This is an illustration of what @glenpeters.bsky.social means when he said that CDR does not "exist outside the toolbox".

(Screenshot from Allied offsets new brief on cost of CDR. Not trying to pick on them, it's an informative brief, and I would say most people make this assumption. )

Full analysis here: marginalcarbon.substack.com/p/what-role-...

Comparing different alternatives is tricky since they rest on so many assumptions. Electrofuels versus using CDR to offset fossil fuel oil depends on the cost of electricity, fossil fuels and CDR. The ISO chart below compares the interaction between them.

Of course this first requires that we accept permanent CDR as a solution for a limited amount of emissions.

Today, CDR is not an option in most policy frameworks and roadmaps. This should change. We should be agnostic about which solutions are used to reach net zero. Otherwise, we risk making the transition slower, more expensive, and less politically feasible.

Paper here www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

Cement requiring CCS, is still difficult to address. I see the wording "hard-to-abate" refering to activities that need forcing policy creating a level playing field. A subset of hard-to-abate is also CDR-optimal. 4/5

This graph compares economic & energetic needs of aviation and cement mitigation, showing cement is not hard to abate, but aviation is.
However, I prefer "CDR-optimal" instead of hard to abate here. 3/5

As long as CDR quality criteria are set high, the market will be best at figuring out which emissions are optimal to deal with using CDR. 2/5

I've written a detailed analysis of what the new standard means for removals, going into much more detail on all of this (don't miss the footnotes). marginalcarbon.substack.com/p/what-needs...
9/9

Finally kudos to all the hard work from the SBTi team. I’ve seen first-hand how much hard work dedicated and smart people have put into it. Trying to balance an enormous amount of input, creating a standard that is both science-based and actually adopted by companies. Not an easy task by any means.

The guidelines should incentivize companies that want to support CDR but just need a push, not the opposite.
Companies should estimate how much CDR they need at net zero in total, and to start scaling up CDR in a credible manner.
7/9

There is even a risk of more harm than good for the CDR sector. Although it would increase demand among Scope-1 emitters it could hinder efforts within companies without large Scope 1 emissions to advocate for CDR purchases. CFOs can reference the SBTi's stance that only Scope 1 is needed.
6/9

🫙 A Scope-1 only requirement, means few companies are likely to buy CDR, and net zero fulfilments would be jeopardised.

At the same time the CDR Sector is dependent on an SBTi CDR interim target requirement, with the next wave of companies will only buy CDR if explicitly told so.
5/9

⚖️ Scope 1 emissions are very unevenly distributed. Most large Scope 1 emitters don't have SBTi targets, and typically have less financial flexibility to scale CDR early.
4/9

✈️ SBTi companies’ main need for removals will not be their own scope 1 emissions but neutralising supply chain emissions from companies that haven’t covered them themselves.
3/9