Skip to content

Commit e82a01e

Browse files
committed
Pull latest text
1 parent cd226a1 commit e82a01e

File tree

1 file changed

+1
-1
lines changed

1 file changed

+1
-1
lines changed

posts/ethanol-cdr-update.md

+1-1
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ summary: We have published two pieces on the topic of what real-world activities
99

1010
Carbon removal might seem like a straightforward concept, but it’s been difficult to pin down a strict and useful definition.
1111

12-
Weighing into this debate, in December 2023, we wrote a commentary [raising concerns](https://carbonplan.org/research/ethanol-cdr-claims) about credits from corn ethanol carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects being defined as carbon removal. We argued that these projects should not be called carbon removal because the ethanol production system as a whole adds CO₂ to the atmosphere rather than taking it out, even with CCS.
12+
In December 2023, we weighed into this debate with a commentary [raising concerns](https://carbonplan.org/research/ethanol-cdr-claims) about credits from corn ethanol carbon capture and storage (CCS). We argued that these projects should not be called carbon removal because the ethanol production system as a whole adds CO₂ to the atmosphere rather than taking it out, even with CCS.
1313

1414
Our thinking since then has evolved. In a [new commentary](https://carbonplan.org/research/defining-good-cdr), written in collaboration with Zeke Hausfather, we summarize the ongoing debate and suggest that there is no simple definition of carbon removal that reliably sorts projects worthy of support from those that are not. That limitation applies to the definition we put forward in our original commentary. Overly accommodating definitions, as we flagged previously, risk justifying support for projects that don’t warrant it. On the other hand, overly conservative definitions discourage funding for projects that are key to developing the carbon removal capacity we’ll likely need long term. Instead of relying on imperfect lines in the sand, our new commentary recommends re-centering the long-term goals of carbon removal, and asking a set of questions that together can help assess the extent to which a technology or process is likely to support those goals.
1515

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)