else, letting them finish the conversation before you jump in there with a pitch and a business card.

Ross Kenyon: Has that happened to you?

Taylor Insley: Yeah, more often than you think. But I think that’s, again, I get the urgency. The climate crisis is urgent, and us being able to pay bills and support our families with our jobs by selling XYZ is urgent. But I do think there has to be a middle ground somewhere.

Ross Kenyon: I think here I have an idea of an approach that I would share with you. Let me know, would this work on you? Okay. Project developer listening, expand your horizon time-wise a little bit and say I emailed you, Taylor, and said, “Hey, I’m so and so. This is my company. This is what we’re building. We’re not really ready for a proper conversation with Terraset yet, but we want to be ready for something like that six months from now. What are some of the steps that we could take to make sure that when the next RFP or the next opportunity comes around, we are best able to take what we have now and have it ready so that this would be a fundable Terraset project?” Would you like receiving an email like that or no?

Taylor Insley: I love that. No, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard that. I already, as you’re talking, I’m in my head, “Here are the three things I would say make sure you have answers to.”

Ross Kenyon: Wow. Do you have them ready?

Taylor Insley: Yeah. One is that especially right now, and I think for at least the rest of this calendar year, we’ll be looking at what opportunities are catalytic in that, and I know that’s a buzzword and I hate using it, but it’s the only one I can use in this moment, where we are deploying X amount of capital as a pre-purchase and it is unlocking a milestone, an investment opportunity. It’s backing a loan. It is, what is the thing that it is doing more of? Because we aren’t moving tons of money. We’re moving a couple hundred thousand dollars here or there. I mean, it’s a lot of money, but we’re not making $100 million offtakes. That’s not where we’re at. So great example is, I don’t know when this podcast is going to go out, but we’re announcing next week that we’ve done a £200,000 pre-purchase that’s unlocked a £1 million loan. And that was a deal that we stitched together and then we brought in an offtaker at another $50,000. And so those types of deals are the ones where we’re finding we’re able to move the needle for these companies and move them instead of from A to B, like A to C or try to help them get further. So I think a clear example of that is helpful. I also think we’re just not in nature-based right now, and there’s not really a clear reason for that other than our diligence process just removes them. It’s something we’re exploring, but we’re not doing it right now, and I think I get a lot of pitches from nature-based where I’m just like, we’re trying to be better about saying no. We’re trying to be better about just saying... Some of the best conversations I’ve had with funders is when they’re like, “I love what you’re doing, but I’m going to tell you right now, this is not a fit.” And it’s great because then you can be like, “Awesome. It’s not a fit. I’m going to move on instead of trying to chase you for six months.” So we’re trying to be better about that.

Ross Kenyon: One line I love and I know that you’re going to love it too, you probably heard it, is that a quick no is only slightly worse than a slow yes.

Taylor Insley: Hmm.

Ross Kenyon: I like it when I get that too. I didn’t have to set annoying reminders on my email.

Taylor Insley: My board member this past week actually told us, “Believe the no, but don’t believe the why, or question the why.” And I think that’s really helpful. So believe the no. Understand that whatever their why for no, you could probably change it.

Ross Kenyon: Wow. I guess you have to believe a little bit, and it’s hard to be in business or be in fundraising and not want to keep trying if you know that there’s money to be had.

Taylor Insley: Yeah. At some point you have to give up, but that’s another ongoing issue of being a nonprofit.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, for sure. Okay, so that approach would work, and then the example that you gave of just having a normal human conversation with you, trying to relate in some way that isn’t going right for the close right away.

Taylor Insley: Yeah. But I do want to say though, I get it. I am also constantly fundraising. It is hard when I see somebody who works at a major foundation floating around at the coffee stand and I’m like, “How do I get in there and not just immediately say, ‘Hi, this is Terraset. I want you to give me money?’” But there’s a finesse to it, and I think it’s worth investing as a team or a company investing in people who know how to do that well. I do. That’s something that I feel like some of the best developer teams that I’ve met have first and foremost sound science, good projects, and then they have people who know how to finesse that depending on who they’re talking to.

Ross Kenyon: My version of this is that I get so many inbound pitches for podcasts and I say yes to like 1% of them, maybe less. And it’s only if it’s someone who almost didn’t even... They’re reminding me that someone that I wanted to speak with anyway is sort of on the market to be on shows. I’m like, “Oh, they have a book coming out? Sure, let’s do it.” But half the time I’ll get them like, I’ve done a couple episodes on wine and climate change, and I get pitches sometimes where it’s like, “We love your show. Here’s a show about why decanting is outdated and we’re changing the way that we decant.” I understand this is AI-driven and you probably send this slop to everyone.

Taylor Insley: Slop.

Ross Kenyon: They all come in the same package too. It’s like, “I loved your recent episode with...” and then looking at the episode and inserting it, “and that’s why I’m pitching you a thing that has literally nothing to do with it.” But even the ones that are closer, it’ll be a pitch that’s something like, “This is an episode with this founder who’s ready to talk about why business can be an environmentally positive thing.” I’m just like, “This is maybe the worst pitch I’ve ever heard. You know what? You know what? I’ve gotten this pitch 10 times this week, and also it was boring the first time I got it.” There’s 400 episodes of this show. Give me something. I think probably someone coming up to you, and if they understood me, whenever I’ve had successful pitches and had really fancy guests on, I’ve been able to get authors on. And the way that I’ll do it is, one, it’s easy if they have a book coming out, but also I will read literally everything they’ve ever written. And I’ll be like, “I’ve read your eight books, and this is why I think you should come on the show.” And I’ve been able to get guests who would never appear on any other climate podcast because they’re like, “I don’t work on this. I don’t care.” But I’m like, “Here is why you should choose me over everyone else, and I know you well enough and your work well enough to make a pitch that is very unique to you.” I feel like some of the customer discovery work as a developer in carbon removal is probably understanding you as a person, like what you like, and also what Terraset as an organization likes, and knowing your audience and making sure you’re pitching that thing right over the plate.

Taylor Insley: It is more the second one. It is more understanding Terraset than it is about me. It’s more understanding what we’re looking for, what we do, the role we occupy in the space. And I think that is relevant for all buyers. Every buyer is going to be looking for somewhat different things, and I think until we get whatever version of this market is truly up into scale, that’s just going to be kind of how pitching is.

Ross Kenyon: I keep going back and forth then. How important is it to be a normal human with you, and how important is it to just know what Terraset is interested in and do that?

Taylor Insley: Okay. Number one is know who you’re pitching. That is by far, who being the organization and what’s important to them. What’s important to, I keep going back to Lauren at Oliver Wyman because that’s who I was on that panel with, and we were in fierce agreement, was like, what she’s looking for is probably different than what I’m looking for, but you could probably get money from both of us if you pitched it the right way. And then the nice to have is when you’re nice, when you’re a nice human. That’s the, and you take the time to get to know us.

Ross Kenyon: Is it, okay, so if you had two developers who were equally good on being catalytic and the other things that are important to Terraset, are you deciding on who you want to be in business with and have to be on the phone with for the next couple years? Is that how you, the tie goes to the runner who is also nice?

Taylor Insley: I feel like this whole thing is making me look horrible.

Ross Kenyon: I don’t think so. I think it’s real. I think it’s good. You’re human.

Taylor Insley: Yes, I mean, the tie goes to, and I have a couple developers in mind that I’m thinking of. The tie goes to the people that I know understand what we’re trying to do. Now, there’s some buyers where you start to ask these questions where you’re like, “Okay, well, who are we actually... Is this valuable? Is this not?” If we didn’t have a relationship with the developer that we do, the one-to-one or the Adam and I and their two leads, they’ve said to us, “Are you sure you feel comfortable with this?” Which I realize is a risk for them. We could say, “You’re right. I don’t know if we feel comfortable about that.” But they’re checking in with us constantly, and they do feel like true partners, so that we’re then more willing to say, “Okay, yeah, this is what we’re going to do. This is how we’re going to build this deal. We’re willing to take an extra risk here on this thing.” And I think that’s just business. And maybe that’s the whole thing, right? Business is relationships. Business is conversations. So yeah, the tie would go to the person that we have a better relationship with, for sure.

Ross Kenyon: I don’t think that’s bad in any way. I read Tina Fey’s Bossypants like 20 years ago. She tells a story in there that when she was head writer at Saturday Night Live, they would try writers out and cast members out for little stints sometimes. And if this person was not someone that she would want to see at 3:00 in the morning, it didn’t matter how funny they were, how brilliant they were. If they were just someone who was not going to be someone she was relieved to see when they were trying to meet their deadline, nothing else mattered. And I think that’s true. It’s hard to separate that, though, where if you’re in a hiring position or in a way that you’re trying to put deals together, you don’t want to... There’s a way of operationalizing that that is biased, where you’re just choosing people who are very similar to yourself and maybe have this... Or too similar, so you’re not actually encouraging enough of the kinds of diversity that you might. So you have to make sure you’re checking yourself. But if you’re able to account for that, then I think overall the premise here is, are you relieved to see this person if you’re having a hard time solving a problem? Or are they someone that you’re scared to deal with, or unpredictable, or bad at responding and may not get back to you for two weeks? That makes this deal way harder. And surely if the soft skills part of this felt more unfair, maybe characterizing it this way is like, this is actually just how you collaborate with other people effectively. It’s not... It’s a proxy for understanding if you will be someone who is productive and helpful to interact with for a long period of time. Is that a safer way to put it? Do you agree with that?

Taylor Insley: Yes, because it feels so much more like a partnership. And I think, again, I can’t speak for every buyer, but at least for us, we are a nonprofit and we have to respond to our donors. We are looking for stories to tell them so that they give us more money so that we put it into the market. That is our whole ethos. And so when we have developers that we see as partners in our portfolio saying, “Hey, I had this cool idea about how Terraset capital could be really useful,” we’re way more likely... We’re only three people. We’re a tiny team. And I think we have found just so much more success and interest on both sides when we’re building things together instead of just pushing money out the door.

Ross Kenyon: So you want people to come up to you and just start telling you how you can do your job better, is what you’re saying?

Taylor Insley: Yes. Yes.

Ross Kenyon: But yes.

Taylor Insley: Tell me, yes, tell me how I can do my job better. Tell me where I can put my money that’s going to be way more catalytic. Truly, because the other thing that I think Adam says this to me a lot, I’m not a carbon removal expert. I’m a philanthropy expert. I’m a nonprofit expert. I’ve spent a decade doing it. But I’m not... We have a diligence process. We have experts that advise us on where we should put our money, but I am way more interested in what’s going to be a really interesting story for the sector. What’s going to bring people into this space that aren’t already in here? What’s that inroad? Is it livelihoods? Is it ocean health? Is it some specific community in Louisiana that cares about kelp? What is the thing that’s going to bring in more money to get us over that 2%, only 2% of philanthropy going into climate? To help us solve the climate crisis, or at least solve this very small portion of it. For me, it’s such a bigger vision, and I appreciate when people understand that that’s the vision that Terraset sees this through.

Ross Kenyon: The video thing is probably just going to be a don’t, probably just don’t do that.

Taylor Insley: I can’t wait to see who shows me a video at Unbound.

Ross Kenyon: I hope someone just copies this script exactly, and then you’re like, “Are you... You cheated.”

Taylor Insley: Did you see that?

Ross Kenyon: When I’m thinking about the companies that are doing offtakes or the organizations that are doing offtakes, I tend to split them by, Microsoft’s trying to get the price per ton for negating all of their historical emissions, that’s really important to them, and volume is really important. When I think about Milky Wire, I’m thinking, okay, they really want to be catalytic and make sure every dollar of theirs is the most catalytic use on the margin that it can be. And then when I’m thinking about Terraset, should I be thinking about, you are the most story-driven offtake, pre-purchase originator that exists? Is it about selling you a really great story that you can take to current and potential donors and say, “This is why you should put your money here,” rather than the 100 other people who have contacted you for philanthropic donations in the past month?

Taylor Insley: I would say yes, but that’s secondary to the catalytic piece. I think right now we’re seeing anywhere between, with the revolving fund model, we’re seeing anywhere between six and seven times leverage for every dollar that we’ve deployed. So we are looking for opportunities where our $1 to a developer turns into four, five, six, seven, $8.

Ross Kenyon: Get ready for how annoying I’m about to be. Get ready.

Taylor Insley: I can’t.

Ross Kenyon: Being that catalytic is incredibly story-driven. It’s all about storytelling, right? You’re able to say, for this dollar, you get six or seven back. That’s how effective we are. We have the best story.

Taylor Insley: True. Yes.

Ross Kenyon: So actually I’m right. Can you say that?

Taylor Insley: You’re right.

Ross Kenyon: I’ve extracted an admission.

Taylor Insley: You got that recorded and everything.

Ross Kenyon: How great. Is that true for many of your peers? Do you think they are also thinking this way, or do you think that is something that you and/or Terraset is uniquely obsessed with?

Taylor Insley: If you want to get real meta with it, it’s all storytelling, right? Corporates are doing this to tell the story that they care about climate. They could do it for a bottom line, they do it for a whole bunch of reasons, but the main reason is the story that there’s a better... that’s for climate. Am I wrong in that?

Ross Kenyon: I don’t think so. I say things like, “It’s all storytelling,” but also I’m a storyteller who wants to generate new clients. So of course, I mean, this is all storytelling when you think about it.

Taylor Insley: Everything’s a...

Ross Kenyon: Talk to a chemist, they’re like, “It’s all chemistry.” Everyone just has this all-you-got-is-a-hammer, everything-looks-like-a-nail kind of dynamic.

Taylor Insley: Yeah. I would say yes. I would say for all of us, especially right now, I was just at this corporate citizenship conference, and for them it’s about the story of how this work connects with the communities that they care about. And so much of that conference was explaining how you sell the things you care about to your leadership teams and convince them to put money to the things that you care about. And so it was such an interesting layer removed, because those are the people we’re raising money from, more on the corporate philanthropy side, some on the corporate buyer side. But they then go to them and say, “Hey, this is something we care about. Here’s your story.” And they’re like, “Okay, can you help me tell that story to the people who actually make decisions?” And before you know it, it’s just a story and a story and a story, and it’s crafting this thing all to get money back to this thing you care about.

Ross Kenyon: So it is all storytelling.

Taylor Insley: It’s all storytelling. Maybe you’re right. I’m actually so curious what Eridu would think about this.

Ross Kenyon: Eridu will be on here at some point. I am in such frequent communication with her that it’s only a matter of time. We just need to find the right thing. With people that I’m pals with and I talk with a lot, pressure is on to find the exact right thing because it can be anything.

Taylor Insley: That’s why our last call you just stopped me. You were like, “I’m just going to stop you there and we’re going to put this on.”

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. It is great advice too. It’s nice to be able to talk about this frankly because these things, I feel like we do cover quite a lot here that should be useful. If there was maybe one gem that we could share with people of, this is Taylor’s advice that can be carved into a monument of how to successfully pitch her slash Terraset slash maybe the... No, we’re not carving it. It’s already being commissioned as we speak. It’ll probably change over time, so maybe it’s not going to work.

Taylor Insley: Erosion.

Ross Kenyon: What’s the best single piece of advice? Because you are a fundraiser. You are soliciting donors for funds for your work. Bring that into here. What have you learned from operating in both of these worlds as a recipient of pitches, as a solicitor, as a giver of pitches? Connect it back to your donor world. What can you teach people about that space that’s relevant here?

Taylor Insley: We’re all human. Not to be really trite, but we’re all human. And I think remembering that, yes, I deploy capital to these things and Terraset deploys capital to these things, we are still people trying to... that have all of our own internal goals we’re trying to meet. And so meeting us where those goals are, trying to help us achieve the goals that our company or our organization are trying to meet is, that’s gold for us. Or the shorter version of that is tell me how to do my job better.

Ross Kenyon: Oh, God. You’re going to get a lot of that happening to you, and I think a lot of people are going to hear this and ask me for the thing where I’m like, “Oh, I actually probably could put in a word.” And people are going to be like, “Can you put in a word for me?”

Taylor Insley: Here’s the thing, I will say on this podcast, I will give 30 minutes of reviewing anybody’s pitch deck as a buyer if they’re interested.

Ross Kenyon: One thing that I’ve heard, and I’ve also given this advice, and I’m sure it depends on which buyer it is, but how important is the first impression? I’ve had some people who have applied for RFPs with not that good of applications, or they were able to take a meeting with a buyer, and it didn’t go super well because they weren’t prepared enough, or they weren’t far enough along, or they didn’t even understand what the buyer’s motivations were, so they poorly pitched to it, and they feel like that relationship has maybe been damaged. How important is it to make sure you only approach buyers at the right moment?

Taylor Insley: I think relationship building is more important. I think if you’re not ready for the type of money that we are deploying, still knowing who you are is something, I want to know who’s in the ecosystem and who’s doing interesting things. And if it’s not now, it’s six months from now that you need us, that’s great. I also just, I don’t think first impressions are as important as... To me, they’re not.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I’ve heard people say this, but I have not encountered it nearly as much, where I’m like, you had a bad pitch to Microsoft two years ago, and you came back and you pitched again. It might be a different person at that point. It might be totally fine. Maybe you’ve matured enough and it’s okay.

Taylor Insley: I also think there’s something about our... We’ve been trying to figure this out with our portfolio because things change so much in this space. Four months or six months changes a lot. So you applying to us in November, by May you’re a different project. You’re doing different things. And so I think we’re trying to figure out how to make it easier for us to get those updates so that we know where everybody’s at. But I don’t take first impressions that seriously.

Ross Kenyon: I’ve worked with companies before that have gone right to pitching Microsoft and Frontier. I don’t love putting it this way, but you’re in the minor leagues. You go to Milky Wire, Robert Hogan gives you the thumbs up, you get a Terraset. And once you have those stamps where you are pre-vetted, you are kind of already seen as more legitimate and more mature and ready for the bigger deals. Your shot at the majors. I don’t really... I re-watched Moneyball the other day. I’m not going to be...

Taylor Insley: It’s all...

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, but there’s a lifecycle to this thing, right? But sometimes people don’t even necessarily know that that’s kind of the historical route that is set up for you. And that to me, I’m like, “Oh, I wish you would’ve checked in a little bit earlier because then we could’ve prepared you better.”

Taylor Insley: Yeah. I’d agree with that. There’s a clear progression to how this all works, and I think trying to jump ahead, I can’t imagine that. I wouldn’t go to a funder and say, “Hi, I’m ready for $100 million fund,” when I’ve only raised 10 million.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. That seems like a big leap.

Taylor Insley: Team of three, we can do a lot. I don’t know about 100 million, although Adam might be mad at me.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, you’re just, “What do you mean? We just had someone on the hook for that.” Okay. Cool. Is there anything that I don’t know enough about philanthropy or what you do that I wouldn’t even think to ask about that is totally salient in your brain?

Taylor Insley: That’s a good question. I feel like you understand what Terraset does. I think the philanthropy piece, the one thing I really want people to come away with, and we’re talking about this on the Unbound panel so it’s a bit of a teaser, is that I think we as a sector need to be way more creative about how we’re moving money into the sector, especially right now, especially in this current political climate and this current market. Being creative and intentional as a developer about how and where money can come from, I think is going to be what carries us through this next year. And so I think philanthropy is a very untapped tool that people just don’t think about because they think about rescue charities for cats, and they don’t think this is a system-changing amount of money. And that’s one thing that I just love about it. For me, philanthropy and nonprofits is connecting large amounts of money with things that I deeply care about, and it’s not just raising money and it’s not just deploying it. It’s connecting a donor or a family office with something that’s really important to me and to the world. So yeah, I think that’s the one thing I would say is you can be really creative with philanthropy in a way that I don’t think our sector has fully embraced yet.

Ross Kenyon: Taylor, thanks for being here. I’m going to put this out, I think the Monday before Carbon Unbound so that people can get good information about what to do. Hopefully that’s enough time. It’s probably not, to get people geared up.

Taylor Insley: We’ll take a few hours.

Ross Kenyon: You’ve got to have urgency with the podcast, otherwise I’m just competing with true crime and the paranormal. But thank you for being here and thank you for giving real answers to some fairly difficult questions about how much charm and interpersonal skills matter. It was a very good show for that reason.

Taylor Insley: Awesome. Yeah, thanks for having me.

Share Reversing Climate Change

Subscribe now

The advantage of operational chops

Uzoma Ayogu and Ikenna Nzewi fall in a special and rare category of CDR founders: longtime operators whose on-the-ground experience has fundamentally shaped their approach to carbon removal.

Their company, Releaf, produces biochar from agricultural waste for carbon removal. But it took seven years of building and operating rural industrial facilities in Nigeria to get there. They’ve learned what it takes to run large-scale operations in challenging environments. They understand community relations, talent development, supply chain logistics, regulatory navigation—all the unglamorous operational details that determine whether an industrial facility actually works.

They’re not trying to prove that pyrolysis works or that biochar is real. They know it works because they’re already doing it. The question is: how do you build a scalable biomass business around it?

The road to Nigerian biochar

Ikenna and Uzoma met in university. Ikenna was studying computer science at Yale, Uzoma mechanical engineering at Duke. Turns out they’d both written their college admission essays about returning to their family’s roots in Nigeria to build something impactful. They just had to figure out how.

They started Releaf after graduation. After traveling across twenty states in Nigeria and studying different agricultural value chains, they developed patented nut-cracking technology that processed palm nuts far more effectively and cheaply than what farmers were using at the time.

But as they processed palm nuts at scale, they were left with massive piles of palm shell waste. For several years it was a problem to be disposed of rather than a business opportunity.

In 2020, Ikenna came across biochar, a process where charcoal is produced from biomass through pyrolysis. The economics worked when carbon removal credits entered the picture. “You could monetize the production of biochar in the short term with carbon credits,” said Ikenna. “Then you could create a market for biochar over the medium term to achieve more business sustainability.”

They set up Nigeria’s first industrial biochar facility in 2025. They soon secured a major CDR credit offtake with Milkywire’s Climate Transformation Fund. Getting a Milkywire deal is traditionally seen as the first major step of a carbon removal company with a lot of promise. This was a braggable milestone for Releaf.

Their traction has been impressive. And it’s undoubtedly due to their experience operationalizing novel tech in a legacy agricultural industry.

Finding a practical partner

Releaf’s next step was to find a credible and effective registry partner to validate their claims and ensure their credits were trustworthy. They needed third party verification to prove their integrity and quality in order to build a world-leading biochar brand.

“We’d spoken with a lot of people about one registry, and they were just overwhelmed,” Ikenna said. “They were taking too long.” Another registry was kicking off but seemed focused on marquee projects. “We felt they maybe wouldn’t have as much time for a smaller pilot project.”

Then Uzoma met Rainbow co-founder Grégoire Guirauden at Climate Week. “He was very energetic, very charismatic, very founder-friendly. He followed up. He was on it. They approached with speed, they were super transparent, and they were collaborative.”

The European connection mattered too. Ikenna grew up in the US, and both he and Uzoma worked for US companies. They have networks that enable engagement with US buyers easily.

But European buyers are a major part of the carbon removal market, and those networks were less developed. “Getting into programs like Milkywire, participating in CEEZER’s accelerator… those are ways we can broaden our network in Europe,” said Ikenna.

Rainbow, a French-based company with an international team, provided access they didn’t have through other channels.

But the practical collaboration sealed it.

Building from first principles

“One thing we really benefited from was having a registry we could set up WhatsApp groups with,” Uzoma said. “It makes a really big difference in the speed of communication. People aren’t writing back and forth in 300-word emails. It’s just like, ‘Hey, this is messed up.’ ‘Okay, can you explain this?’ ‘Can we jump on a call?’ Voice note. Screenshot.”

He pulled out his phone to show me. Multiple WhatsApp threads with Rainbow’s certification team. Real-time problem-solving. Quick clarifications. The kind of rapid iteration that’s impossible over formal email channels.

What impressed him most was Rainbow’s technical depth. “They’re all from technically minded backgrounds. As a mechanical engineer, I could have those conversations. But they would also say, ‘Here’s the process. Now you need to figure out how you can fit into this process from first principles.’”

First principles thinking. Not just “does this match our checklist?” but “can you prove from fundamental physical principles that this works?”

“They’d say, ‘You need to prove the flow rate of your methane. You need to prove that this many tons is going in from first principles. Prove that.’”

This wasn’t just about meeting requirements. It shaped how Releaf designed their monitoring systems.

“We had made an internal spreadsheet to show the parts of the monitoring report that are perfect and done, and the parts where things are still pending,” Uzoma recalled. “Rainbow was like, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t have to make that tool. Our product should help you do that.’ Then they showed me the next round of product updates.”

This happened before Rainbow had launched Arc, their new certification platform. It’s even simpler now for new project developers to onboard into Rainbow.

The collaboration went both ways. Uzoma talked to Rainbow’s product team frequently about features and feedback. Rainbow was open about what wasn’t working and willing to iterate.

“There was mutual interest in making sure each other was successful,” Uzoma said.

Smooth operators

What strikes me most about Uzoma and Ikenna’s approach is how grounded it is in operational reality. They’re not pitching a vision of what could be. They’re executing on what already works and figuring out how to scale it.

The diaspora story is compelling. They wrote about going back to Nigeria and actually did it. They’re now building infrastructure that could make Nigeria globally competitive in carbon removal. That matters for differentiation in a commodity market where biochar and enhanced weathering projects especially need memorable stories.

But what I find even more exciting is watching experienced biomass operators add carbon removal as a business line. These aren’t people learning industrial operations from scratch. They’ve already built and operated facilities. They know the challenges. They’ve developed relationships with communities and suppliers. They understand the regulatory environment.

When people like this move into carbon removal, it derisks everything. The first question of execution risk—can you build and run the machine?—is already largely solved. They’ve been cracking palm nuts on their own machinery for over five years, and making biochar for two.

Rainbow’s role in this story is crucial. They helped with another major question of execution risk—certification—by being fast, collaborative, and practical. WhatsApp groups instead of formal email chains. First principles thinking instead of rigid checklists. Product iteration based on user feedback. Flexibility on requirements like land titles while maintaining scientific rigor.

“We aim to remove carbon,” Ikenna said simply. That’s the north star. Everything else—which registry to work with, which business models to pursue, which partners to engage—flows from that.

If experienced industrial operators across Africa start adding carbon removal to their existing operations, it could transform the market. The infrastructure is already there. The waste biomass is already there. The community relationships are already there. All that’s needed is the pyrolyzer and someone to help navigate certification.

That’s what Ikenna and Uzoma are building. And based on what I’ve seen over the past two years, if anyone can make biochar and carbon removal happen at scale in Nigeria, it’s them.

Share

This is a summary of episode #398 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribing, rating, and reviewing Reversing Climate Change on any platform is very much appreciated and makes a huge difference for the show! You can also listen to the full show right below this paragraph.

Subscribe now

Quick Takeaways

1. The science-versus-engineering binary is a useful stereotype but a bad map of reality. In applied fields like carbon removal, most good scientists use engineering mindsets and most good engineers do science work. The real gap may be between the technical teams and the commercial side.

2. Rainbow’s certification engineers sit at the center of everything: they take the methodology that the science team writes and implement it with real projects, while staying in constant contact with the commercial team about timelines, costs, and project developer needs. They’re the bridge.

3. Erica deliberately keeps some distance from commercial pressures when writing methodologies. She doesn’t want to know that loosening a requirement would close a deal. But she does ask project developers what things cost, because feasibility has to factor in somewhere.

4. The hardest decisions are the ones where the data you need is both highly sensitive to the outcome and extremely expensive or difficult to obtain. That’s where most of the uncomfortable time gets spent, and where conservative discounts become a practical compromise.

5. There is a race-to-the-bottom dynamic in carbon markets, and every registry faces the pressure of project developers shopping around for whoever will give them the most credits with the least friction. Knowing whether you’re cutting scope for the right reasons or to avoid losing a deal is, as Erica put it, the ultimate question.

Subscribe now

Where Scientists End and Engineers Begin (and Why It Doesn’t Matter as Much as I Thought)

Earlier this year I wrote a piece for Rainbow arguing that carbon markets need field engineers, not just scientists. It was a provocation. I was making the case that too much of the CDR world treats its work as a science problem when it’s really an engineering problem: messy, iterative, bound by cost and feasibility constraints that no paper can anticipate.

Erica Dorr, Rainbow’s head of science, read it and called me out. Not publicly or harshly, but clearly. She thought I’d drawn the lines too neatly, and I wrote a follow-up piece making the case for what scientists actually do in carbon removal, which turns out to be much more applied and much less detached from reality than the caricature I’d inadvertently painted.

Today I brought both subjects of those essays onto the show: Erica representing science, and Samara Vantil, one of Rainbow’s environmental engineers on the certification team, representing engineering. The goal was synthesis.

The stereotype and what’s behind it

We started with the most basic question possible: what is science and what is engineering? Erica gave the textbook answer, which she immediately labeled a cliche. Science creates knowledge. Engineering turns knowledge into solutions. Then both of them spent the next ten minutes explaining why that’s not really how it works.

Samara described doing what she called “mini applied science” when the methodology is vague and the certification team has to figure out how to implement leakage assessments for biochar projects. Erica described using an engineering mindset every day while writing methodologies, thinking about what’s practical, what project developers can actually do, what the certification team will be able to implement. If she doesn’t think that way at step one, she creates a mess for everyone downstream.

The picture that emerged is two disciplines that are much closer than they are distant. Both grounded in technical foundations. Both doing a mix of the other’s work. Both, frankly, more comfortable with each other than with the commercial side of the house.

The real gap

This was the turn I didn’t expect. I asked whether the bigger distance might be between the technical teams and the commercial team, and Samara confirmed it immediately. She sits at the center: taking what science builds, applying it to real projects, and staying in constant contact with commercial about timelines and deliverables. She understands that sending a lab sample from Africa to Europe costs at least 600 euros. She knows when a requirement is going to break a project developer’s economics. She goes back to science and says: this won’t work, we need to change it.

But Erica described her own relationship to commercial differently. She deliberately keeps some distance. She doesn’t want to hear that loosening a requirement would close a deal. She doesn’t want that information in her head when she’s setting the bar, because once you know it, you can’t unknow it, and the temptation to accommodate becomes structural.

And yet she also asks project developers what things cost. She wants to understand feasibility. She just wants to encounter that information in the context of methodology development, not in the context of a pending sale. It’s a subtle but important distinction about where the firewall belongs.

The quadrant

Erica described her decision framework as a quadrant: how sensitive is the outcome to this requirement, and how difficult is it to obtain the necessary information? Low sensitivity, low difficulty? Require it, fine. High sensitivity, low difficulty? Obviously require it. High sensitivity, high difficulty? That’s where the real work happens. That’s where you’re making judgment calls about conservative discounts, about asking for the next-best data point, about accepting some uncertainty in exchange for actually being able to certify real projects.

Samara added the risk dimension: what are the consequences of getting it wrong? And she gave a concrete example. They conducted a leakage assessment and determined that a discount factor needed to be applied to a project. The project developer would get fewer credits. They wouldn’t be happy. But it was the right call, and the team made it anyway, knowing that the quality of the resulting credits justified the friction.

The race to the bottom question

I brought up Charm’s blog post about reducing sampling because it may have been unneeded, and it received an unimpressed reaction from a friend of mine. This is the tension that everyone in carbon markets lives with. On one side: the climate urgency, the need to move fast, the recognition that the last marginal percent of accuracy costs far more than it’s worth. On the other side: trust. Scandal. The knowledge that if everyone optimizes for speed and cost, eventually the whole system comes down.

I used my favorite uncomfortable analogy: the optimal number of travel deaths is non-zero. We could all drive at 10 miles per hour, but we’ve collectively decided the cost isn’t worth it. Carbon removal has an equivalent trade-off lurking in every requirement, every sampling protocol, every decision about what precision is enough. And the honest answer is that the line is arbitrary. It’s a judgment call. It sits on a curve where at some point the next unit of quality costs 20 units of economics, and reasonable people can disagree about where to draw it.

Erica’s response was that she wished these trade-offs could be made more transparently, with real cost data from project developers about the diminishing returns of additional sampling. In practice, she doesn’t always get great answers, because developers don’t always know their own cost structures at that level of detail. But the aspiration is a data-driven approach to the rigor-feasibility balance, rather than one driven by vibes, competition, or whoever yells loudest.

How do you know you’re doing it for the right reasons?

This was the question I ended on, and Erica called it the ultimate question. Project developers can shop their projects around. A different registry might not require that extra test. The incentive to accommodate exists for everyone, and it doesn’t go away just because you’re aware of it. How do you distinguish between “this requirement doesn’t add enough value to justify its cost” and “we’re about to lose this deal”?

I don’t think there’s a clean answer, and I don’t think anyone pretended there was one. What I appreciated about this conversation is that Samara and Erica engaged with the discomfort of it directly. They described making calls that cost projects money and knowing it was right. They described the daily struggle of placing requirements somewhere other than at the maximum possible rigor. They acknowledged that the balance is a moving target, and that the commercial pressures exist whether or not you choose to listen to them.

These are the questions that everyone in carbon markets faces. The fact that Rainbow let its science lead and its certification engineer talk about them on a podcast, openly, without spin, is exactly the kind of institutional behavior I want to see more of.

Share

Subscribe now

Full Transcript

Ross Kenyon: Samara and Erica, thank you so much for being here.

Erica Dorr: Yeah, thanks for having us.

Samara Vantil: Thanks for having us. Always a pleasure to talk to you.

Ross Kenyon: Yes, thanks. We had a lot of fun working on these articles. Started off working on one about putting scientists back in their place and just cutting them down to size. And then getting hit back by the science team here and trying to find appropriate balance. These are like the most basic questions of all, but perhaps the most difficult. What is science and what is engineering and what actually is the difference between these two disciplines?

Erica Dorr: Oh man. I would say the most high-level difference that maybe is a cliche is science is the pursuit of knowledge or creating knowledge. And engineering is all about taking that knowledge and turning it into solutions or making real-world physical change, like creating things and building things with it. That’s the most high-level definition I think of. What do you think, Samara?

Samara Vantil: I totally agree with exactly what Erica mentioned. Usually science is the one that is building all the knowledge foundations and the engineers are the ones that take this foundation and apply it into real-world case scenarios to solve problems, basically.

Ross Kenyon: Okay. I think, what’s the word that you used for this, Erica? You said all models are lies, but some are useful. And maybe this way of understanding the difference between science and engineering is a case of this. Why isn’t this the whole story, or why is that a useful starting point but maybe not where you should conclude?

Erica Dorr: Well, it’s a stereotype and a cliche, and stereotypes are useful as a shortcut or a fast forward to understanding the big picture. They’re like a shorthand for us, but of course there’s more nuance to that. I think science and engineering, it’s not so much about a role or an inherent characteristic of one person. They’re approaches, really. And most people, most good scientists or good engineers, exhibit characteristics of the opposite one. There’s probably very few of us who are 100% pure science or pure engineering. There’s a lot of crossover, especially in rather applied or solutions-oriented fields like CDR.

Ross Kenyon: Samara, do you feel like you oftentimes end up doing science even though you’re an engineer?

Samara Vantil: Well, I was actually thinking about this when we got the invitation for the podcast. Sometimes when we encounter some very vague definitions in the methodologies, for instance, and that leaves a space for the certification team to define what should be done by the project, is when we actually need to do some sort of research. Very much a mini applied science. And one example that I could give about that is that now we’re having very long discussions about how we should implement leakage assessment in all our biochar projects. The leakage assessment is so broad, and it should be because it can vary depending on where the project is located, what they’re doing, and so on. And on the operational side, we need to provide guidance to the developers on how to do that assessment well. And because of that, we also need to do the assessment to provide guidelines and guidance. So it’s something that we really apply science when analyzing those leakage assessments. And one thing that I found particularly interesting about this science application is that we had very long discussions with the science team about how we should conduct it. So it was a super nice way of sharing how we could apply the scientific knowledge to the certification of those projects.

Ross Kenyon: Erica, do you end up doing some engineering or not really?

Erica Dorr: I mean, doing engineering, what does that mean? I think I use an engineering mindset or approach sometimes. No, more than sometimes. Quite often. I think that’s one of the unique things we try to make sure we do at Rainbow, is that when we, on the science side, on the science team, a lot of the day-to-day work means working on our methodologies, making methodologies, revising them, creating requirements. And I think I use this engineering mindset or solutions-oriented, practical, moving-things-forward mindset. Finding the balance in where to set our requirements. It’s a long process from tackling a new technology, learning about it, writing the methodology, making decisions, setting requirements, and then starting to work with Samara and the certification team full of engineers to implement it and get the methodology live, set up questions for project developers to respond to. And if I, on the science side at step one creating these requirements, am not thinking in a little bit of the engineering mindset, and I’m not thinking about how to make this practical, or what’s this going to look like, how are the project developers going to use it, how is the certification team going to use it, even is this going to be feasible, then I will probably end up making a mess for Samara and the certification team and the engineers. You have to have those constraints and concerns in mind and balance those with the scientific needs when making the methodologies. Even though that’s usually put in the role of the science team and science work.

Ross Kenyon: Why do we have this idea that scientists don’t really care about real-world application and they’re detached from operationalizing anything? I feel like I work with a lot of scientists. Granted, it’s mostly in carbon removal, and the kinds of jobs that are available and the kinds of people that it attracts are probably not the purely theoretical scientists, but people who actually want to have some more immediate impact in the world rather than waiting for the downstream effects of the article that you write that gets cited a thousand times and leads to a new fusion reactor or something. But that isn’t everyone, and certainly not everyone in science. So why do we just have this idea in our head that there’s one way to be a scientist and it basically maps to nothing in carbon removal? And also, I’m very open to the fact that I am projecting out from my own experience and false understanding of what it means to be a scientist as a non-scientist, and that I’m creating the myth that I’m trying to debunk at the same time.

Erica Dorr: Yeah, I think it comes from the caricature that we have of scientists or just the common image that we have of scientists in society. Scientists in TV shows are always the stereotypical person in a lab coat, detached.

Ross Kenyon: I thought of this, this is like the worst example possible, but it’s Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein.

Erica Dorr: Oh gosh.

Ross Kenyon: Is that who you want to be? I could have chosen Einstein or someone. Thank you. Yeah, Frankenstein. Sorry. But yeah, continue.

Erica Dorr: Yeah. No, I think it’s just from the scientist side. I would argue that the imprecise stereotype is also true on the other side. You say engineer, and I think someone who drives a train. Okay, that’s what you think when you’re a child, but you grow up and then you think, oh yeah, engineers are the ones designing bridges.

Ross Kenyon: That trains go over. Yes, that’s true.

Samara Vantil: To my family I’m a calculator.

Ross Kenyon: Calculator. Okay. Please continue though, Erica.

Erica Dorr: Yeah. I think these stereotypes just come from people who are not familiar with the field needing to make a simple mental model of what does a scientist look like, what does an engineer look like, what do they do? I would argue that most people who are scientists, which if we’re defining that as people who have PhDs, which is a decent shorthand for how we could define a scientist, most people who have PhDs are not actively working in academia. I don’t know how many of the scientists out there meet this stereotypical image of people in theoretical, fundamental research trying to understand knowledge that’s really upstream from a solution, in the long chain of research from making a first discovery, getting an idea, testing it all the way down to a solution. We probably think of scientists as only being the ones who are really far upstream in that chain of events, and that is reserved for something I would call more the fundamental scientists. And there’s a huge category of applied scientists, and then the spectrum gets a little blurry from there as science merges with engineering and it gets deployed.

Ross Kenyon: What do you think, Miss Calculator? You agree with that? And what are you working with as an engineer too? I imagine you have your own stereotypes. People probably think you’re a boring nerd. And a different kind of boring nerd too.

Samara Vantil: Yeah.

Ross Kenyon: You’re not. But they probably think that.

Samara Vantil: No, yeah, exactly. I think that people see engineers as a highly logical person, a very detail-oriented person with great math skills, but often not really good at creative skills or at interpersonal skills. Maybe someone who can build a bridge, that can repair anything, but would struggle to maybe communicate. I think that this is the biggest stereotype that we could see. But in reality, engineers are so diverse and can work with teams, clients, managing projects, which is what we do at Rainbow in the operations team, and use our creativity as much as we could use our logic to communicate with people in a way that actually makes things easier and allows us to implement the knowledge we have to solve real problems.

Ross Kenyon: I imagine a fair amount of innovation comes out of engineering as well. Taking an idea that is a bit more abstract and then trying to build it in the real world. I don’t know how you could possibly measure the amount of innovation that takes place at which layer, but I imagine a huge amount gets learned just from trying to operationalize literally anything. Engineering must be driving a lot of the learning as much as the science too.

Samara Vantil: Yeah, exactly. It could be a huge innovation, but it could also make all the difference in a very, very small thing. A very detailed thing is knowing when to ask the right question, having a very good picture of the overall processes but also understanding each and every piece of a flow in detail. And asking the right question to make things work.

Erica Dorr: And I would add maybe that definitely engineers through their iteration and on-the-ground experience come to new innovations and solutions. But maybe the science role would be the only one, I hesitate to say only because we’re going to think of exceptions, but probably the only one that would come up with new, deeper understanding of why those innovations work, maybe. And so the engineers will try things, figure out what works, what doesn’t, but maybe not discover the underlying mechanisms of what is making this work or not.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I was thinking that maybe one incorrect but useful model to understand the difference here is Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where he talks about the difference between people who make paradigm-reorienting kinds of discoveries, something like Newtonian physics going into relativity. It doesn’t happen that often, but when you do it totally reorganizes the systems of knowledge that exist. But most science also takes place at what he calls normal science, which is just the small stepwise improvements of what we know within that paradigm. And if you wanted to apply it to science versus engineering, you would say something like science is working at the paradigm-defining level, and engineering is normal science. That’s too fine a point to put on it though, because they are informing each other and plenty of science takes place much below that. Erica, have you redefined the system of world knowledge that exists in your scientific work? My guess is you probably did more work on the normal science level, because there’s not that many people who reinvent the world.

Erica Dorr: I wish I made a paradigm-shifting discovery. No way. No.

Ross Kenyon: There’d be no Nobel probably if you did.

Erica Dorr: No, I made a little inch or centimeter forward in my field of study.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, which is totally important work. It’s hard to even say that without it sounding pejorative. A little bit inherently hierarchical where you’re like, well, there’s paradigm science and then there’s normal science, and something about that just sounds a little inherently insulting. I don’t mean it that way. The world is built of marginal improvements. That is often what is making our world work. Has your world been improved that much by general and special relativity being discovered? My guess is maybe in some ways. Maybe cool, quantum computing is now a thing. Our nature of time, maybe the movie Contact makes a little bit more sense. But besides that, I think a lot of the smaller incremental changes, eking out an extra 4% efficiency on a motherboard, those kinds of changes are really driving a lot of world innovation. Disagree if you want.

Erica Dorr: No, that’s totally true. And I think a lot of scientists are probably happy with their small contribution to incremental change because small contributions are modest and safe. And we would be kind of skeptical or critical of big changes. I mean, as they happen in real time, it’s pretty rare that you’re witnessing such a paradigm change, but as they happen, the scientists will be like the last ones to accept it maybe, because we want to be so critical and hesitant of such changes. So no, I’m cool with it. Can I speak for scientists when I say we’re cool with incremental small change?

Ross Kenyon: You may speak for the entire class of people. I did a show, gosh, it’s been more than a year ago, on philosophy of science and we read that book and then we read a Feyerabend book about anarchistic epistemology in science. And scientists do resist changes in paradigm, actually quite vociferously. They do not want them because they’ve built their whole lives oftentimes working within a paradigm that if you upend it, it’s like, cool, that knowledge is now irrelevant and outmoded. One of the examples that I remember so strongly is that the Ptolemaic system of how the solar system operates allowed people to make fairly accurate predictions of planetary movements except for when things would go into retrograde for a small period of time. But with that one exception, it still worked pretty well. So obviously geocentrism is still true. There’s a couple things that are weird with the retrograde cycling, but besides that it’s fine. And it took a long time for that to actually change. So it’s funny to think of scientists as people who are guided purely by the pursuit of knowledge who also face their own egoic personal resistance to change. It doesn’t even work like that. Scientists are also bought into a mental map of the world that when you challenge it, they react probably as strongly as anyone else when you challenge their model of the world.

Erica Dorr: Yeah. And if you’re an expert in that domain and it’s challenged, then it’s fair. You’re probably one of the people who are best positioned to challenge such paradigm shifts, and we need people to hold their ground and challenge such large changes. But it probably makes it even more difficult to come around to the changes and accept them when you have such deep knowledge in the other way or the conventional way.

Ross Kenyon: I’m trying to think if something like this even happens in engineering to the same extent. One example I can think of is maybe how concrete changed architecture. That seems like more of an engineering kind of example where you’re like, cool, we can do rounded shapes now. It doesn’t have to be rectilinear everything. And there were people who resisted that and fought back. You think back to something like John Ruskin and the Arts and Crafts movement being like, no on concrete, we like natural materials. We’re not going to do it this way. But are there examples of big paradigm-challenging, people-resistant-to-change ideas within engineering that I just don’t have the expertise to know about?

Samara Vantil: Well, I don’t think I can say something straightforward like that, but I’d say that engineers are usually so focused on the logic of things and the math of how things work that they’re kind of hard to make them change their ideas, I’d say. Because it’s a more objective way of seeing things in general, like the stereotype of an engineer. But at the end of the day, as you mentioned, like changing the shape of buildings, it’s like, okay, that’s the problem. We need to solve that problem. How will we solve it? At the end of the day it ends like that. I’d say engineering is less of how science would work, because things are more fixed. We can work with improvements. Yeah, there is a new material, how are we going to use that, how are we implementing it? But then it’s more, as we say in French, like it’s more in a box.

Ross Kenyon: I think of the personality types or professions that I mix with the least successfully, I think engineering is the most. Everything I just said, I think there are many engineers that would be like, who gives a crap about everything you just said? Force equals mass times acceleration. I need to calculate whether this pillar in a bridge can support the weight distributed over the top of it. Why are you talking about epistemology? What does this have to do with me? Is that a stereotype? Is that even a true thing? Are engineers wanting to hang out on that freaky theoretical level?

Samara Vantil: I think it can be both, but it would be more like a stereotype, I think. Because we, as I said, engineers have such a variety of backgrounds and personalities. We could use our creativity to change things as well. Like, why are we going to make a square shape foundation where we can make it circular?

Ross Kenyon: Okay. I’m going to summarize a little bit. Much of what you’re saying sounds like your training and your professions are closer than they are distant, and many of these skills overlap and much of the training does, and they’re often quite complementary. Is there a bigger distance between engineering and science than between commercial? I feel like maybe the gap is more on that side and you two are maybe two peas in a pod. And I’ve certainly been in cases where I’ve seen product teams, science teams come up with a way of doing things that were very logical and would likely work, but also commercial is like, who wants this thing? This is engineered for a customer which does not exist. Why have we done it this way? This hurts the unit cost. You added this much precision to it, but it also raises the cost of verifying this by some amount that hurts the margin. This does not hit the targets correctly. I’ve seen conflict on that direction too. Is the gap there maybe bigger than it is between each of your two professions?

Samara Vantil: I would say that this gap might be bigger between science and commercial than between operations and commercial.

Ross Kenyon: Oh, okay. Tell me.

Samara Vantil: I’d say that we, working in the operations team, we are at the center of everything that happens at the company, at Rainbow. So we take everything that science made and we apply it, but we are also in constant touch with the commercial team to deliver the credits, to deliver the projects, and in constant contact with them to understand their needs. Like if there is an offtake agreement and then we need to go faster within a given project, and so on. And because of that, and because we deal a lot with project developers, we understand their challenges. And when, for instance, it is way better to have as many laboratory tests for a given biochar production batch as we can to improve the certainty of it. But at the end of the day, it increases costs for the developer and I know that. So then if science defines a given requirement to provide a certain amount of samples, of lab samples, we would know that this wouldn’t work. Because it would be more expensive on the project developer side. So then we would go back to science and say, hey, this will not work because it costs like at least 600 euros to send a sample from Africa to Europe, to a lab. So then we need to go back. We need to change this. So I think that we have more of this commercial mindset as well. Erica, what do you think?

Ross Kenyon: Wait, I want the counterattack here, Erica.

Erica Dorr: Oh, Samara and I are usually aligned, unfortunately for you. But yeah. I think Samara changed my mind. I was going to say that no, of course, we’re so aligned. We’re much closer between science and engineering than with commercial. That’s why we’re all lumped together in STEM. Which is a huge and useful category. We clearly share some deep foundations there, which is just technical topics, I guess. So yeah, we definitely in our discipline and approach come from roots that are more similar. But then maybe you throw us into the real world and we start to diverge a bit. And our engineers who are more close to the field, close to the real-world solutions, are more sympathetic to the same concerns that the commercial team would have. And on the science side, from my perspective of methodology development, on the one hand I kind of try to keep a bit of distance from commercial. I don’t want to be too influenced by them. I don’t want to hear them talking about, ooh, we could sign this project if only we loosen this requirement. I don’t want to know that, and we don’t have those conversations. So in the operation of a standard, science definitely is a bit more distant from commercial. And maybe engineering, operations, Samara, is our go-between. When we really need to get down to figuring out, is this requirement really not usable, for example. I mean, we try to investigate that upfront when we are developing a methodology. We have lots of interviews with project developers asking them what kind of requirements sound feasible or not. But we maybe can’t anticipate everything. We discover a lot of things through iterations, through project certification as Samara works on. So we yeah, definitely interface then with operations and engineers to get a better idea of what is feasible or what is maybe desirable, rather than getting that information from commercial.

Ross Kenyon: Samara, is that pretty much how you see it? Are you a little bit of a bridge while trying to protect science’s separation?

Samara Vantil: I think we are really in between. We are literally the bridge that bridges this entire gap. But it’s not because we have a shorter gap with the commercial side that we leave the science behind, if you know what I mean. We are always trying to keep this balance between keeping the scientific rigor while being agile in whatever we do.

Ross Kenyon: Seems like a good balance. And commercial has its own stereotype here too, and I’ve seen it be both true and false. The stereotype of commercial that’s true is having a very aggressive salesperson who will get off a call and then go into leadership or the product team and be like, hey, I just got off a call, I told them that we could do this feature or make this kind of credit, when can we do that? And the engineering science product team is like, yeah, that’s not what we do. Also, that violates several things that we just do not do. And why did you tell this person that you were going to do it? And they say, well, I could make the sale in the room, I was going to get us to the next thing. And you’re way far out ahead of your skis on either scientific and/or ethical grounds. I’ve seen that be true, by the way. That is not just a stereotype. And I guess that’s the thing about stereotypes is sometimes there’s enough truth in there where they can be useful models. But some of the best salespeople I’ve seen have also been extremely talented listeners, very patient, very good at understanding people, making sure they get what they want. It isn’t just smile and dial and you’re trying to force a product down their throat that they don’t want, or lying or just trying to get something done even though it doesn’t make any sense.

Erica Dorr: And I think we could also maybe flip it the other way around of how would commercial leverage us to make decisions. For example, sometimes we’re talking about kind of strategy decisions. Where should we go? What’s the market like, what do we see? We get the privilege of talking to lots of different people in the market. So we have these discussions sometimes, kind of big picture, where to go. And the science in me, the scientist in me says, well, why are we just talking about it? Let’s go run some surveys, let’s get some data, let’s make a data-driven decision. Which is not necessarily how commercial or strategy works. So there’s probably friction going in both ways.

Samara Vantil: Yeah, no, I was just going to complement that. Usually the commercial side, they want things very much fast. Like hey, we just have this project within this given methodology, when is it going to be ready? Erica, please let us know, we need it for yesterday. And yeah, that’s tough to balance sometimes.

Ross Kenyon: Without a doubt it is. I think the example especially that you gave, Erica, is how it should work at a well-functioning team. Because all of these ways of seeing the world and interacting with it have their things that they’re superpowered at and their blind spots. And you need to have some amount of teamwork here to balance between the best and the worst parts of your professional abilities. And I think when teams are good at that, like for instance, I work primarily on the commercial side: commercial strategy, storytelling, product marketing and marketing. The bad version of marketing is the smart people of the company build something and then the marketers figure out how to tell it to people. That’s literally the worst way to use a marketer. That’s the lowest-level way to use a marketer. One of the better ways to use a marketer is to have them at the product level, embedded, and figure out what are features that we could create or strategic changes we could make to the company that would make what we’re doing much more marketable, much more attractive naturally for organic storytelling, that would make the product more saleable and that would improve our margins on the product. That being said, I can even think of a counter example of this where there was a blog post from Charm that came out a few months ago. Peter Reinhardt’s thing is often like, the best way to improve is to cut scope and to cut the amount of things that you’re doing. They’re always trying to simplify at Charm. That’s a big thing that he’s been on the thought leadership rounds for a long time on. I think it’s really smart advice because people tend to put a hat on a hat, as the expression goes, and keep adding stuff and it doesn’t necessarily help as much as cutting can. I was talking to someone else who works in this space and they were like, I hated this blog post. All they said is that they’re going to sample less. Why is that cool cutting of scope? What if we needed that? Why is it just a race to the bottom? And so who’s right? The person that’s worried that this is a race to the bottom, or the fact that we need to operationalize lower-cost ways of getting to a similar amount of quality? And I’m sure that there are good reasons for Charm to think this extra sample doesn’t help as much as it costs and therefore there are good reasons to cut. But also you have to know on a macro level, there is a really strong race to the bottom dynamic within carbon markets and carbon crediting that we are all at risk of. Cutting good science and good quality because it makes the commercial case better. And by doing that, you’re creating a very large risk at some point that there’s a bank run and things collapse because everyone has done this to such an extent that eventually the whole house of cards comes down. And how do you know which of those it is? Holy crap. How are you going to answer that? I don’t even know if there’s a question in there. There’s like 16 observations, so good luck to each of you.

Erica Dorr: Oh man. Small observation. I hope that they made such a decision with a data-driven approach looking at—

Ross Kenyon: I have no reason to think that they didn’t, by the way.

Erica Dorr: Like looking at the diminishing returns of each sample. I mean, that’s a valid conversation that I wish we could be more open about. When for me, setting requirements, writing a methodology, I often ask project developers as we’re developing the requirements, how much does this sample cost? What is your break-even, what margin do you really have?

Ross Kenyon: Is that really your job though, Erica? Is that really your place to do that?

Erica Dorr: Well, I’m not going to lie, I don’t always get great answers, and so I don’t always rigorously account for that in the methodology. But that’s what I’m saying. I wish that’s something that we could take an honest look at and be more transparent about. It’s difficult because it gets into the project developer’s operational data, their business plan, cost structure. Maybe they don’t even know at that point what is the cost of all their sampling. But that would be the ideal way, in my opinion, to balance on the one side what the scientific evidence and underlying knowledge of the topic says we need, which usually is a very, very high bar. And oftentimes we can implement that in projects, in MRV. But sometimes we really struggle with that. For example, enhanced rock weathering, where we’re having a tough time figuring out what exactly is going to work, what’s going to be commercially viable, how much can we ask for when you’re looking at massive deployments across thousands of hectares. How many samples do you need? We always talk about it’s a balance of the scientific rigor and the operational feasibility. And I wish that when talking about operational feasibility, we could have a more data-driven approach to these diminishing returns on, for example, taking more samples. Cost-benefit of reducing uncertainty versus how much it costs to get those extra samples.

Samara Vantil: Yeah. But analyzing the uncertainty is also something that you do when developing the methodology. So it’s something that you kind of already know a little bit beforehand, how this will impact and how we can give up on a certain given precise data point based on the returns that it will provide us based on this uncertainty. So I think this is actually very useful, something that science does that’s very useful on the operational side as well. And when we certify our first projects, for instance, is also when we can refine the type of information that they can provide us. If we can ask for more, if we should ask for less because it doesn’t really make much difference at the end of the day.

Ross Kenyon: Yes. I cited more on Charm’s side after having that happen. I thought it was a really courageous thing to say, because one of the things I think we’re all sick of hearing in carbon removal is how important quality is. And everyone’s saying it all the time. You’re like, table stakes. Yeah, and okay, fine. But not to keep referencing podcasts that I’ve made in the past. Everyone should go listen to every podcast I’ve ever done, so I never have to say this ever again. But there’s a show I did last year about how an economist friend, like a decade ago, told me that the optimal number of travel deaths is non-zero. We could all drive cars that go 10 miles an hour, but we’ve all collectively decided that that is just not worth it. We’re willing to accept some amount of risk to get where we’re going much more quickly. And carbon removal has a hard time grappling with this because what actually is the correct line? There’s no non-arbitrary line. It’s going to be mapped on a curve somewhere of, this amount of risk, this amount of trust in this credit is worth this price. And you can keep adding, you can go to one mile an hour if you want, and basically nothing bad is ever going to happen. But is it worth the price that you pay for it? And I think with quality, people forget how much quality costs, and at some point the curve starts pointing much more vertically and you’re like, cool, for an extra unit of quality it costs you 20 units of economics, as opposed to getting you to the 80/20 in the first place. Might be good enough, or might do a lot of the work.

Erica Dorr: And sometimes it’s probably where it’s just taking a cut. If you’re talking about the last percent of accuracy, if it results in underestimating credits by taking a conservative cut, I would say probably a lot of project developers would rather take that route. And I would feel okay with it to a certain extent, as long as we’re not over-issuing credits. Maybe a bit of an engineering take on it.

Ross Kenyon: Precisely. I’m leaving space to hear more of that too. Yeah, tell me.

Samara Vantil: Yeah, I totally agree. Sometimes, and it actually happens, not quite often, but sometimes if the developer doesn’t have a precise data point that we really need and we need to take a decision, it’s either okay, either you get certified using a very conservative assumption, or you don’t get certified at all. We will probably go for the first option, where we define what is the best assumption to take, analyze the uncertainties of it, apply a discount factor for instance, and probably underestimate the amount of credits that they will get at the end of the day. So it will cost them money anyway, but it will probably cost less.

Erica Dorr: Yeah. It’s hard because in carbon removal and in carbon markets, I feel like we’re balancing two extreme and really valuable constraints. On the one hand, the climate urgency and the fact that we all really want to get things going and figure this out and start tackling these existential issues. But on the other side, we’re constrained by trust and scandal issues in carbon markets. And it’s hard to thread the needle. I don’t know if you could call it threading the needle when it’s two such far-away extremes. But how to balance both of those existential threats to carbon removal. If we go too far on the move fast and take conservative discounts and just make it work, then we risk shooting ourselves in the foot and at least risk weakening carbon markets as such a promising way to finance and grow carbon removal. Which nobody wants that. So it’s really hard to balance between those two constraints.

Ross Kenyon: That’s what I was going to ask about. How do you know you’re doing this for the right reasons? Because there’s also competitive pressures where project developers might shop their projects around and be like, who’s going to give me the most credits? Who’s going to be the easiest to work with? And that doesn’t necessarily always lead to higher quality. There’s a tendency to be like, oh, well this expensive kind of annoying process, a different registry is not making them do. So they’re going to go over there. And that is an incentive that one doesn’t have to respond to, but someone might, given enough time, given enough registries. Someone might offer them the exact kind of package that they’re looking for. And how do you make sure you’re doing it for a reason of, oh, this last marginal test we’re asking for only improves accuracy a very small amount, and it costs way too much and therefore isn’t worth it? And how do you know you’re not doing it because, oh, we’re going to lose this deal if we don’t do something that’s going to harm quality or increase uncertainty by a lot?

