00:24:34 Pamela Martinez: Thank you for joining today’s webinar. Please note that we will answer questions later in the webinar. 00:25:57 Nikki Alvarado: a 00:27:15 The Climate Center: https://theclimatecenter.org/about/people/marcius-extavour/ 00:27:28 The Climate Center: https://theclimatecenter.org/about/people/dr-kimberley-mayfield/ 00:27:45 The Climate Center: https://theclimatecenter.org/about/people/katie-lebling/ 00:33:48 Tim Huey: “Positive emissions” = reducing emissions? 00:34:07 Pamela Martinez: Please type any questions you may have in the chat or in the Q&A section. Thanks! 00:35:58 John Shribbs: scaling up to volume is very difficult. carbon foot print of pro9cess needs to balance with capture. Many say impossible since not enough eyedroppers to do enough based on large volume we need to capture. Please include scaling issues. 00:36:37 Katie McCammon: How much carbon is emitted through the industrial and technological process of turning CO2 into rock? 00:37:42 AJ Weerasinghe: why planting trees cannot do it fully? 00:38:55 AJ Weerasinghe: I came across a calculation on that some time ago. The relationship of kg of CO2 and no. of trees 00:39:26 Robert Whitehair: The Scientific Community is starting to like Nuclear too. Starting to like is not a reason. 00:40:46 Holly Kaufman: Excellent presentation! 00:40:51 Karen Silverwood-Cope: Is it being recorded? 00:40:58 Matt Richardson: Yes excellent presentation 00:41:17 AJ Weerasinghe: wonderful presentation 00:41:50 Pamela Martinez: Yes, the webinar is being recorded and will be shared along with the slides. 00:41:53 Dan Ress: Why has CDR been more emphasized in the IPCC recently? I think one of the main reasons is that fossil fuel industries have pushed this idea among national governments and academic institutions to profit from climate action and drag heels on phasing out their products 00:41:55 Erin Pearse: As an alternative to trees, hemp can generate the same amount of biomass in 4 months that trees generate in 20 years. Hemp can then be made into hempcrete, which sequesters the CO2 for 300-500 years, is recyclable, and continues to absorb CO2 after curing. This seems much more effective, and produces a useful building material as a byproduct. Who is working on this and what would it take to scale up this supply chain? 00:42:48 Kathy Dervin: First class 6 well at ADM carbon facility leaking. Last week at a hearing in Kern County the planning director said “these wells don’t leak” https://www.eenews.net/articles/first-us-co2-injection-well-violates-permit-epa/ 00:43:02 Leah Redwood: Satartia, Mississippi 00:43:15 Kevin Briseno: thank you! 00:44:04 Mark Huising: About 60% of CO2 recovered from CCS from smokestacks is used to inject into oil and gas well wells to recover more fossil fuels…. Fossil fuels companies have long ago lost their credibility int this space. 00:44:11 Dan Ress: The concern with leaking wells is less the injection wells and more the other 200,000 holes in the ground perforating the storage formations in California. 00:44:17 Fernanda Lugo: the pipelines for CO2 are very dangerous. they do and have leaked! https://grist.org/regulation/co2-pipelines-are-coming-a-pipeline-safety-expert-says-were-not-ready/ 00:45:41 Ellie Cohen: Emissions per year 00:46:24 Joe James: Would like to partner with us? Using my patented CRBBP Process, we plant the fastest and largest-growing Bio-Crops we can find, and use Photosynthesis, one of nature's oldest CO 2 capture processes, to capture large amounts of atmospheric CO 2/Acre/Time Period, to combat Climate Change, at one of the world’s lowest costs ($35/Ton). We then convert the resulting Biomass into a variety of Climate-Smart Bio-Products, in which the captured Carbon can be sequestered, for very long, or varying periods of time. Joe James 803-413-6801 https://www.agri-techproducers.biz 00:49:04 Robert Desmarais Sullivan: Should CO2 be stored in porous soils like in Louisiana? 00:49:14 Daniel Adomian: Are those storage costs one-time costs? Or annual costs? 00:50:28 Robert Desmarais Sullivan: Take it out of the military budget! 00:51:13 Linda Brown: What proportion of CO2 storage potential in the US is nature-based. And does this take into consideration a factor to account for wildfire 00:51:14 Barbara Moulton: Fossil fuel industry should pay for it, along with a fee on current emissions 00:51:28 Mark Huising: Why are tax payers expected to be on the hook for this ‘carbon removal tax’, while it is big oil who have been making record profits extracting and selling it. 00:52:00 Michelle Jesperson: What is the energy/GHG footprint of transporting and storing/pumping CO2 underground? 