top of page
Search

Earth Rise Manifesto: A Nuclear–DAC–Hydrogen Transition

  • Writer: Eric Anders
    Eric Anders
  • Apr 7
  • 36 min read

Updated: Apr 17

Let the Earth Rise: A Just Transition Through Atoms, Air, and Hydrogen


Introduction: Rising to an Unprecedented Challenge

The climate crisis demands nothing less than a complete transformation of our global energy system. Earth Rise Initiatives (ERI) steps forward as a catalyst for this transformation – a parent nonprofit uniting initiatives across continents in a bold plan to reach true decarbonization.


Through its regional branches—Earth Rise Initiative Norway (ERIN), Earth Rise Initiative Canada (ERICA), and Earth Rise Initiative China (ERICH)—the Foundation is developing a coordinated model for climate action that is ambitious in scope but grounded in proven technologies. This level of ambition reflects the accelerating urgency of the climate crisis, which threatens to fundamentally destabilize the conditions that make human flourishing possible. We must think boldly and act swiftly—not only for the sake of future generations in the abstract, but for the lives and hopes of our own children and their peers, whose futures are increasingly imperiled by inaction.


The core pillars of this vision are Direct Air Capture (DAC) of CO₂, large-scale hydrogen production using clean energy, and the strategic revival of nuclear power—including advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)—to enable and sustain these efforts. SMRs are uniquely capable of providing the consistent, high-output, carbon-free energy required to power DAC systems, generate pink and red hydrogen, and support the energy-intensive processes needed to refine synthetic fuels at scale.


Real progress will require confronting and discarding long-standing myths about nuclear energy—myths that portray it as inherently dangerous, economically unviable, or incompatible with environmental values. These narratives have been aggressively promoted by fossil fuel–interested parties seeking to protect their market dominance, often through front groups and lobbying efforts. Unfortunately, they have also been echoed by some well-intentioned environmental organizations, including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, whose opposition to nuclear power was shaped during a very different historical moment.


Today, however, the science is clear: there is no viable path to deep decarbonization without a major role for nuclear energy. Combined with DAC and hydrogen production, nuclear power offers the only currently scalable pathway to phasing out fossil fuels while producing carbon-neutral synthetic fuels for sectors that cannot be easily electrified. This integrated strategy is not merely a technological roadmap—it is a moral imperative for any serious effort to secure climate stability, intergenerational justice, and a livable future.


We advance this manifesto at a moment of global urgency. The latest science is unequivocal that simply cutting emissions is no longer enough – we must actively remove carbon dioxide from the sky to limit warming to safe levels (Now the IPCC has recognized that carbon removals are critical to addressing climate change, it’s time to act). The UN’s IPCC has stated plainly that deploying carbon dioxide removal to counteract hard-to-abate emissions “is unavoidable if net zero… emissions are to be achieved” (Now the IPCC has recognized that carbon removals are critical to addressing climate change, it’s time to act). In fact, limiting warming to 1.5 °C may require on the order of 6 billion tons of CO₂ removal per year by 2050 – a monumental undertaking roughly equivalent to the weight of all oil produced globally today (Now the IPCC has recognized that carbon removals are critical to addressing climate change, it’s time to act). This calls for solutions at previously unimaginable scales. Earth Rise’s mission is to turn this imperative into concrete action: by harnessing cutting-edge DAC technology, pairing it with abundant clean energy (from renewables and nuclear), and producing carbon-neutral synthetic fuels that can substitute for fossil fuels in any application. In doing so, we not only aim to avert climate catastrophe but also to redefine climate leadership across borders.

The Foundation’s approach builds on an uncomfortable truth: the established fossil fuel industry – however much it talks of “transition” – cannot be trusted to lead the way (UCS on a Fossil Fuel Phaseout | Union of Concerned Scientists). Decades of disinformation and obstruction by oil and gas interests have delayed action and locked in fossil dependence, making these companies and their political allies one of the biggest obstacles to a just transition (UCS on a Fossil Fuel Phaseout | Union of Concerned Scientists). True climate justice means dismantling this status quo and empowering a new coalition of actors. Norway and Canada, paradoxically both major oil producers and respected climate champions, are uniquely positioned to spearhead this effort. With their wealth of renewable resources and credible climate policies, these nations can demonstrate the viability of the DAC + hydrogen + nuclear model – and in doing so, challenge larger emitters like China to follow suit. China, for its part, holds the capacity for rapid, massive deployment of infrastructure unmatched by any Western nation. If encouraged and enabled by examples set in Norway and Canada, China could transform from the world’s largest emitter into the engine of a global green revolution – one built on synthetic fuels and hydrogen energy rather than petroleum and coal. This manifesto lays out that pathway in detail. It calls for courage to leverage nuclear power in new ways, for vision in connecting technologies across continents, and for an unwavering commitment to climate justice as the guiding principle of our energy future.

The Fossil Fuel Industry vs. Climate Justice

Humanity’s continued reliance on fossil fuels is fundamentally incompatible with climate justice and a livable future. The litany of harms is well known: the burning of coal, oil, and gas is the main driver of global heating (UCS on a Fossil Fuel Phaseout | Union of Concerned Scientists), and the pollution from extraction through consumption poisons our air, water, and land, contributing to asthma, cancer, heart and lung disease (UCS on a Fossil Fuel Phaseout | Union of Concerned Scientists). These burdens fall hardest on the poor and marginalized. Our fossil-fueled energy system “reflects and exacerbates deep inequities of race, class, health, income, and political power”, with disenfranchised communities suffering disproportionate pollution and climate disasters (UCS on a Fossil Fuel Phaseout | Union of Concerned Scientists). Globally, wealthy nations have emitted the most carbon, while vulnerable developing countries bear the brunt of droughts, floods, and heatwaves (UCS on a Fossil Fuel Phaseout | Union of Concerned Scientists). Any legitimate climate solution must therefore center justice – rectifying inequities, protecting those most affected, and ensuring that the transition to clean energy leaves no one behind.