Erica Dorr: That’s a hard question. That’s like the ultimate question. Decisions on requirements. Where do we want to place our level of rigor? Again, we talk so much about rigor in carbon markets, quality. If we were being the most rigorous, then nothing would ever happen. So we all take into account reality in most of these requirements and are not 100% the most rigorous. So it’s a daily struggle deciding where to place it. It’s informed by, for example, what is the sensitivity of the outcome to this decision. Which is just a way of saying how important is it. Some things, if we’re adding this requirement, it would make a very small marginal change, then it probably could be excluded. We then weigh that with how difficult is it to meet this requirement or provide this extra data point or provide this proof. And I often see it as a quadrant of how important the thing is, how sensitive is the outcome to it, and also how difficult is it to obtain more information. So if it’s low sensitivity but low difficulty, easy to get, then we’ll say yeah, sure, okay, we can require that or we can recommend it, but it doesn’t really matter too much either way. The worst case scenario is the things that are really sensitive, really important, but also really hard to get. And that’s where we spend most of the uncomfortable time making the tough decisions, where we probably just go talk to more people and get more information and continue working through it.

Samara Vantil: Yeah, to what Erica mentioned, I would also add, what are the risks of the choice that we are making as well. And one thing that I really like about how we do things is that we are not really, of course sales team please don’t hear me saying that, but we are not really concerned about saying, oh, this project is not really eligible anymore, if we keep the highest bar that we can. One example that I could give is, coming back to the leakage again. We made this leakage assessment where we decided, based on the research that we made, that a discount factor should be applied to that project. So then they would have less credits. They would not be happy. And then we were like, okay, are we actually going to do this? But we know it’s the right thing to do. We know it’s what the methodology says. We know that this will increase by a lot the quality of the credits. So okay, let’s do this. Even if we knew that the project would not be happy, it was also good for them because their credits would meet a higher bar.

Ross Kenyon: Samara and Erica, thanks so much for being on. Really respect how transparent you are about showing your work and your thinking around these. These are questions that everyone in the space faces. These are tensions that exist in basically every company. And all of these personality types and professions probably also exist at all these companies. So I’m hoping this is a fairly universal show and people can catch glimpses of themselves and their own companies in doing this. But I respect that you were able to engage with some of these ideas so openly, because they are, what did you say, Erica? The ultimate question? Yeah. They’re right to the fundament. That is the work, I guess.

Erica Dorr: Yeah. Thank you so much for having us. Super interesting stuff.

Samara Vantil: Thank you so much, Ross. Very nice.

This is a summary of episode 398 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you listen to your shows, as well as the full episode right below this paragraph.

Subscribe now

Quick Takeaways

• There are roughly 200 corporates that have ever bought carbon removal. There are about 35,000 companies buying carbon credits more broadly, and about 3 million individuals. Carbon removal has been fighting over a tiny slice of the market while ignoring the rest.

• Article 6.2 and 6.4 are quietly channeling tens of millions of tonnes of carbon credit demand per year. The broader carbon market is growing. Carbon removal, in real revenue terms, is not.

• Some clean cooking credits now carry AA ratings. Some biochar credits carry BB ratings. The distinction between durable CDR and the rest of the VCM is not inherently one of quality. It may be one of use case, but the quality gap the CDR sector assumed was there has narrowed.

• Octavia Carbon grew its contracted sales 2.6x year over year in 2025, and some of its newest customers are VCM-native players like Atmosphere (a German registry) and Climate Impact Partners, buying their first DAC credits. The bridge between these worlds is already being built.

• Martin’s core argument: instead of telling buyers to replace their portfolios with carbon removal, offer to enrich them. The Oxford Offsetting Principles have laid out a portfolio transition framework for years. CDR just hasn’t been comfortable having that conversation.

Carbon Removal’s Family Reunion

Martin Freimüller has been listening to this show since 2020. He credits it with pulling him into carbon removal. It always gobsmacks me whenever someone informs me of the Reversing Climate Change podcast being a part of their journey into CDR. He went on to co-found Octavia Carbon, a direct air capture company operating in Kenya. He’s also someone who thought I’d been getting a little too pessimistic lately and wanted to tell me why.

His argument wasn’t that things are fine. They’re not. His argument was that carbon removal has been looking for growth in the wrong place.

Bad startups blame their customers

Martin opened with something that’s been nagging at him. Carbon removal people like to complain that there aren’t enough buyers. But there are about 35,000 corporates buying carbon credits and roughly 3 million individuals doing the same. The buyers are there. They’re just not buying from us, and we haven’t made it easy for them to start.

Part of the reason is price. Carbon removal credits cost an order of magnitude (or two!) more than most VCM credits. But the bigger issue, Martin thinks, is positioning. We’ve spent the last several years defining ourselves against the broader voluntary carbon market, calling them legacy players, highlighting their scandals, insisting that our credits are the only ones worth buying. That messaging made sense when CDR was trying to carve out a category. It makes less sense now that the category exists and is struggling to grow.

“Bad startups blame their customers” is how Martin put it. And he included himself in the indictment. He was on stage a year ago telling investors about DAC’s explosive growth. Now he’s calling clean cooking founders and asking who their buyers are.

The market that’s actually growing

Here’s the number that reframed things for me. Article 6.2 and 6.4 deals, which Martin had been skeptical about for years, are now channeling something like 60 million tons of carbon credit demand annually by Martin’s calculations. In Q1 of this year alone, a wave of compliance-eligible credits came online that he hadn’t even seen discussed in CDR circles. The first Article 6.4 credits were issued for clean cooking, sold from Myanmar to South Korea. Prices in these subsectors are running in the $20-30 per ton range, which is well out of “junk” credit territory.

Meanwhile, the forward-contracted CDR revenue that our industry loves to cite doesn’t buy your dinner, as Martin put it. Those credits have to get delivered. And the question of how much of the contracted carbon removal will actually be delivered is one that should make all of us uncomfortable. Is it going to be 100%? 50%? 10%?

The broader VCM is growing in real, revenue-recognized terms. Carbon removal’s share of the total market is maybe 10-20%. And the market we keep calling tiny is the one that’s expanding while we’re not.

The prodigal son

I used a metaphor in the intro that I think captures what Martin is proposing. Carbon removal is the prodigal son. We left home, spent our inheritance on venture capital pitch decks about how different we were, and now we’re realizing that the family we scorned has been building infrastructure we’re going to need.

Martin and I both went through this arc independently. I talked about my experience at Nori, where our professional forebears at older carbon registries were “legacy players,” a pejorative framing. The longer I did that work, the more sympathy I had for them. The same structural constraints that shaped their decisions shaped ours. We weren’t ethically better. In some respects, we performed worse.

Martin described the same realization from the project developer side. Delivering high-quality credits is hard. That’s something well-intentioned people in the VCM figured out a long time ago. CDR is just arriving at the same conclusion, and the gap between our ambitions and our delivery track record should give us some humility.

We also connected CDR’s status to a (potentially over-adorned) childhood development metaphor. CDR defined itself by saying “no” to everything that came before, the way a toddler or a teenager does. Maybe we’re reaching the stage where you realize your parents were flawed people doing their best, and it’s time to make peace before it’s too late.

What integration actually looks like

Martin isn’t proposing that CDR lower its standards. He’s proposing that it stop treating the rest of the carbon market as an enemy and start treating it as a distribution channel.

The practical version of this is the portfolio approach. The Oxford Offsetting Principles have been saying this for years: buyers don’t need to switch overnight from $25/ton credits to $250/ton credits. They need to start mixing carbon removal into their portfolios and transition over time, ramping up their internal carbon price along the way. That’s not a new insight, but Martin’s point is that we haven’t been comfortable having that conversation because it requires us to say nice things about the credits that sit alongside ours in the portfolio.

Some of Octavia’s newest customers are exactly the VCM-native players that CDR has historically ignored. Atmosphere, a German registry, bought their first DAC credits from Octavia. Climate Impact Partners did the same. These organizations work across the full spectrum of credit types. They came to carbon removal not because someone told them their existing portfolio was garbage, but because they were ready to diversify.

We also raised the venture capital angle, where VC incentives push founders toward “everything else is trash, we’re building an entirely new category” framing. That’s what gets funded. But it’s also what isolates you from the 35,000 corporates who are already spending money on carbon credits and might be receptive if you showed up as a complement rather than a rebuke.

Confidence, not insecurity

I asked Martin whether being this ecumenical made it harder to lead. Whether employees or investors wanted him to be the believer-in-chief who thinks DAC is the only thing that matters. His answer was good: if you walk into a pitch and spend all your time trashing competitors, that doesn’t signal confidence. It signals insecurity. If your product addresses a real need, you can afford to be generous about the rest of the market.

He drew the analogy to early renewables. Solar and wind people didn’t waste their energy attacking each other. They spent it growing the total market for renewables. Twenty years ago, what mattered wasn’t solar’s market share versus wind’s. It was growing the tiny pot they both drank out of.

CDR is in that same position. The total pot of money flowing into carbon removal is small. Growing it matters more than fighting over who gets the biggest share of something inadequate. And the fastest way to grow it might be to stop pretending the rest of the carbon market doesn’t exist and start figuring out how to sell into the channels it has already built.

Are we hypocrites?

Toward the end we got into one of those existential spirals that regular listeners will recognize. I brought up Sebastian Manhart’s point about dogfooding: how many people in the carbon removal industry have actually bought credits for their own emissions? Martin used to buy clean cooking credits to offset his personal footprint. I’m not sure most CDR founders can say the same.

Martin’s response was that this is a market problem as much as a science problem, and we’ve been treating it mostly as a science problem. The technology is advancing. But the market infrastructure, the relationships with buyers, the integration with compliance channels, the basic act of reaching out to the 35,000 corporates who are already spending money on carbon, that work has barely started.

I found this conversation genuinely moving. Martin is doing something I don’t see enough in this industry: admitting publicly that he was wrong about how he positioned his company, and sharing an idea that helps everyone, not just Octavia. That’s leadership. And if you’re a carbon removal founder who resonates with any of this, Martin’s your person to talk to.

Subscribe now

Share

Full Transcript

Ross Kenyon: Martin, you’re back. It’s been some amount of time and you’re here to tell me about why I am wrong and foolish about everything that I believe. Why are you doing this to me?

Martin Freimüller: Because you’re wrong, foolish, and I just have this intrinsic need to call that out. Sorry.

Ross Kenyon: No, it’s, I really appreciate engaging with you. Thanks for listening and thanks for having me on those ideas. And I’m going to put words in your mouth and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but you’ve noticed a trend of me maybe not being nearly as optimistic as sometimes I am in the past year or so, and you think I’m overlooking some significant opportunities and more than just me. You think many of our industry peers are doing something similar and you’ve noticed a new opportunity that’s actually an old opportunity that you’re going to be looking into much more closely. How accurate is that?

Martin Freimüller: It’s accurate. And I do think, again, I don’t want to downplay the fact that it isn’t easy times for carbon removal. It’s definitely a lot harder than it used to be in years past, and it’s recently gotten a lot harder still. And I think, again, it’s worth challenging some assumptions that we built this industry around. And the one that I’m specifically started thinking about is how carbon removal integrates with the wider VCM. Clean cooking, REDD+, and so on. I think we’ve all had this intrinsic aversion about associating with it. And I think in some ways the world has moved on a couple of years and I think in some ways the recent bull run you could say in CDR is over. And so yeah, I think it’s time to reinvestigate a bit what’s out there as well.

Ross Kenyon: I think they’re nice to have around because they allow us to distinguish ourselves by their failures. And I think CDR is so young that we don’t have in the same way, like the Catholic Church has been around a long time. So you can point to the Renaissance Popes and be like, weren’t they corrupt? And you’re like, yeah. But the newer Protestant sects, usually when they’ve been around for a little bit of time too, some not so nice things tend to happen to them as well. They just haven’t had millennia to collect all the scandals. But CDR has some of those same tendencies. And one thing I’ve said on shows recently is that my previous company, Nori, was a carbon removal registry and marketplace, and we looked at the legacy players and even called them the legacy players. It’s a pejorative framing that says that they’re old and they’re not that good, or like the next thing that’s much better, more tech forward. And the longer I did this work, the more sympathy I had for basically all of them where I’m like, not only are we no ethically better than these people, we also perform worse in some regards. And the product that we have created, you can understand the failures of those other players and be like, yeah, it’s a systemic structural thing. It’s not just you have to want it more, be more innovative. Some of these things are just, you all end up in the same place because you’re all trying to solve the same problem and there’s constraints and you work with them. And I had more mercy for them the longer I worked, where I used to be kind of a jerk about it. And I think that’s true of carbon removal in general. It sounds like you’ve independently come to that conclusion and are saying, yeah, why are we spending all this time in this really small space when there’s a much bigger VCM to play in that we’ve been ignoring? I think I’m kind of channeling you a little bit.

Martin Freimüller: Absolutely. No, and I get it, right? I’m CEO of a DAC company and I’m super proud of that. I’m super proud that we produce some of the world’s best carbon credits with meaningful benefits too. And we do something fairly unique doing that in Kenya. And again, I will happily debate some biochar person why a thousand years permanence matters. I’m that kind of person. But I think it’s more recently that I think I got to reassess that. Again, we’re not like a baby anymore. We are a toddler. And you can discipline a toddler maybe, but I think in a sense it’s worth saying, okay, well we are five years old. And the question to ask is how much of the carbon removal that has been contracted is going to get delivered? Is it going to be a hundred percent? Is it going to be 50%? Is it going to be 10%? And if it is going to be, say, less than 50%, where is our guarding article? In some ways, delivering high quality credits is hard. And I think that’s something that well-intentioned people in the quote unquote legacy VCM have realized for a long time. And I think we are in some ways just kind of realizing this, where again, you have to move physical things by and large to issue carbon credits and yeah, that is hard. Especially it’s hard in a world that’s gotten used to scaling curves that maybe are more linked to things that are non-physical. And so I think that’s in part what this comes down to. And I think part of why I recently questioned my own assumptions, and again, I would say it’s my own assumptions, but here’s the thing. I think carbon removal people like to complain a lot that we don’t have enough buyers, basically. And I told this to you that in some ways it’s as if it’s the buyer’s fault that they don’t want our products. And I think that’s a cliche saying about bad startups. Bad startups blame their customers. And I think it’s worth mentioning that there’s definitely some pure-play carbon removal buyers, maybe mixing low-durability carbon removal, but the vast bulk of people who buy carbon removal today happily buy clean cooking credits and other credits alongside that, and don’t think of that as a contradiction. And so I think it’s something that I realized in some ways that the world might not go in an instant from paying $25 per ton of carbon credits to $250 per ton of carbon credits. And I think that’s something that we have to maybe think a bit more about, like what that transition is going to look like and maybe not treating the other side as an enemy, which again is maybe not the best way of starting a dialogue. But that seems to be more or less what we have done in the past couple years, building this industry in parallel. But yeah, that’s some of the early thinking that I have on this. Keen to go over a bit.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. So many good insights in there. Thinking about how personality and childhood development works, where it’s like toddlers and teenagers do a thing where they really start saying no. I’m independent of my parents. I’m going to make some of my own decisions. They’ll even say things like, I don’t want the cheese from you, I want it from daddy. It’s the same cheese. Can you just eat the cheese? When you’re very young, you don’t even necessarily understand yourself as different from your mother. If you have a mother, you consider yourself almost a single unit and then learning that that is not actually the truth of how reality works is a big part of development. And CDR is just at this point too, where we’ve come about saying we’re different from the VCM, and then maybe we’re at the point now where we’re in adolescence. Maybe in this metaphor if we’re going to abuse it a little bit further, we’ll be deeper into your twenties or thirties where you realize that your parents are frail people that have their own difficulties, who didn’t have all the answers ever, and it’s time to forgive them for their mistakes and make your peace with them before they die.

Martin Freimüller: Wow, this has gotten very deep, very quickly, Ross.

Ross Kenyon: This is the show that you love, man.

Martin Freimüller: I do. I do. Yes, exactly.

Ross Kenyon: So are we at that stage? Are we trying to say like, hey, we’ve been really mean to Verra and Gold Standard and ACR and some of these players, and maybe the time is to come to learn from them, work with them, and try to figure out how CDR can fit into players that have a lot more experience than we do?

Martin Freimüller: Yeah, it’s a great question. And it’s also worth noting again, it’s not like there isn’t bad things out there. There’s a lot of shitty carbon credits and I think those rightly get criticized. But I think if you look at some of the more recent data, like BeZero and others published a lot around this, quality has actually gone up fairly quickly in recent years. And there is AA-rated clean cooking credits now. Much as there’s BB-rated biochar credits. The distinction between durable CDR and all other carbon credits isn’t inherently one of quality. Yes, it might be one of use case, and I think we should discuss what the use case is of different credits. And I think long term, very much the world should aim to have like-for-like offsetting for all fossil fuel emissions. But again, I think it’s optimistic to think that that will happen overnight. And again, I do think that there is definitely mistakes to learn from. And I think one of them definitely is that when money is plentiful, optimism abounds. And I think that has been the case in the traditional VCM before, prior to 2008, or more like the 2018 to 2021 timeframe. And in many ways that’s also the founding moment of carbon removal. We were founded as an industry more or less since 2021, 2022, when money was everywhere. And it was a great time to start a company and think you’ll be huge next year. But then the contrast between 2022 and 2024 and 2026, for those of us who’ve been building for that time, has been pretty stark. And you can argue which of those years is normal. Is the plentiful, post-pandemic money normal? Is the ultra-ambitious Biden climate policy normal? Or is this closer to normal? At least what normal has been for the past 15 years or so. And maybe this is just what it looks like to actually build a carbon business. And again, that is hard. And again, I think that’s also where lots of other projects have floundered. So I would say we’re, yeah, maybe just starting school. I don’t know how far I can stretch this metaphor of childhood. But I think it’s an interesting time to maybe stop and reflect a bit, how essentially we can come together because ultimately we care about the same things, of course. That’s the really key thing. And knowing some of the folks that work in that market, they’re good people. Again, I think there’s very few actual frauds out there. There’s a lot of well-intentioned people that are always optimistic, but guess what? We have them too. And I would go as far as saying I’m probably one of them too. And so yeah, that’s some of the reflections I have there. Whew.

Ross Kenyon: What does that mean for your business? Are you trying to look into being on other registries? Is there some other pathway that gives you access here? What’s the status of your operational business work with this regard?

Martin Freimüller: Yeah, and it’s a great question, and of course I want to keep this practical too. I do think that I am keen to explore new types of buyers and that’s the types of registries that didn’t as naturally come into carbon removal as others. There’s a lot of, I think if you look at the folks that channel a lot of carbon removal demand, they only do carbon removal because they really have conviction behind that. And that’s good. And I think we need those intermediaries and a lot of them are Octavia’s customers. But there is also a large field of VCM players that are much more broadly active. And I think all of them interested in carbon removal, but we haven’t necessarily made it easy for them to engage with us if all we do all day is kind of trashing what they have to sell. And I do think some of them are now our customers. Atmosphere, which is a German registry, is one of them. Climate Impact Partners is another. Those folks bought their first DAC credits from us and in some ways even their first durable carbon removal credits. And I think there’s maybe something to us doing DAC in the global south, which is still quite unique, that maybe is more of a natural bridge to the global south focus that a lot of these folks have. That’s the reason why there’s a South Pole and a South Pole. That’s sort of what their focus always was. And yeah, I think ultimately it’s engaging that type of buyer. Because here’s the thing, and this is something I’ve also realized more recently, we tend to panic a lot about the number of buyers there are. Perhaps about 200 corporates that have ever bought carbon removal. I think there’s more, but here’s the important insight. There’s about 35,000 corporates buying carbon credits and there’s about 3 million individuals who do it. I used to buy clean cooking credits myself to offset my personal carbon footprint because I thought that’s quite important. Cleaning up after yourself isn’t a crazy thing to me. And I don’t think that these folks will naturally be allergic to buying carbon removal. I think it’s just in some ways we haven’t actually talked to them. And again, I think that in some ways also translates, and this is quite important, to the compliance markets, which seem to be actually taking off a lot more, much as I was very skeptical about them for a while. And if I can just go into that too. The thing I’ve realized is that I was very skeptical about Article 6.2, 6.4, and so on. When are they ever going to channel real demand? And for the longest time, I think reality seemed to bear it out. And basically until 2026, there was basically just Guyana who was issuing a bunch of credits into CORSIA. Then even just in Q1 this year, without me realizing, without me seeing it being discussed much in our space, there were lots of CORSIA-eligible credits that came online all of a sudden, and CORSIA now looks like it’ll channel something like 60 million tons of carbon credit demand each year, and there’s already 30 million tons of supply that is getting into that, which is big. It probably means that the carbon markets as a whole, including carbon removal, will actually grow this year. And again, that’s not necessarily something you see in the mood of the carbon removal sector right now. Because here’s the thing, we’re still a small share of that wider VCM, which is, again, we like to trash it for being small, but that’s just the reality of where we’ve actually gotten to with real revenue recognized deliveries. And then again, this goes further. Article 6.4 has issued the first credits, that international trading scheme, with some clean cooking credits from Myanmar to South Korea that have been sold recently. 6.2 is ratcheting up purchasing from places like Singapore and Switzerland and others. And I’m not saying that it’s easy to sell carbon removal into those markets tomorrow. But what’s encouraging is that the willingness to pay in these markets is well out of trash credits territory. We’re in the $20 to $30 per ton space. Which if you think about it, if you approach carbon credit portfolios with a portfolio approach, that actually leaves space for carbon removal in those average prices that are being paid there right now. And I think that’s something that I want to devote more of my time to, actually talking to compliance buyers, talking to other VCM buyers and actually seeing, hey, can we actually come together and be part of these portfolios? And in some ways, that’s not a new insight. The Oxford Offsetting Principles have been all about this for a long time. I’m just not sure that we’ve been comfortable talking to folks in those sectors. And they have some ideas why. But yeah, that’s some of the ideation thoughts.

Ross Kenyon: I’d love to hear some of these reasons. The two that I can hear you identifying already. One part of it is price, and that if you average the price of durable carbon removal versus the other types of assets, maybe it gets to the willingness-to-pay price point that you’re noticing. But the second point, which is the point that we maybe have more immediate control over, is our own behavior, how we’re discussing our work, how we consider it against the work of others. And you think that’s a major thing that’s holding us back. Feel free to comment on any of those, but then I think you’re saying that you see some additional reasons too.

Martin Freimüller: Yeah, and absolutely. And I do think that this is something I thought about more recently, which is almost by definition a lot of the avoidance and reduction sectors are primarily based in the global south. There is not much clean cooking in the US because again, that just wouldn’t make sense. And I think the carbon removal sector, for better or worse, is still much more global-north centric than based in the global south. And maybe those worlds intersect a bit more in, say, Kenya, which is both a very vital carbon removal sector and also a very well-established carbon reduction space with clean cooking companies issuing AA-rated carbon credits. And I think that might be a reason why we’re not talking more, basically. And I think the dismissiveness might come from a level of unfamiliarity as well. I’m not sure how many people listening right now actually know somebody who is on the founding team of a clean cooking company. But yes, I think to your point, we’ve also made it hard for ourselves. I talked to a clean cooking founder this week, sort of mulling this over a bit more. And I think they, we’ve lost a lot of goodwill from them, let’s just say. And I think they feel very strongly that the insistence on carbon removal has kind of made life more difficult for everyone. And I think in some ways we have to work towards bridging that gap. Because I think our success in scaling our industry and climate action more broadly ultimately comes down to the dollars-per-ton willingness to pay for climate action or emission neutralization with carbon removal. And I don’t think that’s going to jump overnight. I think ultimately we have to go from the $25-per-ton average that are maybe being paid right now to at some point $50-per-ton average, and at some point $100 per ton and more. But the point you mentioned earlier is that price matters. But I also don’t think that many of the 200 or so corporates that are known to buy carbon removal at some scale actually pay $200 per ton on average for their credits. They probably pay a lot less on average. And a lot of them probably buy clean cooking credits because they really care about the good benefits that it brings and the other good work that these people do. And I think in some ways it’s not so much a question of you either buy this or you buy that. It’s more a question of how can different parts of your portfolio hand over to each other over time? Because of course, the thing is that we’re all trying to work ourselves out of a job. I think every person working clean cooking would love for their work not to be needed, and we would just have everyone have clean cooking. I think everyone also knows that’ll take a while, but I guess that’s part of the point here. I think that naturally makes for time horizons where different types of credits can hand over into each other. So that’s some thoughts that I have on that.

Ross Kenyon: I’ve been guilty of this. You’ve been guilty of this.

Martin Freimüller: Oh, absolutely. Literally just about a year ago I was on stage in front of a lot of investors splashing the total size of forward-contracted volumes year on year. And I was like, you’ve got explosive growth and guess what, policy is just about to take over and will be huge by 2030. Again, I think in some ways, a year ago there was a reasonable enough assumption. I think it’s also fair to say that the number of forward-contracted revenue this year is likely going to be smaller than in 2025. But even more importantly, forward-contracted revenue doesn’t buy your dinner. It’s for now a fiction. All these credits have to get delivered to actually be a real market. And the thing is, for now, what we call the legacy markets is still much larger than us in size. I think carbon removal is starting to edge itself into a meaningful share of the total VCM, say 10 to 20%. And likewise, it’s increasingly a misnomer to call it the VCM because as I mentioned, a lot of it is kind of migrating into CORSIA and Article 6 in a more compliance-type space. But guess what? For all this confidence that we’ve had, we’re still a smaller share of the total. And much as we love calling out that this is a tiny market, we have to start somewhere. And I think in some ways that market is growing whereas we’re not right now. And I think in some ways it might be easier to question, how can we hitch ourselves to that growth? As opposed to just still trying to convince people that they just shouldn’t buy this stuff because it’s dangerous and we’re the only safe pair of hands that they can trust the money to.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, ish. I’m trying to figure it out. How much of this is a problem of political economy? So much of carbon removal’s investment is driven by venture capital dollars. And I’m trying to imagine you on that same stage at a pitch competition or maybe you’re in a room giving the final pitch for why they should invest in Octavia. And you’re like, yeah, our competitors, they’re pretty good. They do some good work. We do a different kind of work and it’s also valuable, but we like them too. Compared to: everything that exists is bullshit. We’re the only ones who solve this problem. We’re going to create an entirely new industry, an entirely new category that you’re going to be able to own because we’re first in and the best at it. Which of those two pitches is better? We all know it’s the second, it’s more likely to get invested. But the first one is closer to the truth. Are we being bent by venture capital in this way?

Martin Freimüller: I don’t know. Octavia had a good 2025. We grew our contracted sales 2.6x year on year. We did something meaningful in the millions of dollars. And I think ultimately a good investor won’t just invest in hype and what you’re telling them, but in what your customers are actually doing. And I think in all this, it’s also always worth going back to our customers. The fear that I have in some ways is that we are all increasingly almost more comfortable talking about solar radiation management, and I have mixed feelings about it and I’m happy to talk about that, than we are talking about clean cooking. And that’s just removing us so far from where the public consensus actually is on these things, especially amongst our buyers. And I do think that we are retreating into a niche when we really should be retreating into the mainstream. And I think there’s already a lot of familiarity around biochar. People understand that durability matters. At the same time, they also don’t think that you can immediately switch to only buying credits that cost hundreds of dollars per ton. Or at least very few companies would be able to do so. And again, all the work that we do is right in terms of carbon taxes and so on. But yeah, I think that’s increasingly what I’m landing at. I think it’s important not to just preach to the converted and keep wondering why more people aren’t showing up for us, and actually just go where that demand is. Ultimately dollars should ideally follow demand and that demand is there. It’s not tiny. I think in some ways I’m keen to see whether we can engage more with it.

Ross Kenyon: I remember, unless I’m synthetically recreating a false memory here, being at Nori and trying to look through the SBTi commitments, see who’s already bought carbon credits on Allied Offsets or something like that, and being like, alright, how do we sell into people who have already demonstrated cash-on-the-barrelhead demand for carbon credits? How do you get around the messaging of telling them what they’ve bought is not real, they need to replace it all with what you’re selling? Which is funny that I remember thinking that, because obviously the better way to sell that is: we’ve already bought in some of these assets, have you considered diversifying into another asset class that can make your portfolio as a whole richer? Rather than telling someone that they made a mistake, which no one ever really likes to hear that much, and sort of scolding your potential customer.

Martin Freimüller: Yeah.

Ross Kenyon: Why not sell into them as: enrich your portfolio here, do something a little bit different. It’s going to bring your average price up, but it will bring these benefits, new geographies, new technology. This is good. This is like, basically I made a mistake. I don’t even know why that was my thought. I can’t remember all of what happened back then, but I do remember having that thought, like that’s not going to work. Nevermind. We just didn’t even bother telling them that.

Martin Freimüller: Yeah. But in some ways, we’ve had the framework here for years. And I think most of the people that would buy carbon credits, full stop, but especially carbon removal, believe in net zero by 2050. So I think in that sense you can tell folks a very reasonable transition narrative, which is not that we are expecting you to pay 20 times more for your credits overnight. But that you should start mixing that portfolio, again Oxford Principles, and essentially transition that over time and ideally match that with ramping up a total carbon tax or something along those lines internally that essentially also pays for that increase over time. And that essentially pays for the demand to bring carbon removal down the cost curve. And at the same time, I think it gets you up that willingness to pay and squeezes out the other actually avoidable emissions from your operations. And so I do think that’s a type of conversation that’s important to have. And in some ways it’s also, like it or not, the way that regulators are probably going to approach this. I don’t think anyone’s going to, I don’t think Switzerland is going to move to 100% DAC removals tomorrow, much as I think DAC is awesome, as much as they think DAC is awesome. But I think that’s really the approach that we need to take here, which is when do these different credits hand over to each other? And a lot of it really comes down to a very simple metric: what’s your dollars per ton? And if that increases, there’s more room to buy carbon removal.

Ross Kenyon: One of the recurring jokes from this show is that people will be on and will say things like, we need all of the above, we’re all directionally doing the same thing, it’s important. Sometimes I’ll stop the tape, someone will be like, man, I really hate biochar. Man, I really hate DAC. Just insert whatever. And you’re like, why did you just say we need more of everything? Then why would you? I know that’s the thing that we’re all meant to believe. It’s the canon. You’ve got to say the thing. But can we actually do that? I feel like we get kind of competitive with one another, both internally within carbon removal, and I suspect the competition is probably why we framed ourselves so antagonistically towards these older types of credits that we wanted to differentiate from. What does it look like for us to genuinely believe this? Is it possible for us to hold this in our heart and be like, clean cooking stoves compete with us on price. I’m glad it’s happening. It might siphon some demand into lower-price credits than what I would prefer them to buy, but it’s better that they’re spending any amount of money than nothing. And this is still good. And even the way that I framed this, you get to coach yourself, be like, I wish that money was mine. It’s going to someone else who’s technically a rival, but also if we don’t fix climate change, we’re all pretty screwed. So what do you do to get yourself in the right frame of mind to genuinely believe this? Or do you struggle with it?

Martin Freimüller: Yeah, no, great question. And some people who know me might know that I was in an impromptu debate about why DAC is better than biochar just about a year ago. It was good.

Ross Kenyon: That was light though. You guys were like, we’re all friends there. It’s like a fun thing.

Martin Freimüller: Absolutely.

Ross Kenyon: It wasn’t mean-spirited in any way.

Martin Freimüller: And again, maybe that’s part of the answer here as well, right? I think we can still debate on what good looks like. And I think we accept that reasonable people can come to different conclusions here. I think something that a harm reduction advocate would always say is that ultimately, for now at least, together until the world hits net zero, a reduction credit has a similar effect on the atmospheric stock of CO2 as a removal credit. Of course it needs to be a good credit and it can’t just be guaranteed for say 20 years or so. But I think, going back to that AA-rated clean cooking credit, that’s what it might come down to. And I think if we approach things in that spirit, then I think it would also be easier to just think about frameworks in which these things can actually hand over to each other. And I get the problem, which is that climate capital is scarce. We can all say all of the above as much as we want. At the end of the day, there is going to be a buyer and there’s not that many of them, that is going to decide A or B and how much towards each. But I think in some ways, having, just imagine the way that I think biochar people would hopefully, again maybe that’s also wishful thinking, say of DAC, that it has a role to play that is important and those people are doing good work. Just imagine if we had some clean cooking folks saying that same thing about CDR. And maybe some of these things can hand over into each other more neatly. There’s a lot of soil carbon, as you might well know, that has a lot of links to biochar and ERW for that matter. And I think increasingly some of the same people are doing that kind of work. And so, I don’t think it’s necessarily, it shouldn’t be as hard to bridge. And I think in some ways, if we’re fixated on competing about the tiny pot of money that is on the table today, we’ll all just lose, basically. I think if anything, the point for everyone is that that pot needs to increase in size, and now it is increasing in size. And so I think at a minimum we should think as a carbon removal industry about how we can actually realistically start selling into some of those channels. Like Article 6.4 say, and CORSIA for that matter. And I don’t know that we do enough thinking about that yet, and I don’t want to talk down on the thinking that’s being done here. I know that lots of people are doing good work on this in carbon removal. But clean cooking credit sells into what currently sells there, and even REDD+ and others. And yeah, I don’t think I’ll ever fully get over the strong thinking I have about the reasons why another school is stacked. But I don’t think anyone gets confused. I think people get that capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, measuring it to the milligram, storing it as rock underground is a different thing from avoiding some emission somewhere. But yeah, I think ultimately that collaboration might be important. And I think in some ways it might just start from talking to some other people doing that kind of work. And I’ve tried personally to reach out to more folks and just kind of try to understand them. And maybe, and this is maybe slightly rose-tinted glasses, but maybe we can even learn something from them. I don’t know. They’ve definitely been around for longer than us.

Ross Kenyon: There’s this model of the CEO as the believer in chief, the person who just knows this in their heart to be true and investors love this person because they know that person’s going to be tenacious and never give up and not question themselves. And this model of the leader is someone who is thoughtfully engaged with rivals or different asset classes that compete or at the very least maybe distract away from the narrative you’re trying to tell. Is it hard to lead while also being ecumenical in this way? Do you feel like employees or colleagues of yours try to look to you to think that what you’re doing is literally the most important thing in the world that you personally could be doing right now? And then some of your generosity of spirit here might read as weakness or as uncertainty or doubt. Do you ever struggle with that, or not really?

Martin Freimüller: I would call it confidence. So I think if you feel the need, like say you go into that pitch and you say, here’s all those reasons why those other guys are trash, and let me tell you why I’m so much better than them. In some ways that doesn’t signal confidence. It signals some sense of insecurity, that you feel a need to talk more about your competitors than you talk about your own product. And if your product actually addresses a real need, people are often open to talk to others in the same space. I think, say, renewables here. I don’t know that people in solar and wind necessarily felt the need to trash each other, even though they are different technologies and have different uses and different sort of profiles. But yeah, I think you could argue that, again, 20 years ago, what mattered is not how much sales wind had versus solar, but growing that tiny, tiny, tiny pot that they both drank out of, to just actually have renewables markets. And just telling people why renewables is important. And I do believe in the intrinsic need for carbon offsetting. I bought these credits myself at some point before, and so I would probably disagree with some folks in the industry that are kind of baffled why anyone buys carbon removal. I do think that there is a real moral sense to cleaning up after yourself. And that’s fairly deeply ingrained in lots of people. And is this billions of people? No, but it’s millions of people. And I bet that there’s millions of people, more, tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions that see something like climate neutrality and feel positively towards that and brands that seek to achieve that and brands that have these types of commitments. And so yeah, I ultimately think that the winning condition is having enough confidence to say that polluters, and that includes all of us, should pay for their emissions. And we probably shouldn’t expect them to impoverish themselves right away, but essentially to do what they can towards cleaning up after themselves.

Ross Kenyon: The person you described who says, why does anyone buy carbon removal, or this thing, I don’t get it. I say this one a lot and it baffles me. And I’m wondering how much of that is, do you know the line that we don’t see the world as it is but as we are? How much of this is me projecting out from my own selfishness or my inability to unilaterally do the act of goodness that I’m expecting of everyone else and saying, none of us is voluntarily ever going to do this to the scale that is necessary. And I’m also looking like, yeah, there are things that I could be doing, but I’m not. And just forgiving myself for my shortcomings, which can be an act of mercy. But then also being like, no one in the world is ever going to do the right thing. We’re always just going to be these self-motivated actors who are looking out for their own economic wellbeing and they’re not going to do these things that we need them to do. And I don’t know, am I creating a self-fulfilling prophecy here by saying that there’s not a good reason to do this and then fewer people are doing it because they’re like, yeah, if everyone’s selfish and no one’s going to do this except for me, why should I do this thing? But there are plenty of people out there who keep the faith and are just like, I believe in doing this thing because it’s the right thing to do. And if everyone else is still not doing this, then that’s something that they need to answer for within themselves. I shouldn’t degrade myself by falling to their level, essentially. What am I doing? Why do I keep saying this line? Am I making some grievous error? Now you can really correct me. Give me the, tell me what I’m doing wrong with myself.

Martin Freimüller: No, and I thought for a long time that it would be amazing to just do a straw poll of the entire carbon removal industry. How many folks have actually bought carbon credits before, or carbon removal for their own emissions for that matter. And in some ways, at least as a startup founder, get it. I don’t have a ton of spare cashflow, you probably guess. But I think in some ways, that has to be a question. Is what we’re solving a science and technology problem, or is it a market problem? And to what extent are we solving one versus the other? Because yes, I think the science and technology are definitely advancing and that fills me with joy. And we do a lot of early work with our four or five engineers at Octavia. They’re doing amazing work. But I think a lot of this also comes down to actually solving a market problem. And just actually understanding why people buy, growing that, and I don’t think it’s outlandish to say that that’s good and the right thing to do. A vast bulk of the global GDP is covered by some type of net-zero commitment. And so yeah, I think that would be my sense there. I don’t think that we are just projecting this outward. And I think in some ways, not believing in ourselves, but I think we do have to think of this as more than a science problem. And I think also working on ways of connecting with people. I know saying abstract things like this is much easier than actually getting cash through the door and trust, I know that very well. But I do generally think that we might find that if we actually strike up good conversations with folks working in other parts of this market and asking, hey, who are your buyers? Do you mind introducing me to some of them? That you might just find that, hey, they actually care about what we do over here in carbon removal as well. They might actually be a good audience for something like this. And yeah, I think that’s ultimately what we want to get to.

Ross Kenyon: I’m trying to think of exactly how to ask this.

Martin Freimüller: Don’t be diplomatic, Ross.

Ross Kenyon: No, it’s not. It’s more just a big question, not a hard or pointed one. It’s like, what am I trying to say, what is it exactly. One way of looking at humanity’s place in the universe is to say we’re all so small, your individual actions don’t matter at all. And therefore your individual selfishness, who cares? You’re just as bad as everyone else. And you can catch glimpses of that all the way up to the presidency if you want. But also it might be the case that because this is you, this is your life, it’s literally all you control, it’s actually the most important thing in the world that what you control, that you act with more integrity than you’re probably acting with right now. Not you personally, but everyone. So why aren’t we doing that? One thing I respect is that Sebastian Manhart made a big deal about how we should probably be dogfooding this and consuming our own carbon credits and we’re all traveling around the world going to the same conferences and schmoozing and who is actually buying credits and doing this. And the answer is not that many people because it’s really expensive. And we expect people to buy this from us for the same thing, but we often aren’t willing to do it ourselves. And physician heal thyself, we’re just not the kind of people that we maybe think that we are. What are we meant to do given that we work in a care-based industry, or what I think is a care-based industry? Are we just as hypocritical as everyone else?

Martin Freimüller: It’s a great question, and I pretty fiercely don’t believe that individuals can’t make a difference. And take yourself. I’m happy to say this on air, but Octavia wouldn’t exist without me picking up the carbon removal enthusiasm from the Reversing Climate Change podcast all the way back from 2020. And without that, there would be possibly a lot fewer people working on DAC in Kenya or maybe things would’ve gone out otherwise, who knows. But I do think that these things are important. And to your point of are we hypocrites? I don’t think necessarily. I think most markets have a set of early adopters that are a better fit for a technology than others. It’s not like when solar cells were invented people started by putting them on their rooftops. They had very specific use cases, like the space station, that could actually justify that kind of expense. I don’t think people at that point were blaming each other for not putting solar on their roofs. But yeah, I think ultimately we want to approach the market that there is already. And I think in some ways we may still just be scratching the surface of it. And I think integrating that storytelling matters a lot. And yeah, I think that to me is the best way of breaking out. And I’m not saying that, hey, I’ve found the panacea, here’s how we’re going to solve carbon removal. I think there are tough years ahead and there is important long-term policy work ahead and the real grind of bringing tech down the cost curve and so on. But at the end of the day, we need buyers. And I think instead of trying to get those 200 people flooded with yet more pitches from a thousand carbon removal companies, why don’t we actually reach out to the 35,000 that are buying this? And this might not be Microsoft. It might be some neighborhood SME that you might do your shopping in. But yeah, I think ultimately that is the real backbone of the market that exists today. And I wonder, this is a general interest that I would have, how much of that VCM as it exists today, those $500 million a year that get spent on carbon credits year on year, but again not just forward contracts but actual money changing hands, how much of it is Microsoft? How much of it is Netflix, Apple, and others? And here’s the factor as well. Apple and Netflix haven’t especially caught the carbon removal bug. There’s definitely still folks even in that tech bubble that are maybe still more focused on other types of credits than we would like them to be. And so I think in some ways, here’s an idea. I don’t claim any propriety to it. I hope that maybe by putting it out there, then some people will have some more useful insights on the back of it. And ultimately I do think that that’s how we grow, discussing ideas on podcasts and seeing if they lead somewhere.

Ross Kenyon: I respect this approach so much. I respect that you are willing to come out and say, I’ve done this thing, I think it was incorrect. I’m sort of broadly sorry that I characterized it this way. And then I also like the free sharing of ideas that is potentially good for everyone. That’s not something that you are the only person who will benefit from. I think that’s a really beautiful, cool thing to do for the industry. And I also like that you are being genuinely creative about this. I don’t know that I’ve heard anyone say, what if we doubled back and brought carbon removal back into the parents that we scorned way back when, and we actually reconciled and tried to become a family again? And that means working together and not contrasting ourselves so heavily against them and their failures, but trying to forgive their failures, accept them as people who are genuinely trying their best, like most parents, and trying to come together and become a family again. I think all of those things together makes what you’re doing a really important act of leadership. And I’m not just saying this to be flattering. I would even say this to you off the air. But sincere kudos, man. I respect what you’re trying to do, Martin. It’s a good idea. And thanks for pinging me being like, we should talk about this right away. Yeah, you are correct. Let’s do it.

Martin Freimüller: Yes. No, I mean, I think the past few weeks have been a bit turbulent for anyone working in carbon removal. I think it’s a good time to challenge our assumptions and maybe think outside the box a bit. And like it or not, these guys are actually building infrastructure that I think all of us agree that we will need to scale. I think carbon removal will work on those same Article 6 rails that the quote unquote legacy market is now building for us.

Ross Kenyon: A new term for them, by the way.

Martin Freimüller: Yeah, no, and I really wondered what to call them, because you would call them the VCM, but VCM increasingly isn’t the right term. Is it just the offset market? The offsetting? But maybe that includes us as well. I’m not quite sure. If you have a good term, then I’m happy to hear it. I’ll think about it. But I think ultimately, in some ways, all of us want that Article 6 market to one day be carbon removals only. And long, long term, many people working clean cooking might agree because they want everyone to cook cleanly. But maybe it’s optimistic to think that that will be fully done as a job to be done by say 2050 when we want carbon removal to fully take over. But hey, I think maybe that’s a way to approach things. And I do think that at the minimum, right now, we’re just kind of leaving this field wide open. I’m not quite sure that we are actually proposing a very attractive framework in which those compliance-driven markets that actually exist today, not just ones that we would like there to be, but ones that exist today and actually moving hundreds of millions of dollars, we might as well just see if we can find a way to actually smuggle some carbon removal in there. And then just have it grow as part of that, because we all agree that that’s going to be needed at some point. So yeah. Something I’ll try to do a bit of thinking on. If anyone listening has more ideas about it, I’d love to brainstorm. I also know in some ways that I’m easier doing diagnosis here than actually providing very actionable solutions. I don’t have 10 buyers for you if you’re listening and would like me to. Sorry. But at the minimum, I hope that we can reach out to more people and maybe actually find that they might be more receptive than we realized all this time.

Ross Kenyon: Well, it sounds like if you want to work on this issue, rhetorically or operationally or both, Martin’s your guy. Thanks so much for listening and thanks for being here, Martin. I’m really grateful that you’ve been a listener for so long. I’m grateful for even minor attribution of pulling you into carbon removal from the podcast.

Martin Freimüller: It’s not minor.

Ross Kenyon: Not minor. I’m so honored. Nothing pleases me more than a statement like that. And thank you. I’m glad you pitched me on doing this. It was a great show.

Martin Freimüller: Amazing. Thanks folks. Bye.

Subscribe now

Share

If no one’s making it, make it yourself

Edvard Hamilton didn’t set out to become a biochar equipment manufacturer. He just wanted better soil.

His family farm in southwestern Sweden—two hours north of Gothenburg, tucked into the mountains—has been in Hamilton hands since 1763. The soil is thin, rocky, and unforgiving. Standard fertilizer works for a season and then disappears. You buy it, it’s gone, you buy it again.

In 2015, Edvard came across biochar and saw something different: a soil amendment you invest in once, and that keeps working for generations. He tried to buy some. Nobody was actually making it.

“They all had nice websites,” he says, “but no one was making it. They just had an idea.” When he said as much out loud, the response was blunt: Do it yourself, then.

So he did. In February 2018, smoke rose from the chimney at the Hamilton farm for the first time. That became the biochar project developer, Biokol. It hasn’t stopped since.

Subscribe now

Heat, biochar, and the economics of both

From those humble beginnings, Edvard launched his biochar project development company, Biokol.

To understand why Biokol works as a business, you need to understand that the pyrolysis boiler solves two problems at once, and that both matter to making the numbers work.

Sweden is cold. Old stone farmhouses with meter-thick walls need a lot of heat. Grain coming in from the fields has to be dried to precise moisture levels before storage. Chicken barns need floor heat year-round. Every farm that buys a boiler from Biokol’s manufacturing arm has a pre-existing, urgent heating problem to solve. The boiler, available in 160-kilowatt and 400-kilowatt models, addresses it by running wood residues and FSC-certified forestry waste through a pyrolysis process at 750°C, generating both hot water and biochar simultaneously. Some customers supply heat to entire district heating networks, warming the outskirts of small municipalities.

But heat alone doesn’t justify the capital cost. A boiler runs 7–12 million SEK ($0.75-1.3M USD)—several times the price of a conventional wood-burning unit. That gap is where carbon credits become essential.

Biokol’s project documentation shows that revenue from carbon removal credits represents roughly 40–45% of total project revenues. Without it, the economics don’t work. With it, the boiler pays for itself while also solving a real heating need, creating an impactful soil amendment, and locking carbon into the soil for up to 1,000 years.

“All of them have a heat demand,” Edvard says. “That’s why we help them find the right machine.”

The feedstock story adds another layer. Biokol’s primary input is trees damaged by the spruce bark beetle—wood that would otherwise be burned or left to decompose. Rather than release that stored carbon back into the atmosphere, the pyrolysis process locks about 90% of it into stable biochar with a verified carbon content around 90% by weight. Each tonne of biochar sequesters approximately 2–3 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. The forestry residues are FSC- and PEFC-certified, meaning the entire supply chain is documented and auditable.

From farmer to manufacturer

The first pyrolysis machine Edvard bought came from Germany. It arrived unfinished, untested, and riddled with what he politely calls “childhood diseases.” He leaned on friends with welding companies, got it working, and started making biochar. Word spread, before and around COVID, the farm was hosting an average of three visitor groups every week. Everyone who came wanted to do the same thing: make biochar and heat simultaneously.

That’s how Biokol’s manufacturing division was born. What started as a farm soil project became a machine manufacturing company, and then a network: 26 pyrolysis boilers now operating across Sweden, across two owned project sites—Hjelmsäter in Hällekis and Kisebo in Hjo—plus machines sold to independent operators throughout the country.

Each boiler links to a touchscreen controller accessible from anywhere via phone. Edvard can log in remotely, adjust parameters, and troubleshoot problems in real time. More critically for carbon markets, the system continuously logs that biomass stays inside the pyrolysis chamber for at least 90 minutes at temperatures above 750°C—the conditions verified to produce high-quality, high-permanence biochar. That data trail is not incidental; it is the foundation of every credit issued.

When customers call on a Friday night with a machine problem, Edvard can log in remotely, diagnose the issue, and help them fix it. He describes it simply as a win-win.

The certification challenge

Here is where the story becomes relevant to any biochar producer thinking about carbon markets.

Getting a carbon credit isn’t just about making good biochar. It’s about documentation: chain of custody, lab results, transport records, temperature logs, random reflectance tests per batch, third-party audits. For a farm operator whose primary job is heating buildings and growing grain, this is a real burden. Some registries impose minimum production requirements for tonnes per year that effectively exclude smaller producers before they even begin.

Sofia Hamilton, Edvard’s wife and partner, came to this problem with a useful background: a Certified Internal Auditor with years in internal audit and compliance at a major financial institution in the U.S., where she learned that undocumented work simply doesn’t exist. Rather than leave each boiler operator to navigate certification alone, she built a network model. Biokol connects boiler customers into a shared certification program—handling the documentation, audit preparation, and lab coordination centrally, then profit-sharing on credit sales. The farm operator focuses on running their operation. Biokol handles the paperwork. Credits are certified and issued through Rainbow.

“We can take that on,” Sofia explains. “We collect the information from them, and then sell the credits.”

The results of that approach are visible in the credit numbers. Biokol issued just 46 credits in 2023, its first verified year. By 2024 that grew to 564. In 2025 it reached 1,548. The project is on track to issue more than 20,000 credits across its five-year crediting period. Their trajectory started small, and has since scaled significantly. This trajectory represents the exact kind of project Rainbow is engineered to support.

Why they chose Rainbow

Biokol started certifying its credits through Rainbow after about a year of discussions. (They left their previous registry because its scale requirements excluded the kind of small producers Biokol’s boiler serves.) The relationship has become something more than a registry arrangement.

“We never felt like we’re alone, like we can’t reach them,” Sofia says. “Even if it’s a question I consider dumb, I feel like they’re available.” The contrast with other experiences is stark. She recalls registries where emails went unanswered for a quarter.

Rainbow’s Arc platform drew specific praise. Earlier in the relationship, documentation lived in Google Drive folders, what Sofia diplomatically describes as “one hodgepodge mess.” Arc gave her a structured place to attach supporting evidence exactly where auditors needed it. “I knew they had what they needed,” she says.

Edvard is more direct about what a responsive registry is worth: “Sending an email, asking a question, you get an answer in hours.”

Growth at their own pace

Biokol has taken no outside investment. In a sector where several well-funded carbon removal companies made loud promises around 2022 and 2023 and subsequently went quiet, that independence looks like a strategic asset.

“We were very happy we didn’t jump on that train,” Edvard says.

Current plans call for three new sites in the next audit cycle, potentially six in the one after that. With roughly 17 new boiler orders potentially moving through Swedish government subsidy programs, faster growth is possible, but the intention is to add sites at a pace that keeps documentation quality and compliance intact.

“Going slow and steady is good,” Sofia says. “We don’t want to bite off more than we can chew.”

For other biochar producers weighing their registry options, what Biokol has built is worth examining: a model where a heat-first business generates verified carbon removal as a second revenue stream, where the boiler manufacturer supports one throughout the operational lifespan of the boiler, and where a registry relationship is built on responsiveness and shared interest in getting it right.

The farm is still there. The stone walls still need heat. The spruce bark beetles are still damaging forests nearby. And across Sweden, 26 chimneys are still turning waste wood into something that will stay in the ground for a thousand years.

Share

Subscribe now

This is episode 396 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your shows. You can also listen to it in its entirety right below this paragraph.

Quick Takeaways

• 10% Discount Code for Carbon Unbound East Coast: ReversingClimateChange

• Carbon Unbound sees ~50% new attendees at every event, despite it feeling like a similar crowd

• The adaptation event series (Adapt Unbound) was paused after the Amsterdam/flooding-focused edition couldn’t capture enough audience—Oli is candid about the economics not working

• Carbon Unbound is entirely bootstrapped: no investors, all revenue-supported

• New York (May) will feature CDR-sourced coffee and chocolate on the morning of day one

• Three anchor events going forward: US West Coast, US East Coast, Europe—with eyes on Asia, Africa, Middle East

• The pay-to-play dynamics of conference speaking slots are real, and the economics of running these events require it. How much is it like first class passengers subsidizing coach?

I described the Unbound team to Oli—before I hit record, naturally—as steppe horsemen. A nation of people we didn’t know existed who swooped in and conquered one very specific segment of carbon removal. As far as I’m concerned, Carbon Unbound is the main place that CDR professionals gather. A couple other events’ feelings might get hurt by that, but it’s what most of my peers would say.

And yet. Events are expensive. Travel is disruptive. Everyone’s budget is tighter. Oli’s been doing this since 2023 and he’s watching the industry mature in real time, which means the pitch can’t just be “come hang out with your friends.” He has to answer the question every potential attendee is asking: what’s my return on this three-day investment?

What I find interesting is that the answer might not be what you’d expect. Oli talks about the content and the networking as the two pillars, and sure, both matter. But here’s the thing I keep coming back to: I spend most of my time at these events in the hallway. I’m barely in the main stage room. The value, for me, is almost entirely in the collisions—I know exactly who you should meet, I was just talking to them, let me pull you over here. I probably did that 50 times in Vancouver. That’s not an exaggeration. Maybe a slight one.

The reason I went to Vancouver in the first place was to run campfire sessions on founder grief and the emotional difficulty of this work. Chatham House rules, nothing on the record. The people who attended were like, wow, it was really nice to be able to just say the quiet part out loud. I don’t think that session works on Zoom. There’s something about being in a room with someone when you’re talking about the real stuff—it’s like the difference between telehealth and being in the room with your therapist. Hard to articulate why it’s better, but I feel it, and I think most people do.

Oli asked me if I’m becoming a CDR therapist. Maybe. For a long time I was pretty emotionally closed off to this stuff, and then the longer I coached companies, the more I realized how many of these problems are emotional, spiritual, psychological—not merely strategic. Often those things are all tied up together. Which makes me gooier than I ever thought I was. But people connect with it, so here we are.

One thing that surprised me: Oli says Carbon Unbound gets about 50% new attendees at every event. That seems impossible when you look around the room and recognize everyone, but it’s different people from different organizations, new players entering CDR all the time. The industry feels small until you count.

We got into the economics of events, which I appreciate Oli being candid about. The pay-to-play question—companies paying for speaking slots and visibility—is something I’ve occasionally felt salty about. My rationalization: it’s like first class subsidizing coach. Someone gives a talk they might not have gotten on pure merit, but the alternative is higher ticket prices and fewer people attending. The trade-off is real, even if it doesn’t feel great when you’re on the asking end and the answer is “that’ll be twenty grand.”

The adaptation story is the part that stuck with me most. Oli tried to launch Adapt Unbound—flooding and sea level rise focused, set in Amsterdam, which is literally built to mitigate flooding. And it just... didn’t work. Not enough interest, not enough economic surplus to justify the event. He was baffled. I wasn’t, entirely. When I was doing the venture fellowship at Lichen, I looked at a bunch of adaptation deals and kept running into the same wall: the discount rate problem. You have cash now versus a theoretical risk at some indeterminate point in the future. The farther away the risk, the less that money is worth in net present value terms. Wildfire tech works because fire is a problem today. Sea level rise? Humans keep telling themselves they’ll deal with it later. A dollar now saves a hundred dollars ten years from now, and I’m not even sure that’s investible. It’s a depressing conclusion but I watched it kill deal after deal.

The conversation turned—as my conversations increasingly do—toward the question of whether this industry takes itself too seriously. I’ve been on a quiet campaign for more zaniness and more wellness in CDR, which sounds like a contradictory pairing but I think they’re actually the same impulse: stop performing seriousness for five minutes and see what happens. I pitched Oli on watercolor painting sessions at Unbound. I pitched communal salads and adaptogens instead of the obligatory networking drinks.

Oli mentioned The Drop in Malmö and Alt Carbon’s summit in India as events that are doing the culture-forward thing well. He’s clearly thinking about it. And he pointed out something I’ve noticed too: people in this industry secretly love the memes, secretly want to talk about the big existential stuff, but there’s a professional inhibition around being seen as not serious enough. I know you all want more memes. I know you all want to talk about real things. You don’t need to pretend you’re only one thing.

The episode ended where a lot of my conversations end lately—on the question of how you get from being a person who knows gratitude matters to being a person who actually lives it. I told Oli about getting genuinely frustrated at a coworking space because people preferred fluorescent lights over the nice lamps. Deeply spiritual person, me. Very well-adjusted. Working on it.

Share

Subscribe now

Full Transcript

Ross Kenyon: Hey, thank you so much for listening to Reversing Climate Change. I’m the host, Ross Kenyon. I’m a climate tech and carbon removal entrepreneur. Look, you know what to do if you like this show, and I really hope that you do. Open up your podcast app right now, give this show a full rating, which in many podcast apps is five stars. If you’re on an app like Apple Podcasts that uses reviews, a quick review would be super helpful. I just got one the other day and thank you, whoever you are out there listening, I really appreciate it.

And also for five bucks a month, you can become a paid subscriber on Spotify, which gets rid of all the ads I don’t read myself and gets you access to bonus content.

Today’s guest is Oli Katz, who is the founder and CEO of Unbound Summits. If you’re in carbon removal, you certainly know about Carbon Unbound. In fact, you’ve probably been to Carbon Unbound. I am really happy to have Oli here. I was just at Carbon Unbound in Vancouver. Had a wonderful time. I got to run a couple of small group workshops that I really enjoyed. I ended up getting tagged into moderating a panel, which was very fun.

And I am headed to New York next month to run some more panels that deal with some of the emotional work regarding working on climate and carbon removal. If you’re planning to come to Carbon Unbound in New York, I hope to see you there. It’s a wonderful event. And I actually have a discount code that Oli provided me. If you use the code “reversingclimatechange” all one word, you can get 10% off of your registration for Carbon Unbound.

Oli and I dig into some of the difficult economics of bringing people together in today’s world and how to create an event that is both intellectually stimulating and productive and brings the right people together. But also perhaps creates some space for us to steel ourselves, rejuvenate ourselves to continue this work. I’m really glad I was able to have Oli on. See you in New York. Thanks so much for listening. And here is the show.

Ross Kenyon: Oli, thank you for being here.

Oli Katz: No, thanks so much for the invitation.

Ross Kenyon: I’m really happy to have you. I regret not having the tape rolling because right before we started, I had described the Unbound team as being like steppe horsemen, a nation of people we didn’t know existed, swooped in and conquered everything. And Unbound is one of those companies, one of those groups that somehow just came into carbon removal and have so thoroughly owned one very specific segment of it.

As far as I’m concerned, Carbon Unbound is the main place that carbon removal professionals gather. Maybe there’s a couple others whose feelings might be hurt by my saying that, but it’s certainly top of mind for most of my peers. And I’m so curious how you can build such a successful in-person community given that so much of our lives are digital, travel’s expensive. These things are a big hassle, they’re disruptive, and yet you go and there’s critical mass of so many people, many of whom I describe as like a family reunion. I’m like, oh, getting to see what the other two-thirds of everyone’s body looks like. Isn’t this nice? Or like, people I haven’t seen in a year. This is great. But also getting to meet so many people that I haven’t yet met. It was a really wonderful experience. How do you build something like that and get people to do so many disruptive and expensive things to come to something in person?

