Open call for a common statement: the need to clearly differentiate between emission reductions and removals

[Greg Rau]

https://airtable.com/shrL3E2c7rPpoXVaI

“ Climeworks is reaching out in search of colleagues/companies willing to join our latest activities on the need for a clear separation of emission reductions and carbon removals. We have recently published a text on it via our website and have experienced great interest in the topic.

https://tinyurl.com/25ee4ze5 “

[Michael Hayes]

An Open Counter Call:

Educate people at all levels about carbon negative H2 production technologies as making 'a clear distinction' between CDR and generating renewable fuels, eg emissions avoidance/reduction, does not seem to be technically doable at this moment. 

A call to remove such dual purpose technologies from research tech trees and/or C credit-based funding lists is not based upon our lack of technical abilities or some form of moral hazard claim. This class of dual purpose technology is maturing rather quickly at this time. And, it can be argued that the moral hazard factor of dual purpose methods is close to non-existant. 

Most importantly, such dual purpose technologies will likely be much more popular with C minded consumers and funding groups than storing CO2 in old leaky oil wells as that form of storage financially supports some FF well owners, a clear and avoidable moral hazard.

  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BE245C25-220B-4356-82D4-A98698E9E72F%40sbcglobal.net.