00:52:24 Robert Desmarais Sullivan: Our political leaders are fearful of losing petrochemical corporation campaign contributions, so they will not propose necessary legislation. 00:52:37 Dr. Marcius Extavour: katie: injecting co2 into underground rock produces TINY mass of emissions relative to how much can be stored. It's basically emissions associated with electricity to run a pump. That pump can potentially push millions of tons of CO2 back into the earth. 00:52:50 Tim Huey: What’s our analysis of political power/will to legislate or executive order fossil fuel industry to pay for any of this? 00:53:12 Asha Sharma: How many miles of carbon pipeline build out would be required in California? Where would it occur? What are the risks to public health and the environment? 00:54:24 Robert Desmarais Sullivan: One CO2 pipeline exploded near Tupelo MS last year, and another in Lake Charles LA. Safety measures must become severe and strict. 00:54:32 Dr. Marcius Extavour: co2 emmissions of any CDR process are always accounted for in any removal claims. that is table stakes. Any process that creates more emmissions that it saves is a nonstarter. Remember that the world is FULL of technologies and processes and things that create more CO2 than they remove. E.g. cars. e.g. every factory. e.g. almost every farm... 00:54:37 Kathy Dervin: @Marcius- need full lifecycle analysis of ALL the energy inputs to run CCS (and storage for hundreds of years) not just the pump to inject it. 00:55:03 Greg Nelson: We’re being told reforestation can’t do the sequestration alone. What if something like RethingX’s precision fermentation is implemented? They claim up to 80% of agricultural land could be freed up for other purposes such as forest/wetlands expansion/restoration (or that hemp biomass idea :) 00:56:02 Lynette Niebrugge: We estimate 1.5 B tonnes of CO2 could readily be stored beneficially in CA ag soils as soil organic carbon. 00:56:24 Linda Brown: Can you say anything further about carbon farming funding and accounting. 00:56:32 MEGAN SHUMWAY: What is you opinion of the Elk Hills CO2 Removal project. Is it CO2 Fracking or actual removal? 00:56:36 Antonio Martins: what may happen when carbon dioxide is released fast... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster 00:57:11 Dr. Marcius Extavour: Dan: carbon removal has been a purely scientific field until very recently. No matter what we read in press about fossil fuel industry interest in CDR, if you follow the money, their contribution is a rounding error. Vast majority of CDR work is funded by governments and philanthropy, like most science. 00:57:13 Jonah Henry: Wildfires are a natural process and are essential to forest health. Wildfire mitigation should not be a part of the fight against climate change. 00:57:37 Kevin Briseno: thank you! How can college students get involved with CDR and its implementation? 00:57:40 Nikki Alvarado: Can you give us the bill number for calling to encourage legislature to pass it? 00:57:53 Doug Bender: No mention, at least so far, of the energy required for industrial scale DAC CO2 removal and where it would come from. It’s big. If dirty energy is used, it is not clear to even be a net gain. If clean energy is used, it can save more CO2 to just use the energy on the grid to replace dirty energy. See any talk or publication by Prof Mark Jacobson. 00:57:54 Kathy Dervin: Ernie Moniz says 20,000 miles of CO2 pipelines would be needed 00:58:01 Erika Morgan: Please post your road to removal www again, thanks. 00:58:03 Esther Mburu: Excellent presentation, Kim. 00:58:11 Dr. Marcius Extavour: Kathy: fully agree about need for full LCA for any CDR process. Remember CDR is not CCS. What i mean is that, when you do the LCA, which are common practice in the space, the main source of emissions is the pumps. 00:58:48 Ann Harvey: "Sustainable biofuels" is such a lie. More deforestation to grow soy and other feedstocks; deforestation to make wood pellets and ship them abroad because they are misclassified as carbon neutral; incentivizing huge beef and dairy operations that capture (for combustion, after leaks) a small amount of the methane the cows produce (which is greatly increased by the huge concentrated operations, since there is not enough space to spread manure so that more aerobic metabolism can happen)... 