Franka Bosman

I’ve had a number of conversations over the past few weeks about the state of the carbon removal field and almost all of them have had some version of the question: Is it time to panic? Here’s my answer: Building hard tech has never been easy — combine that with a tough political environment for climate, limited understanding of carbon removal, and a lack of a fully-developed market and you’re looking at a gargantuan task that requires action, not panic. And yet, instead of all hands on deck, I get the feeling that many in the carbon removal field want to stay in theoretical land. It’s easier to 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 about carbon removal than to actually 𝑑𝑜 carbon removal — easier to write reports and roadmaps and dream up governance structures for 50 years from now than support building today. But new and first-of-a-kind facilities help us gather real-world data, drive down costs, gain community understanding and buy-in, and showcase the technology’s co-benefits. Even more importantly, they give us a very clear picture of what 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠𝑛'𝑡 work. It’s why I launched the Carbon Removal Alliance — to keep innovators innovating. Carbon removal in the real world isn’t neat; it’s hard and uncomfortable! But the field needs to roll up its sleeves and figure out how to support 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 generation of companies at 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 moment — or we’ll be starting back from square one in ten years time. This means retooling our playbook with new strategies oriented towards what companies need now: from new sources of catalytic capital to finance projects, to innovative structures for carbon removal purchases that create near-term demand, to pragmatic policy wins that buoy the field. We cannot remove carbon and meet our climate goals without innovators and the companies they’ve built. The carbon removal industry needs our support at this moment and we in the broader field need to rise to meet that challenge.

313

17 Kommentare

Building Global Cooperation for #AI & #Climate Action: What are the ingredients to scale a climate solution? To me, it's clear that strong partnerships is the most important ingredient. In our recent #collaboration, we asked: how can local farmers in Colombia, indigenous communities in s, and researchers in Europe work together through shared data, AI, and regenerative practices? Key steps we identified: 🗣️ Deploy #modular, culturally appropriate tools (multi-language, including #indigenous languages, adaptable across regions). 🛣️ Create a structured roadmap with clear priorities — start small (pilot reforestation, water management, CO₂ monitoring) and grow step by step. 🔬 Connect with universities and local experts for on-the-ground data (soil, water, biodiversity). 💸 Design financial pathways: from #carbon credit markets to international cooperation funds. 🤲 What inspires me most is the spirit of #mission over ego. By combining tech, science, indigenous knowledge, and innovative funding, we can lay the foundation for scalable, nature-positive change. 💡 The future of climate action lies in collaboration, not silos. #AIforClimate #Sustainability #Collaboration #ClimateAction #Partnerships

42

15 Kommentare

From a source at EFRAG: the draft exposure standard for the simplified ESRS will be published tomorrow or the day after. EFRAG had previously stated that the draft would be released “the last week of July,” and following last week’s open SRB meeting, it seems they’re sticking to that timeline. Once it's out, there will be a 60 day public consultation period lasting until the end of September. During this period, all stakeholders can provide feedback. What we’re going to see is significant. Key details from the revised draft include: – 58% reduction in mandatory data points – Nearly all “May” data points eliminated – Combined, that’s close to a 66% overall cut This is a serious shift. We're about to witness what the proposed future of European ESG reporting will look like. Will post the ESRS draft exposure as soon as it's live.

97

1 Kommentar

“If your breath is heavy, the air is not just sick, the system is.” That’s what my grandmother used to say when the wind felt wrong. She didn’t know the term “air quality index.” But now I know, she was speaking policy before policy had a microphone. Imagine athletes who ran 10 kilometers with effortless power. But their breathing? Increased by 400%. Science confirms: When we move, we inhale more, and in polluted cities, that means more toxins per breath. And here’s the uncomfortable truth: 99% of the global population breathes polluted air. Air filled with pollutants above recommended levels. Especially in informal economies — where policies rarely reach, but pollution always does. So the real issue is not movement. It’s exposure. And the inequity of it. Because the lungs of food vendors, informal workers, and children are doing heavy lifting for decisions they didn’t make. But we are not powerless. At the policy level: Embed air quality into NDCs and methane plans Train AI tools to map high-risk zones Include air data in MRV systems At the city level: Turn informal markets into clean air hubs Fund solar dryers and composting tech to replace open burning Enforce localized air monitoring At the community level: Mobilise youth via innovative volunteerism to co-map hotspots Support cooperatives scaling clean cooking and solar alternatives Co-create awareness using stories, songs, and grandmother wisdom Because clean air is not a luxury. It is a fundamental right. And a starting point for practical climate justice. As my grandmother said: “When the wind stops singing, it’s not just the leaves that suffer — it’s the lungs of the village.” The future breathes through what we do now. Let’s make it count.

