Introduction

In a world of shifting geopolitics and growing climate uncertainty, sustainability professionals are under pressure to keep climate action both relevant and impactful. The conversation is evolving. It is no longer just about ambition, but also embedding sustainability into core business strategies to drive resilience, manage risk, and ensure long-term profitability.

In this episode, Sophie Bruusgaard Jewett, CEO and Co-Founder of Morescrope, and Simon Bager, CIO and Co-Founder of Klimate, explore how climate leadership is adapting to this new reality. Drawing on insights from industry experts and real-world examples, they unpack what it takes to keep climate investments strategic, even in uncertain times.

TL;DR

• The business case for climate investments is evolving; companies need to demonstrate tangible returns.

• Sustainability professionals are increasingly collaborating with CFOs to align climate goals with financial strategy.

• Risk management, resilience, reputation, and relevance are essential frameworks for climate leadership.

• Data-driven approaches and adaptable reporting systems help sustain momentum despite regulatory shifts.

• Small and medium-sized enterprises face unique challenges but can benefit from simplified frameworks (e.g., the EU’s VSME).

Adapting to Uncertainty: A New Era for Climate Leadership

Over the past few years, sustainability was a dominant theme in corporate agendas, fuelled by global movements and supportive legislation. However, recent geopolitical events and political shifts in the EU have altered this landscape. This has led to a “pendulum swing” where climate initiatives are no longer the unquestioned priority they once were.

The role of the sustainability officer is changing from being on the sidelines to working closely with the CFO, presenting a clear business case aligned with company operations. This shift demands that sustainability professionals develop skills in finance and strategic business communication to remain influential within their organisations.

The Four Rs of Climate Strategy: A Framework for Long-Term Impact

A fundamental insight from the discussion is the practical framework built around the “four Rs”: Risk management, Resilience, Reputation, and Relevance. These pillars help translate climate initiatives into strategic imperatives that resonate with leadership and stakeholders.

• Risk management involves identifying and mitigating supply chain vulnerabilities and regulatory risks.

• Resilience relates to preparing the business to thrive in a low-carbon economy.

• Reputation ensures the company remains relevant and trusted to customers, investors, and the public.

• Relevance ties sustainability directly to the company’s core operations and long-term competitiveness.

“Putting your climate work on the shelf right now is a classic sign of short-term thinking. A resilient and robust strategy requires long-term thinking about risk management, resilience, and reputation.”

– Sophie Bruusgaard Jewett, CEO and Co-Founder of Morescrope

The Power of Data and Strategic Integration

Data-driven decision-making is now central to effective climate leadership. Transparent, high-integrity data serves as a reliable anchor, which enables companies to measure impact, build credible business cases, and secure financing. Moreover, companies are increasingly using climate data to create value for customers and investors, leading to more strategic business applications.

Insights for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)

While much attention focuses on large corporations, SMEs face similar challenges with fewer resources. Sophie points to the EU’s voluntary reporting framework (VSME) as a practical tool to help smaller companies prepare for future regulatory demands without excessive burden. Though some SMEs may delay action due to uncertainty, the growing expectations from larger supply chain partners mean climate accountability is increasingly unavoidable.

“Companies that dare to invest in climate performance and investments in uncertain times will be the ones that profit the most.”

 – Sophie Bruusgaard Jewett

Conclusion

Although today’s climate investment landscape is more challenging and unpredictable, it also offers a valuable chance for sustainability professionals to make climate action a core part of business strategy. To succeed, they need to adapt their skills, focus on long-term goals, and use data to show the real business benefits of their efforts. Companies that stay committed to climate investments, even during uncertain times, will be better positioned to gain a competitive edge in a future where sustainability is closely tied to resilience and long-term value.

TL;DR - key points from the episode.

• Captured CO₂ has multiple uses and multiple pathways worth considering.
• Comparing two pathways, e-fuels and permanent storage (like BECCs & DAC), storage is likely more cost competitive and brings greater benefits.
• Storage breakthroughs in the Nordics build a strong foundation for a cost-competitive future.
• The voluntary market can help build out the infrastructure alongside state-tenders. Still, policy intervention is necessary to scale.

