A mismatch between suppliers and buyers is making it hard to grow the supply of low-carbon products like cement, steel, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
If you want to produce a product like SAF, you want to find the cheapest place to do it — someplace where there’s cheap, low-carbon hydrogen, for example. But the buyers who have the incentive and money to pay for those products might be halfway across the world.
Or say you’re a supplier of a low-carbon building material. Risk-averse contractors with tight margins may hesitate to pay a green premium — even if the final buyer of the building might be willing to pay extra to cut emissions.
So how do you bridge the gap between the buyers and sellers of low-carbon products?
In this episode, Shayle talks to Adam Klauber, vice president of sustainability and digital supply chain at World Energy, a low-carbon fuels company. They talk about book and claim, a system to separate the environmental attribute (avoided emissions) from the physical good (e.g. fuel). It’s a system that developed in the power sector as renewable energy credits (RECs) and is now spreading to SAFs and other industries. Shayle and Adam cover topics like:
- Book and claim versus other systems of tracking environmental attributes, such as mass-balance and physical chain-of-custody
- Lessons from the most mature book and claim systems, like RECs and SAF
- Key challenges like double counting the interoperability of digital registries and certification
- Other industries where book and claim may develop like maritime, trucking, steel, cement, and chemicals
Recommended resources
- Roundtable On Sustainable Biomaterials: RSB Book & Claim Manual
- World Economic Forum: The Clean Skies for Tomorrow Sustainable Aviation Fuel Certificate (SAFc) Framework
- Sustainable Supply Chain Lab: Decarbonizing the Air Transportation Sector: New greenhouse gas accounting and insetting guidelines for sustainable aviation fuel
- Maersk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping: MaritimeBook & Claim
- RMI: Structuring Demand for Lower-Carbon Materials: An Initial Assessment of Book and Claim for the Steel and Concrete Sectors
- Catalyst: The complex path to market for low-carbon cement
Catalyst is brought to you by EnergyHub. EnergyHub is working with more than 70 utilities across North America to help scale VPP programs to manage load growth, maximize the value of renewables, and deliver flexibility at every level of the grid. To learn more about their Edge DERMS platform and services, go to energyhub.com.
Transcript
Tag: Latitude Media, podcasts at the frontier of climate technology.
Shayle Kann: I’m Shayle Kann and this is Catalyst.
Adam Klauber: We’re really going to need book and claim from now until forever. So aviation, even if there’s tremendous uptake, a company like Microsoft who wants to get to net zero by 2030 simply will not be able to do this without book and claim.
Shayle Kann: This week, how to use book and claim systems to unlock scaled demand for everything from sustainable aviation fuel to clean steel. I am Shayle Kann, I invest in revolutionary climate technologies at Energy Impact Partners. Welcome. All right, so here’s the challenge. We clearly want low or zero-carbon alternatives for a whole host of high-volume commodities, from fuels to chemicals to metals. And there are emerging options, fortunately, in a bunch of those categories. But because those emerging options are emerging, they’re usually not quite cost-competitive yet, or at least not in the early days. And the way to make them as close as possible to cost-competitive is to find the optimal place to produce them, whether that means you’re getting the cheapest possible energy or the cheapest possible feedstock or whatever it might be. So if you’re making green steel using hydrogen, for example, you want to go where the cheap hydrogen is or where the cheap hydrogen can be produced.
But that isn’t necessarily where the direct buyers who have the motivation and the pocketbooks to stomach that initial green premium are. Enter book and claim. We talked about it briefly on a pod recently in the context of cement decarbonization with Leah Ellis from Sublime Systems. But it’s broader than just cement and it’s actually not straightforward to do the right way. We have historical examples of book and claim systems being introduced in sectors that are meant for decarbonization that have had mixed results. So I wanted to have a broader conversation about book and claim. If it’s done right, it could actually be a huge lever to get and finance a whole host of new climate technologies in the market. But if it’s done wrong, it’ll do basically nothing, I think. So to work through it, I brought on Adam Klauber. Adam’s the VP of sustainability and digital supply chain at World Energy. He’s also just very deep in the weeds of book and claim systems. Here’s Adam.
Adam, welcome.
Adam Klauber: Thank you, Shayle. It’s great to be here. I’m a longtime listener.
Shayle Kann: Well, I appreciate it. Let’s talk about book and claim starting with a bit of a definition I suppose. How do you define book and claim systems?
