all right uh welcome everyone to uh the last uh episode of uh the year for uh the webinar series scrubbing the Skies of uh American University's Institute for carbon removal law and policy as always I'm your host uh will Burns I'm uh co-director of The Institute now unless you've been living under a rock uh the last couple of weeks you know uh that there was a a major uh climate conference right the 28th Conference of the parties to the framework convention on climate change and probably the Marquee headline from uh that event was the uh commitment by uh parties to uh quote unquote transition uh from uh fossil fuels but obviously there were lots of other uh important developments at this meeting uh including in the context of of of carbon dioxide removal and since that's what we do uh that's what we'll uh focus on today and uh we're going to do this in a in a Roundtable format uh uh leaving uh ample time for uh questions for the from the audience however at the end and so I encourage you uh throughout uh the initial uh segment to uh start populating uh the Q&A uh box with your questions and we'll try uh to get uh to as many of them as we can uh we have an excellent uh panel uh to uh uh discuss these issues and so I'd like to initially uh introduce them and then we'll get into uh uh uh to some initial questions uh uh Gabriel Walker is a founder of uh rethinking uh removals uh Katie lebling is an associate in the carbon removal and Industrial decarbonization program at the World Resources Institute Ben Rubin serves as executive uh director and co-founder of the carbon Business Council and then finally Ted Parson is faculty director of the EMT Institute on climate change and the environment at the law school at UCLA so uh thank you for all of you for joining us and uh let's get uh right into it so uh let's start Broad and then we'll drill down uh so uh I'd like to ask everybody at the outset and pro and beginning with uh with uh Gabrielle uh to uh uh give me your uh General impressions of of how carbon dioxide removal was was taken up at the uh at cop 28 thanks very much well and thanks for for the invitation to be on this webinar with this very esteemed panel um I think that my my biggest headline uh at cop 28 was just a dramatic difference from cop 26 so you mentioned that I'm co-founder of freethinking removals that's an organization that was actually born in the runup to cop 26 in Glasgow with a specific aim of trying desperately to get carbon dioxide talked about in some way on the agenda in some way at that cop and and by the way I'm also co-founder of another organization curate which is a a market maker in this space anyway so we we were founded in the runup to cop 26 it was exhausting trying to get anybody thinking about this the unfc didn't have it anywhere near the agenda there were maybe five or six events all of which we put on um there was it was really kind of pushing water uphill at this cop 28 um I was veryy happy to be to be co-leading along with the Ben and the carbon Business Council um carbon removals at carp the second incarnation of this and this was an attempt to Corral all the things that were happening all the way carbon removals were being talked about and from like five or six events in in cop 26 two years ago there were more than 75 and many of them cated by lots of other people who are collaborate with us on this panel so just 75 events lots of them in in high level places lots of them in in in um context that that weren't just kind of some people nerdy people talking on the side but were actually at the heart of the matter when it came to climate change so I think it's it's an accelerating dramatically accelerating level of attention which is of course exactly what we need um so I think that was that's one comment that that really struck me um the other thing and we might come to this a bit more later and other people have comments about this as well um I I was I was mortally afraid to be honest before going to cop 28 I thought that carbon removals risked getting caught in the crossfire between the the increasing kind of Fury over over fossil fuel companies and what they were doing and whether they were real real about climate and if this cop had been co-opted and then also what the what the fossil fuel companies were saying don't worry we'll remove it later so I was really worried that that this was going to be caught in that Crossfire and it wasn't and I've got some thoughts about why that wasn't but why why why it didn't happen but you know my those are my two headlines talked about so much more and not caught in that deadly Crossfire all right thanks for that Gabriel uh let's go to you Ted uh uh thanks will and uh thanks again for the invitation to join so I I I have a perspective that I think is is distinct from Gabriel's bit is not in disagreement so um um I think the way you characterize the intense level of activity in the Innovation the constructiveness of the debate it it absolutely characterizes everything that was going on outside the wall inside the wall uh meaning inside where the texts were being negotiated it was very strange I mean carbon uh carbon dioxide removal is so fundamental to all the assumptions all the scenarios and trajectories that are being discussed in terms of possible ways of even coming close to the Paris targets um and at an extraordinarily expanded scale and yet you're hard pressed to find any sensible discussion and certainly any explicit reference to text so just a couple of examples ex I I'm I was really struck in the um in the out context I mean the failure of the article six negotiations but even in the global stop tech text by the extent to which every time the content comes toward the carbon removal space it diverts a little bit to use as the single example carbon capture and utilization and and uh which of course is also an important uh an important Avenue of reduction of net emissions that needs to be expanded encouraged and you know with appropriate governance and so on but likely to be much smaller than the scale at which removals are needed and although large-scale removals are consistent with founding texts I mean um you know reducing emissions and enhanced removals um it's striking the degree to which the discussion avoids the The Diplomatic discussion avoids explicit consideration of the scale of need and the associated issues and I find quite a stark disparity between that and what I really agree is the vigorous Innovative you know very exciting level of activity occurring in all the side events and out and add in the green zone uh all right thanks for that Ted and we're going to get back to that question about the language in the in the stock take very soon but uh I'll go next to uh to Katie yeah thanks so much for having me um I definitely Echo the comments that were made already I think definitely from the perspective of someone who is not up in the negotiations um there were a huge amount of side events there was a lot of conversation about carbon dioxide removal um and I think there was a lot of interest not just in like director capture but a huge range of approaches and with a range of different groups working on them and a Hu a huge diversity in the um the geographies that are interested as well and I'm sure we'll talk about that later I think the role of the Global South and scaling up CDR came up a fair amount in these side side event conversations and and the opportunity that that presents um I think one thing kind of adjacent to the comments that have