Comparing optimal technology pathways: e-fuels, storage, and aviation

What’s the smartest way to use CO₂ to reach net zero? Tobias shares insights from a recent analysis showing that storing CO₂ is more cost-effective and scalable than converting it into e-fuels. E-fuels, made from green hydrogen and captured CO₂, are promoted as sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). But according to the report, Direct Air Capture with Storage (DACCS) delivers the same climate benefit with lower energy use and cost. Since CO₂ is a limited resource, prioritising long-term storage leads to greater system-wide impact. Simon and Tobias discuss the implications of SAF blending–the current EU aviation mandate–and alternatives that deliver equal climate benefit.

“We suggest... that this should be allowed as part of the toolbox when aviation and airline companies are obligated to blend in e-fuel. Let them achieve the same climate benefit by capturing CO₂ from the atmosphere and storing it permanently underground—at a much lower cost.”
— Tobias Sørensen, Concito

Challenges and trade-offs for decarbonisation

Public funding is a limited resource. Considering recent public tenders, Simon and Tobias discuss which pathways to prioritise for a cost-effective toolkit. Important factors considered for effectiveness include operating hours, infrastructure life span, and decarbonisation alternatives. A few stand-outs for optimal carbon capture and permanent storage include cement, waste-to-energy using non-fossil sources (BECCS), and biogas. But, considering the reliance on voluntary purchases today, Simon addresses one challenge of private support: companies choosing certifiable credits over technically-efficient ones.

Another challenge lies in sustainable biomass scaling. With demand across multiple sectors (CDR, materials, hydrogen, biodiversity, food), land reallocation becomes crucial. Tobias suggests reducing meat consumption could support strategies like biochar and reforestation.

Nordic CO₂ Storage Developments

With a few notable storage plants online in the Nordics, more are being explored. These early projects are expensive but essential for de-risking value chains and learning-by-doing. Simon and Tobias highlight the role that onshore storage in Denmark could play, as a cost-effective option when compared to todays price ranges.

Voluntary buyers play a crucial early role but are not sufficient to sustain market growth alone. Wide-spread recognition for carbon storage solutions, whether captured at source or removal, as a highly beneficial and effective solution must continue.

“It’s a tool we have in our climate solutions toolbox. And when we do modelling around the scarce resources we have—the limited economic resources—the cost-effectiveness proves that for certain sectors, even something as expensive as DAC is part of the solution.”
—Simon Bager, Co-founder of Klimate

Implications and Recommendations

Beyond increased traction to removal and storage in voluntary markets, stronger policies are needed to funnel climate finance. Today’s EU ETS  and it’s potential inclusion of negative emissions is a step forward to drive adoption. But, current price-levels of removal and storage are misaligned with ETS cost-per-tonne. The market needs contracts for addressing this difference, public-private co-investment, and coordinated procurement strategies.

CDR is not a license to delay reductions but a vital climate tool for hard-to-abate sectors like aviation. Decisions today—on policy, investment, and market design—will shape the effectiveness and equity of future carbon strategies.

‍

TL;DR: Key Takeaways

• 2024 saw a 78% growth in the voluntary carbon removal market, with delivery of carbon removal credits increasing by 120%. 
• Microsoft remains a dominant buyer, but new players and innovative purchasing models are emerging in 2025.
• Asia, particularly Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, is beginning to engage seriously in CDR, mainly on the demand side, with potential to expand supply through industrial capabilities.
• The Nordics leverage abundant renewable energy and geological storage to position themselves as a global hub for CDR technologies and deployment. In tandem,  the newly launched Nordic Carbon Removal Association provides a path for broader corporate inclusion. 
• Trust, financing, and buyer diversification remain critical challenges for scaling CDR globally.

Insights on overall market growth. 

The voluntary carbon removal market experienced significant growth in 2024, with contracted volumes rising from 4.5 million to 8 million tonnes of CO₂ removed, marking a 78% increase year-on-year. Delivery also grew impressively by 120%, signalling that the market is beginning to move beyond promises to actual carbon removal on the ground. 