It has become painfully clear that we cannot look to the fossil fuel industry to deliver this just transition. As the Union of Concerned Scientists observed, “the fossil fuel industry has shown time and time again that it can’t be trusted to lead this transition.” (UCS on a Fossil Fuel Phaseout | Union of Concerned Scientists) Their business model and fiduciary interests remain tied to extracting maximum profit from oil and gas reserves, even as the world burns. Indeed, for decades fossil companies have actively undermined climate action – using disinformation and outsized political influence to block policies, sow doubt, and delay the shift to renewables (UCS on a Fossil Fuel Phaseout | Union of Concerned Scientists). They posture as part of the solution with token investments in renewables or carbon capture, yet simultaneously lobby to expand drilling and lock in new pipelines. This entrenched power structure – fossil capital and its enablers – is fundamentally at odds with the rapid change needed. Climate justice demands we phase out fossil fuels entirely, not find ways to perpetuate them.

Earth Rise’s manifesto is unapologetically critical of fossil fuel influence. We call out the “net-zero” greenwashing and gradualism for what it is: a recipe for continued climate injustice. The International Energy Agency has been blunt in its roadmap: to limit warming to 1.5 °C, no new oil or gas fields should be developed beyond 2021 (Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis - IEA). And yet the industry pushes on with exploration and governments still subsidize oil and gas expansion. This trajectory is untenable. We need an abrupt pivot to a post-fossil world where the vast majority of coal, oil, and gas stays in the ground, and where energy companies are measured not by reserves booked but by carbon removed or clean kilowatts delivered.

Crucially, a just transition also means supporting workers and communities currently dependent on fossil industries. The billions in profits that fossil fuel companies accrue must be redirected to fund new jobs in clean energy, remediation of polluted sites, and adaptation in frontline communities. Climate justice is not merely an environmental agenda – it is a social and economic overhaul to uplift people as we decarbonize. Earth Rise Foundation commits to this holistic view: our climate action model isn’t about cutting carbon in a vacuum; it’s about system change that addresses historic injustices and creates broad-based prosperity in a sustainable economy.

A Grand Vision: Direct Air Capture, Hydrogen, and Nuclear Power

Our model for deep decarbonization revolves around marrying three game-changing technologies: Direct Air Capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide, green hydrogen production, and advanced nuclear energy. Each is powerful on its own; together, they form a synergistic cycle that can replace the entire fossil fuel value chain – from energy production to liquid fuels – with clean alternatives.

Direct Air Capture is the process of chemically scrubbing CO₂ from ambient air. This means we are no longer confined to capturing emissions at the smokestack; we can literally remove past and present emissions directly from the atmosphere. DAC is often called an “engineered carbon sink,” and it is critical for offsetting emissions from sectors that are hard to electrify or haven’t yet eliminated fossil fuels. As of today, DAC is still in its infancy (with only a few dozen small plants operating globally) and it is energy-intensive (Direct Air Capture - Energy System - IEA) (Direct Air Capture - Energy System - IEA). But its promise is immense: it offers a way to achieve negative emissions at scale, essentially cleaning up the carbon pollution humanity has dumped into the sky over the past two centuries. Early DAC projects are already converting captured CO₂ into useful products – especially carbon-neutral fuels. For example, in Squamish, British Columbia, a pilot plant developed by Carbon Engineering has been capturing CO₂ from air since 2015 and synthesizing it into fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel since 2017 (Carbon Engineering - Wikipedia) (Carbon Engineering - Wikipedia). The process combines CO₂ with hydrogen (obtained via water electrolysis) to create hydrocarbons, essentially an “air to fuels” technology (Carbon Engineering - Wikipedia). The end product is liquid fuel compatible with existing engines, but with one key difference: burning it simply returns to the air the CO₂ that was originally captured, adding no new net emissions (Carbon Engineering - Wikipedia). It’s a circular carbon cycle, in contrast to the one-way street of extracting oil and loading the air with CO₂. Synthetic fuels from DAC can thus decarbonize sectors like aviation, shipping, and long-haul transport – areas where battery electrification is difficult – by displacing fossil fuels (Carbon Engineering - Wikipedia).

Hydrogen is the other critical piece in this puzzle. Hydrogen can serve as a clean energy carrier and feedstock for synthetic fuels. When produced by splitting water using renewable or nuclear electricity (a process known as electrolysis), hydrogen yields no CO₂. This green hydrogen can be used directly as a fuel (e.g. in fuel cells to power vehicles, or burned in industrial furnaces) and is a key input for creating synthetic hydrocarbons via DAC, as noted above. Hydrogen is also versatile: it can be stored and transported, offering energy system flexibility that complements intermittent solar and wind power. Many countries are realizing hydrogen’s potential – including China, which has made hydrogen development a top priority in its industrial plans (Government pushes hydrogen technology up nation's agenda - Chinadaily.com.cn). China’s government has set a goal to have 50,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2025 (Government pushes hydrogen technology up nation's agenda - Chinadaily.com.cn), and the city of Beijing alone aims for 10,000 fuel cell vehicles with dozens of H₂ filling stations by 2025 (China's capital envisages 10,000 fuel cell vehicles by 2025 | Reuters). These fuel cell vehicles, ranging from buses to trucks, emit only water vapor, eliminating tailpipe emissions entirely. Imagine a future where city buses, long-haul trucks, even airplanes, run on hydrogen-based fuels produced from the air around us – this is the future Earth Rise is working toward. By investing heavily in electrolysis capacity (for hydrogen) and DAC facilities (for CO₂ capture), we can manufacture the fuels needed to power carbon-neutral transportation on a global scale. In fact, the International Energy Agency projects that by 2050 roughly 36% of CO₂ captured via DAC could be used, along with clean hydrogen, to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels – notably for aviation ([PDF] Evaluating global CDR uptake in modelled scenarios). This underscores that air-to-fuel technology isn’t a fringe idea but a cornerstone of serious net-zero pathways.