been made already I think one thing that I noticed is there is still confusion about the differences between ccs and CDR um what their actual differences are on like a technological level and there is some crossover there which I think does fuel that confusion but um more on in terms of like what their goals are in a climate action portfolio I think there is sometimes confusion but also sometimes intentional conflation um and so I think uh like terminology like carbon management I think can can exacerbate this but I think that's that's one thing that that I noticed that still needs to be worked on in this space um and I think this confusion also helps lead or leads to some of the criticism that continues around CDR and so I guess one way that we as wi um were trying to show up at this cop was addressing that through our um work on governance gaps around CDR so uh we had a few events um looking at practical recommendations to address those gaps through things like setting separate targets defining residual emissions um Etc which I can talk more about later but I just want just wanted to add that piece in but I think overall greatly increasing interest level um which is great around the importance of CDR and its role in uh achieving our climate goals all right thanks for that Katie and finally Ben yeah thank you so much well for organizing this webinar great to be here with the co-panelists and appreciate everybody who's tuned in today to join us for this discussion on cop right before the holidays uh it's been all great comments from the co-panelists here about the the different key takeaways from cop I I think one or two things I I guess that I would layer in with is I I think this growing conversation about carbon removal and it was a significant growth in the conversation to to Gabrielle's point and and to a point T May to the significance of carbon removal making into the global stock take uh it was accompanied by so many different folks being on the ground at cop it was exciting the carbon Business Council on more than 20 companies there at at different events there was just so many folks who were there activating around carbon removal but we also saw an Welling activity for folks around the world as well uh we we can unpack some of it during the discussion but we saw new reports released that are going to be really good seal resources throughout 2024 like the roads to removal report uh we saw new purchasing announcements made and so I think cop is this convening Force to unlock the additional things that it did in the space beyond what was actually on the ground in Dubai we continue to reverberate PRS as we go into the new year and and maybe just one additional thought on on the significance of removals that we talked about I know so much of the discussion is going to focus on carbon removal today as as our Focus for the webinar but I think another thing that really to me started to solidify and emerge at cop is how carbon removal does stand as a distinct pillar of climate action alongside emissions reductions and alongside uh the work of resiliency and preparing for the impacts of climate change so was just promising across the board to see progress made on the field on the emissions reductions front progress on resiliency and progress in removals we'll be diving deeper into the progress that was made on removals in particular but definitely some some notable highlights on on these additional pillars of climate action as well looking forward to the conversation thanks again W all right thank you Ben uh so I guess lawyers think alike and so Ted kind of teed up the uh the next question I I I too am am curious what people think about uh what I see is a bit of a disconnect between a kind of a fullsome commitment to carbon removal as opposed to to CCS so start off with uh with Katie on this one so the global stock take has several Provisions that argue are pertinent to u to uh carbon removal and its role in terms of addressing uh uh Paris uh including I think probably the front line with uh language is a call to accelerate quote zero and low emissions Technologies which includes removal Technologies such as carbon capture and utilization and storage um do you think this language uh substantially advances uh the carbon removal agenda under under Paris or where were the parties confused and they and they conflated it with ccs or they really are only committed to CCS at this point what do you think from that language and and other language if you want in in the in the stock take uh agreement yeah so um I'll I'll add a few comments of my interpretation but curious what others think as well um so I think just pulling back a little bit I know we mentioned already and people have probably seen this in the news a lot because it was the number one kind of discussion item here but around the the transition away from fossil fuels and so the piece that you're mentioning I think fits under that kind of menu or list of options for what needs to be done to um achieve deep rapid and sustained reductions and greenhouse gases in line with the 1.5 pathway and so under that are many different um emissions reductions and mitigation options like the tripling of renewable um energy capacity and doubling Energy Efficiency improvements which was also a separate commitment that got integrated um and then there's the headline transitioning away from fossil fuel and energy systems and adjust orderly Equitable manner Etc and then there's that kind of sub paragraph that you mentioned that does mention removal Technologies so accelerating zero and low emission Technologies including Renewables nuclear abatement and removal Technologies such as carbon capture and utilization and storage particularly in hard to aate sectors um so I guess my interpretation I think uh Top Line it's great that um the the fossil fuel language ended up in there it's great that 1.5c Pathways is mentioned um and it's interesting that it turned out with this transition away rather than the phase down phase out which was in the um in the arguments uh running up to the to the cop but on your actual question on the removal uh The Mention Of removal Technologies I think the way that it is framed I read it as carbon capture is one option for the abatement just the way that it's that it's written I don't think that that was actually an example of removal Technologies but I think it is written in such a confusing way and I think that obviously yeah contributes to this confusion um the all these different options such as Renewables nuclear removal Technologies they're all kind of intermingled so you kind of lose the sense of which are the most important or which should play the biggest role arguably shifting to Renewables um and also it obscures the difference between emissions reduction and removals so it kind of muddles their roles there so I think it OB it could for sure be improved um but I think it is also great that it is included at all um so I think it's kind of a matter of interpretation um in that sense and I think it's also um I think it's also better than earlier versions which we don't have to dwell on but I think there were earlier versions that mentioned substituting of unabated fossil fuels which removals are not really meant for um and it was presented more as a menu of options whereas this this formulation calls on parties to contribute so it's really asking them to do as much as they can along these lines um but I I mean my interpretation is that it is kind of the result of compromise