However, the first quarter of 2025 showed a dip in contracted volumes. This pause is seen not as a setback but as a preparatory phase for the market’s next ascent. Following the quarter’s close, major deals by Microsoft with various suppliers effectively doubled the market overnight, signalling renewed momentum. Both emphasise the importance of buyer diversification beyond tech giants, noting how the middle players are important as well. Yet, there is growing interest from mid-sized companies eager to integrate CDR into their sustainability strategies. Excitingly, new buyers are doing more than just dipping their toes, making large purchases from a range of methods and projects in Q1 '25. 

“The market grew 78% in 2024, but 2025’s first quarter was a back to base came moment—preparing for the big climb ahead.” – Tank Chen

Catching up with Asia's CDR scene. 

Asia's CDR scene is gaining traction, particularly in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. While the region currently has limited supply-side capacity — with Taiwan hosting just one biochar facility — demand is growing, supported by corporate interest and government initiatives. Japan’s integration of CDR into its Green Transformation (GX) League exemplifies this shift, combining government, private sector, and academic collaboration to craft forward-looking policies. Tank highlights the multifaceted roles Asian corporations play, not just as buyers but also as financiers, component manufacturers, and potential competitors in the space.

Regarding China, both hosts agree that its entry into the CDR market is inevitable. The nation is likely to leverage its industrial capacity to rapidly scale technology deployment both domestically and internationally. The comparison with China’s rapid rise in electric vehicles and solar technology underscores the potential speed  and scale of its involvement.

Zooming in on the Nordic CDR advantage. 

The Nordic region stands out as a promising CDR powerhouse, combining strong government subsidies, advanced energy infrastructures, and vast geological storage potential. Countries like Norway, Iceland, and Denmark have the capacity to store billions of tonnes of CO₂, making them ideal locations for a range of CDR suppliers. The new Nordic Carbon Removal Association aims to elevate the region to become a key player in both demand and supply. 

Simon notes, “The Nordics have a comparative advantage... it seems difficult to find many other locations in the world with these combined assets.”

In addition to the regional comparative advantage, competition is a key element to bring Nordic-based large companies onboard. Support systems like the Nordic Carbon Removal Association are needed to shift paradigms.

Looking ahead. 

Despite these encouraging developments, challenges remain. The market is still dominated by a small number of large buyers. Some innovative technologies face financial risks if demand does not scale quickly enough. 

Both hosts also touch on cultural perceptions of carbon credits, with Asia and the Nordics showing differing attitudes shaped by their unique policy and market histories. But, there are threads between Northeast Asia and the Nordic countries, including historical collaboration on wind and other green sectors. This creates a strong foundation to combine their respective strengths to accelerate global carbon removal efforts.

‍

Introduction

In the face of escalating climate risks, businesses worldwide are under increasing pressure to align their operations with global climate goals. As the urgency for meaningful climate action grows, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has emerged as a critical authority, providing companies with a structured pathway to set credible, science-aligned emissions reduction targets. Recently, the SBTi released a draft of its updated Corporate Net-Zero Standard, outlining significant revisions intended to strengthen corporate commitments and drive more transparent, effective climate action. Together with Alexander Schmidt, an expert in the field of policy and net-zero standards, our latest podcast episode explores the key proposed changes, their implications for businesses, and the challenges that lie ahead as companies strive to deliver on their net-zero ambitions.

TL;DR

• SBTi is raising the bar for corporate climate targets with a newly revised standard.

• Version 2.0 emphasizes separating Scope 1 and 2 emissions for clearer accountability.

• Companies must now publicly disclose transition plans—not just targets.

• Scope 3 emissions require better data and supplier collaboration.

• Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM) gains traction as a key climate lever.

• Early investment in carbon removals is no longer optional—it's essential.

The Role of SBTi in Climate Action

The SBTi serves as the de facto framework guiding businesses in setting science-based targets for emission reductions. Its primary goal is to keep global temperature rises below 1.5 degrees Celsius, with a commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. In March, the SBTi published a comprehensive 130-page document detailing proposed revisions to the corporate net-zero standard, which has sparked significant interest among thousands of companies committed to sustainability.