00:58:53 Hermance Luff: Does anyone know if these sorts of projects could be funded by the IRA? And/or fall under the scope of the Inflation Reduction Act? 00:59:39 Rachael Meyers: Would love to lift up the question about MS & LA explosions and safety risk. What is going on with increasing the safety of these projects? 00:59:59 Katie McCammon: I don’t think funding from the IRA could cover it if we need $150B/year…unless I’m misremembering that number 01:00:06 Kathy Dervin: Marcius- IEFFA has studies of full LCA for various kinds of engineered CDR 01:00:16 Diane Doucette: https://roads2removal.org 01:00:50 Robert Desmarais Sullivan: Thank you, Diane. 01:02:07 Dr. Marcius Extavour: Dan: CDR is emphasized in IPCC reports recently because facts on the ground have changed. 25 years go, CDR was not considered a requirement. Today, it is. As IPCC's 1.5C report (2018) states (i'm paraphrasing) - there are no longer any pathways to staying below 1.5C that do NOT rely on some CDR. Nearly 50% of ALL GHGs we have ever emitted as humans have come since 1990 01:03:04 Robert Whitehair: Thank you Katie for a clear explanation 01:03:58 Dan Ress: Marcius, I respectfully disagree. For example, one of the most widely cited and respected pro-CCUS and DACCS academic institutions is Stanford's Center for Carbon Capture, which is funded almost entirely by oil and gas "donations" and staffed almost entirely by former oil and gas industry engineers. Stanford's Woods Institute, which is independent of fossil fuel funding, is much more critical. This pattern is repeated at academic institutions across the nation and world. Further, suggesting that governments are independent of fossil fuel influence would be obtuse. 01:04:35 Dr. Marcius Extavour: Hermance: yes, IRA includes a $180/ton tax credit for CDR. The majority of IRA is focused on renewables, farming, materials, manufacturing, and more 01:04:38 MEGAN SHUMWAY: CO2 is pretty derisive to pipes. The shorter the pipeline run the safer it is to the public, plants and animals. CO2 kills roots of plants if CO2 leaks through the soil. 01:05:22 Daniel Adomian: Are there parts of CA that result in more efficient CDR processes? Or is it essentially similar ppm that can be removed no matter where technology is deployed? 01:05:57 MEGAN SHUMWAY: Not derisive, cerosive 01:06:21 Robert Desmarais Sullivan: Maybe derisive also, Megan! 01:06:39 MEGAN SHUMWAY: HaHa! 01:07:33 Tim Huey: So there’s a concern of NIMBY around CO2 pipelines being built in low income communities of color bc of dangers, as other more affluent communities will block the building of pipelines near them? 01:07:46 Todd Weber: I think MEGAN means corrosive. 01:07:58 Katie McCammon: If it works, environmental groups can support it. The issue is that we aren’t clearly hearing if the industrial and technological processes aren’t going to continue to produce CO2 at unsustainable levels. Those numbers need to be clear, otherwise we will continue to only support natural sequestration methods. 01:08:00 John Shribbs: charts show emissions reductions most important. Current energy use is going up worldwide instead of down. How to we get that reversed? 01:08:09 Gary Hughes: Will there be a webinar with critical voices? Many of the assumptions being presented are highly contested, even some of the references to the IPCC are just cherry picking from IPCC work on these matters. We need to hear other perspectives on these geoengineering approaches to climate change. 01:08:25 MEGAN SHUMWAY: Thanks for helping with my atrocious spelling. 01:08:27 Linda Brown: Tangentially, can any of those marine CDR approaches also help the ocean acidification problem? 01:08:32 Jonah Henry: I agree with Gary. 01:08:35 sue bock: Marine environment from newer studies is less than optimal unfortunately 01:08:55 Doug Bender: Also agree with Gary. This is pretty one sided, disappointing. 01:08:58 Valerie Ventre-Hutton: Gary Hughes raises a good point. 01:09:09 Shaye Wolf: I also agree with Gary 01:09:10 Tim Huey: @Gary, agreed a lot of this presentation sounds like it’s very early stage technologies/approaches, without sufficient research on effectiveness and harmful risks/side effects. 01:09:16 Katharine Harrison: @Gary Hughes. I agree. 01:09:36 Mark Huising: Agreed @Gary Hughes. 01:10:19 Tim Huey: This slide on responsible removal is how things SHOULD work, but not necessarily how they do. 01:10:22 Robert Desmarais Sullivan: The weakest link is in the transparency. Experience in Louisiana has shown me that industry will not be transparent in intentions or in projects. 