and like you can kind of see in some of the options above there's accelerating efforts toward the phase down of unabated coal power and accelerating efforts toward Net Zero emission Energy Systems so there's kind of different formulations of saying somewhat similar things so people can kind of latch on to what they think is most um beneficial or favorable to them and their National circumstances but I will stop there and let others chime in okay Ted I saw you wanted to jump in and then and then Gabriel okay I'm I'm I'm I'm going to do a little self-censoring here that the first thing I want to say is it's wonderful to work in a field where I'm surrounded by optimists like Gabrielle and Katie it just makes me feel good every day um and and I don't mean to suggest that the interpretations that either one of you have given are improperly or accessibly you know uh optimistic but uh and here's why I want to invite my co-panelist to talk me down off a conspiracy theory leg share so my reading of this text is that it's not an accident that there is continued confounding of ccs and CDR and that to the extent that there is a prioritization of one over the other it tends to favor CCS rather than CDR I think of that now I you know will you I I said talk me down off the conspiracy LGE but it's also talk me back from thinking about analogies to the solar geoengineering stuff that I work on most of the time the fourth pillar to be added to the three that that that been summarized as on that issue my guess here is that the language merges as a compromise between the fossil interests that were so dominant at the cop who they they are adjusting their self understanding they they understand they won't be pumping oil forever but what they're doing now is trying very hard each to be the one who pumps the last barrel and to make sure that that last Barrel is pumped in 2070 or 2080 or 2090 as opposed to 2040 or 2050 or 2060 so them on the one side and the sort of this symbolically dominated sort of green you know perspective on the other side that doesn't want to talk about practical Alternatives that might make a huge difference in reducing climate change risks but actually pose hard choices themselves so CDR expanding to gigaton or tens of gigaton scale over a few decades it's huge it's important it's valuable and it will pose a lot of hard choices um so the continued prioritization of CCS which is sort of smaller in scale more directly connected to current emission sources and by both of those attributes doesn't raise the sort of the profound uh questions of allocation of risk across place and over time or the policy questions that envisioning the scale of CDR required to come toward Paris scenarios I see as consistent with that sort of long-standing it's like you know back to lawyer analogies it's like we have you know we have the plaintiff we have the defendant they both have things they want to say but there are important things that need to be said that neither of them wants to say and we're not really saying them clearly and loudly enough and note I'm only talking he about the text inside the room I'm in no way sort of diminishing the extraordinary excitement and activity and innovativeness going on all around the outside but the texts matter too okay so talk me down off that conspiracy leg okay so St one I and I mean this in the nicest possible way Ted please don't put me in a box marked Optimist especially not before you heard what I have to say commenting on this text so I'm not sure I'm not sure I'm gon I'm not sure I'm going to talk you down from this ledge I'm probably going to agree with you but and and I think the same applies to Katie I think she gave an extremely measured and sensible description of exactly what was there in the text and not not some kind of foolish Optimist at the moment we might get foolish later anyway so so to move on um for for I think I agree with you that's the other thing that's the reason I wanted to make that point because uh if we're talking about the text inside the rooms it's constantly astonishing to me if you look at cup 26 the race to zero was everywhere uh this there's been this massive explosion in Net Zero commitments um and of course carbon removals are a very essential part of that and yet not only was it not on the agenda but but nobody was even putting the words carbon and removals next to each other and so it is astonishing that so many people who really ought to be able to look at the numbers and understand what they're doing have not been paying attention and it cannot be coincidence so I think one part of this and and I spent a lot of work on carbon capture and storage before I went into carbon removals where it's essential and why it isn't being fated and the biggest issue around CCs is a complete lack of trust based on the assumption that fossil fuel companies are saying we will do that and that will keep our fossil fuels in play and therefore don't worry your pretty little heads which is something that drives activists particularly mat you know they they don't like being patronized any more than any of us do so um so I think that I think you're right I I think that this is very deliberate I think every comma and every placing and every word placing in this has been done on purpose I think it's hugely interesting to look at the the version before the one that was actually adopted um I I was fascinated by that because the version before said something it looks kind of similar if you're not really paying attention it says you know accelerating zero and low emission Technologies including inter Ralia Renewables nuclear abatement and removal Technologies comma including such as carbon capture and neutralization and Storage in the next version it said removal Technologies such as carbon capture and utilization and storage so so the the comma had gone and the in such as had gone and and every every comma and every set of words is actually weighed now I agree with ukt it can be read as abatement and removal Technologies such as it could be referring to abatement but it's next to removals and they don't do things by accident so I think this is actually it's a compromise allowing the fossil fuels guys who are still being horrified that the words fossil fuels were being put in there we're being horrified that this was calls on instead of just something you might want to do who are insisting on it because they see CCS as a ticket out of jail relatively free I don't think they're right but that's the way they're seeing it so so I agree I do think that's what was going on and I think that it's very interesting when I said at the beginning that that that removals didn't get caught in that Crossfire as I thought they would do um there there's still enough confusion about the difference between ccs and and removals to allow them to be conflated like this so there's plenty of people who don't understand but I don't think this that's what was going on here but also when when there was the the first of all the call for fossil fuel fa phase out and then there was the next version that said nothing at all about fossil fuels and caused an uproar there was immediately this big scramble you there all of us were there will remember it there were there were letters flying around the place there was calls to action there were what do we do to put the pressure on and there was a science letter that went out from a bunch of scientists saying phase out is science scientific when there was a scandal about algebra apparently saying