Trellison InstituteResearch Integrity · Methodology Evaluation

Reinhard & Planavsky 2026 — Anchor Publication

The January 2026 npj Climate Action paper that anchors the Trellison carbon capture portfolio. Published thesis for radical transparency on CDR data and dollar-per-ton costs — and a published design specification for what proof packs must deliver.

Full citation

Reinhard, C. T., & Planavsky, N. J. (2026). The importance of radical transparency for responsible carbon dioxide removal. npj Climate Action (Nature Portfolio). DOI: s44168-025-00324-4

Why this paper anchors the portfolio

Published in January 2026, this paper is the clearest public statement yet of what a credible carbon-removal market has to produce to earn public trust. It does not prescribe a specific verification stack — it prescribes properties that any verification stack must exhibit. LedgerWell proof packs are engineered to exhibit exactly those properties. That is why Trellison anchors the carbon capture portfolio on this paper: every other researcher on our roster can be reached through a Trellison / LedgerWell conversation that starts with, "we built the instrument your peers argued for."

Operating thesis: "Carbon capture without proof packs is hype. With them, carbon becomes a trusted commodity and something people will put effort behind." The Reinhard & Planavsky paper is the public academic articulation of the first half. Proof packs are the instrument that delivers the second half.

Core argument, restated

Carbon removal is now a scaled, commercialised category with multiple billion-dollar programmes and emerging regulatory frameworks. At that scale, two failure modes become dangerous:

  1. Mitigation deterrence — the promise of future CDR is used to delay near-term emissions reductions that would otherwise be mandatory.
  2. Verification opacity — claims of CDR cannot be independently evaluated because methodology, cost, and operational data are treated as proprietary.

The authors argue that both failure modes are mitigated by the same intervention: radical transparency. Specifically, open public disclosure of (a) the data behind CDR claims and (b) the data required to evaluate dollar-per-ton costs across pathways. This represents a cultural shift away from treating CDR methods, MRV data, and cost structures as intellectual property.

Data elements the paper says must be disclosed

Compiled from the paper's abstract, related interviews, and the broader body of work by the same authors:

Data elementProof-pack schema field
Complete methodology description (CDR pathway + process)methodology_attestation — signed, versioned, source-traceable
Energy consumption and source carbon intensityenergy_ledger — kWh / GJ by source, with grid-mix or supplier attestation
Material inputs (feedstocks, reagents, minerals)material_ledger — mass, provenance, certified composition
Verifiable carbon sequestration and permanence datasequestration_record — measured vs. modelled, with uncertainty band and reversibility risk
Environmental impacts (land, water, pollutants)externality_ledger — positive and negative; nickel/chromium for basalt, runoff, water use
Full project cost decomposition (capex, opex, subsidies)cost_decomposition — normalised dollar-per-ton view with subsidy disclosure
Co-benefits (soil, yield, biodiversity, community)co_benefit_ledger — quantified where possible, narrative where not

Prescriptions — operationalised

Policy and regulatory

Buyer-side

Researcher-side

Authors

Lead author
Dr. Christopher T. Reinhard — Georgia Power Chair, Georgia Tech — EAS. Co-founder, Lithos Carbon. Full dossier →
Co-author
Dr. Noah J. Planavsky — Professor, Yale EPS; YCNCC Scientific Leadership Team; Verra scientific advisor; CREW Carbon co-founder. Full dossier →

← Carbon capture portfolio · Partnership framework →

Public comments

Feedback from visitors, translated into business terminology and listed below. Use the assistant in the corner to add a comment.