The CDR Policy Scoop

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart sit down with Dr. Peter Liese, the German MEP steering Parliament's response to the Commission's July 2026 proposal to revise the EU ETS, and the show's first sitting MEP guest. Liese kept the pen on the file just days earlier, when the ENVI committee rejected a bid to remove him as rapporteur, and this conversation lands in the window before his own draft report becomes public on 11 September, two days after this episode releases.Liese argues Parliament should go further than the Commission's text on almost every count. He wants no ceiling on how many removals the scheme can buy, reasoning that if costs keep falling the way they did for solar, an artificial cap makes little sense, and he wants biochar added alongside the currently eligible DACCS and BECCS, likely capped near a fifth of the volume so most support still flows to the two technologies already in the text.On the price gap flagged by third party estimates, including one suggesting scaling removals could cost tens of billions of euros more than the Commission expects, Liese's answer is to add more allowances rather than let the target slip, and he is candid that a falling carbon price driven by cheap removals would be something to celebrate, not fear. He previews sharper numbers for the linear reduction factor than the Commission proposed, and sets out why he backs an indirect route for international credits while pushing for more predictability than the current review clause offers.He closes on the bigger picture: once the policy scaffolding is in place, he wants the market and the engineers to do the rest, confident that carbon removals can follow the same cost curve that made solar the cheapest form of electricity. With his own report due within days, this is the clearest picture yet of where Parliament's negotiating position is headed. LINKSEve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsitePeter Liese: European Parliament profile and Website EU ETS revision proposal, European Commission, July 2026 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Grant Faber, Head of Standards at Absolute Climate, joins Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart. Grant previously served as Director Capture Hubs program manager at the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, and the conversation picks up on the widely circulated article he published mapping out exactly where the US DAC Hubs program stands today.Grant walks through why disbursement has stalled at roughly two and a half percent of the original three and a half billion dollars in funding. Much of the delay traces back to the lengthy contract negotiation process that follows every award announcement: milestones, budgets, environmental compliance, and cybersecurity plans all have to be finalized before a dollar moves, a process that consumed nearly his entire tenure at DOE before the change in administration froze everything.The conversation turns candid on the terminations that followed. Grant explains why the cancellations fell disproportionately along party lines, and reveals that DOE itself admitted in court that projects were chosen for termination on a purely political basis. He also recounts his own experience of being caught up in the so called Valentine's Day massacre, locked out of his systems weeks after the inauguration.Grant closes by breaking down what remains: a billion dollars reprogrammed to nuclear funding and one point three billion still sitting unobligated, and offers his sharpest advice for policymakers elsewhere, move quickly, build coalitions across the political spectrum, and design funding to land in every state, not just the ones that already agree with you.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteGrant Faber: LinkedInAbsolute Climate The Status of DOE's $3.5 Billion Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs ProgramDOE Alumni NetworkGrant's directory, A list of every direct air capture company in the world Grant's directory, A list of every carbon dioxide removal company in the world: USA Spending, the federal spending database referenced for DAC Hubs obligation and outlay data: Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart dig into the cost assumptions behind the European Commission's EU Emissions Trading System review proposal, a month after the impact assessment first set out what BioCCS, DACCS, and biochar carbon removal are actually expected to cost between now and 2040. Sebastian has spent the past weeks tracing where those numbers come from, and brings in Hansjorg Lerchenmuller, Chairman of Biochar Europe, and Eadbhard Pernot, Executive Director of Carbon Management Europe, to stress test the modelling against real project economics.The picture that emerges is one of a forecast built on remarkably thin foundations. All the Commission's numbers trace back to just four sources, and because the medium scenario is simply an average of a low and a high estimate, a single shaky assumption can drag the whole range off course. For BioCCS, that means a low cost calibrated against an unverifiable 2022 conference remark and a transport and storage figure of just 38 euros a ton that barely holds up against real infrastructure costs. DACCS fares little better, with the entire range resting on a single McKinsey report whose underlying assumptions were never published.Biochar gets the most detailed correction. Hansjorg lays out where the European industry actually stands, more than 235 plants and a real scalable price closer to 175 to 200 euros a ton, well above what the Commission's own modelling implies. The conversation closes on a shared plea: better data, more transparency about assumptions, and more developers willing to submit real transaction numbers before the next round of forecasts gets built.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteHansjorg Lerchenmuller: LinkedInEadbhard Pernot: LinkedIn and Carbon Management Europe Sebastian Manharts’ Why the BioCCS costs in the ETS proposal simply don't add up McKinsey’s Carbon removals: How to scale a new gigaton industryEuropean Biochar Market Report, 5th editionCDR.fyi Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart sit down with Lisa DeMarco to unpack the legal machinery behind Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. A letter of authorization is an enforceable contract by which a host government permits a project to export a piece of its own climate progress. Lisa explains that it only counts as genuine under Article 6 if it conforms exactly to the minimum requirements set out in Article 6.2 or 6.4. She warns that letters of approval, acknowledgement, or no objection are routinely confused in the market, and points listeners to the model LOA forms she helped develop with the World Bank.The conversation turns to the KOKO cookstove project in Kenya, where two government entities each argued they lacked the authority to issue the LOA, leaving no party accountable when the project collapsed. Lisa breaks down the three part diligence host governments should complete before signing an LOA: confirming which branch of the state actually holds authority, checking the export will not take the country off track from its NDC, and reviewing domestic constitutional questions around trading natural resources.Lisa and the hosts also dig into revocation, distinguishing between a government's right to revoke a bad actor's authorization and the far more consequential question of retroactively cancelling units that have already changed hands, something she compares to printing a dollar bill and tearing it up. On corresponding adjustments, she lays out exactly when they are legally required by law and when not. However, even when projects don’t require corresponding adjustment, arranging a letter of acknowledgement from the government is crucial.They close by sizing up the market: roughly thirty five Article 6 projects have been authorized since the start of 2025, worth about one hundred million credits combined, against a European Union that alone could need hundreds of millions of credits by 2040.LINKSEve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteLisa DeMarco: LinkedIn and Resilient LLPWorld Bank: Letter of Authorization and Acknowledgement (incl templates)IETA Article 6 Project DirectoryParis Agreement Article 6 Implementation Partnership Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Mel Murphy, an independent geochemistry consultant, and Dirk Paessler, founder and CEO of Carbon Drawdown Initiative and Vice President of the Negative Emissions Platform, for a very special episode on how anyone actually knows enhanced rock weathering is working.Mel explains the two dominant measurement approaches, solid phase and aqueous pore water, and why they often tell different stories about the same field. Dirk brings the view from Carbon Drawdown Initiative's own experiments: a field trial with no measurable signal, buried buckets that still show nothing after 1400 days, and a greenhouse programme now running hundreds of soil and rock combinations. The pattern that keeps surfacing is that results depend on the specific rock, soil, and method used.That uncertainty has not stopped the market. Over 20,000 credits have been certified across Brazil, the US, and India, even as Vera has declined to build a methodology, citing immature science. Mel unpacks Carbon Plan's critique of credits from the US company Lithos, where an implied dissolution rate came out roughly ten times higher than a new peer reviewed estimate, and how registries like Isometric are adjusting requirements accordingly.The conversation closes on cost. Measurement now eats up 56 percent of enhanced rock weathering's budget, the highest share of any removal method. Dirk and Mel discuss whether machine learning trained on greenhouse data and satellite based field mapping can bring that down, and why neither will commit to a timeline for readiness under something like the EU ETS.Show notes:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteMel Murphy: LinkedInDirk Paessler: LinkedIn and Carbon Drawdown InitiativeQuestions about Lithos’ first ERW credit issuanceAn Ecosystem of Carbon Dioxide Removal Reviews – Part 3: Enhanced WeatheringMRV Proxies for EW? A Guided Tour Through Our Data From Our Two-Year Greenhouse ExperimentPortfolio Spotlight: AEROC — Giving Enhanced Rock Weathering Its EyesWhere does the CO₂-removal potential of enhanced weathering actually go? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart sit down with Dr. Injy Johnstone, Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Net Zero Lab, to unpack her new report, What Are Residual Emissions, which tries to bring clarity to one of climate policy's most used and least defined terms.Johnstone explains why, more than a decade after the term entered use, there is still no shared definition. The IPCC modeling community that coined it works from different inputs than a corporate net zero team, and the timeline question, today's technology versus a 2050 horizon, changes the answer. She also draws a distinction the sector often blurs: hard to abate describes a technological limit, while residual emissions is a broader, more normative category shaped by choices about demand reduction and regulation.The conversation turns practical as Johnstone breaks residual emissions into near, medium and long term buckets that corporates and governments can plan against. Sebastian presses on the middle bucket, where overly optimistic assumptions about future technology can quietly reduce carbon removal investment today. Johnstone and Eve also test the new SBTi and ISO standards released since the report's publication.They close on equity: who decides an industry keeps its social license to keep emitting, and who absorbs the trade offs within a finite carbon budget. Johnstone argues these normative choices are already being made, whether admitted or not, and surfacing them is the first step toward distributing that cost fairly.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteInjy Johnstone: LinkedIn "What Are Residual Emissions” Report Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart follow up on their interview with Mette Quinn to hash out their own read of Brussels' proposal to fold carbon removals into the EU ETS, and they don't agree on much. Is this really a "compliance market," or a purchasing programme that happens to sit on the ETS cap? Eve and Sebastian take opposing sides, and the answer matters more than semantics: it shapes how the whole mechanism should be judged.The cost assumptions get the roughest treatment. Sebastian has spent the past week stress-testing the BioCCS and DAC numbers behind the impact assessment, and he's not convinced. The transport and storage figures look wildly optimistic against what he's hearing from Europe's biggest BioCCS developers off the record. Biochar comes off worse still: favourably discussed in the impact assessment, then dropped entirely from the actual proposal, with nature-based solutions getting an explicit review clause that biochar never received.Timing is the other flashpoint. A 250 million ton removals commitment sounds decisive, until you line it up against a 48 million ton auctioning target for 2039 and realise the years don't match. Add in unresolved questions about who eats the risk on non-delivered offtakes or a shifting carbon price, and the "who pays" question stops being hypothetical.They close on supply: will a demand signal alone be enough to pull removals out of the Global South, or will an undersupplied market let developers simply triage toward whoever pays most? Robert Höglund's observation that this may be the first major EU proposal to treat permanent removals as functionally equivalent to reductions gets a nod too, a precedent Eve and Sebastian both think could ripple well beyond the ETS.Show notes:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteRemovals Enters the EU ETS — with Mette QuinnEU ETS revision proposal Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart sit down with Mette Quinn, Deputy Director for Carbon Markets and Clean Mobility at the European Commission, days after Brussels published its proposal to fold carbon removals into the EU Emissions Trading System. Quinn confirms the number the sector has been debating since Friday: a commitment to buy 250 million tons of permanent, domestically produced removals through BioCCS and direct air capture, funded by auctioning matching allowances plus a top up reserve, with a review clause for 2034 if the volumes do not materialize.Eve and Sebastian press Quinn on the mechanics behind that figure, from the price gap between today's BioCCS costs and the EU allowance price, to whether national subsidies were built into the Commission's cost modeling, which Quinn confirms they were not. They also test the supply pipeline: Quinn's own estimate of close to 48 million tons by 2040 sits close to Eve's independent projection, though still short of the full 250 million target.The conversation covers how the scheme will work for project developers, including the paid on delivery model Quinn says the Commission is exploring softening through prepayment and Innovation and Modernization Fund financing, and the proposal's heavy reliance on BioCCS while direct air capture remains less cost competitive. Quinn is candid that no other technology pathway is currently envisaged, though the Carbon Removal Certification Framework leaves room for that to change.Quinn closes by drawing a sharp line between domestic removals, where funding is committed now with a 2034 review, and international credits, where a 2033 assessment will decide whether purchases continue at all, a distinction she ties to environmental integrity and the Commission's confidence in each pathway.LinksEve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteMette Quinn: LinkedInEU ETS revision proposal Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart sits down solo with Vikrum Aiyer, Head of Global Energy and Policy and Climate Policy and External Affairs at Heirloom, to trace the last eighteen months of US carbon removal policy. It starts with a survival story: Heirloom and partner Climeworks were awarded roughly 600 million dollars for a Louisiana direct air capture hub under the bipartisan infrastructure law, funding that looked shaky the moment the Trump administration began reviewing Biden era spending. Vikrum explains how a coalition of economic development groups, workforce organizations, and elected officials kept the project alive by leading with jobs, exports, and energy security rather than climate targets.The conversation turns to 45Q, the tax credit that pays up to 180 dollars per ton for durable removal. Vikrum details how a shift in EPA greenhouse gas reporting policy left the credit's verification framework in a temporary gap, with a Treasury safe harbor expiring and a new reporting structure still being negotiated alongside the Carbon Capture Coalition and industry peers. He credits the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with not just protecting 45Q but expanding its reach across more carbon management pathways.Sebastian and Vikrum close on California, where the state's cap and trade extension folded in an 85 million dollar annual pot for decarbonization technologies, including CDR, and wrote CDR integration into statute for the first time. Vikrum lays out the live debate over whether emitters should invest directly in removal project capex or whether those dollars should flow to communities instead, and argues the market needs both credit purchases and direct investment to hit the scale carbon removal requires.LinksSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteVikrum Aiyer: LinkedInHeirloom: Website Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Eve Tamme digs into contracted durability with Luke Pritchard, Director at Beyond Alliance, a coalition of major carbon dioxide removal buyers.Last month, Beyond Alliance published a white paper with RMI and the American Forest Foundation, developed with input from both engineered and nature based CDR developers, setting out what contracted durability could look like and how it fits into the wider policy landscape.The conversation opens on why durability has stayed unresolved for so long. Luke explains that setting the threshold too low leaves open questions about who holds liability after the monitoring period ends, while setting it too high, without a mechanism like a permanence trust or horizontal stacking, locks nature based solutions out of the market entirely. Buffer pools and insurance, he argues, were never built to guarantee the long duration outcomes that durability requires on their own.Eve and Luke get into what a permanence trust would actually cost, with Luke citing anecdotal buyer estimates of around 15 percent on top of the credit price, and the tension this creates: cheaper nature based credits paired with contracted durability could pull demand away from engineered removals unless separate price support policy exists. They also map contracted durability against the live policy moments where it could land next, from the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism and California's SB 905 process to the EU, SBTi's Net Zero Standard, and ICVCM's continuous improvement work.The episode closes with a premortem: Luke's biggest worry is undercapitalization, a permanence trust that takes in too little up front, misjudges reversal risk, and runs out of money when it is needed most.LinksEve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteLuke Pritchard: LinkedIn Contracted Durability: A Framework for Performance Based Carbon Removal by Beyond Alliance, RMI, and American Forest Foundation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Eve Tamme sits down with Carbon Gap’s ETS experts, Francesca Battesby and Louis Uzor ahead of the European Commission’s ETS proposal, expected on 17 July. CDR is about to gain access to the world’s biggest compliance market for carbon, and this conversation lays out what is actually at stake.The discussion opens on the integration model: a public authority managing CDR procurement, or covered entities acting on their own. Francesca and Louis explain why a public authority could bring mandate and long term credibility, and they unpack the open question of credit vintage, including whether pre-2031 activity could be grandfathered in.From there the conversation turns to where CDR sits relative to the ETS cap, and why Carbon Gap favours staying below the cap for now. They also tackle the price gap between DAC and BioCCS and EU allowances, pointing to the UK’s combined CfD and ETS model as a possible blueprint.The episode closes on the numbers that will decide whether integration is meaningful: the Commission’s 75 megaton estimate for 2040, Isometric’s higher 100 megaton suggestion, and Carbon Gap’s own analysis of CDR’s share of ETS emissions. Francesca and Louis flag what to watch for on 17 July, from biochar and enhanced weathering to the EU’s 90 percent domestic reduction ambition.