Key Changes in the Revised Standard

The proposed version 2.0 introduces several critical changes aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of corporate climate commitments:

1. Separation of Scope 1 and Scope 2 Targets

One of the notable changes is the separation of Scope 1 and Scope 2 targets. This allows companies to have a more granular view of their emissions and provides greater control over their reduction strategies. By distinguishing between these scopes, businesses can better manage their emissions and hold themselves accountable for their progress.

2. Public Commitment Requirements

Another significant update is the requirement for companies to publicly disclose their emissions targets and transition plans. This shift aims to create greater transparency and accountability in the corporate sector.

"It is easy (for companies) to set targets, and then it is hard to follow through if there is no transition plan behind them."
– Alexander Schmidt, expert advisor on climate policy of Normative

By mandating public commitments, the SBTi seeks to ensure that companies are not only setting ambitious goals but are also actively working towards achieving them.

3. New Metrics for Scope 3 Targets

The revised standard introduces new metrics for Scope 3 targets, including revenue alignment targets and incentives for improving data quality. This is vital for companies that often struggle with the complexity of their supply chain emissions. Enhanced data quality will enable businesses to make informed decisions and develop effective strategies for reducing their overall carbon footprint.

4. Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM)

BVCM refers to actions that take place outside a company's immediate value chain but can still contribute to climate change mitigation. The SBTi has recognised the importance of these activities and is encouraging companies to invest in climate finance. This could include funding projects that promote sustainable practices or support carbon removal technologies.

"We will need removals by 2050, and it's crucial that companies start investing in these technologies now."
– Simon Bager, co-founder and CIO of Klimate

Challenges Ahead

While the proposed revisions are a step in the right direction, challenges remain. Companies must navigate the complexities of Scope 3 emissions, which often account for a significant portion of their overall carbon footprint. The SBTi has acknowledged that many companies struggle to obtain primary data across their value chains, making it difficult to set accurate targets.

Furthermore, the requirement for companies to exert direct influence over their tier-one suppliers highlights the need for collaboration across the supply chain. Larger corporations, particularly those in sectors like technology and pharmaceuticals, have the potential to drive significant change by encouraging their suppliers to adopt net-zero targets.

Conclusion

The revisions to the SBTi standards represent a critical evolution in corporate climate action. By enhancing accountability through public commitments, separating emissions targets, and recognising the importance of BVCM, the SBTi is setting the stage for more effective climate strategies. However, as companies move forward, they must also address the challenges associated with Scope 3 emissions and ensure that their commitments translate into tangible actions. The journey towards net-zero is complex, but with the right frameworks and collaboration, it is achievable.

‍

Introduction‍

In a world increasingly aware of climate change, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies has emerged as a crucial tool in the global decarbonisation strategy. While much of the spotlight has been on regions such as South America and Africa, South Asia remains a largely untapped frontier—despite its enormous potential. With its rich biodiversity, a large population, and infrastructure advantages, the region offers potentials for scalable and high-quality climate solutions.

TL;DR

• South Asia offers a unique opportunity for carbon dioxide removal due to biomass availability and favorable climate conditions.

• Key pathways include regenerative agriculture, afforestation, biochar, and enhanced rock weathering.

• Challenges include landholder fragmentation and varying market approaches across regions.

• Engaging smallholder farmers is crucial for successful implementation and scalability.

• Soil carbon sequestration presents a viable, faster alternative to traditional afforestation methods.

The Promise of CDR in South Asia

As our guest, Ikarus Janzen from Varaha, pointed out, there is a big opportunity generally in the tropical belt. With abundant biomass and dual agricultural seasons, regions like India not only provide the resources needed for carbon sequestration but also the potential for clean energy production.

South Asia is still largely untapped in the carbon removal space, especially when compared to South America and Africa. This is primarily due to fragmented land ownership and differing market dynamics. However, qualified workforce and strong infrastructure make it a promising area for future CDR initiatives.

“While Africa also has a lot of labor, it is sometimes very difficult to get the same cost efficiencies at scale because the infrastructure is lacking to support that.” — Ikarus Janzan, Chief Commercial Officer at Varaha

Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation (ARR)

Afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation (ARR) projects have garnered attention, but implementing successful ARR requires integration with broader aims and priorities. For instance, Varaha’s tree-planting initiative provides comprehensive training and support to help smallholder farmers cultivate income-generating tree species. This approach not only boosts carbon sequestration but also improves local livelihoods.