Oli Katz: Yeah. Well, thank you. That’s a really kind intro. I think it’s a really easy crowd to get together and I feel like I come from a background of putting on events within sustainability and tech. I used to work on Future Food Tech summits, and the company also worked on agritech events as well. And there was quite a different sort of vibe when you compared those two industries. Agriculture was a lot older, more ingrained, and food tech was like the new kid on the block. And so there was a vibrancy. This was around the time when Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat was IPO-ing and it was a really exciting time. Lots of money flooding into the space.

But I feel like when we first put on our event in 2023, the very first Carbon Unbound, it felt like a similar sort of atmosphere when it comes to CDR people. The premise around new technology, not in it for financial gain—whilst obviously that is a component—people are really invested in the solutions and they really believe in the power of these. And so I think particularly when it comes to in-person events and getting that mix of people into the space, we always tend to find people who are really excited enough for it.

That being said, obviously it’s a tougher time at the moment and we have started to see, I wouldn’t say a pullback, but a maturing of the space. And so it’s really expensive to put these events on, and that’s obviously something that is really front of mind for us. If someone is paying this amount of money, and also putting a considerable investment in terms of time and opportunity cost to come to Carbon Unbound, what is the return on investment for them? It can’t just be a nice jolly get together. And so we spend a lot of time working with the industry to understand what the pain points are and how we can make the two days, three days that they are at Carbon Unbound the most valuable.

And I think that is ultimately what I have learned to be the most important thing to make a successful event: listen to the experts. We come with expertise in putting on events and making it seamless and very professional, but the content and the people that are in the room ultimately is what matters. And so by listening to the people who are going to be attending, our core market, the CDR market, it allows us to create programs and experiences that will ensure that it scales the industry and they can meet their partners. And it achieves the business and sustainability objectives that everyone’s after.

Ross Kenyon: And at least as an attendee, it felt like what you had heard for the Vancouver 2026 Carbon Unbound was that demand was feeling pretty thin. And your goal was to spend a lot of time hosting events that were matchmaking. I was not in that room. I was doing a venture fellowship at the time, so people would come up to me all the time and start pitching me. I’d be like, I’m looking at adaptation stuff, please save yourself the trouble. Don’t break your own heart. I don’t think I can help you, probably. But there were a lot of people who were interested in buying credits and a fair number of investors there too that were looking for deals to be sourced. And part of what you were trying to do is speed dating—connect people really quickly, see where there’s fits that hadn’t been previously discovered. And that was my read of it. How close to the truth am I?

Oli Katz: Yeah, pretty close. I’d say that’s becoming a core component of our events—bringing together the buy and the supply side and matchmaking. So whether that’s earlier stage companies who want to raise money in order to scale their solution, or more mature companies, or anyone in between who are looking to meet with prospective buyers. That demand signal is so important, particularly at the stage we’re at with this industry.

We’re starting to see, and I’m not sure if you’ve experienced this or you’ve spoken with anyone else, but it’s definitely becoming a bit more competitive, and there are more entrants emerging into the space. But obviously then due to political headwinds and economic factors, it’s changing the dynamic. There are new different buyers as well that are coming out. You have the tier one corporates, the Googles and the Microsofts of the world. But then you equally have philanthropic organizations like Terraset. And you have Altitude as well, which is coming out of Switzerland—Benjamin Schultz, who’s obviously skyrocketed in terms of the amount of purchases that they’re making, which is a different sort of financing vehicle for CDR.

So I think you’re starting to see lots of different ways where demand is being stimulated. But I think where we’re still not there yet is that tier one corporate buyer, which is what a lot of people are still really looking for. And I don’t think we’re seeing enough private companies come into the space and purchase CDR, and I think that’s felt kind of universally.

Ross Kenyon: Is this a pitch you’re going to be making for the New York Carbon Unbound in May? Is it also going to be trying to convince people of the relative merits of attending versus something else they could be doing? Come, we have the buyers. They’re ready to hear you. Or is it some other problem that you’re solving? What do you think it is?

Oli Katz: I think there’s that aspect, but I don’t think you can overlook the other partnerships and conversations that are happening outside of just the demand and supply. So you have lots of intermediaries, you have suppliers and other companies who want to meet and network and do business and help each other grow. And so that’s a really core part of our audience as well.

So we basically want to continue to be the go-to event for the CDR space. And that basically means that we need to cater for everyone in the industry. So we’re constantly thinking about new ways of introducing people to one another, whether that be the speed dating like you mentioned, or pre-summit workshops, or just the main event networking drinks. All really helps in bringing vibrancy. And I think sometimes—you’ve probably been to events before—it’s not even so much maybe the programmed networking. It’s sometimes like you just bump into someone when you’re having a coffee and you’re like, oh, this is someone who actually could really help me out or I could get advice from. So it’s those experiences as well that are going to make the difference.

Ross Kenyon: Yes. And I was trying to think of a way to say this that doesn’t sound inherently insulting to an event organizer. I think I spend most of my time in the hallway speaking with people. I very rarely am in the main stage room. This is true of conferences I attend generally. A lot of the value is just from people either I’m already connected with and I have a chance to get to know them better, or I’ll have ideas. Most of my time spent in Vancouver with you all was like, oh, I know exactly who you should meet. I was just talking to them, let me pull you over here. And I think I did that 50 times—that’s probably exaggerating a little bit, but there’s a lot of that that happens. That’s super valuable.

And one of the potential criticisms I hear of events that regather the same industry over and over again is, well, it’s going to be the same people having the same conversation over and over again. How do you produce an event that doesn’t have people thinking that, feeling that, anticipating that? Is there some sort of strategy? Is there some way to break out of it, or is it just inherent to a smallish industry with recurring concerns that are the same as they’ve been for several years at this point?

Oli Katz: Yeah, I’m constantly surprised because I always feel like, oh, we’ve found everyone in the industry, but actually we have around 50% new attendees and entrants at every event. Which is kind of crazy. And it sometimes doesn’t feel like it, right? Because you look at the attendee lists and you go, oh, I know them, know them, know them, but it tends to be different people from different organizations and things like that.

So we really make a concerted effort to bring new people into the space as much as we do about taking care of previous attendees and the people that have been in the industry for a long time. And so I think that’s partly our objective as well, and part of our value as an events organizer—to try to introduce new people into the event, to make a really strong networking mix where you see the people that you want to see and it’s a bit of a reunion, but then you are also introduced to new players or thinkers that stimulate further thought or partnership or business opportunity.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I kept running into old friends. I’d just be like, get away from me. I already know you. We talk all the time. It’s fine. Don’t need to keep talking to you. It’s okay. Let’s go meet someone new. But I also feel like that is valuable too. I think this line of work is really difficult. Pulling an invisible gas out and doing something meaningful with it is hard. And one thing I keep coming back to is just how difficult it is to have to project strength in an environment that demands it so that you look like you’re a robust company that will survive whatever political headwinds or energy input cost difficulties that are coming or will soon arrive.

There’s not always a lot of room to do things that are some of the softer emotional work of just being like, yeah, this work is really challenging. And I think there’s something about it where—I don’t know if this is going to connect with you or not—but it’s like if you do telehealth with a therapist versus being in the room, I feel like there is just something inherently better about being in the room with someone when you’re talking about the real stuff. And it’s hard to articulate why it’s better, but I feel like it is, and I at least perceive it that way. Maybe not everyone agrees with that. But I think that is its own value, even if it is only emotional solace for the people working in the industry. It is good to meet your fellows and that is plenty of value.

Oli Katz: Yeah, I mean, we are humans, right? And we are very social creatures and I don’t think anything will replace in person or being with someone in a room. I think you are seeing that when it comes to mental health and the more screen time you have, typically the more it affects your mood and connection to other humans. And so out of interest, when you go to events, do people tend to open up more as a result of just being with them, or do you feel like you also get that virtually? You do a lot of these podcasts, so you probably end up getting a lot of people talking about their problems on here as well.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, that definitely does happen, but I feel like that realness can be generated more quickly in person. I feel like you’re better able to sense if a person is trustworthy or someone that you want to engage with on that level. That’s not to say that this doesn’t happen digitally—it often does as well, some of which ends up on the podcast. But yeah, there’s a bunch of people that I met where we’d known each other or been acquaintances, but after hanging out at Carbon Unbound we’re friends. People were able to be like, yes, this part was really difficult, or I had this really difficult relationship in business and I’m still working through this with a former co-founder or something like that.

The reason I went to Vancouver was to run those campfire sessions that were on this topic too, about founder grief and some of the difficulty of just—this work is hard and a lot of the hard parts you have to conceal a little bit to make sure you look like a resilient company that is not suffering, even though a lot of people who do the work, it takes a toll. And having an off-the-books kind of session like that, I think the people who attended were like, wow, it was really nice to be able to just—Chatham House rules. We’re not going to name who was there or anything, but we were able to connect on that level. I don’t think doing that digitally would’ve been very successful. I don’t think I would’ve enjoyed it as much or connected as strongly had it been that. So the TLDR, yeah, I think it’s much improved.

Oli Katz: Nice. You’re becoming a CDR therapist?

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I think part of it’s because for a long time I was pretty emotionally closed off to a lot of this stuff. And then the longer I’ve coached companies or worked with companies, realizing how many of these problems are emotional, spiritual, psychological, and not merely about how you make the right business decision. Often those things are all tied up together. Which makes me gooier than maybe I ever thought that I was. But it is nice that people do connect with it. I’m also really looking forward to doing something similar in New York too. And if you’re listening and you want to come hang and do that, you should totally come to Carbon Unbound, come to my funky little campfire where we can talk about our feelings about doing this work.

Oli Katz: I’d fairly support that. That’s nice. I think that’s an example of where, in other industries maybe it’s just all about business, but we tend to have a number of people—and potentially most of the audience—who are very open, very collaborative, very honest, very real. And I think that creates an amazing environment, especially in person. And I think that has really helped to continue to give Carbon Unbound the feel that it has.

Ross Kenyon: Without a doubt. I also just don’t think that there are very many people engaged in carbon dioxide removal who are not here for the right reasons. They would be kind of foolish if they thought this was an easy way to make a buck. Because it’s truly not.

Oli Katz: It definitely isn’t.

Ross Kenyon: But I do feel like people want to make sure that their work has an impact. And then also watching the world move away from climate action, at least by certain metrics, can feel really discouraging. You’re like, we were barely going to make it before we had a bunch of backsliding and changes and focus as a world. And now it’s just like, what is happening and how do I have a business that survives? And this work is stressful even when policy is behind you and you’re just trying to deliver on a contract. And that alone is really hard. People think that getting the offtake is hard, but delivering on the offtake is maybe an extra order of magnitude harder—or a different kind of hard, maybe we’ll say.

Oli Katz: Yeah, I completely agree with that. And I think it’s a really difficult, especially when it’s—I mean it shouldn’t be polarizing at all, but it kind of feels like it still is, which is mental. There’s lots of industries where you don’t get those sort of political headwinds. But it almost feels like it can either be a massive pillar to a government or a country’s vision of the future, or it can be something that they deeply disagree with and ultimately despise.

And so that is just an added complexity that I think everyone in the industry faces, particularly now. And I think I’m still incredibly optimistic because I do think that sensibility always prevails. And it’s got to the point, in my opinion, where it’s a business priority. So whether or not there is a particular entity in place who is supportive or not, we are still seeing in the background, whether large companies or people are kind of signposting, they’re doing it. They’re still going along with it because they know that one, it’s the right thing to do, and two, it’s a business imperative in order to ensure that we as humans survive in the best way possible and their business thrives.

Ross Kenyon: Oof. I love when people are saying things like this to me recently because I’ve been so dour. In fact, when I was at Carbon Unbound—did you watch Arrested Development at all, or was that too American for you?

Oli Katz: I don’t. No. What is that?

Ross Kenyon: Oh, it was just a very millennial comedy. Oh, I feel old saying something like that. And they just keep finding themselves laughing at the most tragic stuff ever. And whenever I would run into Chantal at Carbon Unbound, I would start—I’m a pretty ebullient kind of guy. I like being optimistic. And whatever conversation I would have with her would always turn into just me being like, AI is freaking me out. Or like, how about some of the stuff going on with NATO in Greenland? And like, how about this? I’m just like, I swear, Chantal, I’m like a totally cool, really normal person here.

But yes, this work is difficult and it is nice to have someone back you up. That what we’re seeing now, maybe eddies, and the main current of the river is still going in the right direction. And to not get distracted. I don’t know if I fully believe it, but I want to. I want to. And it’s nice to just have you sedate me a little bit or try to be like, you know, don’t overdo it.

Oli Katz: Yeah. Well, I mean, if you don’t laugh, you cry. Right? That’s basically the motto. But I think also what’s been going on is we’re over-reliant on certain countries or resources in the world. And outside of CDR, if we move away from those and countries kind of embrace more localized energy and more localized solutions where countries can support themselves in a better way, I think that’s going to be a massive benefit—and not even just environmentally, economically. And I think AI is going to really help with that. Obviously there’s a lot of question marks around the regulation, but we’re seeing some really great strides there. So I am a big optimist, and that’s probably why I’ve ended up starting a company. Because I don’t think you can be a pessimist and do that.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. It’d be a much less durable experience if you were too pessimistic. Well, give me an example of how you try to keep things fresh here. Is it just in the programming? Is it in terms of sub-events within the event? How do you do it in a way that when companies are on the margin of “we’re not sure if it’s worth attending this year,” how do you make sure you’re giving them new value each time?

Oli Katz: Yeah. I think people tend to come for one of two reasons, which is either the content or the networking. And I think both of them ultimately play into someone coming to the event. But it’s normally like you are sitting in the main stage room for a number of hours and you’re just absorbing what’s going on on stage and you love the facts and the insights, or you’re outside in the corridors bumping into people, pulling people in. And so I think those two factors, alongside always choosing really upmarket venues and cities and locations that people really want to go to—so we moved to Vancouver for the first time this year. And then I heard that there was a CDR ski trip that took place afterwards.

Ross Kenyon: I’m on that, but I couldn’t make it work.

Oli Katz: Yeah, neither could I. I’m gutted because I’m an avid skier. It’s so expensive in Whistler though. But maybe we’ll look at doing that again next year. But yeah, it’s all of the above really. It’s making sure there’s a good audience mix, making sure that the content is created with the industry, and then choosing great locations that people ultimately want to travel to and potentially will spend a couple of days either traveling or seeing friends and family. I think that’s the mix that we strive for, on top of obviously exceptional service and making it as seamless as possible for people to attend.

Ross Kenyon: I have a funny story, but I don’t know if I can keep it in the show if I share it.

Oli Katz: You can always edit that out.

Ross Kenyon: I’ll just say a safe version. I got tapped on the shoulder to moderate the AI and CDR panel because I guess the moderator couldn’t make it or something. I was there and I was looking out over the audience and I saw a scientist I have long admired and known for a very long time just open-mouth snoring in the back. So also, there’s some good napping potentially available in the main hall if you need a little doze. It’s dark in the audience. I was like, I have to talk to you later. How dare you do that.

Oli Katz: Yeah. Oh, really? No, I think it’s exhausting as well, right? Going to events. Having to travel. We’ve had people travel on the day from Japan and then just get through the day and go to networking drinks and stuff, and I just can’t see how people do it. Some people just come in and out, two days and then they’re on another plane again to another time zone. Some people’s lives revolve around traveling. So sometimes you do get the odd napper. We’ve got to leave them in peace.

Ross Kenyon: Odd napper. Yes. One question I have, and I’ve occasionally felt salty about this in the past: I know that there’s a large portion of the economics of events, especially industrial events, that has this pay-to-play element to it where people get increased visibility and stage time, and maybe they get asked to moderate or speak on panels that they otherwise would not be asked to because of it.

But I tend to think of it—this is me trying to rationalize in my head—it’s almost like people who fly first class subsidize the people in coach to be able to go. And you’re like, all right, so someone gives a speech and maybe they wouldn’t have gotten it on its own merits, but the alternative is maybe on net fewer people attend because the price goes up if we’re only letting people speak based on the merits. And that’s how I justify it in my head. But there have been times where especially when I’ve been at companies, we’d be like, we should go to this, is there any way we can speak? And they’ll be like, oh yes, it’s twenty grand for this. And you’re like, wow. That’s how it is, huh? That doesn’t feel very good sometimes. What’s it like having to balance making the economics work for your company and you personally, and also having a sense of fairness for an industry that cares about the climate? How are we supposed to make sense of the economics of events?

Oli Katz: Yeah, it’s a really difficult one, to be quite frank with you. And we do get people who are unhappy sometimes because we have to turn them away to then service sponsorship opportunities. Ultimately what it comes down to is making sure that the event is commercially feasible. And as I said, it’s incredibly expensive to put on these events and people only see the two days, but basically six months goes into this with a team of 12 now to program these. And so there’s a lot of cost involved.

And also, we don’t—it’s not a pay-to-play model in that sense. It’s always, we invite people based upon merit, who come through our research process or who are recommended by certain members of our advisory board. But there are also companies that want a little bit of additional exposure and branding and want to do something more than just a campfire session or speaking or attendance. And that’s obviously additional resource for the team, but they, as you said, also really help in ensuring that these events continue to run, continue to grow, and we continue to put more effort and emphasis into it.

And so we work really closely with our partners to make sure that we deliver that value. And we also ensure that if people are coming back time and time again to inquire about speaking, that they receive replies, they receive explanations. And we really do try our best to accommodate as many people as possible.

Ross Kenyon: Why did the economics of a carbon removal event make sense, but the economics of an adaptation event do not?

Oli Katz: It’s a massive frustration, I think, from my standpoint. And I think it comes down to one, maybe a slight lack of funding in the adaptation space. And two, a different sort of dynamic when it comes to the industry. It feels like it’s less about the private sector and more about public sector. And so to be completely transparent, we haven’t had as much experience in building public sector events. We very much focus on private sector. And so when trying to make the Adapt Unbound series work, we focused on that sort of core audience. But I think it’s still a very nascent industry. It’s growing and there’s lots of residual solutions.

And you see it in carbon removal as well. There are carbon removal suppliers like Master Reforestation who focus on wildfire-hit areas and so they have an adaptation focus. There is a really good event—I’d be really keen—I think there’s a couple actually in the US who have done it quite well. One is Red Sky Summit.

Ross Kenyon: Good name.

Oli Katz: Yeah, really good name. And they focused on wildfire tech in California. I think Convective Capital is the organizer.

Ross Kenyon: They do oven and cooking technology, right?

Oli Katz: Yeah, exactly. But they do a really great event and now they’ve broadened their mandate into adaptation. And so I think they focused on a specific niche and that was obviously great locally when it comes to California, and now they’re expanding that. So we fully support it. I don’t think it’s impossible to make work. I think the economics could work. We just ended up not being able to capture the audience in the best way.

And it then comes down to: we’re splitting our time between these two areas. We really think that we can make even more of a difference in CDR. And so we’ve paused that series for the time being, but I’m still incredibly passionate about it and really want to get back into it. So if you have any ideas, even if it’s like a small gathering or workshop—I was thinking about this because we still have people coming and inquiring, “are you putting it on?” And that’s another massive founder’s dilemma: there’s so many ideas and opportunities out there and you have to ultimately prioritize with the resources you have. And that’s been quite frustrating for me.

Ross Kenyon: When I was doing the venture fellowship at Lichen Ventures, a good chunk of last year, I was looking at a bunch of adaptation and resilience deals. This is not new insight—this is maybe the first question you should ask with anything adaptation related. But the chief problem was one about the discount rate and net present value. You have cash on hand now, you can pay cash. You literally have now against a theoretical risk at some indeterminate point in the future. And the farther away the risk is, the less that money is worth given how net present value works. So you’re just like, how do you not face that problem?

You can make it individual at the consumer level, or you can sell into a problem that already exists. Like, how do you make sure that utility lines that are causing fires get noticed much more quickly? That’s a problem with a really specific buyer that they’ll pay money today for a problem that exists today. But so much of the adaptation stuff is against future risks that I think—humans getting faster and faster, less and less patient, less and less intergenerational in how we think—I feel like a lot of those deals are just dead on arrival. Even if they are a dollar now saves a hundred dollars ten years from now. I don’t even know if that’s investible. Because of that. And I had to winnow a bunch of deals out. I’m like, this is great. This would be awesome. But humanity is going to render this commercially unviable.

Do you face a similar kind of thing? Like wildfire makes sense because that’s a problem of adaptation today, but something like sea level rise—we’re going to do it in Amsterdam, we’re going to have to expand the system and this tech around the world—people are like, ah, we’re going to deal with that later. Like, we’ve got more pressing problems, energy costs are going up. Is that what it is?

Oli Katz: Yeah, to be honest, I really don’t know. Maybe it was the fact that we didn’t spend enough time building the audience. It was really interesting though, because obviously we wanted to take it to Europe. We had some strong signals from people who attended the US event saying bring it to Europe. We thought that focusing on a niche—flooding and sea level rise and water essentially—and Amsterdam and the Netherlands are one of the wettest countries in Europe and obviously face a lot of flooding. Amsterdam’s built in a really interesting way where it mitigates flooding risk and they’ve deployed lots of amazing technologies there.

I was just quite baffled at the lack of interest and response when it came to that event. And again, I would really love to dig a bit deeper. I think we’re going to take a step back, maybe do a couple of webinars or something like that where we start to really understand what the value is. Because we don’t want to be putting on events that people don’t see value in. That just doesn’t work out for anyone. So back to the drawing board on that one, but I’m sure there are lots of people who are able to do that well.

Ross Kenyon: Maybe it’s just something that as we get closer to the biting point of the net present value, it becomes more viable. What’s it like as a leader to have to cancel an event like that? Do you have a go/no-go moment where you’re like, we don’t have enough support, we’ve got to stop and cut our losses? How do you do that? How does it feel to do that?

Oli Katz: Oh yeah, it feels awful, to be honest. It’s like your baby and something that the team has put so much time and effort into. And I feel very responsible when it comes to making decisions for the company because it affects a lot of people. You get people bought in, they put a lot of effort into it. Obviously from a financial perspective it’s very difficult as well. So all of those factors—the rejection, having to stop something that you really believe in, potential financial implications. It’s just a really, really hard decision.

But I think there comes a point when you just know that it’s just not working out and the longer that you push forward, the harder it’s going to be to end. The worse the outcome in a way. And as I said, the opportunity cost of focusing on something versus focusing on where we are seeing value being created and people really enjoying the product. I think you just end up having to make a very, very hard decision. Yeah, it’s almost impossible though, I would say.

Ross Kenyon: Doesn’t sound fun at all.

Oli Katz: Have you ever had to cancel a project or do something like that yourself?

Ross Kenyon: Had to cancel my own company, I guess.

Oli Katz: Oh, of course, yes. Yeah. Wow. I mean, that must have been—yeah. Sorry, I completely forgot about that. Poking the open wound.

Ross Kenyon: No, no—

Oli Katz: But yeah—

Ross Kenyon: But I’m sure you probably learned a lot during that too, and you’re like, okay, how did we get this deep when we had to do it, and hopefully you lost the minimum and came to a decision point early enough where you were able to make a change. I think a lot of people maybe have a “damn the torpedoes” approach at some point too. And they’re like, well, we’re in this deep. Sunk costs. Let’s just see what happens. We’re going to get more sponsors. It’ll work itself out. And then instead of a five- or low-six-figure loss, you start looking at a deeper six- or seven-figure loss. Do you have investors too? I imagine you probably do.

Oli Katz: No, we don’t actually.

Ross Kenyon: Wow. It’s all revenue-supported? That is—

Oli Katz: Yeah. I think when it comes to events, we’re not building a futuristic product or a software or something that needs a lot of capital. And so you can manage the cash flow side of things with a bit of creativity. Definitely. And there’s been lots of times—I think with any company—where you’re kind of holding your breath a bit. But yeah, we’ve managed to continue without investment so far. And I think there are certain businesses and models where that’s possible, and others where I just don’t think it’s possible at all.

Ross Kenyon: And right now there are three Carbon Unbounds for CDR, right? Europe, West Coast and East Coast of the US?

Oli Katz: Yeah. West Coast, East Coast, and then Europe.

Ross Kenyon: Is that the plan to continue that for the foreseeable future? Is that going to take place next year too?

Oli Katz: Yes. Yeah, those are the three anchor events. And then, as I alluded to, looking at other locations when we feel like we’re able to service those and have the resource. But yeah, I really want to take it to lots of other places. I think almost any location, there’s an amazing opportunity for CDR—Africa, the Middle East, South America, Asia. You kind of name it. And basically within every country you could have a smaller localized event.

And I’m sure there are, I’m aware of quite a few other events that are going on servicing different regions. But yeah, I love traveling as well. I love exploring new cultures and new countries. And so that’s been a big motivating factor outside of obviously supporting CDR and the events themselves—the opportunity to be able to travel with the work. Which I think is really exciting and motivates me outside of anything else.

Ross Kenyon: It’s hard to hear a British person say that without picturing you in a pith helmet with little khaki shorts on. Sorry. Now I’ve got to bleach that out of my—

Oli Katz: Yeah, both of us do.

Ross Kenyon: Okay. So are there going to be more? Are you going to do something in Asia? I’m seeing a lot of cool stuff happen over there, think pretty much everyone is. And Kenya obviously very famous as a hotspot. Does it make sense? I mean, even if there is enough critical mass of organizations in a certain place, I imagine you also have to judge how much economic surplus will be generated for the Unbound summits to make it worth it. Because otherwise you could focus on something that you know is going to get enough sponsorship and attendance. So it has to be of sufficient size and density for this to make sense for you. So are there other places that may surpass that limit, or not yet?

Oli Katz: TBC, watch the space. Nothing set in stone yet. I think there’s a couple of locations that we’re exploring in a bigger way. I definitely think we still would like to continue to grow the events that we are hosting and we definitely haven’t got to the peak there yet. But yeah, I think within the next couple of years you’ll definitely see another Carbon Unbound pop up somewhere else in the world. Do you have any locations that you would love to see us go to?

Ross Kenyon: I don’t know, because there is—what is it, Decarb Japan? What is the one that happened last year?

Oli Katz: Oh yeah. Is it Decarb or—I can’t—

Ross Kenyon: I can’t remember. I think it’s Decarb Japan. I didn’t go. I heard really good things about it.

Oli Katz: Yeah. So did I.

Ross Kenyon: I heard there was a lot of fun, karaoke actually. That is one thing I wanted to ask about. Carbon removal has a little bit of a self-serious vibe. It’s one of the reasons why the podcast and the memes—and I think people really relate to them too. All of the shows that I do that have emotional, theological content to them, a lot of them don’t perform as well as the things that have immediate instrumental value. But people message me more often. So it appeals to fewer people, but the people to whom it appeals, they really connect with it. And the memes too. People will often be like, are you behind the memes? I’m always like, yeah, there’s a group of us. But they’re like, I love those. We always share them.

But there’s always a more of a quietness to sharing that because it might look like the company’s not as serious. And one idea I had for Unbound that might take it in a new direction is like, how do we bring some of the silliness out? I like the emotionality of it, but I also think some amount of taking ourselves a little bit less seriously—I think getting a little loose and doing karaoke or something, just straight silly. I think that could be good. It could be a terrible idea as well.

Oli Katz: Yeah. Have you seen, I know the AirMiners have done a couple of events. I think Tito brings the energy and excitement in that sort of way. Which is a lot of fun. And I think one of their events, they actually got—it was like a rap where you basically rap about CDR, and it’s incredibly—I’d say, I don’t want to say nerdy in terms of how it comes across, but I love it. I think it’s amazing. It’s really creative. And is that a similar sort of thing to what you’re going for? Just taking the edge off a bit?

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I think that. Or it doesn’t have to be goofy per se, but I think something like—if you had someone who could just have us paint watercolors for an hour and just, because oftentimes you’ll sit next to someone and those conversations will be less performative and more like—when your rational brain is occupied with that, some of the more natural—I feel like some of those things, it’s hard to articulate a value to that. I think a lot of people in our industry who are a bit more STEM-oriented and a bit more serious might not see it. But I swear to you, people respond.

All the stuff I do that ends up on the less—for instance, a show that I did recently that a lot of people really liked and did good numbers was the one I did about A Healthier Earth, about private equity owning the data center company, and then owning A Healthier Earth and integrating biochar into data centers and private equity. And that had a lot of value because a lot of people listened and were like, oh, our ticket sizes are too small. We should be thinking a lot bigger. How can we do this? People like that and it does well. But also those quieter ones that I do, I get secret messages about them.

They feel to me more like they’re trying to provide value in that first category, which Unbound is very good at. Is there room to grow into that second category? And how do you do it in a non-cringe way? Because there is a risk of being cringe whenever you are doing something that doesn’t have immediate obvious value.

Oli Katz: I agree. I think a couple of events that do it really well—and maybe I’m shooting myself in the foot by recommending other events, but we’re all friends.

Ross Kenyon: Confidence.

Oli Katz: The Drop, which is in Europe—

Ross Kenyon: The Malmö one, right?

Oli Katz: Yeah. Really. I love the branding. I think it’s super cool. I’m a big fan. They do some really interesting, more quirky networking pieces. I haven’t been myself, but it looks more towards that sort of side. And then Old Carbon, they do their annual summit in India—

Ross Kenyon: Like the Darjeeling tea.

Oli Katz: Yeah. And I think again, the pictures are amazing. Absolutely love their brand. And I think it looks like pairing it with the culture of where they’re located and some really interesting and unique settings and experiences. It’s definitely something that I’m really keen on exploring for Carbon Unbound. Yeah, I think we potentially have some ideas for that.

But yeah, that’s got me thinking actually, so thank you. If there’s anything in particular that you’d love to see—maybe like—I’m trying to think. I’ve also seen starting the day with, again maybe a little bit more serious, but on a meditation side of things or yoga to start the day. So you kind of come in and you’re stretched and your mind’s feeling a little bit more empty and less about thinking about the news and the day. Things like that I think can be really helpful and productive as you go into an event as well.

Ross Kenyon: Yes. I always want to find ways to do more of that stuff. And the examples you and I both gave are good ones. There’s something—I enjoy alcohol to some extent and drink some, but also try not to because it makes you feel bad. It messes up sleep. There’s some part of adulthood where you’re like, does everything need to be alcohol-related? Does everything just—late night, you feel bad the next day. What if we did something? What if we all ate salads and had adaptogens instead of having constant booze input at every conference you go to?

I got a migraine at Carbon Unbound this year too. I pushed it too hard. I think I spoke for 13 or 14 hours a day. Not surprising given how this podcast has gone—I tend to gab a little bit. But I was just like, oh, I think I just wore myself out hanging with everyone. Having so much fun. But yeah, a lot of that is also alcohol and staying up late. How do you be social and encourage people to let loose without it being dependent upon something that maybe doesn’t make us feel that good?

Oli Katz: Yeah, it’s an interesting one. I think the younger generations—and even in my generation—I’m starting to see lots of friends just not drink. We had a Christmas get-together with some friends last year and no one drank. And that was just kind of—it was weird, right? But it’s great and I fully support it. But it’s so amazing, particularly in Western society, how ingrained alcohol is. Basically anything you do with friends revolves around having a drink.

And so yeah, it’d be interesting to see maybe some of the stats from our catering, like how many people are consuming non-alcoholic drinks. We’ve got a really—I mean this is slightly different because it’s actually in the morning. So you probably expect people not to be drinking by then. You’d hope not. But we are going to be serving some CDR coffee and chocolates and things like that that—so we’re trying to integrate more of those experiences into the events to bring some life to it. So definitely come to the East Coast event if you are into your coffee and chocolate, because there’ll be a lot there on the morning of day one.

Ross Kenyon: This podcast has just become me trying to become a consultant to Unbound or something. How much do you charge? No, I really do love being there. And I like that these events don’t just magically appear without huge amounts of labor and investment going into making them really nice and ideally worth the value of attending. That’s a hard equation to figure out. And I feel like I’ve enjoyed my time going to Unbound. I would like to go to many more and keep going.

Oli Katz: Oh, you’re always invited.

Ross Kenyon: Always invited. Yeah. I think it’s really wonderful. And also, I’m happy to keep pitching you my—I guess all my ideas are basically either increased zaniness or increased wellness. I think those are probably the two biggest themes here. But I would like to see our nerdy little industry loosen up a bit and stop having to be so serious. Because I know you all secretly love the memes. I know you all secretly want to talk about real big stuff on the podcast. More memes. I know. I know. It’s there. More memes. I know. People, you don’t need to pretend that you’re only one thing. You can be a really serious scientist or business person and also love to laugh at some really absurd stuff.

Oli Katz: Yeah, I definitely catch myself out sometimes as well, trying to be—I definitely sometimes feel like I’m coming across too serious. Sometimes being able to loosen up and just forget all of the small or large problems that you’re currently facing. And also taking a step back and being like, we are doing pretty well. Whether it’s from a company perspective, from yourself, or as an industry—it’s very easy year on year, month on month, to look at where you were just a couple of days ago and be like, we are not growing fast enough, or we’re not doing enough, or we’re not getting enough buyers in the space.

But literally if you compare where we’re at now to two years ago, it’s something that should be celebrated. And sometimes, like you said, those moments where people come out of their shell a bit and are less serious—the nitty-gritty sometimes is where great ideas come together and some lifelong friendships are made. And I think that’s ultimately part and parcel with what we want to build here.

Ross Kenyon: For sure. I think those are all really good things to keep in mind. And I also think it’s good to not be so hard on yourself either when you show up in that way. I can do a podcast here talking about silliness and humor and emotions and stuff. But yesterday I was at the coworking space and in the silent zone they have overhead fluorescent lights, and then every desk has these beautiful lamp lights that make the room so cozy. And I got there a little bit later than everyone else. I’m like, do you guys mind if I turn off the overhead so we can have the really nice lighting? And everyone’s like, I actually prefer more light and I want the overhead. And I was so frustrated with them.

I’m like, yeah, I’m a deeply spiritual person, I guess. I’m so mature, well-adjusted. I’m so annoyed about an aesthetic preference that diverges from mine. So yeah, I think you can run your mouth about how well-adjusted you are and how gratitude is important to you, but it is really hard to operationalize that on a regular basis. I’m not even close to being there.

Oli Katz: Yeah. I think it’s a constant battle. Some people will just have it, they’re just more inclined that way. And others are a bit more reserved or serious. So loosen up, I guess. Note to self.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I know how to get there. My goal over time is to be one of those older people where you’re like, wow, you’re exactly where you’re supposed to be. Not trying to be anywhere else. Totally contented. How do you get from this to that? I think that’s the life’s mission. But still working on it. Maybe you too. There’s time for us, I think.

Oli Katz: I think there is. Yeah.

Ross Kenyon: Thanks for being on, Oli. Appreciate you answering so many pretty difficult questions about how events work in our industry. And thanks for doing what you do. I think Unbound—I’m not just saying it either. I don’t invite people on to just blow smoke and flatter them. But I do think Unbound is a really important part of the ecosystem. And I’m glad I get to come and hang with you and so many of our colleagues. So thank you for doing the hard work of making it a real thing.

Oli Katz: I really appreciate it. Thank you for having me on. And I guess a final note: we just need more people in CDR. We also need as much diversity and we need to support other communities and countries and areas that maybe don’t have the privilege that the US or the UK has. And so making sure that we bring as many of those people into the sphere of CDR as possible to make this work. So that’s our goal. And yeah, again, really appreciate having me on.

Share

Subscribe now

This is an episode summary of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. It’s a short bonus episode in which Matt Schmitt, CEO and co-founder of Structure Climate, calls in to read Rudyard Kipling’s “If—” and share what the poem means to him and his work in carbon dioxide removal. The contribution was prompted by the recent Emily Swaddle episode in which Ross and Emily spoke about poems that have mattered to each of them.

You can listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever else you listen to podcasts. You can also listen to it in its entirety right below this paragraph.

Quick Takeaways

• Matt Schmitt was inspired by the poetry thread in the Emily Swaddle episode and called in to read “If—” by Rudyard Kipling.

• The whole poem is here, but Matt focuses on two lines: “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster / And treat those two impostors just the same,” and “If you can fill the unforgiving minute / With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run.”

• Triumph and Disaster are both capitalized in Kipling’s text. Matt reads that as part of what makes them feel like impostors; they’re styled like personas, not facts.

• The verb “treat” is doing double work: treat as in “treat someone well,” and treat as in “treaty”—to negotiate over the long term.

• The unforgiving minute doesn’t care what you think. The minute is sixty seconds. If the map and the ground disagree, the map is wrong.

• His closing thought: we often think what we measure is important, not because it’s important but because we can measure it. Sharing poetry on a carbon removal podcast doesn’t measure cleanly. It still feels right.

“If—" by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you   
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;   
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;   
    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;   
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;   
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,   
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,   
    Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,   
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,   
    And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

A Listener Calls In

This is a different kind of episode for the show. Matt Schmitt heard the recent conversation with Emily Swaddle, where Ross and Emily spent some time on poems that have meant a lot to each of them, and decided to call in from Minneapolis with one of his own. So this isn’t an interview and it isn’t a Ross monologue. It’s a listener contribution—a colleague in the carbon removal world picking up the thread and running with it.

The poem he chose is Kipling’s “If—,” one of those poems that has spent a hundred years getting quoted, embroidered onto walls, and hung in locker rooms. Matt reads it through, and then stops on two parts of it that have stayed with him.

Triumph and Disaster as Impostors

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same.

Matt’s first observation is small but worth sitting with: Kipling capitalizes both Triumph and Disaster. He doesn’t have to. The capitalization styles them as figures, almost as characters who walk into the room. And that, Matt argues, is part of what makes the impostor framing land. They show up dressed like they matter. The poem says: don’t let the costume fool you.

The reading underneath this is unsentimental. Nothing is ever as good as it seems. Nothing is ever as bad as it seems. Both feelings overstate the case, and the discipline the poem is asking for is the discipline of refusing to be moved by either to the degree they want to move you.

Then Matt does something nice with the verb. “Treat” carries an obvious meaning—treat people how you want to be treated, treat triumph and disaster gently, evenly, with the same hand. But “treat” also lives inside the word “treaty.” To treat with someone is to negotiate, to come to terms over the long run. Matt reads the line both ways at once: you are treating triumph and disaster well, and you are also entering into a long-term negotiation with them. You’re going to keep meeting them. You’re going to have to keep coming to terms.

That second reading does something the first one doesn’t. It makes the relationship ongoing. You don’t beat the impostors and move on. You stay in conversation with them for as long as the work lasts.

The Unforgiving Minute

If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run.

This is the line Matt loves most. The minute is sixty seconds. It does not care whether you think it is sixty seconds. It does not care how you feel about the day, or how busy you’ve been, or what your map of the situation says about how the time should be spent. The minute is the minute.

He uses an analogy here that’s worth quoting properly. We have a tendency, he says, to look at the world and see both the land and the maps we use to navigate the land — and the land can be physical, social, spiritual, cultural, whatever. The maps do their best to portray what the mapmaker thought was important. But if the map and the ground disagree, the map is wrong. The map doesn’t get to negotiate with the ground. The map can’t treat with the ground the way you might treat with Triumph and Disaster. The ground just is.

The unforgiving minute is the ground. Your sense of how productive you were, your sense of how much time you had—those are the map. If they don’t match, the map is the part that has to change.

It’s a tough reading, and Matt doesn’t soften it. Fill the minute or don’t. The minute will be sixty seconds either way.

Why Read Poetry on a Podcast About Carbon Removal

Matt closes with a small defense of the whole exercise. He acknowledges, before anyone else has to, that the poem is about a hundred years old and has a lot of gendered language (”you’ll be a Man, my son”) that doesn’t translate cleanly to the present.

And then he gets to what is, for our purposes, the most useful sentence in the episode: we often think what we measure is important, not because it’s important but because we can measure it.

He can’t tell you exactly how reading poetry on a carbon removal podcast contributes to the work of carbon removal. He doesn’t try. But, he says, it feels good and it feels right, and that is itself information worth taking seriously. The unmeasured part of the work is still part of the work.

If you have a poem you’d like to read on the show, the door is open.

Share

Subscribe now

Full Transcript

Matt Schmitt: Hey Ross. This is Matt Schmitt. I’m CEO and co-founder of Structure Climate, speaking to you from Minneapolis, Minnesota. I was so inspired by your recent episode with Emily when you touched on poetry and started talking about poems that meant a lot to you, that I wanted to share a reading of a poem with you and your audience, and also then share some of what it means to me. And so today I will be reading “If—” by Rudyard Kipling.

If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies, Or being hated, don’t give way to hating, And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream — and not make dreams your master; If you can think — and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to broken, And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with kings — nor lose the common touch; If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you; If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run — Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And — which is more — you’ll be a Man, my son!

So the two parts that I want to touch on are Triumph and Disaster, and then the unforgiving minute.

The Triumph and Disaster: “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two impostors just the same.” The idea of Triumph and Disaster both as impostors I think is so rich and real and also uncomfortable. But often what we face — nothing is ever as good as it seems, nothing is ever as bad as it seems. To Kipling’s credit, both Triumph and Disaster are capitalized, which I think actually adds to the feel of them being an impostor. “Meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two impostors.” “Treat” here is another word that I love, because, I mean, yes, there is the basic, you know, treat people how you want to be treated, and yet there’s also the use of “treat” as negotiation, or to sign a treaty, with the idea that there is a long-term component to it. You are treating with Triumph and Disaster. And yes, they are impostors, and yes, you should treat them just the same. And if you can do that, well, then so much the better.

And then the second part: “If you can fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds’ worth of distance run.” This idea of the unforgiving minute, the minute that is sixty seconds — it does not care whether you think it is sixty seconds or not. The minute is sixty seconds. And the question is, can you fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds’ distance run?

I think that we have a tendency, when we look around, to see the land and to see the maps that we use to navigate that land. And the land could be physical, the land could be social, the land could be spiritual or cultural. And our maps likewise do their best to portray what the mapmaker thought was important to portray about the land. And yet if the map and the ground disagree, the map is wrong. It’s not a negotiation between the map and the ground. The map doesn’t get a chance to treat with the ground. The unforgiving minute is the unforgiving minute. And if you can fill that unforgiving minute with sixty seconds’ distance run, then the world will be yours and everything in it. And what’s more, you’ll be a man, my son.

I do want to acknowledge that there are a lot of gender-coded references throughout this poem, it being maybe a hundred years old or so. But yeah, that’s what I wanted to share.

Ross, I really appreciate the opportunity to use your platform, your audience, your listeners, as a chance to have this kind of dialogue. I think that this sort of thing is important even if it’s difficult to measure, and yet I try to keep in mind that we often think what we measure is important not because it’s important but because we can measure it. And so even if it’s hard to describe exactly how reading poetry and sharing thoughts about poetry ties into carbon removal — to me, Ross, I have to say, it feels good, it feels right. And so it is my pleasure to contribute this to the show.

Once again, this has been Matt Schmitt, CEO and co-founder of Structure Climate, calling in from Minneapolis and sharing “If—” by Rudyard Kipling.

See you all out there.

Subscribe now

Share

This is a summary of episode 395 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your shows. You can also listen to the full episode right below this paragraph.

Quick Takeaways

1. Carbon removal received over $125 million in FY26 appropriations, including $80 million for DOE research and development and $45 million for the CDR purchase pilot prize. This was about $125 million more than anyone expected.

2. The Carbon Removal Alliance tripled its Republican congressional meetings in one year, going from 5 to 17, in what Eli describes as a harder political moment. The key: framing carbon removal as industrial policy, not climate policy.

3. Every single carbon removal company in CRA’s membership is deploying in partnership with industrial players. Enhanced rock weathering saves farmers money. Carbon mineralization reduces mining waste. BECCS generates energy. The industrial integration story is not hypothetical.

4. 45Q was one of the only energy tax credits to not only survive but get expanded in the reconciliation package, largely because of its association with industries like oil and gas and the bipartisan coalition behind it.

5. The EPA’s EMRTAI program, a small initiative for innovative mining technologies on waste material, is being expanded to include carbon removal pilots. This could give mineralization companies access to feedstocks and pilot sites the mining sector has been too risk-averse to offer on its own.

The Soothing Rhetorical Embrace of the Second Tallest Man in Carbon Removal

I have been, by my own admission on this show, a bit of a chicken little lately. The federal policy landscape for carbon removal looks bad if you’re reading headlines. I said as much in a recent episode and meant it. So I asked Eli Cain, Deputy Director of Policy at the Carbon Removal Alliance, to come on and tell me where I’m wrong.

He did.

The conversation that followed was one of those episodes that genuinely recalibrated how I think about what’s happening in Washington. Not because Eli is naive about the difficulties, but because his organization is doing the kind of granular, meeting-by-meeting, policy-by-policy work that doesn’t make headlines but determines outcomes.

The numbers no one is talking about

The headline number is $125 million. That is what carbon removal received in FY26 appropriations, passed in January. It broke down to $80 million for research and development at the Department of Energy and $45 million for the CDR purchase pilot prize. Eli was quick to point out that this was roughly $125 million more than anyone expected, and that it didn’t happen by accident. Organizations like the CRA spend nearly a year working on appropriations, communicating the importance of these programs to Congress.

What struck me about this number is how little attention it got. The narrative in our industry has been dominated by what’s being cut, what’s being frozen, what’s under threat. And all of that is real. But $125 million materialized through a process that most people in carbon removal don’t track closely, and the people who made it happen did so through the unsexy work of showing up to offices and explaining why it mattered.

Selling carbon removal without saying “climate”

The CRA held its annual fly-in day a few weeks before we recorded, bringing carbon removal members to DC for 34 congressional meetings. Last year they had about 5 meetings with Republicans. This year, 17. That shift didn’t happen because Republicans suddenly got excited about climate policy. It happened because the CRA got smarter about how it frames what carbon removal actually does.

The framing that works right now is industrial policy. Enhanced rock weathering saves farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on soil amendments and improves yields. You can walk into a congressional office and talk about supporting American agriculture without ever uttering the word “emissions.” Carbon mineralization reduces the volume of toxic waste at mine sites, destroys asbestos fibers, and helps extract critical minerals from legacy waste piles. BECCS literally generates energy while removing carbon. These are not hypothetical co-benefits. Every single CRA member company is deploying in partnership with industrial players. Every one.

Eli put it simply: “We are a climate solution. We just happen to have really tangible industrial benefits as well.” The trick is knowing which part of that sentence to lead with, depending on the room.

Two tracks, one destination

What I found most clarifying about Eli’s description of their strategy was the explicit two-track structure. On one hand, there’s the near-term pragmatic work: appropriations, expanding existing EPA programs, building an enhanced rock weathering research network with Cascade Climate. These are winnable policies that keep companies alive and preserve the progress of the last decade. On the other hand, there’s the long-term coalition building for the big swings, the kind of market-shaping policy that takes years to develop and a broad political coalition to pass.

Eli pointed out that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act took roughly 20 years from concept to passage if you trace the core ideas back to the Obama administration. That kind of timescale requires both patience and the discipline to not put all your eggs in the big-swing basket while companies are struggling today.

The 45Q signal

One of the most telling indicators Eli highlighted was the fate of 45Q in the reconciliation process. It was one of the only energy tax credits to not only survive but actually get expanded. That happened because of its association with industries like oil and gas and the bipartisan support that had been built around it. It’s a useful proof point for the CRA’s thesis: durable policy is bipartisan policy, and the way you make climate policy bipartisan is by embedding it in things both sides already care about.

A note on pragmatism and values

I brought up something Aaron Burns from Carbon 180 had said on a previous episode about not wanting to cede rhetorical ground by downplaying the climate motivations behind carbon removal. Eli’s response was diplomatic but clear. The CRA’s approach isn’t about changing what they believe. It’s about meeting offices where they are and introducing carbon removal through whatever door is already open. If that door is agriculture, you talk about farmers. If it’s mining, you talk about waste reduction. The underlying commitment to carbon removal as a climate solution doesn’t change, but the pitch does.

I think there’s real wisdom in both approaches, and the tension between them is productive rather than destructive. You need people holding the line on why this work matters. You also need people walking into offices with farm data and getting $125 million.

Not out of the woods

Eli didn’t try to tell me everything is fine. The administration remains something of a black box for existing programs like the DAC Hubs. The farm bill is uncertain. The broader political landscape for environmental policy is genuinely difficult. But the story Eli told is one of a field that is learning to operate in the political environment that actually exists rather than the one it wishes existed.

You trim your sails to the winds that exist, not the ones you wish existed. That’s not a famous quote. It’s just something I said in the intro to this episode. But it captures what I took away from this conversation. The Carbon Removal Alliance is doing the hard, boring, creative work of making carbon removal legible to a political system that doesn’t owe it anything. And it appears to be working.

Share

Subscribe now

Full Transcript

Ross Kenyon: You like Cain, the second tallest person in carbon removal? Hello?

Eli Cain: Yeah. Actually, I’m quite proud of that fact. So thank you for introducing me that way.

Ross Kenyon: Number one, the current champion, Matt Plasik. Hope you’re listening, Matt. We love you.

Eli Cain: Yeah, no, I don’t see him getting beat anytime soon, but second place is still a significant honor.

Ross Kenyon: Yes. I’m really happy to have you on Eli. Thanks for doing the difficult work of staying on top of federal policy in a time that I think to people who are not in DC and not the specific kind of nerd that wants to read policy briefs and a thousand pages of legislation and stuff like that, it looks grim. But your organization, the Carbon Removal Alliance, does not think it’s as grim as maybe I presented in a recent podcast. There’s some green shoots. There’s things that are happening that I need to be reminded of. So if you listen to my very depressing “Oh God, this macro stuff is not looking good,” can you help me? Can you boom me back up?

Eli Cain: So as you mentioned, we are focused at the federal level in the US and our work has changed over the last year and a half since the inauguration, but we’re still really bullish on US federal policy, and that continues to be our focal area for many reasons. Maybe it’s worth taking a step back and reorienting around what has happened over the last year and what we’ve currently seen in 2026.

Ross Kenyon: Gosh, how could you possibly do an effective job at all that’s happened in this time, but yes, take a stab at it. Please, please tell me. Recap it.

Eli Cain: Yeah, so even just in 2026, we’ve seen what I would consider pretty significant positive indicators for carbon removal policy at the federal level. So every year, ideally every year, although sometimes this gets a little funky because policy is always a little funky, we go through the annual appropriations process. This is when the US federal government and its agencies sets discretionary budget levels. In other words, this is how a lot of the federal government gets funded.

Ross Kenyon: Is this what’s happening now with the DHS stuff, that there’s no agreement? Is that part of appropriations?

Eli Cain: It is not. That’s on the non-discretionary spending side. And for FY26, this wrapped up in January and now we’re going through that process for fiscal year 2027. But in January they released the FY26 appropriations bills that outlined how most federal agencies would be funded, and included in that, carbon removal got over $125 million. That was about $125 million more than anyone kind of expected. And we were really excited about that. And that was broken down through several different programs, but it included $80 million for research and development at the Department of Energy, $45 million for a continuation of the CDR purchase pilot prize, which is one of the programs I got to run. And these are really important, really critical policies for the carbon removal industry in the US. And that didn’t happen by accident. Organizations like mine and others in the space spend nearly a year working on appropriations and communicating the importance of that within Congress. But that was a hugely impactful thing that no one’s really talking about in the US policy space. So that’s certainly one thing that we’re excited about.

Ross Kenyon: Even just hearing those numbers, I’m already feeling some of the endorphins flooding my bloodstream, returning to hale and hardy health now. How does this work with the various members of Congress who are doing this work where I think there’s been an assumption that’s been challenged pretty recently around Trump’s control of Republican legislators, and that he actually had them pretty well, like this is what I want to do, this is the priority, make the SAVE Act happen, this is what I want. And especially with Iran, we’re seeing more people break. Then again, we also saw some really strong breaks with the Epstein files too. It isn’t nearly as controlled by the White House as maybe meets the eye. And are we seeing places where there’s just like, this is in my backyard, this is in my district, these are jobs, there are good reasons to do this, there’s a plug into oil and gas in a favorable way. What are the things that are making this happen? What are the politics that make individuals want to stand up for this in a time when you would expect them to say yeah, $0 instead of $125 million?

Eli Cain: Yeah, that is a really good question and one we think a lot about. And I think the answer is as nuanced as you could expect. It really varies congressional member by congressional member. And one thing I’d highlight is that just a few weeks ago, we brought all carbon removal members down to Washington DC for what we call our annual fly-in day, where we had 34 congressional meetings to talk about our appropriations requests. And when we did this last year, we had about five Republican meetings, which was a good number considering how carbon removal was portrayed as a climate solution.

Ross Kenyon: Both houses of Congress?

Eli Cain: Both houses.

Ross Kenyon: Okay.

Eli Cain: This year we had 17 Republican meetings.

Ross Kenyon: How many are you able to say? How many senators and how many congressmen and women?

Eli Cain: Yeah, it is usually roughly evenly split between the two. And we target different members depending on the policy we’re working on. But this year we had 17 Republican meetings and so we went from five last year to 17. And this is in a harder political moment, and I think it underscores the fact that our messaging around carbon removal has gotten a lot smarter and the policies we’re working on have gotten more targeted. And because of that, we’re able to reach new offices that have never heard of carbon removal before and might not even be on the side of the aisle that we would expect.

Ross Kenyon: Give me a little taste of that. What’s a message that you’re noticing is working really well in this political moment?

Eli Cain: Yeah. Anyone who’s tapped into US policy in general will notice that a key theme is around industrial policy, whether that is critical mineral extraction and shoring up our domestic supply chains of critical minerals, which has been a bipartisan priority since the Clinton administration, or artificial intelligence or agriculture or steel. These are the themes that we’ve really seen over the last year and those are the themes that we can tap into for carbon removal in a really effective way. And we’ve had this thesis for years at the Carbon Removal Alliance, but when you look across our membership and you say, how are people actually deploying carbon removal today? Every single carbon removal company in our membership is deploying in partnership with industrial players.

Ross Kenyon: Every one.

Eli Cain: Every one.

Ross Kenyon: Wow. Okay.

Eli Cain: And that is a really important fact and a really important thesis for the long-term durability of carbon removal policy. Maybe a few tangible examples that we can point to. Enhanced rock weathering is integration into agriculture, right? We know it as a climate solution, but it’s also a solution that can save farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on critical soil amendments. That is a narrative that really sells. You can walk into an office and say you have farmers in your district who are working with enhanced rock weathering companies. It saves them hundreds of thousands of dollars every year and it improves their yields. That is a bipartisan message that resonates despite the political climate, and we have many more examples of that. And so happy to chat a little bit more about the specific policies. The other one that we’re really excited about is the integration of mineralization technologies into the domestic mining sector, and I really think it’s kind of this unicorn opportunity where we have a carbon removal solution with huge potential for scale in mineralization, while at the same time it can make it easier to extract critical minerals from legacy waste piles and have environmental remediation benefits. There’s not an office that isn’t interested in those things, and so we can talk about carbon removal as part of a broader suite of industrial policy and talk about carbon removal as essential American infrastructure. That’s the message that has really resonated.

Ross Kenyon: How fascinating. When you’re in these meetings, do you ever wish that your organization was named something else or do you not feel like it’s harming you?

Eli Cain: You know, I think it is a, I know it is a tongue in cheek question, but it is something we think about both because carbon is a relatively clear indicator of where we stand. But we also are not shy about why we do the work we do. And we need to remember that carbon removal is a climate solution at the end of the day. And so we don’t lie about what carbon removal is and is not. We are a climate solution. We just happen to have really tangible industrial benefits as well. And we can talk about those in these audiences as well.

Ross Kenyon: I have another tongue in cheek one for you. Are you ready for it?

Eli Cain: Oh yeah.

Ross Kenyon: How much is this work like Veep?

Eli Cain: Yeah, it’s simply the best show of all time. And I think every time I come back from DC I binge it again because you’re like, oh my God, I have such a deep appreciation for it now. It is and it isn’t, as with all things. I haven’t worked on the Hill. We have members of our team who spent over a decade on the Hill. And so they are the ones who eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner on Capitol Hill and know everybody and know how to get things passed, which is very central to our thesis as the Carbon Removal Alliance. We’re not a think tank. We don’t write policy papers that are designed only to be digested by the carbon removal field. Everything we do is designed with a lens towards passage and implementation. And so we have the people who know how to get that done. And so some of it’s like that, but I think it’s about being creative is what I would say. It’s finding the creative ways to message to the right people at the right times.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. The thing that I’ve always noticed with working with Gianna or just knowing people involved in Carbon 180 for a long time and CRA is that people who are serious about politics enough to make it their career in DC, they’re very practical people. And I studied political philosophy and did PhD work in it. And that type of politics that’s closely linked to the world of ideas finds politics almost inherently frustrating because you know that you have to be practical and cut deals and meet people where they are. And that can sometimes be really frustrating for someone who cares about philosophy. But it sounds like you have found your way in. It may not be your preferred way in. You found a way in. You guys are getting these meetings across the aisle and stuff is happening because you found a story in a political economy that just kind of makes sense for everyone. What’s that like? Are you just happy that the result happens? You don’t really care that much about the exact package that it finds itself in, or does it ever feel kind of like weird, strange bedfellows of selling it in this way? How does that work feel emotionally to you?

Eli Cain: Yeah, good question. And maybe I would say our work really has two main tracks. On one hand, we’re focused on these near-term, very pragmatic policies that we can integrate within the broader messaging of industrial policy in the US, and we’re focused on that work because the domestic carbon removal industry can’t wait around. We are in a critical moment where companies are really struggling and they need near-term support. And so we are really focused on providing them that support through federal policy. At the same time, we are also thinking about the big ambitious policies. What are the big swings that we can take to be really market-shaping forces? And those are policies that take a long time to both develop and to create the political coalitions to make sure they’re viable. And so in the background, we’re doing all of this political will building and coalition building to say, hey, eventually, when we have the opportunity to take a big swing, what does that look like? And what does the carbon industry really need? And I would say between those two things, I stay very energized to know that we can support near-term companies and make sure that companies aren’t going out of business and we’re not losing the progress that we’ve made over the last decade. And then thinking big about what comes next. And the combination of those two things really energizes me.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, that’s really good to hear. I think that’s true of a lot of bills though, that there are some things that people wrote five years ahead of time, and then the political moment arrives and it’s like, oh, this draft has been floating around the Hill for a long time. That’s probably how it works, right?

Eli Cain: Yeah, exactly right. If you look at the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, these are generational pieces of climate policy. They took 20 years to pass. Really, by the time you look at where some of the core concepts and core ideas in both of those bills originated, it was back in the Obama administration. These things take a long time to gain momentum. And so we want to make sure that we’re thoughtful about that and we’re building the political coalition so eventually we do reach that end goal, but that we’re not putting all of our eggs in that basket and that we’re also focused on the near-term pragmatic things that can really have tangible impacts today.

Ross Kenyon: I could see some stories being really powerful. I worked in ag for a long time and being a farmer right now seems not so fun. Really had a terrible go of things recently with commodity prices, and synthetic fertilizers are only getting more expensive, and energy is going up. And then we saw China switching its soybean buying, which I think they changed back a little bit, so it wasn’t a permanent switch, but I think there’s probably going to be a fair amount of USDA kind of momentum there for various types of carbon removal. That seems like a pretty natural thing. Is that a true insight? Is that actually happening to the degree that one might expect?

Eli Cain: Yeah, I think supporting American farmers is a positive political narrative at any stage, and it’s currently true today. So we work in coalition with folks like Cascade Climate and some enhanced rock weathering companies to think through what does the domestic enhanced rock weathering field need today? And we put together a few different policy proposals. Some are tied to the appropriations process, some are tied to the farm bill. But they’re all focused around the same idea of how do we support the enhanced rock weathering field and thereby support the American agricultural industry from international competition and rising prices and all these things. So it’s absolutely something that we think about.

Ross Kenyon: What’s the status of the farm bill?

