The CDR Policy Scoop

Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart

Get the Scoop on the latest CDR policy developments with Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart. Punchy, unfiltered, to the point discussions on all hot developments in the sector.  Listen in to go several levels deeper and beyond the analysis that you won't find anywhere else. Enjoy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

  1. 12時間前

    Quarterly Catch Up: National CDR Targets, ETS Integration, and Who Pays for Removals

    In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme sit down for their second quarterly, unscripted catch-up of the year, working through what is actually moving in CDR policy right now with no guest in the mix, just two co-hosts comparing notes. The conversation opens on the member state CDR targets expected by the end of the year and why a patchwork of twenty seven national targets could be a net positive for the sector, forcing a wider range of technologies and approaches into play rather than funneling everyone toward the EU ETS. From there they turn to the ETS integration itself, unpacking a Potsdam Institute modeling exercise on how CDR volumes between forty and eighty megatons a year by twenty forty could stabilize carbon prices, and Sebastian previews a new peer reviewed paper on using ETS revenue to front load investment into removals through European Investment Bank bonds. They then dig into aviation, a sector Sebastian and Eve agree the CDR community has been too quiet on. The ReFuelEU Aviation review looks unlikely to open the door to removals, and the two make the case for a coordinated push before the window closes. That leads into CORSIA, where enforcement turns out to be far weaker and far more geographically uneven than either expected, and where Sebastian argues the real opportunity may lie with nature based removals rather than durable ones. The episode closes on Article 6.4 as the presumed foundation for future international credit quality criteria despite still-undefined removal methodologies, and on Norway's new NOACCS auction scheme, a sizable but narrowly targeted funding mechanism that raises questions about how well governments are learning from each other's programs. Links Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteAriadne dossier (Potsdam Institute) on CDR integration into the EU ETSHow Frontloaded ETS Revenues Can Close Europe’s Durable CDR GapNOACCS, a competitive auction scheme consultation on the scheme is now open until August 6th Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

    28分

  2. 5日前

    ISO, SBTi, and the LCAW Verdict on Corporate Net Zero - with Kaya Axelsson

    In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme are joined by Kaya Axelsson, Research and Policy Fellow at Oxford Net Zero, just days after what she describes as the most anticipated Monday of her year: June 22, when both the ISO Net Zero Standard and the SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard launched at London Climate Action Week. Kaya spent three years inside both standard-setting processes, and the conversation captures what this convergence moment actually means for companies, for carbon markets, and for carbon removal. The episode opens on what Kaya calls the single global playbook. Her case: the two standards don't fundamentally contradict each other. ISO is wider in scope, internationally governed via WTO-compatible processes, and a natural tool for trade policy, green public procurement, and claims legislation, particularly in markets across Africa and Asia that SBTi has yet to reach. SBTi brings detailed near-term implementation guidance and the momentum of eleven thousand companies already signed up. Kaya explains how she sees companies using them together and what each does better than the other. But she is not without concerns. The episode surfaces a significant one: a potential communication error in the SBTi standard that risks allowing companies to claim net zero alignment without ever setting a long-term net zero target. For CDR, the implications are direct. SBTi's decision not to require removals purchases before 2035 is, in Kaya's view, a cost-based rather than science-based call, and a missed opportunity to start scaling the supply of what companies will eventually need. ISO, by contrast, requires five-year removal milestones from the outset. The conversation closes on what comes next: the governance of commodity certificates such as green steel, SAF, cement, which both standards now actively encourage companies to purchase. Kaya predicts this will be the defining debate at the next London Climate Action Week, and explains why getting the governance architecture right matters as much as the demand signal itself. Links Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteKaya Axelsson:  LinkedIn and WebsiteISO Net Zero Standard SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard Robert Höglund & Claire Wigg’s: Exponential Roadmap InitiativeBuild the world your net zero target assumes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

    28分

  3. 6月18日

    Inside the ISO Net Zero Standard - with Delia Meth-Cohn

    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.

    30分

  4. 6月17日

    Green-Hushing, Safe Harbors, and Who Actually Owns a Carbon Credit - with Dr Ruth Dagan

    In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart sits down with Dr. Ruth Dagan, Senior Partner and Head of Environment & Climate Change at Herzog Law, and Co-Chair of the IETA Legal Working Group, to cover two legal challenges that are quietly suppressing corporate demand for carbon credits. The first is litigation risk. Since 2022, climate washing claims have increased by seventy percent globally, with around 160 cases on the books and fifty-four relating specifically to carbon credit offsets. Apple's carbon neutral Watch campaign was lost in Germany and only tentatively won in the US. The upshot is that many companies are choosing to say nothing about their climate action at all. Ruth calls this green-hushing, and argues it is actively draining demand from the voluntary carbon market. The conversation covers the two regulatory responses now taking shape: the EU Empowering Consumers Directive, coming into force in September, which blacklists product-level carbon neutrality claims outright, and California's AB 1911, which proposes the opposite, a safe harbor that would actively protect companies using high-integrity credits. Ruth outlines the work being led by IETA and the Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets, now backed by eleven governments. The second challenge is more fundamental: most carbon credit registries, including PACM, include explicit disclaimers that they make no legal statement about who actually owns the credits in an account. Ruth explains how this came to be, what it means for institutional investment, and how the Unidroit project, due to conclude in early 2027, offers a route to resolution. LinksSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteDr. Ruth Dagan: LinkedIn and ProfileEmpowering Consumers DirectiveCalifornia AB 1911Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets / IETA safe harbor reportGrantham Institute Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

    30分

  5. 6月14日

    SBTi 2.0 Net Zero Standard: What It Actually Means for CDR - with Robert Höglund

    Guest: Robert Höglund, writer of Marginal Carbon, climate strategist at Milkywire, and co-founder of CDI FYI The 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.

