{"id":543,"date":"2025-09-19T08:22:50","date_gmt":"2025-09-19T13:22:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/?p=543"},"modified":"2025-09-19T08:22:50","modified_gmt":"2025-09-19T13:22:50","slug":"welcome-to-keelings-descent-with-ryan-davidson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/research.american.edu\/carbonremoval\/2025\/09\/19\/welcome-to-keelings-descent-with-ryan-davidson\/","title":{"rendered":"Welcome to Keeling\u2019s Descent with Ryan Davidson"},"content":{"rendered":"

KD #1: We can only scale carbon removal to relevant levels if we emphasize its economic benefits over its climate benefits.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

I used to think carbon removal was a distraction from \u201creal\u201d climate action.<\/p>\n

Like too many people working in decarbonization, I thought it was a red herring in the hunt for a sustainable future, a moral hazard enabling us (not just oil companies, but everyone) to continue emitting CO2<\/sub> and other greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll come straight out and tell you that I no longer believe those things.<\/p>\n

My name is Ryan Davidson, and for my full-time job, I\u2019ve worked for a wave energy technology developer on business development, policy advocacy, and communications, among other things, since 2021. After a few years working on emission reductions, though, I realized reductions alone wouldn\u2019t be enough to slow climate change to a halt. I understand I\u2019m preaching to the choir here, but in spring 2024 it hit me just how vital removals will be, too.<\/p>\n

I started learning about carbon removal in my free time in mid-2024, mulling over what my personal philosophy on the topic might be. I completed the AirMiners Boot Up program<\/a> last fall (shoutout to AirMiners co-founder, and fellow IRCR contributor, Jason Grillo). During and after that time I met folks working in all corners of the CDR ecosystem who were kind enough to offer me their time and wisdom.<\/p>\n

Semi-confident in my understanding of the vast world of CDR, last November, I started committing my thoughts to writing \u00a0in Renaissance Carbon<\/a>, a weekly Substack on the tech, politics, and culture of all things carbon removal. One of my main points \u2013 perhaps the<\/em> main point \u2013 has been that we can only scale carbon removal to relevant levels if we emphasize its economic benefits over its climate benefits. While this has been (and will continue to be) especially true during the second Trump administration, I believe the point stands regardless of who occupies the White House.<\/p>\n

One of my first Renaissance Carbon posts included a \u201c10 Commandments of CDR.\u201d<\/a> We live in a different world now than in late 2024, but I believe the Commandments still generally hold:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
      \n
    1. Thou shalt not focus too much on DAC.<\/li>\n
    2. Thou shalt not cast stones at DAC, either.<\/li>\n
    3. Thou shalt emphasize CDR methods with viable revenue streams beyond CDR.<\/li>\n
    4. Thou shalt not rely upon the voluntary carbon market to build a gigaton-scale CDR industry.<\/li>\n
    5. Thou shalt not forget about lifecycle emissions.<\/li>\n
    6. Thou shalt not compare CDR to waste management.<\/li>\n
    7. Thou shalt not mistake CCUS for CDR.<\/li>\n
    8. Honor thy market-pull mechanisms.<\/li>\n
    9. Honor thy subnational policy mechanisms.<\/li>\n
    10. Thou shalt not covet funding for emissions reductions.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      My CDR beliefs have evolved over the past nine months, but I wouldn\u2019t change much about this list. If I were to change anything, I\u2019d reword Number 4 and add an 11th<\/sup> one somewhere: CDR is not an industry at all<\/a>. I\u2019m highly confident in this statement for several reasons:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. \n
          \n
        1. Lots of CDR methods are only similar to each other in that they each happen to remove CO2<\/sub>from the atmosphere.<\/li>\n
        2. If we consider carbon removal an industry, the failure or scandal of one company could poison the well for other companies that are in no way similar.<\/li>\n
        3. Just as carbon emissions are a negative externality, carbon removals are a positive externality. \u201cCarbon emissions\u201d isn\u2019t an industry, so carbon removal isn\u2019t either.<\/li>\n
        4. Bunching together a variety of seemingly different climate technologies and processes and calling the aggregate an \u201cindustry\u201d shines a spotlight on one of the biggest things we don\u2019t want to put in the spotlight: the fact that we\u2019d support projects primarily<\/em> for their climate benefits to begin with. Whether you like it or not, the economic argument must take precedent.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Individual CDR methods like direct air capture and biochar may be industries, and even MRV may be its own industry, but bundling the entire CDR ecosystem together and acting like it\u2019s a cohesive industry will do us more harm than good. Throughout 2025, I\u2019ve added additional pillars to my CDR philosophy. Here are a few of them:<\/p>\n