Eli Cain: Farm bill is a little up in the air and we get mixed messages on that every day. Right now it’s looking like it’s unlikely to advance past the markup, but new intel on that every time. So don’t hold me to it. I would say in the near term, we think the FY27 appropriations process probably provides a more tangible route to success than the farm bill does. So that’s kind of how we’re thinking about it now.

Ross Kenyon: I didn’t understand the mining story as clearly. Where was the savings element of it? Because I’m also seeing rollback for various requirements to manage toxicity and pollutants of other kinds. And so if it relates to that work, this has come up on the show a bunch in the last year, but the tension between MAGA and MAHA, and I was wondering, maybe MAHA would have some of this anti-toxicity stuff that would drive some of this policy that wasn’t carbon related but was focused on PFAS and forever chemicals and stuff like this. And I don’t feel like it’s happened. I feel like the RFK thing has been a little bit of a sideshow and any of those hopes haven’t really materialized. But maybe I’m missing something. What’s driving the interest of mining companies in carbon removal?

Eli Cain: Yeah, a few things. Maybe I’ll start at the high level and then talk through the problem we’re trying to solve with our specific policy. So at the high level, most of the mining majors have their own net-zero targets, so that is something that is true kind of across the board. If you look at the 20 largest mining companies in the world, almost all of them have their own internal net-zero targets. So they’re trying to do this work, which is super admirable. The other thing is that the integration of carbon removal onto both active and legacy mine sites brings really tangible non-carbon-removal benefits, and those are the things that are really attractive to the mining sector. So those are things like reducing the volume of the waste materials that they produce. These are huge environmental liabilities. If you look at the phosphogypsum industry, the phosphogypsum stacks that they produce are literally radioactive stacks of waste material that they have to treat all the water that goes through them and control them for the lifetime of that stack. It is literally the largest environmental liability these companies have. And so if we can reduce the volume of waste that goes into that, we’re saving them money. That’s not an intangible. That’s a practical cost saver. And that is true for other implementations as well. When we think about things like asbestos remediation, the process of carbon mineralization for asbestos destroys the toxic asbestos fibers that you find on these sites. And that’s again a huge public health and environmental safety benefit. But I think the key point here is they’re interested because you’re bringing tangible, non-carbon-removal benefits to their business.

Ross Kenyon: For the phosphogypsum point, the radioactive waste, I imagine it’s waste rock. What exactly is happening here? How is it becoming not that?

Eli Cain: Yeah, so it is literally stored in these giant tailing dams, these giant piles. And what happens is when rain goes through it, it releases acid water runoff. And so you can have companies like Travertine Tech, which is one that does this. They use that waste for carbon mineralization instead. So instead of going into a tailing dam, they are using that for carbon removal, reducing the volume that goes into the pile.

Ross Kenyon: Oh, so it’s just an input for a carbon removal process that is somehow obliterating the radioactivity or transforming it in some way.

Eli Cain: Yeah. Travertine’s process is incredible. They just opened up their pilot facility up in New York. And speaking of domestic fertilizer inputs, those are a huge input into that. And so their process is a really wonderful example of how you can have this varied approach to carbon removal where you’re having an industrial benefit tie into an existing industry like agriculture and fertilizer and saving the domestic mining companies money.

Ross Kenyon: How’s it looking for BECCS and direct air capture with 45Q? I think everyone noticed how protected that was, and I think it caught some people off guard.

Eli Cain: Yeah, I think this is something we don’t talk about enough in the carbon removal industry. The dominant political narrative over the last year has been energy dominance and energy security. We have an energy play in carbon removal. It’s called bioenergy with carbon capture. We are literally generating energy and at the same time doing carbon removal. And so I think we’ve seen this both in terms of the scale of industry as BECCS has grown recently with its ability to scale quickly and its political saliency. It’s a really powerful message that we don’t emphasize enough. So I’m very bullish on BECCS. I think it makes a ton of sense to do. And we’ve seen really strong support for it. As you noted, 45Q was one of the only energy tax credits to not only be preserved but expanded as part of the reconciliation package, the One Big Beautiful Bill last year. So that was expanded, which I think was a really positive sign for the carbon removal industry and was a good blueprint for how we engage a diverse political coalition to protect these key policies. It was protected both because of its carbon removal potential, but also because of its association with other industries like oil and gas.

Ross Kenyon: How much inertia is there in the legislature? I think one thing you could say independently of your politics here, divorced from any sort of pejorative framing or judgment, Trump is a sort of intuitive, mercurial person. He seems like he’s driven often by his gut. He kind of just says how he feels a lot of times for better or for worse. And it seems hard to make policy around, where one of the main benefits of holding the presidency is the bully pulpit, Theodore Roosevelt. You get to influence people. You get the biggest microphone in the entire world. And you can kind of call the tune a little bit. And that is not the same for either party in Congress. Party members in there mostly are operating by different rules, and there’s an inertia that carries them along outside of just what is top of the news. What are the headlines in the newspaper that day? That does influence them, but there’s also just a deeper current. Those are like little eddies on top for the most part, but they’re in the mainstream of the current. What is the relationship between that mercurial nature of the presidency and the bully pulpit, and then the inertia that carries Congress along? Wow. If I had a definitive answer to that question, I’d be a very smart man.

It’s a podcast, so you just say some nonsense and I’ll publish it.

Eli Cain: I’ll say it’s complicated and it varies, which is not a satisfactory answer, but I’ll provide a little bit more detail. On one hand, getting inroads into this administration has been tricky for the full environmental movement, not just carbon removal. And something that we as the Carbon Removal Alliance have really prioritized over the last year, and I know others have as well, is understanding how the administration makes its decisions and when they will make those decisions. A key example would be around the existing programs left over from the Biden administration, things like the DAC Hubs program, the CDR purchase pilot prize. A lot of these were literal contracts that were awarded prior to the inauguration, and there’s been a lot of ambiguity around the status of these. And finding definitive answers to that has been really tricky. And so we’ve spent a lot of time working with the administration officials that we know and with Congress to say, can we get a little bit more insight into how these things work? But it’s a little tricky and sometimes it is a black box, and that’s something that we’re continuing to figure out how to navigate. I’ll say the relationship between the administration and Congress seems to ebb and flow over time. And I can’t speak specifically on it, but it’s certainly the case that the president’s wishes aren’t always translated into congressional action. Maybe three hours before we’re recording this, the president’s budget request was released. This is what the president wants to see in next year’s budget. And so that’s a good predictor of administration action. It’s largely a symbolic document because Congress still holds power of the purse, but it’s a good general indicator of what the admin wants. And you do not always, in fact you very frequently, see that request not translated into the final appropriations that Congress passes. So there isn’t a direct line even though the politics there are very complicated.

Ross Kenyon: When I had Aaron Burns on, and she was on the Carbon Removal Policy Scoop with Eva and Sebastian, she had some line that caught my attention where she was very stubbornly refusing to change her rhetoric into something other than the reasons that she cares about carbon removal. I’m not sure if she still holds that as strongly, but we ended up talking about that a lot where she viewed this moment as transitory. And one of the main questions I have about politics right now is how much of this is going to be seen as a detour before we got back into the mainstream again. Like, okay, that was a thing, the US changing its orientation from what it’s been since World War II, maybe that wasn’t perfect but it’s better than what we tried to trade it for, and we go back. Or is this a new world order and the midterms don’t go that well and maybe aren’t super fair and the world has changed in some dramatic way. And Aaron’s bet was very much on the world will arc back around, and when it does, we don’t want to have to redo all of our comms that we’ve been building and potentially betray, or at the very least downplay, our values for caring about carbon removal in that time. We will have ceded rhetorical ground that we will then have to recover. I think that’s a really smart, really interesting perspective. But then the way that you’re discussing this seems more fluid. Mercenary is the word that comes to mind. It’s not right because it is not that you don’t care about it, but there’s more of a fluidity to the way that you’re trying to achieve your goals. Because it seems like maybe in the long term you have both these near-term and longer-term things, and maybe in the long term I doubt you and Aaron are super different in how you view carbon removal and its place in the world. But maybe on these shorter timescales, these meetings, maybe you are willing to be flexible in a way that her rhetoric has pinned her in a tiny bit. You can challenge that. I may be mischaracterizing this. Aaron, if you’re listening, I’m very sorry. If you feel like I’ve mischaracterized you, come correct me. It’s fine. What do you think, Eli?

Eli Cain: The first thing I’d say is we work very closely with the Carbon 180 team and appreciate the work they do immensely. I would go back to something I said previously, which is durable policy will always be bipartisan policy, and that is true today, but that will be true tomorrow and that’ll be true in the next administration. And so we will always prioritize being bipartisan in the work that we do.

Ross Kenyon: Clean energy jobs in red districts is like the smartest thing ever. That is why I think a lot of it survived, right?

Eli Cain: Yeah. I could not agree more. And so it really isn’t about changing how we talk about it in a fundamental way. It’s just about talking about how we integrate with the broader suite of policies that these offices already care about. And that’s how you introduce a new topic to someone. If you walk into someone and say, guys, let me tell you about the IPCC, you’re going to lose them at the beginning. But if you say, hey, you work with farmers, you know what their needs are, here’s how we support them, that is a much easier way to introduce someone to a new concept and to bring them along for the ride. So part of it is just general education around what carbon removal is and is not. So I don’t think that the way that we talk about it and the way they talk about it are fundamentally different. I just think that we’re focused on slightly different things at different times.

Ross Kenyon: What don’t I know about? There’s a lot of things that could fall into that category, but what don’t I know about that’s happening in the policy world that is genuinely exciting, that people are going to be over the moon about when they hear it?

Eli Cain: Ooh, it’s a good question. So maybe I’ll just quickly highlight two of the policies that we talked about with our members on the fly-in day and that we’ve found really good success with. I’m sure you’re deeply embedded in the carbon removal industry. I know that the framing around industrial integrations has been the hot topic in carbon removal for the last year.

Ross Kenyon: Counteract just had that piece they put out about it. A lot of people are talking about it.

Eli Cain: A lot of people are talking about it, and we are too. I think from my standpoint, the important next step is translating that discussion into actual policy. It’s one thing to say, hey, yeah, we should do industrial integrations. It’s another thing to actually make that tangible and to bring that into the policy sphere. And so that’s a lot of the work that we do. Maybe two quick examples of it. One, I mentioned the development of enhanced rock weathering policy with Cascade and that broader coalition. This is the idea that we need to create an enhanced rock weathering research network in the US to better study the agronomic benefits of carbon removal on various soil types and geographies to say, hey, we have empirical data that we actually do have these co-benefits that we claim. And that will really help wider adoption by the agricultural industry because we’ll have greater proof that we actually work. Farmers literally bet the farm on the soil amendments they use. And so having empirical data that enhanced rock weathering does deliver on these agronomic benefits is really important. So that’s something that we’re advancing. The other one would be around the domestic mining space. There’s an existing EPA program called the Environmental Monitoring, Remediation, and Technical Assessment Initiative, very long. We shorthand it as EMRTAI. It’s a $3 million EPA program designed to catalyze innovative new mining technologies on waste material. And so this program has been running for the last few years. It’s a cooperative agreement with PATEL, and what we’re doing is trying to expand that to include carbon removal. Because what this program does is it provides access to feedstocks and locations to validate and do small-scale pilot deployments on new technologies. And when we talked with our members and the mining sector around what the gap was for mineralization, it was exactly that. The mining sector is risk averse and they want to be fast followers, not first movers. And so they needed proof that it works. But who’s taking the first step here? Who’s taking that risk? And to me that’s the role of policy, to say can we provide these companies access to a feedstock and a location for a pilot deployment, thereby generating the data they need to accelerate into existing industry.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, those are really exciting. Good to know. Last question. Have I become a little bit of a chicken little? Do you think I’m overdoing it a little bit? Do you think you need to rein me back in? I very much hope that I’m incorrect and would welcome the soothing rhetorical embrace of Eli Cain, second tallest man in carbon removal. Please help.

Eli Cain: Listen, I totally understand where you’re coming from. And as someone who cares about environmental policy at large, not just carbon removal, some of the trends have been really challenging to absorb. I think carbon removal has a path towards political progress now that I’m really excited about. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be cognizant of the broader political landscape. So my answer to you would be, I understand it, and I still think we have an opportunity here in the next few years to make tangible progress and preserve the progress that we’ve had over the last decade. And we just have to be thoughtful and creative in how we do it.

Ross Kenyon: Thanks for being on, Eli. Really appreciate it.

Eli Cain: No, thank you for the opportunity. It was a blast.

Share

Subscribe now

This is a summary of episode 394 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast, in which Ross Kenyon brings back returning guest Sarah Godek—his self-described “sinologist on call”—to address the biggest country he left out of his recent monologue on the political risks to carbon removal: China. You can listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, whichever other app you use, or the full episode right below this paragraph.

Quick Takeaways

• This episode is a direct response to Ross’s earlier monologue How Carbon Removal Loses. That show walked through Canada, the EU, and Japan as possible carbon removal safe havens in a world where the US pulls back. It deliberately left China for a specialist. This is that conversation.

• Sarah frames world leadership as three things: power, reliability, and capability. The intangible “third thing” is capability—the ability to make another actor stop. No one else currently has that over the US.

• The war in Iran is a different kind of status hit than the war in Iraq. Iraq began with near-unanimous congressional support after a real attack on US soil. Iran does not. Allies are pushing back differently, and the Trump administration appears to have miscalculated the response.

• China’s preferred Taiwan scenario is still peaceful reunification. The value isn’t just territorial—it’s the legitimacy boost of people choosing the Chinese system over the Western liberal democratic one. That status prize is hard to quantify but is doing real work in Chinese strategy.

• China’s clean energy push is driven primarily by energy security. Coal is still over half of Chinese energy consumption, and Sarah describes the untapped coal reserves as “the thorn in the side” of China’s clean energy strategy; a mirror of how the US thinks about its oil and gas.

• “Green mountains are gold mountains” is the guiding principle. Chinese carbon removal policy today is heavily tilted toward natural sinks and reforestation, not engineered CDR.

• There is no clean institutional home for carbon removal inside the Chinese government. Relevant authority is split across the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the National Development and Reform Commission, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That fragmentation makes centralized CDR policy hard.

• Tencent’s CarbonX Prize 2.0 is one of the few genuinely interesting carbon removal demand signals in China right now. Round 1 was Chinese-only. Round 2 opened up internationally—partly ambition, partly an acknowledgment that Chinese entities alone can’t meet Tencent’s demand.

• On historical responsibility: China frames carbon removal as cleanup for historical emitters. Their posture is closer to “if we didn’t break it, why must we buy it?” than to “we’ll take the mantle.”

• Sarah’s closing frame is the line to remember: it isn’t that the US leaves a gaping hole and the world flounders. The world continues on without the US. The risk isn’t punishment. It’s being left out of leadership.

The Question Ross Left Out

How Carbon Removal Loses made a deliberately grim argument: the countries that carbon removal folks like to point to as safe havens—Canada, the EU and its member states, Japan—are less durable as climate anchors than they look, especially if the US pulls away from climate politics for a sustained period. The one country Ross didn’t feel qualified to treat with care was China. So he invited Sarah back.

This is their second conversation on the show. The first was about liberalism and realism in geopolitics: the underlying schools of thought that shape how states decide what’s worth doing. That episode is the right prereq if you want to understand the framing Ross and Sarah keep reaching for here. But the short version: liberal geopolitics says states pursue values and rules-based order; realism says states pursue power and security. The rest of the conversation sits on top of that distinction.

What “World Leadership” Actually Is

Ross presses Sarah early on the word “leadership.” It’s the kind of term that smuggles in a lot of BS. Why do countries care about prestige? Isn’t it just wealth and power?

Sarah’s answer is useful. World leadership, she says, is made of three things: power, reliability, and capability. The first two are familiar. The third is the interesting one. Capability here means the ability to make another actor stop doing what it’s doing. The example she reaches for is the current war in Iran: there is pushback, there is international condemnation, there are arguments that what is happening may be illegal under the laws of war—and yet no actor exists that can make the United States stop. That’s the thing other countries cannot replicate in aggregate, and she argues it’s also the thing that most of them don’t particularly want to acquire.

Ross pushes on the comparison to the war in Iraq, which also hurt US standing but didn’t permanently dislodge the country from its role as the ostensible world leader. Sarah’s response is that the two situations started from very different places: Iraq and Afghanistan opened with a 99-1 Senate vote after a real attack on American soil, giving the US a legitimate launching pad that made allied support much more available. Iran has neither of those things. The pushback looks different because the starting conditions are different. And, she adds, there seems to have been a real miscalculation inside the Trump administration: a classic dictator problem where the people around the decision-maker increasingly tell him what he wants to hear, and the actual ground truth diverges from the briefings.

Taiwan and the Value of Legitimacy

Ross asks what a war in Iran means for how Chinese military strategists think about a Taiwan scenario. Sarah’s answer is more interesting than the question.

Yes, she says, these events are invaluable for Chinese military planners. Watching how the US actually fights in 2025—which weapons, which tactics, which restraints—is exactly the kind of data you feed into your own war-gaming. But none of that, she argues, meaningfully changes China’s Taiwan calculus. Because the preferred Chinese outcome on Taiwan is still peaceful reunification. And the reason it’s preferred isn’t sentimental. It’s that a scenario in which the people of Taiwan wake up and choose to rejoin the People’s Republic of China would be an enormous legitimacy boost for the Chinese system—the strongest possible evidence that socialism with Chinese characteristics is desirable on its own merits, not just by force. Taking the island militarily gets you the territory but saddles you with a pariah tinge and an occupied province. The status prize is different, and the status prize is what the Chinese leadership values.

This is the “intangible third thing” showing up in a different guise. It isn’t about weapons. It’s about being chosen.

Realism, Coal, and “Green Mountains Are Gold Mountains”

On energy, Sarah’s framing is a mirror to how Ross talks about the US in How Carbon Removal Loses. The US is an oil and gas superpower, and its realist interests arguably pull it away from aggressive clean energy policy. China is the inverse: light on oil and gas, heavy on coal, and increasingly dominant in the “three new things”—solar panels, new energy vehicles, and batteries (including the long-duration storage research happening at Chinese universities). Clean energy is, from a purely realist standpoint, their energy security strategy. They pursue it because the alternative is importing vulnerability.

But coal is still just over half of Chinese energy consumption, and the country is, as Sarah puts it, “sitting on so much coal” that it’s very hard for a state that prizes social stability—and by extension energy stability—to simply leave it in the ground. There’s been real investment in clean coal as a result, and some academic arguments in China have gone so far as to lump coal in with clean energy sources in contrast to oil, which she reads as part of the broader project of splitting off a China-led order from a US-dominated one. Blackouts are still a concern. When local officials try to hit emissions targets by shutting factories off, Chinese leadership has pushed back hard: that’s not what we meant.

On the environmental side, Sarah notes that Chinese environmentalism today looks more like US environmentalism in the 1960s than in the 2020s. The movement is closer in time to a period of genuinely dirty air and dirty water, and that history shapes policy. “Green mountains are gold mountains” is the slogan. The concrete result, for carbon removal, is that Chinese CDR policy tilts heavily toward natural sinks—reforestation, ecosystem-based carbon uptake—rather than engineered removal. The China Green Carbon Sink Foundation is unusually active for a Chinese NGO, which Sarah reads as a signal of government attention on exactly that framing.

No Institutional Home for CDR

One of the most concretely useful parts of the episode is Sarah’s walk-through of the institutional landscape for carbon removal inside the Chinese government. And the answer is: there isn’t one.

Relevant authority is split across the Ministry of Natural Resources (which handles forestry and some geological/sequestration work), the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (air, pollution), the National Development and Reform Commission (five-year plans and action plans for peaking and emissions), and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (international engagement on climate). Each has different stakeholders and different goals. There is no centralized place to lobby. Ministry of Natural Resources is maybe emerging as the most likely center of gravity, but it’s still influenced by the others.

That fragmentation matters because of how Chinese policy actually gets made. The 15th Five-Year Plan is built through consultation— provincial governments, local governments, companies, academics, the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Once the plan is established, ministries and provinces issue their own sub-plans that have to fit inside the superstructure. Right now, the full plan isn’t out yet. What’s in the outline so far mentions green hydrogen and carbon sinks heavily, and does not put much weight on carbon removal as a distinct category.

Tencent, Carbon X, and a Real Demand Signal

The bright spot on the domestic CDR side is Tencent—WeChat’s parent, an enormous and famously wealthy Chinese company that has committed to carbon neutrality by 2030. That’s an aggressive timeline, which helps explain the CarbonX Prize. Round 1 was Chinese-only. The recently-announced CarbonX 2.0 opened it up internationally, and the top 30 list includes US companies like Heirloom and Octavia. Sarah reads the shift two ways: Tencent’s ambition has expanded, and Chinese entities alone are insufficient to meet Tencent’s demand.

Tencent is also accepting applications for carbon-neutral or carbon-negative building materials for their campus (the campus is, per one statistic Sarah saw, about 30% complete). There’s a 1,000-ton demonstration from China University of Petroleum in Beijing in the applicant pool. And—something that caught Ross’s attention a metallurgical biochar project (”bio-coke,” in the Chinese framing) from Beijing Forestry University.

The pattern across these projects is a lot of science, a lot of university involvement, probably some level of government backing via demonstration projects—but not a coherent national CDR policy. Sarah’s read is that we shouldn’t expect big Chinese CDR policy. It will operate in the background.

“If We Didn’t Break It, Why Must We Buy It?”

The hardest question is the one Ross came for: can China replace the US as the world leader on climate policy, and specifically on carbon removal?

Sarah’s answer is the most uncomfortable part of the episode, and it’s worth sitting with. China’s official climate framing—the framing that shows up in their policy documents and their talking points—puts historical responsibility for the climate problem squarely on traditional Western emitters. From that framing, carbon removal is not obviously China’s job. It’s cleanup for the people who made the mess. China sees itself as responsible for reducing its own emissions and, maybe, for compensating for its own historical emissions. But the broader cleanup of the atmosphere is framed as a Western debt.

When the US withdrew from the Paris Accords, China said it regretted the decision and that its own goals remained unchanged. What it did not say was “we’ll do more to fill the gap.” Sarah puts the quiet part out loud: “If we did not break it, why must we buy it?”

Ross pushes back gently. China could make a different play—the play where it says, look, responsibility doesn’t matter, we’re the world leader now, the problem needs solving, we’ll develop the technology and pay for it. That would be a huge status move. Is it likely? Sarah says it’s not consistent with the posture China has shown to date.

The World Continues Without Us

Ross’s framing of the episode’s motivating hope is that climate multilateralism can exist without US involvement. He’s come looking for reassurance. Sarah doesn’t quite give it.

But she also refuses the maximally dark version. She reframes it: it’s not that the US leaves a huge gaping hole and everyone else flounders and suffers and dies. It’s that other countries will ask what is possible without the United States and start building in that direction. Europe is already doing some of this. China will be opportunistic in making sure that international standards align with Chinese goals—as every country does with its own. The consequence for the US isn’t strict compliance punishment. It’s being left out. It’s watching standards get written without us, and realizing that the classic adage applies: if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.

That’s the grim news and the honest news in the same sentence. Carbon removal in a post-American-leadership world isn’t impossible. It’s just going to be shaped by people who aren’t us, with priorities that aren’t ours, and the window for being in the room is closing rather than already closed.

Share

Subscribe now

Full Transcript

Ross Kenyon: Hey, thank you so much for listening to Reversing Climate Change. This is Ross Kenyon. I’m the host of Reversing Climate Change. An alumna of the show is returning today. Sarah Godek is back. She did a really great show with me last year. She and Grant Faber wrote a piece about carbon security and geopolitics that was really great, and that made me want to do a show with her. And then the show ballooned into just, how do we think about schools of thought with regard to global affairs, foreign relations, geopolitics? And then we ended up doing a really cool show about realism and liberalism within geopolitics. So if you haven’t heard that, that would probably be a good first step. And the link is in the show notes.

This episode is at least partially a response to the monologue episode I put out recently called How Carbon Removal Loses. It was about some of the trends around right-wing populism and domestic politics and how that influences climate policy overall. And if having the US as world leader pull out of climate politics means that other countries become a safe haven for climate companies and climate policy, or is that actually maybe not as durable as it seems. I analyzed several countries that carbon removal folks like to point to, such as Canada, the EU, and various member states, and Japan. But I had left out China. And China is one of those places that people still put a lot of hope in as an enormous economy, as a leader in its own right, that also has some really powerful realist motivations for pursuing a cleaner energy system.

But I didn’t have all of the detail here that I really would’ve liked in order to treat it with sufficient care. So I invited Sarah on to help me set the record straight and to give me a good answer of whether or not China can be a bastion of climate leadership and carbon removal leadership in a world without American climate and carbon removal leadership to the same extent that we once had.

Before I launch the show, if you wouldn’t mind opening up your podcast app and giving this show a full rating and writing a review if you’re on Apple Podcasts or any app that allows you to write a review, that’s massively appreciated. But in any case, here is my show with Sarah Godek.

Ross Kenyon: Sarah, welcome back to the show.

Sarah Godek: Thanks for having me back on, Ross. Good to be back.

Ross Kenyon: Yes. I think back on our podcast that we recorded often. I think it was such a fun show. I want to do more shows like this. And I recently did this monologue show where I expressed some of my concern about Japan, Canada, the EU, various member states within the EU for carbon removal policy as the world may be changing its focus or looking in different directions right now. And a careful and astute listener might have listened to that show and said, well, what about China? You mentioned it once, but are they not going to take the mantle and be the clean energy transition leader for this new era of human development? And I frankly do not know enough about what is happening in clean energy politics and just energy politics broadly within China. So I invited you back on as my on-call China-ologist. Basically, please tell me what I need to know. Was my diagnosis too grim? What are the green shoots in China that we can look forward to? Help me get a better sense of what I’m missing.

Sarah Godek: Sure. And always love the opportunity to talk about China, so feel really grateful that you left the entire country and its policy to me. That’s a lot of responsibility.

Ross Kenyon: For you, yeah.

Sarah Godek: Yeah, it’s a lot of responsibility. But I’m happy to offer some reflections. I definitely think it’s a challenging moment for the clean energy transition. There’s no doubt about it. What we’re seeing unfold across the world — you alluded to it in your podcast, sharing that there’s obviously some kind of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs here where there’s just a giant focus right now on energy security. But clean energy can be a piece of that, and that’s obviously been a huge part of China’s strategy as they’ve considered going from a world that relies on fossil fuels to what the future looks like. And you’ve seen them become a huge leader in what they call the three new things or the new trio — solar panels, new energy vehicles, and batteries. And especially looking into long-term storage batteries is a huge new area of focus and research as well at universities.

So I think that obviously there’s challenges, but China at least is eager to show that it can meet its own carbon goals. And I think that other countries are too. I think that there will be some loss of ambition and there will be some countries that try to — I don’t want to say weasel out of their goals, but will use this as an opportunity to say, well, maybe we can take a step back. But I think that there’s other countries like Canada, for example, that will be even more energized to move forward as the US sometimes takes a step back from the world. While that creates a bit of uncertainty — and in the current era that we’re in, a lot of uncertainty — it also creates a sense of, I think, it energizes states that want to prove that they themselves can take up the mantle and demonstrate their own global leadership capabilities in this space.

So I think Canada’s a great example. I don’t know if you saw, but Mark Carney had given a really strong speech earlier this year that many people are calling a sort of watershed moment for middle powers and their own ability to set their own path. So I think those are some things that we can look at — both China’s dedication in the space, but also other countries’ dedication to their own goals and even desire to move beyond what they set to try to fill in gaps that maybe the US has left.

Ross Kenyon: With regard to these gaps that the US has maybe left, how important is world leadership? It’s sort of an amorphous term. It sounds like a lot of BS can be smuggled in underneath a term like that. Why do countries care about prestige or status or how they’re perceived in this way? Is it not just about wealth and power? What is this secret third thing that is important, and how does it actually operate?

Sarah Godek: I think there’s a few things. One of them is just sheer power. Obviously that still plays some role. I think the other is reliability. And then the third is capability. I think this last piece is really important because we haven’t really seen many actors that have been able to, in aggregate, replicate the role of the United States. I think the war in Iran is a perfect example right now where we’re seeing a complete lack of leadership, and the United States in many ways is still calling the shots. And there’s pushback and there’s world leaders that are obviously — and rightfully — pushing back against some of the actions that are being taken, some of which I believe personally are likely illegal under the laws of war. But I think at the same time there’s still a reliance on the US to do something. Who is going to make the United States stop? And I think that that’s the sort of intangible third quality — this sort of capability where there’s not really a credible actor in this scenario that can make the United States stop what it’s doing. There are many actors that can maybe come together and try to pressure the United States into behaving differently, but we’re obviously seeing a pretty emboldened United States under Trump’s second administration that seems to feel — and seems to be the case — that they can just do what they want.

So I think that’s the intangible third quality that is very difficult for other countries to replicate, and that most of them may not want to. They might not necessarily want to say, hey, do something different.

Ross Kenyon: I’m trying to compare this moment to the war in Iraq. Granted, it was slower. There was more trying to coordinate among allies, trying to have this be like a multilateral military action. It wasn’t a sort of surprise for everyone. And so there was more time to build and work the diplomatic alliance network and try to make things kind of all come together. It didn’t work. I remember — I don’t know if I’ll keep this in the show — but I remember my dad pouring the French wine down the drain in 2003 and being like, well, France is not supporting the US in Iraq, so we are not buying French stuff.

Sarah Godek: Do you remember Freedom Fries?

Ross Kenyon: Freedom Fries. Yeah, for sure. And so the US did have some amount of — its status was challenged, but it doesn’t seem to have permanently negatively affected its standing in the world in a way that I can discern. The US is still broadly seen as the world leader for technology and innovation, and ultimately what the US says broadly goes internationally. And my interpretation of this is that it felt invincible. And we’re seeing now actually that the US can really harm it by playing too rough, by being less reliable, by being unpredictable. Some of these things mean that your allies balk at you. They question whether or not the alliance is stable enough. The middle power stuff starts happening where it’s like, oh, the US is not going to be the stable anchor for trade agreements that we once had planned on. And I think Trump is operating under a framework where he thinks: we’re the US, we’re the most powerful, we’re the biggest, baddest people, and everyone’s just going to fall in line because we’re the US. And people are not behaving in the way that maybe he predicted they would just go along with it. And now you’re seeing it change. I’m just trying to figure out what is different between how harmful the war in Iraq was to the US’s status, relative to what’s been happening in Trump 2, where it does feel like the status is actually eroding in a really big way — even though the war in Iraq also posed really big challenges for what the world thought the US maybe was.

Sarah Godek: Well, I think what’s important to remember about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was the place from which they started, which was widespread approval. I mean, 99 to 1 in the Senate to make a declaration of war. There was a declaration of war to begin with. It was something that had gone through a process, had pretty widespread public support because we had been attacked. That was the sense in 2001 after 9/11 — that we are under attack. And I think that’s why you saw broader support, not perfect, but broader support from our allies, specifically NATO allies, because there actually was an attack. We were attacked, and there was a sense that global terrorism was a serious problem that had the potential to seriously disrupt not just our country but other countries.

So I think that fundamental state of affairs in 2001, in the years that followed, made it a very different landscape from what we’re now seeing with Iran, in which we were not attacked on American soil. And we have launched a campaign that does not have congressional approval and does not have public approval. So I think that’s why the conditions, especially the pushback we’re seeing from our allies, is so fundamentally different.

And I think with respect to Trump, there was a sense, I believe, in the Trump administration, that they thought this would be fast. They thought this would be like Venezuela. And there are decades of war games that US generals, US military infrastructure gamed out through tabletops and saw that many of the things that we see happening are exactly the things that they expected to happen, that Iran had said they would do. A lot of this is not necessarily a surprise. But I think you start to get into a situation where the most accurate information is not necessarily making its way to Trump. There are many people who are surrounding him that may increasingly be telling him what he wants to hear because that’s who he chooses to surround himself with. And that just creates a classic dictator problem in which the information you’re receiving is very different from the actual reality. And so that makes your ability to make good and accurate decisions that accomplish the goals that you’re trying to achieve much more difficult.

Ross Kenyon: The generous interpretation of these events too is that it’s confusing because it’s meant to be confusing. Contradicting means you can — I’ve called it like a southpaw quality. Like you don’t exactly know where the next blow is going to come from because it’s very unpredictable. But it’s also possible that there’s just not a really well thought through plan either.

Sarah Godek: Oh, I was just going to say that. I mean, it’s a classic case of, oh no, my war plans didn’t go how I wanted them to. Set everybody ever. And once war starts — and it’s challenging because they’re not even calling this a war, even though it basically is one — it’s really challenging because once it starts, things start to spiral in all of these completely unpredictable ways, insofar as it’s really challenging to know how one effect will trigger next-order knock-on effects. And so that’s, I think, what makes war so challenging and why the fog of war arises — because you can predict human behavior to a certain point. But you start to get into really crazy complexities. These are some of the things that AI in a military context is being used for — to try to better model some of those second, third, fourth, fifth order effects. But it really does get into a situation where you have to make decisions based on all of the available information in the moment going forward. But that’s going to look very different from how you imagined it when you first set off on this adventure, so to speak.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. All of the second, third, fourth order effects that we’re seeing — and we certainly haven’t seen the end of it — but rising energy prices create problems for incumbent governments and leaders everywhere. That becomes a kitchen table issue. That’s really impactful and bad. Also changing how the war in Ukraine is being conducted and how sanctioned Russian energy assets are. And that changes the calculus for various things too. And then you have unpredictable things like Zelensky being involved with Gulf states, bringing drone warfare expertise over there. And how does that change? And then you have Marine Expeditionary Forces from East Asia going into the Middle East and leaving Taiwan less covered than it would otherwise be. And how does that change Taiwan, and what does it tell China about how the US will behave in a potential reunification event with Taiwan? How exactly would that play out? I cannot string all these things together because they’re so ongoing and so really complex. But I imagine this probably is changing the tabletop war gaming dynamics of how Taiwan would play out for China and how they’re thinking about that. Or maybe not. How is it impacting Chinese leadership? Have you seen anything that you’re able to share?

Sarah Godek: I mean, these kinds of events are great for Chinese military strategists because it gives them a really great window into US military behavior. That being said, I do think that US military behavior probably looks somewhat different these days under Trump 2.0 than it might in a traditional scenario. So I think that there is a little bit of variation there. But at the same time, it provides invaluable insight into the kinds of weapons we have, the ways in which we’re willing to use them, what kinds of tactics we use to affect certain military goals. And all of that data can be taken up through intelligence, through satellites, and put into a broader database of thoughts on how the US behaves in wartime scenarios.

So obviously any kind of opportunity to see how we engage in warfare is a bonus to China’s military strategists when they consider a Taiwan scenario. But that doesn’t necessarily change their calculus on a Taiwan scenario. And I think the reason for that is more ideological. Because I think when we think about what Taiwan is to China, the stronger ideological goal for China and Chinese leadership is to reunify in a peaceful way. And I say that with the thinking that what they imagine in that scenario is that people on the island of Taiwan all wake up and say, you know what, we want to be part of the People’s Republic of China and we would like to reunify with the motherland. And the reason that that’s such a desired scenario is because it would provide a really strong point of judgment for the Chinese system and its desirability. And that’s, I think, why that outcome is still the preferred outcome. Because taking it by force is something that I believe that China’s leadership thinks that they can and will do if they feel a need to do so, but I still don’t think it’s the preferred option. So obviously how we behave in warfare influences how they consider what a potential contingency could look like, should it come to that. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that their calculus on whether they want a contingency at all has changed.

Ross Kenyon: Wow, that’s a really fascinating answer. Obviously it’s better not to have a war in these cases. They’re expensive, they’re disruptive, and people typically don’t want them unless they have to, or they look like they’re quick and easy, and maybe it’s faster than some peaceful unification process here. But your answer here goes back to this initial secret third thing, status leadership question — where maybe there’s a theoretical reunification scenario where Taiwan would be okay with it, and that thumbs up to the Chinese Communist Party, I’m sure, would feel really good in a way that if they conquered it, they would have a little bit of that pariah tinge over, there’d be like an occupied province of theirs. And that doesn’t feel as good as “China is so good that we’d rather rejoin than remain independent and part of the broader North American, European worldview liberal democratic order. We’d rather join the motherland.” It is really hard to quantify how valuable that type of leadership and that status boost is, and what does it enable China to do with that? It gives them more credibility. Reinforces that their model of political economy and politics is more justified, that the system that they support and endorse continuing on with is a legitimate form of government, which is sometimes under question. Is it all of those things? What exactly is the value of that status?

Sarah Godek: Well, I mean, this goes back to the broader history of the People’s Republic of China, which was formed under really adverse conditions, when there was quite a lot of US opposition to communism. And under those conditions there was a really strong emphasis on trying to prove that China’s communist system was something different from the capitalist system. And so it was very oppositional — that’s a good word. It was very confrontational and there was a very strong desire to show that this was separate and new and different and better. Now obviously China has sort of dropped the illusion of communism in all but name, which the party retains but did consider dropping at one point.

Ross Kenyon: Really? Wow.

Sarah Godek: Yeah. Very, very interesting tidbit. But you know, now it’s socialism with Chinese characteristics is the system. But it’s still — there’s still this sense of an adversarial nature of the US, of the US trying to contain China, which from China’s perspective is not a new thread but rather a persistent thread that lasts across history. Which I think maybe feels a little bit weird to us because in the US we see our leaders change. We see great changes over the years, and we don’t necessarily always do the best at reflecting on the continuity in our strategy or posture because we feel like things are so different, especially under different eras of presidents. Whereas in China, they spend a lot more time — because their system has perhaps much stronger through-lines in terms of ideology, in terms of policy and the slow ways in which things have shaped over time, but also some rapid periods like the reforms of the eighties and nineties. And so I think sometimes they look at our system and they see maybe more continuity than we actually have.

So I think going back to what this means for the Chinese system is, I think they want to show that they have something that is unique, that is distinct from the Western model of capitalism. And I believe that they think that showing this model and its benefits and having others adopt it are pieces that contribute to something like global leadership. And so I think that there’s been a really strong desire to inject Chinese solutions to global problems. That’s been a really constant theme. And I think there’s a lot of lessons there for China’s energy transition and carbon removal as well, that we can get into. But I think that that focus on injecting Chinese solutions to global problems demonstrates that they’re interested in showing the benefits of their system and that they can contribute new and unique ideas based on that system, in a way that shows why China should be considered not just a responsible major power — which is the current framing — but sort of lurking in the background, not necessarily stated, perhaps one day a world leader.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, the understudy just waiting for their shot for the main stage. Such a good way to set this up. And I wanted to bring this back to when we first spoke, we were talking about liberalism and realism within foreign affairs and geopolitics and those broad schools of thought. And the way that I understand how the US is positioned here, and from Trump’s perspective, the Biden administration and Democratic presidencies tend to have a liberal geopolitics that does not suit the US. In fact, we are an oil and gas superpower, and we are throwing ourselves under the bus by clean energy politics that — we don’t have aluminum and rare earths to the same extent that our rivals do, or China does. And we are basically riding the bike and sticking the stick inside of the bike wheel and crashing ourselves to essentially no benefit, for some like muddle-headed liberal status victory that is disconnected from realist geopolitics.

In the same way towards China: okay, China has these clean energy materials, huge amounts of aluminum and much of the refining capacity of so many minerals and many of the rare earths that are needed for various types of clean energy. And there’s a question here of how much of China’s support for the clean energy transition is a liberal orientation of, oh, look, we are doing this because it’s the right thing to do, and how much of this is just realist, because they have coal, as you’ve noted, but not a lot of oil and gas, and clean energy is a way for them to have exports and to secure their own energy needs. Even from a purely realist geopolitics that doesn’t care about any sort of abstract values, they’re just needing to do this because it’s the energy that they have available to them. So how are we meant to understand what is driving Chinese energy politics?

Sarah Godek: That’s such a good question, and there’s so much that goes into it. Because there is the energy security element, which I think personally is the most important. But then there is also the desire to be a global leader. But I think there’s also really interesting lessons from Chinese environmentalist movements here too, because I think that a lot of the ways in which China frames the clean energy transition, and how they even treat carbon removal specifically, has to do with Chinese conceptions of nature and what it means to restore nature.

So, just to talk a little bit about the energy security piece: right now coal makes up about just a little over half of China’s energy consumption, with non-fossil energy making up somewhere around 21.7%.

Ross Kenyon: Oh wait, is it beautiful clean coal, or is it something else?

Sarah Godek: So sometimes, yes. There actually has been a focus on clean coal in China. In fact, I would say that’s actually quite a strong focus — cleaning up coal, because China has so much of it. And I think that this is really the thorn in the side of China’s clean energy strategy, because they are just sitting on so much coal, so many untapped coal reserves, and that is just really challenging from a country that prizes social stability, which relies to a pretty strong degree on energy stability. It’s really hard for them to look at those untapped coal resources and say, you know what, we’ll just leave them in the ground. That’s hard.

Ross Kenyon: We have the same thing here too.

Sarah Godek: Exactly. Yeah. It gets to — it’s a sort of mirror framing in terms of how the US thinks about oil and natural gas. So I think that coal is a really big challenge, and I think you see those interests reflected in China’s both new 15th Five-Year Plan as well as their broader carbon peaking goals. So you see a lot of reference to like the orderly transition from non-fossil to clean energy. And there was also, I think, some academic debate over what counts as clean energy. So I remember seeing sometimes coal being lumped in with clean energy sources, like only oil was the dirty one — which again, resonates with the idea of trying to split off a US-dominated world order from a Chinese conception of how the world could look.

So I think with respect to the energy transition, they’re really under a lot of pressure to make sure that their energy first is secure. Blackouts are still sometimes a challenge. And it’s hard because there are these dual goals that they have of growing but also growing their clean energy capacity at the same time. But sometimes the clean energy capacity might not be able to meet that demand. And so coal or other fossil energy sources could sort of fill in that gap. So their number one priority is to make sure that the lights stay on in many parts of China, some of which are recently developed. There’s been quite a lot of change in China over the last even decade. And they want to make sure that the standard of living they’re starting to provide in more rural or isolated areas is able to be the same level that has been promised. They don’t want blackouts.

So sometimes they’ve seen local-level officials, in an attempt to meet carbon peaking or clean energy targets, sometimes they’ve just simply shut the factories down or turn the lights off to show that they’ve met their emissions goals. And Chinese leadership very quickly made it clear that this is not what we intended at all.

So I still think that energy security is still number one for them, much like most countries on earth. So that’s obviously going to be a big part of their strategy. But there is also a desire to see that not destroy the environment. And that is both from a local and macro perspective. I think that China is much more close to some of the major environmental movements that we saw in the US in the sixties, for example. They’re sort of closer to that time period where there was a lot of activism surrounding dirty air and dirty water. And so I feel that there is some of that that influences their energy policy today.

So there’s a lot of focus on reforestation. That’s actually a huge component, and that influences their carbon removal policy too. There’s a lot of focus on carbon sinks — that is, I think, the biggest focus in China’s overall policy right now. And so I think it’s because they’re closer to that era in which there was really dirty air in China, there was really dirty water in China. And there’ve been tons of efforts to clean that up. And now the sort of guiding principle is that green mountains are gold mountains.

Ross Kenyon: Is that just like a very literal translation kind of thing that sounds kind of goofy in English but is more beautiful in Chinese?

Sarah Godek: Yes.

Ross Kenyon: Okay. That’s not unique to them. That’s literally every language if you translate literally. But okay. Interesting.

Okay, two big nested questions for you. One: are we going to see more carbon removal specific policy and events and competitions like the Tencent deal that is recurring in China right now? That is maybe a nice opportunity for carbon removal companies that are seeing opportunities around the rest of the world vanish or be pushed out further in time or shrinking. And then secondarily — gosh, this could take us all the way through to the end of the show pretty much — with the US pulling out of the UNFCCC and Paris and things like that, is there a chance for China to replace the US in terms of being a world leader, if not generally, at least with regard to climate policy? Is that a powerful enough status that they hold onto right now that they could generate enough commitment to these goals that it could replace what the US once provided for world order? Is it possible for them to do that? Sorry, those are two enormous questions. Good luck.

Sarah Godek: No, they’re both good questions. Those I think are kind of the two key questions that I was excited to address today. Because one of them was about prizes and like ops for domestic policy, and then the other was, will China replace the US role on climate policy? And I think those are both really great questions.

To talk about the prizes and the landscape in China’s domestic carbon removal policy: I definitely don’t think that the world will likely be able to count on China in this regard. So I think what is really unique about the Tencent policy is that Tencent as a company — for those who are not familiar with Tencent, it’s a massive Chinese company that runs WeChat, which is the proverbial Swiss Army knife app of China, in which people make reservations, talk to their friends, post videos, post articles, post academic articles, watch videos, book movie tickets, do banking, pay their friends. It’s like imagine if you had Facebook and academic journals and YouTube and Venmo and Eventbrite and movie ticket apps — like imagine you just have all of these apps and services all rolled into one giant app that everyone uses for most, or at least many, activities.

So it’s quite a famously wealthy company. They have made a commitment to reach carbon neutrality by 2030. That’s a pretty aggressive timeline, and so I think that’s partially why you see such a focus for Tencent on their Carbon X Prizes. So they have finished the first round. Those winners were announced a couple years back. They just announced the top 30 for Carbon X 2.0 in, I think, October of last year. And they’re now going to be moving forward soon with the deadline for applications for infrastructure for Tencent — I think it’s called Binhai campus. So they are accepting applications for either carbon neutral or carbon negative building materials for that campus. So I think the campus is maybe about 30% complete — I saw one statistic — but they still have quite a long way to go, and they’re obviously interested in incorporating more players.

I think what’s interesting between the first prize and the second prize is that the first prize was only Chinese companies and entities. And in the second round they expanded that to have a more international scope. So you see a ton of US companies on there. Some names like Octavia, Heirloom, very familiar names. And so I think that that’s a really interesting shift, because I think it highlights two things. I think it highlights Tencent’s expanded ambition, but I think it also highlights the fact that Chinese companies and entities alone are insufficient to meet that demand. So I think that piece is key. Because there are some Chinese companies that are doing really great work. I was looking at some of the projects and feeling pretty excited about some of them. There’s some unique processes there. There’s a 1,000-ton-level demonstration that China University of Petroleum in Beijing has applied for under this prize.

Ross Kenyon: Expand on them. Go Moonrise, go Moonlight, go diligence all of these Chinese companies. Come figure it out.

Sarah Godek: Due diligence in China is a whole other animal. But I mean, there’s capture materials, there’s mineralization, biomass, solid liquid air capture — all kinds of projects from Chinese entities, a lot of universities, which I find to be encouraging because that means there is likely some level of government support in the form of projects or demonstration projects.

But what’s interesting, as I was going through this and looking at some of these entities and looking through China’s energy policy, clean energy policy, and carbon removal policy, is that there’s not really a great home institutionally for carbon removal. There are companies that have committed to net zero policies. Another is Sinopec set a goal for carbon neutrality by 2050. China itself has a carbon neutrality goal for 2060. But policy doesn’t really put carbon removal as a really big piece of that. And I think there’s a couple reasons for that. The first is that there’s not a great home for carbon removal in the ministries of China’s government.

So I was looking, and there’s a few different places that it could live. I think probably the most likely would be the Ministry of Natural Resources, which handles forestry but also has a couple other geological bureaus or centers that I think will be likely involved with sequestration efforts and permanent storage. But there’s also some of it that falls under the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, which handles the air side of things, because they handle air pollution, for example. But there’s also the National Development and Reform Commission, which manages China’s development plans and action plans for peaking and emissions. But then there’s also the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which handles the international engagement side of things, which I think is a challenge for carbon removal because that means that some of the policies that are going to govern this technology ultimately will be split across multiple agencies with disparate stakeholders who have different goals at each of them.

So I think that’s one challenge for carbon removal policy in China — that it doesn’t necessarily seem to have a great centralized home. Maybe Ministry of Natural Resources is maybe emerging as one that would be a little bit more centralized, but still influenced by those other ministries, which makes it a bit of a challenge in terms of just lobbying for your own desires and goals.

But there are a lot of universities widely spread across China, also in Hong Kong, that have great projects that they’re clearly pursuing. And that probably indicates some level of government support through the demonstration efforts. So I think it’ll be really important to see what comes out of the 15th Five-Year Plan. Right now, all we have is an outline. And once the full plan is issued, then there will be sub-plans. And I think that matters because the way that policy making in China goes in terms of these plans is that once the major plan is established — well, let me back up a little bit.

So first, what happens is, in the formation of the five-year plan, there is a lot of consultation with governments around China, local governments, provincial governments, and companies, and they all give inputs into this plan and what they think they can do. Companies, individuals from companies, all may weigh in. Academics, scientists, especially at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which is China’s sort of premier science research organization. And then once the major plan is built and established, that allows agencies to issue their own sub-plans. So provincial governments, for example, will issue sub-plans. Ministries will issue their own sub-plans. And other plans must fit into the sort of superstructure of the goals of the 15th Five-Year Plan, and show how it is in accordance with them at minimum.

So right now, we haven’t really seen that much reference to carbon removal. There’s been much more reference to things like green hydrogen. Carbon sinks came up a lot. I had found — let me see what the specific name is — there’s a foundation, it is the China Green Carbon Sink Foundation, and they seem to be very active. It’s pretty rare for an NGO organization like that to be super active in this space as a sort of leading entity. But that seems to be where there’s been a lot of government attention — on the idea of looking at natural ecosystem carbon sinks and how to improve their uptake of carbon.

So I think that kind of gets back to what I was talking about earlier with respect to China’s environmentalist movements and push for a cleaner environment. Because there’s a sort of strong focus there on the natural elements of things, of like, how can we take this beautiful resource that we already have and make it better? And so I think that’s more of China’s focus.

But starting to see some projects from companies. There was one really unique project that was something to do with like bio-coke and capture in the process of that. So that’s pretty interesting. So you’re starting to see a little bit of that industrial tie-in.

Ross Kenyon: Is that the metallurgical biochar? Is that what that is? Bio-coke. I imagine that’s just a new term for it. They keep coming out with new terms for it. I can’t keep up.

Sarah Godek: Yeah, it’s something to do with the steel making process.

Ross Kenyon: I imagine it’s the same.

Sarah Godek: Yeah. That’s cool.

Ross Kenyon: They’re making biochar then, but it’s metallurgical coal.

Sarah Godek: Yeah, so it was a project from Beijing Forestry University that is in the new round of Carbon X 2.0. So yeah, seeing a lot of science. But I think that we won’t necessarily expect really big policy from China on carbon removal. And I think it’s one of those things that’ll be sort of operating in the background.

And that kind of gets me to the second question that you posed, which is: will China replace the US role in climate policy? And focusing on the carbon removal piece of it specifically. I think what’s challenging here is you’re starting to get to the question of whose responsibility is carbon removal. And China sees itself as responsible for reducing emissions, certainly, and for making sure that it compensates for its historical emissions, maybe. But when you talk about climate change, I think that China will focus more on the role that traditional emitters have played and that it will focus more on the historical emissions. That’s been a really big focus in China’s policy and talking points on the clean energy transition — who is responsible for the past harms. And they will place the blame squarely on specifically the US, but also other Western emitters that already have pumped tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and will see them as more responsible for cleaning up after it.

So I think that there is an opportunity for China to do carbon removal in the future, especially as this ecosystem starts to build out. But I think you’re more seeing supporting technologies in their efforts, where it might not necessarily be the actual technology itself, but it might be ways to support it. And so I think that there’s maybe a role there for them to play a supporting role for efforts elsewhere. But I don’t necessarily think that China will take a leading role, and that’s partially because from China’s government’s perspective, it’s not necessarily China’s responsibility.

But I think the silver lining there is that companies are invested in ensuring that they themselves meet carbon neutral goals, and there may be more impetus to do so in the future. And that’s where you could maybe see a bit of a shift in that calculus, where: okay, if we can reduce our emissions, but we still have these leftover emissions from construction and infrastructure building, then we’re going to need something to make that up too. But I think there’s been more of a focus on low-carbon materials.

Ross Kenyon: That’s so fascinating. I would not have anticipated that historical responsibility angle for carbon removal — for residual emissions is not our responsibility, that’s for, you know, when we had the unequal treaty system and that was going on, you guys were industrializing, and this is basically your fault. Like, why should we be developing the technology and paying for the stuff that you basically created this issue? I haven’t heard that said out loud. But that is one potential framing for this too. They could also say in the future, it doesn’t matter whose fault it is. We are the world leader and we aspire to be this, and the problem needs to be solved independent of culpability here, and we are going to stick our necks out. We need to develop carbon removal and climate policy in the absence of the US or everyone will suffer. They could make that play. Is it likely? What do you think?

Sarah Godek: They could. But it’s not necessarily consistent with the posture that they’ve shown up to now. I think that there’s been — so, for example, when the US withdrew from the Paris Accords, they said that they regretted the decision and that nothing about their goals had changed. Like, China remains committed to their own. So I think there is a moment where you could have seen them step in and say, oh, we can do more. But again, there’s really this piece of responsibility. If we did not break it, then why must we buy it?

Ross Kenyon: So it is just the US or nothing. Like, I guess the hope that frames this question is, can climate multilateralism exist without US involvement? I think everyone is hoping that the answer is yes. And my asking you to come on the show is at least partially to tell me, yes, it is maybe possible, and here’s how. And what you’re telling me is that maybe the US’s leadership is irreplaceable, at least for now, when it comes to climate policy.

Sarah Godek: I would say it’s more that the world will continue on without the US. I think that that’s more of the framing that I would use, is not that the US has left this big gaping hole and everyone will just flounder and suffer and die. I think it is more that countries will say, well, what can we do without them then? I think you’re seeing a lot of that in Europe of, you know, what is possible without the US, and starting to imagine what does a world that isn’t dominated by the US look like and how can we increase our own relative influence in that?

So obviously China will be opportunistic in ensuring that standards are in accordance with Chinese goals, as other countries will be ensuring that international standards align with their own goals. But I think that just means that we will have less of an opportunity in the United States to promote our own interests. It’s the classic adage of: if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. And I think that we will be on the menu when we see that standards internationally that we are subject to, not necessarily because of some kind of compliance measures that are strict compliance measures that like, oh, we have to abide by them or something bad will happen to us, some kind of punishment or retribution. I think it’s just that we’ll be left out, and the world will move on without us, and we will become more isolated as a result, if we continue this current course.

Ross Kenyon: Sarah, thanks for coming back on. I realize I’m asking you some of the hardest questions to forecast probably in the entire world. So thank you for doing a sterling job. I feel like you did it. Thank you for doing it.

Sarah Godek: Absolutely. And thanks so much for having me back on again, Ross.

Share

Subscribe now

This is a summary of a bonus episode of the Reversing Climate Change podcast, a solo episode in which Ross Kenyon reads and reflects on William Butler Yeats’s “The Second Coming.” You can listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you listen to your podcasts, and also the episode in its entirety right below this paragraph.

Quick Takeaways

• “The Second Coming” is best understood as horror, not lament. It’s a poem about something that is still arriving—present progressive, not past tense.

• The trigger for revisiting it wasn’t war or politics in any obvious sense. It was thinking about artificial general intelligence, and the image of a falcon that can no longer hear its falconer.

• The famous lines (”things fall apart,” “the center cannot hold,” “the worst are full of passionate intensity”) get all the attention. Some of the most interesting craft is in the quiet phrases: “troubles my sight,” “vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,” “slow thighs.”

• Yeats grants agency to humans. The worst are “full of” passionate intensity, not “filled with” it. Nobody poured this in. We did this to ourselves.

• Monsters, etymologically, are meant to show. Good horror—Hereditary, The Babadook, Jordan Peele’s films—uses the monster as a way to talk about grief, depression, race, or whatever else can’t be said directly. “The Second Coming” without a monster is fear of change and the worries that what is coming is not better than what preceded.

• Antonio Gramsci’s line pairs perfectly with Yeats: “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.” The unsettling part isn’t the new order. It’s the gap before it.

The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

A Defense of Useless Things

The case for spending half an hour reading a poem on a podcast about climate is, honestly, that you don’t need a case. Ross opens this episode with a defense of useless things, mistakenly citing Thomas Merton’s In Praise of the Useless Life (it was a different author but Merton penned a foreword!), and the observation that as life accelerates it gets harder and harder to justify anything that doesn’t immediately convert into productivity. Opportunity cost is always lurking. Today’s episode is going to be about poetry, about economy not of time but of words, and that’s enough.

It’s a small move, but it sets up everything that follows. The whole episode is an argument that close attention to a single poem—what its rhythms do, why a particular phrase lands, how it gets repurposed across a century—is itself a form of taking the world seriously.

Why This Poem, Why Now

“The Second Coming” gets quoted constantly in moments of uncertainty. Joan Didion built a book around it. Chinua Achebe took its most famous line for a title. The lines have become a kind of shared vocabulary for “things are bad and we don’t know what comes next.” Ross has had lines from it popping into his head for weeks, watching Paul Muldoon’s reading on a loop, and trying to figure out why.

It isn’t war, exactly; though there is war. The actual catalyst, he says, was thinking about artificial general intelligence. The image that grabbed him is the very first one: the falcon that cannot hear the falconer. The thing that was supposed to be subordinate has stopped listening. It’s using its own discretion, out of command of what should be commanding it. Whether or not you take AGI seriously as an existential risk, that image is doing real work.

Underneath that is the broader sense that what we built our expectations around is eroding. The United States and NATO and the post-war order have been changing in ways that may or may not return to equilibrium. Maybe this is a temporary detour from the long arc of history. Maybe it’s the birth of something new. The poem refuses to tell us which.

Horror, Not Lament

The most important reframing in this episode is that “The Second Coming” is a horror poem. Not a sad poem, not a war poem, not even an apocalyptic poem in the prophetic sense. A horror poem.

The first stanza is about what has happened: the gyre, the falcon, the loosed anarchy, the ceremony of innocence drowned. The second stanza is about something that is still on its way. The rough beast hasn’t been born. It is slouching toward Bethlehem. The verb tense matters. If this were a verb tense, Ross says, it would be present progressive. The horror is that the worst is still arriving.

Yeats also grants the humans in his poem real agency. The worst are “full of passionate intensity,” not “filled with” it. Ross gets into close-reading territory here, but the distinction is the whole game: “filled” implies an external pourer, some demonic force acting on people from outside. “Full of” locates the agency inside the actor. Nobody made these people the way they are. They made themselves. The supernatural elements that follow are responses to human choice, not substitutes for it.

That makes the poem scarier, not less scary. The first stanza is the part where humans do terrible things to each other without supernatural help. The second stanza opens with what reads almost like a plea—surely some revelation is at hand, surely the second coming is at hand—as if the speaker is begging for there to be something more than just us. Please let there be a reason. Please let it be supernatural. Because if this isn’t the second coming, whatever the actual second coming turns out to be must be much, much worse than what just happened.

Economy of Language

The lines that get quoted are not necessarily the lines Ross loves most. The famous ones: center cannot hold, mere anarchy, passionate intensity; do their work. But the craft he keeps coming back to is in the quiet phrases.

“Troubles my sight.” Three words. You could say “and what I see disturbs me” and it would mean the same thing at twice the length and a fraction of the power. The phrase isn’t showy. You don’t need a dictionary. It just trusts itself enough to stand alone.

This reminds Ross of seeing Tig Notaro do stand-up about a decade ago. The comic before her had been manic, neurotic, filling every half-second of silence because silence felt like failure. The audience was tense. Then Tig walked out, held the mic for thirty seconds without saying anything, delivered one simple sentence, and the room came apart laughing. She’d sit in another thirty seconds of silence, totally at ease, in complete control. We trusted her because she trusted herself.