    26分

  6. 6月8日

    Taking Stock: The State of CDR - Fireside Chat with Oliver Geden

    Recorded live at the Negative Emissions Platform (NEP) event in June 2026, this fireside chat brings Sebastian Manhart together with Oliver Geden for a rapid-fire sweep through the state of CDR policy.  Oliver Geden is Head of the Research Cluster on Climate and Energy Policy at SWP (the German Institute for International and Security Affairs), Vice Chair of IPCC Working Group Three, and a member of the executive team of the State of CDR Report. He co-authored Chapter Five on policy in the report's third edition, published the week this conversation was recorded. Together they dig into the questions that matter, the numbers that mislead, and the politics underneath both. In 30 minutes they cover a lot of ground: the policy sequencing debate, what the 16% CDR share of global mitigation effort actually means, and which countries are pulling ahead. Oliver walks through why over 100 countries now have net zero targets, yet novel CDR features in only two NDCs through to 2035, Australia and the UK, and in around one-third of long-term strategies for 2050. He draws on his IPCC experience to explain the shift in how CDR has been framed in intergovernmental negotiations: from "scenarios suggest you'll need it" to "you cannot reach net zero without it." That shift forecloses the option of treating CDR as an optional add-on, but it hasn't yet translated into concrete national planning at scale. The conversation gets into the weeds on EU policy design: the complexity of introducing national durable removal targets within the pillar system, the tension in the international credits debate between what the text says and what policymakers are actually trying to achieve, and a concept Oliver introduces that is worth holding onto: "politically hard to abate." The episode closes on a question that would have felt out of place a year ago: what the war in Iran does to climate and CDR policy ambition, and Oliver's answer is, characteristically, clear-eyed. Show notes: Sebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteOliver Geden: LinkedInState of CDR Report, 3rd Edition: Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

    30分

  7. 6月2日

    The State of CDR 2026: The CDR Policy Scoop Verdict

    In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme dig into the highly anticipated third edition of the State of CDR Report. At 300 pages and 75-plus authors, this edition is the most comprehensive mapping of the CDR landscape to date. Sebastian and Eve don't attempt to walk through the headlines they go deeper, pulling out the findings that stood out, challenged assumptions, or raised new questions. The conversation opens on vocabulary: the report's case for retiring "natural versus technological" in favour of "conventional versus novel", and why that framing matters for how CDR is perceived by the public. It then turns to one of the report's most important, and most easily misread, numbers: the 2.2 gigatons of global CDR, of which 99.9% is conventional and 2.1 megatons is novel. Sebastian unpacks why gross versus net removals is not a semantic debate, and why the two figures are measuring fundamentally different things. From there, they cover the gap: what NDCs and long-term strategies actually say (and don't say) about CDR, why a new wave of national climate plans arrived with almost no additional detail on removals, and what the report's modelling implies about how much CDR net zero will actually require, with the average across scenarios now sitting at 16% of mitigation effort, not the 10% commonly cited. They also take a hard look at the 2030 outlook: the report's layered approach to projections, why the 2020 prediction of 11 megatons by 2025 became 2, and what company announcements of 42 megatons actually mean in practice. The episode closes on what the next decade of CDR delivery really looks like: biomass-based methods dominating through 2030, a CDR funding share of just 2.6% of all climate tech, and a shout-out to CDRjobs, which gets its first dedicated section in the report, for contributing workforce data to the ecosystem. Show notes: Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteState of CDR Report 2026CDRjobs Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

    29分

  8. 5月24日

    LULUCF, Carbon Farming and the CRCF Review - with Asger Strange Olesen

    In this episode of The CDR Policy Scoop, Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme welcome back Asger Strange Olesen, Global Head of Climate and Biodiversity at the International Woodland Company and Independent Member of the EU Carbon Removal Expert Group. The conversation opens on where the carbon farming side of the CRCF stands relative to the momentum building around permanent removals. Asger explains why carbon credits are the wrong tool for the majority of European farmland that stays in production, and why the CRCF review's emerging concept of performance certificates may finally offer a workable alternative. One that links supply chain companies' Scope 3 reporting to what actually happens on the land. The episode digs into how performance certificates would work in practice: who issues them, who needs them, and how attribution across multiple buyers in the same supply chain gets resolved. Asger is direct about which concepts from the carbon credit world have no place here, and why insisting on them would kill the instrument before it starts. The discussion also covers the tension between the EU's bottom-up inventory approach and SBTi's top-down FLAG methodology, what the Q4 Commission proposal on national targets and flexibilities needs to get right, and why moving the obligation to pay from member states to sectors and companies is the single most important precondition for any of this to work. Show notes: Eve Tamme: LinkedIn and WebsiteSebastian Manhart: LinkedIn and WebsiteAsger Strange Olesen: LinkedIn and MediumCRCF Days — European Commission event pageSupercharging Carbon Removal from the EU’s Land Sector Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

    27分
すべて見る（87）

番組について

Get the Scoop on the latest CDR policy developments with Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart. Punchy, unfiltered, to the point discussions on all hot developments in the sector.  Listen in to go several levels deeper and beyond the analysis that you won't find anywhere else. Enjoy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

情報

  • クリエイター
    Eve Tamme and Sebastian Manhart
  • 配信期間
    25年 - 26年
  • エピソード
    87
  • 制限指定
    不適切な内容を含まない
  • Copyright
    © 0ac91ce0-7e6e-11f0-8845-453024790205
  • 番組のWebサイト
    The CDR Policy Scoop

その他のおすすめ