This week I spoke with Kajsa Hendrickson, director of policy at Carbon180, about why they’re eager to talk about the social concerns involved in direct air capture (DAC) and how conflicts over carbon pipelines are hurting DAC projects too. We talk a lot about renewables here on The Fight but DAC is a crucial part of decarbonization and it has a host of conflicts that’ll be familiar to our readers.
The following is an abridged version of our conversation. Let’s get started…
How do the conflicts over DAC compare to fights against solar and wind farms?
“There are a lot of overlaps in the conflicts that can exist between DAC and more traditional energy systems. That is the reality. The difference is, so much of DAC is being funded by the federal government so we want to see those higher standards come into play about where communities should be engaged, what engagement should entail.”
“Plus, DAC is fundamentally a public good. The goal of it is to do something that is benefiting all of us writ large and that’s why it can’t follow traditional extractive models coming out of even some of the solar industry.”
What do you mean by solar being extractive?
“The approach to communities tends to be, cool, his project is coming in, there’s going to be some jobs, here’s how it’s going. And there might be a community benefits process there.
“What we’d like to see with DAC, whether it’s funded by DOE or not, is ideally communities get a choice as to whether or not a project comes to them. Communities get some form of prior engagement in determining whether or not they’d like to host a DAC site.”
How does the conflict over the Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 pipeline impact local support for other forms of carbon management, especially DAC?
“Infrastructure around CO2 is going to be a pain point. We at Carbon180 don’t really advocate for or support CCS. That being said, how the pipelines are being deployed, how developers engage with communities on CCS, is going to very much influence DAC. We fundamentally see DAC as serving a public good and CCS not necessary, but that doesn’t change the fact they’re likely going to have shared infrastructure and that the two of them are often going to be paired together.”
“I can’t speak to any of the particular specific details on the Summit pipeline other than that we have been hearing concerns about that, and concerns about what that means for the CO2 landscape as a whole. Just like any other burgeoning industry, negative handling of any particular project is going to look bad for the rest of them. I’d love to see developers proactively engage communities effectively, focusing on their rights, to allow CO2 storage.”
So there’s a blast radius from Summit’s controversy?
“Very much so. DAC and CCS often get conflated. Well informed organizations still refer to them interchangeably. Regardless of whether we like it or not, pipelines are going to be an extremely big expense for DAC, something that doesn’t have as much of an immediate [thing] it’s selling – it’s already facing an uphill financial battle.”
Some in the environmental justice activism space are against DAC. What would you say to an activist who is a no on DAC?
“It’s funny because I actually have several friends who work in environmental justice and I have this conversation with them.”
“What I would say is that we’re a boat in the middle of the ocean. We have holes in the middle of the boat that are the carbon coming into the air. And first thing, foremost, we’ve got to plug the holes. You don’t prioritize bailing out the water before closing the holes. That’s why decarbonization and DAC have to go hand in hand, it can’t be one or the other.”
“I understand where the criticisms come from. Is DAC a false climate solution? Is this something that’s going to allow us to continue to perpetuate fossil fuels?”
“As we are decarbonizing, by the time we get decarbonized, we won’t be able to just scale up DAC at that point. We have to scale up now so by the time we get decarbonized we’re able to get those legacy emissions.”