Nuclear energy, particularly next-generation reactors like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), provides the reliable, carbon-free power that can drive both DAC and electrolytic hydrogen at scale. While solar and wind are crucial, their variability means we will also need continuous power sources to run energy-intensive processes 24/7. Nuclear fission offers high energy density and constant output without emissions. Moreover, advanced reactors can be designed to load-follow (adjust output) or cogenerate heat and power, making them well-suited to pairing with DAC and hydrogen systems. For example, waste heat from a nuclear plant can supply the thermal energy DAC systems need for CO₂ capture and sorbent regeneration. A recent analysis explored using the waste heat from an SMR to power direct air capture, finding significant techno-economic synergies in such integration (Techno-economic analysis of direct air carbon capture and ...). Nuclear reactors could also produce hydrogen efficiently through high-temperature steam electrolysis or even thermochemical water splitting. In short, nuclear can serve as the backbone energy source for a DAC and hydrogen fueled economy – ensuring that these processes truly have near-zero lifecycle emissions.

Despite its promise, nuclear power faces public skepticism and policy barriers in some places. Notably, both Norway and Canada (the very countries we highlight as pioneers) have restrictions or political resistance to nuclear energy today. Norway has no active nuclear plants and for decades has deemed nuclear “not a relevant alternative” for its energy needs (WR Energy Update – Is Norway equipped for nuclear power?). Canada has a history of nuclear power in certain provinces (Ontario, New Brunswick), but in others like British Columbia it’s actually illegal to build a nuclear reactor – BC passed a law in 2010 banning uranium mining and nuclear plants, effectively declaring itself a nuclear-free zone (PERSPECTIVE: B.C. Should Revisit Nuclear Energy to Address BC Hydro Shortages - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow). These stances were born from understandable caution and the fact that abundant hydropower provided clean electricity without nuclear. Yet times have changed. Hydropower alone may not meet future demand (even BC’s dams face strain from climate-induced droughts (PERSPECTIVE: B.C. Should Revisit Nuclear Energy to Address BC Hydro Shortages - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow)), and the urgency of decarbonization calls for re-examining old prejudices. Small Modular Reactors, with their enhanced safety features, lower capital costs, and flexible deployment, are emerging as a viable option to supplement renewables. Even in nuclear-skeptic Norway, there is growing interest and debate about SMRs, and private firms have launched initiatives to explore nuclear projects (WR Energy Update – Is Norway equipped for nuclear power?). Canada, for its part, is investing in SMR research at the federal level, recognizing the technology’s export and climate value, though provincial bans like BC’s remain an obstacle.

Earth Rise Foundation advocates for an open-minded but urgent reassessment of nuclear energy’s role. Our manifesto does not gloss over legitimate concerns around nuclear waste, safety, or cost; rather, we contend that advanced nuclear – subject to stringent regulation and community consent – can be a powerful enabler of our climate goals when integrated into a broader system of renewables and carbon removal. To be clear, we do not view nuclear as a silver bullet or as a replacement for renewable energy expansion. Instead, we see it as a firm zero-carbon bedrock upon which the edifice of a DAC and hydrogen economy can be built. By providing continuous clean power and heat, nuclear plants (big or small) can ensure DAC machines suck CO₂ day and night, and electrolyzers keep producing hydrogen fuel even when the sun isn’t shining. This reliability could drive down the costs of DAC and hydrogen through high utilization rates, helping these nascent industries scale up faster. And scaling up is exactly the point – we need billions of tons of CO₂ captured and hundreds of millions of tons of H₂ produced annually in coming decades. That will require every tool in the low-carbon toolbox.

Norway and Canada: Paradoxical Pioneers with Credibility

It may seem ironic that Norway and Canada – both major oil-producing nations – should be leaders in this new climate action model. But it is precisely their paradoxical nature as “green petrostates” that gives them a unique credibility and responsibility. These are countries that have benefited immensely from fossil fuels and yet also pride themselves on progressive climate policies and stewardship of nature. If Norway and Canada can demonstrate the shift from petroleum to air-captured synthetic fuels, they send a powerful signal to the world (and especially to other fossil-fuel-rich countries) that the end of oil doesn’t mean the end of prosperity.

Consider Norway. This Nordic nation is often held up as a climate role model – and with good reason. Norway’s domestic energy is almost 100% renewable, thanks to its fjords and rivers that generate ample hydropower (Climate hero or villain? Fossil fuel frenzy challenges Norway’s green image | Fossil fuels | The Guardian). The average Norwegian drives to work in an electric car and heats their home with an efficient electric heat pump (Climate hero or villain? Fossil fuel frenzy challenges Norway’s green image | Fossil fuels | The Guardian). When a Norwegian plugs in their EV at night, they are charging on one of the cleanest grids on Earth (Climate hero or villain? Fossil fuel frenzy challenges Norway’s green image | Fossil fuels | The Guardian). Norway’s government actively funds rainforest conservation abroad and pushes for strong environmental protections globally (Climate hero or villain? Fossil fuel frenzy challenges Norway’s green image | Fossil fuels | The Guardian). In terms of consumption and lifestyle, Norway has embraced decarbonization faster than any other large country. Yet Norway is also one of the world’s leading oil exporters. Per capita, Norwegians extract more oil and gas than almost anyone, giving the nation a deeply “oily black” side to its green image (Climate hero or villain? Fossil fuel frenzy challenges Norway’s green image | Fossil fuels | The Guardian). This dual reality has led to charges of hypocrisy – as one Greenpeace Norway leader put it bluntly, “Norway claims to be a climate leader, but in reality it is a climate hypocrite” (Climate hero or villain? Fossil fuel frenzy challenges Norway’s green image | Fossil fuels | The Guardian). The harsh word hypocrite reflects the cognitive dissonance of bragging about EV adoption at home while selling billions of barrels of North Sea oil abroad. Earth Rise sees resolving this contradiction as a key opportunity. Norway has both the wealth and the technological acumen from its oil era to pivot to climate solutions. It can invest oil revenues and engineering expertise into DAC, hydrogen, and SMRs, showing how an oil giant can transform into a clean fuels giant. In fact, Norwegian companies and researchers are already at the forefront of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in offshore projects; extending that leadership to air-capture and synthetic fuels is a logical next step.