That’s what “troubles my sight” does. It’s a phrase that doesn’t need to perform.

Then there’s the line Ross can recite without effort, the one that will not leave his head: “But now I know that twenty centuries of stony sleep / were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle.” How do you vex a stony sleep? Let alone vex it to nightmare? The verb doesn’t go with the noun, and that mismatch is exactly the point. There’s a chugging, locomotive rhythm to it. It just moves.

And then “slow thighs.” Who, possibly, puts those words together. You immediately see the lumbering beast.

What Monsters Are For

The image of the rough beast—lion body, head of a man, gaze blank and pitiless—is what Ross calls a “therianthrope”: a hybrid creature, like the Egyptian gods, half human and half animal. It is a Lovecraftian image in the sense that what makes it terrifying is that it doesn’t make sense in the logic of our world. It intrudes from somewhere else.

This is where Ross makes the case for horror as a serious genre. Good horror isn’t really about the monster. The monster is a way of talking about something that can’t be said directly. There’s a Slavoj Žižek bit from The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema where he stands on Bodega Bay and argues that the birds in Hitchcock’s The Birds are the maternal super-ego—the overprotective mother who can’t let her child go and form a new family. That’s one reading. It might or might not be what Hitchcock was consciously doing. But the broader point holds across the genre: Hereditary is a beautiful film about grief that would still be a beautiful film if you took the horror out. The Babadook is about depression. Jordan Peele’s films are about race. The horror is the vehicle.

The etymology backs this up. “Monster” is related to the Spanish mostrar, to show. Monsters are didactic. They exist to communicate something. There’s a thread in folklore where the right response to a haunting isn’t to run but to stop, face the spirit, and ask what it’s trying to tell you. Sometimes the resolution is to learn something about yourself. Sometimes it’s to help the spirit pass on. Often both. You grow as a human, and in growing, you can help someone you couldn’t help before.

If that’s what monsters are for, then “The Second Coming” is asking us to look at the rough beast and figure out what it’s showing us about ourselves.

The Time of Monsters

The line that closes the episode comes from Antonio Gramsci: “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.” It pairs almost too neatly with Yeats. The center couldn’t hold. Things fall apart. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. All of that has happened. The new order, represented in the poem by the rough beast still on its way to Bethlehem, has not yet arrived. We are in the gap.

That’s why the present feels monstrous. Not because the new world is here and is bad, but because it isn’t here yet, and we don’t know what shape it will take. How much of what is happening will roll back, and we’ll look back on this as a strange interlude? How much is the actual structure of the next order being laid down right now? The poem doesn’t answer. The honest answer is that nobody knows.

Which is why the rough beast slouches. It hasn’t arrived. It’s only on its way.

Subscribe now

Full Transcript

Ross Kenyon: Hello. Thank you for listening to Reversing Climate Change. I’m the host, Ross Kenyon. I’ve been a carbon removal entrepreneur for the better part of a decade, and I’m also someone who enjoys poetry. So thank you for tuning into this bonus episode. It’s nice to break things up a little bit with something important, something related, but also not something immediately useful, you might say. In fact, I like the defense of useless things.

Even saying that, I’m like, where does this phrase resonate in my brain? And it comes from the Thomas Merton book In Praise of the Useless Life: A Monk’s Memoir. It’s like, oh, that makes sense. I think there’s something that as life gets faster and faster, it’s harder to justify things that feel useless, wasted time, wasted productivity, could have been doing something else. Opportunity cost is something that we’re thinking about constantly. And you know what? Today we’re going to talk about some poetry. We’re going to talk about economy, not with time, but with words. So that’s what we’re doing today. Thanks so much. I’m going to get right into it.

If I could make a quick ask of you though, if you could please open up your podcast app right now and give this show five stars on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And if you use Apple Podcasts, write a quick review about why you like this show, that would be much appreciated.

Okay, I’m going to read a poem that is one of the most famous poems in the English language. It was written by William Butler Yeats after World War I, at a time when art was tormented, classical forms, familiar forms no longer made sense in a world with poison gas and machine guns and trench warfare, and just the sheer scale of carnage that threw basically everything that was assumed to be stable into question.

And so this poem often gets trotted out in times of great uncertainty for various lines that resonate. For instance, Joan Didion’s Slouching Towards Bethlehem is a great book and references this line. “Things fall apart. The center cannot hold,” is referenced constantly, from the Chinua Achebe book, also a great novel.

A poem or a work of writing is powerful when you see lines from it show up all over the place. Think about how many movies take lines from something like the Lord’s Prayer or Hamlet’s soliloquy. It’s just being like, okay, these lines have a resonance. They are poetically powerful and they get referenced. And this is one of those poems. And one of the things I like about reading poems here is that I’m not trying to do super deep dives and find obscure things that maybe you wouldn’t have already come into contact with.

What I like about the classics is that when you can appreciate them, you are tuning into a civilizational or planetary conversation about art, about what it means to be human. And that goes beyond what is quickly published and forgotten about, or is so specific to a moment or an insular group that it doesn’t have that sort of resonance that can be echoed a hundred or a thousand years later, in ways that the truly classic works of literature do.

I’ve been thinking about this poem a lot lately. I’ve had lines just pop into my head. And while I can appreciate again how resonant these images are, it’s not for good reasons. This is an apocalyptic poem. It references Christian eschatology very strongly, and I think it makes the most sense to locate this poem within the genre of horror. I think it’s a truly scary poem.

And in fact, there’s a version of it that’s read by Paul Muldoon that I must have watched this thing like a hundred times in the past month or two. I think the reading is masterful and the music that it’s put to is so spooky. It’s a really affecting poem. And I keep coming back to it.

There’s something here and I can’t fully articulate all of the reasons why. But after I read the poem, I’ll come back to some more analysis here, and so I will begin reading William Butler Yeats’s “The Second Coming.”

Turning and turning in the widening gyre. The falcon cannot hear the falconer. Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned. The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand. Surely the second coming is at hand. The second coming. Hardly are those words out when a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi troubles my sight. Somewhere in sands of the desert, a shape with lion body and the head of a man, a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, is moving its slow thighs, while all about it reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again. But now I know that twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle. And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.

I can’t say I read that half as well as Paul Muldoon reads it. I recommend listening back to his reading.

There are so many things that I like about this poem. The images are powerful. It connects again to another work of classics, the Bible, and John of Patmos’s Revelation. It uses the imagery from the Christian Bible about how the Antichrist will be born.

And one of the great things about a poem like this is that it gets repurposed in times of great uncertainty. And so you might think that my reason for reading this is the war in Iran, but it’s actually not. I was actually thinking much more about the growth of artificial intelligence and artificial general intelligence and whether or not that will be a thing that is coming and how big of an existential risk that is or is not.

And I kept thinking about that because of this line about how the falcon cannot hear the falconer — what is ostensibly the inferior of the falconer has gone and is using its own discretion out of command of what should be commanding it. I’m pretty sure that’s what originally caught my attention. It wasn’t just that there’s war, but I also think there’s also a really strong sense here that what we have built, our expectations around, are eroding. And you can think about how the United States and NATO and its place in the world has been changing over the last year as really one of these moments when the center cannot hold.

Or maybe it feels like maybe the center will not hold, and there’s a question of, are we going to return to a new equilibrium that will be stable that we can count on? Is this just a temporary detour away from the long arc of history, or has this signaled some sort of new world order that is being born right now?

And even the way that this poem is composed — if this was a verb tense, this would be present progressive. The rough beast hasn’t already given birth to the Antichrist in Bethlehem, but actually it is heading to Bethlehem to give birth to the Antichrist.

What’s interesting to think about this is that Yeats is writing after World War I, and people often associate this poem with World War I and its carnage, but given that he’s writing several years after it, he’s not pointing to the war itself, but it’s the aftermath of, we actually don’t know who is going to lead the world and how the world’s order will be structured and what will come about. It actually took several years after World War I to even get to a point of what the peace looks like. The Treaty of Versailles doesn’t take place until mid-year 1919, and there’s a great book called Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan that I really liked. It also reminds me of that John Cale album, Paris 1919, as well, although I think maybe a little less relevant to this discussion.

That sense of progress, of the approach of the beast, is what makes this so frightening of a poem. It isn’t only that things have happened. The poem is split into two parts, and the first part, as far as I can tell, is about what has happened. There’s a sense of spinning, of losing orientation within this widening gyre, this sort of eddy of swirling forces. The falcon, which should be under the command of the falconer, is off, has left the falconer.

I was wondering how the world will change outside of one’s control. And that itself, you can think about so many types of plots that have this theme. Perhaps the most obvious will be Frankenstein, and how Frankenstein’s monster was created to serve Frankenstein, but actually has desires, hopes, dreams, philosophies of its own that it seeks to pursue. But you can also link it even further back to the exile from the garden of Eden. Humans were created by God to follow the rules of God, and they did not follow it, and thus they are exiled.

And then what follows is this period of bloodletting — how the blood-dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned, presumably drowned in blood. What a shocking image this is.

And this line is also one that gets quoted so often and by seemingly everyone: “the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” When I was trying to memorize this poem, I kept getting caught on this line in particular. Especially “are full of passionate intensity,” and I kept saying, “are filled with passionate intensity,” and “filled” is passive. Right? When you say something is filled, it asks the question of who made it full. Who poured the thing that made it full? And that makes it seem like there’s an external agent who has acted upon these people. And I think what’s interesting about this here — this is super close reading and always runs the risk of reading too much into things — but when you say it’s “they are full of passionate intensity,” it locates the agency within the actor itself. So these people are not being misled by some demonic force, nor are they being elevated by angels in a good force. They have done this to themselves and they have made themselves full of passionate intensity. And I think putting it at that level makes sure that the supernatural parts of this poem are a response to human choice and volition.

If humans were just being filled with passionate intensity that was helping prepare the way for this eschatology to arrive on earth, you would start having questions about determinism and whether or not it makes sense to blame these people for creating this new epoch that is arriving.

And I don’t think Yeats is trying to say that we are just passengers in our bodies in time and things happen to us. There is culpability here, and it’s at least partially the result of individual actions. Even though I think when he’s talking about these gyres — I did some amount of research on Yeats and he has some interesting thinking about the nature of time and eras and the zeitgeist and how there are these moments in time where people all seemingly lurch together in a very similar kind of way. And so it isn’t just about the individual person and their soul and how they’re making decisions. It’s almost about these collectivities, these polities, and how they are changing and reacting.

The second part of the poem has a much stronger theological Revelation feeling to it, and I think it ups the spookiness quite a lot, because the first stanza humans can do terrible things to each other without there being some supernatural overlay. The first two lines of the second stanza almost make me feel like he’s pleading for there to be some sort of supernatural answer. Please let there be something beyond just humans did this to ourselves because we are bad or foolish or both. Which is why I love this line: “Surely, surely some revelation is at hand. Surely the second coming is at hand.” That strikes me as extremely plaintive. Like, please let it be the second coming. Please let it be something else. If this isn’t the second coming, whatever is the second coming, presuming that exists, would surely be much worse than what has just occurred.

And the lines that I most like from this poem are not the “the center cannot hold,” “mere anarchy,” “passionate intensity” — those lines that people often seize upon in this poem. I actually really love several images and phrases and the rhythm of several parts of this. So this is more like textual analysis and how the poem actually operates rather than just the concepts of it.

So we also at this point of the poem switch to first person. So now the narrator is now speaking and observing and being a witness to what is happening here. So he says, “Hardly are those words out when a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi troubles my sight.” The phrase “troubles my sight,” I think is really powerful and has such economy to it because you could say something like, “and what I see disturbs me,” but it’s half the length and it’s much more powerful. It troubles my sight.

It is an unusual way to say something, but it’s also not done in a way that feels showy. There are ways of saying something like this that might be much more verbose and equally as unusual, but not as powerful. The confidence here of having such a simple phrase stand alone like this is something that I really respect.

And in fact, I wasn’t planning to tell this story, but it reminds me of this. I saw Tig Notaro do stand-up probably about a decade ago, very nearly a decade ago, if not. And right before she performed, the comic who preceded her had a set that was extremely manic. This person’s vibe was very much based upon neurosis and energy and a sort of mania as he was presenting his comedy, and it left the audience feeling very uncomfortable. You could just feel it in the room like we were not at ease with his performance. And every half second of silence felt like he was bombing, just felt like he was failing in his duties. Due to that lack of comfort, it was not easy to sit there with him and enjoy his performance.

But when Tig came out, she would hold the mic for thirty seconds or something, say one simple sentence, and have everyone rolling laughing, and then would sit for another thirty seconds or so with immense comfort in the silence, with enormous control. We all trusted her because she was so comfortable performing. Of any performance type, I think Tig Notaro might be the most skillful performer I’ve ever seen for that level of comfort and trust and control. It is amazing.

This is a phrase like that. “Troubles my sight.” It is so effective. It makes me think — it’s one of those things where I’m like, wow, how could I speak like that in a way that is creative and unusual without being showy? You know exactly what he means. It’s not like you need a dictionary to look this up. And I really respect that. And he has a number of sentences and phrases that feel this way to me too.

The object of the verb is not something that you would expect. Have you ever thought that twenty centuries of stony sleep could be vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle? I don’t think you’ve ever thought that sleep could be vexed to nightmare. This sort of juxtaposition with nouns and verbs that unexpectedly have agency back upon the noun is so creative, and it’s such a powerful sentence because this juxtaposition is unexpected.

This might be the silliest thing I’ll say about this poem. “Somewhere in sands of the desert, a shape with lion body and the head of a man, a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, is moving its slow thighs.” Okay, slow thighs. Also, who possibly could have put these words together? You just immediately think of this lumbering beast.

It just makes me think of the Michael Scott part from The Office, where he’s asking people about their personal religious beliefs, which, you know, not typically supposed to do, and thinking that if only they had prayed to the right entity, it could have prevented this disaster. I had to even look this up. It’s from the episode “Fun Run,” where Michael Scott says, “Maybe believing in God was a mistake. What did people believe in before the Sun? Maybe there’s some sort of animal that we could make a sacrifice to, like a giant buffalo or some sort of monster — like something with the body of a walrus with the head of a sea lion. Always makes me laugh how similar they are. Or something with the body of an egret with the head of a meerkat, or just the head of a monkey with the antlers of a reindeer with the body of a porcupine.”

I was trying to think of what the actual term is for this kind of hybridity, and it’s called a therianthrope or therianthropic morph. You can think of it like certain Egyptian gods as combinations of animals, or of humans plus animals.

I think part of the reason why this imagery here is so successful is that it’s meant to be terrifying. When I think about horror, one person that I think of is HP Lovecraft, which, you know, not everything of his has aged especially well, and I’m aware of this. But what he is very famous for is that his monsters are often the kinds of creatures that are so terrifying because they don’t make sense in the logic of our world.

It will be things like colors that we don’t have names for and shapes that are non-Euclidean and just do not map to the spatial reasoning that we have evolved to recognize. And these are the things that are terrifying in the world of Lovecraft. They’re entities that almost are intruding upon our current reality from a separate reality. And what makes them scary is not their immediate sense of danger. It’s not someone in your house at night with a weapon. Shapes and movement and combinations of animals that don’t go together. This is sort of a way of saying that you are not in control. Something greater than humans is moving here.

I was quoting the end of the doggy door sketch from I Think You Should Leave recently, where Tim Robinson says there were monsters on the world, and how scary that is, that there are monsters on the world.

And I actually have a lot of affection for the horror genre. It’s come up in a couple different shows, but I might as well reintroduce it here. Horror has been an increasingly sophisticated genre to the point I even saw something making fun of the A24 horror films, which, you know, they’re like artsy horror. It’s like horror for people who like Jean-Luc Godard. It’s like a little bit snooty, a little bit intellectual. The kinds of films where you’re like, what is actually happening here?

And one of the rules — I think I got this from Slavoj Žižek, he had said something like, one way of cultural theory’s way of grappling with a horror story is taking the monster out of it. And what is it meant to signify? So in this case, he talks about — he’s on Bodega Bay. I think it’s from The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema, I think is what this is originally from. But he is on Bodega Bay and he is talking about the film The Birds by Alfred Hitchcock and about how a classical psychoanalysis by way of Freud and talking about the ego, super-ego, and id, and how the birds are so strongly associated with the maternal super-ego of this overprotective mother figure that would come in and try to prevent the couple from coming together and being intimate and forming a new family. And this is what the symbolism of the birds is meant to convey: this sort of overprotective mother who’s not ready to let their child go.

And that’s one way of reading it. And this is true for plenty of films, especially the more sophisticated horror films. You can see this everywhere. Like for instance, if you watch Hereditary, which is, you know, top of class — it’s about grief. That film is a beautiful film. Even if you took everything out of it and it was just a family struggling with loss, it would still be a beautiful film about grief. The Babadook is a good example here where it’s about depression and mental illness. The horror films of Jordan Peele are often about race and how that is experienced and processed. So there are people who are using the motifs and the language of horror to make a sort of social point, whether that’s an internal or external force or the combination thereof.

What’s interesting about the Hitchcock example from Žižek is it’s not exactly clear to me. I should probably read up on this and see how much Hitchcock was purposefully trying to tell a story about classical psychoanalysis, their model of the mind — ego, super-ego, id — and how important that actually is to Hitchcock. Or was he tapping into some collective unconsciousness, archetypes? This sort of like a Jungian way of explaining that there’s really not that many stories and that these are patterns that repeat, and he just intuitively knew like, this is what is happening. This feels right to me at this moment when I’m writing it or directing this film, to create it in this kind of way.

Hitchcock was very famously controlling. He said something like, “The actors are cattle. They do what I tell them,” or something like that. So it wouldn’t surprise me if he actually was making a very deliberate choice here with reference to something intellectual. But I think probably what is happening is something much more intuitively driven.

And horror, when it is good, is meant to show — like one of the things that people often say about horror is that “monster’s” etymology is related to mostrar, which is the Spanish infinitive for “to show.” So monsters are often meant to show something about yourself, to communicate something. They aren’t just entities that are inherently malevolent. There’s almost a didactic purpose built into what they are trying to communicate.

Sometimes stories in folklore with regards to hauntings or ghosts — sometimes this is a spirit that needs to be exorcised and banished by some sort of spiritual professional, like a priest if you’re working within the Catholic tradition, or maybe a shaman. But in some of the stories that you will hear, people will have some sort of paranormal or supernatural experience, or this will be part of the folklore, and they will not understand why this thing is coming back to them and scaring them and visiting them. And the solution to some of these problems is, well, have you listened to what they’re trying to communicate? And like, are they looking for something? Do they need something? And then in folklore, sometimes this will be solved by, instead of running, you stand and face it and then understand what is being communicated to you. And you either learn something about yourself, and/or help them pass on to the next plane of existence. Or maybe both.

And that absolutely fits within the mostrar way of understanding what a monster is, that it’s there to show you something about yourself, but you’re also able to help them pass on. You grew as a human, and in growing as a human, you were able to help someone that you were previously unable to help.

Now we’re working our way to the conclusion of the poem. And this section here, I’m pretty sure, is my favorite part. As you might have heard from the Whitman, I think it’s really important to not just have to love the entirety of a poem or work of art. I think it’s totally okay to love certain sentences and maybe not like the whole thing. I think it’s okay to like the plot or the overall themes of a book without liking exactly how it’s written.

And this is a case where I think the sentence has such a beautiful rhythm to it. I find it really fun to say. There’s something about it that makes it really easy for me to remember. Like, some parts of this poem I find are really easy to memorize and some parts of them I will get it wrong every time that I try to recite it.

The part of this that I find so easy to repeat and to have in my brain is this line: “But now I know that twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle.”

I had mentioned this earlier — like, yeah, how do you vex a stony sleep, let alone vex it to nightmare? There’s still that incongruity, that mismatch of verbs that don’t typically go with those nouns. That’s really just powerful. But I also just like the rhythm of that. It has a sort of chugging through it. It almost feels locomotive to me.

And I’m already here. I might as well just read the end of it here too. “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.” Rough beast is another one of these unusual combinations that is unexpected, and one of those ones I come back to quite often. And if you ever hear “a rough beast,” you’ll now know where it comes from.

One final thought that I’ll leave everyone with here. This gets quoted also quite a bit. It’s from Antonio Gramsci. He said, “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.” And this fits so nicely within Yeats’s “The Second Coming.” And this poem feels this way too. The center couldn’t hold. Things fall apart. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. Yeah, that has happened. The new order represented by the Antichrist has not yet been born. In fact, the rough beast is only just now slouching towards Bethlehem. Should really hurry up. Because the new world is not quite born and there’s this liminal space here of between orders that’s really unsettling. And I think that’s a good part of why the world does feel so monstrous right now — because it isn’t clear what the order is that we are slouching towards right now.

How much of what is happening will roll back and we will look back on this time and say, wow, that was really weird that the world did that for a while and the US did that for a while? Or is there a new order to be born that we will have to adapt to?

This poem is too good to only read once, so I’m going to read it and then I’m going to send you on your way. So here it is one more time. “The Second Coming” by William Butler Yeats.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer. Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned. The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand. Surely the second coming is at hand. The second coming. Hardly are those words out when a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi troubles my sight. Somewhere in sands of the desert, a shape with lion body and the head of a man, a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, is moving its slow thighs, while all about it reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again. But now I know that twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle. And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.

Gives me chills. What a poem.

Spiritus Mundi is the spirit of the world. I suspect it’s another way of saying zeitgeist. I should have said that earlier, but I’ll leave you with that. Thanks for listening. This is much more than I anticipated doing, but I’m glad we got to talk about this poem. I’m glad we got to locate it within the horror genre, and I hope it gave you something to think about.

Thanks for listening.

Share

This is a summary of an older episode of the Reversing Climate Change podcast with Sarah Tuneberg. You can listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. You can also listen to the full thing right below this paragraph.

Subscribe now

Quick Takeaways

• At the time of recording, Sarah Tuneberg was the CEO and co-founder of Geospiza, a climate risk assessment firm. She also served as Colorado’s COVID testing czar during the pandemic, scaling the state’s testing from 50 samples per day to over 50,000. The experience reinforced what she already knew from climate work: we almost always know catastrophe is coming, and we’re almost always surprised when it arrives.

• The episode walks through a Passover Seder—the ritual Jewish meal celebrating the Exodus from slavery in Egypt—and draws out climate parallels at each step. The Haggadah (the text that guides the Seder) is deeply customizable, and Sarah’s family keeps theirs in a manila folder that gets rearranged every year.

• The Seder tradition of reclining—getting comfortable with pillows and stretchy pants before doing hard intellectual and spiritual work—maps to a key insight about climate engagement: people may do harder things when their basic needs are met. The all-or-nothing framing of climate action (no meat, no flights, no plastic ever) may be counterproductive.

• The Four Questions, traditionally asked by the youngest child at the table, connect to Greta Thunberg’s rhetorical power: taking an incredibly complex story and distilling it to its simplest, most transmittable terms. If even the youngest can tell the story, it cannot be forgotten.

• Tikkun Olam: the Jewish concept of “repairing the world,” isn’t just charity. It’s an active obligation to dismantle broken systems. In climate terms: it’s not enough to reduce your own footprint. You have to be engaged in the structural work.

• The plagues of Exodus—hail, pestilence, drought, darkness—are functionally the same natural disasters that climate change is intensifying today. As Sarah put it: “They’re not making new natural disasters for us. They’re the same. We just made them worse.”

• “Next year in Jerusalem”—the traditional closing toast of the Seder—becomes a climate intention-setting exercise. What does your “next year in Jerusalem” look like for the climate?

Share

Ancient Plagues, Modern Catastrophe

This episode was recorded and released during Passover 2021—a year into the pandemic, with Sarah Tuneberg freshly off a nine-month stint as Colorado’s COVID testing czar. The original recording had been planned for the previous year’s Passover, but the pandemic intervened, which turned out to be fitting: the story of Exodus is, at its core, a story about catastrophe that people should have seen coming.

Sarah’s professional life sits at the intersection of risk and preparedness. As CEO of Geospiza, she worked on climate risk assessment; helping organizations visualize, understand, and act on the risks that are already baked into our changing climate. Her pandemic work reinforced the same lesson: we model these disasters, we run exercises to practice for them, and then when they arrive, we act shocked. The plagues of Exodus, she argued, are the same disasters we’re dealing with today—hail, drought, pestilence, darkness. We haven’t invented our way out of any of them. We’ve made them worse.

Comfort and Capacity

One of the more surprising climate insights came from an unlikely place: the Seder tradition of reclining. At a Passover meal, you’re supposed to get comfortable—extra pillows, a good chair, wine at prescribed intervals. The idea is that you can do very hard intellectual and spiritual work while also being at ease. Sarah drew a direct line to climate engagement: the prevailing narrative that caring about climate means deprivation (no meat, no flights, no plastic) may actually reduce people’s capacity to engage. If we accommodate people’s basic needs and comforts, maybe they’ll have more bandwidth for the harder work. You can have anything, she suggested, but you can’t have everything.

Ross extended this to a broader framing about basic needs: if you’re struggling to eat, you’re not going to be thinking about abstract problems that might affect your grandchildren. Climate change is still, for some listeners, elective to think about. Meeting people where they are—comfortable, fed, not in crisis—might be the precondition for meaningful climate action, not an obstacle to it.

The Power of Simple Language

The Four Questions are a centerpiece of the Seder. They’re asked by the youngest child at the table; a ritual that ensures the story of Exodus is transmittable across generations, stripped down to its most essential terms. Sarah connected this directly to Greta Thunberg: after decades of Al Gore and climate policy wonks, it took a teenager speaking in the simplest possible language to make the message stick. The power wasn’t in complexity. It was in clarity.

There’s also a startup analogy in there: if you can pitch your idea to a third grader and they can retell it, you might actually understand what you’re doing. Sarah suggested this says more about venture capitalists than third graders.

Nobody’s Coming to Save Us

The conversation took a theological turn when Sarah described a strain of post-Holocaust Jewish theology: rather than waiting for a single messianic figure to arrive and fix everything, the obligation falls on all of us to create the messianic time ourselves—to end poverty, inequity, violence, and war through our own collective work. The parallel to climate is obvious and uncomfortable: nobody’s coming to save us from ourselves.

This connects to Tikkun Olam, often translated as “repairing the world.” Sarah was careful to distinguish it from ordinary charity. Tikkun Olam isn’t just giving money or reducing your carbon footprint. It’s an active obligation to dismantle the systems that cause harm. In Holocaust terms, the distinction is between people who simply didn’t participate in atrocities and the “righteous Gentiles” who actively hid people, smuggled, and subverted. Not participating isn’t enough. You have to do the work.

The Same Plagues

The most direct connection between Exodus and climate is the plagues themselves. Hail that devastated crops in ancient Egypt is the same hail that devastates crops today. Drought, pestilence, wildfire, darkness—these aren’t new categories of disaster. They’re the same ones, amplified by greenhouse gas emissions. Sarah found it fascinating that thousands of years of human civilization haven’t produced new natural disasters. We’ve just made the old ones worse.

The Haggadah also prompted an interesting discussion about the “hardening of Pharaoh’s heart”—a passage where God seems to prevent Pharaoh from letting the Jews leave, ensuring more plagues must be visited on ordinary Egyptians who had no say in their government’s decisions. The revisionist reading asks: how do we include mercy for the everyday people who suffer from decisions made by those in power? In a climate context, this maps onto the tension between developed nations (who benefited from fossil-fueled industrialization) and developing nations (who are told to bear the costs of decarbonization without having enjoyed the benefits).

Next Year in Jerusalem

The Seder closes with a toast: “Next year in Jerusalem.” For a historically diasporic people, it’s a phrase layered with melancholy and hope; an acknowledgment that you’re not where you want to be, combined with the belief that you might get there. Sarah suggested this as a climate intention-setting exercise: what does your “next year in Jerusalem” look like? Less plastic? Solar panels? Something structural? The point isn’t perfection — the whole arc of Hebrew scripture is a story of people falling short and trying again — but intention, renewed annually, in comfort, with wine.

Share

Full Transcript

Alexsandra Guerra: You are listening to the Reversing Climate Change Podcast by the team at Nori, the Carbon Removal Marketplace. This is a show about the innovators and entrepreneurs developing solutions to climate change.

Ross Kenyon: Hello and welcome to the Reversing Climate Change podcast. I’m Ross Kenyon. I’m the creative editor at Nori, the Carbon Removal Marketplace. Today I have with me an alumna, Sarah Tuneberg, CEO and co-founder of Geospiza, and more recently, Colorado’s COVID czar. What a sentence. I’m so privileged to get to say such a thing. Welcome, Sarah.

Sarah Tuneberg: Thanks for having me.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. This show has been so long in the making. We tried to last year and we were gearing up for it. In fact, this outline that we’re working off of was built a year ago, but the pandemic happened and it prevented us from doing this Passover episode.

Sarah Tuneberg: A long-gestated podcast is a good thing. I’ve reflected deeply on it in moments across the last year, and I think we’re better for it now.

Ross Kenyon: You really had time to think about this over the last year.

Sarah Tuneberg: Occasionally when you were like, hey, are we gonna do it? And I was like, yes. And then I’d be like, ooh. Such good things to think about. And then it was all COVID all the time.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I can imagine. If you go back and listen to Sarah’s original episode, we were talking about climate risk and how various organizations are working to visualize that, understand that risk, and act on it in cases where they can. Is that an okay summary of your work?

Sarah Tuneberg: Very, very good. It’s the understanding that you need to take the changes to reduce the risk, and as we’ve seen over the last year, we live in a world of risk. A world where we do very poorly at preparing for that risk.

Ross Kenyon: I feel like you’re getting at something specific. Is this potentially related to your pandemic work? Does this all flow together for you?

Sarah Tuneberg: It does actually, because I think that one of the deep learnings of my career and my work is that all of the things we think of as surprises or natural disasters or anything like this — we know that they’re likely to come. We do the modeling about them. We even do exercises to practice for them, and yet when they happen, we’re like, oh my gosh, what are you talking about? We had no idea. How could we ever have known this was gonna happen? We pretty much always know. And so it’s a human problem, and I think we’ll talk in our episode about catastrophe in the form of the plagues. And so even back in biblical times, we had natural catastrophe and they are, turns out, not that different than what we’re dealing with now. So that we’re surprised is surprising to me.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I was thinking — if a Geospiza in biblical times would be a Caesar, right?

Sarah Tuneberg: I think so. Yeah.

Ross Kenyon: That’s the joke I’m trying to make. I don’t know the exact way to package it. We’ll just leave it at that.

Sarah Tuneberg: I like it. It’s funny.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Okay. Before we get into the Passover story and how climate relates — what happened in this last year for you? What was it like working with Colorado state government and the pandemic response?

Sarah Tuneberg: I’ll say that I’m not sure yet. I feel like it has been a year of incredible intensity and loss and the hardest work I’ve ever done in my life, and that the work was so intense and driven that I feel like I lived in a state of adrenaline or fight or flight for nine months and I’m not yet sure exactly — I’m not sure if I even laid down the memories in my brain yet. It’s still just sort of stewing around up there. But what I will say is it was a year of people coming together and doing their absolute best and just trying with everything. A lot of the work was very intellectual, very academic, very brain — and yet you would see people’s bodies on video calls just sort of tense up and move forward. And you could see that my colleagues and the people who were all across the world working to solve this had every cell in their body in it. And it was an incredible thing to witness.

Ross Kenyon: I’m not sure. We should have another episode next year, maybe at this time, and we can reflect on all of this.

Sarah Tuneberg: I’m not quite there yet. Still just trying to take a breath.

Ross Kenyon: Wow. It sounds pretty raw still then. Well, I’m sure we’ll try another podcast in a year and then three years later when we actually do it, then we can talk about it. Maybe that’s enough time to reflect.

Sarah Tuneberg: Yeah, I think that sounds like plenty.

Ross Kenyon: I’m trying to remember how exactly this came up the first time you were on the show. I think we were just talking about the plagues of Exodus. You had recommended this book that I have here, which is Jonathan Safran Foer’s — another podcast alum — his New American Haggadah. I worked through it. It was the first one I’ve ever read and experienced, except for I went to a friend’s Seder once. I guess that was the only other time I’ve referenced one of these. But I got a lot out of it. And apparently these are quite customizable. A lot of people customize their Passover Seder to feature different elements of the story and different themes. But I suppose before we get to the customizability, maybe we should just start with the bare bones. What is the story of Passover? What is the Seder? Let’s set a nice foundation for everyone.

Sarah Tuneberg: Sure. Absolutely. So Passover is one of the oldest Jewish holidays and it celebrates the Jews’ exodus from slavery in Egypt. It’s a big momentous event in Jewish history — that the Jews were able to leave slavery and bondage in Egypt and go into the desert where they began to wander, which then led them to entry into Israel. And enshrined in all of this legend and myth are lots of details — the giving of the Ten Commandments comes in this place. This is the early, early days. Not Genesis, not the beginning, but the story of Exodus. One of the things that’s very wonderful and beautiful about the Passover story is that it is a holiday oriented around lots of traditions in the home and lots of storytelling. It’s not a single night — it is a many-night event. There’s a first night Seder, a second night Seder. You can do it for up to eight nights, differing in traditions. And so in Judaism, there is a lot of — as with any faith tradition — there’s a lot of food, a lot of ritual, but Passover to me is the one where it’s just magnified. And the Haggadah, the book you reference, is the story guide. It’s the text that guides us through the meal. We have a meal, and Passover is where the prayers happen. So you sit at the table with your family and friends and you process through the story, and there’s wine and specific foods. It’s a real feast of the senses, of intellectualism, and of questioning. It’s a pretty wonderful holiday.

Ross Kenyon: I think that’s a great place to start. And if you’re listening and you’re not familiar — a Seder is, as I understand it, just the name of the actual celebration or the event itself of Passover? Is that the correct way to understand it?

Sarah Tuneberg: So a Seder is a meal. And it is a special meal in that there are prayers and storytelling and foods and wine. So it’s the event. You build them together to make Passover.

Ross Kenyon: Okay, understood. I was familiar more with the pretty basic story of Exodus and how Passover is celebrated, but my understanding is that you can customize this a great deal and people will write Haggadot that feature different themes. And so we seized upon an idea of a climate Haggadah or a climate Seder. Have you been to many Seders, and how much customizability do you feature in your celebration of Passover?

Sarah Tuneberg: Let me preface this by saying this is Judaism and Passover from my perspective. And with all things Judaism, as many people or Jews as there are, there are perspectives. And Judaism is a tradition of questioning and study — that is the best, that is the highest art, the holiest activity. Study all of the Torah and the books and the teachings. So this is my perspective. You have a different classic Jewish text. It is not static. It’s malleable. It’s adjustable. My personal family Haggadah is like a mess. It’s a manila folder that is a mess of stories. And every year we sort of discuss which ones we want to highlight. Are we going short? Are we going long? Are we doing lots of singing? Are we talking? What’s the point? And then we’ll sort of adjust and then make copies and pass them out. Others — my grandparents used the modern Jewish Reform Judaism Haggadah. It was a book. We did the whole thing. There was no messing around. You just did the one. And then there’s other things — I’ve been to a feminist Seder where it was all about the women of the Torah, and it was all about adjusting to the lens of feminism, and it was very cool. So it’s this idea: reflect on what you need to in the moment. And I think one of the other things that’s fascinating and unique is that you do it in a meal. So you’re also sharing food and you’re drinking wine if that’s your jam. The Haggadah calls for wine in particular places, so you can get a little tipsy and then the discussion — it’s exciting. It’s lovely.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. The story of Exodus is a story of slavery and then the Jews escaping and as a nation leaving Egypt and going their own way, and they sort of get lost on the way, right? They’re out in the desert for a while. So it’s sort of somber, but it seems celebratory too at the same time. Is that correct?

Sarah Tuneberg: Yes, absolutely. And there is redemption. It’s a story of redemption and freedom, and that is something that is incredibly celebratory. I am blessed to have never been enslaved, but I don’t imagine — I don’t know what that experience would’ve been like for them. And it’s also a story of incredible loss and trauma. The killing of the firstborn of each of the Egyptians. It’s horror, right? That’s trauma like we couldn’t even contemplate. And the plagues are terrible. As with life, I think, there’s levity, there’s celebration, there’s grief and loss, punctuated by redemption.

Ross Kenyon: Passover itself — the name is about the firstborn Egyptians being killed, right?

Sarah Tuneberg: Correct. And then the passing over — the Jews would put lamb’s blood over their doorway.

Ross Kenyon: So the message was for the Jewish houses to mark their doorsteps and their gates with lamb’s blood, and the Angel of Death would know to pass over those homes.

Sarah Tuneberg: And that tradition has been pulled forward. Now the holiest prayers are tucked in a scroll and put in the mezuzah on the door. So it’s a linkage — now Jewish homes are always marked.

Ross Kenyon: Oh, that’s interesting. I’ve seen mezuzahs on people’s doors before, but I learned about that from Curb Your Enthusiasm. I think much of my knowledge of Judaism is Larry David related.

Sarah Tuneberg: As it should be.

Ross Kenyon: A fair amount. But I didn’t know there’s a connection between the mezuzah and Passover.

Sarah Tuneberg: They’re linked in a prayer. But I think this is to me always the interlinkages. In Jewish tradition, we study and we reference and we note. So it’s very common in a book of Torah to have one passage and then a whole three quarters of a page of — Maimonides said this, Hillel said that, this person said the other thing. So they get muddied. Some prayers reference back.

Ross Kenyon: I saw the scholar Jonathan Haidt say that argument and debate is a fundamentally Jewish cultural characteristic. It sounds like you might agree with that.

Sarah Tuneberg: Indeed, and I think it comes back to some degree to the story of Passover, which is in Passover — the first diaspora of many. For the Jews, they had to leave everything. You couldn’t take anything with you. There’s the unleavened bread — the matzo doesn’t have to rise, so they just take what they can. But the most portable, highest-value thing in Jewish tradition is education. Nobody can take it away from you. In your diaspora you get to keep everything that’s in your head. And so I think that’s always been the root of the Jewish debate culture, the Jewish intellectualism — you can take all of our things, you can put us in a ghetto, you can enslave us, but you can’t take what’s in our heads.

Ross Kenyon: What even is the correct way to understand that? Somber, sad — but it’s been turned to a strong positive at the same time.

Sarah Tuneberg: Totally. It’s powerful. It’s a nice subversion of what one might expect.

Ross Kenyon: That’s great. I think this is a really good baseline to move from. How exactly does one celebrate a Seder when you host it? In the Haggadah that I have, there’s a whole bunch of things you say together, exercises, thought experiments that you debate through. How do you do it?

Sarah Tuneberg: In my tradition, we have a usually big family Seder. It’s family of choice and family of birth. Invite lots of people, extend out the table. And it begins with the washing of the hands in our tradition. And that is a marking of specialness and ensuring that you are prepared — that’s how I experience it. You wash your hands. And I think in some traditions — sometimes at our house — you wash another’s hands. So you pass a bowl, a ritual washing — not a real one, there’s no soap. You hold your hands over the bowl and the person pours it over and then you pass it along. So it begins that way, which to me is an interesting reflection in the context of climate change — a cleansing, a beginning, fresh.

Ross Kenyon: A nice clean start. You have to get your house in order, get yourself taken care of, and then you’re prepared to proceed. Okay, so then there’s this ritual hand washing. Where do you go from there?

Sarah Tuneberg: So one of the key traditions is that you recline in Passover. You have an extra pillow, you get your comfy chair, your stretchy pants — my family, because you eat a ton — but you recline. And we’ll come to the Four Questions. But one of the questions is: why on this night do we recline? There are lots of reasons why, but the one I think about is that we can do this very hard work, this big reflection and event, and also be comfortable in doing it. And perhaps in being comfortable, we have more capacity to think and more capacity to be reflective. In the climate lens, I think a lot about the idea of comfort and being able to be okay as a barrier to the changes we need to make. There is this idea that you have to be a vegetarian and walk everywhere and never take an airplane again. And it’s this very restrictive life if we’re gonna have a carbon-neutral or carbon-negative life. But I think the Jewish teaching of this reclining idea is that we can do very hard things and still have comfort. Maybe we can do harder things when we’re comfortable. If we accommodate ourselves and our base needs, maybe that gives us greater capacity. And maybe if it wasn’t this all-or-nothing, you gotta do everything, no plastic ever forever — we’d get more people on the side of minor changes. To me it comes back to this idea: you can have anything but you can’t have everything. And maybe we need to let people have a little bit and they’ll do better work on the climate.

Ross Kenyon: That’s an interesting idea. I imagine it’s easier to care about something abstract that may affect your children or grandchildren to a far greater degree — something farther away — if you’re not struggling to get your basic needs met. You’re able to zoom out a little bit. It’s easier to think about things that are farther away. Of course, climate change isn’t farther away for everyone, but at least for some people listening, it is sort of still elective to think about.

Sarah Tuneberg: Oh, I think that’s a really good framing — this idea of basic needs being met allows you to have space to worry about other things. If you’re struggling to eat and all you can do is eat the meat or whatever — yeah, I agree that resonates with me deeply.

Ross Kenyon: If all you get is free manna from heaven and you really want quail — I love that part of Exodus. If you’re listening, after Egypt, the Jews are in the desert and they get free bread that tastes like it’s been flavored with honey and they’re like, hmm, we don’t really like it that much. We’d like — can you get any quail up there, God, that you can send down? Does that crack you up? Is this intentionally funny?

Sarah Tuneberg: It does crack me up. And I think there’s so many things like that, which leads to the really good questions of why, what on earth — and the multi-authorship of Hebrew texts. There isn’t a single author, there’s so many. I have never actually read any of the reflection, but I would love to see — why quail and not honey? Are there quail in the desert? Is it a remnant? Is there a memory there? I have no idea, but I agree it’s hilarious. It also speaks to this — it’s never good enough. Wandering the desert, you get free food and you’re like, but really what I want is the quail. Come on, dude.

Ross Kenyon: I grew up in Arizona and there’s tons of quail there. So — quail in the desert.

Sarah Tuneberg: There you go.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I think I got this from Amy-Jill Levine — her work’s come up on other podcasts. She’s a Jewish scholar of the New Testament. So her perspectives are always really interesting. She had something about trying to understand the humor and how much of the scripture is actually intended to be funny, in her opinion. And reading Exodus like that — I reread it for this podcast — one thing that always gets me is Moses on Mount Sinai. He’s up there for 40 days getting the tablets, getting the Ten Commandments. And he comes back and the Jews are already building a golden calf. They’re already building an idol. And he’s like, that’s the one rule, guys. You know this doesn’t work, right? This is how God gets really mad at you over and over again. 40 days, not even that long.

Sarah Tuneberg: It’s nothing! 40 days. And this idea too — I’m a planner, right? I’m an emergency manager. How much planning did they have to do to already have constructed it at 40 days? They’ve been working on that since he went up there.

Ross Kenyon: You had to gather all the jewelry from the people. You had to melt it down. You had to make the cast. There’s a whole series of operations.

Sarah Tuneberg: Yeah, I agree that this was what they were gonna spend their time on instead of whatever else.

Ross Kenyon: I don’t know. It is possible this is not intended to be funny, but the whole shape of Hebrew scripture, as I understand it — if there is an agreement with God, the Jews break it in some way. And then some prophet will scold them and they’ll sort of come back into God’s good graces, and they break it. It’s this cycle of coming back to God and then losing the way and coming back. Is that how you see it, or am I imposing that?

Sarah Tuneberg: No, I think that’s true. That’s accurate — it’s one of the many, but yes. And isn’t that like human? Isn’t that the way of humans? Oh, it’s all great. Thank you, thank you. Oh, we’ve done a little sideways. Please forgive me. I need a guru. You are gonna help me get back. Oh, I’m back. Okay. I think it’s really common. It’s like exercise and meditation. It’s universal. It just can’t stay good forever.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I think the overall shape of Hebrew scripture, if we accept that interpretation, is a sticky story because it rings true to us. Resolutions is a funny lens — you make these resolutions and then you don’t really keep them. You keep trying and trying, but you fail.

Sarah Tuneberg: I appreciate that even the prophets fail. That’s one of the things I love — even the ones who do the best work aren’t perfect. So there is no perfection. Just continuing self-improvement. You can always be better at Judaism.

Ross Kenyon: You can always be better at Judaism. It’s a great line. Okay. Sorry, I let us down into tangents — hopefully related enough — but let’s get back into celebrating Seder. What comes next after the reclining?

Sarah Tuneberg: So I will admit it has been two years, though I’ve had many every year of my life. My Seder last year was a little sketchy — I had COVID and it was my birthday. My birthday falls in Passover, which as a small child was a huge bummer because I didn’t get a real cake. I got some sort of flourless nonsense. But in real life it’s nice now. Good big party. And there’s matzo brei, which is sort of like French toast made with matzo. And this isn’t a subject of huge division — some people love it and think it’s the greatest thing in the world. And I’m pretty sure it’s like eating paper with maple syrup on it. I’ve got no love for the matzo brei. But anyway — essential and quintessential of the Seder are the Four Questions. The Four Questions are part of the Haggadah. They are asked by the youngest child, and it is long-held tradition to learn the Four Questions as a small child. It’s a big thing when you can do it. If you can do it in Hebrew, even better. There’s a song. The questions are: Why is this night different than all others? Why do we recline? Why do we eat bitter herbs? Why do we eat only flatbread? And there’s another one. Maybe we’ll look it up. I’m not the youngest — so I never had to learn them anyway. The service is inclusive. It isn’t just the adults speaking. It is about all people, including the youngest child, who has a very important role. And I think about this in the context of climate — it’s really important. Because we talk in Passover about very difficult subjects: slavery, redemption, sadness — sadness is an understatement — unbelievable loss. And we give that storytelling responsibility to children as well as adults. And I think in doing that, we are ensuring that the story is transmittable between generations, that it isn’t too lofty or intellectual, and that we get it to its simplest terms so that we cannot ever forget it. And that even the youngest knows it. And this comes up for me with Greta Thunberg a lot. We had Al Gore and all sorts of other prophets of climate change. And it wasn’t until Greta came along and was able to give us this incredibly simple message that a lot of people heard and that a lot of people were able to internalize and also transmit — the story of climate change. And so I really think deeply about this idea of ensuring our storytelling is appropriate for everybody and that everybody can then tell the story.

Ross Kenyon: That’s a really clever connection with Greta’s rhetorical approach and maybe her personality generally — speaking forcefully in very clear language. She also has a bit of that Hebrew scriptural prophetic thing going for her too, as social critic. Those prophets are railing against the civilization and society as they see it. That seems very Greta-esque.

Sarah Tuneberg: I think the thing I find especially Greta-esque, and in the tie to the Four Questions, is taking this incredibly complex, multifaceted story and being like, here’s the four key things, and I’m just gonna talk about them incredibly simply. Not as a criticism, but simply and elegantly. We don’t need all the big words, all the big government talk. Here’s what’s happening, here’s what the consequences are, here’s how we can stop it, and we need to do something about it now. And I just think it’s really beautiful — the idea of being able to have power with simple language, the most power. And also not negating the idea that even the smallest person, the youngest, can make magnificent change.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, that’s a really beautiful sentiment. And it’s nice that it’s included ritualistically — it’s always the youngest child.

Sarah Tuneberg: Always the youngest child. And when you go to adult Seders, it’s very funny. When I went to Seders in college, it would be like, when’s your birthday? Because we were all really young, but there was always the youngest.

Ross Kenyon: That’s good to know. Well, yeah — these questions. Why is tonight different? Why recline? Why the bitter herb? And why do we eat flatbread and matzo? The bitter herb stands out to me. Do you recall what that one might be about?

Sarah Tuneberg: So the bitter herb is to remind us of the time of slavery. And we dip our bitter herb — in the United States, in most traditions, the bitter herb we eat is parsley — and we dip it in salt water and eat it to remind us of the tears of the enslaved. And the bitterness of the work and being enslaved people.

Ross Kenyon: So this is the somber part. Some of these thematically — it feels like you’re telling kids a sad story. You’re explaining why the bitter herb, why you’re eating flatbread — you’re eating matzo because there wasn’t time before fleeing Egypt. You had to make the bread. You didn’t have time to let it leaven. Is that right?

Sarah Tuneberg: Yeah. Didn’t have time, had to go. So you baked it really fast so that you had something, and that something was a cracker.

Ross Kenyon: Right. Okay. So then after this, the kids get their answers. They’re able to learn. And by the way, if you’re not able to explain your ideas in terms that a low level of understanding can access, there’s always an open question of how well you actually understand those ideas. I think it’s an important exercise in general.

Sarah Tuneberg: Yeah. In the startup world, there’s always this idea of pitching to a third grader. If you can, and a third grader can understand and then retell you what your business is — I think that might say something about venture capitalists more than third graders, but.

Ross Kenyon: Okay. Throwing some Passover shade, I see. Yeah. Where do you go from the Four Questions? What happens next?

Sarah Tuneberg: So again, this is sort of a meandering story and it’s different in different families. There’s wine, there’s all sorts of parts. But one of the things — and this might be a little out of order — but thinking about Greta as a messenger leads me to the idea of Elijah. Elijah the prophet — the idea of a ghost. We don’t really have ghosts in Judaism, but kind of like a ghost. At Passover we have a glass of wine for Elijah, and we also at a point in the service towards the end open the door for Elijah. Elijah is the one, I believe, who will arrive prior to the Messiah. So there is an idea in Judaism that a human form will come first to a particular coastal village in Israel, and Elijah will appear first and sort of guide through. And we make room for Elijah, who’s considered a stranger, because we don’t know when Elijah’s gonna come. So we make space for a stranger. And I think about this in lots of different ways. It’s this weaving of a thread of connection and humans over time. And the Passover message that one, we make space for people we don’t know. Traditionally in Passover, you are supposed to invite anybody who needs a home for Passover. Nobody should go without a meal. So we make space for the stranger. We also, in our tradition, think about Elijah as this ancestral arc — this connection where my grandparents, my great-grandparents, the people all the way back to Europe and before that, wherever they came from — making space for Elijah, this force that was gonna welcome the Messiah. And we still do it every year. And I think it’s a really beautiful thing that you pour a glass of wine — gonna make it comfortable. Not only is there a seat, but there’s also wine for Elijah.

Ross Kenyon: I don’t know how many times this happens in Hebrew scripture, but I feel it’s gotta be dozens — the admonition that you were once slaves in Egypt and so the expectation is that you need to extend a helping hand, to be charitable, to be kind. Is this related?

Sarah Tuneberg: I don’t actually know if it is directly, but there’s a good connection there. This idea of making space for the stranger — you were once slaves in Egypt, so you need to be more thoughtful and more caring. And tzedakah, the giving of charity, is really important.

Ross Kenyon: You were also telling me about an interesting idea — an idea of the Messiah within Jewish theology as maybe the people overall or the time overall, rather than a single person. Can you explain how that works?

Sarah Tuneberg: Yes, absolutely. The experience of being a Jew in history has been one often of incredible trauma. You have slavery in Egypt, subsequent wars, the Inquisition, and then obviously the Holocaust. And I learned it as post-Holocaust theology, which is: rather than expecting a single human-formed savior, a messiah, to come and save us all and usher us into the messianic period of peace — instead it’s incumbent on all of us to create the messianic time. That we together can create the peace, create the kindness. It’s funny, all of the things that are coming up for me, I’m thinking of the opposite — ending poverty, ending inequity, ending violence, ending war. If we do that, that will make the time of the Messiah, rather than us waiting for it or waiting for somebody to save us. We need to do the hard work to make it be. And I think about that in the context of climate: nobody’s gonna save us from ourselves. We have to do the work. And perhaps the time of the Messiah — the first thing we need to do is to not have climate change, to stop the greenhouse gas emissions.

Ross Kenyon: Oh no, just put it out there. Just a thought, huh? That surely will be part of it. Is this — one term I’ve seen used frequently in these circles is Tikkun Olam. Is this all related in your mind?

Sarah Tuneberg: Yes, it is. The idea of doing good — and not just doing good, but there’s an idea of righteous good in Judaism. It’s not just doing good because you’re supposed to, but actually doing the work of change, the work of charity, the work of help, the work of dismantling broken systems that harm others. It’s righteous work. It’s the work that we all should be doing. The shorthand, probably unfairly truncated version of it, is Jewish social justice. It’s not just about charity. There’s this idea of charity — you give, you donate money, you donate food. That’s not enough. In Judaism, you have to be socially just. You have to do more. You’re not allowed to stand by and let the bad thing happen. You actually have to be an active participant in dismantling. I think about this a lot in the terms of the Holocaust — there’s this idea of righteous Gentiles, those non-Jews who hid people, who undermined the Nazis, who smuggled, who did other subversive activities — because it’s not good enough to just not have participated. You have to actively do the right thing.

Ross Kenyon: Do we even have a word in English that expresses that? I feel like you have to explain that idea.

Sarah Tuneberg: No, I don’t think we do. Which is why we talk about Tikkun Olam. Jews don’t have shorthand — we’re like, we’re doing Tikkun Olam. And you’re like, what is Tikkun Olam? And you’re like, it’s justice, but it’s righteous and it’s powerful and you don’t have a choice. You just have to do it. There’s a lot.

Ross Kenyon: So circling back to a couple of things we’ve already talked about — we also in Judaism make space for righteousness and comfort at Passover. We’re talking about incredible loss and an incredible story of redemption, and we do it reclining. And when we think about climate change, it’s not enough to just be — you have to be actively engaged in the justice component.

Sarah Tuneberg: And for me, I think a lot about my role in the world in climate. It looks like helping people who don’t have the space or the capacity to make those changes. To what you said about if your basic needs can’t be met, how can we expect you to make space for this very hard work? On the global scale, we talk a lot about developing nations and what work they need to do. And I think there’s this idea of, well, screw you, Western countries — you got to have all the benefits of coal-fueled development. Why can’t we have that? But this idea that we all have to do the hard work, and maybe some of us have to work harder to compensate for those who can’t. I don’t know — that’s a little half-baked.

Ross Kenyon: That’s okay. I think there’s something there. We should talk about the plagues, right? I think this is what everyone thinks about when they say, oh, they’re doing a climate Passover episode — the plagues. Rivers of blood, frogs, hail, climate change, natural disasters.

Sarah Tuneberg: Yes. And to the point I said earlier — one of the things I find absolutely fascinating is that the plagues of slavery in Egypt and Exodus remain the plagues that devastate huge swaths of our human population in this current year. They’re not making new natural disasters for us. They’re just kind of the same.

Ross Kenyon: No, they are the same.

Sarah Tuneberg: So I think of hail especially — hail, wildfire. Hail devastated crops in the time of slavery in Egypt for Jews in the same way it does right now. And the catastrophic effects of climate change are the same as the catastrophic effects that God rained down on the Egyptians to free the Jewish slaves. It’s absolutely fascinating to me. And we have not innovated our way out of it. We’ve made it worse.

Ross Kenyon: In fact, we’ve made it worse. Yeah. So you think — I mean, that’s the most obvious link. There are many ways to spin the story of Exodus to be about freedom and relate to the climate, but focusing on the plagues — that strikes me as the most one-to-one comparison. Is that how you see it too?

Sarah Tuneberg: Yeah, absolutely. I think this is how we got here in the beginning — natural hazards have been the same since the time of, they’re still the same, and climate change is just — to me, sometimes I think about it: are the plagues coming full circle? Are they so bad that we are in a time of global human catastrophe that we’ve magnified with our greenhouse gas emissions? Or is it just a continuation?

Ross Kenyon: I think a lot about what is the lesson of the plagues in climate. I’m very interested in this too, and I don’t think I have a great interpretation of it. It’s a genuine puzzle. And I’m sure a lot of ink has been spilled on this. But okay — if you haven’t cracked open Exodus alongside us — Moses will go to Pharaoh, say “let my people go.” And Pharaoh seems to be okay with it. But then there’ll be a sentence that says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Why? It seems like Pharaoh would have let the Jews leave Egypt, but the hardening of the heart — why? I don’t get it.

Sarah Tuneberg: I don’t know. And I think this is one of the heavily debated passages. It would be interesting to hear in comments what people’s theories are. But is one of the ideas that the Jews didn’t deserve it enough yet, that they hadn’t done enough? Or was it an idea that in order to not go after them and chase them down — which they do, the Egyptians do, leading to the parting of the Red Sea — that without the trauma of the plagues, would the Jews be able to make a break? I also think the Old Testament Hebrew Bible God is a mean one. There might be funniness, but it is a vengeful God. A God that is punishing and harsh. And the last thing I’ll say is that there’s an idea that religion and the Torah and the Bible and all of these texts are written to explain very difficult things. You don’t have an answer, so religion is a function of trying to answer all of these things. And in a time when it was probably very terrible — there was boils and pestilence and drought and darkness — there couldn’t have been another explanation than that God had to harden Pharaoh’s heart to do it again. I don’t know. What about you?

Ross Kenyon: I don’t know. It’s a hard one. It’s related to what’s typically called theodicy — the problem of evil. Why does evil exist? Why does God harden hearts? To a modern reader, Abraham going up Mount Moriah with Isaac to sacrifice him, and then at the last second being saved — that doesn’t seem like such a great test of faith. The things done to the various peoples — that really seems like conquest and maybe genocide. It doesn’t strike the modern reader as unobjectionable good. But one thing I liked about reading this Haggadah especially is the revisionist take on some of these stories. God is hardening Pharaoh’s heart multiple times over. And the people who are suffering are regular Egyptians who are having their crops ruined or their firstborn killed by the Angel of Death. They’re living in a dictatorship, right? Pharaoh is in charge. These people are not in a democracy. They have no control over their government, and yet they’re the ones who are suffering. So the revisionist take here is: how do you include mercy for Egyptians inside of the Passover story for Jews celebrating Passover? Is that part of your tradition too?

Sarah Tuneberg: No, it is not a part of my tradition, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a worthy addition.

Ross Kenyon: Not just a dictatorship, but a monarchy. He was born into it.

Sarah Tuneberg: Yeah. A monarchical dictator — worse. You get to be born the dictator. Like North Korea.

Ross Kenyon: I think it’s a really wonderful and sad idea — that we had to include that so that we could have a little empathy for the other people.

Sarah Tuneberg: I think there is an idea that, oh, there were slaves of the Egyptians. But it’s not like those everyday Egyptians had the power to make a difference. Though in a Tikkun Olam reflection, it would be incumbent upon those everyday Egyptians to be fighting the power and saving the Jews. So I don’t know.

Ross Kenyon: Okay. So what we just did — that’s a part of Passover, right?

Sarah Tuneberg: Yes. You’re reinterpreting the story and asking these questions. That’s the tradition. And I think the reason we eat and drink and are in comfort is because we want to ask these questions. Because the text isn’t static. It’s about questioning and making space.

Ross Kenyon: And another seminal, most important part of the Seder —

Sarah Tuneberg: Is that you say “Next year in Jerusalem.” May we be together for Seder next year, but in Jerusalem. So this idea — the story of Exodus: they wandered and then they made it to Israel, though 40 years later. Interestingly, in that lifespan, the people who were enslaved never actually made it to Jerusalem. The idea of the wandering was that you truncate the memory and you have a new generation who starts fresh. That’s why it took so long. Because I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Sinai Peninsula — it’s actually very small. And the idea of wandering there for 40 years — bad directions. But God wouldn’t let them. And God didn’t let Moses enter, because there is this need of fresh starts.

Ross Kenyon: So to me, in this time of coronavirus and global pandemic, “next year in Jerusalem” — I think last year especially it resonated with a lot of people, and I think it will this year too, because we’re nowhere near the end, unfortunately.

