You’re Thinking About Durability Wrong

The thought process around durability should be about keeping as much greenhouse gas (ghg) out of the air as long as possible.  This should be considered holistically, and should include any scope 1/2/3 emissions in the production and maintenance process.

Currently under most CDR methodologies, durability is thought of as the durability of the “Net Good” in an equation that looks something like this:

Net Good = Total Good – Total Bad

Focusing only on Net Good in this additive equation inappropriately ignores the sausage making.  The result of this equation says almost nothing about any immediate degrading effect of any given methodology.  The only thing it says is that Total Good is greater than Total Bad.  

Significantly, any durability or permanence measure should include any feedstock destroyed in the production process and when it was destroyed, if that process is considered part of “additional” operations.  For any CDR claiming “permanence,” when part of the feedstock is destroyed, the methodology is at best, “bimodal”, with durability of “zero” for the portion of feedstock destroyed,  and “permanent” on the other side.” 

Let’s agree that “permanence” is a claim too audacious, and that “durability” must more richly account for the “Total Good” and “Total Bad” on the right side of the above equation.  CDR buyers should more carefully concern themselves with the right side of the equation.  

In fairness, most buyers are interested in how the sausage was made, but they must increase the scrutiny.  In particular, TIMING and FEEDSTOCK DESTRUCTION are considerations that must improve.  Pathways that require these high emissions upfront in exchange for slightly higher removals deserve particular scrutiny.