This point really stands out to me from the recent @hausfath @JaneAFlegal op-ed in @techreview. technologyreview.com/2022/07/05/105…

Carbon removal is & will continue to be incredibly expensive. Cutting emissions will, in nearly all cases, be the far cheaper route. So why are so many corporations relying so heavily on carbon removal in their net-zero plans? It depends on the company, but reasons can include:

A) Companies aren't going to cut emissions intrinsic to their biz models (extracting & selling oil & gas in the clearest case).

It's clear we'll need to draw down huge amounts of CO2, but the noise, news & hype in the space is feeding a perception that carbon removal will be cheap, simple & scalable—none of which we can count on. technologyreview.com/2021/07/08/102… Even some of the prominent players in the carbon removal space fear we're creating unrealistic expectations for how much we can rely upon it – distracting us from the core job of emissions cuts. Here's @DKeithClimate:

Some personal reflections on California's Camp Fire, and how it shifted my thinking on climate change: technologyreview.com/s/612658/the-d… In short, more and more, I’ve come to fear we’ll be overwhelmed by climate catastrophes, rather than inspired to real action

Without initially setting out to, I've begun focusing my coverage on the "hard to clean" parts of the economy -- areas outside the power sector where we have no clear way to decarbonize with today's technology. The bad news is, they add up to a lot of emissions (even before including agriculture), as @SteveDavisUCI @KenCaldeira et. al pointed out in Science earlier this year: technologyreview.com/s/611498/we-st…