By aligning carbon credit programs with farmers’ economic priorities, such initiatives become more viable and long-lasting. The goal of ARR should not solely be maximising carbon capture, but delivering environmental and socio-economic benefits—creating solutions that are as sustainable for communities as they are for the planet.

Soil Carbon Sequestration

Soil carbon sequestration provides a quicker path to generating carbon credits than traditional afforestation efforts. While ARR projects typically take at least four years before yielding credits, soil carbon initiatives begin showing results within a year. This faster timeline makes them more attractive and investable for stakeholders, as Jansen highlighted.

“Time to market I think really matters, and then the scalability really matters, and then there are also certain cost advantages, especially if we do it at scale.” — Ikarus Janzan

Challenges to Soil Carbon Sequestration

Despite a promising outlook, challenges remain. In 2023, only 7 million credits were issued across major registries, which is a tight supply. Moreover, developing a robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) system is critical for ensuring the integrity of carbon credits, which is likely solvable with technology.

Another challenge is educating the market and buyers, as hesitation and limited understanding of carbon initiatives persist. Drawing from his experience at Varaha, Ikarus noted that small-scale farmers are primarily driven by the goal of boosting crop yields and reducing fertiliser costs, rather than by potential carbon revenue. As a result, the project prioritises practical farming techniques that align with farmers’ immediate interests while also contributing to soil carbon improvements.

Conclusion

South Asia’s potential for carbon removal is immense, but it requires a concerted effort to harness it effectively. By focusing on smallholder farmers and integrating sustainable practices, we can create a more resilient agricultural landscape that benefits both the environment and local communities. As we move forward, the integration of technology and education will be vital to overcoming challenges and unlocking the full potential of carbon removal in South Asia and worldwide.

Introduction

In today's rapidly changing climate landscape, the need for effective carbon removal strategies is more pressing than ever. In our latest podcast with Elisabeth Harding, we delve into the recent developments in EU policy surrounding carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and discuss the implications for businesses and the environment.

Elisabeth, who serves as the policy manager at the Negative Emissions Platform, gave us insights into the EU's commitment to carbon removal. The organisation represents various technologies such as direct air capture, bioenergy with carbon capture, and marine carbon removal. As Elisabeth explained, the EU is increasingly focusing on not just the policies at the EU level but also on national levels where significant advancements can be made.

"We have to be going to negative emissions if we want to have a stable and habitable planet for generations to come."

- Elisabeth Harding, Policy Manager at the Negative Emissions Platform

TL;DR

• The EU Scientific Advisory Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) outlines nine key recommendations for policy improvements.

• There’s a strong need for separate targets for gross emissions reductions and carbon removals.

• The Clean Industrial Deal aims to boost the EU’s clean tech industry amid global competition.

• Integration of carbon removal into the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) is essential for creating demand.

• Public-private partnerships and funding initiatives are crucial for advancing carbon removal technologies.

The EU Scientific Advisory Report

One of the main topics we explored was the recent EU Scientific Advisory Report on CDR. This report, developed over two years, offers a scientific foundation for advancing carbon removal technologies. It outlines nine key recommendations across policy, carbon markets, and governance.

The report also highlights the need for building CO2 infrastructure, which is critical for transporting and storing captured carbon. Elisabeth pointed out the importance of integrating carbon removal into the ETS, which covers a significant portion of the EU's economy. This integration is crucial for creating a demand signal for carbon removal technologies.

"The proof is in the pudding, and now it's really up to the EU to take this forward in the climate law."

- Elisabeth Harding

Implications of the Clean Industrial Deal

As part of our conversation, we also discussed the Clean Industrial Deal, which aims to position the EU as a leader in clean technology while addressing competitiveness concerns. The deal outlines various initiatives to support hard-to-abate industries in decarbonizing their operations.

With the establishment of the Industrial Decarbonization Accelerator Act, new opportunities are emerging to drive demand for carbon removal, particularly in challenging sectors that are traditionally hard to decarbonize. Elisabeth expressed optimism that these policies will help build a more robust market for carbon removal technologies.