Sarah Tuneberg: Which is: what is next year? What do we want for next year? “Next year in Jerusalem” can mean so many things. It’s being brought out of slavery. I imagine in the Holocaust, people thinking about next year not in the camps, being free. For hidden Jews in Spain post-Inquisition, the idea of “next year in Jerusalem” was about being able to be public in their celebration of Passover. And so I think that is one of the most — to me, it resonates the deepest. What is our vision for next year? Passover will happen every year, and what do we want? What do we mean by “next year in Jerusalem”?

Ross Kenyon: I like that. There’s something really poetic about that sentence. It sounds almost like a toast, right? “Next year in Jerusalem.”

Sarah Tuneberg: Exactly.

Ross Kenyon: Given that Jews are throughout their history so often a diasporic people not in their traditional homeland, there’s a hint of irony or melancholy I’m picking up on. Is that in there?

Sarah Tuneberg: I think it is absolutely there. For a people who are historically pushed around geospatially, hidden, and spread thin — the idea of having a place where we will all be next year. It’s melancholy and also so much hope. One day we’ll get there. Next year in Jerusalem. We’re not there now, but we’ll get there eventually. And maybe it’ll be next year.

Ross Kenyon: That’s a beautiful sentiment. If someone is listening and they celebrate Passover and they want to incorporate some climate elements into their Seder this year — we’re gonna release this the week of Passover, so they’ll have time to prep — where might you steer them? What might you tell them?

Sarah Tuneberg: I think talking about what “next year in Jerusalem” means in a climate context — and also the pandemic context. What does it mean for next year? And in this idea of setting intentions and recognizing our humanness of falling down on them — what is your intention for where we’ll be next year? Is that family? Less plastic? Solar? I don’t know what it is, but what is your climate intention? What does your “next year in Jerusalem” look like? I think also, because it’s so wonderfully illustrative, talking about the climate plagues and coming up with them for your family and having that discussion. Even in the Seder, you could do planning — or you could just in the moment say, what are the plagues of climate? I also think that having more empathy is a key feature of the Passover story as well as what we need in climate change. So maybe finding the empathetic component. What about you?

Ross Kenyon: I think those are all good points. I don’t know, given that my experience is so limited, but I do like the malleability of the story. What does it look like if we map this — freedom from slavery in Egypt into freedom in the Sinai and Canaan beyond — what does that look like in a climate context? Is it appropriate to say we’re in a suboptimal position now with regard to how we treat each other and the climate, and what does it mean to move to a just, Tikkun Olam kind of world in the making that is waiting to be born?

Sarah Tuneberg: Yeah. I like this idea of kindness with righteousness — what do we have to do to be freed from the bondage of this? What is this that we’re in right now? And do we not like it enough that we’re gonna go asking to be freed? Do we have to ask, or do you just sort of make it be?

Ross Kenyon: Who’s our Pharaoh?

Sarah Tuneberg: Yeah, I don’t know that I want to name a specific person. I don’t want to lay that on anyone necessarily. My recommendation for your climate-centric Seder: have a discussion about who’s the Pharaoh these days. It’s probably not an individual. Maybe there will be some, but also — what entities and what structures, what systems? And how do you be righteous in your seeking of undoing and dismantling?

Ross Kenyon: Well, maybe that’s a good place to leave it. It certainly is time to do the work. If you listen to the show, you’re already one step on it.

Sarah Tuneberg: Yeah. I’m excited to hear about people’s climate Seders.

Ross Kenyon: Do you even get to talk about a Seder plate? What is it?

Sarah Tuneberg: A Seder plate is the ritual crockery or dish on which we place particular symbols that we reference through the meal. There is a lamb shank in the center representing the marking of the door. There is an egg that represents rebirth. There is the bitter herb, the salty water for the tears, charoset — which is a paste that represents the mortar of the bricks that the Jews laid while they were in slavery. It’s made out of apples, and depending on where your family’s from — where my family’s from, we make it with a paste that’s apples and walnuts and cinnamon, and it’s boring and dry. Or Sephardic Jews, who add a ton of dried fruit and lemon and wine — the good stuff. In Judaism you have lots of different traditions to pull from. Anyway, the Seder plate is the center visual of Passover, and you place the foods around it and work your way through as part of the Haggadah, the service. And there are new Jewish traditions about adding items to the Seder plate to reflect particular themes. And so if you were to make an item on your Seder plate connected to climate change, what would it be? If you were to make space for a new item on your Seder plate about climate — what would it be?

Ross Kenyon: Interesting. Do you have any ideas for what you might do?

Sarah Tuneberg: No, not yet. I imagine there are vegan Seder plates. Surely people have done work around this.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I’m sure if you looked up “climate Seder” or “climate Haggadah,” surely some resources must exist at this point. You sort of independently came to this — it was like, oh, we should do this. But we’re probably not the only ones.

Sarah Tuneberg: I can’t imagine we’re the only ones.

Ross Kenyon: So I’m excited to hear about it. Feel free to write in. Well, thanks for being here, Sarah.

Sarah Tuneberg: Thanks for having me. And whatever it means to you — next year in Jerusalem.

Ross Kenyon: Next year in Jerusalem. Indeed. Well, thanks so much for listening. I hope you had a great time hanging out with Sarah and me talking about Passover. We’ll catch you next time.

Alexsandra Guerra: Well, thank you so much for listening. If you like the show, please rate and review it in Apple Podcasts and/or Stitcher. It really helps us get this content to a wider audience. You can keep up with Nori at nori.com, where there is a newsletter — that’s nori.com/subscribe. There’s a podcast, there’s a whole bunch else, or you can send us an email at podcast@nori.com. We are also now on Patreon at patreon.com/noripodcast. If you’d like more content, engagement, and community — thank you so much for your support.

This is a summary of episode 393 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also listen to the full episode right below this paragraph.

As I said in the intro to this episode: this isn’t the show where you’re going to get super quick tech takeaways within 30 minutes that you can drop at your next meeting. It’s something else. You’ll spend this time with us laughing about the absurdity of having a career in climate communications, about life and how we live it, why we make art, and why we even bother doing this climate work when it isn’t always the glamorous, high-paying kind. A good chunk of the reason The Carbon Removal Show is so fun is because Emily is so fun—she cracks me up constantly—and this episode is basically an extended version of Emily’s Language Chat. My sincere thanks to the team at The Carbon Removal Show for loaning me the jingle.

Subscribe now

Quick Takeaways

• Emily Swaddle has been co-hosting The Carbon Removal Show since 2020, producing deeply researched, highly produced seasons that have become a cornerstone educational resource in the CDR community.

• She sees her role not as a technical expert but as a storyteller; someone who can translate complex science into accessible, engaging narratives. Her advice to scientists: “Don’t worry about telling everyone. I’ll do it. Because, no offense, I think I’m a bit better at that.” 😅

• The Carbon Removal Show Coalition is a community-funded model that lets multiple organizations support the show rather than relying on a single headline sponsor. Emily sees it as more aligned with the kind of systemic change CDR itself needs.

• Emily and Ross explore why silliness and vulnerability are underrated in climate communications. The imposter syndrome that comes with not being a “real” expert can actually be a strength—it keeps you honest, keeps the questions accessible, and keeps the audience connected to a real person.

• Language is both a connector and an excluder. Emily’s obsession with how words work—from regional British accents to academic jargon to the phrase “more than human world”—reveals how much power sits in the words we choose and who they’re designed to reach.

• Both hosts grapple with the tension of being generalists in a world that rewards specialists. The career confusion that comes with “fingers in all the pies” is real, but so is the ability to see connections and ask questions that specialists might miss.

• The conversation takes a philosophical turn into whether technocratic solutions are enough to address climate change, or whether something more like a “spiritual revolution”—reconnecting with the natural world, sitting in a field, listening to birds—is what’s actually needed alongside the policy and technology.

Subscribe now

The Storyteller’s Defense

There’s a version of the carbon removal community where everyone speaks in megatons and marginal abatement cost curves. Where every podcast sounds like a conference panel. Where credentials are checked at the door and the price of admission is a PhD or at least a convincing approximation of one.

Emily Swaddle does not live in that version. She lives in the one where you lose it laughing on mic during a cold open about marine CDR, where you commission a birthday reggae jingle called “Emily’s Language Chat,” and where you openly admit that you don’t really know what rest is—and then try to make a podcast about it anyway.

This episode was different from most on Reversing Climate Change. No policy deep dives, no technology breakdowns, no market analysis. Instead, it was a conversation about what kind of person you need to be to do this work over the long haul, and what kind of space the industry needs to create for people who don’t fit the expected mold.

The Value of Not Knowing

Emily came to The Carbon Removal Show without a science background. She didn’t know much about CDR when she started, and by her own admission, she still doesn’t always feel like she knows enough. That’s the imposter syndrome talking, and she’s aware of it. But she’s also turned it into something useful.

Her pitch, essentially, is this: the scientists should keep doing the science, and she’ll tell people about it. Not because the science isn’t important, but because communicating it well is a different skill entirely. The serious stuff, on its own, is never enough to engage people. It never is.

This is an argument that the climate space badly needs to hear. There’s an assumption baked into a lot of CDR discourse that if you just get the facts right—the tonnage, the cost curves, the lifecycle assessments—people will understand. Emily’s experience suggests the opposite. What actually lands is the storytelling: reading the room, knowing when to push and when to pull back, and being willing to ask the question everyone else is too embarrassed to ask.

Ross made the observation that when he listens to Emily on the show, he feels like he’s accessing who she actually is as a person. That’s not true of most people in professional podcasting. There’s usually a layer of performance, a guardedness. Emily doesn’t seem to have that layer; or if she does, the silliness burns through it.

Language as Identity

If you spend any time with Emily, you learn quickly that she’s obsessed with language. Not in a pedantic, grammar-police way (though Ross admits to some of that himself), but in the way a curious person pulls at threads. Why do we say “bury the lede” and spell it L-E-D-E? Why does the phrase “more than human world” carry within it an entire worldview about indigenous knowledge and ecological respect? Why did saying “mebbes/maybes” in a job interview—a very Northern English word—end up being the thing that got her hired?

The conversation kept circling back to a central tension: language is designed to connect people, but it’s just as often used to exclude them. Academic jargon signals membership in a club. Accents communicate class. The words you choose in a job application can either make you legible to the system or mark you as an outsider.

Emily’s siblings are both dyslexic, and watching them struggle with a system that equated intelligence with reading ability shaped her understanding of this deeply. Language is a tool, she said, sometimes used beautifully, sometimes used powerfully, and sometimes just rubbishly.

For carbon removal, this matters more than most people in the industry want to admit. The space is full of its own jargon, its own gatekeeping vocabulary. If the goal is to reach people beyond the existing community, someone has to be willing to speak plainly. Emily’s instinct to do that—combined with her refusal to pretend she knows more than she does—is what makes The Carbon Removal Show work.

The Generalist’s Dilemma

Both Ross and Emily occupy a strange position in the professional world: they’re generalists operating in a space that rewards specialists. Ross described his career as a constellation of activities that has very strong continuity to him but is confusing to basically everyone else. Emily said she strongly relates to not being able to describe to people what she does.

The conversation landed on a comparison to role-playing games: life is like an RPG where you don’t realize which skill categories were important until it’s too late. By your mid-thirties, you’ve invested so many points in swinging a two-handed battle axe that you might as well keep going as a naked barbarian.

It’s a funny metaphor, but it touched on something real. Generalists can see connections that specialists miss. They can zoom out and ask the big questions about whether the system itself makes sense. But they also struggle with purpose in a way that specialists don’t. When your thing is everything, it’s hard to hold onto a one-sentence explanation of what you do… and harder still to make a conventional business case for why someone should hire you.

Emily’s answer to this was characteristically direct: she just pivots without the formality. No going back to school, no credential-gathering. If you write, you’re a writer. If you act, you’re an actor. If you do science, you’re a scientist. The doing is the thing.

The Icky Feeling

The episode’s most striking moment came when the conversation turned to money. Emily harbors, by her own description, some deeply anti-capitalist sentiments and is uncomfortable with the way everything has to come down to a bottom line. She described a recurring cycle: needing money, getting a job, realizing the job is killing her soul, quitting, feeling free, running out of money, and starting again.

This isn’t just a personal quirk. It connects directly to how she thinks about carbon removal. When the industry talks about co-benefits and monetization and putting a dollar value on ecosystem services, Emily’s gut reaction is that something essential is being lost. She gets why it’s necessary in the current system. She just hates that it’s necessary.

Ross pushed back gently, noting that if you don’t put a price on it, the question becomes whether the needed changes will actually happen. The game theory is real: no one wants to be the country that slows down while rivals keep going. But he also agreed that a purely technocratic approach—just get the right technology and policy and we can do this—probably isn’t enough.

What followed was a surprisingly earnest exchange about the need for something like a spiritual revolution. Not the woo-woo kind, Emily clarified, but the true woo—the recognition that we grew out of a rock flying through space over billions of years and maybe that should make us reconsider how much conflict we maintain with each other and the natural world.

It’s the kind of thing that sounds like a freshman dorm room conversation, and both of them acknowledged that. But Ross made the point that he doesn’t know how to fix climate change without it. The polycrisis isn’t going to be solved by spreadsheets alone.

More Than Human

Near the end, the conversation settled on the phrase “more than human world” — a term Emily picked up from ecofeminist theory, possibly Vandana Shiva. Ross riffed on it without much preparation and pulled out a surprising amount: it signals membership in an ecologically progressive community, connotes respect for non-human sentience, avoids the nature-versus-humanity dichotomy, and likely carries an indigenous worldview. All embedded in four words.

For Emily, the phrase is personal. It’s what she reaches for when the human stuff gets to be too much… when she needs to go sit in a field and listen to birds and remember that the system she’s caught up in isn’t actually all there is.

The episode ended where it maybe should have started: with Mary Oliver’s “Wild Geese,” a poem Emily loves and that Ross had been planning to read on the show. Instead, he asked Emily to read it and give her own commentary on it. A storyteller doing what storytellers do: taking something beautiful and making sure other people can feel it too.

Share

Full Transcript

Ross Kenyon: Hey, thank you so much for listening to Reversing Climate Change. This is Ross Kenyon and I’m the host of this show. I’m just a long-time climate tech and carbon removal guy, I guess you could say.

Before I tell you about today’s guest, if I could please ask you to open up your podcast app and give this show a full rating. Five stars on Apple Podcasts or on Spotify. If you do use Apple Podcasts, a review that you could write is super impactful. If you love this show, it’s one of the most important things you could do, and if you’d be willing to do it, I would be very grateful to you. There’s also an option to become a paid subscriber on Spotify. $5 a month gets rid of all the ads I don’t read myself, and there’s bonus content.

One cool new thing I’ve been doing too is that there are Substack articles that have full transcripts of all the shows that have been published recently, which sum up the episode, have some clear takeaways, the podcast thumbnails, all those things. If you want to see those, you can subscribe to me and/or the show on Substack, the link to which is in the show notes.

And now I’ll tell you about the guest who you probably know if you’ve listened to The Carbon Removal Show — Emily Swaddle, who’s one of the co-hosts there. It’s a great show. Ben Weaver-Hinks and Tom Previte and Emily put that show together and it’s wonderful. I think it’s one of the best pieces of content within climate media. I think it’s really fun and approachable.

And I love all of them, but I’m gonna celebrate Emily here for a second. I think a good chunk of the reason why that show is so fun is because Emily is so fun. She cracks me up. This is the kind of show where it’s about kind of everything. It’s about life and how we live it, and why we make art. Why we even bother doing this climate work, and why do we do it even when it isn’t the glamorous, high-paying energy executive type work, but even when it’s something else — why persist in this thing that we do?

This is the kind of show I think you can put on and laugh along with us, and this maybe isn’t the show that you’re gonna listen to and hope for super quick tech takeaways within 30 minutes that you can go and say at your next meeting and have that latest little nugget of intel. It’s something else. You basically will have spent this time with us laughing about the absurdity of all things — about having a career in climate communications, media, humor. And what exactly that’s like, and what kinds of questions does having that approach allow one to ask?

I’m really grateful Emily and I got a chance to chat. She cracks me up constantly. And thank you so much to the team at The Carbon Removal Show for letting me borrow Emily’s Language Chat, which is — every time this song is played, whenever Emily wants to talk about language — which this show is just basically an extended version of Emily’s Language Chat. It cracks me up. And then learning the origin story of this song is also just so beautiful. So thank you to the team for loaning that to me. My sincere thanks. And here is the show with Emily.

….

Ross Kenyon: Well, it’s unlikely that you’ll be any less prepared though.

Emily Swaddle: That’s true. Actually, I do have a question. I think we’ve already started, but I do have a question.

Ross Kenyon: Okay. What is it?

Emily Swaddle: I don’t know what your editing process is. Not that you have to tell me the ins and outs of it, but do you want me to be slick?

Ross Kenyon: Do I want you to be slick? Like sound wise and knowledgeable and clever.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah.

Ross Kenyon: Or —

Emily Swaddle: Eloquent and coherent and all those things.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I mean, some of those things I can fix in post and some things I cannot. Can’t make you like a sage if you are a dullard. And one cannot transform character.

Emily Swaddle: I’ve been asking Ben to do that for years and he’s just like, you’ve gotta give me something to work with, Emily.

Ross Kenyon: I know. Yeah. There’s a limitation here to what you can do. I imagine you could probably just chop up someone’s words to make them say very intelligent things if you have enough of their dialogue recorded. But no, I’m not gonna be doing that. The show tends to be pretty naturalistic and say what you said. So we’re in. So now the pressure’s really on. Can’t save you from yourself, Emily. No one can. Can you save yourself from yourself? Are you able to do that?

Emily Swaddle: It’s not a skill I have yet mastered.

Ross Kenyon: What’s going on with you? I think people are very familiar with your voice. You are such a funny, cool climate communicator, carbon removal basically legend at this point. You’ve been doing it for — how long has The Carbon Removal Show been going? It’s five years, four years.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah, so we actually started the beginnings of it all at the end of 2020. So that was like five and a bit years ago. And then we didn’t release our first season until 2021. We did quite a lot of prep and research and stuff because we didn’t know anything at the beginning. We had to do a lot of prep and research. We still don’t know all that much, so we continue to do a lot of prep and research. But yeah, 2020 was when we first kind of came together as a team.

Ross Kenyon: Wow.

Emily Swaddle: Big year.

Ross Kenyon: Big year. You guys didn’t know that I was already podcasting. You didn’t actually need to do it.

Emily Swaddle: That was literally the first question that came up. It was like, why are we doing this if there’s already this guy doing it? Maybe we should just tag out.

Ross Kenyon: People have asked me that before too, and I’m always just like, there’s a million different takes and stories and I never get to the bottom of any of them and you’re gonna do something different and we need as much of this good stuff as we can possibly get. So yes, let your Emily freak flag fly. And I’m not doing that. I’m not doing the Emily thing. I don’t have Emily’s language chats, basically, is what it really comes down to. All right. We had a detour into that because it came up already, mostly because I was desperately trying to shoehorn that in wherever it would fit. That’s one of my favorite gags of the entire podcast. How did that come about and how did you commission this song?

Emily Swaddle: So the song was a birthday present from Ben to me because our first episode of this current season came out on my birthday and Ben was like editing it and he was just like, you have to listen for your birthday present — it’s in the episode. And at first I was like listening to it, thinking every single little edit was a birthday present. I was like, oh my gosh, is that — no, that’s not it. Wait, is it? No, that’s not it. And then it got to “It’s Emily’s Language Chat.” I was just like, yes, I have a jingle.

So that was really nice. I think it just came about because I am obsessed with language. I can’t really have an in-depth conversation about anything without being like, isn’t it weird that we say that? Why do we use that term? Where does it even come from? And I was just doing that anyway in our conversation, so I was like, we should just include this. And it’s always been that. I think it probably was in the first episode, I don’t really remember, but probably was.

Ross Kenyon: Wow. That’s a fun story. I really like that. And obviously I like language quite a bit. I’m a wordplay enthusiast. I make annoying pedantic observations about how language is used on a regular basis. I like studying language. It’s a thing that I do. I had a philosophy of language professor once, though, who took it to the next level where you could not use an idiom around that guy or he would take it at face value. He’d be like, really? Why would you want to kill two birds with one stone? He would just do it perfectly deadpan for everything. I need to just speak in plain language. We’re going to go Wittgenstein here. Okay, fine. We’ll do that. I’m just not gonna use any idioms around you. Fine. It can be pedantic, but it’s also fun. I like your little language chat.

Emily Swaddle: Thank you. I wonder what it would be like to play with the other end of that spectrum where you just spent a whole day only speaking in idioms and metaphors. That was the kind of thing that I would do and everyone around me would be like, she’s not gonna keep this up all day. And then I actually would and they would want to kill me.

Ross Kenyon: Oh no. They’d want to shuffle you off the mortal coil.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah, exactly. They’d want to come in with one of the stones that they were using to kill the birds.

Ross Kenyon: That’s right. Yeah. I love idioms. And I especially like the King James Bible and Shakespeare. It’s funny if you just read Hamlet and the King James Gospels, you’re like, oh, this is basically every idiom that exists and is still in common use. How many of them just come from the “to be or not to be” soliloquy?

Emily Swaddle: Yeah, it’s mad. I did quite a lot of Macbeth a few years ago — I was in two productions of Macbeth back to back and it was way too much Macbeth. Nobody needs that much Macbeth in their life. And at first I went into it just being like, I’m kind of here for the theater, I don’t know if I’m that into Shakespeare or whatever. And it didn’t take very long before I was like, you know, he’s pretty good at this. This writing’s pretty good. I appreciate this.

Ross Kenyon: Hot take. Shakespeare is good. Did you read David Mitchell’s book on royalty? What is it called — Unruly? You didn’t read that?

Emily Swaddle: No, I didn’t.

Ross Kenyon: Okay. So he covers the origins of British monarchy — I think it starts with Celtic mythology, Romano-British, King Arthur and Anglo-Saxon stuff later with Beowulf. And then all the way up to basically Shakespeare and he ends it by just having a chapter about how someone had to be the best in human history at art. And it just so happens he was born in Stratford-upon-Avon. And it’s Shakespeare. We have him. That’s where the story is going to end for royalty. I do like that bold claim. But sure. Shakespeare is good. Thanks for the hot take, Emily. So controversial.

Emily Swaddle: You’re welcome. So controversial and yet so brave. Because what I’m really bringing to the podcast world is my bravery, my courage.

Ross Kenyon: I think that’s actually — we’re saying it in a joking way, but I think you are bringing something very unique and specific to climate communications work and carbon removal. I don’t think there’s anyone else like you. And people can say that in a backhanded or a four-handed kind of way. It gets to me sometimes too, and I’m just like, I’ll take it. Thank you. Is this praise? It’s not kind of clear. But in this case it’s praise from me to you. I like the way you show up in this space.

Emily Swaddle: Thank you. How do you think I show up? Like I sometimes think I barely show up. I’m not fishing for compliments, but it would be interesting to know how you think I show up.

Ross Kenyon: So, we’ve talked about this some previously, and we don’t have to go there if you don’t want to, but there is a sense of imposter syndrome or “what is one doing” or “by what right do I have to be speaking in public about carbon removal.” And even I have some of those feelings sometimes, where I’m like, does the world really need this much of me running my mouth out there in it? And I think if you don’t have a little bit of that, the people who think the world desperately needs their commentary — I think those are the most dangerous kinds of all. So if you’re gonna lean one way or the other, I like the direction you’re going with it. But you are funny. I can tell when I’m listening to you that I’m actually accessing who you are as a person, where I think for many people there’s a little bit more of a performative nature to this work. Or it feels a little bit more guarded. I feel like I, before we became friends, I knew you just from listening to you, and that’s not true of a lot of people. Sometimes you listen to a podcast and you’re like, no idea what this person’s actually like. Are they kind to animals? I don’t know. I listen to you though. I’m like, Emily’s probably kind to animals.

Emily Swaddle: I love animals, to be fair. Yeah, I could just be a really good performer. And you’ve been drawn into my masquerade.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Are you like this secret evil villain? You’re horribly manipulative?

Emily Swaddle: Imagine if I was, but I was using my power for carbon removal. That’s such a specific niche for an evil villain to go down that road. Feels unlikely.

Ross Kenyon: That’s true. I mean, there are people that I meet in professional spaces that scare me, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re bad people, but they are people that I know are — what’s the way to put it? Being a wise and compassionate person is different from the kinds of skills that might make you successful in business. And sometimes they overlap and there are people who are very compassionate people who ended up very wealthy and successful. But the skills are not one-to-one. You do not have to be wise to be successful at business. And in fact, many of the people who are, I’m like, how did you get here? You are like a functioning 14-year-old. But sometimes just that level of maturity or behavior can make you ruthless and very successful in that kind of way. But you don’t have that. And I feel like I’m a fairly decent read of character. Your stuff on The Carbon Removal Show — it’s silly as hell. You’re a joker, that’s obvious. You like to be silly.

Emily Swaddle: It’s good fun.

Ross Kenyon: You’re very, very silly. Without a doubt. It feels very warm to me. There’s also the word that I used for you — I think I’ve told you this before — it’s bawdy. There’s a lot of double entendres and innuendo in the show. And I think it’s driven by you. I’ll hear one that you did and then there was a beat in the podcast and then everyone started laughing and you guys kept it in the editing process.

Emily Swaddle: There’s so much that we do when we’re recording that I kind of look at Ben and I’m like, he’s not gonna keep this in. This is too much. And then it’s such a treat to listen to the final edit and be like, what did he keep in? There’s probably so much that Ben has on his computer of me and Tom just being absolute mess-arounds and not making much sense a lot of the time, but definitely lots of giggling. There’s actually one cold open that we did, and I can’t remember what season it was — I want to say maybe season two — because it was one of the ocean episodes, we were doing marine CDR. And I listened to that cold open and I can hear myself completely losing it. I’m selling some stupid joke. And the funniest thing is that Tom does not understand that the joke is not even funny — it’s ridiculous and supposed to be nonsensical. And he’s kind of like, “No, but Emily, what? I don’t — can you just explain?” And I just lose it. I can’t breathe because I’m laughing so much. And it is quite therapeutic to listen to, to hear yourself completely go out of it with laughter. Kind of takes you there again every time you listen to it.

Ross Kenyon: That’s so nice. And I wish it was a little bit more common. I don’t feel like everyone in this space likes to bring that to the shows, which I get it — you’re doing serious science on a serious world-impacting topic.

Emily Swaddle: And also it’s a vulnerable place to go, right? Because I’m lucky that with Tom and Ben, who I make the show with, we are friends and also coworkers, which sometimes is difficult but most of the time is wonderful. And it means that we have these moments and I can just completely lose it and then be like, hold on guys, I need to pull myself together, because that was proper crying with laughter. And that’s okay. I don’t feel like that’s too vulnerable or fragile in that moment. And I have definitely been in professional circumstances before where I would not have felt comfortable going there, just because there’s a level of keeping it all together that you feel like you’ve got to do so much of the time. So yeah, I think I’m lucky to have a space in which I can just let go and allow the giggles to flow.

Ross Kenyon: Well, don’t giggles help more in career matters? I feel like we all want it. We want it in our life. We like working in workplaces where you obviously get stuff done and you ship, which you guys do. You keep shipping seasons of podcasts that are very high quality and good. Why don’t we prioritize more of the things that actually feel good? I feel like in some cases it can be a liability, even to the extent that I look at my LinkedIn sometimes and it features humor. Like one of the carbon removal memes is plastered all over my profile. And I’m like, to certain types of potential employers, I’m sure they’re like, this guy’s maybe too into memes. Does he do other stuff? But I also don’t know if I’d want to work someplace where it didn’t have a sense of humor. I think that makes the work better.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah. And I think what we were saying earlier about the masquerade stuff and the imposter syndrome — it’s harder to keep up that masquerade if you’re doing the silliness thing, in my opinion. I don’t think I can be silly and then also pretend to know a lot of stuff. I just don’t think it works. And the silliness in a way makes me feel like it’s okay that I don’t know a lot of this stuff. And what I tell myself — because this is what I would tell somebody else who told me about the imposter syndrome — is that I might not be bringing expertise in a specific area of CDR or in-depth understanding of some scientific concept. That’s not what I offer. What I offer is storytelling, essentially, and everything that comes along with that. The reading the room and understanding the flow and maybe pulling back when it’s a bit too much or going for it when there’s space for it. And that is kind of a skill that, although we definitely value it in certain parts of our culture — actors are ridiculously highly paid and famous because they’re essentially good storytellers — but when it comes to serious things, we don’t value the storytelling side. We just assume that the serious stuff is enough to engage people. And it never, ever is. It never is. And from many years ago, I realized the science that needs to be out in the world is so important. And I just wanted to go and be like, it’s okay. Don’t worry about telling everyone, babe. I’ll do it. Because I know you are busy doing the science stuff and that’s fantastic. Do the science stuff. I’ll just tell everyone about it because, no offense, I think I’m a bit better at that. And that feels important. We need all the different skills. So that helps me feel a bit better about not knowing things and asking the dumb questions and having the imposter syndrome, I guess.

Ross Kenyon: Man, there’s so many good things in what you just said. I can also imagine you saying this in a job interview. You’re like, look, hon, you don’t need to — you do the science. Don’t tell anyone about it. Leave that to me. You’re not good at it. I can help you.

Emily Swaddle: It’s not where you shine. You shine in the lab.

Ross Kenyon: Thank you very much for your time. We will let you know if there is a fit. Goodbye for now.

Emily Swaddle: But you know, you’ve gotta bring yourself to job interviews. One time I got a job, I was told after the fact that I kind of got the job because I said “maybes,” which is a very Northern English saying — maybe. Maybes.

Ross Kenyon: Okay. Yeah.

Emily Swaddle: Maybes. And the person who was interviewing me was a Scottish woman who had previously — she said a lot of the people who’d come in for the interview were quite composed and posh, for lack of a better word. And then I came in and I was like, “Oh, I dunno. Maybes.” And sort of letting my slight regional twang come out. And she appreciated that and was like, yeah, you can have the job. So you kind of let the uniqueness flow, you know.

Ross Kenyon: I think so. I think if you obscure those things about yourself, you might end up in an environment where you’re like, oh, actually they hired a version of myself that doesn’t even really want to be here. That was on its best behavior. And it’s only saying the smartest, most serious things.

Emily Swaddle: I’ve been in that situation before where I’ve got the job and then I’ve been doing the job and being like, oh my gosh, I don’t really want this job. But I said I wanted it and I pretended I wanted it so they would give it to me and now I’m here and I don’t really want it.

Ross Kenyon: But you need money to exchange for goods and services — to quote Homer Simpson. And now you’re in it. Now what?

Emily Swaddle: Now I’m in it. That’s the thing. I keep going through that cycle of: oh my gosh, I need money to exchange for goods and services, so I’m gonna apply for all these jobs and projects and things. Just give me something to do and then you can give me the money. And then I get into the thing and I’m like, I really hate this. I feel like this isn’t what life is about. I feel like I can’t keep doing this. I feel like this is killing my soul. And then I get out of it and I’m like, yes, freedom. Oh my gosh. I need to focus my energies on things that are much more valuable to me. And then I don’t have any money. And I go, oh my gosh, I really need money to exchange for goods and services.

Ross Kenyon: Are you trying to do more in science communication? Because I feel like your portfolio is already stacked. It’s really good. Why is it a little bit tricky, or what do you think it is about the job market or what’s going on?

Emily Swaddle: That’s a very interesting question. I do think it’s a really tough job market out there right now for everyone. It’s like nobody knows really how much money they have or who they want to hire or what they want them to do. It just feels like there’s a lot of uncertainty and a lot of desperation, really. And that sucks, but it’s true. And also the other side of this equation is me and my life and really having gone through a process over the past few years of trying to fill my life with the kinds of things that feed me and finding that balance of I do actually need to pay the bills, but I’m not willing to sacrifice — I think there’s more things that I’m not willing to sacrifice than quite a lot of people I know. And that can be confusing for talking to friends about. I don’t have any money and I don’t just kind of want this kind of job. I want something really special. And they’re like, just get a job. What are you doing? So anyway, it’s a mix of those two things, I’d say.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Such a funny — okay, I’ll take it to David Mitchell one more time. He has that line about how Americans expect service workers to be happy, and we’re always sort of disappointed when they’re like, oh, you don’t like your job and you’re making me very aware of that fact. This seems highly inappropriate. British people just sort of expect like, yeah, they’re maybe not having the best day and maybe that’s not what they wanted to be doing right now. And so of course they have a little bit of a bad attitude. That’s fine. But it seems like you have kind of a whimsical approach that strikes me as very un-British, at least in that stereotypical way.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah. Lots of people have told me I don’t come across as very British. Also, I like to nap in the middle of the day, which makes me feel very Spanish.

Ross Kenyon: Oh, okay. All right. We’re on something now.

Emily Swaddle: Probably also doesn’t help the job hunt situation if I’m napping most afternoons. Kind of like a toddler in that sense.

Ross Kenyon: Maybe we just need to take you down to a place that has siesta. Maybe you’ve just been born in the wrong place, the wrong time.

Emily Swaddle: I think so.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Okay, well, we’ll keep working on that.

Emily Swaddle: I also would really like to be one of those people — you know how there was a certain time in history where if you were an affluent artist, you just existed and your art just kind of came when it came and you could just — that’s probably still the case for a lot of people, actually. But that’s the dream.

Ross Kenyon: You would like a patron. You want like a crown royal or something? You’d like a royal pension, or you want the Medicis to find you or something like that.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah. That’s what I’d like.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah.

Emily Swaddle: Anyone? Can we put a call out on the podcast?

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Is there someone out here who wants to be The Carbon Removal Show and Emily’s personal patron? I feel like that work should exist. Because what you’re doing is one of those things that’s a very valuable service to everyone, but it makes it hard to get paid because everyone chips in a little bit of money and it’s almost certainly not commensurate with the amount of value that is being created by podcasts that are reaching pretty widely. I imagine a lot of people find out about carbon removal and then they search it and your show is probably very high up on the list, if not the first thing that shows up. And this is a very good educational resource that’s highly produced, and yet it doesn’t strike me as the most lucrative thing. And I know that because I’ve also been podcasting for a long time. It’s hard to make it your primary thing.

Emily Swaddle: It is. Yeah. And also we’re kind of quite an expensive podcast to make in this spectrum because we do a lot of research. We highly produce it. And so it might take us a couple of months to make three really good episodes. And without fully understanding the value of that, you can understand why people are like, well, just interview some people and put it online. Just make them quick and easy for yourself.

Ross Kenyon: Be very careful about what you say next.

Emily Swaddle: Just, you know, hang out with people and post it online. Pretend it’s quick. Which is a very valuable form of podcasting, but just not what we do. We do a completely different way of telling the story, and yeah, it happens to be more expensive. So it is a kind of — and we had for a long time a kind of, every season was like, okay, how are we gonna get money now? How are we gonna fund the next one? Where are we going with this? And we’re still kind of in that space, but we started the Carbon Removal Show Coalition in 2024, which came out of this idea that we want to be a resource for the community of carbon removal. And we didn’t necessarily want to be a resource for one company who wanted to headline sponsor it. We’d had some really good experiences of that, but we just felt that we were moving in a direction that we wanted to feel more connected to the community. And so then it became kind of obvious to say, okay, well maybe the community would like to chip in. And more than just putting that on individuals within the CDR space — so many of our connections were with organizations and the companies in CDR that it made sense to go there and say, would you like to support us, because we are trying to support this industry.

And you know, I am at my core so anti-capitalist and I hate having to think about money, as is demonstrated by the fact that I just want to do my art. I just don’t like the idea that everything has to come down to money. It really doesn’t sit well with me. And this idea of the Coalition felt so much better because it wasn’t like we were selling the show. It felt like a different kind of paradigm. And that is exactly what we sometimes talk about with CDR as well — that it needs, in order to survive and thrive and create a new kind of world, it needs to have a new kind of system. And I was like, okay, well then we need a new kind of system too, because I don’t like the way money is the bottom line. I just don’t like it.

Ross Kenyon: Interesting. Well, I think one of the ways we framed The Carbon Removal Show is as a public good, and therefore you should receive public subsidy. It does seem like the benefits accrue to everyone for shows like yours existing. But it’s hard for companies to internalize the benefits specifically to them and therefore to make a business case for it. Especially as the price creeps up over time and you reach more people and it becomes more valuable real estate. It’s a tough problem to solve, especially because there’s a lot of people probably just free riding on it. They’re like, glad this resource exists. Not gonna chip in anything, but glad that it’s there. Which is fine, by the way, if you’re listening.

Emily Swaddle: It’s okay, you can keep listening.

Ross Kenyon: People have been getting value out of this for six years. I know you’re out there, Brian. Cough up the money, Brian. It’s $5 a month. That’s okay. Even just by listening to the show, it helps get it to more listeners. You’re consuming ads and that is also funding the show and that’s okay. But yours is a little bit trickier though because you guys aren’t running ads in that same kind of way.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah, that’s the thing. You’ve gotta find that balance. And actually, Ben and I — I don’t know if he wants me to tell all his stories — a few years ago we sat down to brainstorm the creation of a very different podcast about rest. Because rest has become this huge important thing in my life, or trying to understand rest and what that means to me. My relationship with rest has become this huge part of my life with various health things and mental health stuff and just all kinds of ways in which it has integrated into my thinking. And I don’t really know what rest is. And that was kind of confirmed by the fact that Ben and I did a few interviews with people and everyone was either straight out like, nobody knows what rest is, or they were like, oh, well it’s not really about rest actually.

Ross Kenyon: It’s about this other thing that isn’t that.

Emily Swaddle: So we decided we really were keen to make this podcast about rest and we started trying to do the sales pitch thing to get funding for it and reached out to all kinds of different organizations that might want to fund a podcast about rest. And we had a lot of difficult conversations between the two of us about where do we draw the line. We want to make this podcast in a way that aligns with our values. So do we really want to collaborate with a company that feels like it’s not aligned with those values, but they could give us a lot of money. Such hard conversations to have.

Ross Kenyon: Yes. I was trying to think through who might be receptive to a pitch about a podcast about rest who might also be an evil company. Like, who overlaps there?

Emily Swaddle: I’ll send you the Venn diagram after.

Ross Kenyon: Thank you. I really appreciate that. For my own education. I’m surprised you couldn’t just fund this off of — whenever I see a double-barreled British person, I’m just like, Ben Weaver-Hinks. Where’s your family estate? When do you join the House of Lords? When your father dies?

Emily Swaddle: I love that.

Ross Kenyon: There’s something about those names. Sorry, Ted Christie-Miller, if you’re listening.

Emily Swaddle: Is that a true fact?

Ross Kenyon: It’s not true?

Emily Swaddle: It’s so not true. Actually, in England, often double-barrel surnames come from — the people I knew who had double-barrel surnames growing up were often like, they had really progressive parents and they just didn’t get married. And so they had two surnames. Really progressive. That was the bar in the north of England in the nineties — children out of wedlock, progressive. Or blended families — step people and blended families. You get double-barrel surnames.

Ross Kenyon: Definitely not half people, but okay. Continue.

Emily Swaddle: You know what I mean? So that’s funny that you associate the double-barrel with the posh thing. I tell you what — Tom Previte has two middle names.

Ross Kenyon: Oh my. Is that a very tweedy kind of thing?

Emily Swaddle: I don’t know. I just think it’s indulgent to have two middle names. His parents had so much time on their hands. They gave him two middle names.

Ross Kenyon: That’s pretty funny. I don’t know where this association comes from in my head though. Maybe it’s the Parker Bowles kind of thing. It’s in my head. So I just imagine that Ben is slumming it as a podcast producer until he inherits.

Emily Swaddle: He’s probably listening — if this is in the actual thing and he listens to this, he’s gonna be like, my God, I wish.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Ben, when do you inherit your barony? Maybe you can come on and talk about it sometime.

Emily Swaddle: It’s funny though, because when I first met both Tom and Ben — maybe this is quite a British thing — but I’m from the north of England and they’re from the south and so to me they both sound very posh. And I was kind of like, oh gosh, all these posh people in this podcast. I’ve gotta hold my own, because I’m northern and also the only woman working on the podcast. Before, it was just me and Tom and Ben. We also had a bigger team in previous seasons sometimes. It kind of fluxed a bit. But we did at one point have another woman who was helping us with some of the guest bookings and stuff. But I think she was only working with us for about three months. So most of the time it’s been me with a whole team of men with very British names — Ben and Tom and Sam and Henry. It’s very “Five Go on Holiday” kind of thing. Very cute. But I think it works. So I’m not complaining.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, it definitely is working. The sort of class system in the UK has always been very interesting to me. And I imagine to an American listening to British accents, you get a free pass. It always sounds smarter. Americans are like, wow, that’s so smart. I’m sure if you’re actually British and listening, it’d be like, that guy’s an idiot. He has no idea what he’s talking about. But I’m glad he has the right kind of accent. It’s like a little bit of a premium. Even like, you’re from the north of England, and we can’t really distinguish that. We’re not able to hear, oh, that’s a lower class, provincial place to be from.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah. It’s funny on a lot of levels. I spent quite a lot of time in America when I was growing up and we definitely got that impression — we’d say anything and they’d be like, oh, so cute, so posh.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Extra charisma points for free.

Emily Swaddle: But also this idea of “the British accent” — because there are literally hundreds of accents across the UK even though we’re relatively small geographically. And from my experience — this is something I maybe hold onto a bit too much — I am from the northeast of England, which has a very strong accent, and I don’t really have that accent.

Ross Kenyon: Can you show us though?

Emily Swaddle: Yeah. It’s a Geordie accent. So when I was saying before, the “maybes” — we’d be a bit sort of, “ee mind, hun, I didn’t even know.” This is just Geordie. Very lush. And actually when I’m a bit drunk or chatting to my most Geordie friends, I will become a bit more Geordie. But I don’t really have a strong Geordie accent at all. Although I have heard from Ben that he has kept certain things in the show because he thinks my accent has come out in a word or a phrase or something. He’s like, I just like the way you say that, so I’ll keep it in. But in Newcastle, where I’m from, I can come across as quite posh because I don’t have a stronger accent.

Ross Kenyon: Oh, interesting.

Emily Swaddle: But kind of anywhere else in England, because I don’t have a southern posh accent, I do not come across as posh.

Ross Kenyon: Fascinating. I grew up watching — my grandma loved Keeping Up Appearances and had them on VHS. I watched a ton of Keeping Up Appearances as a kid. As an adult, thinking back on it — oh, this is all class anxiety. The Bucket family, which is sort of a working class English family. And then Hyacinth calls it the Bouquet family. She mispronounces the name intentionally to make it more posh, and her family is always undermining her class aspirations of being a high society lady with gloves on.

Emily Swaddle: I really relate.

Ross Kenyon: That’s not the same thing in America. We have sort of a — we all imagine we’re all equally successful or on the road there, and it’s not determined by our families in the same kind of way that it is in the UK. Granted, it’s probably more mythology than anything.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah, it’s an interesting thing. Growing up, my dad used to live in California, so I had a bit of American culture and quite a lot of British culture. And I was like, oh, there is a problem with race in America. We don’t have that in the UK. We have a problem with class. And then I realized — kind of very similar. It’s not that they don’t exist in one or the other. The framing and the way people talk about it was so different. Here we are back at language.

Ross Kenyon: Back at language. And it’s like what your language communicates about you. Accent, dialect, word choice. There are definitely ways of speaking that are especially tweedy where you’re just like, yeah, this is not the language of the common person. This is guaranteed to alienate many of the people that we might like to reach. I mean, this is where the show started too. I think you’re very successful at making this highly accessible because you don’t take yourself so seriously. It’s funny. And you are not scared of asking a dumb question. And I think that’s maybe the most courageous thing that can be done in many of these cases.

Emily Swaddle: Thank you. Yeah, it’s funny, I think I naturally do that. I was just thinking when you were saying that about the way you speak and word choices — I moved to the Netherlands for my master’s degree and I found myself actively choosing not to say certain words because I knew they were Northern or Geordie and that I would have to explain myself more. And so it just became easier to say the thing that people get. And now having moved back to the Northeast, I’m like, oh, it’s actually really nice to just be able to say the word that I turned off for a little while because now everyone’s just using it.

Ross Kenyon: That is nice. I especially like it when it’s a regional thing. I like language in somewhat of an annoying way where sometimes I will say things like — why use a common word when you can use a $10 word? Why say sad when you can say lugubrious? It’s very annoying. It feels good in your mouth. But it doesn’t always feel good to other people. I was playing disc golf with some friends back in Arizona a couple of years ago, and a friend brought a geologist friend along who I hadn’t met, and I said something really annoying. It was something like, “And what has you sequestered over there?” And he was like, “What? What is that?” It was just way too try-hard. It put distance between us rather than connecting us, which is what language is ostensibly there for — to make it easier for us to meld minds.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah. Well, that’s interesting because originally that is exactly what language is used for, to connect with people and hopefully to connect with many. And yet it is so often used as an identifier of which group we’re in, and particularly which group we’re not in, or that you are not in my group. And I think this is one of the reasons I find it so fascinating — you can’t underestimate how much there is to learn about the words we use and how we use them. It’s an ongoing, lifelong learning process that I love. And I think that’s one of the things I love about it. I learned a new thing the other day. Do you know this, Ross? You know when you say “bury the lead”? It’s not spelled L-E-A-D. It’s spelled L-E-D-E.

Ross Kenyon: I did know that one. I think it’s just because I worked for my school newspaper or something.

Emily Swaddle: Of course. I’m so sorry to underestimate you.

Ross Kenyon: I had one where — yeah. That one’s especially confusing because it’s meant to say put the most important thing up front and that should lead. And that makes it seem like it’s gonna be L-E-A-D, but it’s not. It’s some sort of — I imagine this is like some physical device that people would use for some purpose or something that’s been —

Emily Swaddle: I kind of need to know now. I’m gonna have to look that up. Because you’re right — it should be “lead” as in the leading note of this tale. But it is not. I kind of love it. It annoys me a lot and I kind of love it.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Actually, for your thoughts on language as exclusion rather than connection — I’ve also heard that for academic communities. There is some technical benefit to using their precise language of art that they need to communicate about their highly specific ideas, but it’s also used in a way that signals membership and also makes sure they’re not getting the riffraff into their academic conferences. It’s supposed to bind and exclude in the way that certain communities work religiously or in political communities. So it’s probably not correct to think of language as inherently connecting. It’s that, but it’s also excluding. I don’t know which of those comes first or if they’re simultaneous.

Emily Swaddle: I have two siblings who are both dyslexic, and growing up I think I’ve always loved language and words and reading and stuff, and they really struggled with those things. And I just saw how that affected their access to so much, whether it was explicit or not. There was an assumption that if you were struggling with reading and writing, then you wouldn’t be able to go on and do other things because the baseline was you have to be able to do this well. And it just infuriated me because I knew these people and I knew that was not the case. There is so much more to their intelligence than the fact that they struggle with reading and writing. And having said how much I love language, this is me now acknowledging that there’s so much more beyond it. And in those moments where it’s used to exclude, it’s important to keep in mind that it’s just a tool that we use — sometimes very beautifully and sometimes incredibly powerfully. And sometimes just rubbishly. That’s not even a word.

Ross Kenyon: It should be.

Emily Swaddle: And recognizing when it’s one or the other is so important. Assuming everything is wonderful and amazing just because it’s been said in a way that’s wonderful and amazing — that’s kind of the root of a lot of evil.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I think that’s very well said and a nice moment that shows you are a humane person in the right kinds of ways. It’s good to have those experiences with disability or being like, the main way of showing that you’re smart in our civilization is punishing to these people. And in a different era that was primarily oral, they would’ve been totally fine. I feel a little bit of this towards myself too, where I am not as numerate as I would like to be. I like working conceptually and come from the humanities and I think a lot of powerful work can be done without bringing unnecessary numbers into it. And it’s one of those things where I have to relearn what a megaton is. Every time someone says it, I’m like, what is the proper thing I should have inside my head for this? Because I don’t think it’s that important of a thing to know and it doesn’t really impact the work that much. And yet people will talk like that. And I don’t really like it, but I do feel held back by it. If I could just hang on this level with the scientists and engineers — but then it’s accepting that I should know this and I am committed to always strengthening these skills, but it’s not my primary way of interacting with reality. My mind does not go there as a first recourse. In some situations that can be embarrassing or career limiting, but it also unlocks abilities in the more intuitive, linguistic, conceptual space that I think is sometimes cut off from people who are engaged purely in spreadsheets and numbers and megaton talk. But sometimes when you’re on the business end of it and things are not going well because you’re not able to signal your membership in this specific technical community, it hurts. And then you retreat back to being like, I’m actually really good at this other stuff. And maybe I’m just gonna turn my microphone on and say some nice words.

Emily Swaddle: And it’s gonna make you feel better.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. One of the things I love — I think you’ll love this too, I’ll try and find the meme so I can post it with this episode. Did you ever play any RPGs or video games?

Emily Swaddle: Not really.

Ross Kenyon: All right. So the way this works — and it’s a terrible name, by the way, every game is a role-playing game — I’ve never really understood how it could possibly be otherwise.

Emily Swaddle: I did play Dungeons and Dragons like three times.

Ross Kenyon: Oh, okay. This is great. You’ll get it then. The way it works with basically every RPG is that when you start the game, you don’t actually know how you’re going to play your character. And by the time you make all the investments into which categories of skills you want to develop, you’re like, oh, I became something that doesn’t actually fit with my playing style. The meme I saw was something like, life is like an RPG and you didn’t realize which categories were important until it was too late. But then you get to your mid-thirties and you realize that if swinging a two-handed battle axe has gotten you this far, you might as well just keep being a naked barbarian swinging that battle axe. It’s too late to change now. You can’t just start over as a paladin. You’re the naked barbarian now. It’s not great in many ways, but you max it out. And that’s kind of how I feel in my career too. Should I go back and get an MBA? Should I go back and get a hard science degree? How could I do this in a more serious way? I’m like, I can still learn a lot of this stuff without having to go back and re-enroll in this expensive way. But I get tempted.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah, I get tempted too. And I think the thing is I’ve got into this habit of just pivoting without the formality of it all.

Ross Kenyon: Without the full what?

Emily Swaddle: Without the formality of it all. I don’t feel like I have to — well, I do feel like I need the training, but I don’t bother, I guess.

Ross Kenyon: Are you too busy resting, taking a siesta?

Emily Swaddle: So for instance, there was a time last year or the year before where I was like, I’m just gonna give everything up and become an actress. That was my plan. I was just gonna pivot hard into theater because I really wanted to. And I was like, oh my gosh, maybe I have to go to drama school or learn how to do this. And I was like, I could just do some acting. And the thing of — if you write, you are a writer. If you act, you are an actor. If you do science, you are a scientist.

Ross Kenyon: Very true. I agree with that.

Emily Swaddle: That thing feels so important to me. And the thing about the role-playing game — I totally agree. And also I completely disagree with it. Because I don’t think anything is set in stone and we can always shift and pivot. And if tomorrow you’re like, I just really want to change my career and go this way, I truly believe you could do it. It would not be easy. And depending on your levels of resources and capacity, there’s probably a lot of sacrifices you have to make. But also it’s possible. I think I have to believe that because there’s so much that I constantly feel like I want to try or that I want to change, that I need that reassurance that it could happen. I could do it.

Ross Kenyon: I like that and I think you should pursue that. It’s a good thing to believe and a good thing to do. I’m trying to figure out the exact right way to react to this. I think you’ll connect with what I’m about to say. My career is very confusing to everyone — both people I know primarily from online life and even to my family. They’re like, what are you doing? And what is this constellation of activities?

Emily Swaddle: Relatable. It’s very relatable.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. And to me it all has very strong continuity. I can see every step and I’m always looking for things that are challenging and things that have me learn stuff every day. And I also like working with people and doing things that have me relating to lots of people. Every bit of what I do is hitting on that same thing. I know that it’s going somewhere. I don’t really know where it’s going, but I’m also pretty opportunistic about it. I don’t feel like I have some grand plan and I’m also okay with it, as long as I’m able to survive. It’s very much my own unique thing and that’s okay. I am not someone who can easily be put into a box, and that’s both good and bad. Because I will get into interviews sometimes where they’ll be like, you’ve done a lot of marketing. You’re not like a marketer, though. And I’m like, no. But I will hire around the stuff that I don’t have and I bring a bunch of extra cool stuff that you wouldn’t otherwise get from the right-over-the-plate marketer. And they’re like, yeah, we’re gonna go for the more conventional marketer. Okay, fine. Oh, you do strategy? Cool. We’re gonna hire an MBA for that. But you’re gonna get the same MBA answers as probably everyone else. Consider the weirder option. “Consider the weirder option” is a terrible pitch, by the way. Have you considered the more confusing, less scriptable option?

Emily Swaddle: Yes. You could go for this — ask my qualifications. But I am weird, so consider it.

Ross Kenyon: I like that it appeals to the gambling instinct. You’re bringing a wild card on. There’s a chance that undiscovered value erupts in a way that is really cool. Which is true. I’m often able to find stuff that other people have overlooked because of the weird constellation of skills and experiences. That is something I feel pretty confident in saying — this is a service that I offer. But it’s confusing as hell. Do you have some of that in you too?

Emily Swaddle: Definitely. I strongly relate to not being able to describe to people what I do. And also that it depends who I’m talking to as to how I describe it. I don’t say the same thing to everyone.

Ross Kenyon: I feel like imagining some of these scenarios and there’s also lots of “maybes” in there too.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah. And maybes I do this and maybes I don’t.

Ross Kenyon: That sounds like a threat.

Emily Swaddle: Anyways. Yeah. And there’s a recognition in me, even if I can’t necessarily articulate it all the time, that I understand the thread. I think it’s kind of obvious. We’ve talked about the storytelling stuff and that to me is just a word I use very liberally — storytelling. It can be podcasting, it can be writing, it can be acting. I work sometimes at the National Centre for Children’s Books in Newcastle and literally tell stories to children.

Ross Kenyon: Great. Love it.

Emily Swaddle: And I also love to design and put on events, and that to me feels like storytelling because an event is an experience and you’re guiding people through that experience in the same way that you guide people through a story. That feels so — it just makes so much sense to me. And if you’re writing a job application, this can be tricky. Because you have to be like, I know it looks like I’ve done all sorts of things, and I have, and that’s great — trust me, it’s great for you. Let me try and tie them all together in a nice bow in the limited space on this application form.

But yeah, there’s this book that I wish I could remember the name of.

Ross Kenyon: There are a couple of books, maybe we can narrow it down.

Emily Swaddle: It’s about the power of being a generalist.

Ross Kenyon: Oh yeah, I think I’ve read that one.

Emily Swaddle: I read it and it just made me feel really good about myself. Because I am definitely a generalist. And actually, I was listening to — do you know my favorite episodes of your show are what I like to call “Ross Rants”? When you don’t have a guest on and you just kind of stream of consciousness.

Ross Kenyon: They’re pretty improv-based, but yeah.

Emily Swaddle: They’re my favorites. I sort of think along with you as you go down your rabbit hole of wherever you’re going. And it’s very — it always gets me in a good mood as well as making me think about these important questions that you always bring up. And I was listening to the recent one you did about the polycrisis versus carbon efficiency and it just — I find it really hard to work in a way where I’m not thinking about bigger picture stuff, connecting things and thinking about systemic things. And in the world in which we live, it’s really depressing to have a brain that works like that because a lot of the systems are absolutely fucking shit.

Ross Kenyon: I’ll bleep those out. Yeah.

Emily Swaddle: And I also deeply see the importance of the people who are like, this is my thing and I’m gonna do this thing to the absolute best that I can for the rest of my life. That’s not me at all, but I really appreciate those people, because if we don’t have them, then the people who are looking at everything and flittering around don’t have anything to anchor to in the systemic change thing that needs to happen.

Ross Kenyon: No, I think we definitely need people who are able to zoom out and ask some of those big questions. I worry a lot about scientism or technocracy or just this drive where technicians will determine everything without thinking about the more humane parts of what we’re doing here. And it’s hard to put a quantitative measure on humanity. It’s hard to put a monetary value on it. It almost feels wrong. Those are the wrong ways to understand those behaviors. So it probably doesn’t help you or I in emphasizing those things and saying, here’s why you should bring me onto your company for a fixed expense, for an indeterminate amount of value that will be delivered. Let’s do it together. But I think that work is really valuable. And I would do my little Ross rants even if no one was listening.

Emily Swaddle: I would listen. I would listen to a Ross rant any day.

Ross Kenyon: I call them my monologues, but Ross Rant is probably what I should — Ross Rant, trademark.

Emily Swaddle: Rant makes it sound like you’re angry. It’s not got a ranting energy. I’m such a sucker for alliteration. That’s why the rant came out. So you said about putting that monetary value on humanity, and it’s also — this is something I come up against with carbon removal quite a lot — putting that monetary value on the more than human world.

Ross Kenyon: I was gonna say it if you didn’t. That’s a great example.

Emily Swaddle: Don’t say the n-word.

Ross Kenyon: “More than human” is a very specific kind of phrase. But please continue.

Emily Swaddle: Okay. We need to come to this. Yeah, it just makes me feel icky. When we’re thinking about CDR, we talk about co-benefits and we’ve gotta make sure they can monetize this. I’m like, I get it in the system we currently live in, yes. And also I hate the fact that we have to look at this amazing planet that is self-sustaining and can feed us and go, yeah, but how much is it worth? In USD?

Ross Kenyon: It does feel pretty icky. It’s like a category error in some way too. But if you don’t do it, then the question is — is this gonna happen? Because then I worry we need to have some sort of spiritual transformation happen. But that’s hard. I think people are pretty scared of it too. The game theory of it is the part I always come back to for why this doesn’t occur more spontaneously or naturally. If the US just said, okay, we’re actually gonna take a pause on AI stuff because we don’t know how dangerous AGI is or how far off artificial general intelligence is going to be and the ramifications of that. So we’re just gonna try and do some more research and make sure we don’t rush into this. But if we didn’t do it, then China’s probably not gonna slow down and every other agency working on this — they’re not gonna slow down because they know if they don’t, their rival agency in a different country is gonna do it. So we kind of can’t. And once you’re on the cycle, you’re like, where does this end? Does it end in a good place or a bad place? Because it could end in mutually assured destruction and we’re all going to check ourselves because the balance of power ensures that bad actors don’t just wipe everything out. Or it all just falls apart at some point in the near future. That’s a fairly real risk. And the solution to this is probably all the woo-woo stuff that we’ve all been told is not serious business. How we spiritually relate to the rock that we grew out of and how magical that is and how that might actually chill us out a little bit. To recognize some of the pure mysticism of that. There’s a rock flying through space that we grew out of over the course of billions of years. It was pretty unlikely that we would take this shape and we’re able to observe this thing that we spontaneously grew out of. And having a recognition of that should make you be like, yeah, maybe we shouldn’t have as much conflict with the Russians or Chinese and we should probably just figure out how to live here with dignity. And it sounds so woo. But come on. You’re there with me, right?

Emily Swaddle: Ben and I came up with this phrase — there’s “woo-woo,” which we are like, ah, but then there’s “true woo,” which is the woo we can get on board with. Because we recognize it’s woo, but we love it and it’s true. So this is the true woo.

Ross Kenyon: I didn’t cross over, did I, into proper woo-woo?

Emily Swaddle: No, you weren’t even close.

Ross Kenyon: I feel like it’s a little bit cheesy to say out loud where it sounds a little bit like freshman dorm room. There might be certain kinds of smoke floating around in the room. There’s a Bob Marley poster on the wall. But also, couldn’t we get along on this planet? It’s bountiful enough for all of us and we could also have a really good time if we just treated each other more decently.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah.

