|
| | | | |  | | By Debra Kahn and Allison Prang | | | | | 
Climeworks' direct air capture facility in Iceland is definitely beyond business as usual. | Climeworks | THE BIG SUCK — Carbon removal is heating up along with the planet, but it's got a long way to go to becoming a mainstream tool for investors, our Allison Prang reports. Everyone from the Biden administration to Kim Kardashian is investing in technologies designed to suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, amid widespread recognition that global warming is too far along for reliance on simply reducing business-as-usual emissions. But even as billions of dollars in funding pours in, watchdog groups and standard setters are warning that the efforts could undermine nearer-term reductions, or sap momentum for industry to reduce emissions within its own operations. How the rapidly evolving sector manages its tensions will determine whether it can scale as a viable solution — or fall prey to reputational issues that have hamstrung other carbon markets, like those for carbon offsets. “There’s a huge risk to doing this poorly, especially right now,” said Erin Burns, executive director of the nonprofit Carbon180, which advocates for carbon removal policies. A U.N.-backed group of investors and insurers with $11 trillion in assets under management issued guidelines in January for how members should pursue net-zero strategies. They prohibit carbon removal from counting toward companies' reduction targets until 2030, out of concern that it could "deter or detract" from other decarbonization efforts. "We don't want to prolong emissions that should be abated now," said Jesica Andrews, investment leader for the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, which oversees the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance. But some companies are already switching from offsets to removals, in recognition of offsets' limitations and growing demand for alternatives. They're trying to make sure the removal market doesn't become another avenue for greenwashing. “There’s an opportunity for this new sector to do things right,” said Danny Cullenward, policy director for CarbonPlan, a climate policy think tank that has advised companies on their removal plans. “But they’re going to have to confront some of the same problems where things went south in the conventional markets.”
| | | | DOWNLOAD THE POLITICO MOBILE APP: Stay up to speed with the newly updated POLITICO mobile app, featuring timely political news, insights and analysis from the best journalists in the business. The sleek and navigable design offers a convenient way to access POLITICO's scoops and groundbreaking reporting. Don’t miss out on the app you can rely on for the news you need, reimagined. DOWNLOAD FOR iOS– DOWNLOAD FOR ANDROID. | | | | | | | | POST-MALPASS PUZZLE — Climate denier David Malpass is on his way out as World Bank president, but the Biden administration's work to transform the bank's climate portfolio is just beginning, Adam Behsudi, Zack Colman and Victoria Guida report. The job ahead will be a challenge for anyone who takes the helm. Divisions among member countries and within staff are emerging as the bank starts to move forward with its climate agenda. That includes cutting off new financing for projects that use fossil fuels and shifting more toward renewables. “Most of the World Bank staff who are not climate specialists did not believe the directive from the U.S. and EU against funding natural gas projects was productive,” said a person close to Malpass. Whoever the administration picks to take over will also have to balance the agenda of the U.S., the bank’s largest shareholder, with concerns from other countries that fear a move away from the institution’s core mandates of fighting poverty and funding economic development projects within national borders. And an expanded climate change agenda might eventually require a substantial capital increase from the bank’s 189 member countries — a move that could prove difficult since it would require approval of both houses of Congress, where Republican lawmakers have been critical of both the bank and the climate agenda.
| | | GETTING THE LEAD OUT — We've had unleaded gasoline for cars for decades, but somehow taking lead out of aviation fuel for small aircraft has always eluded us. Ariel Wittenberg unravels why that is — and the costs of inaction — for POLITICO's E&E News. The federal loophole exempting the high-octane leaded gasoline made for small airplanes has led to piston-engine aircraft becoming the largest source of airborne lead in the United States, according to EPA, and has meant years of lead poisoning in San Jose and other communities near the thousands of small airports in rural pockets across the country. Today, toddlers in East San Jose have concentrations of lead in their blood on par with children tested at the height of the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich. “Will the Department of Transportation prioritize kids with lead in their blood or prioritize the interests of private aviation and their lobbying groups?” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents San Jose. “Because 2030, that’s way too late. By then, you’re going to have another generation of kids with lead in their blood.” Industry has relied on the argument that lead is crucial to keeping plane engines from misfiring, and that a ban needs to wait until a 100-octane lead-free fuel is brought to market. The nonprofit standards organization ASTM International, which writes fuel standards and decides whether to bring new fuels to market, hasn't recommended any alternatives, so the Federal Aviation Administration has been slow to act. “It sounds like a scientific thing, developing a fuel, but there’s always economic and political facets to it, and money drives it all,” said Ben Visser, who represented Shell on ASTM's standards panel and worked on fuel technology for 33 years. “No one on the committee is going to agree to a new fuel if it doesn’t make them money, let alone if it costs them."
| | | HIGH SEAS TREATY — The latest round of negotiations over a global biodiversity treaty covering international waters kicked off Monday in New York, Louise Guillot reports. Negotiators made significant progress at the last round of talks in July but couldn’t agree on several key points, including how and when to conduct environmental impact assessments for activities at sea and how to share and monetize the benefits derived from marine genetic resources. Julian Jackson, senior manager at the Pew Charitable Trust, is hoping the negotiations will "close a few of the gaps within the seabed mining regime." He told Louise "I’m hopeful, but I’m just nervous that if we don’t do it this time, it’s going to be much harder to do it.” Negotiations end March 3.
| | | GAME ON — Welcome to the Long Game, where we tell you about the latest on efforts to shape our future. We deliver data-driven storytelling, compelling interviews with industry and political leaders, and news Tuesday through Friday to keep you in the loop on sustainability. Team Sustainability is editor Greg Mott, deputy editor Debra Kahn and reporters Jordan Wolman and Allison Prang. Reach us all at gmott@politico.com, dkahn@politico.com, jwolman@politico.com and aprang@politico.com. Want more? Don’t we all. Sign up for the Long Game. Four days a week and still free!
| | | — Some of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance's greenest members are bristling at its lowered standards, according to Bloomberg. — Volkswagen is hoping an EV-themed escape room will help its employees transition to making electric vehicles, Bloomberg also reports. — Carbon prices in the EU are reaching record highs, Reuters reports.
| | | | LISTEN TO POLITICO'S ENERGY PODCAST: Check out our daily five-minute brief on the latest energy and environmental politics and policy news. Don't miss out on the must-know stories, candid insights, and analysis from POLITICO's energy team. Listen today. | | | | | | | | | Follow us on Twitter | | | | Follow us | | | | |  |
|