Looking Ahead

As the demand is projected to rise, it has become clear that the next few years will be pivotal for carbon removal in the EU. Companies and stakeholders in the carbon removal space need to prepare for upcoming compliance markets and engage with the evolving policy landscape. Elisabeth emphasised the importance of starting small, encouraging companies to begin purchasing carbon removals to build experience and confidence ahead of more stringent regulations.

With the groundwork being laid now, it’s an exciting time for those invested in climate action. The consensus on the need for carbon removal is growing, and the focus is shifting from “if” to “how” and “when” these technologies will be integrated into broader climate strategies.

Conclusion

Our conversation with Elisabeth Harding highlighted the crucial intersection of science, policy, and technology in the realm of carbon removal. As the EU continues to refine its approach to climate action, it is clear that the path forward will require collaboration, innovation, and a steadfast commitment to achieving negative emissions. The future of our planet depends on it, and it is up to all of us to engage in this vital conversation.

Introduction

In the ongoing battle against climate change, nature-based solutions (NbS) have emerged as a crucial strategy for carbon removal and ecosystem restoration. By leveraging the natural processes of our planet, we can sequester carbon, restore biodiversity, and engage communities in meaningful ways. In our latest podcast featuring Kahlil Baker, CEO of Taking Root, we explore the importance of NbS, the differences between centralised and decentralised reforestation efforts, and the significance of community engagement in these projects.

TL;DR

• Understanding nature-based solutions and their role in carbon removal.

• The critical differences between centralised and decentralised reforestation efforts.

• The importance of community engagement in successful NbS projects.

• How economic incentives can align land use with environmental benefits.

• The role of local partnerships in building trust and ensuring project success.

Why Nature-Based Solutions Matter

Nature-based solutions are essential in the fight against climate change because they allow nature to do the heavy lifting. Through photosynthesis, plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in their biomass. However, the conversation around climate change often focuses narrowly on carbon concentrations, neglecting the broader roles that ecosystems play in climate stabilization, such as regulating water cycles and cooling the planet.

"If we built machines that removed all the parts per million to where we wanted to 350 or whatever, I still think we'd have a climate crisis on our hands."

- Kahlil Baker, CEO of Taking Roots

Centralized vs. Decentralized Approaches

When it comes to reforestation, two primary approaches exist: centralized and decentralized. Centralized efforts often involve acquiring large tracts of land and implementing reforestation without local input. While this method simplifies logistics, it can ignore the socioeconomic realities of local communities. On the other hand, decentralized approaches empower local farmers and land managers to engage in reforestation on their own terms.

This decentralized model has proven effective in scaling restoration initiatives, as it taps into the existing knowledge and practices of local communities. By encouraging participation and collaboration, we can achieve not only carbon sequestration but also additional benefits that enhance local livelihoods.

Community Engagement: The Heart of Successful Projects

Community engagement is vital for the success of nature-based solutions. Engaging local stakeholders ensures that projects are designed with their needs and livelihoods in mind. By conducting community consultations, we can tailor restoration projects to align with local economic activities, whether it's cattle ranching, coffee production, or agroforestry.

"You want to create a program for it to be successful; a lot of people need to buy into it."

- Kahlil Baker

Building Trust and Ensuring Success

Trust is a fundamental component of successful community engagement. Working with local partners who understand the cultural context and existing social dynamics is crucial. These partnerships not only facilitate trust but also help navigate the complexities of local land-use patterns.

Moreover, it’s important to recognize that while carbon credits are a transactional unit, the broader goals of these projects often extend beyond carbon sequestration. Addressing biodiversity loss, improving local livelihoods, and enhancing ecosystem services are all critical components that can be integrated into carbon market projects.

Conclusion

Nature-based solutions offer a promising pathway in our fight against climate change, but their success hinges on understanding local contexts and fostering community engagement. By embracing decentralized approaches and building trust, we can unlock the full potential of NbS to create resilient ecosystems and empower communities. As we move forward, it's essential to remember that effective climate action requires not just innovative technology but also the wisdom and participation of the communities that live alongside nature.