Ross Kenyon: But it doesn’t seem like we’re doing that. I don’t know how to fix climate change if we don’t do that either. The pure technocratic — we just need the right technology and policy and we can do this — like maybe. But the polycrisis thing probably said it as well as anything else.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah. The tech stuff and the policy stuff will change something for sure. It’s not gonna have zero effect. But is it just gonna get us to the point where it’s survivable and then at that point it’s like, do I want to be in this world? If it’s where I worry it could get to. But then also thinking about that level of stuff is very depressing because I totally agree with what you say. If we don’t have a full — you used the word spiritual revolution and some people would consider that to be the woo-est of woo. But I actually think it’s so true. We are so disconnected from the idea of spirituality that the idea of a spiritual revolution is laughable. And that’s the problem in so many ways. Okay. I’m going back, but tell me your thoughts and feelings about the “more than human world.”

Ross Kenyon: Oh yes. Thanks for bringing it back. I think that phrase signals your membership in a certain kind of ecologically progressive community. It signals respect for animals and sentience of different types. You could say “nature,” but that introduces this dichotomy thing that you probably don’t want to do. I like that it still has hierarchy involved. It’s more than human. It’s not different from human, it’s more than human, which I think connotes a lot of respect for it and likely an indigenous worldview. It’s funny — a small phrase like that. This is just me riffing on it, not even thinking that hard about it, but all of those things are embedded in there. And that’s how powerful that phrase is for me.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah. I don’t remember where I originally got that phrase from, but I’m pretty sure it was some ecofeminist theorist. Maybe Vandana Shiva or somebody like that, could have been. But I really struggle — and I think we’ve spoken about this before — that barrier between like, nature is them and humanity is us. I hate that. And I also hate the idea that there is a hierarchy in that, that humanity somehow sits above the natural world. So I kind of like the phrase “more than human world” because it also reminds me that there’s more than the stuff that I get caught up on so often. All the human stuff.

Ross Kenyon: Which parts of the human experience have got you down?

Emily Swaddle: Oh, there’s everything.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, totally. I got you.

Emily Swaddle: And then I go to a field and I sit and just try and do nothing for a little bit and listen to the birds or look at the grass. And I just take a deep breath and realize that it’s not actually all this. We make it all this because that’s the system in which we have to exist. But really it’s not.

Ross Kenyon: You’re listening and not watching. Hopefully you can tell the directionality of her gestures.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah. Sorry. That’s not very good for an audio-based medium. But yeah, that’s the thing that really — personally I know I need, in order to survive in any kind of position of working to change things, I have to connect with something greater than myself. And that’s the definition of spirituality. And for me, that means the more than human world, this natural connection that I need to have.

Ross Kenyon: Yes. I think pretty much anything in that position is good. There’s a bumper sticker that I pass — I’ve told this story on the podcast before, but it’s been a while. I suspect it’s someone who came from a 12-step program, because I’m pretty sure this is where the phrase comes from. But his bumper sticker says, “Relax, God’s in charge.” And you don’t have to be a specific type of monotheist to appreciate it. I think humans need to be in their place a little bit. It’s actually not our responsibility to do everything. And the risks of us trying to fulfill that God-shaped hole are maybe more than we can do at our current level of civilizational maturity. And it’s nice to just be like, you know what? This isn’t my responsibility. And I can relax a little bit. The universe is beneficent and I trust that things are broadly trending towards goodness. And I can work on my small little corner of the world. I know that’s kind of a canned phrase that is common. And even still, every time I see it, it makes me happy and calms me down. That’s true. Why am I taking so much responsibility for literally everything? I can’t control all these things. Why am I carrying this with me? I’m actually not in charge.

Emily Swaddle: Here’s my question though. Do you think that’s because you’re a generalist? Do you think those people who work on their niches — that tiny little thing that they obsess over and get better and better at throughout their lives — do you think they have the same worries?

Ross Kenyon: Wow. I’ve never — this is the kind of question a journalist would ask, and this is why you should scoop Emily up while she’s on the market, even though she’s not big on capitalism or money. But that is a great question. I think probably so. I think the kinds of shows that I produce run all over the place, and so seeing connections — I’m pretty freaked out watching the direction of the world and have been for a while. I’m not feeling as optimistic as I typically do. I don’t like being a Cassandra-esque person. I don’t think it’s a fun role to be in. Part of it is because I’m trying to look a couple years in the future, follow the trends and see broadly where they’re pointing and how that affects my personal life, my business life. And that has me freaked out. And I think people who are just trying to be like, well, how do I get the unit cost economics down here, and are just focused on that — I think that is probably more focusing. I do feel better when I am focused on specific discrete problems that have solutions. And I try to keep some problems in my portfolio that are the big “what if” spots on the map. And then I also work with people on basic stuff — how do you explain your weird technology to a generalist VC such that they might take a second meeting with you? Because what you’re doing right now is confusing as hell and it’s not gonna get the second date at all. So I like to have both involved. But yes, I think being a generalist opens you up to blue-sky thinking that can also lead to, “Oh God, what is all of this? What are we doing here?”

Emily Swaddle: And I think one of the tricky things of being a generalist is — I’m speaking for generalists — humans need purpose. We need a sense of purpose. And the people who find the niche thing that they want to do and are of the personality type that fitting into a niche really works for them — purpose, I can imagine, comes much more easily than to a person who’s kind of like, I’ve got my fingers in all the pies and I’m trying to tie all these things together and also make sure everyone’s okay. There is a purpose there, but it’s so vague. It’s not a thing that you can hold onto and be like, look, here’s my purpose.

Ross Kenyon: You know? One sentence to explain it. Okay. Sorry, this is sort of a stupid thing to say, but the fingers in multiple pies thing — who’s out there sticking their hands in pies? Get out of my pie, man. That’s gross. I don’t want that in there.

Emily Swaddle: I kind of love it as an image. I could just imagine going into a place and being like, mmm, yummy.

Ross Kenyon: You like yummy. You like thinking about criminal actions basically, at a pie store.

Emily Swaddle: Yes. A crime that didn’t involve pie.

Ross Kenyon: It doesn’t involve pie. Dumb expression. I really hate the “I wear many hats” expression. I find that one in like three meetings involves someone introducing themselves saying that.

Emily Swaddle: But back in the day, that was the case. If you were a police officer, you had a very specific hat. I mean they still do in the UK. If you were a banker, you probably had a very specific — a different kind of hat than if you were a chimney sweeper. I’m going very Mary Poppins now, I’ve just realized.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, there’s a banker and a chimney sweeper in there. What kind of hats do nannies wear? That’s the next one.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah. You are wearing a bonnet then.

Ross Kenyon: What about admirals?

Emily Swaddle: Admirals do have hats. The three-pointed hat.

Ross Kenyon: Why is he allowed to have cannons on his roof? Why does that exist?

Emily Swaddle: That is hilarious. Just the fact that this person at some point got so high up in the military that he now is allowed to have a cannon not only just sitting on his roof that he fires on the hour.

Ross Kenyon: I feel like that would not fly at all. Bizarre. Should not have happened.

Emily Swaddle: Great movie though. One of my favorites.

Ross Kenyon: Oh yeah.

Emily Swaddle: I’m such a Julie Andrews fan.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I had a little bit of a crush on her when I was growing up.

Emily Swaddle: As Mary Poppins?

Ross Kenyon: No, I’m more of a Sound of Music kind of man. Actually, one of our family jokes — do you need to take that or is it okay?

Emily Swaddle: Nope, this isn’t my house. Somebody else’s problem.

Ross Kenyon: Cool. Do you know the trend to do revisionist novelizations where you take a classic story and rewrite it from a different perspective? Like, Jim from Huck Finn is now James and we’re gonna rewrite it from Jim’s perspective. Or we’re gonna do Wicked from the witch’s perspective. I want to do one for Sound of Music for Rolf, who’s like — he has low self-esteem and he becomes a Nazi. But I would make Rolf an understandable, relatable —

Emily Swaddle: I love that. The villain origin story of Rolf.

Ross Kenyon: But Rolf just kind of sucks. He became a Nazi and then he turned the Von Trapps in at the end. Come on. And then I want to do one for Scar. Our son really likes The Lion King. I’m like, Scar is just a —

Emily Swaddle: Oh yeah. He deserves one.

Ross Kenyon: Misunderstood.

Emily Swaddle: I think he deserves one more than Rolf, to be fair. Because from the beginning, Rolf is like, “I am 17, going on 18. You don’t know anything and I’ll tell you everything.” He’s up himself from the beginning. There is a musical — don’t tell me, it’s coming — called Unfortunate. And it is the origin story of Ursula the Sea Witch from Little Mermaid. And it is camp as hell. It’s jazzy, it’s colorful. It’s an amazing musical. Check it out.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. I love stuff like that. And Ursula — I’m not surprised it’s camp. Ursula seems like a drag queen. You’d get someone from RuPaul’s Drag Race to come on.

Emily Swaddle: Well, not to get too deep on you, Ross, but there’s so much about early Disney movies where the villain is queer-coded and we all just accept that these people who are the evil ones are probably gay or trans or whatever. That was really ingrained in stories and a lot of the Disney movies that we had growing up.

Ross Kenyon: Interesting. I’m trying to think — all I can think of is Jafar.

Emily Swaddle: Jafar is a really obvious one. He’s the poster boy for queer-coded villains. Then there’s also Scar — I know he’s British and there’s a potential that he could just be kind of posh, but I think he’s also a bit queer-coded in that movie.

Ross Kenyon: He does want to marry —

Emily Swaddle: Maybe Nala is his beard. It’s just for appearances.

Ross Kenyon: Helps them build the pride. There’s a lot of YouTube videos. You can go down a whole rabbit hole about this.

Emily Swaddle: I actually said “rabbit tube” — I wanted to say rabbit hole on YouTube and now I can’t stop thinking about how “rabbit tube” should be the phrase.

Ross Kenyon: Go down a rabbit tube. Yeah. Rabbit hole is also a kind of tube. This is where the show has — you know, it’s time to start wrapping up when this is the caliber.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah, but what about a rabbit tube? This is literally when Ben unmutes himself and goes, okay guys. That’s it. You can just stop now. Thank you. I think we’ve got enough. He tends to do, “I’m sure I’ll get something out of that.”

Ross Kenyon: I’m sure I’ll get something out of that. Okay. Are you able to say anything else about what the next season of The Carbon Removal Show is gonna be about?

Emily Swaddle: I can tell you what the next few episodes are gonna be about. We’ve been doing these kind of mini-series little chunks recently. The next trio of episodes is about the buyer’s experience — the whys, the hows, the whats, and the “how do we make it better” of buying CDR.

Ross Kenyon: Whoa. Those will be studied by suppliers in great detail. Great intel. You should paywall it — it’s a thousand dollars if you want to be a supplier listening to this episode.

Emily Swaddle: No. I’m not about this money stuff.

Ross Kenyon: Oh.

Emily Swaddle: That’s not my vibe.

Ross Kenyon: Not your vibe. Capitalism. Okay, got it.

Emily Swaddle: I’m also gonna send you a poem because I listened to your Walt Whitman. I just love when we can bring in punctuation marks of art into any kind of conversation. It’s my favorite thing. And while we were talking about the nature stuff, a poem came into my head.

Ross Kenyon: What is it?

Emily Swaddle: It’s “Wild Geese” by Mary Oliver.

Ross Kenyon: Actually, I was gonna read this one soon because I had — I was gonna do this one and Yeats’s “The Second Coming.” I know these are kind of greatest hits and they’re well-known poems, but they’re good.

Emily Swaddle: They’re classics for a reason.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. “Wild Geese” is among the best. There’s a reason why it’s so beloved. There are bumper stickers too — you’ll see around Seattle sometimes — that will be like, “Honk if you want to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves.”

Emily Swaddle: It’s literally the perfect poem. Beginning to end — “You do not have to be good.” She could have stopped there and I would’ve been crying. And then the last line is, “calling to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting, over and over announcing your place in the family of things.”

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. What an amazing sentence. What if you read it for me and then I published it on the show? Because I was gonna read it myself, but I’d rather you do it.

Emily Swaddle: That would be nice.

Ross Kenyon: Can you give a little Emily exposition on it and talk about what you like about it and why? You saw how I did the Whitman one.

Emily Swaddle: Sure. Yeah.

Ross Kenyon: Send it to me now. Yeah.

Emily Swaddle: That’s one of my absolute faves.

Ross Kenyon: Oh yeah. I kind of had an intuition that you were going to say that. And I am not surprised at all. And it is wonderful. Yeah, I like doing that too. And thanks for saying that. I’m glad you’re out there listening and appreciating it. I know if someone like you likes it, because I want to pull the STEM people towards you some, as part of my intention, but I know if the end result is someone like you appreciating it, I’m like, I think I’m where my people are. I think I’m in the right zone. If Emily’s like, yes, this is feeding me in the right kind of way.

Emily Swaddle: Thank you.

Ross Kenyon: So thanks for sharing that. I really respect what you do and who you are and I think it is very important. I am sorry it isn’t maybe as remunerative as we might all hope, as you’ve alluded to, but I think it’s really valuable work that can be done even in the absence of that. And I’m just really grateful that you are exactly who you are, Emily.

Emily Swaddle: Thank you, Ross. We were talking about how I’m not very British, but I am British in the way that I don’t really like compliments coming straight at me.

Ross Kenyon: Sorry, you had a bunch of them this episode.

Emily Swaddle: I’m just kind of like, mmhmm. Thank you.

Ross Kenyon: Sorry. Do I need to obscure it in some way or negate it immediately after?

Emily Swaddle: I don’t know. Maybe. Yeah. You show it in this way. Thank you. It’s a great thing to model for our emotionally repressed little industry.

Emily Swaddle: Yeah, yeah. Well, I love listening to your show, so let’s just keep making cool content.

Ross Kenyon: Let’s keep making cool content. Thanks so much for coming on, Emily. I know it was a little bit of a who-knows-what-is-going-to-happen today.

Emily Swaddle: I think to sum up this episode, it’s like: Emily talks about how she’s silly, how she’s broke, and how the world is broke. There you go. That’s the tagline.

Ross Kenyon: That’s pretty close, I think. Yeah. Queer-coding Disney villains. There’s a lot of stuff we covered today.

Emily Swaddle: Thank you, Ross. Thank you for having me.

This is a summary of episode #392 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you enjoy your shows. You can also listen to the full episode right below this paragraph.

Subscribe now

Quick Takeaways

• Europe’s flagship climate policies—the ETS, CBAM, and its carbon removal frameworks—are facing unprecedented political pressure from right-wing populism, US withdrawal from climate commitments, and basic guns and butter opportunity cost dynamics.

• CORSIA, the international aviation offset scheme from ICAO, faces a critical decision point in June 2026, when the EU must decide whether to maintain the scheme or revert to imposing its own emissions trading system on international flights.

• Carbon dioxide removal sits outside NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution) targets globally, which is actually a strategic advantage for CORSIA if the right regulatory carve-out is created.

• The durability of any climate policy ultimately depends on creating sticky demand: either mandatory compliance-based purchasing or government procurement, not just subsidies and tax credits.

Share

European Climate Policy Under Siege

When Lev Gantly and I began our conversation, I wanted to understand how much of my own worry about geopolitics eroding climate action was grounded in reality or paranoia. The answer turned out to be more sobering than reassuring.

Lev’s assessment is clear: the political environment has shifted radically in just the last two months. The US withdrawal from climate commitments hasn’t just weakened American climate action—it’s emboldened political figures across Europe to openly challenge the EU’s “flagship pillars” of climate policy. Friedrich Merz in Germany recently suggested the emissions trading system might no longer be “fit for purpose” given the competitiveness pressures Europe now faces. Giorgia Meloni’s government in Italy is moving to circumvent aviation allowances. Hungary has been vocal. The messaging is consistent: climate spending is a luxury Europe can no longer afford.

This isn’t the bluster of marginal figures. These are serious politicians in major economies, and they’re operating from a coherent political logic. Europe is facing low growth projections, must dramatically increase military spending to defend against Russia and shore up NATO without trusting the US, and is watching right-wing populist parties surge in election after election. In this context, asking voters to accept higher energy costs or restrictions in service of a global climate goal starts to look electorally suicidal—especially when the world’s largest emitter just withdrew and is calling the whole thing a scam.

The EU’s response so far has been to propose modest flexibilities: reducing the linear reduction factor from 4.3% to 3.4% (pushing the complete phase-out of free allowances from 2039 to the early 2040s), and extending out the dates when airlines must purchase allowances at full cost. These aren’t dramatic changes, but they signal that the Commission is paying attention to the pressure and beginning to accommodate it.

What makes this moment particularly precarious is timing. Two critical public consultations on climate policy were released in early 2026 and run through May. One concerns integrating carbon removal projects under the EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework into the broader climate architecture. The second addresses how Europe will integrate up to 5% of its 2040 climate target through international credits under the Paris Agreement. And right now, Ireland—Lev’s home and where his firm is headquartered—holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council for the second half of 2026, which is precisely when the most consequential revisions to the ETS will be on the table. This is the hinge moment for European climate policy.

CORSIA: A Scheme in the Eye of a Geopolitical Storm

To understand what’s at stake, you need to understand CORSIA—the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. It’s a UN-backed program that most people outside climate policy have never heard of, which makes it simultaneously less politically salient and less protected than the ETS itself.

CORSIA’s history is a lesson in how geopolitical power works. In 2005, the EU created the emissions trading system. In 2008, it expanded the ETS to include aviation—first for flights within the European Economic Area, then immediately expanded to all international aviation touching EU airspace. This meant airlines flying to and from Europe would have to purchase and retire EU emissions allowances, potentially expensive if they operated nowhere else in the system.

The US fought this tooth and nail. The UK (then still in the EU) was taken to court; airlines sued; the European Court of Justice backed the EU, but the backlash was severe. China canceled billions in Airbus orders. The Obama administration passed the ETS Prohibition Act, forbidding US carriers from complying. Rather than escalate further, the EU agreed to step back and let the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) design a multilateral scheme instead. In 2016, ICAO’s General Assembly adopted CORSIA.

Here’s how CORSIA works: it entered a pilot phase from 2019 to 2022. We’re currently in CP1 (Phase 1), which covers 2023-2026 emissions. CP2 (Phase 2) begins in 2027 and is mandatory for all ICAO contracting states. About 120 countries have voluntarily opted into CP1. Eligible emissions units are due to be retired by January 2028—about eighteen months away.

But here’s the critical decision point: the EU has a rule called “stop the clock” that suspends application of its own ETS to international aviation as long as CORSIA is working. The EU is required by its own 2023 regulations to assess CORSIA’s effectiveness this June—2026—and decide whether to lift “stop the clock” and apply the ETS to international aviation, maintain CORSIA, or pursue a hybrid approach.

The June assessment hinges on two questions: Has participation reached at least 70% of ICAO contracting states? Does CORSIA align with Paris Agreement climate goals?

This timing is toxic. The assessment comes less than twelve months after the US withdrew from climate commitments and abandoned the International Maritime Organization’s deal to regulate emissions from international shipping. It comes when right-wing parties are surging. It comes when European governments are already under pressure to water down climate policy. Meanwhile, NGOs and aviation groups are lobbying hard against CORSIA, citing low credit quality, insufficient participation, uncertain penalties, and slowness in implementation.

Lev’s view is that this is an arbitrary moment to judge a scheme still in its voluntary phase. CORSIA depends heavily on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which was only finalized eighteen months ago. Host countries are just now developing the frameworks to implement Article 6. Supply is only now coming online. It would be madness, in his view, to kill CORSIA based on a snapshot of a system barely given a chance to mature. He also notes an equity dimension: asking airlines serving all of humanity to pay European carbon prices to serve a few wealthy travelers seems contrary to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” enshrined in the UNFCCC.

But CORSIA has another problem: if the EU kills it and reverts to the ETS, that’s a geopolitical grenade. It would unilaterally apply EU law to international airspace, exactly what triggered the backlash fifteen years ago. The world has changed, but the politics haven’t become simpler.

Why Carbon Removal Needs CORSIA—And Why It Doesn’t Get It Today

Carbon removal has an unusual position in the international climate architecture: it sits almost entirely outside NDC targets.

This is worth understanding deeply. Under the Paris Agreement, countries submit NDCs—Nationally Determined Contributions—that outline how they’ll meet their climate targets. These targets typically include emissions reductions in specific sectors: energy, transport, waste, agriculture, industrial processes. But carbon removal activities like biochar, enhanced weathering, and direct air capture aren’t in most countries’ NDC targets. Why? Because they’re expensive, countries haven’t planned to do them at scale, and they’re not like standard sectoral emissions reductions that governments can require industry to achieve.

This quirk is actually strategically powerful for carbon removal under Article 6 and CORSIA. Here’s why: Article 6 requires host countries to make “corresponding adjustments”—basically, when a country exports carbon credits from a project, it has to add the tons back into its national inventory so nobody double-counts between two countries’ accounting ledgers. The rule exists to prevent a country from exporting millions of tons from a coal plant closure and then also counting those same tons toward its own NDC target.

But carbon removal doesn’t fit this logic. If a country exports biochar credits from Kenya and those activities don’t appear in Kenya’s NDC, why should Kenya have to apply corresponding adjustments? There’s no double-counting risk because Kenya isn’t counting those tons in its own climate target. And an airline buying those credits is making a claim to offset its emissions, not creating an overlap with two national inventories.

Yet CORSIA and Article 6 as currently written don’t make this distinction. They require corresponding adjustments even for carbon removal activities that sit outside NDC targets. This creates an unnecessary friction: host countries worry that any export of carbon removal credits—even from outside their NDC—could somehow jeopardize their ability to meet their targets. So they’re reluctant to authorize exports.

The solution, which Lev and others have been pushing, is to create a regulatory carve-out for “novel CDR” activities that sit provably outside NDC targets. Under this rule, if biochar or enhanced weathering is confirmed to be outside a country’s NDC, it wouldn’t require authorization. Supply would unlock. Countries could issue credits freely because they’d face zero risk of double-claiming.

Think about the demand numbers: CP1 (2023-2026) requires somewhere between 120 and 220 million tons of offsets. CP2 (2027-2035) could require hundreds of millions of tons. If you could unlock carbon removal supply at $100-150 per ton via biochar and other CDR pathways in the Global South, you’d have a massive incentive to scale these activities over the next decade. And because CDR is expensive and permanent, it’s actually a good tool for CORSIA’s integrity.

The problem is that ICAO’s technical advisory board—the folks who set the rules for what counts as an eligible credit—takes direction from ICAO’s contracting states. And the folks who show up at ICAO’s General Assembly are aviation ministers and transport ministers, not climate ministers. So the people who understand Article 6’s architecture and CDR’s potential don’t get a seat at the table. The rule change hasn’t happened.

Lev notes that several CDR-focused standards have recently been approved for CORSIA or are in the window to apply for CP2 approval. But unlocking the supply problem requires political direction from ICAO member states, and that direction needs to come from climate ministers talking to their transport and aviation counterparts. It’s a coordination failure in plain sight.

Where Durable Carbon Removal Policy Actually Exists

The conversation then shifted to a harder question: forget the policy architecture. Where is carbon removal actually getting meaningful, durable policy support today?

Not in the Global South, Lev says bluntly. This is the discouraging part. Host countries are more ready than ever—they’ve just finalized Article 6 implementation frameworks, written sophisticated carbon market laws, and are actively seeking carbon finance. But demand-side commitment from the Global North just isn’t materializing at scale.

In North America, the approach has been carrots: tax credits and grants. These enable innovation and small pilots, which is valuable. But they’re not sticky. A tax credit that depends on Congress or the IRA can be reversed with a political shift. They don’t create mandatory demand.

Europe is where you see something more durable emerging.

Spain and Germany have both announced budget commitments to carbon removal. Ireland has been in active conversation with government departments about creating a regulatory framework for carbon farming, with a focus on biochar. There’s genuine interest in how biochar could help Ireland meet its effort-sharing regulation targets (the portions of the EU climate goal that don’t fall under the ETS).

And then there’s the EU CDR Buyers Club, a nascent initiative that remains somewhat opaque about who the members are and what it will look like, but represents an attempt to aggregate buyer demand.

The most interesting opportunity Lev describes is Ireland’s situation. Ireland is behind on its effort-sharing targets and could face fines between 4 and 20 billion euros if it doesn’t hit its goals. The effort-sharing regulation covers waste, agriculture, transport, and land-use changes—sectors where biochar deployment could help. If Ireland legislates that biochar counts toward meeting those targets, the government could procure biochar and spread it on farmland, and it would reduce Ireland’s compliance costs. That’s a genuine, durable incentive: if you have to choose between paying a billion-euro fine and paying for carbon removal, you pay for carbon removal.

The catch is political palatability. Farmers are under margin pressure. You can’t mandate carbon removal on farms without making it affordable or profitable for farmers. So the policy has to look like a subsidy or benefit to farming, not a climate mandate. That requires careful design. But it’s the kind of policy that could survive a change in government because it’s solving a real problem (meeting climate targets and avoiding fines), not just a symbolic one.

The Durability Test: Who Actually Buys This?

This brought us to the question that Lev says defines his approach to every new client conversation: Who’s going to buy this?

Not eventually. Not theoretically. Not if the subsidies last forever. But actually buy, sustainably, over twenty or thirty years?

The venture capital and startup world around carbon removal often sketches an answer that looks like: tech gets cheaper, voluntary corporate demand grows, governments eventually require it. But that’s a story that works if policy doesn’t shift and if corporate commitments don’t evaporate during a recession. Lev’s experience suggests those are big ifs.

Sticky demand comes from one of two sources: either mandatory compliance-based demand (you have to buy to meet a regulatory target, or you face fines) or government procurement (the government has to buy to meet a target, and it’s cheaper than alternatives).

The tax-credit approach is useful for building supply and testing technologies. But it’s the opposite of sticky. Every change in administration is a threat. Every budget cycle is a battle.

The Ireland effort-sharing approach, if executed, would be sticky. Fines are real. Meeting them with biochar is cheaper than paying them. A government department that deploys biochar has a budget line to defend, not a discretionary program. A politician explaining why they cut biochar spending can be asked: “So you want to pay a billion-euro fine instead?”

This is also why integrating carbon removal into the ETS would be powerful. If engineered CDR like direct air capture could retire ETS allowances, then demand for those removals becomes a function of the ETS carbon price. As the ETS price rises (which is the whole point of the system), demand for CDR rises too. You’ve created a durable, price-responsive demand curve.

The challenge is political: introducing CDR into the ETS requires acknowledging that the ETS alone won’t get Europe to its 2040 target, and that’s politically awkward when right-wing parties are already claiming the ETS is too much. But it might be the path to the most durable demand.

The Parallel Universe Problem

Toward the end of our conversation, Lev raised a question that haunted the entire exchange: Are we living in a parallel universe?

Scientists say we need removals at the scale of the fossil fuel industry’s emissions. We need massive deployments of carbon removal to deal with overshoot. The data is clear. But voters are worried about grocery bills and heating costs. Governments are cutting military slack and scrambling to defend themselves. Right-wing parties are surging. And the world leader is withdrawing from climate commitment entirely.

How do you bridge that gap?

Lev didn’t have an easy answer, and neither did I. But the conversation suggested something: maybe the answer isn’t to convince voters that climate is more important than the kitchen table. Maybe it’s to show that climate solutions—biochar for soil health, carbon removal for meeting compliance costs—can solve kitchen-table problems first, and climate second. Policies that make farming more profitable (biochar), reduce the risk of billion-euro fines (carbon removal), or lower energy costs (renewable energy procurement) survive political shifts because they have local constituencies that benefit.

The policies that survive are the ones people want because they solve real, local problems. The policies that evaporate are the ones that ask people to sacrifice for a distant future they’re skeptical about, especially when the world leader says the whole thing is a scam.

The narrow window for creating those policy foundations is closing. Lev thinks Europe will probably maintain some version of CORSIA in June. He hopes he’s right. But the margin is narrower than it was a year ago, and narrowing still.

Full Transcript

Ross Kenyon: Lev, since we started talking, the world has changed quite a bit. So where should we even start with climate policy? What should we even talk about today?

Lev Gantly: Yeah, I mean, a lot has changed. We obviously have quite a number of conflicts, and I think one of the things that I’m most disappointed by, although perhaps not surprised, is how quickly the various tensions—not least in part imposed by the current US administration—have spilled over into Europe. And how all of a sudden we have “brave” politicians in certain member states taking what I would consider, and I think others would consider, fairly aggressive measures in the name of competitiveness and geopolitical climate to take “almighty cracks at” the flagship pillars of EU climate policy. That’s one of the knock-on consequences I’m sensing in my bones in the climate world over the past couple of months.

But it does feel limiting to talk about climate generally in light of what’s going on. I’m not an alarmist, but I do feel a civic duty to keep up with what’s going on. It is obviously concerning.

How do you feel, Ross? What should we talk about? I mean, there’s some good news we can get into.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah, I think we should try to take an accurate pulse on world climate politics. I think the canonical view right now is that even though the US has pulled out of Paris and the UNFCCC, and the IMO deal didn’t happen because of the US, various things we were all hoping for are being carried on in places like Japan, Germany, the EU broadly, and the UK.

While I think that’s true, I also think the world is distracted by geopolitics and war. And there’s right-wing populism that’s electorally ascendant. The Japanese parliament has shifted far to the right. I’m watching Germany with the AfD gaining ground. And when Europe is projecting low growth rates and spending a lot on climate or things that feel altruistically like supporting Ukraine, that’s a recipe for right-wing populism.

I would not bet on CBAM remaining strong in Europe. I’m not holding my breath on the ETS. And I hate that I’m saying this because it’s all terrible news for us. But I also think we have to understand the probabilities we’re facing. How much of this is me being paranoid? And how much of this are you very concerned with?

Lev Gantly: I think you’re right to be worried. Some nights I go to bed worried about those things. Other nights I think about the other side, and I think there’s some sense left in the universe. I try to keep myself on that side of the equilibrium as much as I can.

But let me zoom in on some of the things you mentioned. Friedrich Mertz, just a few weeks ago at a green industry conference in Europe, was one of the big voices taking a go at the emissions trading system. He was effectively saying something like: if this is no longer fit for purpose within the current competitiveness landscape we’re in, we might need to re-engineer this policy or look at something else completely.

He paired back on that a couple of days later when challenged. But there have been other moves. Georgia Meloni has a new energy policy coming out in Italy, effectively trying to circumvent emissions allowances that power producers would have to buy and retire. There’s a question about whether that unilateral move would be challengable under EU law.

There’s been noise about how to appease these utterances against the ETS. The obvious candidates are lowering the linear reduction factor and extending the dates for the phase-out of free allowances. The linear reduction factor is currently 4.3% and goes up to 4.4% in 2028, which leads to zero allowances in 2039. The suggestion from people like Peter Lisa is to reduce it from 4.3% to 3.4%, which would mean zero allowances in the early 2040s instead of 2039.

There are two big public consultations out right now that run through May. One is about integrating carbon removal certification framework projects with the climate architecture. The second is about how to integrate up to 5% of the 2040 target through international credits under the Paris Agreement. These consultations are really important for anyone who cares about keeping Europe’s climate goals on track.

Interestingly, little old Ireland holds the presidency of the European Council in the second half of this year—exactly when the greatest revisions to the ETS will be on the table. We may end up submitting documents to ministers laying out the landscape of different directions things might go around the ETS and carbon removal integration, not just in Ireland but across Europe.

Ross Kenyon: Did you put in a letter on behalf of Philip Lee or yourself?

Lev Gantly: We have to be careful from a lobbying perspective because we’re a regulated law firm registered with EU authorities as an entity that could engage in lobbying activities. We have to make disclosures. We haven’t planned on submitting directly. But the International Admissions Trading Association, of which we’re a member, is submitting responses, and we’re feeding into what they’re saying.

Ross Kenyon: Tell me about CORSIA. Is it something that’s good for carbon removal if it survives intact? And is it likely to survive intact?

Lev Gantly: I’m happy to explain CORSIA. Let me answer the question of CORSIA and what’s happening first, then we can get into its relevance for carbon removal.

Why do we have this scheme for emissions in international aviation? Back when the EU was bold, in that galaxy far, far away, the EU set up the ETS in 2005. In 2008, it updated it to include a requirement on airlines to retire emissions allowances for intra-EEA flights. They then announced they were immediately extending it to international aviation—flights coming in and out of the European Union.

The UK government was brought to court, basically for implementing the CORSIA regulation into UK law. There was a court case taken by airlines and related groups suing the UK government for applying EU law extraterritorially. The European Court of Justice ruled the EU was right, but there was a pretty negative reaction. Chinese carriers canceled over $10 billion in Airbus orders in retaliation. The Obama administration passed the ETS Prohibition Act, forbidding US carriers from complying.

At that point, the Europeans said, “Okay, we’ve won the case, but we’ll play good global citizens and let ICAO come up with a multilateral scheme that creates a level playing field for airlines operating in international airspace.”

In 2016, ICAO’s General Assembly introduced CORSIA. We had a lame-duck pilot phase from 2019 to 2022. We’re currently in CP1 (CORSIA Phase 1), which covers 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 emissions. We’re still in CP1, which is voluntary. But about 120 contracting states of the Chicago Convention have opted in to voluntary participation.

This year, 2026, is the last year that needs to be monitored for CP1. The retirement of eligible emissions units is January 2028—about eighteen months away. Next year, 2027, is the start of CP2, which is mandatory. All contracting states have to comply.

What’s really interesting mechanically is that you have this UN scheme called CORSIA running in the background, and the EU has a rule that stops the clock—the application of the ETS to international aviation stops while CORSIA is operating. But the EU already pushed back the assessment of CORSIA’s effectiveness twice. The point in time at which the EU must definitively and conclusively review CORSIA’s effectiveness is this June.

The Commission has to produce a report explaining how effective it thinks CORSIA is by looking at two particular points: whether participation is at least 70% of contracting states or covers at least 70% of overall volume of international flights, and whether CORSIA has been strengthened to be in line with Paris Agreement goals.

Depending on how this report turns out, the Commission’s proposal will be accompanied by an amending regulation that will do one of two things: it’ll either stop the clock and apply the ETS to international aviation, or it’ll say CORSIA is working quite well and we need to give it time to breathe, or adopt some hybrid approach.

All of this is coming this June, after we’ve had US withdrawal from climate commitments and the IMO deal. We’re seeing the spillover effects we talked about in relation to the overall sentiment on the ETS in Europe. But CORSIA is something that US airlines pushed for. It really happened because of US airlines. So it would be really interesting to see what Europe does now, because historically they didn’t want it.

There are certainly plenty of lobby groups, NGOs saying CORSIA doesn’t work: credits are low quality, not enough of them, low integrity, not enough states participating, not enough states have transposed CORSIA into domestic laws, penalties are uncertain.

My own view is that it would be crazy at this point for the EU to abandon CORSIA because it’s still effectively in the middle of a voluntary phase. It relies on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which was only concluded a year and a half ago in Baku. It’s just now, in the last twelve months, that host countries are getting to grips with how Article 6 is supposed to work. Supply of credits is only now coming online. It’s just a terrible time for the EU to make a decision around this.

I also think telling airlines that they have to pay European carbon prices is not particularly equitable. It ignores the principle of common differentiated responsibility enshrined in the UNFCCC.

Ross Kenyon: I hope so. Although I am spooked by seeing things like the National Rally predicted to maybe win a major French election. I’m concerned because I don’t want to avoid standing up for climate, but there are ways of doing it that antagonize a stressed Europe that has to commit much more GDP to defending itself and no longer trusts the US with NATO. They also have to spend on climate, and growth rates are pretty small.

Climate politics are a bit of a loser electorally unless they’re framed in the right ways. CORSIA might catch the national pension as something to rail against, rather than the ETS, which is more well-known.

Lev Gantly: One quick point on competency: European airlines like Air Lingus, Air France, KLM will react. This year, 2026, is the first year there are no free allowances for the aviation sector. Previously, there was free allocation until last year, when they phased out 50%. So there’s auctioning for 50% for airlines. By April 2027, European airlines will have to have purchased and retired emissions allowances for their full exposure for the first time. That’s going to be expensive and weigh heavily on their balance sheet.

If you then turn around and say they have to pay the same price for international emissions, the reaction will be predictable from CEOs and CFOs.

Ross Kenyon: I’m not worried about them. I’m worried about consumers.

Lev Gantly: But that’s it—it’s a pass-through. All of a sudden, you’re not going to be able to visit cousins in Austria if you’re living in France. It’s going to be a lot more expensive over the next five or six years.

Ross Kenyon: Let me ask about CDR’s potential to interact with CORSIA.

Lev Gantly: The challenge with unlocking supply of credits into CORSIA is linked with challenges in implementing Article 6 at the host country level. In order to determine if you as a country can authorize the export of carbon for use under CORSIA, you have to determine that your NDC—your Nationally Determined Contribution submitted to the UN—is sufficiently ambitious. You have to have headroom to export tons from a mitigation activity and a project class for which you’ve made expressly clear you’re seeking external finance.

What’s interesting about CDR is that CDR sits outside NDC targets. As far as I’m aware, I haven’t seen any NDC with references to CDR within the NDC targets. There are long-term goals under the Paris Agreement that stretch 10, 15, 20 years, and there are some references to carbon capture and sequestration, but those aren’t the same as NDC targets.

For all intents and purposes, biochar and enhanced weathering, direct air capture—they are not currently within Global South country targets. Because they’re outside those targets, it should be a no-brainer that countries could authorize and export those tons freely because they don’t jeopardize the achievement of an NDC target.

The problem with CORSIA at the moment is that it married Article 6 too much—maybe 70 or 80%, not 100%. The Article 6 rules basically say you as the host country, once you’ve authorized the mitigation activity, have to correspondingly adjust your emissions balance or your national inventory accounting. You arithmetically add the tons to your emissions balance, irrespective of whether the authorized activities are inside or outside your NDC.

The reason that rule exists is to prevent double counting between two national greenhouse gas inventories. But CORSIA—which operates over international airspace—is not a national greenhouse gas inventory. CORSIA is solving for a different problem: preventing double claiming between an airline and a country, which is not the same as counting between two national inventories.

If an airline is buying biochar credits from Kenya, and biochar sits outside Kenya’s NDC, why should Kenya have to authorize this and apply corresponding adjustments? It’s not in the NDC target, so there’s no double-counting risk between two greenhouse gas inventories. There’s just a claim by an airline for emissions in international airspace.

This has come up increasingly in conversations because there’s fear that pressure at host country level around jeopardizing NDCs through over-export could constrain supply going into CORSIA. Think about the demand numbers: for CP1, overall demand is somewhere between 120 and 220 million tons. CP2 runs from 2027 through 2035 and could demand hundreds of millions of tons.

Could we scale carbon removal in the Global South if we created a demand pool through CORSIA? If there was a rule change from ICAO saying that for a narrow category of activity types that sit outside NDC targets—what we call “novel CDR”—we don’t need authorizations because there’s no fear of double claiming?

You could unlock significant demand and help these activities scale over the next decade. We’ve been trying to push that narrative with relevant people in the right rooms, and what we’ve been told is that it’s a great point that needs to be pushed at ICAO’s General Assembly by member states.

The problem is that you have aviation ministers and transport ministers showing up to ICAO, not climate ministers. So these ministries need to start talking to each other if we want to unlock the supply.

Even if we cut the cord and say, “Don’t need authorizations for novel CDR pathways,” you’re still going to get into a pricing debate. Right now, we’re talking maybe $100 to $150 for biochar in Kenya versus $200-300 for a clean cooking ton. But think about it this way: if Article 6 works, the availability of low-hanging fruit mitigation should disappear because NDCs are supposed to ratchet up in ambition. You keep all the low-hanging fruit for yourself and export higher-hanging, more ambitious fruit that you can’t afford to pay for yourself.

If the whole thing starts to work as intended, we could create quite a lot of interesting demand. Isometric was recently approved for CORSIA, and I think some of the other CDR-focused standards have just recently or are about to submit applications for approval. I know there’s a window for application for some CDR standards right now that might be closing this week.

Ross Kenyon: It’s very useful to understand how all these terms interact and the potential overlaps and gaps. Thanks for clarifying that. Are there places where you are seeing good, durable policy support for carbon removal right now?

Lev Gantly: Not in the Global South, I would say. I’m just not seeing it. It doesn’t mean it’s not happening. One interesting thing happening is that we’re starting to see interesting things even in places like Ireland.

But one positive thing—and it’s unfortunate because Article 6 negotiations concluded eighteen months ago—is that a lot of host countries are really ramping up their readiness for policy support, not just for CDR but for other types of mitigation activities and renewable energy and clean cooking. They’re putting in place pretty sophisticated climate laws and carbon market frameworks across Sub-Saharan Africa and central Asia. We work with local lawyers to understand these laws as we advise our clients. We’re pleasantly surprised by the detail and work that goes into creating those frameworks. It’s unfortunate we don’t see specific references to CDR activities yet, but I suspect it’s a matter of time.

In terms of the CDR landscape in Europe, things seem to be happening. Reports are coming out of Spain. Germany has announced a budget to commit to CDR activities. In Ireland, we’ve had good conversations with several government departments around potentially creating a framework here for carbon farming, with a real focus on biochar. There’s the EU CDR Buyers Club that’s in formation.

Ross Kenyon: What’s your take on what makes a good CDR policy right now?

Lev Gantly: I’m looking for policies that are likely to survive changes in polity, depending on which political party is in office. Different countries that previously supported carbon removal—I’m wondering if that’s changing. Canada has historically been supportive, and Mark Carney seems personally supportive. But Canada is facing very high cost of living, spending much more on military, and trying to cut trade deals. Their economy is going through structural changes. To what degree will climate policy remain a priority in Canadian politics?

Ross Kenyon: My high-level take on carbon removal policy in places like Canada and the US over the last couple of years is that there have been quite a few carrots in terms of tax incentives and grants. That’s all great because it allows people to innovate and test small-scale pilot projects. But in terms of durability and stickiness, that requires people to buy.

My question is always when I get new clients doing interesting things: this is brilliant, you’re great, I love it, but who’s going to buy this? Who’s going to buy the tons? This is really expensive. I want you to succeed, but who’s buying this year? Who’s buying in five years? Who’s buying twenty years from now?

This is about creating mandatory compliance-based demand on either polluters or government departments. One of the things we’re thinking about for Ireland, for example, is the effort sharing regulation and the new LULUCF regulation. Ireland’s not the only member state; Spain, France, Germany and many others are behind. They’ll have to pay billions in fines if they don’t hit their targets—in Ireland, the range is four to twenty billion euros.

There are questions about whether those fines just move from one pocket to another. But how do we actually help Ireland meet its climate targets? The effort sharing regulation covers waste, agriculture, transport—things not in the ETS. There are a lot of farms in Ireland with grazing, dairy, beef production.

If we wrote a policy that required farmers to buy biochar and spread it across their land, that enhances soil fertility and sequestration, the government could pay for that. That would act as a subsidy to farmers. It needs to be thought through more carefully in government, and we might end up supporting government in mapping this out.

But we have to use levers that don’t agitate folks that are already struggling. Farmer margins are tight. We’re asking people to decarbonize, but people are just trying to make ends meet. It has to be palatable. Who’s going to buy? Is Ireland going to legislate for corporates that are polluting to buy these tons? Or will the Irish department of agriculture or climate change buy these tons and count them in Ireland’s national ledger, which sits within the EU target? Otherwise, we’re going to have to pay fines. Either do good stuff and help farmers decarbonize, or pay fines.

The integration into the ETS is the other piece. We talked earlier about reducing the linear reduction factor and pushing out the date for availability of free allocation. There’s obviously talk of introducing DACs and BECs into the ETS because there’s obsession with permanence. How about buying biochar?

Ross Kenyon: ETS delay might be a really smart example of surviving the political moment. It’s no longer an urgent political issue because the biting point is farther away. The next election cycle deals with it. That might give breathing room, even though it’s painful, like losing years and the curve gets steeper. I like the suggestion for farm inputs.

I was also trying to think: did you follow the attempts to limit liability for glyphosate with regard to Bayer and Trump? Are you too busy being a lawyer?

Lev Gantly: I do know a lot of my nighttime is consumed by following what’s happening in the US, but there’s a cap on that, Ross.

Ross Kenyon: Well, there’s a lot of tension between MAGA and MAHA parts of the Republican party right now—”Make America Healthy Again,” the Robert F. Kennedy crew. They’re obviously no great fan of pesticides and would like things to be more regenerative and less toxic. There’s room for biochar in there for sure. That’s a really cool crossover point that could be bipartisan.

Bayer’s trying to limit their liability for the never-ending glyphosate lawsuits. The glyphosate side is winning, and the MAHA side feels betrayed. It was a smart pick to make Kennedy health secretary for the election, but as it goes on, you realize that commitment wasn’t equally shared.

I’m wondering if the politics are different in Ireland such that a more regenerative farming model might not face the same uphill battle. Everyone in America likes Kerrygold butter. I’d love to see Kerrygold that said “made with biochar” on the box.

But agribusiness is very powerful. Synthetic fertilizers have diminishing returns and can’t be applied forever without soil harm. Consumers want to switch. But this all cuts against cost of living too. People care less about a little biochar logo when feeding your family is hard and a hundred dollars of groceries used to be four bags several years ago.

Maybe none of this matters as long as bread and butter issues at the kitchen table are top of mind.

Lev Gantly: They are. Thanks for that, Ross. When you say bread and butter issues being top of mind, are we living in a parallel universe?

You and I—I know you do, I know I do—spend most of our time thinking about what scientists say. Scientists say we need removals, we need a lot of removals, removals at the scale of the fossil fuel industry’s emissions. That’s the scale we need to get to.

How do we bridge the gap between where most folks feel what’s important and what stresses us out in the climate and CDR community? It’s a pretty colossal gap.

I’m an optimist, though. I believe that we need enough like-minded, right-minded politicians. If you had your pick, and I don’t know what you think of Governor Newsom in terms of 2028, but let’s say he did come in—he’s responsible for some fairly interesting policies in California, a backer of cap-and-trade there. What would you like to see on a global stage, domestically, and at the federal level? The US is such a big tone-setter for what happens to the rest of the world.

Ross Kenyon: I think the format of this question is fascinating because I haven’t even thought that far ahead. The news cycle has been so much quicker. People are thinking toward the midterms later this year.

I keep seeing people talking about a Newsom candidacy, but he’s also highly polarizing. Much of the country hates his guts. People blame him for San Francisco. He said supportive things about trans athletes that a lot of the country finds important, and he’s taken courageous stands.

We’ve seen people do well, like the Hochul win in New York. Democrats talk left in primaries but govern from the center and run from the center in generals because most of the country doesn’t like socialism rhetoric.

Even if Newsom made it, I’m curious how much he could do. Political capital brought into the White House—are you able to quickly rejoin Paris and the UNFCCC and restart these things? Or are there legal or Supreme Court decisions that make it really hard to dive back in?

It’s also possible this causes a backlash in the opposite direction. Even if Democrats took the presidency and had a good midterm showing, they might control the house and maybe the Senate, but it’s probably even. And Presidents with a house majority usually get hit pretty hard in midterms.

I don’t think far ahead. Even if you had a committed president, can they easily rejoin climate multilateralism?

Lev Gantly: I’ll caveat this by saying I’m not a US lawyer or constitutional lawyer, so these are technical points. I think there are qualified professors from Stanford and other places that have written about this. There’s some suggestion that because he executive ordered his way out of the UNFCCC, it doesn’t need congressional approval to come back in. The next president can just executive order back in. Apparently the same applies with Paris.

But what does it mean to be party to the Paris Agreement? Why does it matter if the US is party to the UNFCCC or Paris Agreement? I think the most important thing is that the US is the first or second largest polluter globally in terms of emissions. The Paris Agreement brings together over 190 countries and all their ledgers. Everybody starts bean-counting to figure out global emissions and global targets and how much we need to enhance targets every five years to hit the Paris temperature goals.

But right now there’s a big gaping goal in the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees. How could you try to meet that target when the biggest emitter is no longer counting the beans?

Knowing the US plan from a carbon markets and CDR perspective would be slightly more granular, but just on a macro level, it’s really important to have everyone’s counts. We can’t work out where we are without the counts.

Ross Kenyon: Can I jump in on this one point specifically? This spooks me very badly. The US not being part of the game theory: we’re probably not going to achieve climate targets without US participation. Voters are going to be smart enough to be like, if the US isn’t doing this and they’re the world leader and biggest polluter, we’re probably not going to hit our targets. Why are we spending tax dollars on something that won’t ultimately stop this?

When the world was broadly committed, holdout countries could be wagged at. But momentum switches without the US. The politics become: why are we still doing this if the US isn’t? That part really scares me. And I feel like people don’t talk about how much US leadership matters because it’s easy to hate on the US for being a world leader. But having the world leader say this is not a thing, it’s a scam, and we’re not doing it anymore—that’s extremely disruptive everywhere.

Lev Gantly: Yeah, Ross. What breaks my heart is all the work we’re doing in Global South jurisdictions on all manner of projects—the purpose of which is to serve basic human needs: clean cooking, access to clean water.

A lot of these countries are just getting to grips with the Paris rule book for carbon markets, which closed eighteen months ago. It’s really only in the last eighteen months that countries have started writing elegant regulation frameworks saying, “We’re here, we’re ready for carbon finance, we’re ready for UNFCCC. Come sort out our clean cooking problem because 1.2 billion people still cook on open fires.”

These activities are expensive to implement at scale. Finance is needed. A lot form conditional parts of NDCs. So they’re exportable from a carbon finance perspective.

What I find quite upsetting is that we’re at a point where host countries are ready to engage with global carbon markets through Article 6 or through CBAM. But where’s the buying power? Where’s the buying?

Likewise with CORSIA, you’ve got China, Japan oddly building up ends through Joint Implementation mechanisms, bilateral deals. We were hoping for big buying countries to come in and buy these tons and have them transfer, helping buying countries meet their targets.

With the US dropping, not participating in Article 6, not being in Paris, it sends the message you talked about, and the influence of that on other Global North players. Maybe they don’t bother helping Global South folks. Maybe they can’t be bothered doing their own thing.

Or maybe it’ll have the counter effect. Maybe they’ll say, the US is out, maybe we won’t spend $100, $200, $300 per ton on marginal cost of abatement in a particular sector. Maybe it’s actually better for us to buy from the Global South at 5%.

But 5% in Europe isn’t a lot. Right? Maybe they’ll change it again. I don’t know. But the US tends to set the tone for overall sentiment on climate. And I do dream about 2028, Ross. I’m not in the US, but I’m keeping an eye on sentiment around the midterms. I do try and look forward to figure out what happens after he’s gone—assuming he’s gone.

Ross Kenyon: Lev, thank you for joining me for the impossible task of one, explaining CORSIA and its history. Super hard. Speculating on possible roads for carbon removal to enter CORSIA. And then also just grimly looking into the state of world politics as pertains to climate and so much else. Thank you for going on this wild, multifaceted ride with me.

Lev Gantly: It’s been fun. Thanks for having me.

This is a summary of a solo episode of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you enjoy your shows. You can also listen to the full episode right below this paragraph.

Subscribe now

Quick Takeaways

• The foundational assumption of carbon removal has been the “pre-compliance story”: the voluntary market is a bridge to compliance-driven demand that will arrive soon.

• That story depends on Japan, Canada, the EU, and the UK advancing climate policy while the US steps back.

• Every one of those countries is now facing significant political headwinds against climate action.

• Right-wing populism is surging globally, and it competes directly with climate policy in every case.

• Japan’s new leadership is focused on energy security and defense, both of which crowd out decarbonization.

• Canada’s Mark Carney has a carbon markets background, but faces cost-of-living crises, Arctic and conventional security threats, and Albertan secessionism.

• The EU is projecting low growth, facing rising energy prices, and watching right-wing parties gain ground across the continent.

• The UK’s Reform party is growing rapidly at the expense of the Tories, mirroring patterns seen everywhere.

• Climate action requires collective sacrifice, and that story becomes nearly impossible to sell if major economies opt out.

• If the US doesn’t participate, European leaders face an impossible pitch: raise taxes and energy prices for a goal that can’t be met without global coordination.

• Carbon removal companies should plan for both continuity (regression to the mean) and discontinuity (a fundamentally reshuffled world order).

• This isn’t doom—it’s a call to build strategies that survive either future.

The Pre-Compliance Story

There is a story that carbon removal has been telling itself for years. You’ve heard it. You may have said it. You may believe it.

It goes like this: the voluntary carbon market and the big corporate offtake agreements we’re seeing are necessary but not sufficient. They’re buying time. What we’re really waiting for is compliance — regulation that automates demand, that obligates it, that makes carbon removal not a nice-to-have but a legal requirement. We’re in a pre-compliance moment, and the biting point is coming.

This story has been enormously useful. It gives startups a reason to keep building despite thin order books. It gives investors a thesis for patient capital. It gives employees in the space a reason to stay through the lean years.

But it depends on a specific geopolitical configuration that may no longer exist.

The Countries We’re Counting On

After the US pulled out of the Paris Agreement, the UNFCCC, and torpedoed the IMO shipping deal, the pre-compliance story didn’t die. It just moved. The new version says: fine, the US is out, but China is leading the clean energy revolution, and Japan, Canada, and the EU will carry climate policy forward. No need to panic.

Each of those pillars is wobbling.

Japan elected Sanae Takaichi of the Liberal Democratic Party, who is focused on energy security and defense — priorities that compete with decarbonization. They don’t have to, but from the right, they are rarely framed as complementary.

Canada nearly elected Pierre Poilievre by double digits before Trump’s “51st state” rhetoric shifted the race. Mark Carney won, and he has deep carbon market credentials. But he’s now navigating cost-of-living crises, a need to rapidly militarize, Albertan separatism, and Arctic security questions that will define Canadian politics for decades. Climate policy will survive in Canada, but it faces pressures that make it far less reliable as a global anchor than we’d hoped.

The EU is projected at around 1% growth, energy prices are surging, and right-wing populism is advancing in nearly every member state. The National Rally is projected to do well in France. The AfD is growing in Germany. Reform is surging in the UK. Even center-right leaders like Friedrich Merz face pressure from their right flanks that makes ambitious climate policy harder to advance.

The Collective Action Problem

Climate action has always been a collective action problem, but the current moment makes the logic especially brutal.

Meaningful climate policy requires sacrifice—higher taxes, higher energy prices, or at minimum the opportunity cost of investing in decarbonization rather than more immediate concerns. Voters will accept that sacrifice under specific conditions: when they feel safe, when their cost of living is manageable, and when they believe that other major economies are making the same sacrifice.

Remove any of those conditions and the politics collapse.

Right now, all three are under strain simultaneously. Voters across the developed world feel less safe (security competition, Arctic tensions, the Iran conflict). Cost of living is rising (energy prices, inflation, low growth). And the world’s largest economy has conspicuously opted out of the collective sacrifice.

That leaves European and Canadian leaders in an impossible position. Telling your population that their net worth went down, inflation went up, and energy prices are higher—but they need to keep sacrificing for climate goals that can’t be met without global coordination—is not a winning electoral strategy. It requires a kind of patient, selfless political maturity that no electorate has demonstrated at scale.

The Maslow Problem

There’s a Maslow’s hierarchy at work here that’s hard to argue with. If you’re struggling to buy groceries, or worried about whether your country is safe from its neighbors, or watching your purchasing power erode—you are not going to prioritize threats that are abstract, probabilistic, and decades away.

Climate change is the most important long-term threat facing humanity. But it is precisely the kind of threat that recedes when more immediate ones advance. And right now, immediate threats are advancing everywhere.

The smart play is to frame climate policy in ways that address those immediate concerns simultaneously—energy independence, job creation, cost savings. And in fact, much of the clean energy transition does exactly that. But there is always going to be some residual cost, some amount of sacrifice and disruption that can’t be reframed away. And it’s that margin where the politics are being lost.

Continuity or Discontinuity

When advising companies, there’s a question that increasingly needs to be asked up front: do you want advice based on continuity or discontinuity?

The continuity scenario says this is a temporary disruption. The US will eventually return to something like the liberal democratic order. The populist wave will crest and recede. Climate multilateralism will resume. The pre-compliance story will arrive, just delayed.

The discontinuity scenario says the world order is being fundamentally reshuffled. The rules that governed international cooperation for the past 80 years are changing. Climate compliance may not arrive in any recognizable form for a very long time.

If you’re building a carbon removal company, you can probably design a good strategy for either scenario in isolation. The challenge is that you need a strategy that works across both—or at least one that doesn’t leave you bankrupt if the world you planned for doesn’t materialize.

That’s the real takeaway here. Not doom. Not despair. But clarity. Know what the world is doing. Have a plan for the world you want and a plan for the one you might get. And don’t mistake optimism for strategy.

Full Transcript

Ross Kenyon: Hey, out there. Thank you so much for listening. This is Ross Kenyon. I’m the host of the Reversing Climate Change podcast, which is the show you’re listening to right at this very moment. Before the show starts, if I could ask you please for a very small favor, what I hope is a very small favor, if you could please open up your podcast app, whether it’s Apple Podcast or Spotify, or whatever you use, give the show a full rating on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

That’s five stars. If your podcast app has reviews, if you could leave a quick review on Apple Podcasts, whatever else you use that does reviews. It’s really helpful. It helps more people find the show. And if you like this show, presumably you’d like it if more people listen to it. If I could ask you to please do that, it would be so appreciated. You can also become a paid subscriber on Substack or on Spotify for $5 a month. You can get ad free listening except for the ads that are you, myself, and bonus content for subscribers only. I haven’t fully set it up on Substack or on the other platforms, but I really should stay tuned on that.

I’m gonna try and get that set up. I already recorded a version of this show and I try to listen to my gut actually as much as I can, and that day I just felt like I wasn’t quite getting it and I wanted to make sure that I could give you the show that I think this topic deserves.

And I think it’s a hard topic to do well because there’s a tendency to overdo it and include way too much information. And I also don’t wanna include too little information in seeming cavalier. Today I’m gonna be making a bearish case for carbon removal. What might lead to carbon removal coming apart at the seams in the world to come? And just so I can say it as clearly as possible, I do not like playing this role. If you know me, I love to help people. I love relating to people. I love trying to make sure that everything gets to where it needs to be.

I’m not trying to steal all the glory for myself. If I were to spend a lot of time gatekeeping, I’m really trying to move this forward because I think climate change is a team sport as the cliche goes. And one thing about not being tied to a specific company in a full-time capacity is I’m able to really focus on an ecosystem building kind of capacity.

If you’re at a company and you know that there’s a party line that you must tow, because there often is, maybe I can give voice to some of those feelings and intuitions and intellectual observances that maybe you’ve had but haven’t felt super safe voicing whether to others or even to yourself, because many of the things that I’m going to talk about today are threatening to the self and your life plans and your ability to pay your mortgage and to have a career that is not as turbulent as maybe your spouse might like it to be.

One of the foundational assumptions of carbon removal to the point that it’s become a bit of a cliche is what I call the pre-compliance story. Whether you call it this or you call it something else, or maybe you haven’t even named it, you’ve certainly heard it, which is that the voluntary carbon market purchases and the big corporate offtake you see are necessary but not sufficient, that we are basically waiting for compliance to automate demand, to obligate demand, and we’re all waiting for the biting point to arrive.

We are waiting for compliance to make sure that climate policy is taken seriously enough that we are able to hit the climate targets we need to not send the world into a desperate overshoot scenario.

And the most recent version of this that you may have heard, maybe you’ve said it yourself and maybe you believe it, and I really do hope that you are correct and that we are still on the trajectory to be in a pre-compliance moment.

Okay. The United States has pulled out of the UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, has torpedoed, for lack of a better word, the International Maritime Organization’s deal to regulate international shipping. It’s pulled out of the Paris Agreement.

