How One Climate Tech Company Is Hanging On in the Trump Era
That's where Heirloom Carbon is planning to build its first commercial-scale plant capable of extracting carbon dioxide from the air, by way of shallow trays of crushed limestone that absorb the planet-warming gas.
The project was on the Trump administration's draft 'kill list' of federally funded climate tech projects, as my colleagues reported in March. But it wasn't on the final list that came out last week.
Another win in progress: While last week's House-passed megabill would gut the Inflation Reduction Act's tax credits for renewables and nuclear power by tightening their construction deadlines to near-impossibilities, it leaves the IRA's credits for carbon capture largely intact, other than cutting the credits' transferability to third parties.
Carbon capture has plenty of enemies on the left, where it's often viewed as a nascent, expensive distraction from reducing emissions in the near term. But it's the right that wields influence over the huge pots of money that are the Biden administration's biggest climate legacy — and as Republicans prepare to decimate incentives for renewable resources like solar, wind and geothermal energy, carbon capture has managed to weather the storm better than many other climate technologies.
Heirloom is as savvy an operator as any, having announced its Louisiana facility in 2023 in conjunction with Climeworks and Battelle on the back of an initial $50 million award from the bipartisan infrastructure law. The company is pursuing a two-pronged policy strategy: It's trying to win over the right with the promise of jobs and heavy industry in their districts, and the left with the additional promise of a way to tackle climate change — with caveats about it not being a substitute for other emissions reductions. To that end, it takes pains to make a key distinction between 'carbon capture' — which includes technologies that filter CO2 from industrial sources — and 'carbon removal' like Heirloom's, which draws existing carbon out of the atmosphere.
'By building in California, you get the door knocks from the Microsofts of the world,' Vikrum Aiyer, the company's head of global public policy, told me on a tour last month of its first plant, on the agricultural eastern outskirts of the Bay Area, over the hum of a kiln that heats up the limestone to extract the captured CO2. 'By building in Louisiana, we get more companies interested in 'How do I use this CO2 for other things?''
Choosing Louisiana was a prescient bet. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry's administration pleaded the project's case after it ended up on the Energy Department's preliminary hit list.
'I urge you to contact DOE Secretary Chris Wright and ask him to take every necessary step to advance this critically needed federal grant,' Louisiana Economic Development Secretary Susan Bonnett Bourgeois wrote to the state's congressional delegation.
Local port commissioners and business groups chimed in, too; an April letter touted the project's ability to 'generate demand for American-made steel, concrete, and advanced equipment, revitalizing our industrial heartland.'
It probably also helped that Heirloom was a relative old-timer, getting its funding award in August 2023; two-thirds of the projects on the kill list received final approval after the November election. But either way, avoiding being on the list was a significant victory, given how much work remains to get the technologies to economic viability.
'For those earlier-stage startups who are not backed by a large corporation or multinational, I think you could see this as absolutely devastating,' said Jessie Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, a trade group.
The Senate is currently working through the megabill, but the House version's 2033 deadline to start construction works for Heirloom, which is banking on the preservation of the existing $180-per-ton tax credit to remove CO2 as well as permanently store it (in concrete, at its plant in California, and in an underground well, in Louisiana). Another $130-per-ton credit, for using the carbon, would help it capitalize on its recently announced deal with United Airlines to incorporate it into jet fuel.
That would all go a decent way to helping the company get beyond the initial corporate buyers — Microsoft, Meta, McKinsey and JP Morgan among them — willing to shell out the roughly $600 per ton that direct-air capture currently costs. (It needs to get down to about $100 per ton to make it attractive to companies that have to reduce their emissions under government climate programs in California and the European Union, for example.)
Heirloom's strategy on the left, meanwhile, involves trying to cobble together more funding for research and development to get the cost down further while allaying environmental groups' concerns that the technology will enable industrial emitters to keep polluting.
Heirloom is hoping to leverage California's carbon-trading program, which generates billions in proceeds from the sale of emissions permits to industry. It's backing an 'advanced climate technology' fund for industrial decarbonization technologies, pegged to the state's 2022 climate roadmap that envisions carbon removal contributing to 15 percent of the state's goal to get to net-zero emissions by 2045.