Adam Klauber: Book and claim is the decoupling of an attribute, environmental or energy attribute, from a physical good. So the physical good still travels along the supply chain and is measured and tracked. And then the digital item, the digital environmental attribute moves independently and goes via registry transfers.
Shayle Kann: And we’ve had some book and claim systems in the past which we’re going to talk about. I think it’s worthwhile as we get into this to maybe draw some of the key distinctions versus other ways to monetize the environmental value of a given thing. There’s potentially overlap with carbon credits and things like that. And then there’s also bundled stuff. You just buy a green thing and don’t separate the environmental attribute. So just help me tease out a little bit the defining characteristics of a book and claim and how it importantly differs from these other ways to yield value from something being green.
Adam Klauber: Sounds good. Let’s talk food for a moment, if we can. So if we’re drawing analogies from what’s called different chain of custody systems, there’s something called physical separation. An excellent example of that is from wine. Let’s say you’re a vintner, you’re growing Cabernet Sauvignon. You’re going to potentially crush those grapes and you will age them in your own vats and then move those to bottles. And the product will move in a segregated fashion through the supply chain ultimately to the consumer. So that is the physical separation method and it’s really impractical for industrial purposes. What we use in hard-to-abate sectors and another food sector like milk is something called mass balance. And that’s where the molecules are measured at a point of entry. And then at the end of the supply chain, you can assume that a percent of that original product is represented in the supply.
Let’s talk about milk. So let’s say you’re Betty and Bob, you’ve got your dairy farm. You send your raw milk, and maybe this is all we’ll be drinking soon. But right now, anyways, it gets pasteurized and homogenized in a central processing facility. And let’s say it’s a Vermont brand milk and Betty and Bob represent about 1% share. Then if you’re the consumer buying this milk, you can assume that Betty and Bob’s proportion is about 1% of your total carton. And that is actually the common way that fuel is measured. It gets into, from the refiner to a common entry point, a pipeline. Then quantity is known and then it moves into a larger quantity where eventually it gets to a delivery system like an airport or marine port or potentially a trucking port.
And at that point, you’ve got a larger volume and a percentage of that volume is from the refinery, from a single batch. So those are the two most common ways of tracking molecules along supply chain. And book and claim is different, in that, it still combines the measurements for mass balance but now you’ve got a digital system where the environmental attributes move separately from the molecules. And that allows for a lot more flexibility. You can have ownership of those molecules on a global basis as opposed to being limited to the recipient who receives the molecules.
Shayle Kann: And I guess to extend your milk analogy a little bit there. If somebody had a particular desire for… I can’t remember the name of the farmers that you came up with, but Bob and Bessie’s milk or whatever it is. The challenge with the mass balance approach is, if I’m a buyer, we can say, okay, maybe 1% of my milk is from Bob and Bessie, so I pay a premium on that 1%, but my neighbor won’t necessarily do that. Or for the same reason, if I have a regulatory mandate to buy a certain amount of Bob and Bessie milk, then I’m only getting 1% of it from a mass balance perspective.
So what you want instead is you separate out all of the Bob and Bessie attributes, the Bob and Bessie milk, and whoever those are that want to buy those attributes, whether for voluntary or compliance reasons, then can buy all those attributes directly rather than just having to mix it in to everybody as a 1% mix. And this is especially relevant if we’re talking about sustainable aviation fuel or something like that, which we’ll talk about a little bit later, which is, it’s not 1%, it’s like .001% at this point.
Adam Klauber: Yeah, we got to start somewhere. Great point Shayle. You can imagine that a corporate customer may want, for example, to get an e-fuel. That they’re on the leading edge, they’re promoting a new technology. They don’t even want any generic SAF. And to do that, they’re going to need book and claim because that e-fuel is a small percentage of the total SAF yield or the total SAF supply. So very much the case that book and claim allows for a specific targeted ownership that is otherwise unavailable with a mass balance system.
Shayle Kann: Okay, so you said that in the common ways to track molecules, we’ve got physical chain of custody and mass balance. But actually, we do have a longstanding precedent in this country for a book and claim system in the case of electrons, more than in molecules, which is renewable energy credits. I mean, talk a little bit about how the REC market influences your thinking about all these next-gen book and claim systems. Is it a model to mimic or is it a cautionary tale?