01:10:47 Dr. Marcius Extavour: Greg: I think everyone would love to see more plant / soil / wetland / forest oriented CDR. I"m familiar wtih RethinkX's work here, and I agree these approaches could be effective. There are many possible futures here, and in my view, it's up to us to decide which paths forward we want to take, which solutions to prioritize, paying careful attention to which CDR approaches can work at scale, costs, community benefits, risks, etc. The argument is that no single CDR approach is likely to be able to fulfill all of our CDR needs. That includes trees / managed forests, mineralization, DAC, ocean CDR, etc. 01:10:50 Christina Scaringe: Also agree with Gary 01:11:04 Lynette Niebrugge: Meanwhile, we ignore our soils as they desertify in the face of climate change; the age-old tension between technological vs ecological solutions… 01:11:07 Katie McCammon: Transparency will lack if corporate influence in politics continues at the same rate. 01:11:16 Tim Huey: Industry tends to target geographic areas where transparency is weakest, based on regulatory bodies, amount of local resident push back, etc. 01:11:24 Joe James: Would like to partner with us? Using my patented CRBBP Process, we plant the fastest and largest-growing Bio-Crops we can find, and use Photosynthesis, one of nature's oldest CO 2 capture processes, to capture large amounts of atmospheric CO 2/Acre/Time Period, to combat Climate Change, at one of the world’s lowest costs ($35/Ton). We then convert the resulting Biomass into a variety of Climate-Smart Bio-Products, in which the captured Carbon can be sequestered, for very long, or varying periods of time. The Bio-Crops we use capture 4 times the amount of CO 2 as an equal acreage of Pine Trees.. Joe James 803-413-6801 https://www.agri-techproducers.biz 01:11:27 AJ Weerasinghe: CDR CAN be a part of the solution. The largest parts are GHG reduction and planting trees. 01:11:34 Diane Doucette: Hi Gary, great question.Yes, there will be 2 webinars focusing on Communities and CDR (November and December). We are also encouraging and hoping that many of the health and safety issues are raised on every webinar. 01:12:05 AJ Weerasinghe: Robert D's ideas resonate with me. 01:13:15 Valerie Ventre-Hutton: +++ Robert D’s observation. 01:13:53 Tim Huey: I feel like this whole webinar needs an Acronym Guide sidebar. Some of these acronyms I know well, but some of them I’m not familiar with and quickly lost in. 01:14:22 Kathy Dervin: CCS and CDR/DAC share some costs, challenges and problems: large energy and water inputs and emissions created, shipping captured or pulled down CO2, processing safety issues esp for EJ communities, unproven long term storage, governance and and inadequate regulatory/enforcement issues 01:14:43 Margaret Reeves: Are there data that show the relationship between life cycle cost of different technologies and quantity of CO2 removal? 01:15:04 Dan Ress: Diane, having a panel of folks who are unambiguous cheerleaders for any and all CDR is not a great start to advancing your hope that health and safety issues are raised on every webinar (appreciating Katie flagging that more policy is needed to protect climate and communities). 01:15:04 Kathy Dervin: Katie- SB 308 died 01:15:06 Robert Desmarais Sullivan: Same here, Tim! 01:15:26 peggy cabrera: yes, it feels like the presenters & commentators are talking to each other and not to folks like me, the general public who are also interested in this topic. 01:15:29 Vic Compher: Presentations, though excellent, are moving too fast to absorb. 01:15:35 Asha Sharma: Many CDR and CCUS technology projects are sited for the San Joaquin Valley in lower income, majority communities of color where residents have many concerns or are opposed, yet projects are moving forward anyway. While it’s nice that you all are mentioning that communities should be involved, the reality is that these projects mostly move forward despite community opposition or concerns. What do you all think accountability to community looks like? Example from Kern county: https://southkernsol.org/2024/09/13/carbon-capture-project-in-kern-county-moves-forward-as-opposing-sides-weigh-in/ 01:15:53 Dr. Marcius Extavour: Dan - I don't defend the Stanford group you cite. They are a CCS group that has turned it's attention to DAC and CCUS. I would not describe them as widely cited or respected in CDR circles. In the CDR community, some of the best work is done by Roads to Removals (Kim mentioned), Lawrence Livermore National Lab's programs, WRI (Katie's work) CDR Primer, State of CDR Report and, of course, the IPCC. The last two are documents freely available online. None are FF funded: https://cdrprimer.org/ 01:15:56 Dr. Marcius Extavour: https://www.stateofcdr.org/ 01:16:46 AJ Weerasinghe: Thanks everyone. I can do TLA on these issues together. Contact me on ajithw@csufresno.edu, bye off to a class. 