(Video of this update on LinkedIn and YouTube)

Last week, I asked you to sit with the idea that deliveries have stalled. Julio Friedmann said as such in his Carbon Unbound keynote, and it really surprised me.

Since then, I've seen a lot of pushback on this idea. CDR.FYI and others have said that deliveries are actually way up, maybe even doubled or tripled.

The big question to me is, why are we still so unsure about delivery data?

What if the core issue is we don't have a single widely trusted source of truth for deliveries? Lack of data makes it harder for investors, for policymakers, for our whole industry to make decisions.

Other metrics are still useful, but they're fuzzy. Things like investment dollars, future removal capacity projections, and company growth.

Delivery data is uniquely important because it tracks what's actually been removed and how fast the industry is progressing on the innovation curve.

If we want to be on track for 285 million tons per year by 2030, on the way to 10 billion tons scale by 2050, then we must have delivery data that's as legible and broadly accepted as stock prices on the stock exchange.

This feels like an opportunity to fund and strengthen these efforts like CDR.FYI, to improve contract level reporting, to standardize anonymized disclosure (including things that are happening off registry), and to introduce confidence levels where certainty is limited.

The point of carbon removal is more than climate impact today. It's accelerating innovation and iteration for tomorrow, and our reporting should reflect that.

Last week, I asked you to sit with my update about this. Now my question is, what do you think about this latest information? Does it change your opinion from last week? And what ideas do you have for how we can make delivery data that's as legible and broadly accepted as stock prices?

Hit reply. 

Tito

P.S. My notes from our "What's Hot in Carbon Removal" event and recording are on LinkedIn and YouTube.