Impact of Carbon Removal Technologies

I am now in my 10th year working to scale carbon removal, and the math isn't adding up: We need BILLIONS of tonnes removed annually, but our industry is built to produce only thousands. We're optimizing for the wrong priorities, and it's preventing us from achieving the scale we need. Our carbon removal system has evolved to prioritize: • Corporate accounting precision over atmospheric impact • 1000+ year permanence over immediate large-scale action • Perfect MRV over pragmatic scaling solutions This isn't about casting blame – we built this system together with good intentions. But there's a fundamental misalignment between our atmospheric needs and what we're delivering. Scaling to gigatonne levels requires a fundamental reset. We need to separate emissions reduction from historical carbon removal and design systems specifically for scale. When facing climate tipping points, I'd prioritize removing 100 million tonnes for 10 years over 10 million tonnes for 100 years – but our current market isn't built that way. I've co-authored a piece with Nick van Osdol in Keep Cool exploring how we might reset our approach. If you work in carbon removal, climate policy, or corporate sustainability, I'd value your perspective on better aligning our market structures with atmospheric needs. Read the full analysis: https://lnkd.in/gkheCq5t

Two ways to make SBTi's proposed carbon removal growth targets more impactful for the climate - 1. Include Scope 3 The bulk of emissions for most companies with SBTi targets are in Scope 3. Scope 3 emissions are not subject to the interim removal targets as currently drafted. 2. Start higher than 5% and ramp up more aggressively Under the current draft, companies have to remove 5% of their projected Scope 1 residual emissions each year, 2030-2034. That ramps up to 16% for the next 5 years, etc. The 2nd chart below shows how the interim removal targets increase over time under the current proposal. The 5% target will result in approx. 2 million tons removal/year in 2030, according to an estimate from Lukas May at Isometric. That's likely not enough to align with an IPCC 1.5°C pathway by 2050. There are lots of tech ramp-up pathways, so calculating exactly how much carbon removal we need by 2030 to hit a 2050 goal is complex, but here are a few estimates: - According to analysis from CDR.fyi, we'll need to be removing tens of millions of CO2 tons/year by 2030 to hit an IPCC 1.5°C pathway. - Analysis from the 2024 The State of CDR report suggests the gap from CDR levels today to what we need by 2030 is on the gigatonne scale (see image below). Either way, the current ~2million/year target isn't enough. Setting a more aggressive removal schedule (and/or getting more companies involved!) will help close the gap. The image below from Carbon Direct shows the big gap between where carbon removal is expected to be in 2030, and where it needs to be to align with a 1.5°C pathway, according to one analysis. The thin dark green line represents projected increased carbon removal demand from SBTi removal targets and other sources. We need that thin green line to get a lot bigger. --- 🔗 Citations to all of the above in comments below

One of the most exciting ideas in carbon removal right now is the integration of removal mechanisms into existing industrial processes. Mining is a great example. There are billions and billions of tons of mining waste globally. Some of it — like the magnesium-rich waste at BHP's Mount Keith mine in Australia — will capture CO2 if exposed to the air. For the past 18 months, BHP's partner Arca has been using a rover to churn the surface of the waste heaps to trigger more capture. The results from pilot are promising, the company told me. If the economics of this and other mechanisms work out, this could be a no-brainer for the industry. The waste is a liability that companies can now monetize via carbon credits. The companies I spoke with said that tax credits or other government incentives are not required to make it work. In some cases that's because the removal process also produces valuable products — sulfuric acid, in the case of the startup Travertine, which has been backed by Stripe and others via the Frontier coalition. Mining is not the only industry with this kind of win-win potential. Cara Maesano authored a useful report for RMI exploring options to integrate removal into wastewater treatment and other areas. My Trellis Group article on CDR and mining: https://lnkd.in/gviJVTmG "Seizing the Industrial Carbon Removal Opportunity," by Cara, Eli Mitchell-Larson and others: https://lnkd.in/gr8PuUCH