You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
One of the biggest names in direct air capture is now selling other companies’ credits.
Climeworks made a name for itself as the first company to launch a commercial-scale facility that sucks carbon out of the air and buries it deep underground. The Swiss startup is widely recognized as a global leader in direct air capture technology.
But on Wednesday, Climeworks made a surprising move away from hard tech and into carbon trading with the launch of an offshoot called Climeworks Solutions. Under the new banner, it will purchase carbon removal credits from other providers, package them into portfolios that include its own direct air capture credits, and sell the bundles to buyers looking for “high quality” carbon removal.
The credits will have “the stamp of Climeworks quality,” Adrian Siegrist, the company’s vice president of climate solutions, told reporters this week. “It is a very, very selective vetting process.”
Corporate demand for carbon removal is growing. In the past, companies primarily bought a different kind of carbon credit to support their sustainability strategies. These credits came from projects that prevented emissions by protecting forests or distributing cleaner cookstoves, and they were cheap. But they came under fire after countless investigations into the projects turned up flimsy methodologies and inflated claims.
Meanwhile, there’s been a growing consensus in the world of corporate sustainability that even if these credits were based on real emission reductions, they shouldn’t be part of a net-zero strategy. For example, the Science Based Targets Initiative, the leading arbiter of corporate net-zero plans, only allows companies to apply carbon removal credits — and not conventional carbon avoidance credits — toward their goals. The only way to zero-out the climate impact of putting carbon in the atmosphere, SBTI says, is to take out an equal amount.
These two factors, along with a view that supporting the nascent carbon removal industry is the “right thing to do,” have fueled a carbon removal credit market that grew from at least 105,000 tons sold to 50 buyers in 2021 to more than 4 million tons sold to nearly 200 buyers last year.
Siegrist said Climeworks Solutions is responding to a gap in the market. Companies face barriers to purchasing carbon removal, he said. They don’t want to put their reputations at risk and buy dubious credits, but they lack the time and expertise to do careful sourcing. They also want to sign simple one-and-done contracts, but they don’t want to purchase credits from a single supplier — especially not just from Climeworks, which sells top-shelf credits for upwards of $600 per ton.
“Companies asked us, in your opinion, can you tell us what is the best in X and the best in Y?” he said. “That made us realize there's a real need for clarity and for guidance.”
But Climeworks is entering a crowded field. There are already more than half a dozen companies — Patch, Supercritical, Ceezer, Carbon Direct, Watershed, Cur8, Lune — promising to source only the highest quality carbon removal credits for buyers. Each one has a slightly different model, with some acting more as an open marketplace, others more as a brokerage.
Climeworks is relying on its name as a trusted brand to set itself apart. But part of the reason it is a trusted brand is that it has focused on direct air capture — the form of carbon removal that is the most permanent and easy to measure and verify. Now the company will be venturing into the thornier science of other approaches like tree planting schemes and bioenergy with carbon capture. It also plans to source credits from biochar projects, which involve turning plants into a carbon-rich, durable, form of charcoal, and enhanced rock weathering, which speeds up the natural ability of rocks to absorb carbon from the environment.
“If you're saying that companies can come to you and use that trusted brand, what are the standards?” Erin Burns, the executive director of the carbon removal advocacy group Carbon 180, told me she wanted to know. “High quality doesn't mean anything. How transparent are they going to be about what those standards are?”
I asked Siegrist about how Climeworks defines high quality, especially when it comes to nature-based solutions like reforestation, and he said there were “various elements” that signaled quality, such as the use of remote sensing technologies that can more accurately track forest growth. He said they would publish their standards at some point in the future.
But he did share some general principles the company would use to tailor its portfolios for buyers: Fossil fuel emissions should be neutralized with carbon removed and stored for thousands of years, on par with how long carbon stays in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, a company’s emissions from land use could be offset using nature-based approaches that are still effective but inherently less enduring.
Climeworks Solutions’ first customer is Breitling, the Swiss luxury watchmaker, which signed a 12-year contract. It is purchasing a mix of direct air capture credits, to offset emissions from fossil fuel combustion in its factories, and enhanced rock weathering credits, to address emissions in its mineral supply chains. Breitling’s global director of sustainability Aurelia Figueroa said that focusing on high-cost direct air capture credits to compensate for direct emissions created an incentive to prioritize reducing emissions, summing up the strategy as “we do our best and remove the rest.”
Siegrist said Climeworks was already in talks with more than 50 other companies interested in working with them. But it’s unclear where all of this carbon removal is going to come from. The company’s direct air capture credits are already sold out through 2027.
“There's not a lot of high quality CDR happening, and in general, people are buying carbon removal years out,” said Burns. “Depending on how many tons they're being asked to put together for other companies to purchase, they're gonna run up against limits pretty quickly if they've got really high standards.”
Siegrist declined to name any companies or projects that Climeworks was sourcing carbon credits from. But in terms of supply, he said it was a chicken and egg scenario — that the only way to increase supply was to bring in more demand, and that the bigger constraint was limited buyer bandwidth.
I reached out to a carbon removal company called Charm Industrial to ask how developers feel about the rise of all of these brokerage services. Like Climeworks, Charm is another startup that scrupulous corporate buyers with big science teams, like Microsoft and Shopify, have deemed “high quality.” Charm’s head of sales, Harris Cohn, said the fees these services charge matter and vary widely. “There's a risk these services make the market worse if they make transactions harder or feel more expensive to buyers,” he said. But he noted that they have, indeed, already accelerated demand.