Importantly, Norway’s public and private sectors are starting to explore this path. There are now private initiatives aiming to establish SMR-based nuclear power in Norway (WR Energy Update – Is Norway equipped for nuclear power?), and the government has convened a committee to evaluate how nuclear could contribute to the energy mix (WR Energy Update – Is Norway equipped for nuclear power?). This marks a sea change from Norway’s long-held stance of keeping nuclear off the table. It signals that even in a country with abundant renewables, the need for firm, clean power to achieve climate goals is being recognized. Imagine a pilot project under ERIN (Earth Rise Initiative Norway) where a small modular reactor on Norway’s coast provides electricity and heat to a Direct Air Capture plant. The CO₂ pulled from the pristine arctic air is combined with green hydrogen (perhaps produced using surplus hydroelectricity in summer) to manufacture carbon-neutral ship fuel. That fuel could then be used by Norway’s own fishing boats and ferries, or exported as “Norwegian synthetic crude” to offset exports of actual crude. Such a project would encapsulate Norway’s evolution – from drilling oil out of the seabed to drawing carbon out of the air.

Now turn to Canada, another study in contrasts. Canada is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, thanks largely to the carbon-intensive Alberta oil sands. It’s also a country that has implemented some of the most ambitious climate policies in the Americas, including a nationwide price on carbon pollution set to rise to C$170/tonne by 2030 (Carbon pricing in Canada - Wikipedia). Few governments have had the political will to enact a carbon price that steep, and it speaks to Canada’s desire to be seen as a climate leader. Like Norway, Canada’s geography is rich in clean energy – massive hydroelectric dams in provinces like Quebec, Manitoba, and British Columbia produce emissions-free power that meets a large share of demand. And like Norway, Canada has regions on the vanguard of innovation in carbon removal. British Columbia is home to the Squamish DAC pilot plant run by Carbon Engineering (now an Oxy subsidiary). In this world-leading project, engineers have shown that CO₂ can be sucked from the atmosphere and turned into liquid fuels that are compatible with today’s infrastructure (How One Company Pulls Carbon From The Air, Aiming To Avert A Climate Catastrophe : NPR). At the Squamish plant, air is drawn in by giant fans, CO₂ is chemically captured, then combined with hydrogen (via water electrolysis powered by BC’s renewable electricity) to synthesize a clean fuel similar to crude oil (How One Company Pulls Carbon From The Air, Aiming To Avert A Climate Catastrophe : NPR) (How One Company Pulls Carbon From The Air, Aiming To Avert A Climate Catastrophe : NPR). After refining, it can become gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel – but with no net emissions (How One Company Pulls Carbon From The Air, Aiming To Avert A Climate Catastrophe : NPR). This “air-to-fuels” process, proven on a pilot scale, is a microcosm of the Earth Rise vision.

What makes the Squamish DAC facility particularly notable is its context: it operates in a province that explicitly bans nuclear power yet enjoys an abundance of clean hydroelectricity. British Columbia’s Clean Energy Act of 2010 forbids building nuclear reactors or even mining uranium on BC soil (PERSPECTIVE: B.C. Should Revisit Nuclear Energy to Address BC Hydro Shortages - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow), a policy rooted in the province’s confidence in hydro and wariness of nuclear risks. So instead of nuclear, BC’s DAC pilot taps into the province’s surplus hydro power to run its fans, pumps, and electrolyzers. This showcases one path – using whatever clean energy is available (be it hydro, wind, solar) to drive direct air capture. Indeed, the Squamish plant is effectively powered by mountain rivers turned into electricity. However, as BC’s experience also shows, even a hydro-rich region can face constraints; climate change has begun causing summer droughts that diminish hydro output (PERSPECTIVE: B.C. Should Revisit Nuclear Energy to Address BC Hydro Shortages - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow), raising questions about reliability. As electrification accelerates, BC has had to import power at times despite its huge dams (PERSPECTIVE: B.C. Should Revisit Nuclear Energy to Address BC Hydro Shortages - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow). This is where nuclear could come back into the conversation, even for BC. There is a growing chorus suggesting that British Columbia revisit its nuclear prohibition to shore up its clean energy supply as demand grows and hydro’s dependability wavers (PERSPECTIVE: B.C. Should Revisit Nuclear Energy to Address BC Hydro Shortages - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow) (PERSPECTIVE: B.C. Should Revisit Nuclear Energy to Address BC Hydro Shortages - Canadian Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow). For Canada at large (beyond BC), SMRs could be deployed in provinces that currently rely on fossil fuels or have remote communities off-grid. Canada’s federal support for SMR development indicates an openness to that path, even if some provincial governments remain hesitant.

Through ERICA (Earth Rise Initiative Canada), we envision scaling up the air-to-fuels model demonstrated in Squamish and expanding it with nuclear-backed muscle. Picture a scenario: In Saskatchewan – a prairie province with scant hydro but an interest in SMRs – a small modular reactor is built next to a DAC plant. The reactor provides a steady stream of electricity and steam heat, vastly reducing the cost per ton of CO₂ captured (since energy is a major cost driver for DAC (Direct Air Capture - Energy System - IEA)). The captured CO₂ is then shipped via pipeline or rail to Alberta’s industrial heartland, where it is combined with hydrogen produced by yet another SMR-powered electrolyzer, yielding synthetic oil to replace some of the province’s bitumen output. Such integration could transform Canada’s oil patch into a zero-carbon fuels hub over time. Companies like Occidental Petroleum – historically part of the fossil problem – are already sensing this opportunity. Oxy has invested heavily in Carbon Engineering and direct air capture; in 2023 Occidental bought Carbon Engineering outright for $1.1 billion and announced plans to build 100 DAC plants in the coming decades (Carbon Engineering - Wikipedia). They are constructing the first large DAC facility in Texas (capable of 1 million tons CO₂/year) and exploring more sites. Notably, Oxy is also hedging its bets by supporting nuclear fusion research for future clean energy: in 2024, its Low Carbon Ventures arm signed an agreement with TAE Technologies to potentially use fusion power for DAC operations (Occidental Low Carbon Ventures and TAE Technologies Explore Fusion Energy for Direct Air Capture Facilities). This kind of forward-thinking, while coming from an oil company, actually reinforces Earth Rise’s thesis – that we need all forms of clean energy (renewables, fission, fusion) to drive carbon removal. If even oil executives see fusion-powered DAC as a worthy pursuit, surely governments can see the merit in fission-powered DAC and hydrogen today, using existing technology.

In short, Canada and Norway serve as proving grounds for the Earth Rise model. Both countries can leverage tremendous clean electricity resources (hydro in particular) to jump-start DAC and hydrogen fuel production immediately. At the same time, by reconsidering nuclear energy (lifting moratoria, funding SMR deployment), they can ensure those efforts scale to levels sufficient to matter for the climate. Crucially, these nations also carry moral and diplomatic weight. When Norway speaks on climate finance or Canada on equitable transition, people listen. If they put real skin in the game – by ramping down their own oil extraction and ramping up DAC and synthetic fuel production – they gain the authority to challenge others to follow. This is how they can “push” China and others: not through hypocrisy, but through leadership by example.

China: From Largest Emitter to Clean Tech Champion

Why focus on China? Because any global climate action model that excludes China is doomed to fail. China is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter by far, accounting for roughly 30% of global CO₂ emissions. It’s home to dozens of megacities and hundreds of millions of vehicles. But China is also, arguably, better positioned than any other nation to execute the kind of rapid, large-scale transformation we need. This is a country that in the span of a couple decades built the world’s most extensive high-speed rail network, became the top manufacturer of solar panels and wind turbines, and deployed more electric vehicles than the rest of the world combined (The U.S. Will Leave a Void in Climate Leadership. Can China Fill It? | Asia Society). China’s capacity for infrastructural mobilization – for “making big things happen quickly” – is unparalleled. And in recent years, China has indeed been outpacing the world in clean energy investment, pouring $546 billion into clean energy in 2022 alone (nearly half the world’s total) (China Invests $546 Billion in Clean Energy, Far Surpassing the U.S. | Scientific American). It leads in solar, wind, batteries, and EV manufacturing (The U.S. Will Leave a Void in Climate Leadership. Can China Fill It? | Asia Society), and it has announced ambitions to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. In short, China has the means, the industrial base, and increasingly the motivation (e.g. severe air pollution and climate impacts at home) to take the baton of climate leadership.

However, China’s current trajectory is still a mixed picture – it’s installing record renewable capacity (China's capital envisages 10,000 fuel cell vehicles by 2025 | Reuters), yet also expanding coal power in the near term to meet energy demand. Earth Rise’s vision is to accelerate China’s pivot away from fossil fuels by showcasing how DAC and hydrogen can fit into its development agenda. Through ERICH (Earth Rise Initiative China), we propose a grand partnership: Norway and Canada (and likeminded nations) sharing know-how, funding pilot projects, and jointly developing DAC + hydrogen facilities in China’s urban and industrial centers. The payoff for China would be immense. By adopting direct air capture, China can begin to directly tackle its legacy emissions and address sectors not easily electrified. Imagine giant DAC arrays on the outskirts of Beijing, powered by a combination of nearby nuclear plants and excess renewable electricity, sucking up CO₂ from the city’s air. That CO₂ could then be reacted with hydrogen (produced in China’s growing fleet of solar and wind farms) to create synthetic natural gas for the city’s heating systems or synthetic jet fuel for Beijing’s airports. Such a project would not only help offset Beijing’s own emissions, it would also provide cleaner air co-benefits if paired with strategies to reduce conventional pollutants. (While DAC itself only removes CO₂, the adoption of hydrogen fuel cells and synthetic fuels in vehicles would cut soot, NOx, and other pollutants from tailpipes, alleviating urban smog.)

Transportation is a key focus. China has dominated the electric vehicle market – over 50% of EVs sold globally in recent years were in China (The U.S. Will Leave a Void in Climate Leadership. Can China Fill It? | Asia Society). Yet even China recognizes that batteries may not be the singular solution for all transport needs. For heavy-duty trucks, intercity buses, and aviation, hydrogen-based propulsion has advantages in energy density and fast refueling. This is why China aims to deploy tens of thousands of fuel cell vehicles and build hundreds of hydrogen refueling stations in the next few years (China's capital envisages 10,000 fuel cell vehicles by 2025 | Reuters) (Government pushes hydrogen technology up nation's agenda - Chinadaily.com.cn). Under our model, China could leapfrog in creating a hydrogen economy by tying it to DAC and synthetic fuels. For instance, surplus renewable power in western China could be used to produce hydrogen, which is then shipped (via pipeline or tanker) to coastal mega-cities. In those cities, DAC plants – possibly powered by new modular nuclear reactors or dedicated offshore wind farms – capture CO₂ which is reacted with the imported hydrogen to make carbon-neutral methanol or ammonia. These chemicals can serve as fuels for power plants or ships, or be further refined into gasoline for the remaining ICE vehicles during the transition period. Over time, Chinese cities could transition from conventional gasoline/diesel vehicles, past even lithium-battery EVs, into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and e-fuels that emit zero carbon and zero air pollutants at the exhaust. It’s a vision of urban mobility where the air is clean, and the CO₂ emitted by yesterday’s traffic jam is being actively recaptured today by machines on the city’s edge.