01:17:17 Stephen Rosenblum: Thanks to Climate Center for an excellent review of CDR 01:17:35 Larry Hanson: Larry Hanson (You): I am so happy you guys are working on this. Are you sure Forest biomass is not net emitter? It is not appropriate to put in the CDR portfolio and will distort actual results. Trees burned generally retain 90 percent of their carbon. Fuels need to be lopped and spread and no mature trees must be cut down in the name of fire suppression. These two goals are often at odds . We must not unleash “thinning” as a cure all- it is largely unsupervised and reversely incentivized. 🫤 Kimberly Burr 01:17:50 Todd Weber: Yes - what Stephen R. just said! 01:17:51 MEGAN SHUMWAY: The Kern County project is the Elk Hills Carbon Vault project. 01:17:57 Judith Adler: Wonderful webinar. thank you. Judy Adler 01:18:50 MJ Pramik: Will we have access to this recording to re-listening. 01:18:55 Kevin Briseno: EJ communities constantly affected by warehousing and transportation infrastructure: Long Beach, San Bernardino County 01:19:03 Martha Turner: Definitely please cover governance models in the later sessions. Thank-you! 01:19:09 Pamela Martinez: Yes, the recording will be shared with everyone along with the slides. 01:19:13 peggy cabrera: can you PLEASE have presenters and future presentations be delivered in language not filled with acronyms? slow down and let us follow you! 01:19:18 MEGAN SHUMWAY: Safety for people, plants and animals. 01:19:49 Diane Warren: With the urgency of Climate Change, and tipping points risks, do we not need to look at OIF (iron fertilization) that is cheap and highly scalable? 01:20:01 Victoria Gonzalez: more on pipeline safety: https://betterenergy.org/blog/examining-the-safety-record-of-carbon-dioxide-pipelines/ 01:20:24 Erin Pearse: I’d be interested in hearing from anyone working on using hempcrete to sequester CO2 in solid form (as a building material that displaces concrete, a high emitter): epearse@calpoly.edu 01:20:32 Jedidiah Nachinab: Very informative session, joining from Ghana, it will be interesting to look at the GAP in our policies and regulations, Comparatively I think we have a long way to go. I'm glad I joined, looking forward to more sessions. 01:20:33 Karen Silverwood-Cope: Is it being recorded? 01:21:01 Pamela Martinez: Yes, the webinar is being recorded and will be shared with everyone along with the slides. 01:21:19 Martha Turner: Consider sending out a glossary or cheat sheet that defines the acronyms and broad definitions of some of the removal technologies. 01:21:50 Linda Brown: Thank you, presenters and Ellie. Really appreciate the webinar. Have to leave early, but looking forward to seeing the full recording. 01:21:58 Martha Turner: Great question, Ellie re: intra-panel discussion 01:21:59 Larry Hanson: Not leaving forest biomass in forests due to thinning activities will lead to more carbon being released. First, there is a loss of sequestering of trees and other vegetation. Next, the activity of removal releases CO2. Then the transportation to the plants. Next is the actual processing or burning releasing CO2. In some cases, when turned into pellets will be going overseas for, yes, more burning and releasing CO2. Growing our forests and allowing mature and old growth to be retained is one strategy among others for protecting our planet. Using forest biomass is a mistake that is being promoted by the extraction industry and the captured Cal Fire by industry. This is unfortunate but true. Consult Dr. Shaye Wolf of the Center for Biological Diversity. Please comment. 01:22:01 Robert Desmarais Sullivan: It is 1:00pm in Louisiana now, and I have to go. Thanks for an informative interesting session. Including the chat! 01:22:24 Laura Katayama: To update on CA SB 308, the bill didn’t pass because CA is currently in a deficit position. There is political will to pursue this in the next legislative session and get it passed. 