When the Spotlight Moves On, Does Carbon Still Matter?

We’ve rarely had a week in the bioeconomy where so much worthy advancement on carbon-smart technology won so less applause.

Pyran announced that an independent cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment for its 1,5-pentanediol, confirms that Pyran’s bio-based PDO reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 99% compared to petroleum-derived 1,6-hexanediol. Pyran’s been lauded for using intermediates from non-food, renewable feedstocks, such as corn cobs, wood and sugarcane bagasse, to make 1,5 PDO, enhancing the performance of everyday products such as paints, coatings, adhesives and more. Over in the UK, Carbon Clean, a global leader in revolutionising carbon capture solutions, has announced today the successful factory testing of the world’s largest Rotating Packed Bed of this size for carbon capture. This breakthrough technology uses centrifugal force to enhance CO2 absorption and can capture up to 285 tonnes of CO2 per day. Also in the UK, HutanBio’s production process for its proprietary HBx microalgal biofuel achieves net-negative carbon emissions, based on an independent cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment.

The mood has shifted. Carbon goals are still on the books, but the energy in the room has cooled. Politicians tout affordability. Investors chase AI. Some whisper that the public is tired of “green.”

The Success Conundrum

There’s been panic in the U.S. carbon market—not because carbon support has vanished, but because it’s settled. 45Z and the RFS remain. LCFS programs still function. But investors and firms who built their strategies on hype, not heat flow, are now struggling. In GTESI terms, this is not retreat. It’s reconsolidation: a re-alignment of symbolic and thermodynamic coherence after a period of narrative overreach.

For a long time, I have worked on a way to analyze success not in the instant, but for the long term. Here’s what many people helped me to realize: the bioeconomy will not be built atop the best ideas, or even all of the good ones, but the ones which find a way to stick around. That’s what life is after all — our society is populated by the people and ideas which stuck around.

Turning to carbon, the question that captures my interest, even more than “will carbon smart technologies and polices succeed?” is “will they persist?” It’s a dynamic question that static models find difficult to answer. Ultimately, it’s a thermodynamic question. Carbon takes in energy (ideas, effort, support, fly-ins, presentations, votes, lobbying, pressure), just as living beings do. What makes life exist is that it exports entropy faster than it builds up — to persist in fluid markets, you have to be a living, evolving, adapting thing.

Technologies evolve. So do partnerships, investors, boards, and strategic priorities. Systems do not persist by standing still. They persist by adapting faster than entropy breaks them. And when they fracture, it’s often a form of recompression—not collapse.

The New Vectors

In the world of carbon capture and carbon reduction, persistence looks different than in fuels. There are fewer tax credits, no renewable fuel standards, no 45Z backstops in the US. The EU feels muddled. Carbon reduction benefits must embed themselves in corporate standards, brand promises, and consumer trust. They must persist symbolically and structurally—without regulatory training wheels. That’s a different thermodynamic game. But the GTESI vectors still apply.

So, I’d like to move beyond hype, efficiency, or even early wins—but on whether carbon can resist collapse, adapt under pressure, and export entropy while maintaining structure and signal. That means testing carbon-smart technologies and strategies across four GTESI vectors:

Vector Analysis: Carbon-Tech Platforms Without Fuel Credit Anchors

Vector	GTESI Signal	Commentary
IPR – Information Persistence Rate	High (for some)	Pyran’s USDA-certified, third-party-verified 99% GHG reduction carries brand legitimacy and symbolic gravity. HutanBio’s ISO-compliant net-negative LCA positions HBx as a narrative anchor for marine and aviation decarbonization.
SCD – Structural Continuity Density	Medium–High	Carbon Clean’s modular CycloneCC platform is engineered for replication. Pyran has completed FEED, site selection, and toll production. HutanBio’s photobioreactors are site-ready. Systems are forming—but not yet at full scale.
TRFI – Thermodynamic-Response Friction Index	Low (early stage)	Lean teams, focused mission, and early customer alignment show adaptive coherence. These firms respond well to stress—but sustained scale-up may introduce new friction.
EED – Entropy Export Delta	Positive Trajectory	Pyran’s process advantage alone cuts GHGs by 82%. Carbon Clean’s RPBs reduce size and energy load by up to 70%. HutanBio’s carbon removal is transparent and quantifiable. These are true entropy-export systems—not just symbolic placeholders.

Diagnostic Summary

Carbon, as a cause, persists because it is thermodynamically coherent. Not because it’s currently fashionable. The politics of carbon may rise and fall—but the structural and energetic logic of reduction technologies continues to sharpen. The newest wave—represented by Pyran, HutanBio, and Carbon Clean—isn’t chasing compliance. It’s building voluntary persistence systems: technologies that integrate into ESG mandates, net-zero roadmaps, and consumer-facing brand infrastructure. That’s a slower fuse—but a longer burn.

These firms aren’t waiting for policy to save them. They’re building persistence from the inside out.

Takeaway for Practitioners

If you’re building in carbon tech without the crutch of fuel credits or mandates, ask yourself:

Can your benefits be compressed into a clear, credible signal? (IPR)
Do you have a structural path to scale and replication? (SCD)
Are you adapting to partner, market, and regulatory shifts with low friction? (TRFI)
Are you reducing net system entropy—measurably? (EED)

From Carbon Mania to Carbon Reset

Over the past few years, “carbon” operated as a high-frequency symbolic attractor:

Everyone had a net-zero pledge.
Funds flowed without deep thermodynamic vetting.
Policies overpromised (and underclarified).

This created a high IPR, low TRFI environment. Lots of symbolic alignment, little adaptive coherence. What we’re seeing now is the correction:

Some states (CA, OR, WA, NM) are doubling down on functional persistence tools (RFS, LCFS, 45Z).
Others are stalling, reacting politically, or trimming support.

The panic is from those who built their platforms entirely on symbolic IPR—without the structural or thermodynamic foundation to endure a narrative shift. GTESI calls them “Good-Time Charlies”: high IPR, low SCD, weak TRFI.

Should Companies Abandon the Market?

Short answer: Only if their platform was built for symbolic resonance, not adaptive function.

If a company:

Has real production capacity
Aligns well with LCFS/45Z-style performance metrics
Can tolerate TRFI shocks (e.g. credit fluctuations, margin compression)

…then the U.S. market still offers one of the richest thermodynamic playgrounds for carbon-reduction innovation globally. But if a company’s structure depends entirely on speculative flows or white-hot carbon fervor, they may be experiencing IPR decay and confusing it for market collapse.

GTESI Insight: Symbolic retreats don’t equal systemic failure. They often signal the beginning of persistence sorting—where brittle players exit and well-adapted systems stabilize.

The Bottom Line

The winners in this next phase won’t be the loudest. They’ll be the ones who quietly match structure to signal—and persist.

Yet, the narrative has shifted. Energy dominance is in, decarbonization fatigue is real, and many in politics and finance have moved on. The spotlight has moved. But these systems haven’t stopped. Because, persistence is not popularity. How many people are deeply, madly, truly in love with the consequences of petroleum? Consider instead how well a system exports entropy, retains structure, adapts to stress, and compresses its message symbolically. Causes can persist long after they lose headlines—if their underlying thermodynamic logic holds. So, it’s time to ask: What kind of carbon technologies persist when the subsidies vanish, the politics wobble, and the crowd drifts away? What makes them hold?