To that end, the company is trying to win over wary opponents who argue that any climate dollars should go toward nearer-term reductions. 'Could that someday be a realistic part of the solution?' former Vice President Al Gore, one of the most powerful climate voices on the left, said of carbon capture in a speech in April in San Francisco. 'Perhaps. But not now. Not even close.'
Carbon capture is 'probably the most expensive and the least reliable thing that we could possibly be doing right now,' Katie Valenzuela, a consultant for environmental justice groups, said on a panel at a Sacramento climate conference in April.
'I recognize I'm not coming into this room as a very popular dude,' Aiyer responded. 'We have to earn your trust. I get that.'
But they're having some success there, too. California lawmakers this week advanced a bill to require the state to purchase $50 million in carbon removal credits between 2026 and 2035.
Another bill would lift California's moratorium on carbon dioxide pipelines, which Heirloom would need if it scales up enough to move large volumes to storage wells or other sites. 'There's a huge opportunity here,' said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, its author, who joined last month's tour of the Tracy facility.
For now, much of Heirloom's fate is in the hands of the Senate, where their industry-friendly pitch to the right might allow them to slip through the Trump administration's net once again. And as other emissions-cutting efforts fall to Republicans' machete, time is on their side.
'By 2050, we need to start taking down six to 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year for the rest of the century,' Aiyer said, 'if we stand any chance of realizing either the temperature goals or the Paris Accords.'
Carbon capture might not be a favorite among progressives yet, but with the Trump administration's gutting of other climate projects, companies like Heirloom may be some of the only ones left.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
a few seconds ago
- New York Post
75 homeless camps in DC cleared by US Park Police since Trump's ‘Safe and Beautiful' executive order
Federal officials have cleared about 75 homeless camps around the nation's capital under President Trump's effort to clean up Washington, DC — and they're not done yet. United States Park Police have removed dozens of tents since the president penned the 'Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful' executive order in March, the Department of the Interior told The Post Friday. Authorities have also scrubbed up to 80 graffiti sites from Capitol Hill Parks as of Aug. 6, Interior officials said. 7 Federal officials have made an effort to get rid of homeless camps across Washington, D.C. DOI 'President Trump signed the order to Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful in March, and our dedicated U.S. Park Police have been working around the clock since to enforce this directive, clean up our streets, and ensure our nation's capital is safe,' Interior deputy press secretary Aubrie Spady revealed. Exclusive photos obtained by The Post show homeless tents scattered across different parts of DC before they were removed by authorities. Interior leaders, led by Secretary Doug Burgum, are revising guidelines so there is a no-tolerance policy for illegal camping on National Park Service property in Washington, including no longer handing out warnings before vagrants are pushed off the public spaces. 7 The United States Park Police has removed 75 homeless camps near the nation's capital. DOI The feds will also crack down on vandals who spray graffiti or cause damage to federal monuments, statues or buildings. 7 Officials also reported that up to 80 graffiti sites from Capitol Hill Parks have been cleaned up. DOI The Department of Justice will pursue maximum fines of $100,000 and up to a year in prison for offenders convicted of causing less than $1,000 in damage, according to the Interior. US Park Police will also be allowed to pursue suspected criminals who are fleeing under certain situations. 7 The latest cleanup effort comes after President Trump's latest agenda to stop the spread of violent crime across the nation's capital. DOI 7 Secretary Doug Burgum, in a press conference, said the Trump administration is allowing them to enforce the law, while under President Biden, federal property was filled with homeless camps. AP The cleanup comes as the Trump administration started tackling crime in DC this week, including giving homeless people the chance to enter a shelter with the threat of jail if they refuse. 'They are so pleased, the rank-and-file [Parks police officers] that President Trump is allowing them to enforce the law,' said Burgum, during a Monday press conference with Trump and other cabinet leaders. 7 Trump recently sent in the National Guard to the city to address the ongoing crime. Getty Images 7 City officials have sued Trump for his 'unlawful' takeover of the police department, and that he is abusing his authority as commander in chief. Getty Images He said that while Joe Biden was in the White House, federal property was littered with homeless camps. 'They continue to do a great job whether it's in their vehicles, on foot or on the mounted police that you see around the National Mall,' Burgum added. Trump went ahead with federal control of the DC Metropolitan Police Department Monday while sending in the National Guard and federal agents to address safety problems that have long plagued the city. But city officials sued over Trump's 'unlawful' takeover of the police department Friday, claiming the commander in chief is exceeding his legal powers.


