Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is essential to meet the Paris Agreement’s commitment to stay below a 1.5 degrees Celsius average temperature increase. To provide critical foundational support to the development, deployment, and scaling of CDR, certification of carbon removal is needed. The international community is developing rules for the functioning of carbon markets. To support that process, we explored open questions on four key themes in the development of standards and certification of carbon removal through an international multi-stakeholder consultation process hosted by the Global Carbon Removal Partnership, Arizona State University, and Conservation International. Categories of stakeholders included standard developing organizations, non-governmental organizations, governments, and academics. Discussions covered 1. the treatment of emission reduction, avoidance,and removal in certification, 2. the role of additionality in carbon removal, 3. the choice of certification instrument for carbon removal, and 4. the treatment of durability in certification. They revealed fundamental differences in viewpoints on how certification should work. We highlight areas of further exploration, concluding that providing transparency on assumptions made at the certification level will be crucial to progress and, eventually, the acceptance and success of carbon removal as a climate solution.

This study employs corpus-based discourse analysis to investigate racial and gender disparities in opioid prescribing practices. Analysis of 171 medical interactions in the United States from 2008 to 2020, drawn from the Verilogue corpus of doctor-patient dialogue, revealed a significant relationship between patients’ race and physicians’ prescribing behaviors. By systematically examining the stages in which patients were either prescribed or denied opioids, this study quantifies the challenges faced by patients as they navigate opioid-related discussions. 

Statistical analyses revealed that patient race was significantly associated with whether patients were prescribed and offered opioids, while gender did not show any significant association. Logistic regression analysis revealed that racial and ethnic minorities (REMs) had significantly lower odds of being prescribed opioids for their pain. REMs were also less likely to be offered opioids, resulting in them having to initiate requests for this fraught medication.

Discourse analysis of excerpts is provided to offer deeper insights into these disparities, highlighting patterns of increased scrutiny and hesitance in prescribing opioids to REM patients, even when they reported severe pain. In contrast, interactions with White patients often demonstrated more relaxed prescribing practices and increased patient autonomy in treatment decisions. These findings align with current research on inequities in pain treatment across communities. By illuminating these disparities, this research emphasizes the importance of understanding various culturally-dependent linguistic practices, such as the diverse ways individuals express pain.

Carbon dioxide removal is necessary to mitigate climate change, but not all methods will be fit-for-purpose. Some can be unethical, unsafe, counterproductive, and ecologically damaging. But, because fitness is a value judgment, it is critical to have a clear definition of its meaning. We propose to define fit-for-purpose as an attribute of a carbon removal method that indicates that its detrimental side effects are sufficiently small to be acceptable. A method is not fit for purpose if it risks unsustainable environmental or societal damages. We then identify six criteria that can be used to judge a method’s fitness-for-purpose based on those chosen by other organizations, including carbon negativity, measurability, additionality, safety, and low environmental risks. We compare our perspectives on these criteria to those presented by six entities including Microsoft, Carbon Direct, Frontier, California’s Air Resources Board, the United Nations Development Program, and the Accountability Framework. This work reflects our thinking in 2023 with some updates in 2024 and intends to be a starting point for a more thorough development process that ought to be adopted by the international carbon removal community in an inclusive process.