Episode Summary
Executive Summary: Jason Jacobs interviews Erin Burns of Carbon180 about carbon removal’s rapid evolution from a niche idea to a central climate strategy. They discuss Carbon180’s shift toward policy, the technology and market landscape, equity and environmental justice guardrails, and why federal investment and smart regulation are crucial to scaling durable carbon removal deployment.
Main Topics: What Carbon180 is and why it focuses on carbon removal (Priority: 5/5): Erin explains Carbon180 as a climate NGO dedicated entirely to carbon removal, originally spanning business, policy, and science but now centered primarily on federal policy because that is where the largest leverage exists. The evolution of carbon removal from niche to mainstream (Priority: 5/5): The conversation traces carbon removal’s journey from near-zero federal support and little public awareness in 2015 to broad recognition in major climate policy discussions, federal funding, and national climate reports. Why policy is the main lever for scale (Priority: 5/5): Erin argues that scaling carbon removal quickly and equitably requires federal policy action, especially incentives, R&D support, procurement, and regulations that can accelerate deployment across multiple pathways. Technology readiness, market pathways, and uncertainty (Priority: 4/5): They discuss direct air capture and other carbon removal approaches at different maturity levels, with Erin emphasizing a portfolio approach and noting uncertainty over which technologies will dominate long term. Equity, environmental justice, and guardrails (Priority: 5/5): Carbon180 wants policies that support carbon removal without causing harm, emphasizing community engagement, frontline protections, union jobs, and justice-centered deployment. Federal funding, markets, and the economics of deployment (Priority: 4/5): Erin says public funding is essential in the near term to reduce costs and launch the sector, while carbon-tech products and high-quality offsets may help create early revenue and market demand. How listeners and builders can engage (Priority: 3/5): Carbon180 invites entrepreneurs, investors, researchers, and interested advocates to connect, join newsletters, explore its entrepreneur-in-residence program, and help field-build the sector.
Key Arguments: Carbon removal is not a niche side issue; it is central to climate strategy and increasingly recognized by policymakers and markets. Federal policy is the highest-leverage mechanism for scaling carbon removal because the private sector cannot build the required infrastructure and demand alone. Good policy must be flexible rather than overly prescriptive so it can accommodate future technological breakthroughs without repeated legislative rewrites. Carbon180’s value lies in translating practitioner needs into policy recommendations, especially for early-stage companies that lack DC lobbying capacity. Scaling carbon removal must include environmental justice protections so deployment benefits communities rather than repeating fossil-fuel harms. Near-term public funding is justified because carbon removal currently costs far more than the climate system can bear and because learning-by-doing can drive costs down substantially. The sector will likely require a portfolio of solutions, including technological removal, land-based approaches, carbon-to-products, and durable storage. Offsets and carbon-tech markets can help catalyze early projects, but most captured CO2 will still need permanent geological storage.
Data Points: MCJ membership size: more than 1,300 members - Jason describes the MyClimateJourney member community and Slack network. Carbon180 founding year: 2015 - Erin says the organization started in 2015 when carbon removal was far less recognized. Carbon180 DC relocation timing: middle of last year - Erin notes the organization moved to become fully DC-based to focus on policy. Federal direct air capture funding in 2018: about $11.5 million ever - Erin contrasts early federal support with today’s much larger commitment. Federal carbon removal funding at end of last year: $90 million - Erin cites a sharp increase in support for carbon removal and related programs. Recommended annual funding level from National Academies: $60 million a year - Erin references an early recommendation that seemed politically ambitious at the time. Federal funding awarded the next year: $68 million - Erin says the U.S. reached a funding level close to the recommendation after major policy advocacy. Carbon Engineering planned direct air capture plant size: 1 million tons a year - Erin uses the planned Texas project as an example of scale enabled by policy. Rhodium Group projected direct air capture cost reduction: $50 to $60 per ton - Erin cites learning-by-doing as a pathway to lower costs from several hundred dollars per ton. Current direct air capture cost level: hundreds of dollars per ton - Erin explains why public support remains important in the near term. U.S. carbon-tech total available market: about $1 trillion - Erin cites Carbon180 market-sizing work on carbon-derived goods and materials. Carbon180 hiring: three senior policy advisors - Erin says the organization is expanding its policy team across several verticals.
Pivotal Quotes: "this isn't something that's a part of it. You need really aggressive mitigation. You know, it alone is not sufficient, but that it's not a side issue, right? It's really, really central." — Erin Burns: On carbon removal’s role in the broader climate strategy. "I think for us, in the near term, the funding from the federal government is really important." — Erin Burns: On why public investment is necessary to launch and scale carbon removal. "we really think about measuring our impact, not just in terms of did we get this policy passed or did we get this federal funding, but are there tons being removed from the atmosphere?" — Erin Burns: On Carbon180’s definition of success and mission focus.
Implications: Carbon removal is moving from concept to policy reality, but scaling it responsibly will require sustained public investment, flexible rules, and justice-centered deployment. Listeners should expect policy, not just technology, to determine the pace and shape of the sector.