01:22:36 Mark Huising: IPCC projects 1 billion CO2 removal by 2050, International Energy Agency puts this number at 0.7 billion tons. Annual global emissions are 40 billion tons annually, today… Yes, we unfortunately need carbon removal at this point, but right now it is Fossil Fuel companies tripping over themselves to monetize the subsidies for carbon removal and greenwash their image, while using the carbon for enhanced oil recovery and do everything but slowing down fossil fuel extraction. The selective adherence to IPCC calling for carbon removal while ignoring IPCC guidelines that we need to reduce emissions 50% by 2030 is very revealing. The chat is the response to this reality. How does this area regain confidence, reputations and trust are easily lost and hard to rebuild. Appreciate the speakers for coming on and discussing this topic. 01:22:57 Nick Brosnahan: Has there been any analysis of noise pollution that may be associated with the operation of various CDR capture mechanisms? 01:23:03 Muffie Waterman: Really appreciate the invitation to this kind of cross talk btwn speakers. Would love to see more of that in subsequent sessions 01:23:11 MEGAN SHUMWAY: Would like some vision on identifying CO2 fracking as greenwashing if the well doesn’t have a capping date. 01:24:09 Gary Hughes: Thanks Larry for speaking up, the superficial discussion of forests in this webinar is nothing short of alarming. 01:24:18 John Zuckerman: I believe the 600 MM metric ton CDR storage capacity estimate for California was a PER ANNUM figure, not a TOTAL figure, right? 01:24:34 Jinesse Reynolds: Every experienced fire professional knows that extreme fire weather — especially wind-driven fire — makes it impossible for humans to stop big fires, even in thinned forests. In fact, recent scientific findings show that during high wind events, thinned forests, such as those around the town of Paradise, California, can greatly increase the risk to life and property. Since mature and old-growth forests survive fire best and they sequester carbon, cutting down and removing our carbon future won’t solve our fire dilemma. 01:25:27 Kathy Dervin: The $ going into engineered CDR (and CCS) could be put into the more rapid phase out of fossil fuels (as the CARB EJAC recommended as part of the Scoping Plan). There is not enough political commitment to driving a just transition OFF of fossil fuels. 01:25:57 Tim Huey: I think moving forward with the rest of this 6 part webinar series, there is a desire for a more balanced set of panelists rather than focusing on one stance (in this case, the pro-CDR as a key solution stance). 01:26:51 Tim Huey: The reality is that most of us as audience will not be able to attend all 6 webinars, so if we only catch 1-3 webinars, with only 1 stance per webinar we come away with a very unbalanced presentation of the landscape. 01:26:54 Robert Whitehair: Can we have a copy of the chat? 01:27:24 Pamela Martinez: Yes, the copy of the chat will also be shared. 01:27:29 Holly Kaufman: National Academies methane removal report out: 01:27:48 Erika Morgan: My take on the above comment is that the "one" stance in this session ­I see is that Carbon needs to be removed. ASAP. Period. All approaches need consideration. I agree with this 'need for speed'. 01:27:59 Holly Kaufman: Register Now! A Research Agenda Toward Atmospheric Methane Removal Report Release Webinar October 2, 2024 | 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM ET https://events.nationalacademies.org/43796_10-2024_a-research-agenda-toward-atmospheric-methane-removal-report-release-webinar?utm_source=Division+on+Earth+and+Life+Studies&utm_campaign=bfb11c920c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_08_24_07_16_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-d4b6f1d667-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=bfb11c920c&mc_eid=d24384b2af 01:28:06 Martha Turner: How might direct air capture that is not associated with O&G be accelerated; either the technology or the financing perspectives 01:28:12 Dan Ress: To be clear, I think geological carbon storage has been dominated by oil and gas, not necessarily the same for natural sequestration. And the question isn't whether industry has kept a monopoly but rather whether they have meaningfully shifted the conversation and funding toward options that they benefit more than does climate or communities 01:31:14 Martha Turner: Very much appreciate the quality of the discussion among the panelists. 01:31:44 Mark Huising: Marcius, don’t agree with your take. I know why we’re now stuck with decarbonize. The reality is that we have had on our UC Davis campus fossil fuel companies tout there plans for DACS with no plans to leave their proven reserves in the ground. 01:31:48 Tim Huey: @Erika the concern I have is that “need for speed” in the past has been twisted by industry, governments, etc. to mean rush safety research, and overrun local resident concerns which all disproportionately impact low income, low politically empowered communities. If folks want to move forward full speed ahead in affluent communities and be the experimental spaces then by all means move ahead. 01:31:53 Pete Marsh: There are a lot of folks expressing priors and ideology here. I encourage us to all heed the evolution of IPCC's perspective on CDR from 2007-2023 that Dr. Extavour presented early in his segment. 01:32:12 Kathy Dervin: Large emitters are paying about $45/ton for allowances to emit CO2 (under Ca Cap and Trade program)into the air, but Q45 is paying $100 per ton to capture carbon once emitted. That is backwards. 01:32:19 Jonathon Polly: Thank you, Kim 01:32:24 Aurora Schunemann: Thank you Kim 01:32:33 Muffie Waterman: Thank you Kim! 01:32:43 John Pfeiffer: word! 01:33:04 Erika Morgan: As one of the boomers who so sincerely regrets that my generagtion didn't do the needed work, I really hear and agree with, and applaud, the passion in Kim's answer. 01:33:33 Katharine Harrison: @Erika. Ditto! 01:34:53 Martha Turner: And some of us in the Boomer gen really, really tried to not have the current circumstances back in the 1970's and 1980's going forward. We were not heard at scale. 01:36:29 John Shribbs: at 0.04% Co2, can we really capture CO2 at reasonable carbon footprint of moving equipment and large metal structures? 01:36:35 Erika Morgan: @Martha, hear hear. We were voices in a very deaf universe. I applaud ALL these researchers, activists and innovators who now ARE listening, working and devoting their lives to making these changes. Hooray for you all! And yes, VOTE! 01:36:39 Tim Huey: I’d really like a response to Asha’s sharing of the example of Kern County project. Maybe it’s safe maybe it’s not, but what’s the responsibility to listening and educating the communities directly affected by construction of the proposed CDR facility. 01:37:14 Gerri Clemens: damn straight Martha we did try but were not heard now we all need to work together to get this done vote vote vote 01:37:27 Holly Kaufman: As Kate Gordon says, the clean economy requires building things! 01:37:32 Larry Hanson: I concur with JR’s comments about catastrophic fires and inappropriate thinning forests. We need to keep our forests maximizing sequestering by not thinning forests away from communities and severely reducing logging, especially clearcutting forests. Without doing this, I don’t think we can get to net zero. This probably means reducing economic activity and not diverting economic activity. The pandemic period is an example of this. There have been benefits to this that include being outside more, local activities, and more intimacy interactions. When we all do it together we can do it and make it positive and create a new humanity. Let’s do it! 01:37:48 Diane Warren: Sunrise is a youth org that is getting out the vote for the candidate who promotes climate change programs. Sunrise is a big, organized org. 01:38:08 Pete Marsh: Build Build Build Deploy Deploy Deploy 01:38:36 Erika Morgan: I really hope that these seminars focus /highlight the Principles for projects that ARE beneficial, projects that are safe and that we CAN support. 01:38:55 Martha Turner: Stongly agree with Erika's comment 01:39:02 Zia Ahmed: Will earthquakes pose any risk of explosions on the wells that are filled with CO2??? 01:39:23 Beverly DesChaux: driveelectricweek.org We have been doing benefits of transitioning to driving electric for decades and this week coming up events across north America. bring family and friends to learn about getting onboard reducing one's own emissions! 01:39:36 Tim Huey: But why aren’t more affluent communities volunteering to host these CDR projects? 01:39:53 John Pfeiffer: Can we inject CO2 into aquifers to create carbonated water for human consumption? just kidding. 01:40:03 peggy cabrera: nimby of course! 01:40:39 Vic Compher: Thanks for a great program! 01:40:55 Tim Huey: Appreciate Kim addressing the reality of historically impacted low income communities of color. 01:41:04 Martha Turner: Good to know Heirloom is open for tours. Thank-you Kim forthis info. 01:41:12 Aurora Schunemann: AltaSea!! 01:41:16 Erin Pearse: Enjoyed this program a lot, the presentations and the dialogue. 01:41:40 Dan Ress: It's noteworthy that Heirloom does not intend to scale their Tracy project but rather, when engaging at the megaton scale, they themselves are relying on other methods 01:41:49 Nikki Alvarado: Great information! Thank you for helping my understanding of carbon management. 01:42:41 Dan Ress: I'm thinking of the LCFS and cap-and-trade in CA 01:43:06 Anne-France Kennedy: At KlimateNet we are a global community to support local CDR project founders - just download the KlimateNet App and join us (available on Apple and Google stores) - 01:44:06 Tim Huey: But doesn’t that pricing then give companies a way to buy their way out of decarbonization? 01:44:18 Tim Huey: And releases political pressure on the issue. 01:44:46 Tim Huey: Legislators want to be able to say, “we did something about carbon emissions, leave us alone to do other things” 01:45:02 Beverly DesChaux: 2023 worldwide fossil subsidies were $7trillion! 01:45:20 Tim Huey: Market incentives disagree 01:45:57 Tim Huey: The risk there was be shut down without sulphur scrubbers 01:46:08 Lorrie Odom: Thank you all for a very important and well moderated webinar! Looking forward to the subsequent webinars in this series! 01:46:08 Martha Turner: Very much appreciate today's program. Once again The Climate Center has helped to clarify a complex climate-related topic 01:46:11 Martin Scherwath: Make CDR not-for-profit! Solves a lot of issues! 01:46:16 Anne-France Kennedy: Most voluntary carbon credits market players are trying their best to select buyers that are making efforts to decarbonize first - not a perfect market still but all trying to improve its positive impact 01:46:18 Tim Huey: Currently carbon markets aren’t threatening to shut down fossil fuel facilities. Not sure the analogy lines up 01:46:37 Anne-France Kennedy: Amazing webinar thank you all 01:46:38 Aurora Schunemann: This was an excellent conversation, thank you 01:46:39 Dan Ress: If we need CDR for hard-to-decarbonize sectors, allowing it to offset relatively easy-to-decarbonize sectors is likely to backfire. DAC that is carbon neutral because it is offset by refinery emissions is a Rube-Goldberg machine. 01:47:10 Peter Mackin: Great Presentations and Q&A! Thank you!! 01:47:26 Tim Huey: But 700 scientists, advocates, and policy wonks is not the billions of people in these communities. That’s where the breakdown is happening. 01:47:30 Barbara Moulton: It would be good o have the chat recorded along with video. Also, the slides of the presenters. Thank you all so much 01:48:02 Tim Huey: Thank you for the acronym explanation prompt! 01:48:04 Shaye Wolf: Lifting up comments that upcoming webinars should address environmental justice, public health and safety, biodiversity/ecosystem protection, and full carbon accounting dimensions of CDR projects being proposed. I would also like to see a robust discussion of BECCS for which there’s a lot of industry disinformation. 01:48:22 Martha Turner: Echoing Barbara's request; since I am not finding the save chat function onscreen 01:49:12 Jonathon Polly: Thank you all 01:49:13 Martha Turner: 🙏🏻 01:49:13 Mary Callahan: Thank you all! 01:49:16 Todd Weber: Exceptional!!! 01:49:16 John Shribbs: Thank you for working on this. 01:49:18 fran taro: thank you; 01:49:19 Tim Huey: Thank you for taking the time. 01:49:19 Dan Ress: +++Shaye. BECCS has been euphemized as BiCRS, which assumes an incorrect conclusion in its very name. 01:49:21 Erin Pearse: Thanks everyone! 01:49:26 Keely Lewis: Thank you! 01:49:26 sue bock: thank you 01:49:27 Erika Morgan: Excellent discussion, thank you! 01:49:28 John Zuckerman: really really great! thank you! 01:49:32 Eric Strid: Great info and discussions! 01:49:33 Esther Mburu: Amazing insights 01:49:33 Delia Arriaga: Thank you all 01:49:34 Ronnie Siegel: Thank you for the excellent presentations! 01:49:40 Kathy Dervin: thanks TCC and speakers 01:49:45 peggy cabrera: gracias presenters and commenters! 01:49:46 joe mccluskey: thank you, this was fantastic 01:49:47 Kenneth Roberts: Stupendous! 01:49:48 Tim Huey: Invite the Kern County folks as a case study for one webinar! 01:49:52 Martin Scherwath: 👏 01:50:03 Beverly DesChaux: kicking gas! 01:50:09 Robert Loomis: Thanks! 01:50:12 Brenda Medina-Maldonado: 👏🏽 Thank you! 01:50:18 Gerri Clemens: thank u all 01:50:18 Jim Wilson: Thnk you Ellie and presenters. 01:50:20 ReJeana Goldsborough: Thank you! Great discussion 01:50:20 Greg Nelson: Thank you!!!! 01:50:21 Eliana Fonsah: Thank you 01:50:25 Diane Warren: Thank you, presenters and sponsors 01:50:31 Katie Gerber: Thanks everyone 01:50:32 Kevin Briseno: Thank you!