Danny Cullenward
@ghgpolicy.org
Forensic climate economist and lawyer. The carbon accounting canary in your climate policy coal mine.
https://ghgpolicy.org
https://ghgpolicy.org
yeah I'm pretty sure Standard Oil developed this site like 100 years ago, well before the CCC even existed
here is our friend wikipedia with a visual
here is our friend wikipedia with a visual
October 3, 2025 at 6:27 AM
yeah I'm pretty sure Standard Oil developed this site like 100 years ago, well before the CCC even existed
here is our friend wikipedia with a visual
here is our friend wikipedia with a visual
That’s a fine-lookin bike there, mon ami
August 7, 2025 at 2:43 AM
That’s a fine-lookin bike there, mon ami
Also it reminds us that it is equally impossible to dismiss as it is to defend Toto
April 15, 2025 at 1:54 AM
Also it reminds us that it is equally impossible to dismiss as it is to defend Toto
Are you still working for Newsom?
Or merely interested in future business?
Or merely interested in future business?
!["Tim [Wayne] has worked on hundreds of campaigns for clients like Gavin Newsom, … "](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:x7kv7vihvirdyyq5heigd2vk/bafkreib3cuvj4uluwtavqqxc65oodb7h24db6yuefp7xxfwh7b3ixp5xse@jpeg)
March 12, 2025 at 10:02 PM
Are you still working for Newsom?
Or merely interested in future business?
Or merely interested in future business?
Specifically, the definition of a "qualified" state under the final 45V rules is based on a set of criteria about the features of a state's cap-and-trade program.
The definition requires a price ceiling of at least $90 USD per tCO2e (2025 USD).
California has that today, but only through 2030.
The definition requires a price ceiling of at least $90 USD per tCO2e (2025 USD).
California has that today, but only through 2030.
January 7, 2025 at 7:21 PM
Specifically, the definition of a "qualified" state under the final 45V rules is based on a set of criteria about the features of a state's cap-and-trade program.
The definition requires a price ceiling of at least $90 USD per tCO2e (2025 USD).
California has that today, but only through 2030.
The definition requires a price ceiling of at least $90 USD per tCO2e (2025 USD).
California has that today, but only through 2030.
Using US EPA emissions data, we estimated that the maximum production of conventional hydrogen that could be qualify for 45V with methane offsets is about 35 million tpa — triple the DOE 2030 goal for clean H2.
With the safeguards in the final rule, it should be less than 2 million tpa.
With the safeguards in the final rule, it should be less than 2 million tpa.
January 7, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Using US EPA emissions data, we estimated that the maximum production of conventional hydrogen that could be qualify for 45V with methane offsets is about 35 million tpa — triple the DOE 2030 goal for clean H2.
With the safeguards in the final rule, it should be less than 2 million tpa.
With the safeguards in the final rule, it should be less than 2 million tpa.
anyway, ladies and gentlepersons of the internet, I give you the officially independent views of the state carbon market adviser who also happens to be the California State Director for the Environmental Defense Fund
a nonprofit environmental organization that uses science to make a difference
a nonprofit environmental organization that uses science to make a difference
December 18, 2024 at 11:46 PM
anyway, ladies and gentlepersons of the internet, I give you the officially independent views of the state carbon market adviser who also happens to be the California State Director for the Environmental Defense Fund
a nonprofit environmental organization that uses science to make a difference
a nonprofit environmental organization that uses science to make a difference
never mind that it means Dr. Randazzo has a PhD, happens to be super smart, and also co-authored the paper in question with the lead scientist of the Environmental Defense Fund (Steve Hamburg, a proper old white dude™);
she is just a "postdoctoral researcher"
she is just a "postdoctoral researcher"
December 18, 2024 at 11:46 PM
never mind that it means Dr. Randazzo has a PhD, happens to be super smart, and also co-authored the paper in question with the lead scientist of the Environmental Defense Fund (Steve Hamburg, a proper old white dude™);
she is just a "postdoctoral researcher"
she is just a "postdoctoral researcher"
Hmm, looks like the journalist swapped biodiesel and renewable diesel in her statement there.
I pointed her to this EIA summary, which shows how California RD consumption significantly exceeds national production levels through 2021.
www.eia.gov/todayinenerg...
I pointed her to this EIA summary, which shows how California RD consumption significantly exceeds national production levels through 2021.
www.eia.gov/todayinenerg...
December 2, 2024 at 9:36 PM
Hmm, looks like the journalist swapped biodiesel and renewable diesel in her statement there.
I pointed her to this EIA summary, which shows how California RD consumption significantly exceeds national production levels through 2021.
www.eia.gov/todayinenerg...
I pointed her to this EIA summary, which shows how California RD consumption significantly exceeds national production levels through 2021.
www.eia.gov/todayinenerg...
to do battle with @nature.com.web.brid.gy, one imagines
November 22, 2024 at 9:21 PM
to do battle with @nature.com.web.brid.gy, one imagines
I can't stress enough that a yes vote would put at risk the state's broader climate policy agenda, all for the purpose of sending money mostly to out-of-state projects that don't deliver the climate benefits they promise on paper.
kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/pub...
kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/pub...
October 30, 2024 at 2:31 PM
I can't stress enough that a yes vote would put at risk the state's broader climate policy agenda, all for the purpose of sending money mostly to out-of-state projects that don't deliver the climate benefits they promise on paper.
kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/pub...
kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/pub...
Here's what I wrote about that problem in my report for the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy.
October 25, 2024 at 4:26 PM
Here's what I wrote about that problem in my report for the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy.