Peter Reinhardt, the CEO of Charm, agreed that there was no downside to having more players in the game. “We’ll break the supply constraint fairly soon :)” he added in an email.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Almost half of developers believe it is “somewhat or significantly harder to do” projects on farmland, despite the clear advantages that kind of property has for harnessing solar power.
The solar energy industry has a big farm problem cropping up. And if it isn’t careful, it’ll be dealing with it for years to come.
Researchers at SI2, an independent research arm of the Solar Energy Industries Association, released a study of farm workers and solar developers this morning that said almost half of all developers believe it is “somewhat or significantly harder to do” projects on farmland, despite the clear advantages that kind of property has for harnessing solar power.
Unveiled in conjunction with RE+, the largest renewable energy conference in the U.S., the federally-funded research includes a warning sign that permitting is far and away the single largest impediment for solar developers trying to build projects on farmland. If this trend continues or metastasizes into a national movement, it could indefinitely lock developers out from some of the nation’s best land for generating carbon-free electricity.
“If a significant minority opposes and perhaps leads to additional moratoria, [developers] will lose a foot in the door for any future projects,” Shawn Rumery, SI2’s senior program director and the survey lead, told me. “They may not have access to that community any more because that moratoria is in place.”
SI2’s research comes on the heels of similar findings from Heatmap Pro. A poll conducted for the platform last month found 70% of respondents who had more than 50 acres of property — i.e. the kinds of large landowners sought after by energy developers — are concerned that renewable energy “takes up farmland,” by far the greatest objection among that cohort.
Good farmland is theoretically perfect for building solar farms. What could be better for powering homes than the same strong sunlight that helps grow fields of yummy corn, beans and vegetables? And there’s a clear financial incentive for farmers to get in on the solar industry, not just because of the potential cash in letting developers use their acres but also the longer-term risks climate change and extreme weather can pose to agriculture writ large.
But not all farmers are warming up to solar power, leading towns and counties across the country to enact moratoria restricting or banning solar and wind development on and near “prime farmland.” Meanwhile at the federal level, Republicans and Democrats alike are voicing concern about taking farmland for crop production to generate renewable energy.
Seeking to best understand this phenomena, SI2 put out a call out for ag industry representatives and solar developers to tell them how they feel about these two industries co-mingling. They received 355 responses of varying detail over roughly three months earlier this year, including 163 responses from agriculture workers, 170 from solar developers as well as almost two dozen individuals in the utility sector.
A key hurdle to development, per the survey, is local opposition in farm communities. SI2’s publicity announcement for the research focuses on a hopeful statistic: up to 70% of farmers surveyed said they were “open to large-scale solar.” But for many, that was only under certain conditions that allow for dual usage of the land or agrivoltaics. In other words, they’d want to be able to keep raising livestock, a practice known as solar grazing, or planting crops unimpeded by the solar panels.
The remaining percentage of farmers surveyed “consistently opposed large-scale solar under any condition,” the survey found.
“Some of the messages we got were over my dead body,” Rumery said.
Meanwhile a “non-trivial” number of solar developers reported being unwilling or disinterested in adopting the solar-ag overlap that farmers want due to the increased cost, Rumery said. While some companies expect large portions of their business to be on farmland in the future, and many who responded to the survey expect to use agrivoltaic designs, Rumery voiced concern at the percentage of companies unwilling to integrate simultaneous agrarian activities into their planning.
In fact, Rumery said some developers’ reticence is part of what drove him and his colleagues to release the survey while at RE+.
As we discussed last week, failing to address the concerns of local communities can lead to unintended consequences with industry-wide ramifications. Rumery said developers trying to build on farmland should consider adopting dual-use strategies and focus on community engagement and education to avoid triggering future moratoria.
“One of the open-ended responses that best encapsulated the problem was a developer who said until the cost of permitting is so high that it forces us to do this, we’re going to continue to develop projects as they are,” he said. “That’s a cold way to look at it.”
Meanwhile, who is driving opposition to solar and other projects on farmland? Are many small farm owners in rural communities really against renewables? Is the fossil fuel lobby colluding with Big Ag? Could building these projects on fertile soil really impede future prospects at crop yields?
These are big questions we’ll be tackling in far more depth in next week’s edition of The Fight. Trust me, the answers will surprise you.
Here are the most notable renewable energy conflicts over the past week.
1. Worcester County, Maryland –Ocean City is preparing to go to court “if necessary” to undo the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval last week of U.S. Wind’s Maryland Offshore Wind Project, town mayor Rick Meehan told me in a statement this week.
2. Magic Valley, Idaho – The Lava Ridge Wind Project would be Idaho’s biggest wind farm. But it’s facing public outcry over the impacts it could have on a historic site for remembering the impact of World War II on Japanese residents in the United States.
3. Kossuth County, Iowa – Iowa’s largest county – Kossuth – is in the process of approving a nine-month moratorium on large-scale solar development.
Here’s a few more hotspots I’m watching…
The most important renewable energy policies and decisions from the last few days.
Greenlink’s good day – The Interior Department has approved NV Energy’s Greenlink West power line in Nevada, a massive step forward for the Biden administration’s pursuit of more transmission.
States’ offshore muddle – We saw a lot of state-level offshore wind movement this past week… and it wasn’t entirely positive. All of this bodes poorly for odds of a kumbaya political moment to the industry’s benefit any time soon.
Chumash loophole – Offshore wind did notch one win in northern California by securing an industry exception in a large marine sanctuary, providing for farms to be built in a corridor of the coastline.
Here’s what else I’m watching …