phase out isn't scientific and what I think was really significant was that that scientific letter that went out said phase out is essential and so are carbon removal Technologies so and and that wasn't a coincidence either a lot of us have been doing a lot of work to make sure that that that that uh removals weren't weren't pegged on to the same place that CCS was so so I think that I think that is what's happening in the text I think that the pressure on the outside stopped it being seen as that um but I don't really quite understand why so many governments are so keen on pushing the CCS part of it and I don't think it's going to last and the final Point i' make about this text which I think is brilliant this is me being an optimist maybe is that when when something gets written into a text for the unfc process however it's written in it becomes a a leverage point it becomes something you can crowbar and until this point it hasn't been anywhere so I think I'm I'm I was really frustrated to see that conflation with ccs I was frustrated with the way that even CCs is being associated with keeping fossil fuels in play when in fact it's an essential technology and we need it for hard toate sectors but I was thrilled that we now have that crack to get our crowbar in and to start to get more leverage around this and the negotiations thanks for that Gabriel yeah I I note that the the mitigation work program decision right uh probably is not helpful either because its reference is to CC us and yeah yeah though uh Ben any thoughts on this yeah it's a great discussion so far I I think the discussion has rightfully been focused on this what are the implications of the proximity of carbon removal and CCS appearing alongside each other in the tax but I also want to lift up and affirm that that final point that Gabriel just made I think the significance of carbon removal making it into to the text at all is a a a very significant inflection point if we think about the catalyzing impact that the ipcc report had when that came out in 2018 affirming the fact that we need gigatons of carbon removal to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and how rapidly carbon removal has scaled up since that's happened having carbon removal in in the global stock take the affirmation that carbon removal um is is needed that that 198 countries have agreed that carbon removal is needed to meet the goals of the Paris agreement really significant along with everything else that's in the global stock tap removal appears uh alongside this call for zero and low carbon Technologies and so it's under a larger umbrella that carbon removal is is is a basket approach with with a lot of else of what's out there along with reducing emissions so I just wanted to bring up I guess this this this point that that Gabriel was making that I think just the significance of it being in there at all and then maybe one one clarification as well as we're talking about the ipcc report which I think might come up to bear in the future is that the ipcc in their report does look at Carbon removal and carbon capture as two distinct Pathways um CCs is not Linked In with carbon removal in the report so although we see the proximity of the two in the global stock D we ultimately have the the scientific body to to um I think go back to as a demarcation line that these these two are in fact distinct as as two points I would make around implications of the global stock AG okay now another another topic for which carbon removal was directly pertinent and and extremely contentious uh prior to uh uh cop 28 and during cop 28 was uh the role of carbon removals if any in uh in article six right which provides for uh for carbon credit markets including article 6.4 which would establish a uh a structure under uh uh Paris to facilitate uh uh trading and credits facilitated by among other things carbon removal uh ultimately uh the parties were not not able to uh finalize uh rules either associated with 6.2 or 6.4 and I was wondering if anybody on the panel had any insights into uh what happened in that context including in terms of of of carbon removal issues Gabriel you look like you I can I can have a quick go I wasn't ning in those negotiations so anything I can say is secondhand but it was it's good good source secondhand um it was very rating it really it really felt like it was going to go through there' been so much hard work done by the supervisory body during the during the year and um uh there were different different kind of theories out there including from people who were in the room at the time um so aita was certainly said that they felt like the whole carbon markets issue had been so politicized at cop that this there is this very strong body of opinion that says any any any Market mechanisms any carbon Market is an Abomination shouldn't be supported and so that that's that's one of the things that put extra pressure on trying to get these these rules sorted out um but then there's also uh apparently uh there was a bit of a split between certain regions including the the European Union that really wanted to hold out for quite strong strong regulations and other territories including the United States that was sort of saying let's just make make it as easy as possible for everyone to participate and I think very much with the with the collapsing carbon voluntary carbon Market in mind there was quite the fear that letting go of any of those principles could be really disastrous so that's another fault line that that that emerged um and and then I think that the final thing I'd say about this is that there there is still an underlying uh and and I think a danger as well and in separating out carbon removals from from other Technologies rather than or other climate approaches rather than including them there was a point where where where in throwing the toys out of the pram there was even a suggestion made that carbon removal should be taken out of article 6.4 completely so although the the rules weren't agreed at least bad rules weren't agreed so um I think I think that's that's a bit of a relief um but but I think it's a there's also a need to really converse with engage with and and I think to some extent educate a lot of the people who are doing the negotiations who I think didn't really understand how ready the world is for this Market what the state of play actually is are still behaving and thinking of it as if it's something a kind of pie in the sky or would need to be built in some really material way whereas there's some there's there's plenty of governments out there that are raring to go um and and I think that I heard that some some people who had actually been involved in the supervisory body and been quite supportive as soon as they became negotiators kind of they put a different hat on and turned into different people and and actually became big challenges and so I'm not quite sure what was going on there but it was disappointing and it does put extra pressure on the voluntary carbon Market to deliver volumes while we're still waiting for this to come into play okay other other thoughts in that context um I I can just add one one or two thoughts I also was not in the negotiations for this so my information is also secondhand but I think part of this was also or part of the challenges around 6.4 came from the lack of consensus around the rules for reporting in 6.2 so 6.2 is already operationalized that's bilateral cooperation market-based cooperation um and so that can still continue