One might ask: why emphasize synthetic hydrocarbons at all in China’s case, given their aggressive electrification? The answer is that some parts of the transport and industrial sector will remain hard to electrify. Long-haul aviation is a prime example – batteries are simply too heavy for large aircraft, so jet fuels will be needed for decades. If those fuels can be made synthetically via DAC (capturing CO₂) + H₂, then aviation can reach net-zero without grounding planes. The same logic applies to steelmaking (where you need either carbon or hydrogen as a reducing agent) and shipping fuel. China, as the world’s factory and a top steel/cement producer, will benefit greatly from DAC to neutralize industrial CO₂ that can’t be easily eliminated at the source. By investing in these technologies, China would also be creating new industries and potential export products: from manufactured DAC units (which could be exported like solar panels) to synthetic fuel exports to countries lacking the clean energy to produce their own.

Moreover, if China takes the lead in building out this nuclear–DAC–hydrogen infrastructure, it could drive down costs for everyone, much as it did for solar panels and batteries. The economies of scale and learning-by-doing in China’s vast manufacturing sector could turn DAC machines and electrolyzers into commoditized hardware that becomes affordable worldwide. This helps solve a critical problem: today’s DAC operations capture CO₂ at a cost of perhaps $100–$300 per ton, which is too high to deploy at climate-significant scales (Carbon Engineering - Wikipedia). But with mass production, cheap clean energy, and the kind of government backing that China can marshal, those costs could plummet. The IEA notes that if all currently announced DAC projects (many in the U.S., incentivized by policy) proceed, global DAC capacity by 2030 could reach ~65 Mt CO₂/yr (Direct Air Capture - Energy System - IEA). That’s still small compared to what’s needed, but it shows an upward trajectory. China could multiply that figure manyfold by 2035 if it makes DAC a national priority.

There are encouraging signs that China’s leaders are warming to these ideas. The country’s latest Five-Year Plan included for the first time a section on developing carbon dioxide removal technologies and exploring carbon-neutral synthetic fuels. China has already built a pilot DAC plant in Xinjiang and is researching DACCS (DAC with carbon storage) as part of its long-term climate strategy. And Chinese firms are actively innovating in electrolyzers and fuel cells to support the hydrogen push. The role of international collaboration cannot be overstated here: by partnering through ERICH, Norway and Canada (and their allies) can provide technical expertise, funding, or joint ventures to accelerate Chinese deployment of these technologies, in exchange for stronger climate commitments. For example, an agreement where China agrees to peak its oil consumption sooner and scale down coal, in return for Western countries partnering on large DAC hubs in China, could be a win-win. This would mirror past collaborations (like the U.S.-China clean energy research centers) but with a sharper focus on carbon removal and synthetic fuels.

Finally, it must be said that geopolitics favors Chinese leadership on this front relative to the United States. America, despite pioneering many of these technologies and recently passing the Inflation Reduction Act (with huge support for DAC, hydrogen, and nuclear), remains politically polarized on climate. U.S. climate policy is subject to wild swings – Paris Agreement one year, withdrawal the next; ambitious clean energy laws now, but talk of rollbacks if administrations change. In contrast, China’s one-party system (for all its other issues) can maintain policy consistency and long-term planning. As one EU climate official noted during the Trump years, “China and the EU need to show joint leadership on climate change” because the U.S. cannot be expected to provide the same leadership due to its backsliding (EU says China, EU must show joint leadership on climate as U.S. pulls back | Reuters) (EU says China, EU must show joint leadership on climate as U.S. pulls back | Reuters). That sentiment persists; even today there is uncertainty if the U.S. will stay the course on climate through its political cycles. China can seize the mantle by pushing ahead decisively on the nuclear-DAC-hydrogen trifecta, showing the world that it is serious about becoming a “participant, contributor, and leader” in global climate governance (a phrase Chinese officials themselves have used (The U.S. Will Leave a Void in Climate Leadership. Can China Fill It? | Asia Society)). In doing so, China would also enhance its energy security – becoming less reliant on imported oil/gas – and could gain significant soft power by helping other countries decarbonize with Chinese-made solutions.

Beyond Batteries: The Case for a Diverse Decarbonization Strategy

An important argument in this manifesto is that a nuclear–DAC–hydrogen approach is more globally sustainable than a purely battery-centric model of decarbonization. This is not about picking favorites or downplaying the crucial role of batteries and electrification; rather, it’s about acknowledging the limits and hidden costs of an all-electrify, all-battery pathway and why complementing it with hydrogen and synthetic fuels is prudent.

The production of lithium-ion batteries and other clean tech hardware is incredibly materials-intensive. To build millions of electric cars, gigantic wind farms, and grid-scale batteries, we must mine vast quantities of lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, rare earths, copper, and more. According to the International Energy Agency, an electric car requires about six times more mineral inputs than a conventional gasoline car (Critical Minerals Demand | COMRC). Likewise, a wind farm uses many times the mineral resources of a gas-fired power plant per unit of energy (Critical Minerals Demand | COMRC). For example, the typical EV battery pack (for a long-range car) might weigh 400–500 kg, containing elements sourced from all over the world. Scaling EVs to billions and grid batteries to many terawatt-hours implies a massive expansion of mining – often in ecologically sensitive areas or regions with weak labor protections. We are already seeing supply chain strains: lithium prices skyrocketed as demand surged, and concerns over child labor in Congolese cobalt mines or the environmental damage of Indonesian nickel mining are well documented. A future where every vehicle is battery-electric and every device is attached to the grid with storage could trade one set of environmental challenges (carbon emissions) for another (mineral extraction on an unprecedented scale).