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteFrancesca Battersby: LinkedIn Louis Uzor: LinkedIn Carbon Gap, “Integrating CDR into the EU ETS” (June 2025) Carbon Gap, “Divide to Deliver” The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal, 3rd Edition (2026) UK Government consultation, “Extending the UK ETS cap beyond 2030” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme sit down for their second quarterly, unscripted catch-up of the year, working through what is actually moving in CDR policy right now with no guest in the mix, just two co-hosts comparing notes.The conversation opens on the member state CDR targets expected by the end of the year and why a patchwork of twenty seven national targets could be a net positive for the sector, forcing a wider range of technologies and approaches into play rather than funneling everyone toward the EU ETS. From there they turn to the ETS integration itself, unpacking a Potsdam Institute modeling exercise on how CDR volumes between forty and eighty megatons a year by twenty forty could stabilize carbon prices, and Sebastian previews a new peer reviewed paper on using ETS revenue to front load investment into removals through European Investment Bank bonds.They then dig into aviation, a sector Sebastian and Eve agree the CDR community has been too quiet on. The ReFuelEU Aviation review looks unlikely to open the door to removals, and the two make the case for a coordinated push before the window closes. That leads into CORSIA, where enforcement turns out to be far weaker and far more geographically uneven than either expected, and where Sebastian argues the real opportunity may lie with nature based removals rather than durable ones.The episode closes on Article 6.4 as the presumed foundation for future international credit quality criteria despite still-undefined removal methodologies, and on Norway's new NOACCS auction scheme, a sizable but narrowly targeted funding mechanism that raises questions about how well governments are learning from each other's programs.LinksEve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteAriadne dossier (Potsdam Institute) on CDR integration into the EU ETSHow Frontloaded ETS Revenues Can Close Europe’s Durable CDR GapNOACCS, a competitive auction scheme consultation on the scheme is now open until August 6th Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Kaya Axelsson, Research and Policy Fellow at Oxford Net Zero, just days after what she describes as the most anticipated Monday of her year: June 22, when both the ISO Net Zero Standard and the SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard launched at London Climate Action Week. Kaya spent three years inside both standard-setting processes, and the conversation captures what this convergence moment actually means for companies, for carbon markets, and for carbon removal.The episode opens on what Kaya calls the single global playbook. Her case: the two standards don't fundamentally contradict each other. ISO is wider in scope, internationally governed via WTO-compatible processes, and a natural tool for trade policy, green public procurement, and claims legislation, particularly in markets across Africa and Asia that SBTi has yet to reach. SBTi brings detailed near-term implementation guidance and the momentum of eleven thousand companies already signed up. Kaya explains how she sees companies using them together and what each does better than the other.But she is not without concerns. The episode surfaces a significant one: a potential communication error in the SBTi standard that risks allowing companies to claim net zero alignment without ever setting a long-term net zero target. For CDR, the implications are direct. SBTi's decision not to require removals purchases before 2035 is, in Kaya's view, a cost-based rather than science-based call, and a missed opportunity to start scaling the supply of what companies will eventually need. ISO, by contrast, requires five-year removal milestones from the outset.The conversation closes on what comes next: the governance of commodity certificates such as green steel, SAF, cement, which both standards now actively encourage companies to purchase. Kaya predicts this will be the defining debate at the next London Climate Action Week, and explains why getting the governance architecture right matters as much as the demand signal itself.LinksEve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteKaya Axelsson:  LinkedIn and WebsiteISO Net Zero Standard SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard Robert Höglund & Claire Wigg’s: Exponential Roadmap InitiativeBuild the world your net zero target assumes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart sits down with Delia Meth-Cohn, Co-founder of Rethinking Removals, who has been part of the ISO Net Zero Aligned Organization Standard working group from its very first meeting, two years ago.The conversation opens on why Delia got involved, recruited by the British Standards Institute to make sure removals expertise was in the room from the start. She explains what makes ISO structurally different from SBTi: where SBTi is a voluntary framework for leading, self-selecting companies, ISO is built to be globally applicable, rooted in national standards bodies and the WTO framework, and designed to accommodate countries with different net zero end dates, from Europe’s 2050 to China’s 2060 and Saudi Arabia’s 2070.The discussion gets to the heart of what the standard actually does on removals: it makes the implicit removals target in net zero frameworks explicit. Companies setting a long-term reduction target must treat whatever remains as their “anticipated residual emissions”, and that figure becomes a removal target they are required to plan toward, with a validated first milestone within five years. Delia is clear that flexibility is intentional: the strategy can involve a portfolio of credits, removals within operations, or value chain approaches, so long as the trajectory is defensible and verified.Sebastian pushes on the question of ambition and comparability: can two companies with very different removal strategies both receive the same ISO certification? Delia acknowledges the tension and closes on a call to action: the standard is currently in public consultation, comments feed through national standards bodies into the final draft, and this is the CDR community’s real window to push back on anything that falls short. The final standard is expected by mid-2027.LinksSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteDelia Meth-Cohn: LinkedIn and Rethinking RemovalsISO Net Zero Aligned Organization Standard (public consultation) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart sits down with Dr. Ruth Dagan, Senior Partner and Head of Environment & Climate Change at Herzog Law, and Co-Chair of the IETA Legal Working Group, to cover two legal challenges that are quietly suppressing corporate demand for carbon credits.The first is litigation risk. Since 2022, climate washing claims have increased by seventy percent globally, with around 160 cases on the books and fifty-four relating specifically to carbon credit offsets. Apple's carbon neutral Watch campaign was lost in Germany and only tentatively won in the US. The upshot is that many companies are choosing to say nothing about their climate action at all. Ruth calls this green-hushing, and argues it is actively draining demand from the voluntary carbon market.The conversation covers the two regulatory responses now taking shape: the EU Empowering Consumers Directive, coming into force in September, which blacklists product-level carbon neutrality claims outright, and California's AB 1911, which proposes the opposite, a safe harbor that would actively protect companies using high-integrity credits. Ruth outlines the work being led by IETA and the Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets, now backed by eleven governments.The second challenge is more fundamental: most carbon credit registries, including PACM, include explicit disclaimers that they make no legal statement about who actually owns the credits in an account. Ruth explains how this came to be, what it means for institutional investment, and how the Unidroit project, due to conclude in early 2027, offers a route to resolution.LinksSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteDr. Ruth Dagan: LinkedIn and ProfileEmpowering Consumers DirectiveCalifornia AB 1911Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets / IETA safe harbor reportGrantham Institute Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Guest: Robert Höglund, writer of Marginal Carbon, climate strategist at Milkywire, and co-founder of CDI FYIThe Science Based Targets initiative has released its long-awaited Net Zero Standard, and Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme wasted no time pulling Robert Höglund, climate strategist at Milkywire, and co-founder of CDR.FYI back onto the show to work through what it actually means for CDR.The three begin with a verdict: mostly neutral. Better than the previous draft, some of the more damaging provisions are gone, but the standard falls short of what the CDR community had hoped for. With the key requirement for carbon removal pegged to 2035, the central question is whether anything meaningful happens in the nine years between now and then.The conversation works through the specific wins and losses. Corresponding adjustments are no longer a hard requirement, now encouraged and reported, which Robert and Eve both consider a workable compromise. The "like for like" principle survived. Scope 3 was included, which significantly raises the ceiling on potential CDR demand. But the standard leaves key questions unanswered: what emissions are companies actually supposed to counterbalance with CDR, their physical inventory or their residual after market measures? The answer, Robert notes, could be "quite controversial."The episode closes on what comes