If the product of the whole operation ends up with less carbon in the atmosphere, then it is in fact removing carbon. Plus they aren't using binders that contribute to more carbon to the atmosphere.
Now, we can be extremely strict in this definition and unless a company actually produces 0 carbon and is still extracting it from the atmosphere would be the ones who could claim they are "carbon negative", but then I guess not even CO2 extractors could claim that because they still need to be built and consume power.
I don't think that will get us anywhere. By that logic not even trees are "carbon negative".
In the end it's a matter of perspective, because what we're actually doing most of the time is offsetting/moving carbon around, and there's nothing wrong with that.
If it's captured from the air by a chemical process, or stored underground, or if it simply is stored in a byproduct that's reused and never reaches the atmosphere, it's all the same.
There is essentially no way this operation ends up with less carbon in the atmosphere.
It is very hard to do anything with biomass at industrial scale without emitting more carbon than the biomass itself contains.
Even look at biomass to energy, by the time harvest, transport, and process a tree for use to "offset" fossil fuel combustion, it's hard to say thats carbon negative.
Now you harvest the biomass, put it through some chemical engineering process to make a binder product, put this binder product in the hopper of some massive diesel powered behemoth machine that chews up, binds, and compacts and remakes roads. This obviously consumes a LOT of energy.
Is it a cool company? Yes, making effective nontoxic product out of another industries byproduct, to be used in something thats been foundational to human society for 1000s of years, roads, is maybe the neatest new company I've heard about in a long time.
Does it emit less carbon than some other ways of repaving roads? probably.
Is it carbon negative by ANY definition? OBVIOUSLY not (or I will eat my hat and throw an egg on my face.)
I'm honestly confused why there's ANY claim of being carbon negative, let alone it being front and center, when the underlying product can totally stand on its own??
If the product of the whole operation ends up with less carbon in the atmosphere, then it is in fact removing carbon. Plus they aren't using binders that contribute to more carbon to the atmosphere.
Now, we can be extremely strict in this definition and unless a company actually produces 0 carbon and is still extracting it from the atmosphere would be the ones who could claim they are "carbon negative", but then I guess not even CO2 extractors could claim that because they still need to be built and consume power.
I don't think that will get us anywhere. By that logic not even trees are "carbon negative".
In the end it's a matter of perspective, because what we're actually doing most of the time is offsetting/moving carbon around, and there's nothing wrong with that.
If it's captured from the air by a chemical process, or stored underground, or if it simply is stored in a byproduct that's reused and never reaches the atmosphere, it's all the same.