New York Post
a few seconds ago
- New York Post
Putin joins short list of world leaders who have hitched a ride in ‘The Beast' with an American President
A smiling Vladimir Putin joined President Trump for a ride in "The Beast," as they left Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on the way to their high-stakes meeting. Putin joins a short list of other world leaders who have enjoyed a ride in the heavily armored presidential vehicle, including French President Emmanuel Macron, former Japanese Prime Minister Shinz Abe, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. and former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.


Chicago Tribune
a few seconds ago
- Chicago Tribune
Some workers would be excluded from student loan forgiveness program for ‘illegal' activity
WASHINGTON — Teachers, social workers, nurses and other public workers would be cut off from a popular student loan cancellation program if the Trump administration finds their employer engaged in activities with a 'substantial illegal purpose,' under a new federal proposal released on Friday. The Education Department took aim at nonprofits or government bodies that work with immigrants and transgender youth, releasing plans to overhaul the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Opponents fear the new policy would turn the loan forgiveness benefit into a tool of political retribution. The proposal would give the education secretary the final say in deciding whether a group or government entity should be excluded from the program, which was created by Congress in 2007 to encourage more college graduates to enter lower-paying public service fields. The proposal says illegal activity includes the trafficking or 'chemical castration' of children, illegal immigration and supporting foreign terrorist organizations. 'Chemical castration' is defined as using hormone therapy or drugs that delay puberty — gender-affirming care common for transgender children or teens. President Donald Trump ordered the changes in March, saying the loan forgiveness program was steering taxpayer money to 'activist organizations' that pose a threat to national security and do not serve the public. The public will be given 30 days to weigh in on the proposal before it can be finalized. Any changes would take effect in July 2026. Under current rules, government employees and many nonprofit workers can get their federal student loans canceled after they've made 10 years of payments. The program is open to government workers, including teachers, firefighters and employees of public hospitals, along with nonprofits that focus on certain areas. The new proposal would exclude employees of any organization tied to an activity deemed illegal. The Education Department predicts that fewer than 10 organizations would be deemed ineligible per year. It doesn't expect a 'significant reduction' in the percentage of borrowers who would be granted forgiveness under the program, according to the proposal. Yet the agency acknowledges that not all industries would be affected evenly. Schools, universities, health care providers, social workers and legal services organizations are among those most likely to have their eligibility jeopardized, the department wrote. It did not give more specifics about what 'illegal' actions those groups were taking that could bar them from the program. But the proposal suggests that performing gender-affirming care in the 27 states that outlaw it would be enough. If a state or federal court rules against an employer, that could lead to its expulsion from the program, or if the employer is involved in a legal settlement that includes an admission of wrongdoing. Even without a legal finding, however, the education secretary could determine independently that an organization should be ejected. The secretary could judge whether an organization participated in illegal activity by using a legal standard known as the 'preponderance of the evidence' — meaning it's more likely than not that an accusation is true. Once an organization is barred from the program, its workers' future loan payments would no longer count toward cancellation. They would have to find work at another eligible employer to keep making progress toward forgiveness. A ban from the Education Department would last 10 years or until the employer completed a 'corrective action plan' approved by the secretary. Critics blasted the proposal as an illegal attempt to weaponize student loan cancellation. Kristin McGuire, CEO of the nonprofit Young Invincibles, which advocates for loan forgiveness, called it a political stunt designed to confuse borrowers. 'By using a distorted and overly broad definition of 'illegal activities,' the Trump administration is exploiting the student loan system to attack political opponents,' McGuire said in a statement. The Education Department sketched out its plans for the overhaul during a federal rulemaking process that began in June. The agency gathered a panel of experts to help hash out the details — a process known as negotiated rulemaking. But the panel failed to reach a consensus, which freed the department to move forward with a proposal of its own design. The proposal released on Friday included some changes meant to ease concerns raised by the expert panel. Some had worried the department would ban organizations merely for supporting transgender rights, even if they have no direct involvement in gender-affirming care. The new proposal clarifies that the secretary would not expel organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights.