The CDR Policy Scoop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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