Adam Klauber: There are pluses and minuses from the REC model. So on the plus side, it’s a system that works. There are registries like Emirates that have demonstrated effective transfer so that buyers can be confident that they own the attributes no one else does. And that’s really important to eliminate or reduce the potential for double counting. Also, RECs have generated additional revenue. So developers who have funded projects like solar and wind projects know that additional money is coming to them in the form of RECs and this makes it more appetizing for new investment and new development, which one could say is indirectly additional. So on that additionality point though, that is a potential weakness for RECs because the projects are already built, so some of the skeptics may say, “Hey look, did you really need the revenue from RECs to make that solar array?” And this is different than in most of the hard-to-abate sectors where that revenue makes the crucial difference between purchasing a sustainable product and not actually covering the differential and not creating that demand signal.
So that is one of the lessons that has been learned from the REC market. The other piece that has been learned is around emissions reductions. It is difficult to understand the carbon intensity on a real-time basis from those electrons. And we have a little bit more latitude on a lifecycle basis to evaluate molecules because those are associated with discrete batches or discrete product flows. And so that also helps to provide reassurance that you know how much emission benefit you’re getting because those are more readily quantified in a physical molecule world.
Shayle Kann: Yeah. Just to put a finer point on that last point. You’re putting solar wind on the grid. The question as to how much emissions you’re saving is a question of what the alternative electron would’ve been. It depends on how you look at it and it’s locationally specific and timing specific and all that. Therein lies the complexity of saying, one REC, one megawatt-hour of power from this solar project or wind project is worth X in carbon savings. Whereas in most of these molecule-driven sectors, the alternative is pretty well-known and straightforward, and consistent. I will stick with the eSAF example for now just because we started using it. You know that if you don’t use that gallon of eSAF, you probably were going to use a gallon of Jet A or whatever it is. And so it’s pretty consistent. It’s easier to measure. It’s not really that time or location-dependent.
So there are some things that are easier in these categories, but I will say RECs, yeah, they have a checkered history, I think. As you said, there are positives there but also the markets have been manipulated in some cases clearly, or they’ve been giveaways to projects that didn’t necessarily need them. You also then later on… A REC is just a megawatt-hour, or at least historically it was. It wasn’t time or location tagged. And so then as the markets became more mature and buyers started to pay more attention, in the power world, they started to move away from RECs. But if you look at the sophisticated buyers, the hyperscalers in particular, who want clean power, RECs are not their preferred mechanism now because they’re trying to get 24/7 locational clean power since they actually contribute to the decarbonization of the grid.
And so RECs were a blunt instrument that I feel like has lost its luster a little bit in the power sector. And so I think it’s interesting to think about whether the same types of things will start to happen in some of these molecule-driven markets where something that might work in the early days is going to turn out to be insufficient in later times.
Adam Klauber: Very much so. I think the example from the renewable electricity market is the power purchase agreements and the virtual power purchase agreements where an end customer is actually buying supply for 15, 20, 25 years, often the term length of the project. And I think of the loan, and that’s super helpful to scale these hard-to-abate solutions as well, where you’ve got a refinery or a production plant and you’ve got customers who are eliminating or reducing the merchant risk by signing on long-term. And if when they signed the conditions were that that product is additional, it’s not available in the market, their contract makes it possible, then theoretically they should get those credits or additionality points all the way along the contract length. Those are some of the lessons from the virtual power purchase agreements that could be applied to hard-to-abate sectors.
Shayle Kann: What about things like certification? Certifying RECs as they’re produced, what can we learn from what’s gone well and not well there in historic book and claim systems?
Adam Klauber: Certification is the glue that holds it all together because it provides trust to customers. Full disclosure, I am on the board of a nonprofit that’s a standard body called The Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials. They’ve been critical in both aviation and marine sectors and establishing these guidelines that show, look, you actually have a carbon intensity. It follows a certain modeling methodology, and there are other factors besides climate benefits that are important. You want to make sure that the labor and the workers that are involved got fair wages. You want to make sure that habitat was protected and water conserved, etc.
So the certification provides that confidence that environmental impacts were minimized and auditing on a regular basis to check out to make sure that the requirements were followed. So that is really, really helpful in the molecule world. And if it’s okay to share a story, there was a barge that sat off of the coast of California that was uncertified SAF. All our customers said, “Hey, there’s a great deal on SAF. We’re not sure we should buy it because we don’t know where it’s coming from. And it happens to be about half the cost of your product.” Then this is my company World Energy.
