On the CDR side of our toolbox, the go-forward imperative is to stomp the accelerator. We have costly and early-stage but viable technologies by which to remove carbon both from flues and from direct air, with industrial interventions holding more promise than biological ones. The challenge is to mature and scale these technologies as rapidly as possible. A 2019 report from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine laid out a thoughtful agenda for the path forward and suggested an expenditure of $9 billion over the subsequent 10 years to mature the technologies for DACCS, BECCS, several biological removal processes, and geologic storage. The Trump administration did not act on this recommendation, but the imperative remains.

Chapter 7 examines both fiscal barriers and incentives to corporate climate action. Barriers such as fossil fuel subsidies and relative political inaction on that issue (at the World Trade Organization and other fora) and on the issue of carbon taxes are assessed. In contrast, the picture at the institutional investor level looks more active, with investors becoming increasingly concerned about the risks of climate change to fiscal stability. Issues of stranded assets, divestment, short-termism and financial regulatory developments are covered. In addition, some limited climate litigation initiated by investors (and its mixed results) is assessed. Varying jurisdictional approaches to sustainable investing from the SEC in the United States to the Bank of England in the United Kingdom are highlighted. Recent statements by Lord Sales at the Anglo-Australasian Law Society, as well as by the institutional investor BlackRock, in 2019 are indicative of a changing approach to climate investing. Regulatory developments requiring climate risk disclosure by the Department for Works and Pension, guidance by the Financial Conduct Authority and the focus on ESG investing in the EU, all signal the slow greening of capital in the context of climate change.