49

3 Kommentare

Could some circularity policies go against competitiveness and environment?🤔 Ten years after the first EU circular economy roadmap, we face an uncomfortable truth: Europe's circularity rate has stagnated and recycling capacity in key sectors is declining. The paradox is that this isn't happening despite our policies. It's happening because of them. Take PET plastic. We set ambitious recycled content targets in the Single-Use Plastics Directive to drive investment in recycling infrastructure. The result? Approximately 1 million tonnes of recycling capacity lost or never developed. Why? Because we designed mandates that can be met with cheaper imported recyclate rather than European post-consumer waste. European recyclers can't compete. Facilities close. Collected plastic goes to incineration. Bad for competitiveness, bad for the environment. This forces us to confront what we're actually trying to achieve: - Are we maximizing global circularity metrics—even when that undermines European recycling industries, exports jobs, and results in incinerating perfectly recyclable collected waste? - Or is circularity supposed to be at the core of our industrial policy, creating resilient local value chains and aligning economic with environmental goals? Current policy suggests we've chosen the former while claiming the latter. I understand the legal constraints. WTO rules create real limitations. But when France announces it will implement proximity principles for recycled content in 2026, it shows member states are filling the void left by EU-level creativity. We found WTO-compatible solutions for CBAM, for critical raw materials, for countless other challenges. Why not for circularity? The US Inflation Reduction Act and China's Five-Year Plans show what happens when industrial policy is backed by state apparatus. The EU has detailed regulations but minimal financial commitment and little integration with trade, state aid, or procurement policy. The main problem is that we regulate circularity while continuing to subsidise the linear economy. Unless the EU changes the economic incentives, the market today favours linear over circular products. After ten years, we need honesty about trade-offs between supporting European industry vs. providing cheap inputs, local resilience vs. global efficiency, ambition vs. WTO compliance and real commitment for circularity. If circularity is truly core to EU industrial policy we must design policies that actually build European market for circularity. The current path—ambitious targets, cheap imports, minimal investment—is failing both competitiveness and the environment. What are your ideas on how to fix this? I have elaborated on potential ways to address this challenge in a substack article: https://lnkd.in/eiZs_sT7 #CircularEconomy #EUPolicy #Recycling #Sustainability #IndustrialPolicy #GreenDeal

147

28 Kommentare

EU Taxonomy vs. ESG Ratings – From Green Intentions to Green Impact I recently came across this study on the EU Taxonomy Regulation and found it really interesting. It sheds light on how markets respond differently to Taxonomy alignment compared to traditional ESG ratings. 🔎 Key insights: > Companies with higher EU Taxonomy alignment (revenues from sustainable activities) enjoy a market premium. > Investor attention matters > Traditional ESG ratings did not explain these market effects. 💡 Why the difference? ESG ratings focus on firm-level policies, disclosures, and governance. They can vary widely across providers and often reward communication as much as impact. EU Taxonomy defines sustainability at the activity level using strict, science-based thresholds. It requires firms to disclose the share of revenue, capex, and opex aligned with six environmental objectives (es: climate change mitigation and adaptation; Circular Economy) ⚖️ Limitations & future research: > The Taxonomy currently centers on environmental objectives, leaving the S& G dimensions less defined. > The study focused on the early implementation phase, future research can explore whether the alignment premium persists over time. 🚀 Takeaway: The EU Taxonomy shifts the lens from green intentions to green impact. For investors, regulators, and companies, this offers a much clearer framework - and it’s only the beginning of how sustainable finance will evolve.

72

5 Kommentare