Shayle Kann: Sorry, half the cost of your certified SAF product.
Adam Klauber: Yeah. Of our certified SAF, right? Yeah, certified SAF… thank you, product. And so the next leap was from some airlines who said, “We didn’t know certification costs so much.” And it’s actually the flip side is that there is limited demand for uncertified product because I think the buyer knows there’s a considerable risk associated. Could that feedstock have been from unsustainable sources like virgin palm? So there is a significant amount of trust that can be built up with certification and using robust systems that are audited on a regular basis.
Shayle Kann: Let’s talk a little bit about what can go wrong with book and claim systems and how to try to avoid it. And then I want to talk a little bit about some actual specific sectors where book and claim either could be applied or is starting to be applied now. But things that go wrong. So you mentioned double counting a little bit earlier. Let’s dig into that. That’s a big concern and one that honestly I think has not been well enforced in historic book and claim systems. Because you’ll have the producer of the thing claiming they made a green thing, they’ll sell off the environmental attribute, they’ll keep claiming that it was green, the thing that they made, but actually what they’re selling away generally is the rights to call it green. So how do you avoid that kind of double counting or double credit claiming?
Adam Klauber: I think with fuels, there are two ways and then I’ll add another important consideration for materials. So for fuels, ideally there’s the interoperability between registries. So if a batch number shows up in one, it makes it very difficult to then register that same batch on another competitor’s registry. So this is important because we want to avoid double issuance. And that is something that can be avoided when the registries talk to each other or when there’s even an umbrella system on top of the registries, such as something called an issuing body where all of the credits first go to the issuing body and that serves as a clearing house and then they can be released to individual registries. So that’s one important way. The other way, as you mentioned, if you’re a recipient of the physical molecules that have actually been stripped, you might assume, or worse, that you decide to claim those attributes that you cannot own.
So here it’s important that customers receive notice that they’re only getting what is potentially a commodity without any environmental benefits and that the only way you could claim benefits is by using a registry. So perhaps a solution in the future would be that all sustainable products go onto registries. That would be the preference because then you have a system where all the credits exist. So there’s one last possible challenge with materials and that’s… Say, with steel and concrete and chemicals, you have Environmental Product Declarations, EPDs. And those often… Well, they always have the climate claims on them. And so if the EPDs are delivered, now we almost need a modified EPD that says you’re getting all these environmental characteristics, save emissions reductions. So this will require a massive change in the way we do some of the documentation when it comes to materials, but it’ll be necessary to safeguard against double accounting.
Shayle Kann: How much does this vary between a compliance market and a voluntary market? A compliance market feels in some ways easier to avoid these issues because someone who is buying green whatever for the purpose of compliance, there’s somebody who’s verifying that. There’s somebody who they’re responsible to some regulator or government or something like that. And so they really have an incentive not to claim something that they don’t have. In voluntary markets, it feels a little bit more like the Wild West, and that’s where I guess I worry more about double counting happening rampantly and you just don’t have a mechanism to enforce it.
Adam Klauber: Yeah, there’s a big danger here of burning the whole house down without adequate certification, verification, strong digital registries that are interoperable. And we need to build these and the customers need to be savvy and aware. And I think that’s one of the appeals, the reasons why these buyers alliance are proliferating in different sectors. And we’re seeing them from Center for Green Market Activation’s role with starting SABA, the Sustainable Aviation Buyers Alliance. Aspen Institute with ZEMBA, Zero Emission Maritime Buyers Alliance. Now we’re seeing it with trucking, with GMA, again with the Smart Freight Center, and also materials where RMI is starting a Sustainable Steel Buyers Platform and it’s happening in other sectors. Because companies are hesitant to get involved, as you said, with the Wild West, they want to make sure there’s a good sheriff in town. And the sheriff right now that’s providing the confidence are these buyers alliances and the secretariat that runs them combined with some of the other important elements like the certification and the registries.
Shayle Kann: Do you think of book and claim as being primarily a mechanism for real-time transactions or… Maybe not real-time, but short-term transactions. Or is it predominantly in service of long-term forward contracts? I think you mentioned this before, but to enable bankability of projects.
Adam Klauber: I’ll put on my producer’s hat. I think what we would like to see on the supply side is these longer-term contracts with credit-worthy counterparties. And we can sell products potentially to tech firms, hyperscalers, as you mentioned, Shayle, consulting companies, other companies that have different profit margins compared to the suppliers within a sector like in aviation. Airlines are going to have very different credit risks compared to say tech firms. If we can sign long-term contracts, the longer, the better, that will provide confidence to our investors that there really is a willingness to pay. And this is what will help us scale the industry that we can sell to unconventional customers. A tech firm is not using SAF per se, so we can reach them through book and claim. And then through a long-term contract, we can then show the banks and show the investors that there really is a market here. And it is significant.
Let’s take aviation for example. 25% of passengers are business travelers. Over one-third of the emissions come from businesses because they’re almost all of the cargo emissions. And business travelers tend to fly in larger seating, which is a larger part of the footprint of the aircraft. So if we captured a portion of this market, it’d be far greater than the total SAF used today. So these customers are critical. Sorry, hold on. Just pause for a minute here. So if we can get these customers to sign long-term contracts, there are enough of them that really can help scale the market and they can provide that security and that signal in ways that the airlines or the shipping operators, et cetera, can’t.
Shayle Kann: All right, so let’s talk about some of the sectors where this is being applied or could be applied. I mean, we’ve talked a bunch about sustainable aviation fuel. I think the reason for that, tell me if I’m wrong, is that that’s probably the market aside from RECs, which as we talked about is pre-existing for a long time. That’s probably the market where the biggest, most robust book and claim system for new clean technologies is being developed. Do I have that right? Is there anywhere else that’s approaching the scale and dynamism of SAF?
Adam Klauber: I think SAF is helping to pave the way for other sectors. And Shayle, if I could bring one pertinent piece of history with aviation, and this is also an improvement on the REC, and that’s creation of the multi-attribute system where you can actually have the scope 3 or end customer who’s receiving credit for the same emission reduction as the direct emitter, the airline, scope 1 party. And that was something based on the standard elements of carbon accounting from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol that supply chain emissions can be overlapping. You can have multiple parties responsible for the same greenhouse gases.
Shayle Kann: Can we just talk about that for one second? I just want to make sure I understand that because I have thought a little bit about that. An example of that would be… I see this. I fly United a lot. In the jetway at SFO, United has a bunch of posters all about their purchases of sustainable aviation fuel. There’s an Oscar the Grouch one that I really like in there. They’re purchasing SAF, but they have a customer, as you said, maybe it’s a business class traveler or whatever, McKinsey or something, who is actually buying those environmental attributes. And what you’re saying is that per the guidelines, that’s okay, everybody’s doing that above board.
Adam Klauber: That’s right. It is above board when both of the beneficiaries are going to claim that towards voluntary contributions or voluntary reductions. Where there’s more of a gray area is if the airline for compliance reasons has to make a reduction, then there’s a question of are those benefits then available to other buyers, to the scope 3 parties. And most of the nonprofits supporting this ecosystem say no. However, if the airline is complying and they could have purchased a generic offset or instead they’re eliminating that emission through sustainable aviation fuel, SAF is far better because it’s measurable. It’s displacing fossil fuels and it’s moving the sector where it needs to be ultimately, which is getting off of fossil jet fuel.
Shayle Kann: Okay, so aviation clearly the furthest along, as you said, setting a precedent for other industries. Lets for a minute just talk about other heavy transportation. That’s the logical next step. We’ve got a vibrant market for SAF, what about maritime, what about long-distance trucking, things like that?
Adam Klauber: So in maritime, we’ve seen a number of pilots from large companies like Maersk and the ZEMBA group, which I mentioned, the buyers alliance. They have done one procurement so far, and Hapag-Lloyd won that procurement. They had requirements on emissions reductions. They had to get 90% or better on a life cycle basis, so it ended up being RNG. And so ZEMBA is repeating that and now they’re going through procurement that… I think the first procurement reduces greenhouse gas emissions by about 80,000 metric tons. This next procurement is almost half a million metric tons. Again, it has a 90% or better carbon intensity reduction. So there is movement. I think that shipping may be a year or so behind aviation, but we are seeing interest in the sector.
One of the differences between aviation and shipping is that with aviation fuels, you’ve got a drop-in solution. So any SAF that meets the spec can go into any aircraft. And that’s not the case with shipping. They’ve got something they like to call the rainbow donut, which is 10 or more different fuel options. They have different specs. But those will require different engines and will have different applications. So it’s going to be potentially a little trickier to scale the solution in shipping. And there’s also a question of is there the same willingness to pay as there is in aviation.
Shayle Kann: Okay, so we’ve talked about the heavy transportation category. The other one where I think this is interesting is in these, quote, unquote, “hard-to-abate sectors” where you’re producing material goods. So this would be steel, cement, and chemicals, the trifecta of heavy emitting industries where this is true, where book and claim has a lot of value because particularly in the early days, the production of clean, be it cement or steel or whatever, is going to be locational in the sense that you got to find your cheapest input source of energy or feedstock or whatever it is. But that isn’t necessarily where your customers are directly and so you have this divide you have to bridge and book and claim is a good way to do that. How much of it do we see happening in those categories?
Adam Klauber: Again, we’ve got some market leadership from the Rocky Mountain Institute. So they have got the Steel Buyers Platform. And there’s an RFP, it’s actually live right now. And in a month or so, the proposals will be due and that’s to buy over a million tons of steel per annum, equivalent of green steel. And two-thirds of that actually can be purchased book and claim. So we are just seeing the launch of this. And what is different potentially with materials is that you could have interventions not just on the end product but potentially as an intermediate product. For example, you can make green iron and that may be the… represent the majority of emissions for virgin steel. And it may be easier to gauge the emissions reductions or to focus your actions upstream of the end product.
There are challenges though with these materials. Because let’s stay concrete for example, you’ve got non-uniform products. You may have your pre-cast and your ready mix and you may also have high compression and low compression for high rises or for sidewalks. And you have different regions and different carbon intensities. So there’s going to be some tricky carbon accounting that’s going to be necessary to establish that baseline value. But it is promising that you could do an intervention upstream of the end user and you would need some kind of new verification process. So you’d have an intermediate verification just on carbon intensity. That is for a part of the production, the industrial process, not the entire process.
Shayle Kann: Okay. So I guess wrapping up, what… There’s obviously a lot of opportunity to use book and claim in some of these new sectors. There are challenges to overcome, whether it be double counting or registration, certification, and so on. What’s top of your wishlist? If you could wave a magic wand and change one or two things about the trajectory of book and claim systems in these sectors, what would you do?
Adam Klauber: I think there’s some unnecessary guardrails that are being created or proposed at least. So some of these same nonprofits that are well-intentioned think that it might be better to create an end date, an expiration date for book and claim. Or when there’s a certain market penetration, book and claim is no longer valid because of the concerns from RECs where they may not be additional. And I think this is a mistake because going back to our long-term contracts, what do investors and banks need? They need certainty. So if you sign a long-term contract and during the duration of that contract, you no longer have valid book and claim, you’re cooked, you’re done. So we need an acknowledgment that you’ve got to have certainty for the duration of these contracts. And also we’re really going to need book and claim from now until forever. And the reason is because suppliers will not achieve the same emissions reductions as potentially their customers need to achieve to get to net-zero ambition.
So aviation because we have a life cycle product, even if there’s tremendous uptake, a company like Microsoft who wants to get to net-zero by 2030 simply will not be able to do this without book and claim. So I think it’s important to realize that book and claim should have a long shelf life. There should be a focus. If I could wave my wand, it’d be to give confidence to the procurement groups within the corporations to sign these long-term contracts and for the nonprofits building the ecosystem to not focus on arbitrary end dates, instead to empower a system that people can trust and it has adequate verification.
Shayle Kann: All right, Adam, this was fun. Thank you so much for the time.
Adam Klauber: Absolutely. Thanks so much, Shayle. Appreciate being able to talk about book and claim’s role in the energy transition.
Shayle Kann: Adam Klauber is the VP of sustainability and digital supply chain at World Energy. This show is a production of Latitude Media. You can head over to latitudemedia.com for links to today’s topics. Latitude is supported by Prelude Ventures. Prelude backs visionaries accelerating climate innovation that will reshape the global economy for the betterment of people and planet. Learn more at preludeventures.com. This episode was produced by Daniel Woldorff. Mixing by Roy Campanella and Sean Marquand. Theme song by Sean Marquand. I’m Shayle Kann and this is Catalyst.