But that’s not as big of a deal as it maybe looks because China is still leading the clean energy revolution and moreover, the policy environment in Japan, Canada, the EU, specific member states within European Union are going to carry the day with climate policy.

And so, no need to panic. There’s still going to be enough support here to make sure that carbon removal can scale in the years ahead. I do not think this story is true. I want it to be desperately, I do not like playing this role, but I’ve been studying this, watching the politics and the geopolitics and the international relations and the trends in various electorates, especially since the start of 2025.

And I keep waiting for the high watermark to be visible to me, and I can’t say that I’ve seen it yet. And that was even before the conflict with Iran. And I had recorded essentially an entire podcast on this topic that I decided to scrap. And then this had come along. But I actually think Iran doesn’t pose that big of a challenge to the core ideas I’m going to discuss.

What concerns me about the pre-compliance story is that I think in a post-Trump two world, the three countries or network of countries that I mentioned earlier, all have had substantial electoral changes since that pre-compliance story was written.

Japan elected Sanae Takaichi of the Liberal Democratic Party. Her party picked up a whole bunch of seats in the National Diet of Japan, their legislative body. Admittedly, I know the least about her politics and how Japan operates, but she seems to be quite focused on energy security for Japan. And is focused on defense — those things compete with decarbonization. They don’t have to, but they often do. And coming from the right, they are likely not seen as complementary. I think, or maybe not as much as we might like.

Canada is a place where Poilievre of the Conservative Party was projected to win over Carney by double digit figures and only began to lose because of Trump’s 51st State talk. The 51st State talk really caused problems for Maple MAGA. This 51st State talk really makes me think because it’s one of those things where it’s an own goal. In one sense, it probably would’ve been much better for Trump to have a MAGA or MAGA-esque candidate as the Prime Minister.

And surely he had advisors saying, knock off all the 51st state talk and all this Greenland stuff because it’s freaking out the Canadian electorate. You’re gonna put someone in power in Canada that you really don’t want.

If that advice was given, it doesn’t seem to have been heeded. Which actually concerns me because it makes it seem like that 51st state talk was genuine. There wasn’t some blustery near-term political advantage to it. In fact, it seemed to have caused political problems more than political solutions.

It is not like Canada as the 51st State was a core issue for MAGA that Trump hitting on was rallying the base in some way. It just felt like, where is this coming from? Which struck me as more than likely to be a sincere desire, which is scary. Most of the Canadians I know, they took that 51st State talk very seriously.

It seems that Mark Carney has as well, even though Mark Carney famously has a long background in carbon markets, he’s also in a position now of trying to cut trade deals. Canada has very high cost of living and has to focus on militarizing in a way that is genuinely new for it. And all of those things compete with things like climate action.

He also has to contend with Albertan secessionists who potentially want to join the US or maybe want to just be independent of Canada and the US, but certainly will have more affinity with Trump than with the Trudeau-Carney sort of orbit.

I think Canada will continue to be a climate leader, but I’m also very aware of the fact that Canada is going to face many more challenges in the future. One of the big geopolitical questions I have for the future is, does it help a country to be in the Arctic? Or does it make it more vulnerable? One of the stories around why climate change may not be so bad in the future deals with the Arctic and says that this will make shipping routes much faster around the world. It will open up access to many more types of natural resources, and this will be a really good thing.

Yeah, but I think it’s very likely that we will see intense security competition and potentially even war in the Arctic during our lifetimes. I guess it depends on how old you are right now at the time of listening for your lifetime, but I think that’s a very real possibility.

And while Canada will certainly benefit in many ways, it also exposes it to a great deal of risk. Its internal politics also are not uniform and are not uniformly oriented towards climate policy as we saw from how the last election went. And I do not feel confident that Canada has a permanently durable climate politics in it. The electoral competition may show that Canada has more pressing and urgent problems than climate.

They need to make sure that they have security. They need to make sure that the Arctic is protected. There are things that they need to be looking out for, and obviously many of those things do overlap with climate. But people are not choosing climate policy in a vacuum. Politicians whose jobs are always up for being called back and replaced are trying to figure out how to balance climate politics versus more kitchen table issues like cost of living and “are we safe from our neighbors” kinds of questions.

And those other questions in a sort of basic Maslow’s hierarchy of needs way are going to ring much more powerfully. If you’re having a hard time buying enough groceries for your family or feeling like you can’t get ahead in this economy, it’s really hard to think about how bad the world is going to be in several decades if we can’t make sure we’re hitting our climate targets and sacrificing right now. There are ways of making that pain less — ways of doing more with less that actually make our lives better.

But in many cases, addressing climate change will require higher taxes or just the opportunity cost of investing in climate technology rather than more quotidian issues that voters care about. I don’t feel like we can look to Canada as always going to be a place of climate policy refuge that we had maybe hoped it would be. And I hope that is the case for the future. I think Canada has durable institutions, but it also faces political pressures that essentially the entire world is experiencing right now.

And that brings me to Europe and the European Union in particular. I think it’s safe to say that within carbon removal, the EU has the most hope placed upon it. Everyone is looking towards Europe with the hope that various things like the carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM, or the EU ETS, the emissions trading system, or direct procurement by various states like Germany are going to have for carbon removal. There’s talk of the buyer’s club and there’s various other acronyms of European policy that depending upon your preferred type of carbon removal offer various types of supports.

I have a hard time imagining a near future where Europe will be able to advance significant climate policy. Even in the last couple weeks we’ve seen the EU ETS be criticized by mayors in Germany and others. But one thing I’m looking towards closely, and granted I’m an American and I’m not living in these places and swimming in the same political culture as Europeans are. But I still try to track pretty closely what’s happening in Europe for various reasons.

And quite a lot of what I am seeing is the growth of right-wing populism in the same way that we’re seeing essentially everywhere. The National Rally in France is projected to have a very good year. Friedrich Merz in Germany — he’s a Christian Democrat and right of center.

But I think a lot of older school center-right politicians face some pretty significant electoral challenges, especially with the growth of AfD, the Alternative for Germany. Right-wing populists just have a more aggressive story that — if you’re an American, think about how different MAGA feels from Ronald Reagan, or even Bush Senior and Bush Junior, or even some of how Bill Clinton spoke because Bill Clinton, of course, as a quote unquote “new Democrat,” the idea was very much that we’re gonna balance the budget and we’re not going to spend and focus on giving welfare, but we actually need to be fiscally conservative in a way that you wouldn’t associate with someone like LBJ or FDR.

It has a stately, tweedy, older school vibe to it. I think that’s even more pronounced if you look to the UK and you think about how the Tories are doing relative to Reform. I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, that when I was a kid, United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, when I was younger I remember hearing about Nigel Farage. And then now to see 20 years later, you’re seeing how Reform, the party that Nigel Farage is a part of now, the growth of them has been absolutely staggering.

And I think the Tories are really struggling to figure out what their story is. Because there’s always a funny kind of strange bedfellows vibe with right-wing politics where there often are working class traditional values kinds of voters and people, but then certain types of conservative thought is extremely intellectual. Think of someone like William F. Buckley as sort of an archetypal tweedy conservative type. The average working class person, I don’t think they’re looking to William F. Buckley and thinking like, this is the guy I wanna listen to. But they do wanna listen to someone like Trump who sort of has this populistic, non-philosophical, not talking about Aristotle or looking back in time to English institutions and how important Magna Carta is. It’s more about kitchen table issues and the culture war and things like that, that I think the more stately types of conservatives are very poorly suited to win in a debate with. And you’re seeing this happen where statelier, older school conservatives don’t have as good of a story to compete with more radical right-wing candidates. So you are seeing around the world right now, much more radical right-wing governments ascend.

It would divert from the show to go into why this is happening and why now, and there are still a number of theories for how this is working. A fair amount of the causality belongs to how the internet operates and is monetized in the political economy of the internet. I’ll leave that to someone else who has studied this more closely. All we need to know, though, is that right-wing populism is a very, very dangerous trend for climate action.

And when people point to places like the EU as a bastion of climate policy that will survive even though the US has pulled out of essentially all of the major climate policy frameworks internationally, even if there are still some very good things happening inside of the US that have lingered on even within Trump two.

I think the thing to watch out for here is that Europe is projecting low growth rates. In the show that I recorded previously, I had heard that Europe was poised for an average of 1% growth rates over 2026, which is pretty low, and that was before Iran and the cost of oil shot above a hundred dollars a barrel.

That can only put more pressure on the European system. It changes the relationship of various European states to Russia and those that are friendlier with Russia want to maintain their access to Russian gas. And even the US has relaxed restrictions on Russian energy. To make sure that the war remains less controversial, because obviously one of the main moves that Iran is doing and will continue to do is trying to make this experience as embarrassing for the US and as costly as possible by raising energy prices worldwide.

It’s one of those kitchen table issues that really focuses the mind of politicians where they know that their voters are going to care a lot about their energy prices and whether they have a job and whether they get a raise, because whatever money that they were gonna get has now gone into paying higher energy prices, which are already very high in Europe. It’s gone.

Those kinds of issues can be very challenging for governments. And if you want an example, you don’t even have to look that far. And you can think about the Gilets Jaunes of France who were protesting over a tax on gasoline. And you don’t really want to encourage politics like that if you are aiming for stability and for climate action. And when there is just less breathing room with low economic growth, with higher energy prices and with right-wing populists gaining in so many countries, I don’t think there’s going to be as much room for radical climate politics.

Germany has carbon removal procurement in its sights — do you think that’s likely to survive if the AfD continues to grow in electoral support? My guess is probably not.

People are looking towards the UK ETS — is that likely to survive the growing ascendancy of Reform? My guess is probably not.

And one additional reason why this concerns me so much is that climate action basically only works if we all or most of us band together and say, we’re all going to restrict ourselves in the same kind of capacity. We are going to invest the money in decarbonization, invest in carbon removal, because that is how the world order is structured. And if we don’t do this, we will be an outsider to what are seen as the most legitimate countries on earth, the most powerful, the most trustworthy, who are all making those sacrifices and looking askance at us when we fail to meet our obligations and are trying to do the thing that is for our collective wellbeing.

But the US is world leader and it’s an open question to what degree the US wants to remain the world leader that has been since the end of World War II versus change its status to something more like a regional hemispheric hegemon. Open question.

But if that were to play out, it’s difficult for me to imagine European leaders arguing to their populations that even though the US is not pursuing climate action, the EU should still raise their own taxes, raise their own energy prices to enact meaningful climate action, because climate action essentially only works if all or most of these economies are engaged in the transition.

If major powers just sit it out, those other countries are making sacrifices that actually don’t get us to the goal. Maybe it buys us a little time, but I think that’s a really hard story to sell to voters. Going to your population and saying, your net worth went down this year. Inflation went up, your earnings went down. Energy prices are up, but we need to sacrifice, even though it’s not going to stop climate change, we need to do it because it’s just the right thing to do. I think that is an electorally losing strategy. I’m really sorry to say. I wish we were able to have a sort of symbolic, beautiful, sacrificing kind of moment where that could be successful.

I would think it would take a lot of patience and maturity and character to do that, but I don’t think that can happen. Especially not at the scale necessary to do that in the hopes that maybe the US gets it together and either at midterms or at the next administration.

I’m really concerned that that’s probably the way that it’s going to go. None of those dynamics feel conducive to climate multilateralism, climate action for the world. It seems like those are really powerful headwinds — the zeitgeist is blowing into our face, and it’s hard to imagine how we’re going to come back out of that.

Those are the biggest reasons why I’m personally bearish right now on the future of carbon removal. I don’t think the pre-compliance story is going to hold unless the zeitgeist switches again, and it’s possible that it does. But these trends are so global and it doesn’t seem like the momentum has petered out quite yet.

And this doesn’t even get into all of the stuff about Greenland and playing so aggressively with one’s allies in NATO. And how dramatically that can reshape the world order. The behavior of the US around Greenland — it reminds me of someone who maybe wants their significant other to break up with them, but isn’t willing to break up with them themselves. And so behaves badly in the hope that their significant other will dump them. That’s kind of how that whole thing felt to me. I’m like, oh, wow, you just really don’t care about doing this to NATO, huh? I feel like that’s a really surprising thing to do, and I feel like something like NATO no longer existing in a trans-Atlantic capacity, at least for the US, I think would be a major, major change to the world system. NATO’s durability and even the European Union’s durability is something that I think is a big open question and none of it bodes well for climate policy. I think anything that’s disruptive, anything that raises prices in this way is likely to make climate action more difficult.

Because when people are concerned about security or the cost of living, more abstract, probabilistic, future-oriented threats recede. How could they not?

You can try to make your climate policy focus on ways of addressing all of those things at the same time. And in fact, it’s probably the smart thing to do. But there’s just probably always going to be some amount of sacrifice and cost necessary that we will have to shoulder to deal with the world that we have created and are passing on to our children.

Given the way electoral politics is changing around the world and the rise of right-wing populism, I don’t think that we can depend upon Japan, Canada, and the European Union, and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom, to carry us through climate policy.

I hope that I’m wrong. I’m actually really sick of thinking these thoughts and saying them. I keep saying them in meetings. People ask me, what do I think about this? I’m like, this is where I am at and maybe I’m just gonna send them this episode from now on because I’ve been staring into this for a long time.

And it’s just not looking good from basically any angle. In fact, one of the famous lines that I think this is one of the best jokes of all time — I don’t even actually know if it’s true or not, it might just be apocryphal — but it’s George Orwell’s famous response to Joseph Stalin.

Stalin is alleged to have said, “If you wanna make an omelet, you’ve gotta break a few eggs.” And George Orwell retorted, “Where’s the omelet?” And that’s essentially how it feels to me right now. The world has been changing massively in the last year plus, and I’m looking for the omelet, and I cannot seem to find one for climate, let alone on any other front really.

When I’m advising companies in carbon removal and climate tech broadly, I’m often put in a position to ask them if they would like advice based around continuity or discontinuity. Do we regress to the mean? Is this a temporary phase that we all pull back from and say, oh, that was a thing that we did for a while, but the US is still broadly on the track that it was previous and that we just made a small detour and then we all came back to the liberal democratic order, and that’s what we’re gonna commit to for the foreseeable future. Or are we entering a period of reshuffling when the world order is being reconfigured?

And if you want the answer based around continuity, I can give you a pretty good sense of how to build a successful carbon removal company, but you need to keep inside of your probability distribution what you do when the world is fundamentally changed and does not regress to the mean.

Whatever you’re doing in climate, make sure you have some plans for how your company can be successful if the world does not go back to the way that we thought it was. Because it may not.

Hopefully that isn’t too dour a message. Again for the third or fourth time, I don’t like being in this position. I like being helpful and optimistic, but I think it’s really important, especially if you work on anything strategic, that you have a clear vision of what the world is doing and what the various inputs are.

In hindsight, some of them will matter less than one thought they would, and I hope that this is the case for this podcast. But I think we all need to prepare for a future in which the pre-compliance story does not arrive on time — or maybe does not arrive at all.

Thanks for listening.

This is a summary of episode 390 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you enjoy your shows. You can also listen to the full episode in its entirety right below this paragraph.

And a hearty thanks to this episode’s sponsors, Philip Lee LLP and Rainbow.

Subscribe now

Quick Takeaways

• Climate change can be framed as a pH problem: too much acid in the atmosphere and ocean, not enough base to cancel it out.

• Alkalinity is abundantly available around the planet, but finding sources that don’t break the LCA (life cycle assessment) or the economics is where the real challenge lies.

• Before investing in expensive testing, the first question is whether the volume of available material justifies the effort.

• Heavy metals, transport distance, ocean efficiency, and permitting all factor into whether a source is viable—and any one of them can kill a prospect that looks perfect on paper.

• Ocean efficiency varies by site: good mixing zones and water circulation matter enormously for how much carbon a given addition actually removes.

• There are levers to pull—leeching technology, particle size adjustments—but ocean site selection is mostly a fixed variable.

• As projects scale, capital expenditure decisions like building rail spurs start to make economic sense for moving bulk alkalinity more efficiently.

• The Cornwall/St. Ives project demonstrated that OAE could be measured and that a real signal was detectable, but alkalinity sources were ultimately too far away and too expensive.

• Community engagement needs to start early and begin with listening—local knowledge about ocean areas is invaluable before you start changing chemistry.

• In carbon removal sales, the buyers who matter most want to know you as a person, not just hear your elevator pitch.

• Trust-building with buyers like Frontier requires transparency about challenges and collaborative problem-solving, not last-minute surprises.

• Omar’s background as a mental health nurse carries directly into his carbon removal work—relationship-building, listening, and repeating back what you’re hearing.

  ---

  The pH Framing

There’s a way of looking at climate change that strips away a lot of complexity and gets at something almost elemental. We have too much acid in the wrong places, and we need base to cancel it out. That’s it.

It’s a reductive framing—Omar Sadoon, Director of Strategic Partnerships at Planetary Technologies, would be the first to say so. But it’s not wrong. Weathering pathways are about alkalinity. Ocean alkalinity enhancement is about alkalinity. Even parts of direct air capture involve pH swings. A surprising amount of the carbon removal industry consists of people running around the planet trying to find, move, and deploy alkaline materials.

And this is how the earth would handle the problem on its own, given enough time. Rocks would weather. Alkalinity would react with atmospheric carbon. The pH would eventually rebalance. We’re just trying to speed that process up by a few hundred thousand years.

The Sourcing Puzzle

Alkalinity is everywhere. Calcium and magnesium compounds exist in abundant forms all over the planet. The problem is not finding alkaline material—it’s finding material that works.

“Works” means several things simultaneously. The source has to be clean enough that it won’t introduce heavy metals or contaminants into the ocean. It has to be close enough to a deployment site that the emissions from transporting it don’t eat into the carbon removal you’re trying to achieve. It has to exist in sufficient volume to justify the investment in testing and qualifying it. And the testing process itself is expensive and slow.

Omar’s approach is to start with the money. Before spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lab work and qualification, you want to know the economics could work—that there’s enough material at a reasonable enough cost to justify the investigation. Then comes the chemistry—screening for anything that would rule it out on safety grounds. Then the logistics: how far is it from the ocean, what transport infrastructure exists, and what would need to be built?

Each of these variables can independently kill a source that looks promising on every other dimension. You might find a massive, perfectly clean deposit of alkaline material that happens to be hundreds of kilometers from the coast with no rail access. Or a conveniently located industrial byproduct that turns out to contain trace metals above safe thresholds. The search for what Omar calls the “Goldilocks setup”—a giant pile of clean alkalinity sitting right next to the ocean, pre-permitted and ready to go—remains ongoing.

Nobody’s found it yet.

Ocean Efficiency and the Levers You Can Pull

Once you’ve identified a viable source, you still need to figure out where to put it. Not all ocean is created equal for alkalinity addition.

What Planetary’s ocean science team looks for are areas with strong mixing and water circulation—places where added alkalinity will disperse and react efficiently rather than sitting in a stagnant zone. Depth matters. The percentage of carbon actually removed per unit of alkalinity varies significantly by location.

This creates a tension at the heart of every project. You don’t want to ship material too far from its source, because transport costs and emissions add up. But you also don’t want to deploy it somewhere with poor ocean efficiency and lose removal potential on the backend. The project planning is a constant negotiation between these competing constraints.

There are some levers available. You can alter the material itself through leaching or particle size changes to improve its reactivity. You can gather measurements over time to reduce uncertainty in the ocean models. But you can’t move the ocean. Site selection is largely a fixed variable—you work with what the geography gives you.

As Planetary scales up, the capital expenditure decisions get more interesting. At what point does it make sense to build a rail spur to cut down on trucking? When do you invest in infrastructure that changes the fundamental economics of a project? These are the conversations happening now.

What Cornwall Taught Them

Planetary’s project in Cornwall—specifically in St. Ives—was an early and important proof point. Working with a wastewater treatment facility and funded by BEIS (the UK government’s business and industrial arm), the team demonstrated something that matters: OAE could be measured. You could detect a real signal from alkalinity addition.

The material they used was familiar to the wastewater industry, certified and safe. The science worked. The results were published through Plymouth Marine Labs.

But the project also surfaced the economic reality that haunts every alkalinity-based venture. The sources they needed were too far away and too expensive to make the project viable at that location long-term.

And then there was the community experience. Some locals were enthusiastic. Others were vocal in their opposition. Planetary took that feedback seriously and built out a dedicated community engagement function led by Diana Phillips, whose approach starts with listening. Before you talk about changing the chemistry of someone’s local ocean, you need to understand what they know about it and what they value about it.

That lesson has carried forward into every project since.

Relationships Over Transactions

The conversation took a turn that might surprise people who think of carbon removal as purely a technical and scientific endeavor.

Omar spent a significant portion of our discussion talking about relationships—with alkalinity suppliers, with buyers, with community members. The carbon removal market is small enough that reputation travels fast. And the deals that matter most, like Planetary’s work with Frontier, are built on trust developed over years of transparent communication.

Buyers know there’s uncertainty in scaling plans. They know the economics might shift. What they’re evaluating is whether you’ll bring them along honestly when things change, or whether you’ll show up at the last minute with bad news. The difference between those two approaches determines whether a contract leads to future contracts or becomes a cautionary tale.

Omar connects this directly to his seven+ years as a mental health nurse. Nurses are among the most trusted professions precisely because they invest in bedside manner—listening carefully, repeating back what they hear, making sure everyone is on the same page about what’s expected. Those skills, he says, transfer directly.

It’s a reminder that carbon removal, for all its scientific complexity, is ultimately a human enterprise. The relationships make it work. And occasionally, they make it fun—whether that means talking baseball, debating whether OAE companies can survive being turned into memes, or workshopping whether “I drop base” is an acceptable thing for an ocean alkalinity enhancement professional to say about themselves.

(It is.)

Full Transcript

Ross Kenyon: Thanks for being here, Omar.

Omar Sadoon: Thanks, Ross. Glad to be here.

Ross Kenyon: Omar, is all of carbon removal just about alkalinity. I’ve been saying this lately, it’s not always true, but it’s often true. How much of carbon removal is just the same people running around many of the same places on the planet trying to find alkalinity?

Omar Sadoon: I would say, I don’t know that carbon removal’s all about alkalinity, but I would frame it as, you know, there is a point where you can view climate change as an asset based problem. You’ve got too much acid in one location and you need to commit a lot of base to cancel it out or move it where it is. So it’s not a completely bad framing. I think some people will definitely view it that way, and I think I’m in that group.

Ross Kenyon: The pH framing. Anything that’s weathering related is alkalinity. There’s parts of direct air capture that are alkalinity swings, and also manipulate pH trying to get us to negativity. It seems like a lot of this is where’s the rock getting spread and why, and where’s it going? But it’s mostly about moving alkalinity around, at least for several of the major pathways in carbon removal.

Omar Sadoon: I think one good way to back up and think about it too is like this is the way the earth would naturally do it if we weren’t around. So that’s why I think it’s not a bad framing to use. Because absent human interventions, it would just take a long time. But yes, those rocks would weather, that alkalinity would react with what’s in the atmosphere. And eventually you cancel out a lot of that acid that we’ve put in the atmosphere. So yeah, there’s truth to that.

Ross Kenyon: You spent about five years in carbon removal. We’ve known each other for a fairly long time here. How much of your working life has been chasing down alkalinity and making sure it doesn’t break the LCA to get it to where it needs to be?

Omar Sadoon: It’s been at least the last four years of being really diligent about what are the sources of alkalinity we can use, where do they exist in an abundant enough form that it’s worthwhile to pursue them and to do all this contracting and supply chain and figuring out how to get it there efficiently. And then backtracking to make sure that we’re not having upstream effects or we’re changing the way that operations may act that could force us as a company to start having to take account for those emissions. So thinking about those upstream effects we have when we make a purchase and finding it and qualifying it, it’s been a long road. It’s been at least the last four years.

Ross Kenyon: I know people are sometimes reticent to share too much about where they source alkalinity from. I know there’s competitive and trade secret reasons for being close to the vest on that and would not wanna ask you to disclose any of that. But I am hoping we can talk about some general principles here about how to think about alkalinity, where people are looking for it. Why is this so hard to get right? I hear my friends who work in alkalinity based carbon removal gripe about it sometimes about how difficult it is to find it, move it, and make sure the chemistry is even the right fit for their application. And sometimes you’ll get one part of that that is totally perfect, and one part that will totally kill a source that you would otherwise be dreaming about as this thing that you are so looking forward to. And then it just broke everything. But please tell me, how accurate is that?

Omar Sadoon: What I’d say is that alkalinity broadly is abundantly available all around the planet. There’s all kinds of it in different forms. There’s calcium, magnesium are the two primaries that we look for and utilize in Planetary’s process. But finding sources that don’t break the LCA and the economics of the project is sort of the secret sauce. And also don’t do any damage or harm to the spaces where we utilize it. So in broad terms, the way to go about that is to determine what’s the relationship between your alkalinity source and your host site, where you plan to use it. How do you plan to move that stuff in a way? And what are the efficiencies of the different transport methods? You really gotta think about how was it produced in the first place? What was the intended use case? If you’re going after a primary source, and what kind of energy goes into producing that stuff? If similar to Planetary, you start to look at byproducts and other non-intended products, you really wanna test for anything else that could be in them. So there’s a lot of ways you need to ensure that what you’re doing is first and foremost, safe for the ocean to be utilized. And then you wanna think about the economics and scale—is this a one-time or one-stop shop where this is all that’s left? And this pile only exists for a limited time, or is this something that’s ongoing that supports the project for decades onwards?

Ross Kenyon: When you’re approaching this, sounds like an enormous calculation with so many different variables, where do you even start to make sense of does this source of alkalinity make sense for me or not?

Omar Sadoon: My approach is to look at the volume of material that we’re talking about. So before you start investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into testing these sources, you really want to ensure there’s enough there to make it worthwhile. Because that testing process is not just expensive, but it’s long. And so you probably wanna start there. Just, is this worthwhile to even start the investigation?

Ross Kenyon: Assuming that it is a sufficient quantity to make it worth your while, what’s the flow of how you invalidate a source and how do you do that as early as possible? It would be terrible to go through quite a lot of this and find out that there’s enough heavy metal in the rock that you’re just like, cool, this is actually a contaminant and is above safe or legal or ethical limits or something like that. You probably wanna know that pretty quickly, right?

Omar Sadoon: You wanna know quickly. And that’s where you need to have some sort of set of criteria for how the host site’s permitted. At the same time as you’re looking at things like what are the transport chains that exist and what’s gonna be new infrastructure that you need to build out? So if you start getting into sources that are really far away distance from the ocean, it’s not always gonna be worth it, even if you can build a relatively efficient supply chain. Just because if you can overcome the initial cost of the transport, you still have to overcome then the energy you’d spend doing it. So then you get into LCA and TEA calculations. So that’s probably the next step after you can ensure that there’s no heavy metals that would rule it out. In Planetary’s process, we’re also looking at things like ocean efficiency, so how much carbon does it actually uptake? And it is, you’re right, a really big calculation to make and it takes a lot of people on the team to ensure that we’re doing it in a way that we’re not over-investing. But at the same time, we’re not rolling things out too early that have potential. Because it’s probably one of the single biggest and most important decisions that we’ll make as a company—what’s the source? And then where do we want to go invest into putting it, and how do we ensure that that’s safe and economic.

Ross Kenyon: Tell me more about ocean efficiency. Are there certain sites where this is super powered in some places that render it impotent?

Omar Sadoon: Yeah, so there are definitely regions of the world, and this is more the expertise of the ocean science team. They basically try to determine where is it most efficient to add that alkalinity. The things you’re looking for typically are a really good mixing zone, where you’re getting a lot of circulation of water. So it’s not stagnant areas. You’re looking for a particular depth. And those areas will determine basically on a percentage basis where’s the most efficient to do that addition. So it’s this interplay between, okay, we don’t want to go too far away from our alkalinity source. Because then you’re racking up those costs of transport. But you don’t want to lose a lot of points on the backend of ocean efficiency. So it’s a conversation between the teams to make up where is the best place to do an addition. When you’re working through the LCA-TEA dynamics here and trying to figure out how do you maximize your net removals calculation to make sure that you’re not just losing removals you could otherwise sell due to emissions that are built into moving alkalinity around.

Ross Kenyon: Are there things you can do that change that equation besides selection of site and source? Are there improvements that you have to game out, like the capital expenditure of building a spur line on a railroad that brings it closer to the source? Are there things that you can do that change that, or do you kind of have to take the world as a given?

Omar Sadoon: No, there’s definitely levers you can pull on. In some cases, it’s changing aspects of the alkalinity, whether it’s through things like leaching technology or changes to particle size. You can change the material efficiency. With ocean efficiency, you’re probably more stuck with what you get. Like once you select a site, you can reduce the uncertainty over time by gathering samples and a lot of the work that the ocean sciences team does to go ensure that what we’re seeing in the model is confirmed by what we’re seeing on the ground or in the ocean. That changes the uncertainty bounds on any of our verification work. And then at the plant level, to a degree, you’re stuck with what you have. You’re not going to change the operations of a power generation plant or a wastewater treatment plant or any of the places where we look for alkalinity. To a degree we can take up some land, make changes to the site to some point. But yeah, those are probably the areas in which we try to pull levers.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. It seems like it’s mostly around, can you alter the material that’s going in the ocean more so than fixed geographical issues or high CapEx issues.

Omar Sadoon: Yeah, and those are the conversations we’re getting into now as we scale up, right? Like, where is the point to make those investments? When do we build a rail spur and when do we start to do more?

Ross Kenyon: Dang, that sounds fun. Are you working on that too?

Omar Sadoon: I’m part of a team that works on that. So there’s a lot of smart people on the team and then I add my little LCA piece in. But yeah, we definitely talk through it quite a bit.

Ross Kenyon: Are you able to speak generally about some of the projects that one might consider for doing this in alkalinity broadly?

Omar Sadoon: Yeah, so the probably the best example is just what we’re doing—the first rail spur, that’s part of what we’re evaluating for the next evolution of the Tufts Cove project. So for those folks that are interested, I think one of the best places to go to dig into some of these things is the Isometric website where all of our verified credits kind of live, or the verification steps we took and the specifics about how that project is performing. I encourage anyone to go look at those documents and get an idea of what goes into the credit generation for Tufts Cove and Planetary. When it comes to new projects or evolutions of the Tufts Cove project, it really is about scaling up our capacity to efficiently move that alkalinity and the sources we look for being more abundant and available. And so that’s where things like rail spurs come into play—how do we cut down on the number of trucks we’re moving? How do we cut down on these big ocean transport steps that we have to take today? Railways are really efficient relative to some other transport methods. And so if you can move a lot more bulk over larger distances without as many emissions or costs, it starts to make a lot of sense for the project to grow.

Ross Kenyon: Is there any place in the world that’s parallel to the Guano trade, that you could just like bring a tanker up, load some equivalent of bird shit? Is there like a cliff side you could just mine and throw a bunch of alkaline rocks into a barge and then stick it right off of Peru and then you have a nice upwelling zone and something like that could just take place? Does that exist anywhere?

Omar Sadoon: If somebody knows about it, where there’s basically a giant pile of alkalinity sitting beside the ocean and it is already pre-permitted and it’s super clean, you call me up. I’d love to know. I haven’t found that Goldilocks setup yet.

Ross Kenyon: They used to, and then they mined it all, and it was a pretty destructive process. Actually, that framing is probably not the best framing for OAE.

Omar Sadoon: The opposite direction of what we want to tell about OAE.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Pull up to either a remote island that has a bunch of beautiful pelagic species and like Galapagos or wherever, or on the coastal Peru, and you just carve up a cliff and dump it in the ocean. It also sounds politically unpopular. I said it in a very cavalier way, but yeah, that sounds rough. Your experience with community engagement leads you to believe this would be a tremendous failure and you don’t wanna work on that.

Omar Sadoon: Not just community engagement. My love for all things ocean and safety and my environmental streak in me just says, let’s not do that.

Ross Kenyon: Let’s not do that. Are you able to talk much about the Cornwall experience? The St. Ives experience?

Omar Sadoon: To the degree that I can, because I never actually spent any time personally in Cornwall. And there’s a lot of really hardworking team members that helped get that first dosing project off the ground. But broadly speaking, it demonstrated that OAE could be measured, that you could really see a signal. That project was funded by BEIS, the business industrial portion of the UK government. And we worked very closely with the wastewater treatment facility and with an alkalinity partner to ensure that what we were adding was something that’s traditionally been added to wastewater treatment. So it was nothing new. It was something very familiar and very safe and certified to be done that way. And there was some portion of the community that was very excited about that, that wanted to see that project exist. And then there was a portion as well that spoke out very loudly against what we were doing and felt it went against their values. Ultimately the reason that project didn’t go forward was because of everything we just talked about, that the alkalinity sources that we were looking for were just too far away and too expensive and didn’t make a lot of economic sense for us to move forward. So the results of that work we’re very proud of. It’s published work through Plymouth Marine Labs. But the community experience certainly was something that we took on board very seriously because at the time we needed to do a better job of community engagement and working with the community to make sure it’s something that they wanted to. That we’ve taken that forward in not just Tufts Cove, but any project we do in the future.

Ross Kenyon: Do you have any advice you could share with people for how to best manage the community experience, the engagement? Just making sure that there’s enough buy-in locally, that this is a project that they desire and maybe not merely tolerate, let alone oppose.

Omar Sadoon: My advice would be start early and do it often. We have a wonderful team now, led by Diana Phillips at Planetary who really has a structure and a framework for how you engage the community. And they’ve done a number of indigenous engagements. They’ve done a number of efforts in wherever we’ve deployed or tested, whether it’s in the US, in Canada, in Europe, that make an effort to listen. It really begins with listening because there’s so much local knowledge about that local ocean area that you wanna take on board before you start talking about how you’re going to play with the chemistry of that area. So I would really just kind of defer to Diana’s knowledge because we’ve had much better success with her on board and with her approach, which is collaborative first and foremost.

Ross Kenyon: Are you sick of people saying that OAE is antacid for the earth?

Omar Sadoon: I think it’s—I heard someone say, you guys should just name the company Hydroxydump.

Ross Kenyon: Hydroxydump. Is this like a Canadian medicine that I’m missing the connection to?

Omar Sadoon: No, it was just like a casual way of saying, oh, that’s what you’re doing. You’re adding hydroxides to the ocean. Similar to the bad guano thing. I was like, if that’s what makes sense for you.

Ross Kenyon: I thought this was maybe like a, oh yeah, everyone has milk in a bag. Everyone knows Hydroxydump. That’s what we—you know that, right?

Omar Sadoon: Fancy ketchup, chips, milk in a bag, Smarties, all those things.

Ross Kenyon: Yeah. Go out for a rip and all that. Cool.

Omar Sadoon: And I think—I’ve heard people tell me that all I do is drop base.

Ross Kenyon: Now see, that one I like. Yeah, I am very supportive of that. Do you think—a lot of the brands in carbon removal don’t have enough humor. Whenever we’re doing memes, sometimes we even think, I don’t think this company has a sense of humor. I think if we made a joke about it, they’re not gonna respond and play along with it. They might be like, what the hell do we do with this?

Omar Sadoon: I say go for it. If you wanna rip on Planetary once in a while, I’m sure we can take it. A good sense of humor in the company, whether it’s dropping the base or dropping the guano or dropping the Hydroxydump.

Ross Kenyon: Challenge accepted. What do you think is funny about your space? Is there anything that you think is a recurring issue or something that if was referenced, your peers and different OAE companies would recognize?

Omar Sadoon: I think the peers would probably say like the confusion between the biological and chemical pathways. There’s like, oh, we don’t know what’s gonna happen if you add stuff to the ocean. And a lot of things get mixed up in reports. It’s just a gripe that I hear pretty often. Confusing the biological pathways that you’re growing seaweed and the risks around that with the chemical pathways like Planetary where we’re changing the pH and canceling out carbonic acid in the ocean. Different set of risks than what you’d see in those seaweed growing pathways. So a lot of stuff tends to clump us together, and that’s where I hear our ocean sciences team start to get frustrated because they’re different approaches.

Ross Kenyon: The first meme I thought of for this would be the one of Pam from the office where corporate needs you to find the difference between these two pictures. And it’s the same picture. So I would just do like one that’s biology and the other one’s ocean chemistry and be like, how to drive an OAE professional insane.

Omar Sadoon: Yeah, I think they would get that. But what are other funny things about our space? I have to think about that one.

Ross Kenyon: What do you think is funny about your space?

Omar Sadoon: Tell you one that did make us laugh was this experience we had at a buyer event. Someone on our team basically was talking to one of these big buyers, and then as soon as the word “models” came up, it was the same effect of being friendzoned. Like, oh, you guys use models. Okay.

Ross Kenyon: I thought for ocean stuff, models are fairly supported. I followed the discussions around bicarb work and the desire for direct measurement rather than modeling in ocean spaces, and it ruffled a lot of feathers. And I saw people pushing back and saying that ocean models are basically the way to go. I come from soil. We’ve all been traumatized by models to some extent, and so everyone was pushing towards direct measurement, even though it’s expensive. But it was funny to see that kind of inverted for oceans. Where are the fault lines for that right now?

Omar Sadoon: What I can say is there’s multiple levels of this. The models really just contain to some degree of uncertainty. You’re essentially just correcting for that broadly understood uncertainty, whether it’s an IPCC model you’re borrowing from, or some publicly available, generally accepted ocean model for that region. What you’re doing is you’re saying we’re still gonna go take direct measurements. That’s very much part of our process. It’s part of our regulatory steps to ensure that we’re not breaking TSS or pH limits. We’re not doing anything that would harm the ocean in any other way. And part of taking those measurements means that you’re gathering data that can reduce the uncertainty in that publicly available model. And you’re saying, are these two things in agreement? And that’s where a lot of the work lies in getting people to trust that the models are always gonna be wrong. But it doesn’t mean that they’re not useful. There’s always gonna be some degree of uncertainty, but it doesn’t mean we can’t use them to make a strong determination with a tremendous amount of certainty that that is carbon that’s been removed.

Ross Kenyon: How important is relationship management in this process? I’ve been told diligence for those big deals takes between a year and two in many cases.

Omar Sadoon: What my take on it is—I wasn’t leading on the initial Frontier deal, I was part of the due diligence process. So I got to know Frontier and others on the team a little bit better as we were working through it. And what I recognize is it’s about trust. Any buyer’s gonna recognize that there’s only so much we can know in 2025 or 2026 when we were starting to write the deal about what the economics of these things was a hundred percent gonna look like. There’s a degree of certainty that you can have and then there’s the unknown of that scaling plan. How much is it gonna cost to upgrade the system? How much is it gonna cost to switch to a new material? What’s the efficiency of all these things gonna be? And so they know that there’s some risk involved. What you’re doing in those quarterly or regular conversations is taking them on the journey with you and ensuring that you are being as transparent as you can be. If you’re doing things that start to erode trust, and you’re coming to them in the last minute when things have changed, that’s not going to set you up for future years in that contract. It’s not going to set you up for maybe another contract that you wanna do. And it’s a small industry and people are gonna talk to each other. But if you approach it with, hey, this is a team effort to collaboratively problem solve, and we may need things from Frontier—advice, contacts—then I think we can get somewhere. There’s this old adage, I think it’s an African proverb: if you want to go fast, go alone. If you wanna go far, go together. And we really are trying to build this industry together, whether it’s what you do with Reversing Climate Change, or what we do as a supplier at Planetary, or what Frontier’s trying to do as a market maker. We have to work collaboratively and just say, put my hand up when I think something isn’t going right. And say, I don’t know exactly how to do this, but I would love your advice on it.

Ross Kenyon: How much continuity do you perceive between your current career and your former career as a nurse?

Omar Sadoon: I was a nurse for roughly seven or eight years. I technically still hold a license as a registered nurse, and the biggest thing that I take away from that that kind of spans both is that relationship building and humanity piece of it. I was a mental health nurse, and I worked in a few different hospitals in that capacity. And I was a unit manager for a while, so I managed a team as well where I had to learn how to work collaboratively across different disciplines. Nurses are one of the most trusted professions and that’s because they invest heavily in that bedside manner. And that aspect of it is something that carries over—how can I be a better listener and talk less in these situations? How can I repeat back what I’m hearing so that we’re both on the same page about what’s expected here? Those are just lessons that I find incredibly useful in my day-to-day work. And yeah, it’s led me this far and let’s see how much further I can go.

Ross Kenyon: Thanks for being on the show, Omar. I’m so happy we were able to help you cross over from being a listener to now a documented participant for your first podcast ever, actually.

Omar Sadoon: Yes. Thank you so much. I’ve been nervous about doing a podcast at all, but I’m glad I had a good friend to do it with.

Share

Subscribe now

This is a summary of episode 389 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you enjoy your shows. You can also listen to/watch the full episode right below this paragraph.

Subscribe now

Quick Takeaways

• Many early soil carbon entrepreneurs faced a fork in the road: double down on agriculture or abandon it.

• Soil carbon markets have promise but depend on slow verification cycles and uncertain demand.

• Agricultural systems deliver many benefits beyond carbon sequestration.

• Programs that enroll farmers can take years before credits actually appear.

• Some recent success in soil carbon reflects projects started years ago.

• Policy uncertainty has shaped many soil carbon business models.

• Emma Fuller decided to step outside the carbon credit paradigm entirely.

• Her company, Fractal Agriculture, invests directly into farmland equity.

• The goal is to improve soil and ecological outcomes through ownership and incentives.

• Farmers avoid the complexity of MRV systems and carbon registries.

• Investors gain exposure to farmland rather than relying on credit markets.

• Sometimes the simplest solution is to intervene further upstream in the system.

The Fork in the Road After Soil Carbon

For people who worked in the early wave of soil carbon commercialization, the experience produced a kind of fork in the road.

Some people went deeper into agriculture. Others ran the opposite direction.

Emma Fuller chose the first path.

Part of that choice was practical. She had already spent years working in agriculture before soil carbon markets emerged, and she knew that the promise of carbon was only one piece of a much larger system.

Farms influence biodiversity, habitat, water quality, and soil health. Carbon sequestration is real, but it sits inside a broader ecological and economic landscape.

That perspective made it easier to keep working in agriculture even as the carbon market itself proved complicated.

The Slow Reality of Soil Carbon Markets

From the outside, the soil carbon industry can look volatile.

At times it seems to surge forward with new credits and projects. At other moments it appears stalled by policy uncertainty or limited demand from buyers.

But part of that volatility is simply a reflection of how agriculture works.

Programs that enroll farmers take years to unfold. Farmers adopt new practices. Soil carbon accumulates slowly. Verification frameworks take time to measure the results.

Many of the credits appearing on the market today were set in motion three to five years ago.

That lag makes it difficult to interpret what’s happening in real time. A burst of activity may simply reflect work that was done years earlier.

And it also means that building businesses around those markets requires patience—and often a degree of faith about where policy and demand might eventually land.

The Problem With Betting on Policy

For Emma, one of the hardest parts of the soil carbon business model was how much it relied on things outside a company’s control.

Many projects implicitly depended on policy shifts that would expand demand for carbon credits or make them easier to use. But policy can move slowly, and sometimes in the opposite direction.

That uncertainty made it difficult to build a business that could reliably support farmers over the long term.

So Emma asked a different question.

What if the goal wasn’t to make soil carbon markets work better?

What if the goal was simply to create agricultural systems that delivered the same environmental benefits without needing those markets at all?

Moving One Layer Upstream

That question led to a different design.

Instead of measuring soil carbon and selling credits, Emma and her cofounder built Fractal Agriculture, a platform that invests equity directly into farmland.

The idea is straightforward: align incentives between investors and farmers to improve land management over time.

When soil health improves, farms become more productive and resilient. Environmental benefits—including carbon sequestration—follow from those practices.

But the system no longer depends on carbon accounting to generate revenue.

Farmers don’t need to navigate registries or MRV frameworks. Investors aren’t betting on the future price of carbon credits.

The intervention happens one level higher in the system: ownership and incentives.

A Different Way to Think About Climate Solutions

The broader lesson from Emma’s work is not that carbon markets are useless.

For some sectors they may be essential.

But it’s easy for climate entrepreneurs to assume that every environmental benefit must be routed through the same market infrastructure: measurement, credits, buyers, and registries.

Sometimes the better move is to zoom out and ask a simpler question.

Where is the leverage point in the system?

In this case, the answer wasn’t another marketplace or verification method.

It was farmland itself.

By stepping further upstream, Emma’s approach aims to achieve many of the same environmental outcomes while removing several layers of complexity along the way.

And that kind of first-principles thinking may be exactly what the climate space needs more of.

Share

Subscribe now

This is a summary of episode #388 of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you enjoy your shows. You can also watch the full episode right below this text.

🔹 Quick Takeaways

• A technically sound CDR project is not automatically investable.

• Project development and financial structuring are different crafts from technology development.

• “Offtakeable” is a design constraint, not a marketing afterthought.

• Insurability shapes engineering choices.

• Bankability requires predictability, not brilliance.

• Carbon developers often optimize for removal, not risk allocation.

• Standardized contracts matter as much as standardized MRV.

• Investors fund structures, not aspirations.

• The first wave of CDR projects blurred roles.

• The next wave will separate them deliberately.

• Finance disciplines technology.

• Scale requires translation between engineers and capital.

📝 The Category Error Holding Carbon Removal Back

In early-stage carbon removal, everyone did everything.

Scientists built technology. The same teams tried to design credits. The same people pitched buyers. The same people structured contracts. It was scrappy, heroic, necessary.

But scrappy doesn’t scale.

The central insight of this conversation is simple but profound: developing a carbon removal technology is not the same thing as developing an investable asset.

Those are two different products.

One removes carbon.

The other allocates risk.

And capital often cares much more about the second.

🏗️ Offtakeable Is a Design Constraint

When developers ask, “How do we build this?” they are usually thinking technically.

But the better question might be:

“How do we build this so someone will sign a long-term offtake agreement against it?”

That changes everything.

Offtakeable means predictable delivery.

• Predictable MRV.

• Clear durability profile.

• Defined liability if something goes wrong.

• Insurance that actually pays out.

• Contracts that don’t collapse under scrutiny.

You can have beautiful engineering and still fail this test.

An investable project is engineered backwards from the requirements of buyers, insurers, and lenders.

💼 Insurability Is Engineering

One of the most overlooked forces in climate infrastructure is insurance.

If a project cannot be insured, lenders hesitate. If liability is unclear, offtakers hesitate. If permanence risk is undefined, everyone hesitates.

That means engineering decisions are no longer just about yield or efficiency. They are about risk transfer.

Can reversal risk be bounded?

Can monitoring be standardized?

Can delivery timelines be forecast with boring reliability?

Finance rewards boring.

This is hard for founders who are optimizing for elegance or maximum carbon efficiency. But markets scale through repeatability, not novelty.

🔄 Separating the Disciplines

The episode surfaces something maturing industries eventually learn:

Technology development and project development must separate.

In renewables, developers build pipelines and structure tax equity long before electrons flow. In infrastructure, SPVs exist precisely to isolate risk. In oil and gas, exploration and project finance are distinct crafts.

Carbon removal is just beginning that separation.

You need technologists.

You need developers who understand permitting and logistics.

You need finance professionals who understand waterfalls and risk allocation.

You need counterparties who can translate across all three.

Without that separation, every project remains bespoke.

And bespoke does not attract institutional capital.

🧭 Designing for Capital From Day One

This is not about surrendering to finance.

It is about acknowledging that if the goal is gigaton scale, projects must be:

• Offtakeable

• Investable

• Insurable

• Standardizable

Those qualities do not emerge accidentally. They must be designed into the project from the beginning.

The first generation of carbon removal proved that tonnes could be removed.

The next generation must prove that tons can be structured.

Because the difference between a promising project and a scalable industry is not just technology.

It is whether the deal closes.

Share

Subscribe now

“What does the beautiful thing tell you? Well, it tells you the person who made it really cared.

— Patrick Collison, Stripe

Can a registry be a genuinely pleasant experience?

At Carbon Unbound in Vancouver a few weeks ago, I was catching up with Ludo Chatoux, Rainbow’s CEO, when Aidan Preston from Milkywire walked by. I asked him what he thought of Rainbow’s registry.

“It’s delightful,” he said. “Genuinely a pleasant experience.”

This struck me. We’re talking about a platform for entering technical data about carbon removal projects and then issuing carbon credits. Quantifications. Lifecycle assessments. Proof documents. It’s fundamentally a glorified spreadsheet, dressed up with some workflows and review processes.

Why should it be delightful? Why should anyone care if it’s beautiful?

The answer, I think, gets at something essential about how carbon markets should work.

Details show that you care

There’s a famous story about Van Halen’s concert contract rider from the 1980s. Buried in the technical specifications—the stage weight requirements, the electrical loads, the safety protocols—was a clause requiring a bowl of M&Ms backstage with all the brown ones removed.

It seemed like a rockstar throwing their weight around. MTV made fun of it. But David Lee Roth later explained in his autobiography:

“Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary, third-level markets. We’d pull up with nine 18-wheeler trucks, full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were many, many technical errors—whether it was the girders couldn’t support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the doors weren’t big enough to move the gear through.

… So just as a little test, in the technical aspect of the rider, it would say, “Article 148: There will be 15 amperage voltage sockets at 20-foot spaces, evenly, providing 19 amperes … ” This kind of thing. And article number 126, in the middle of nowhere, was, “There will be no brown M&M’s in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation.”

So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl … well, line-check the entire production. Guaranteed you’re going to arrive at a technical error. They didn’t read the contract. Guaranteed you’d run into a problem. Sometimes it would threaten to just destroy the whole show. Something like, literally, life-threatening.”

The brown M&Ms were a signal. A superficial detail that revealed deeper care, or lack of it.

Beautiful tools work the same way.

When Rainbow rebranded from Riverse and rolled out a new visual identity, they made choices that seemed small or superficial but actually reflected a commitment to craft. They picked a vibrant purple instead of grayscale. They shipped a website with full bleed background colors—blue, orange, purple— rather than the typical white or black.

These same decisions carried over to how they built Arc. They added color to forms and interfaces when many certification platforms look like tax software from 2003.

These choices signal something: the team cares enough to make this beautiful. And if they care about the interface, they probably care about the methodology rigor. The data validation. The audit process. The scientific integrity.

As Collison put it in the same podcast quoted above: “If you care about the infrastructure being holistically good, indexing on the superficial characteristics that you can actually observe is not an irrational thing to do.”

What beauty looks like in practice

Kimberly Joly leads Product at Rainbow. She joined in April 2025, coming from a SaaS background into carbon markets. One of the first things she noticed was how depressing most certification platforms were.

“The feedback we get from a lot of project developers is that other certification platforms are very black and white or grayscale,” she told me. “It’s a bit depressing. Even when platforms use color, it’s often so pale it barely registers.”

Rainbow went the opposite direction. Not just with their brand—the name itself, the logo, the website—but with Arc, the actual tool project developers use daily.

“We’re trying to incorporate color a lot more,” Kim said. “We have a bunch of secondary colors, though I don’t know if they can still be called secondary given how many we actually have. But we’re trying to integrate them so Arc isn’t just grayscale and purple.”

Arc looks alive.

One project developer told Rainbow’s team she’d worked with one of the larger, more established registries and would never do it again because “their interface was so bad.” She specifically called out how Arc balanced simplicity with the rigor required by certification standards. The interface was simple enough to not be overwhelming, but asked all the right questions and enabled her to gather all the information she needed.

This isn’t just aesthetic preference. It’s about making hard work less miserable. As anyone knows about working in carbon removal, this step of the process isn’t the glamorous part, e.g. hollering at Aidan Preston while wearing sports jackets.

Functionality is non-negotiable, but it’s not everything

Here’s something we forget: project developers are people. They have preferences. They notice when software is pleasant to use. They appreciate when someone thinks about their experience.

“I think everyone wants a beautiful experience as long as things still work in the background,” Kim said. “That is non-negotiable. We couldn’t even be having this conversation if Arc wasn’t delivering value to project developers. But it is, and we’re very rigorous in terms of how we build it. So we have the luxury of being able to add this additional aesthetic layer on top of it.”

She’s right that functionality is non-negotiable. But calling beauty a “luxury” undersells it. In a market where project developers have choices—where they can register with different standards, work with different registries, choose different partners—the experience matters.

If you had the choice between a very bland tool and a tool that worked the same but with a nicer visual layer on it, which would you pick?

“I would always pick the one with a nicer visual on it,” Kim said.

Of course you would. We all would.

And yet most certification platforms are built as if the users don’t have preferences. As if they’re just data entry machines who don’t care about their environment. As if making something beautiful would be a waste of time.

Beautiful tools are trust signals

Here’s the bottom line for project developers considering where to register their projects:

The tool you’ll spend hundreds of hours with matters. The interface where you’ll enter your quantifications, upload your documents, answer methodology questions, coordinate with auditors—that environment affects your work.

Beautiful tools aren’t just nice to have. They’re easier to use. They cause less friction. They make tedious work slightly less tedious. They signal that the organization building them cares about details and user experience.

And in carbon markets, where you’re choosing a partner for a long-term relationship, where trust and competence matter enormously, these signals are rational things to pay attention to.

Arc has document libraries with clear visibility indicators. Quantification tools that generate both technical spreadsheets for auditors and beautiful PDFs for investors. Color-coded interfaces that make navigation intuitive. Simplified forms that don’t require dozens of clicks to access.

But more than any specific feature, it has something else: it shows that Rainbow cares.

They cared enough to make it beautiful. They cared enough to think about your experience. They cared enough to build something delightful instead of just functional.

As Collison says: “What does the beautiful thing tell you? It tells you the person who made it really cared.”

In carbon markets, where so much depends on trust, that signal matters more than you might think.

The world is not meant to be only utilitarian

I’ll end with this: the world is ugly enough already. Climate change is depressing enough. The work of building carbon removal infrastructure is hard enough.

If we can make the tools we use every day beautiful—if we can inject some joy and whimsy into technical work—why wouldn’t we?

Beauty isn’t frivolous. It’s not a luxury add-on for companies that have extra resources to burn. It’s a fundamental way of showing respect for the humans using your tools. It’s a way of making hard work slightly more bearable. It’s a way of signaling care and competence.

Rainbow understood this. They built Arc to be not just functional but delightful. Not just rigorous but joyful.

And project developers notice.

If you’re choosing where to register your carbon removal project, pay attention to the tools you’ll be using. Ask to see them. Use them. Notice how they make you feel.

Because the beautiful thing isn’t just telling you that someone cared about the interface. It’s telling you they probably care about everything else too.

And in carbon markets, that might be the most important signal of all.

“The world will be saved by beauty.”

— Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Subscribe now

Share

This is a summary of a bonus episode of the Reversing Climate Change podcast. You can listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or right below this paragraph where the full episode is embedded as a video.

🔹 Quick Takeaways

• Whitman’s grass is not a symbol with one meaning. It is a cascade of meanings.

• The poem resists certainty and embraces interpretive plurality.

• Grass becomes a political statement: it grows among all races and classes alike.

• Grass becomes theological: perhaps a “handkerchief of the Lord.”

• Grass becomes mortal: the “beautiful uncut hair of graves.”

• Death is presented not as annihilation, but as transformation.

• Equality in death unsettles hierarchies of wealth and status.

• The poem moves from metaphor to metaphysics—from hint to declaration, and is this good for poetry or does it violate “show, don’t tell”?

• Whitman shows that we do not have to love every line equally to be moved.

• Circularity—decay into growth—undergirds both ecology and hope.

• The smallest sprout becomes an argument against despair.

• Beauty itself can interrupt the seriousness of modern life.

Subscribe now

Song of Myself, 6 (the poem itself)

by Walt Whitman, from Leaves of Grass

A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;
How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more than he.
I guess it must be the flag of my disposition, out of hopeful green stuff woven.

Or I guess it is the handkerchief of the Lord,
A scented gift and remembrancer designedly dropt,
Bearing the owner’s name someway in the corners, that we may see and remark, and say Whose?

Or I guess the grass is itself a child, the produced babe of the vegetation.

Or I guess it is a uniform hieroglyphic,
And it means, Sprouting alike in broad zones and narrow zones,
Growing among black folks as among white,
Kanuck, Tuckahoe, Congressman, Cuff, I give them the same, I receive them the same.

And now it seems to me the beautiful uncut hair of graves.

Tenderly will I use you curling grass,
It may be you transpire from the breasts of young men,
It may be you are from old people, or from offspring taken,
It may be if I had known them I would have loved them, soon out of their mothers’ laps,
And here you are the mothers’ laps.

This grass is very dark to be from the white heads of old mothers,
Darker than the colorless beards of old men,
Dark to come from under the faint red roofs of mouths.

O I perceive after all so many uttering tongues,
And I perceive they do not come from the roofs of mouths for nothing.

I wish I could translate the hints about the dead young men and women,
And the hints about old men and mothers, and the offspring taken soon out of their laps.
What do you think has become of the young and old men?
And what do you think has become of the women and children?

They are alive and well somewhere,
The smallest sprout shows there is really no death,
And if ever there was it led forward life, and does not wait at the end to arrest it,
And ceas’d the moment life appear’d.

All goes onward and outward, nothing collapses,
And to die is different from what any one supposed, and luckier.

📝 The Grass That Undoes Us

In this episode, the work pauses. No markets, no carbon accounting, no civilizational diagnosis. Just a poem.

The sixth section of Walt Whitman’s Song of Myself begins with a child asking a simple question: What is the grass? The brilliance of Whitman’s response is that he (mostly) refuses to answer it definitively. Instead, he offers a cascade of possibilities. Perhaps it is “the flag of my disposition.” Perhaps it is a divine handkerchief, deliberately dropped as a coy clue. Perhaps it is a political hieroglyph that needs deciphering, sprouting alike among every race and class. Perhaps it is merely a child of vegetation itself.

Whitman does not collapse these meanings into one. He lets them coexist.

That openness is part of the lesson. The grass does not demand a single interpretation any more than life does.

🌱 The Beautiful Uncut Hair of Graves

Then the metaphor deepens.

Grass becomes “the beautiful uncut hair of graves.”

It is hard to overstate the force of that image. The dead are not erased; they are transformed. The white hair of old mothers, the colorless beards of old men, the faint red roofs of mouths—all become dark green vitality pushing upward. Death feeds life. The grave grows hair. How can it be both grass and hair?!

Whitman lingers here not in morbidity but in wonder. He wishes he could “translate the hints” about the dead young men and women. The grass seems to whisper that they are not gone in the way we fear. The smallest sprout becomes evidence that nothing truly is obliterated. All goes onward and outward.

Whether or not one shares Whitman’s metaphysical confidence, the emotional gesture is powerful: death is not a wall but a passage.

⚖️ Equality, Mortality, and Perspective

There is also something radically egalitarian in this vision.

The grass grows alike among Black and white, rich and poor. It sprouts over children taken too soon and elders who lived long lives. It covers the graves of congressmen and laborers without distinction.

Death is the great equalizer.

And that realization has consequences. If mortality is universal, then what do we do with our time? Do we cling more tightly to status and accumulation? Or does the knowledge of finitude soften us toward ourselves and toward others?

Whitman does not preach this conclusion, but he gestures toward it. The poem oscillates between playful metaphor and profound metaphysics, but beneath it lies a quiet invitation: remember that you will die, and let that remembrance humanize you.

🌿 Why Poetry Belongs Here

In a world saturated with crisis and optimization, there is something quietly radical about stopping to read a poem aloud.

Whitman reminds us that meaning does not always arrive in arguments. Sometimes it arrives in a phrase—six words that rearrange your interior world. “The beautiful uncut hair of graves” can do work that policy cannot.

“The smallest sprout shows there is really no death,” he writes.

Whether we take that as literal truth or luminous metaphor, the effect is the same: the world is more continuous, more interconnected, and more alive than our fear allows.

Sometimes, amid all the seriousness, we need to look at the grass.

And wonder.

Share