next: the call for evidence on short-lived removals, the incoming ISO standard, and a probable 2031 timeline for the next full version of the standard, leaving the industry to watch carefully what happens in the interim guidance documents that can still reshape how the standard is applied in practice.LinksEve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteRobert Höglund: LinkedIn, Website and SubstackSBTi Net Zero Standard Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Recorded live at the Negative Emissions Platform (NEP) event in June 2026, this fireside chat brings Sebastian Manhart together with Oliver Geden for a rapid-fire sweep through the state of CDR policy. Oliver Geden is Head of the Research Cluster on Climate and Energy Policy at SWP (the German Institute for International and Security Affairs), Vice Chair of IPCC Working Group Three, and a member of the executive team of the State of CDR Report. He co-authored Chapter Five on policy in the report's third edition, published the week this conversation was recorded.Together they dig into the questions that matter, the numbers that mislead, and the politics underneath both. In 30 minutes they cover a lot of ground: the policy sequencing debate, what the 16% CDR share of global mitigation effort actually means, and which countries are pulling ahead.Oliver walks through why over 100 countries now have net zero targets, yet novel CDR features in only two NDCs through to 2035, Australia and the UK, and in around one-third of long-term strategies for 2050. He draws on his IPCC experience to explain the shift in how CDR has been framed in intergovernmental negotiations: from "scenarios suggest you'll need it" to "you cannot reach net zero without it." That shift forecloses the option of treating CDR as an optional add-on, but it hasn't yet translated into concrete national planning at scale.The conversation gets into the weeds on EU policy design: the complexity of introducing national durable removal targets within the pillar system, the tension in the international credits debate between what the text says and what policymakers are actually trying to achieve, and a concept Oliver introduces that is worth holding onto: "politically hard to abate." The episode closes on a question that would have felt out of place a year ago: what the war in Iran does to climate and CDR policy ambition, and Oliver's answer is, characteristically, clear-eyed.Show notes:Sebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteOliver Geden: LinkedInState of CDR Report, 3rd Edition: Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme dig into the highly anticipated third edition of the State of CDR Report.At 300 pages and 75-plus authors, this edition is the most comprehensive mapping of the CDR landscape to date. Sebastian and Eve don't attempt to walk through the headlines they go deeper, pulling out the findings that stood out, challenged assumptions, or raised new questions.The conversation opens on vocabulary: the report's case for retiring "natural versus technological" in favour of "conventional versus novel", and why that framing matters for how CDR is perceived by the public. It then turns to one of the report's most important, and most easily misread, numbers: the 2.2 gigatons of global CDR, of which 99.9% is conventional and 2.1 megatons is novel. Sebastian unpacks why gross versus net removals is not a semantic debate, and why the two figures are measuring fundamentally different things.From there, they cover the gap: what NDCs and long-term strategies actually say (and don't say) about CDR, why a new wave of national climate plans arrived with almost no additional detail on removals, and what the report's modelling implies about how much CDR net zero will actually require, with the average across scenarios now sitting at 16% of mitigation effort, not the 10% commonly cited. They also take a hard look at the 2030 outlook: the report's layered approach to projections, why the 2020 prediction of 11 megatons by 2025 became 2, and what company announcements of 42 megatons actually mean in practice.The episode closes on what the next decade of CDR delivery really looks like: biomass-based methods dominating through 2030, a CDR funding share of just 2.6% of all climate tech, and a shout-out to CDRjobs, which gets its first dedicated section in the report, for contributing workforce data to the ecosystem.Show notes:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteState of CDR Report 2026CDRjobs Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme welcome back Asger Strange Olesen, Global Head of Climate and Biodiversity at the International Woodland Company and Independent Member of the EU Carbon Removal Expert Group.The conversation opens on where the carbon farming side of the CRCF stands relative to the momentum building around permanent removals. Asger explains why carbon credits are the wrong tool for the majority of European farmland that stays in production, and why the CRCF review's emerging concept of performance certificates may finally offer a workable alternative. One that links supply chain companies' Scope 3 reporting to what actually happens on the land.The episode digs into how performance certificates would work in practice: who issues them, who needs them, and how attribution across multiple buyers in the same supply chain gets resolved. Asger is direct about which concepts from the carbon credit world have no place here, and why insisting on them would kill the instrument before it starts.The discussion also covers the tension between the EU's bottom-up inventory approach and SBTi's top-down FLAG methodology, what the Q4 Commission proposal on national targets and flexibilities needs to get right, and why moving the obligation to pay from member states to sectors and companies is the single most important precondition for any of this to work.Show notes:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteAsger Strange Olesen: LinkedIn and MediumCRCF Days — European Commission event pageSupercharging Carbon Removal from the EU’s Land Sector Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Recorded on the ground at the first annual CRCF Days in Brussels, Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart spent the day inside Day One on permanent carbon removals  and caught up throughout the day to give you a front-row view of how it unfolded.The episode follows the arc of the day to tackle the central question: does the EU Buyers' Club have the momentum, the money, and the buyers to actually deliver? Eve and Sebastian arrive with different expectations and leave with a revealing disagreement. Surprisingly, Eve is more bullish than usual and Sebastian is more measured. However both agree the room had real energy with over 200 in person and 300 online, and that the process of getting buyers together under Commission convening is worth something in itself.The momentum in the room was real but whether it translates into offtake agreements, new buyers, and genuine scale is a different question. Eve and Sebastian get into what was actually announced, which technologies are in or out of scope, and why use cases for permanent removals keep coming up and keep going unanswered.Show notes:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteCRCF Days — European Commission event pageCDR Policy Scoop — The Uncertain Future of the EU's CDR Buyers' Club (with Robert Höglund)CDR Policy Scoop — How Far Can the EU's Market-Shaping Purchasing Programme Go? (with Hugh McDonald) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The European Commission just published a draft implementing act on CBAM and it quietly opens the door to international carbon credits counting toward carbon border liabilities. The rules are still being written, but the direction of travel is clear.Co-hosts Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme pulled our favourite CBAM expert, Dan Maleski back in for a rapid-fire debrief the day after publication. They wanted to get the Scoop on what's actually in the act, what's still missing, and what does it mean in practice for companies, governments, and CDR?The conversation unpacks the 10% cap on Article 6 credits, why domestic credits face no equivalent limit, and why that asymmetry should raise eyebrows. Dan also flags a real risk: with prices in voluntary carbon markets anything but standardised, the room for manipulation is not hypothetical. And with "independent persons" as the main safeguard, the jury is still out on how watertight this will be.One thread runs through it all: CBAM is pushing trading partners toward compliance regimes that look more like the EU ETS and for CDR project developers who can align with that compliance demand, the long-term signal is significant.The consultation closes in early June. While still unresolved, this one is worth watching closely.Show notes:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteDan Maleski: LinkedIn European Commission implementing act on using carbon credits for CBAM liability Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Recorded on May 6th at Zurich's first-ever Climate Week, this is a different kind of episode. Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme spent the day inside a series of Swiss government-hosted events on international CDR pilot transfers and brought the microphones with them.The Switzerland-Norway and Switzerland-Sweden pilots are quietly doing something that almost no one else is: actually testing the full Article 6 machinery for durable CDR transfers, end to end, with real private sector partners at the table. The question is what that process is revealing: about what works, what doesn't, and how far the rest of the world is from being able to follow.Eve and Sebastian got to sit down with two people instrumental in making these pilots happen: Veronika Elgart, Deputy Head of International Climate Policy at Switzerland's Federal Office for the Environment, and Ane Gjengedal, Senior Adviser at the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment. The surprises are real and so are the unresolved tensions around: use cases, corresponding adjustments, and the gap between having regulation on paper and having markets that function.The honest answer from everyone in the room: this is harder than it looks, it's taking longer than expected, and starting sooner is the only advice that holds across every jurisdiction.Show notes:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteAne Gjengedal, Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment: LinkedInVeronika Elgart, Federal Office for the Environment, Switzerland: LinkedInAgreement between Norway and Switzerland on International CCS and NETCDR Policy Scoop — The world's first durable CDR transaction under the Paris Agreement Swiss legal framework for CCS/CDR Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Who should hold permanence liability, for how long, and how? In this episode of the CDR Policy Scoop, Eve and Sebastian speak with Natalia Dorfman has spent the last four years building Kita into the carbon market's leading insurance specialist. She make the case that the market is finally ready to move beyond buffer pools, and that the tools to do it already exist.Natalia draws a sharp distinction between short and long-term liability windows, explains why buffers were a necessary starting point but were never designed for perpetuity, and lays out why standards don't actually want to be holding that risk.That sets up the main event: the Permanence Trust, a feasibility study led by the American Forest Foundation with Kita as a supporting partner. The idea is straightforward in principle, an endowment-style fund that grows to cover reversals over time. But the questions around standards buy-in, cost structure, and what "replacement" actually means for capital markets are anything but. Natalia takes them head on.A report is due around June and a pilot to follow. This one is worth watching.Show notes:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteNatalia Dorfman: LinkedInKita: WebsiteAmerican Forest Foundation: Website Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is a different kind of episode.Gabrielle Walker. You probably know her as a scientist, author, science communicator, co-founder of CUR8 and Rethinking Removals. She has spent three decades at the intersection of climate science and storytelling. Too much to confine to a 30 minute episode.Introducing our new series, Digging Deep, we kick off our special long-form conversation where Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme have the privilege to go beyond the usual format to go deeper into the person. How Gabrielle thinks, her lived experiences, and how it has shaped her work in carbon removal and beyond.The conversation moves from her earliest encounters with nature, through years as a science journalist at Nature and the BBC, multiple expeditions to Antarctica, and a career pivot from covering climate change to trying to solve it. Gabrielle reflects on what it means to hold doubt as a strength, how she has changed her mind on some of the biggest questions in CDR, and why she believes curiosity may be the most underrated skill in the field.The discussion also gets practical: what it actually takes to move corporate buyers toward carbon removal, why the narrative needs to shift, and how Gabrielle thinks about building markets that can unlock real capital for the people building solutions.Honest, wide-ranging, and at times surprising. This one is worth the extra time.Show notes:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteGabrielle Walker: LinkedIn, CUR8, Rethinking Removals Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

CDR Policy Scoop is back with our next SHOWDOWN, this time on one of the hottest fault lines in carbon markets: should voluntary offsetting require corresponding adjustments? As Article 6 implementation moves forward, the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) faces a pivotal question: are corresponding adjustments NECESSARY for integrity, or OVERKILL, creating a constraint that could choke much‑needed finance for mitigation and removals?There's a clear rule that corresponding adjustments are required for CORSIA compliance and when credits count toward another country’s NDC, but should that same bar apply when companies use credits for offsetting and net-zero claims?In the “Necessary” Corner: Olga Gassan‑zade, former chair of the Paris Agreement’s Article 6.4 Supervisory Body and leading expert on carbon markets and international climate policy, arguing that corresponding adjustments are needed to avoid double counting and align the VCM with the Paris Agreement. In the “Overkill” Corner: Johan Börje from Stockholm Exergi, who very successfully convinced buyers that finance stacking without corresponding adjustments is essential right now. He brings the perspective of a pioneering CDR project developer focused on scaling real‑world removals within evolving policy and market frameworks.Our co-hosts turned moderators, Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart, will keep the conversation sharp, grounded, and accessible: cutting through the jargon and focusing on what this really means for buyers, projects, and host countries. (Disclaimer: Both guests and moderators are speaking in a personal capacity and their views do not represent those of their respective organisations.) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Noah Deich is back. When he last joined the show in February 2025, the US DOE had just gutted its CDR programmes. This time, he returns to debrief on a very different project: his attempt to build a government-led advanced market commitment for carbon removal, modelled on the GAVI Vaccine Alliance in global health.He spoke to around two dozen governments. The outcome wasn't what he hoped for, but his diagnosis of why is sharper than you might expect, and it points to a fundamental gap that no country has yet closed.Noah draws on the history of renewables to explain what CDR policy is still missing, identifies the two interventions he'd prioritise above everything else, and makes the case for why the current political moment, however bleak it looks, may be exactly the right time to be thinking big.The AMC concept isn't dead. But the path there looks different than it did two years ago.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteNoah Deich: LinkedIn and SubstackReport: A Government-Led Advance Market Commitment (AMC) for Carbon RemovalPrevious episode: CDR at DoE is dead — or is it? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, co-hosts Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Dr Andrew Lenton, Director of CSIRO's CarbonLock Future Science Platform, to discuss Australia's newly published CDR roadmap and its first novel CDR workforce report.Andrew walks through what it took to build a credible national roadmap and why the coalition of partners, including Google as the sole private sector contributor, may matter as much as the findings themselves. He covers the technologies that surprised him most and what Australia's unique geography means for the CDR opportunity.The conversation turns to early policy signals: a new Australia-Canada CDR agreement, fresh federal and state-level funding, and how Australia's co-presidency of COP31 is shaping the agenda. Andrew reflects on what it has taken to build basic CDR literacy across government as a foundation for any of this to stick.The episode closes on workforce, Australia's first novel CDR workforce report just landed, and Andrew outlines the four recommendations at its core. Sebastian brings in data from CDRjobs and European parallels to show why getting this right, and soon, matters.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteDr Andrew Lentoni: LinkedInAustralian CDR RoadmapAustralia CDR Workforce Report Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, co-hosts Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme sit down for their unscripted quarterly catch-up to discuss what's top of mind in CDR policy.They open on the EU CBAM and the question of whether Article 6 credits could satisfy CBAM liabilities. They cut through social media hype to examine what has actually been decided, and whether this logic undermines the mechanism's original purpose of incentivising domestic carbon pricing.The conversation turns to the EU's broader reliance on international credits, including the 5% allowance under the 2040 target. Eve walks through the layered costs that make this look far less cheap than advertised, and the supply and infrastructure constraints that compound the problem.Sebastian flags three parallel EU processes: CBAM revision, international credits consultation, and ETS revisions, and the Negative Emissions Platform's new ETS Needs Removals campaign. The price gap for DAC and BECCS, and how to bridge it through ETS revenues, closes out the policy discussion. Sebastian teases an upcoming paper with Rafael Cario on front-loading ETS revenues for carbon removals.The episode ends with AI as the wildcard: a force driving up CDR demand, and potentially if the energy buildout outlasts the hype, a future catalyst for cheap direct air capture energy.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and Website Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Hannah Bebbington Valori, Head of Deployment at Frontier, the advanced market commitment backed by Stripe, Alphabet, Shopify, McKinsey, and Meta that has become one of the largest and most experienced buyers of carbon removal in the world.The conversation opens with Frontier's newly redesigned innovation program, which this year expands beyond pre-purchases to include R&D grants and more flexible check sizes. Hannah explains that roughly 60% of the R&D gaps Frontier identified at launch in 2022 have already been worked on or solved, a sign the field has matured enough to warrant a broader funding approach.Much of the discussion centres on Frontier's theory of change and the concept of the "baton pass": The idea that voluntary corporate buyers exist to pull technology from lab to field and prepare a portfolio of proven solutions for governments to eventually take over. Hannah is direct that carbon removal is ultimately a public good requiring government-scale support, and that the voluntary market alone cannot get to gigatons. Sebastian and Eve push on how Frontier engages on policy across jurisdictions, how its buying criteria feed into legislative processes, and the tension between being "tech agnostic" in policy design and the practical pressure to fund what already works.The episode also revisits Frontier's 2024 fellows program, which placed individuals around the world to build demand for carbon removal through policy. Hannah gives an honest assessment: the Nordic Carbon Removal Alliance was a genuine win, but one year is a short runway for systems change, and policy moves slowly by design. The conversation closes on the question the whole sector is watching, what happens to Frontier after 2030, with Hannah confirming the team is actively working on it.