In contrast, a greater use of hydrogen and synthetic fuels could ease some of that burden. Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) use relatively small batteries (for buffering) and rely on hydrogen gas as the energy carrier, which can be made from water – an abundantly available “feedstock” – rather than mined elements. DAC machines and electrolyzers are made of industrial materials too, but the total tonnage of equipment per unit of climate benefit could be less daunting than the tonnage of metals needed for, say, a continent-spanning fleet of 300 million 100 kWh car batteries. Nuclear power plants (especially SMRs) have high upfront material needs in steel and concrete, but their long lifespan and extremely high energy output mean they use far less land and material per kWh than solar farms or wind turbines. Again, this is not to pit one solution against another – we need both renewable and nuclear energy – but to highlight that diversifying energy supply can reduce stress on any single resource. A world that smartly uses nuclear reactors for baseline power, wind/solar for bulk electricity, batteries for short-term storage and light vehicles, and hydrogen/synfuels for heavy transport and backup power, will distribute its material requirements across a wider range of sources. This diversification could mitigate supply bottlenecks and the geopolitical risks that come with them (e.g. reliance on China for rare earths or DRC for cobalt).

Moreover, hydrogen and synthetic fuels provide options for countries that lack certain raw materials. Not every nation has lithium or cobalt deposits, but every nation has air and water. Through the Earth Rise model, even countries that are resource-poor in minerals could participate in the clean fuel economy – either by running DAC and electrolyzer systems if they have ample clean energy, or by importing synthetic fuels from partners instead of importing crude oil. In fact, synthetic fuels could be produced in regions rich in sun and wind (say, North Africa or the Middle East making green hydrogen and CO₂-derived e-fuels) and shipped globally, much as oil is today. This could create a more democratic and possibly more equitable energy trade system, as many more countries can produce some form of clean fuel (be it hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, etc.). We avoid concentrating the entire energy supply chain into the hands of a few battery-mineral oligopolies.

It’s also worth noting the end-of-life advantages: hydrogen fuel cells and synthetic fuels integrate into existing circular flows more easily than batteries. Batteries eventually degrade and require recycling to recover metals – a process that is improving but still energy-intensive and sometimes polluting. Fuel cells have precious metals (like platinum) that are recycled, and the hydrogen itself leaves no waste (it converts to water when used). Synthetic hydrocarbons, when burned, emit CO₂ and water; that CO₂ we aim to recapture again with DAC, thus closing the loop. It’s a different paradigm: instead of storing energy in heavy devices in each vehicle, we store it in hydrogen bonds or liquid fuels and use infrastructure to deliver it on demand. This lightens the load on vehicles (important for things like aircraft weight) and externalizes the heavy industrial work to centralized facilities (power plants, DAC plants) where it can be done efficiently and with controlled impacts.

Finally, in terms of sheer feasibility: heavy industries and long-distance transport need options beyond electrification. A manifesto for climate action must confront all sectors. Batteries cannot fly a jumbo jet from Shanghai to New York – but synthetic jet fuel can, with no retrofitting of the aircraft. Batteries cannot easily drive a 40-ton truck 1000 km without frequent recharging stops and reduced payload – but hydrogen can, as demonstrated by fuel cell trucks being rolled out now. By pursuing the nuclear-DAC-hydrogen route, we keep these difficult sectors in the conversation and provide a decarbonization pathway for them. We avoid the trap of thinking everything must be solved by one technology (batteries) which could lead to blind spots and delays in those sectors where it’s not optimal.

In summary, batteries and electrification are indispensable, but so too are molecules and thermal processes. Embracing hydrogen and synthetic fuels alongside electrification means embracing resilience and pragmatism. It hedges against resource shortages, plays to different countries’ strengths, and might ultimately achieve emissions cuts faster by tackling some problems directly (e.g. decarbonizing aviation fuel with DAC + synfuel rather than waiting for a hypothetical battery breakthrough). Our grand strategy must be as multifaceted as the climate challenge itself.

Toward a New Coalition for Global Climate Action

To realize this vision, we need an unprecedented level of cooperation and commitment across borders. The Earth Rise Foundation sees itself as a convenor and coordinator of a new coalition that brings together technology, policy, and finance in service of climate action. The initiatives ERIN, ERICA, and ERICH are not isolated national programs, but interlinked efforts that learn from each other and push each other to higher ambition.

Norway and Canada can kick-start the process by deploying flagship projects that capture the world’s imagination. Let Norway build the first full-scale DAC-to-jet-fuel plant powered by a small reactor and have its national airline commit to using that fuel for all domestic flights by 2030. Let Canada announce a timeline to cap and decline oil sands production, replacing it with a plan to invest oil revenues into direct air capture hubs on the Prairies that will remove an equivalent amount of CO₂ as those oil sands emissions – essentially cancelling out the climate impact. These kinds of bold moves, backed by real money and legislation, would lend moral authority to these countries on the international stage. They could then form a joint Norway-Canada “Climate Frontier” partnership to fund similar projects elsewhere (for instance, helping finance a DAC plant in India or South Africa, or a green ammonia facility in Indonesia). By putting skin in the game, they challenge other wealthy nations: if oil producers like us can do this, so can you.

With that credibility, Norway and Canada (along with European allies, perhaps Japan, etc.) can approach China not as adversaries or with lectures, but with a hand extended for partnership. They can say: we are willing to share innovation and share the burden, we will help fund pilot deployments of DAC in your cities, we will buy the synthetic fuels produced as part of our airline fuel mix requirements, we will jointly develop safer nuclear technologies – all with the aim of accelerating the transition for everyone. This might sound idealistic, but there are precedents in the climate space: the Mission Innovation initiative launched in 2015 saw countries (including China, Canada, Norway) pledge to double R&D funding for clean energy. We need Mission Innovation 2.0, focused on implementation and scale-up of the trifecta discussed here.