without this agreement but I think the disagreement around the level of information that countries need to share transparently or that they can designate as confidential was one issue of dispute um with with the kind of regional um differences that Gabriel mentioned um so I think that lack of decision on 6.2 made it harder to make progress on 6.4 because I believe they had to be passed as a package and so there were also additional sticking points of course on 6.4 around the removals guidance and whether that was strong enough or piece too many pieces were open to interpretation still um I guess the other thing just that I would mention is I think there was actually a deal on 6.8 which is the non-market cooperation piece of article six so cooperation on like capacity building and and other non-market approaches and so I think that's that's also just one positive thing to keep in mind um and yeah I I'll leave it there anything Ben and Ted in this context Ben go ahead Ben yeah great points from Gabriel and Katie I think I just wanted to underscore a point that Katie made which is you know both to look at 6.8 which has become operationalized in pass and I think gives a leverage point and there'll be more follow-ups there and then also that 6.2 is operational now so government to government uh cooperation around carbon removal can continue although it wasn't uh formally passed but then also as we this is partly a look I think at what happened at cop 28 but also inevitably a look ahead to what to expect at cop 29 and I think what this means is over the runway of 2024 expect to see more conversations around getting into the details of of 6.4 and and everybody on on the webinar tuning in having an opportunity to weigh in on public comment periods and and have a say on what it's going to look like the conversation was started last year at cop 27 about 6.4 and it was a broad outline then we were encouraged with how it was filled in over the course of this year that the current state of 6.4 was taking a largely Tech neutral approach and and encouraging multiple forms of removal to scale didn't make it into cop 28 to be formally ratified but but again more more opportunities ahead for engagement as as we go into the as we go into cop 29 and and I do think with with 6.2 and and 6.8 uh some some immediate and tangible things that that carbon removal folks can tap into in the near term just a go ahead Gabriel quick comment if I made I just noticed there a couple of questions directly about article six in the Q&A uh ju just about that that bit of the discussion one question was what about the content of the information note on article 6.4 that the supervisory board uh put out in the spring um I wanted to comment on this I was I nearly said something about it before I mean basically that that was a note that said nature-based removals good Tech removals bad says the unfc I'm I'm broadly paraphrasing um but but that was actually wasn't put out by the supervisory uh board it was put up but as an information note by the Secretariat and and one of the things I think is interesting about that it was actually traced I believe to one one person who um who put that in and the supervisory board hit the roof and said that's not what we think um that's not that's not the way it is and so although it kind of stuck a little bit in the media it didn't stick in the supervisory board um but it was wasn't evidence of the dangers of taking carbon removals and putting them in a separate box Mark separate Technologies I have to say I'm not a big fan of having removals as a separate pillar alongside reduction and adaptation because as far as I can tell removals and and and uh reductions are both mitigation which is already a pillar so they're both contributing to mitigation and I think the more we can actually show how carbon removals fit into the overall pattern the less chance there is for this kind of thing to go wrong so I just wanted to make that quick comment and then the other one was someone had asked please expand on the collapsing voluntary carbon Market Gabriel's comment um I I think what what I'm referring to is is the the the sudden dramatic rise in toxicity associated with carbon credits bearing in mind that the vast majority of the voluntary carbon Market is not carbon removals but other forms of credit and very large amounts of than red plus and red plus has obviously taken a very significant kicking this year and a lot of corporates who had been buying have have leapt away as if their hands have been burned which indeed they kind of have and so I think there there's a few there a now kind of renewed uh interest there's a lot of attention at cop on getting Integrity back into the carbon Market carbon Market 2.0 um how we can get the standards and Katie knows a lot more about this than I do but I just wanted to to to answer that question with it's not about collapsing and sales of carbon removals it's about trust and the whole Market itself and how that has to be restored so yeah I'll I'll come in on this and I'm gonna uh I'm going to defer to you will because I'm I'm raising some questions that might extend our discussion of this topic because they're sort of things I'd love to hear my co-panelist come back on and feel free to rule those out of order if you want to move on so I like my co-panelists am uh reading the tea leaves from secondhand accounts by people who were in these rooms and I have to say I always find it striking when an informed observer's comment on an important decision to negotiation laments that it was politicized um because I always I always wonder what that means I mean there are important substantive issues at stake in these negotiations on which people have different views and reconciling or finding a common ground among those views is an inherently political process now in particular I would suggest one 6.4 is the Big Ticket item in article 6 6.2 and 6.8 both show promising progress and could be pursued further but if if article six is going to be a kind of a freight train you know driving toward a climate safe it it's going to be mainly through the entity to entity transactions that article 6.4 addressed to not the nation-to-nation transactions and not the non-market ones so it's really important and the distinction between removals and reductions in those trades is also important because removals present serious substantive issues that are distinct from those presented by exchange of uh reductions principally security and longevity of the removals depending upon where they're going and uh the justice of distributive impacts at the sites of large removal projects so um you can frame this debate as being delusionally optimistic Market supremacists against anti-market zealous and express it entirely in ideological terms you can you can also frame the same disagreement in terms of people who think that the specific Provisions being issued now provide an adequate first step toward effective basis for confidence that removals engaged in these transactions will be sufficiently secure for sufficiently long and sufficiently veted regarding their compatibility with sustainability at sustainable development and Justice at the point of site projects and people who think that the protections are not that far along and need to be more explicit in further now of course the ideological differences are correlated with the different judgments about whether the specific Provisions being negotiated are adequate or are adequate as a first step so I I guess