Like if your PR pitch is "this is a market that gives money to good things" I sure would like to know how many billions of dollars a year you think California drivers should pay for crop-based biofuels and dairy manure accounting tricks.
October 25, 2024 at 4:20 PM
Like if your PR pitch is "this is a market that gives money to good things" I sure would like to know how many billions of dollars a year you think California drivers should pay for crop-based biofuels and dairy manure accounting tricks.
Okay but if Sublime sells the "clean" rights to a different buyer, then the physical delivery should be advertised as "generic" not "clean"
How is a plaque that says "clean" anything other than fundamentally misleading?
How is a plaque that says "clean" anything other than fundamentally misleading?
October 17, 2024 at 9:42 PM
Okay but if Sublime sells the "clean" rights to a different buyer, then the physical delivery should be advertised as "generic" not "clean"
How is a plaque that says "clean" anything other than fundamentally misleading?
How is a plaque that says "clean" anything other than fundamentally misleading?
Nothing says "brave tortured hero" quite like:
1. Disparaging one of the few non-predatory open access academic journals in energy/climate
2. Writing an industry-funded study on a topic that is relevant to the industry's financial interests to rehabilitate your scientific credentials
1. Disparaging one of the few non-predatory open access academic journals in energy/climate
2. Writing an industry-funded study on a topic that is relevant to the industry's financial interests to rehabilitate your scientific credentials
October 9, 2024 at 6:54 PM
Nothing says "brave tortured hero" quite like:
1. Disparaging one of the few non-predatory open access academic journals in energy/climate
2. Writing an industry-funded study on a topic that is relevant to the industry's financial interests to rehabilitate your scientific credentials
1. Disparaging one of the few non-predatory open access academic journals in energy/climate
2. Writing an industry-funded study on a topic that is relevant to the industry's financial interests to rehabilitate your scientific credentials
Paragraph 12 of the indictment sure is a doozy!
And this isn't an aberration in the industry — it's standard practice.
And this isn't an aberration in the industry — it's standard practice.
October 3, 2024 at 6:35 AM
Paragraph 12 of the indictment sure is a doozy!
And this isn't an aberration in the industry — it's standard practice.
And this isn't an aberration in the industry — it's standard practice.
He sure was involved in a lot of different entities in the carbon market industry over the years, wasn't he?
Apologies that his bio uses the term "intrapraneur," which may be a trigger for those of us who work for a living.
(From his archived board bio.)
Apologies that his bio uses the term "intrapraneur," which may be a trigger for those of us who work for a living.
(From his archived board bio.)
October 3, 2024 at 3:50 AM
He sure was involved in a lot of different entities in the carbon market industry over the years, wasn't he?
Apologies that his bio uses the term "intrapraneur," which may be a trigger for those of us who work for a living.
(From his archived board bio.)
Apologies that his bio uses the term "intrapraneur," which may be a trigger for those of us who work for a living.
(From his archived board bio.)
Welcome to campaign season 2024, in which my crypto questions remain unanswered
September 27, 2024 at 8:41 PM
Welcome to campaign season 2024, in which my crypto questions remain unanswered
it's a bad strategy for outreach to normies, agreed, and also an essential topic for those of us who work on this professionally, including me and Josh
also this
also this
September 24, 2024 at 9:38 PM
it's a bad strategy for outreach to normies, agreed, and also an essential topic for those of us who work on this professionally, including me and Josh
also this
also this
It's so bad! @gwagner.com and I made the same comparison in an oped last year.
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
July 17, 2024 at 4:18 PM
It's so bad! @gwagner.com and I made the same comparison in an oped last year.
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
This is one of the more craven things I've heard a prominent climate researcher voice out loud.
And it's hard not to notice this pivot in connection with the growing interest in solar radiation management among wealthy tech elites, i.e. the kinds of people who are now funding this work.
And it's hard not to notice this pivot in connection with the growing interest in solar radiation management among wealthy tech elites, i.e. the kinds of people who are now funding this work.
July 2, 2024 at 6:14 PM
This is one of the more craven things I've heard a prominent climate researcher voice out loud.
And it's hard not to notice this pivot in connection with the growing interest in solar radiation management among wealthy tech elites, i.e. the kinds of people who are now funding this work.
And it's hard not to notice this pivot in connection with the growing interest in solar radiation management among wealthy tech elites, i.e. the kinds of people who are now funding this work.
The story includes a great animation walking through how life cycle analysis methods get abused to concentrate the low overall percentage of recycled content into single products, in order to justify marketing a higher percentage of recycled content than they deserve.
Here's a screenshot.
Here's a screenshot.
June 21, 2024 at 4:53 PM
The story includes a great animation walking through how life cycle analysis methods get abused to concentrate the low overall percentage of recycled content into single products, in order to justify marketing a higher percentage of recycled content than they deserve.
Here's a screenshot.
Here's a screenshot.
I am begging academic economists, please consider what happens when you combust the "sustainable aviation fuel" in a plane.
Offsets don't reduce net emissions, and giving innovation tax credits to incumbent fossil fuel companies for commercially mature activities is economically inefficient.
Offsets don't reduce net emissions, and giving innovation tax credits to incumbent fossil fuel companies for commercially mature activities is economically inefficient.
June 18, 2024 at 11:27 PM
I am begging academic economists, please consider what happens when you combust the "sustainable aviation fuel" in a plane.
Offsets don't reduce net emissions, and giving innovation tax credits to incumbent fossil fuel companies for commercially mature activities is economically inefficient.
Offsets don't reduce net emissions, and giving innovation tax credits to incumbent fossil fuel companies for commercially mature activities is economically inefficient.