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteHannah Bebbington Valori: LinkedInFrontier: LinkedIn and Website Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Harry Smith, Principal Consultant at Aether and former Leverhulme Doctoral Scholar at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, where he completed his PhD on the policy and governance of carbon dioxide removal.The conversation explores what national long-term low-emission development strategies actually say about carbon removal, and how much of it should concern us. Harry draws on his doctoral research, which analysed long-term strategies across 71 countries, to explain why these documents are often optional, outdated, and light on detail when it comes to CDR.The episode digs into the residual emissions data at the heart of his research: only 26 of 71 countries quantified residual emissions at the point of net zero, with an average of 21% of peak emissions, more than double the 10% commonly referenced in IPCC scenarios. Australia and Canada sit at 52% and 44% respectively, leaning heavily on CDR and international credits to close the gap.Sebastian, Eve and Harry also examine why the land sector carries far more weight in national strategies than engineered CDR, and why Harry considers it the bigger risk. The discussion closes on what long-term strategies have actually contributed,  a refinement of end-of-century warming projections, and why near-term policy design, not long-term vision documents, is where the real work on CDR now needs to happen.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteHarry Smith: LinkedInUNFCCC Long Term Strategies PortalPromising Words, Evaluating Actions: Assessing Carbon Dioxide Removal in National Net Zero Plans, by Harry B Smith Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Maureen Walsh, Executive Director of the US Biochar Coalition (USBC), to discuss how biochar has quietly built one of the most resilient policy positions of any CDR technology in the United States.Recorded amid tariff pressures, farm bill limbo, and a Washington reshaped by the second Trump administration, the conversation gets straight to the question: is this political moment different? Maureen's answer is yes, but biochar is finding opportunities others aren't, by refusing to be defined as a climate technology.The episode unpacks the strategic reframe at the heart of USBC's approach: positioning biochar as a solution to waste, wildfires, PFAS contamination, and farmer resilience rather than leading with carbon removal. Maureen explains how this opens doors across the aisle,  from senators focused on carbon sequestration to those who just need to deal with mountains of woody biomass before fire season.The discussion dives into the legislative machinery: the Carbon Resources Innovation Act (Senate Bill 3778), a technology-neutral update to 45Q that would make biochar and other CDR methods eligible for the tax credit without naming them explicitly. Maureen breaks down why 45Q doesn't currently cover biochar, how BBBA reshaped the tax credit landscape, and why biochar survived the cut when other technologies didn't. Sebastian and Maureen also explore the art of Hill advocacy, the 20-minute meeting, the constituency-first argument, and why cultivating champions now is the only way to be ready when the next big tax vehicle arrives.Maureen walks through USBC's concrete wins: the EPA's landmark 2024 ruling that pyrolysis of clean cellulosic biomass is no longer classified as waste incineration, and biochar's dedicated section in Fix Our Forests, which has passed the House with bipartisan support. She also details the USDA conservation practice codes already paying farmers and producers to use biochar, and the patchwork of regional implementation that USBC is steadily working to fix.The episode closes with two lessons every CDR sector should hear: drop the word sustainability and start talking about resilience, and if you're still going to Washington alone, you're already behind.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteMaureen Walsh: LinkedInUS Biochar Coalition: LinkedIn and Website Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Eve Tamme is joined by Canadian Senator Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia. Senator Deacon is a former entrepreneur, who has been a driving force behind what may be the most comprehensive government study on marine carbon dioxide removal undertaken by any national legislature to date.The conversation centres on the landmark report published by Canada's Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in February 2026, which examined marine CDR - particularly ocean alkalinity enhancement - and put forward nine clear, actionable recommendations. Senator Deacon explains what drew the committee to the topic, the unexpected complexity of navigating four overlapping federal regulators, and why agile regulation, not the science, emerged as the single biggest barrier to scaling the sector.Eve and Senator Deacon explore the significance of Canada asserting sovereign jurisdiction over land-based ocean alkalinity enhancement projects, the case for creating a regulatory sandbox that brings innovators and regulators together, and the importance of access to compliance carbon markets for removal credits. Senator Deacon reflects on Canada's strong foundation in this space, from two X Prize winners and the Ocean Frontier Institute at Dalhousie University, to a Prime Minister in Mark Carney with deep personal understanding of carbon markets and end-to-end credit integrity.The episode also touches on the role of social license, why site visits proved the most powerful tool for building political buy-in among new committee members, and why Senator Deacon insists that scaling and studying marine CDR must happen in parallel, not sequentially. The discussion closes with a forward-looking call: the world will not reach net zero without carbon removal, and the time to build the markets, the regulation, and the trust to support it is now.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSenator Colin Deacon and WebsiteCarbon removal, from air to sea: Canada, a leader in restoring oceans ecosystems and fighting climate change Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Jennifer Wilcox, Presidential Distinguished Professor at the University of Pennsylvania and former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management at the U.S. Department of Energy.Recorded amid major policy shifts in Washington, the conversation explores what has changed - and what has not - for carbon management and carbon removal in the United States. Jennifer reflects on her time at the DOE during the Biden administration, including the reorientation of federal funding toward climate mitigation, the launch of large-scale demonstration programs, and the Carbon Negative Earthshot.The episode dives into the current landscape: paused or uncertain funding for DAC hubs and purchase programs, the ongoing role of tax credits such as 45Q, and how Congressional appropriations interact with administrative reorganizations. Jennifer explains why some federal incentives remain intact, how unobligated funds could still shape the future, and why tax policy continues to provide a foundation for investment even amid political turbulence.Sebastian and Eve also explore the intersection of AI-driven data center growth, energy infrastructure, and carbon removal - including emerging models where direct air capture integrates with geothermal energy or supports data center cooling. The discussion highlights the importance of aligning CDR with broader industrial priorities such as nuclear, critical minerals, and domestic energy production.The episode concludes with a forward-looking message: safeguard progress by embedding carbon removal in communities, regional strengths, and bipartisan economic value. Policies may shift, but learning, infrastructure, and local ownership create momentum that is difficult to reverse.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteProfessor Jennifer Wilcox: LinkedIn Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Robert Höglund, Manager of the Milkywire Climate Transformation Fund and co-founder of CDR.fyi, to unpack a new way of thinking about corporate net-zero targets.Recorded in early February, the conversation explores Robert’s proposal for conditional net-zero targets - a framework that distinguishes between emissions companies can realistically control and those that depend on broader systemic change. The discussion examines why today’s net-zero paradigm often obscures these realities, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors, and how this lack of clarity risks undermining credibility and action.The episode dives into the practical challenges of operationalising conditional targets, including questions of agency, financial feasibility, governance, and accountability. Sebastian and Eve probe whether this approach simplifies or complicates an already crowded standards landscape, and whether it risks creating loopholes - or instead forces companies to be more honest about what reaching net zero actually requires.The discussion also explores how this reframing could affect near-term demand for carbon removal, particularly through operational net-zero claims for Scope 1, Scope 2, and business travel, and whether conditional targets could unlock more realistic and durable corporate engagement with removals over the next decade.