the thing I'd love to hear my co-panelist address is to what extent do you read the current discussions and the prospects for further Advance as being ideological sympathy or hostility to markets on the one hand that sort of is unpromising for near-term progress and to what extent do you read them as being sincere differences in opinions about whether the substantive protections being discussed are on the one hand adequate and on the other hand not so unnecessarily burdensome as to stifle valuable activities of trading and as I said will it's a huge question and and you should feel free to say Ted that's out of order we need to move on to the next topic but if we can I'd love to hear i' I'd love to hear my more informed co-panelists dig into this one step further yeah it's both out of order and interesting so let's let's let's do it uh you want to start Gabriel yeah I can make a very short comment I think the answer is both um and the yeah so so and you know this so uh part of the point is and also just I wanted to make the kind of slightly nitpicky point that article 6.4 of course isn't just about carbon removals it's about making a market between governments and so it's not just whether removals have the right conditions it's whether everything does and and if you agree with all the different parts of it so um so that's one comment but also as you know very well in these negotiations there are plenty of people who are who are going in there with positions that they've been told to held and who don't they don't necessarily hold themselves there's plenty of people who are aware whose governments are aware that they're getting pressure from from Nos and so there zeel can come in or there's and and there's also plenty of people who are who are really looking at and saying that's never going to work we can't let it go through it' be better not to let it go through than to let something that's going to be so weak and so I'm very sure that all of those things were coming into play in in in those negotiations and and that's one of the reasons that it was hard I I I really really hope that it's not going to continue like this you know it is it's their job to get this over the line and and uh they had one job and and so you know we as as Ben said we'll certainly be doing what we can and I'm sure everyone on this call will be to see how we can try and help in the next in the in the intervening year but he knows he knows k your R any thoughts well I add one then Ted you know cuz because I've been watching 6.4 for a while I I think it's a mixed bag too I I I think Gabriel's uh characterization of the kind of the initial incarnation of this being you know all all nature-based solutions good anything quote unquote industrial uh bad right uh was was a caricature right because you know if you plant 900 million Acres of forest which were some of the initial proposals right in terms of aforestation you'd have massive of unsustainable implications right so that you can't make that kind of manak and uh choice but I I think you can if you're being ideological about it it's that you don't have to num you can I'm just saying you can't from a scientific perspective no no it wasn't you know but but but I think to the credit of the parties uh you've seen an evolution right there was a lot of discussion ini ISS of 10year accounting uh in in these documents and and and more of a reality check as as as people have weighed in on this and a lot more discussion of some of the quote unquote industrial roles having uh a a place and and more granular discussion of mrv uh right than you would have ever possibly seen in the context of of the of these negotiations right and so I think I think they're doing us a favor in some ways because they're highlighting some of the really important issues and and devoting some some pretty thoughtful discussion right that that hopefully will will Kick the Can down the road so might two sense anyway so let's move on so we can get to some audience questions now one thing that we were talking about a moment ago was the the kind of uh catastrophic decline in voluntary carbon markets largely led by what happened with South Pole and and uh and red plus projects and one of the developments at the meeting uh was that the the world's leading um uh independent carbon crediting standards including uh two the are heavily involved in carbon removal Vera and gold standard uh agreed to a number of measures that they argued would help quote unquote increase the transparency of consistency of carbon markets uh uh could you briefly discuss Ben what what some of those measures are that are uh being designed to help uh uh try to uh bolster the the Integrity of the voluntary carbon markets yeah it it's a good good it's a good question and I do think it's a good point about what Will what trends will continue to see in the voluntary carbon Market over 2024 in in light of 6.4 not having been adopted and and I think this example that you brought up well is a good example to show how some of the existing Registries will be coordinating collaborating in space to come up with a set of common principles probably the the biggest one that I might call out here to to elevate and demarcate is that the the announcement includes that the there's a demarcation in the announcement between um removals credits and more traditional offset credits and I think the fact that we're seeing a demarcation it builds on an announcement that theya made earlier in the year where they were starting a demarc too it's recognizing that we are talking about two distinct Pathways here traditionally offset credits can include everything from solar panels to to really a broad spectrum uh removal credits have a distinct set of characteristics and needs and and so I think the fact that we saw there are going that way and and making an announcement about that earlier in 2023 and then we saw this once again affirmed at at top um it means that we're going to start to see developments on complimentary but parallel tracks that that markets are I think recognizing and affirming the fact that a removal credit is a distinct entity and that will ultimately I I think help to build up and and chore up the carbon removal Market um so was was encouraged to see that demarcation Point there's more to unpack there's more both both in the gist of the announcement and then also reading the te leaves about what it means and and how this might feed into larger processes but I'll stop there just wanted to make that that point which I think is an important one about this demarcation point about removal credits and offset credits okay any other thoughts okay all right let's move on then so uh another uh development during cop 28 was an announcement by a a a group that denominates themselves the group of negative emitters or gone cleverly is an acronym uh launched by uh Denmark uh Finland and and Panama and um I was wondering Katie could you explain uh the uh uh objectives and and Contours of the agreement uh uh initially and then I'll then I'll have a a follow-up question for you yeah so I think this um was sort of a soft launch for this initiative I think um there's a lot to still be worked out in terms of exactly how it will operate and what signatories are committing to and on what time frame all the kind of nitty-gritty questions but I think the overall objective is to make it clear that obviously we want to get to Net Zero as soon as possible by 20150 um ideally but beyond that we also need to achieve net negative