We believe China would respond to such genuine collaboration, especially if it aligns with its own goals of technological leadership. Remember, China prides itself on large-scale achievements – building the world’s largest wind farms, solar farms, etc. Being the first to build a gigaton-scale carbon removal industry could be appealing to its leadership, both for prestige and for practical benefits (clean air, energy security). If China sees Western oil-producers committing to leave oil behind, it undercuts the old excuse that “the West got rich on fossil fuels and now wants to stop others.” Instead, the narrative becomes: we’re all in this together to leave fossils behind, and those who used them the most are now pivoting the fastest and helping others do the same. That is a powerful reframing that can build trust. It’s time to rebuild international trust based on climate justice and common effort, after years of distrust. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres has urged, we must “rebuild trust based on climate justice” and “accelerate the just transition to a green economy”, because fossil fuels are “incompatible with human survival” (a sentiment he expressed in late 2022). This manifesto embodies that ethos.

A critical aspect of our coalition is the involvement of the civil sector and local communities. The Earth Rise Foundation, while working with governments and companies, is an independent nonprofit that can help amplify the voices of citizens and ensure transparency and accountability. Large-scale projects like DAC plants or SMRs must engage and benefit local communities – providing jobs, considering local environmental impacts, and respecting indigenous rights (especially in Canada, where many resource projects are on or near indigenous lands). A just transition means the new green infrastructure doesn’t repeat the exploitative patterns of the old fossil economy. The Foundation will push for community benefit agreements, worker retraining programs (e.g., oil rig workers transitioning to building and running DAC plants or nuclear plants), and reinvestment of profits from synthetic fuels into social programs and further climate action.

The Earth Rise model also calls for leveraging international climate finance to fund projects in the Global South. Not every country can afford DAC or SMR tech immediately, but wealthy nations can provide grants or guarantees to deploy these solutions in developing nations, ensuring they are not left behind. For instance, direct air capture could one day allow a country that emits relatively little to actually go carbon-negative and earn revenue via carbon credits or selling removal services. But if only rich nations own the technology, we risk new forms of dependency or inequity. Our coalition should aim to share technology freely or at low cost (perhaps akin to open-sourcing key designs, or cheap licensing through an international mechanism). Climate change is a common enemy; the tools to fight it shouldn’t be hoarded.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

We stand at a crossroads in history. Down one path, the fossil-fuel status quo drags us into a future of climate chaos, resource wars, and ecological collapse – a future of injustice and instability. Down another path lies a profound transformation – difficult, yes, but rich with opportunities for innovation, cooperation, and renewal. The Earth Rise Foundation calls on the world to choose the latter, and to do so with bravery and conviction. Our manifesto has laid out one plausible pathway: harnessing nuclear power to pull carbon from the sky, using clean hydrogen to turn that carbon into fuel, and thereby building a new energy system that can power human civilization without destroying its habitat.

This is a manifesto of urgency and optimism. The urgency comes from the science – every year of delay locks in more warming and suffering. The optimism comes from the ingenuity of people and the examples already emerging. Who could have imagined even ten years ago that a machine in Canada would be making gasoline from thin air? Yet here we are (How One Company Pulls Carbon From The Air, Aiming To Avert A Climate Catastrophe : NPR). Who would have thought an oil company would invest in fusion to save its carbon capture projects? Yet it’s happening (Occidental Low Carbon Ventures and TAE Technologies Explore Fusion Energy for Direct Air Capture Facilities). The seeds of change are all around us. What’s needed is to nurture those seeds into a forest.

We urge policymakers, business leaders, and civil society to rally around this integrated approach. It’s time to banish the false dichotomies – it’s not renewables vs. nuclear, not mitigation vs. removal, not adaptation vs. innovation. We need all of it, together, all at once. Norway can keep championing forests and EVs and build an SMR for DAC. Canada can price carbon and invest in gigawatt-scale carbon removal. China can deploy more solar and pilot cutting-edge DAC plants for its airlines. These actions reinforce, not contradict, each other.

We especially appeal to the citizens in oil-producing democracies: hold your leaders to account and demand this kind of ambition. If you’re Norwegian, ask why your wealth fund couldn’t invest in a fleet of DAC plants across the globe. If you’re Canadian, demand that your country’s vaunted climate plan include explicit targets for carbon removal and non-fossil fuels production, not just emissions cuts on paper. In both cases, question any continued licensing of oil and gas fields – does it square with the claim of climate leadership? The IEA’s answer is no new fields (Net Zero by 2050 – Analysis - IEA); our answer is to replace that industry with a cleaner one. A just transition is not a theory – it’s steel in the ground, new jobs on the payroll, new training in the classroom. It’s oil refinery workers becoming synthetic fuel refinery workers; pipeline builders becoming hydrogen pipeline builders.

Earth Rise Foundation is committed to turning words into deeds. In the coming year, through ERIN, ERICA, and ERICH, we will be announcing concrete projects and alliances that embody this manifesto. This includes feasibility studies for DAC + SMR facilities in both Alberta and Norway’s industrial regions, partnerships with Chinese municipalities on pilot hydrogen transport corridors, and youth exchange programs to train the next generation of technicians in these technologies across our three regions. We will also publish an annual Earth Rise Report tracking progress in DAC capacity, hydrogen deployment, and nuclear development for climate, holding all stakeholders (including ourselves) accountable.

The climate crisis is the defining challenge of our time, but it is also an opportunity for humanity to come together as never before. Let the Earth Rise – let us rise to the occasion to preserve and uplift our planet. The tools are in our hands: capture the carbon, free the hydrogen, unleash the atoms for peace. In doing so we can ensure that clean skies, thriving communities, and sustainable prosperity define the 21st century, not the remnants of 20th-century fossil addiction.

This is our moonshot. This is our manifesto. Join us in making it a reality.

Sources:

 
 
 

Comments

Contact us

© 2025 Earthrise Accord

bottom of page