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteRobert Höglund: LinkedIn, Website and Substack on this topic Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Josh Becker, California State Senator representing Silicon Valley, to discuss the future of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) policy in California.Recorded live on Presidents’ Day, the conversation explores how California quantified its carbon removal needs - 7 million tons by 2030 and 75 million tons by 2045 - and what it will actually take to deliver on those targets.The episode dives into the legislative history of SB 308 (Carbon Dioxide Removal Market Development Act) and subsequent efforts to establish quality standards for removals, including durability and additionality requirements. Senator Becker explains the political challenges of designing compliance mechanisms, aligning with California’s Cap-and-Invest system, and navigating tensions between the legislature, regulatory agencies, and the Governor’s office.Sebastian and Eve also explore the implications of recent bills - including funding through California’s climate innovation programs and new mandates for developing CDR protocols - and what they mean for integrating removals into compliance markets. The discussion touches on voluntary market demand, infrastructure enablers such as CO₂ pipelines, and how California can attract private investment amid federal headwinds.The episode concludes with a forward-looking discussion on what policymakers globally can learn from California’s experience: focus on quality standards, clarify who pays, and build durable political coalitions to scale carbon removal alongside deep emissions reductions.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteSenator Josh Becker: LinkedIn Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Jannick Buhl, Head of CCUS, CDR and Biomass at the Danish District Heating Association, to unpack what happened in Denmark’s highly anticipated CCS subsidy tender.Recorded in early February, the conversation examines why nine out of ten pre-qualified bidders withdrew from a tender worth nearly €4 billion, leaving just two final applications. Jannick explains why Denmark’s approach - requiring bidders to take responsibility for the entire CCS value chain, from capture to transport to storage - proved too risky for most projects under the current market conditionsThe episode dives into the key bottlenecks behind the withdrawals, including limited access to CO₂ storage, strict delivery timelines tied to Denmark’s 2030 climate target, and heavy penalties for delays. The discussion explores why Aalborg Portland, Denmark’s largest emitter, was still able to submit a bid, and what assumptions it is making around onshore storage availability.Sebastian, Eve, and Jannick also examine broader lessons for governments designing CCS and CDR funding schemes: whether tenders should cover the full value chain or be broken into separate components, how much delivery risk the state should absorb, and how tight climate deadlines can unintentionally undermine project development.The episode concludes with a forward-looking discussion on what Denmark might do next, how withdrawn projects could be revived under different tender designs, and what other countries can learn from Denmark’s experience as they roll out large-scale CCS and CDR support mechanisms.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and Website - post on this topicJannick Buhl: LinkedIn Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Germany is emerging as one of Europe’s most active carbon removal markets - with new public funding, a growing startup ecosystem, and heavy industry exploring large-scale CDR. But can policy, infrastructure, and demand keep pace with ambition?In this special episode, Sebastian Manhart shares insights from a two-day CDR experience tour across Germany, featuring conversations with policymakers, researchers, startups, and industry leaders. The episode explores Germany’s carbon removal potential, the key barriers to scale, and what governments can do now to de-risk projects and unlock investment.From public procurement and contracts for difference to compliance markets and infrastructure, this episode looks ahead to where Germany’s CDR strategy is heading in 2026 and beyond.Links:Eve Tamme:  LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and Website Oscar Schily: LinkedInTank Chen: LinkedInTony Oehm: LinkedInFlorian Hildebrand: LinkedInManuel Wessel: LinkedInStefan Schlosser: LinkedIn Saskia Kühnhold-Popischil: LinkedInJulian Joswig: LinkedInSascha van Beek: LinkedInDVNE Experience TourCarbon Gap: Germany Carbon Removal Readiness Assessment (report) - to be released; launch event hereEU ETSGerman Federal Government – Carbon Management Strategy (CO₂ transport & storage framework Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How will the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) handle carbon price paid abroad, and what does that mean for carbon removal and international carbon markets?The European Commission is now working on detailed rules for deducting a carbon price paid in third countries, including how carbon credits under compliance schemes and Article 6 of the Paris Agreement might be taken into account. The stakes for CBAM’s global impact just got much higher.This CDR Policy Scoop episode unpacks what this new direction could mean in practice: from the principle of equivalence, to the role of Article 6. This new direction has attracted varied reactions to date. What’s the outlook?To navigate this evolving landscape, we’re once again joined by leading CBAM expert Dan Maleski from Redshaw Advisors, bringing frontline insight on how policymakers and market participants are preparing for the next phase.Join co-hosts Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme for another fast-paced 30‑minute session that connects the dots between EU trade policy, carbon markets, and carbon removal.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and Website - post on this topicSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and Website - post on this topicDan Maleski: LinkedIn - post 1 and post 2 on this topicThe European Commission CBAM websiteThe European Commission report on the application of CBAM Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme sit down for a second time with Alexia Kelly, Managing Director of the Carbon Policy and Markets Initiative at the High Tide Foundation, to unpack today’s messy carbon market governance landscape and what it really means for carbon removal.Over the past few years, carbon markets have been flooded with new initiatives, standards, and coalitions, most of them aimed at the supply side. The result: overlapping frameworks, lots of noise, and real confusion for buyers and CDR actors trying to understand what actually matters, while demand stubbornly lags behind.This episode explores which pieces of the governance architecture are genuinely useful (think ICVCM, VCMI, SBTi and more), where they are falling short, and how this affects the future of carbon removals. We also ask what it would take to move from proliferation to coherence, and why the next few years could be make‑or‑break for building carbon markets that are both high‑integrity and fit to finance CDR at scale.Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteAlexia Kelly: LinkedIn Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Amir Lebdioui, Director of the TIDE Centre at the University of Oxford, to explore whether durable carbon dioxide removal can become a credible green industrialisation pathway for the Global South.Recorded on January 19, the conversation builds on a recent working paper authored by Sebastian Manhart and Raphael Cario in collaboration with the TIDE Centre examining how carbon removal could move beyond a niche climate instrument and instead support jobs, exports, and long-term economic development in developing economies. Amir explains why environmental policy alone often fails, and why climate action must be embedded in green industrial policy to deliver real livelihoods and political durability.The episode dives into the concept of green windows of opportunity, what Global South countries can learn from past green industrialisation efforts, and how CDR differs from earlier sectors like renewables or green hydrogen. The discussion also tackles key risks, including extractive development models, over-reliance on imported technology, and dependence on a narrow set of buyers in the Global North.Together, the hosts unpack what it would actually take for CDR to support local value creation—from capability building and regulation to demand creation and export strategy—and why getting this right matters not just for climate outcomes, but for development, equity, and long-term political support for climate action.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteAmir Lebdioui: LinkedInOxford Tide Center: WebsiteOxford Tide Center Working Paper: Overlooked Industrialisation Opportunity: How the Global South can Leverage CDR[Re]Moving on Up—Can developing countries be a powerhouse for contributing engineered removals towards net zero goals? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Sophie Wenger, Climate Policy Officer at the Federal Office for the Environment, for a deep dive into Switzerland’s approach to scaling carbon capture and removal.Recorded on January 12, the conversation explores how Switzerland is developing a holistic strategy for CCS and CDR, with a strong focus on CO₂ transport infrastructure as the key enabler for scale. Sophie explains why transport is often the missing link in national CDR strategies and why getting regulation right is both technically and politically challenging.The episode also unpacks the main regulatory sticking points around CO₂ transport in Switzerland, what lessons other countries can draw from the Swiss experience, and how infrastructure planning, cross-border cooperation, and long-term climate targets need to align to unlock durable removals at scale.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteSophie Wenger: LinkedInSwiss legal framework for CCS/CDRCarbonfuture Switzerland CDR Policy Brief Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What is The CDR Policy Scoop really about and how did it come to be?In this special episode, the microphones are turned around. Producer Helen Lundebye steps out from behind the scenes and interviews co-hosts Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart about the origins, evolution, and future of The Scoop.The conversation traces the show’s beginnings: from informal conversations and early LinkedIn Lives to more than 50 episodes covering carbon removal policy across jurisdictions. Eve and Sebastian reflect on why they deliberately chose an unscripted, conversational format, their shared frustration with traditional webinars, and the idea of “just showing up” as the core DNA of the show.They also unpack how their different backgrounds shape the discussions: Eve’s long-standing expertise in carbon markets and EU policy design, and Sebastian’s focus on country-level developments, data, and system-building. Together, these perspectives have shaped a niche but influential platform aimed squarely at policymakers and those working closely with them.Finally, the conversation looks ahead: new formats, new platforms, more experimentation, and a clear ambition to bring even more policymakers directly into the conversation.A candid, reflective episode about building trust, depth, and continuity in climate policy conversations and the people behind The Scoop who make it happen.