emissions to address the increasing concentration of CO2 that's already in the atmosphere and the only way to do that is with carb carbon removal and so this group led by Denmark which has a commitment to 70% emissions reductions by 2030 Net Zero by 2045 and then net negative or 110% reductions by 2050 so they have this target already um Panama one of the other signatories is already net negative and then Finland has a net zero Target by 2035 and net negative by 2040 Target so they've already committed to this um and and I think I mean I said there's a lot to still be worked out I think my personal um thoughts on um on how this could be leveraged is to have that headline commitment of reaching net negative which is great but then also within that um laying out what the role of carbon dioxide removal can and should be and obviously maybe this is getting to your follow in question but obviously Denmark Finland Panama they all are different countries they have different National circumstances different resources different levels of forest cover different economic development levels Etc so the way that they approach carbon removal is probably going to be different um So within this diverse group which I'm guessing will probably grow over time how how should countries be thinking about um using carbon dioxide removal as part of a broader port portfolio of climate action to achieve the net negative um commitment that they have and then also within that I mean I think one of the criticisms you hear about Net Zero targets you hear about CDR um is that that's all fine and good but like what how do we how do we even get to Net Zero what can we be doing today in five years 10 years to get to that 250 targets So within this broader commitment of net negative what can be done to set um intermediate targets five years out and then what does CDR look like as a component of that those intermediate targets so that's that's my thoughts on that but I think overall it is I think it's an interesting initiative I think um this was just a soft launch as I understand so I think there'll be more to come in terms of membership um as well as details on the the um components of it yeah uh Ted uh yeah I I just like to point out one complimentarity here the um uh the gone initiative is the first concrete Announcement by emitting jurisdictions that is aligned with one of the several quite Innovative even radical recommendations in the September report of the climate overshoot commission uh the reporting on that uh tended to highlight their their recommendations on solar geoengineering but they had very interesting and cogent recommendations on mitigation and adaptation and finance as well and on mitigation I think I I invite my panelist to correct me I think this was the first highlevel body to point out that if you care both about serious reduction in net emissions to limit climate change risks aligned with the Paris targets and about serious differentiation along North South or developed developing lines then one implication of that is that the industrialized country Ries have to not just get to Net Zero by mid-s sanctury they need to get to net negative by mids sanctury because that's the only way to allow room for development trajectories in middle and especially lower income countries that allow them space to exploit near-term emitting resources so I I think I think this is a very exciting and promising initiative uh the one other point I'd make on this just uh to avoid coming back again is I'm struck across this debate by the lack of complete quantification in estimates and I see that everywhere uh several times folks have referred to the ipcc as kind of the gold standard in identifying the scale and importance of CDR in reasonably risk limiting trajectories um I'm astonished by how deep you have to dig inside the ipcc reports in order to find numbers that say when a net emission number is reported as the Top Line how much emissions balanced against how much removals are differenced in creating that net number in the headline scenarios and all the summaries you just can't find it the trajectories are of net emissions to the point of Net Zero and net removals Beyond there there's zero information about the scale of residual emissions that are allowed to offset against ongoing removals either before or after the net zero point and it's crucial there are differences among the underlying scenarios of factors of 10 in you know in the scale of gross removals required ired under different scenarios and this vast uncertainty I mean it's big under any scenario but the vast uncertainty over how big how fast is this huge you know invisible elephant uh in the room so I was just applauding that it's different me mad i' I've searched and searched trying to find that and also when you do find it they tend to say carbon sinks without making a distinction between where the carbon actually came from and so is it a CCS or is it is it actually a carbon removal and also any cumulative amount only go goes through to 2100 which is neither use nor ornament as my mom used to say and so I really support that and I think we we we desperately need that that science to to be done and and and I just haven't I can't find it out there I I had to chase down one of the chapter lead authors to to to get them to say yep yep it's really as hard to find and as concealed as you think it is yeah yeah yeah I agree and it it can breed cynicism right if we're talking about this as as you know as a a residual response for hard to Abate sectors and we can't quantify that or aren't trying to and and establishing metrics right for for how we're going to hold companies feet to the fire right it's it's back to or back to the um stock take text the meaning of unabated versus abated yeah absolutely right so one other question I had Katie right now the cynic me says you you look at a place like Panama uh that's that's uh claiming to be net negative with huge amounts of that coming from forest uh and Finland perhaps going the same route uh given the fact that many people believe that you know because of issues of evanescence uh some driven by climate change or the the very bigger question of of permanence right of of of forest-based sequestration is this really going to be a meaningful commitment of of net negative if it's driven largely by by by planting trees yeah I mean I think I think it won't I think it'll as as I said of course it will be different by country not all countries will be relying on that and I think it will I think this discussion will have to play out within the initiative itself in terms of how it sets itself up and what the goals are and what the targets are and what counts um for different countries so I think that will definitely evolve over time so I I don't really have a great answer there I guess it can also kind of get into the like for like discussion um if your country if you have more biogenic emissions can you offset them or counterbalance them with biogenic base carbon removal and vice versa um and so I think part of this will have to be countries identifying what their emission sources are and what are suitable options to counterbalance residual emissions um at Net Zero and after Net Zero and what the portfolio looks like both on the emission side and the carbon removal Side based on emission sources and based on other National circumstances so I think I think the short answer is a lot of that will still need to be worked out um within how the initiative sets itself up and governs itself