The carbon removal industry is poised for growth. During the second Trump administration, many of the first meaningful projects in terms of size and capacity will be coming online.
But according to Giana Amador, who leads the Carbon Removal Alliance, the industry’s policy strategy will have to shift. Without the backing of funds and focus from the Department of Energy that CDR has seen in the last four years, the industry is focused on wooing members of Congress from both parties.
“Because of [the size of planned projects], members of Congress are interested in understanding how their district or state is being a leader, and also in getting a physical understanding of what [the projects] look like,” Amador said in an interview in the weeks before the election.
Though the CDR industry is still relatively nascent — and far off from mid-century removal targets — the growth seen during the Biden administration means the industry can go with those conversations armed with evidence of their value, and potential.
And, as is the case with other types of climate tech projects, red and purple states are already reaping the economic benefits of CDR projects. According to data from RMI, states like Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida rank highly when it comes to CDR deployment opportunity, right up there with California and Washington state. Two of the four regional direct air capture hubs, funded with $3.5 billion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, are set for development in conservative states: Project Cypress in Louisiana, and the South Texas DAC Hub.
“The idea of cleaning up our carbon pollution is something that is popular across the aisle, and carbon removal has received quite a bit of bipartisan support,” Amador said, pointing to the 45Q tax credit, the DAC hubs, the CDR purchase prize, and research and development funding from DOE. “All of those things have been championed by Republicans and Democrats, and we’ve heard from members of Congress that they’re going to go to bat for things like 45Q, to protect them.”
Amador said CRA attended three separate groundbreaking events during the election cycle that had lawmakers in the audience — both Democrats and Republicans, she added, and the questions they raised were generally bipartisan.
“A lot of these members of Congress are interested in the number of jobs that these solutions create,” Amador explained. They’re also interested in supply chain impacts, whether CDR companies sourced union labor for their projects, potential air quality impacts, and the interplay between CDR and local industrial facilities or agricultural operations.
The main open question, though, is whether those same members who see CDR projects as an opportunity for their districts will embrace the needs of the industry as a whole — both during the Trump administration, and in the longer-term.
“I’m really excited about members of Congress understanding carbon removal in a much more grounded way,” she said. “Seeing these solutions in the real world builds a lot of physical intuition and a lot of excitement for what they can be at scale.”
Challenges ahead
The CDR industry’s next big challenge is in building a coalition that can lead to policy change — and the willingness of lawmakers “to spend significant resources,” Amador said.
“Some of the ways we do that is by a lot of education and a lot of highlighting of these real projects in real districts,” she said. ”We have a really strong foundation to build upon, but the number of members of Congress that we need to support these solutions and the willingness to spend on these solutions is far lower than what we need.”
That said, carbon removal and climate generally is low on the list of priorities for most elected officials of either party, Amador said.
“Carbon removal has a tough time competing [with issues like inflation and the job market] because it is about harnessing this longer-term potential,” she explained. Because of that, in the coming years it will be key for the industry to make carbon removal “a kitchen table issue,” both through job creation and community benefits.
For example, the California Central Valley is “a real hotbed” for carbon removal action, and also experiences severe air quality challenges. Amador said it’s worth exploring how to deploy DAC there in a way that reduces both air quality impacts and asthma rates for the residents there.
Thinking about carbon removal in that more holistic way, and engaging with members of Congress from that angle, Amador said, will help give the industry “more shots on goal in terms of getting progressive carbon removal policy passed.”
However, Amador acknowledged that the CDR industry also has a public relations problem to grapple with — one that comes from multiple sides. The industry routinely weathers criticism about its potential to be a fig leaf for fossil fuels, as well as about its measurement and accountability challenges, as was seen with the closure of marine CDR startup Running Tide earlier this year.
“It’s a really important tension — the success of these projects hinges not only on the confidence of the government but the confidence of the communities, and the confidence of investors, banks, all the people who give money to make projects possible,” she added.
It’s natural for some companies to fail in a young industry, but capitalizing on those lessons will be essential, she added. “How do we make sure that other companies who are working on CDR have access to [Running Tide’s] data or access to that technology,” Amador asked. “What can the federal government do to provide incentives to renewable energy providers to partner with direct air capture facilities [to avoid another Project Bison problem]?”
Her bottom line, though, is that there’s an immense amount of CDR potential in the U.S., and potential for the U.S. market to take the lead in this sector.
“That’s not going to benefit just one district or one state,” she said. “It’s about building a thriving industry across the entire United States…and maybe we’ll be able to meet our gigaton scale carbon removal goals.”