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteHelen Lundebye: LinkedIn Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Everyone agrees that the next phase of carbon removal will be shaped by policy, but which decisions will actually matter in 2026?Recorded in mid-December 2025, this forward-looking episode sees Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart each bring their top policy developments to watch in the year ahead.The discussion spans EU-level milestones like ETS integration and CRCF certification, country-level signals such as public procurement of removals, and broader governance questions around international credits, infrastructure, and buyer confidence.What will send credible signals to investors? Where are expectations misaligned? And which developments are likely to shape demand, even before they formally come into force?A sharp, nuanced outlook on why 2026 may be a pivotal year for carbon removal policy  and where the real uncertainty still lies.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and Website Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

2025 was a year of real progress for carbon removal, but also one that exposed the limits of existing frameworks.In this end-of-year retrospective, Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart look back at the policy moments that most shaped carbon removal over the past twelve months. Each brings their own highs and lows to the table, reflecting different lenses on EU, international, and national developments.From the EU’s 2040 target and CRCF progress, to setbacks around voluntary initiatives, green claims, and US climate policy. The episode unpacks what moved the field forward, what disappointed, and what lessons should carry into 2026.A clear-eyed assessment of a mixed but ultimately forward-moving year for CDR policy and why the foundations laid in 2025 will matter well beyond it.Links:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and Website Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Everyone agrees that carbon removal needs more buyers - but what will actually make that happen?At Carbon Unbound Europe (21–22 October), co-hosts Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart took the conversation offline and recorded a special set of in-person interviews exploring how buyers see the evolving CDR policy and market landscape.What’s working? Where are the challenges? And what do today’s buyers really want from policymakers?Tune in for candid insights and fresh perspectives from the people shaping demand for carbon removal.Guests for the episode include:Robert Höglund, Co-Founder of CDR.fyi and Manager of the Milkywire Climate Transformation FundLamé Verre, Director, Net Zero, The Crown EstateChis Minter, Head of Supply Chain Sustainability, Zurich Insurance GroupAdina Braha-Honciuc, Environmental Sustainability Policy Director, Schneider ElectricLinks:Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteRobert Höglund: LinkedIn, Website and CDR.fyiLamé Verre: LinkedIn and The Crown EstateChris Minter: LinkedIn and Zurich Insurance GroupAdina Braha-Honciuc: LinkedIn and Schneider Electric Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The EU is preparing to allow the use of international carbon credits towards its 2040 target, a major policy shift. At the same time, the EU is also establishing a domestic carbon crediting scheme: the CRCF.But this raises some important questions:▪️ What kinds of credits should be eligible? ▪️ How can the EU ensure integrity when engaging in international credits?▪️ How do the PACM and the CRCF compare in terms of integrity?To unpack what this all means in practice - from the design of the rules to which credit types could qualify - co-hosts Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart chat with the brilliant Lambert Schneider, Research Coordinator for International Climate Policy at Oeko-Institut, and a climate policy veteran.Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteLambert Schneider: LinkedIn and Oeko-Institut2040 Climate Target ProposalThe Council of the EU's negotiating mandate on the EU’s 2040 Climate TargetEU’s 2035 NDCRevised methodologies under the EU Carbon Certification Removal Framework continue to lack integrity Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The European Commission has started fleshing out an EU Buyers’ Club to jump‑start demand for high‑quality CRCF credits in the voluntary market. The first closed‑door workshop took place in Brussels on 4th of December, with a series of follow‑up meetings planned over the next six months.In this episode, we speak with Robert Höglund, co‑founder of CDR.fyi and manager of the Milkywire Climate Transformation Fund, who took part in the Brussels workshop. He shares what was discussed in the room, what the emerging model for the Buyers’ Club looks like, and where the biggest political, technical and market hurdles lie.Join co‑hosts Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart for an inside look at the state of play, what needs to happen next, and why turning the Buyers’ Club from concept into a functioning EU demand engine within the next five years will be anything but straightforward.Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteRobert Höglund: LinkedIn and WebsiteCommission adopts rules and launches initiatives to boost carbon removals and carbon farming in the EU, including the EU Buyers’ ClubA Strategic Framework for a Competitive and Sustainable EU BioeconomyCDR Policy Scoop - A European CDR Purchasing ProgrammeCDR Policy Scoop - How Far Can the EU’s Market-Shaping Purchasing Programme Go? – with Hugh McDonaldWorld Economic Forum First Movers CoalitionAn EU purchasing programme for permanent carbon removals. Assessment of policy options and recommendations for short-term policy design Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

COP30 is behind us with two weeks of intense negotiations, pledges, and a full Action Agenda. But now comes the REAL question: Did any of it *actually* move the needle for CDR?From political signals, to a mix of announcements, to the outcomes of different negotiation tracks, what does COP30 mean for the future of carbon removal deployment and governance?To unpack it all, we’re thrilled to welcome back Christopher Neidl, Carbon Removal Lead with the Climate High-Level Champions. Chris was deeply embedded in the action at Belém and shares fresh insights from the ground.Join Eve Tamme, our co-host, who keenly followed the negotiations, and Sebastian Manhart for this post‑COP debrief with Chris as we analyse the outcomes, surprises, and lessons for the global CDR community. Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and Website - post on this topicChris Neidl: LinkedIn and High-Level Climate ChampionsCOP30 Action Agenda on Climate Champions website and Brazilian COP30 Presidency websiteIntroducing the CDR Mutirão: A New Era of Collaboration for Carbon Dioxide Removal Launches at COP30 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

COP30 is in full swing, and carbon removal is drawing unprecedented attention. For the first time, the Global Carbon Dioxide Removal Initiative (CDR30) has launched a dedicated CDR Pavilion in the COP Blue Zone.Bringing together more than 60 organisations across the global CDR ecosystem, CDR30 represents a united community with a shared goal: to highlight CDR’s essential role in achieving global climate targets.But what impact has the pavilion had so far? How is it helping to mainstream CDR within the COP process and beyond? And what does success ultimately look like?In this episode, co-hosts Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart speak with Chris Sherwood, Secretary General of the Negative Emissions Platform, and one of the driving forces behind the CDR30 and its CDR Pavilion. Together, they unpack how this initiative is shaping the conversation and action on CDR at COP30.Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteChris Sherwood: LinkedIn and Negative Emissions PlatformCDR30CDR Pavilion at COP30COP30 - A Breakthrough Moment for Carbon Removal? - with Chris NeidlGuardian article during COP on the importance of CDR Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The SBTi has just published its second draft of the Net-Zero Standard v2 with important developments on carbon removals, and ISO is developing its own Net-Zero Standard. These parallel processes are already causing quite a stir across the climate and business communities. Do we really need another standard? Will ISO’s approach move the needle or add to the confusion? What will be the impact of both standards on carbon removals?To help us get to the bottom of this, we’re delighted to welcome Dr Mai Bui, Director of Climate Science at Supercritical and an Expert Working Group Member on carbon removals for the Science Based Targets initiative. Mai will help us dig into what the new ISO standard could mean for the net-zero landscape.Join co-hosts Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart in the discussion with Mai to cut through the headlines and get clarity on what’s changing for net-zero strategies, target setting and reporting.Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and Website - post on this topicSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and Website - post on this topicMai Bui: LinkedInSBTi draft Net-Zero Standard V2 second public consultationISO Net Zero Standard and GuidelinesRobert Höglund’s take on the latest SBTi draftLukas May’s take on the latest SBTi draft Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.