all right okay let's uh let's get into some uh uh some audience questions uh first question from uh from Joe Murray uh I think this would probably be for you primarily Ben uh can you expand more on how all of the standards are trying to work together to cement a unified uh quality uh threshold such as vcmi uh sbti Etc yeah it's a great question I think the key thing to to follow on track there will be to see how the spectrum of different standards bodies are able to come together to have a common definition of what that means and so there's a lot of different groups out there that you I just mentioned too well with with bcmi the announcement that was made between some of the major Registries and some of the specific Registries that are focused right now on corporate mobile only and so how are we reaching alignment on standards around monitoring reporting and varification and how does it Harmony take place I think first it's worth tracking and following the conversations that take place within the different efforts that are moving right now but then ultimately how do we see where do we see points of commonality across them as we're trying to to Foster cohesion in the overall market so I think it's definitely areas to track and follow there as some of the different areas are taking place and as we see different announcements documents coming out for public review definitely an opportunity for folks to an area to keep an eye on and an opportunity for folks to engage in in the New Year okay uh Gabriel just uh just I wanted to separate out some of the announcements that were actually made so in looking at how to get Integrity back into this Market the carbon Market 2.0 all of that what the standards need to look like who was getting together so there was this big announcement and it was made by well I might characterizes the big four so that's the vcmi the IC vcm the sbti and the greenhouse gas protocol um and and they all have different roles the greenhouse gas protocol is setting out what actually how how you divide your emissions up into the different Scopes and what's actually what's allowed in terms of that accounting the sbti actually setting out this is what good looks like this is this is if you if you actually have a reduction Target which fits their overall plan and you have interim targets that they can ratify the vcmi which says this is what good corporate action looks like and this is what you should be allowed to buy and this is what you should have to do and the IC vcm which is saying what a good credit looks like and and the IC vcm bringing out its core carbon principles to say this is what a good credit looks like no part of the issue has been although various members of of of one of these are on the boards of others and so on they haven't really coordinated amongst themselves to have a kind of have a Soup To Nuts version of what this should all look like from when the credit's generated all the way through to when it's bought and retired by a corporate and so I think that announcement was saying that they're going to make a bigger effort to coordinate on on uh the whole journey what the whole thing needs to look like and then separately there were very standards who got together saying okay you ver and you gold standard saying we're going to coordinate too I think this is brilliant I think it's utterly necessary it's relevant to carbon removals but not massively so at the moment because carbon removals are such a small part of the voluntary market and aren't really being explicitly considered in any of those rule Setters at the moment not really in any of them they're sort of they're mentioned in the in the net zero standard for um for the spti but but you you're only supposed to worry about that when you get to your next era and nobody else is really explicitly talking about removals as yet um but also I don't think they've really thought out what that coordination and what that collaboration is going to look like it's it's a sort of Declaration of intent aart from anything else but I think it's a really important start they do need to be coordinating more and we really do need to have removals more explicitly in the mix because as Ted and Ben already said removals have different characteristics and and and different pric prices and different needs and we're trying to build an industry more quickly out of nothing and so I think that that's a lot of the work we're doing at rethinking removals actually involves having those conversations thanks yeah I think that's uh really important because I think in the long term that's going to be the Lion Share of the voluntary carbon Market but uh yeah we got to get to it U okay another question uh from Vanessa schwitzer isn't the huge range in how much CDR is needed due to scenario uncertainty in the next 25 years if the majority of the world Embraces a US lifestyle emissions will be much higher than if it Embraces a European uh lifestyle maybe maybe you Ted since you uh kicked over this apple cart yeah of course and uh hi Vanessa thanks for joining um yeah of course it's it's of course it's scenario uncertainty I mean that the the faster emissions come down then the smaller the cumulative removals necessary to achieve any given Target uh the but of course that how fast emissions come down embeds a combination of Behavioral and technological issues so I don't know whether in saying scenarios you meant to highlight the sort of the large scale behavioral and value choices as opposed to the technological choices I mean my view is that what drives the wide disparity in the implied scale of removals needed by what time in order to achieve targets is aggregate progress on emissions through whatever combination of Rapid technological change or behavioral change uh and of course you know the mechanisms and the implications of those two are different but in the final analysis it's the total emissions line that counts for this purpose okay all right I think we've got time for uh one more uh question and it's not an easy one so we'll end with this from Jennifer Gerhold uh what is your view of the most plausible outcome we can expect around article 6 particularly 6 4 at top 29 because we'll be back here next year talking about this invariably any thoughts I thought it was gonna go through in cop 28 so I'm the last person to ask yeah who knows it's I think you know one thing I'd say about this is you can't predict the future but you can help create it and I think we probably need to do a lot more work this year and and we're not the only ones I mean I don't think the negotiators came out thinking well we covered ourselves in glory there so you know I think there's clearly a lot more work to be done and if if the work gets done we've got a fighting chance of getting it back through again yeah all right well that's a good way to end it plenty more things to to look at uh in the in the year ahead and so I I really want to thank uh first of all our our panelists uh for their really thoughtful interventions uh uh Katie uh Ben Ted and Gabriel and uh obviously our our audience in terms of uh in terms of their questions and helping us uh uh further this uh uh discussion so uh happy holidays to everybody uh thank you for uh for joining us as you have during the year I hope you'll uh continue to join us we'll have two webinars in uh in January which will'll announce very soon and uh and with that I will uh close out scrubbing the skies for uh 2023 goodbye everyone thank you bye goodbye and thank you all thanks