Thierry Labro: Your work seems to indicate that you have a strong political stance on the urgency of climate change.

Leila Conners: I’ve always found it strange that the environment has become a political issue. For 30 years, I’ve argued that humans are the environment. Our challenge is to figure out how to align human civilisation with the Earth’s natural cycles--water, carbon, methane and many others. These cycles have governed the planet for millennia, but human activities have often ignored or disrupted them.

We have done our best to ensure the well-being of our societies, but often without considering the impact on our planet. Now, as a global civilisation, we need to rethink our approach and integrate economic prosperity, freedom and civil rights into the Earth’s natural systems. Presented in this way, the discussion transcends political divides and becomes a question of practical solutions. The perception of risk varies across the political spectrum--everyone uses their own perspectives--but ultimately we need to focus on how we can create prosperity whilst respecting the carbon cycle on our planet. That’s the core of my work.

Do you consider yourself an activist?

No, not at all. I’ve never really taken part in demonstrations. Activism is important, but I’ve always been more interested in understanding people’s motivations and incentives, rather than protesting. I focus on identifying effective solutions. When you’re talking about the environment, you have to ask the question: what is really going to improve the situation? “Legion 44” is fascinating because it highlights solutions that benefit both the environment and the economy.

Can you give examples of these innovations?

These innovations actively reverse negative impacts whilst creating jobs and improving the production of materials and fuels. For example, the application of rock dust improves soil health, helps farmers (particularly in Africa) and creates jobs. What’s more, it has a negative carbon balance--it captures more carbon than it emits. Direct air capture machines extract carbon from the atmosphere and convert it into usable fuel. In the near future, you’ll be able to have a small machine in your home that extracts carbon from the air and turns it into fuel for your car--eliminating the need for petrol stations.

The remarkable thing is that these innovations fit seamlessly into our current way of life whilst making a real impact. Whatever people’s views on climate change, the idea of producing diesel at home for a fraction of the cost is undeniably appealing. Rather than debating climate change, we now have tangible solutions that align economic interests with environmental responsibility. And that’s what excites me most.

How do you validate these technologies before including them in your work?

We’ve been following this field for over 30 years, keeping in touch with key figures and climate scientists. There is a degree of scepticism, particularly from renewable energy advocates, who believe that resources should be devoted solely to clean energy rather than to carbon removal. But if you analyse the figures, renewables alone won’t be enough--especially when you factor in geopolitical disruption, wars and the incentives for fossil fuels.

I never believed that humanity would leave fossil resources untapped underground. The incentives to extract them are too strong. Rather than relying on moral arguments or regulations, the best solution is to develop competitive energy alternatives. Imagine if everyone could produce their own fuel at home--wouldn’t that be more attractive than relying on oil extraction operations costing billions?

What are the challenges to deploying these innovations on a large scale?

There are several obstacles. One of the main ones is the funding needed to move from successful pilot programmes to large-scale commercialisation. Many companies have proven the effectiveness of their concepts, but are struggling to secure a second round of investment for large-scale deployment.

The lack of clear standards for verifying carbon removal is another. Currently, the market relies on voluntary participation, and companies are working to define precise standards for measuring and verifying carbon removal, standards that are essential for investor and buyer confidence.

In addition, supply must meet demand. Companies such as Microsoft, J.P. Morgan and Shopify have already invested billions in carbon elimination, but the actual supply of certified credits remains insufficient. The industry is still in its infancy, and we are witnessing the birth of a whole new market that needs structured growth and appropriate regulation.

Supply says there isn’t enough demand; demand says there isn’t enough supply. Is this not the snake biting its own tail?

On the supply side, enhanced rock weathering (ERW) is an example where materials are widely available. The rock required is abundant throughout the world. Many quarries already produce concrete and cement, and the waste from these operations can be reused for ERW. Even crushed concrete can be recycled in this process, making it widely available.

Biochar is another extraordinary material. We are currently producing an entire documentary, “The Biochar Effect,” to explore its vast applications. Biochar is fundamentally a circular product--it transforms various types of waste into value. Depending on the source material, it can be incorporated into concrete, building materials or used as a soil improver. Its applications are numerous and continue to expand.

Then there are the direct air capture machines, which are remarkable for producing recycled fuels and very sustainable carbon removals. These machines are also easy to track in terms of efficiency and impact. Another fascinating area is ocean solutions. For example, Brilliant Planet is a company that uses algae ponds to capture carbon. Depending on the type of algae grown, these ponds can produce valuable materials such as beta-carotene and magnetic sand, whilst removing carbon from the atmosphere. So the real challenge is not the scarcity of materials, but rather the market and regulatory standards.

Should politicians put in place a new regulatory framework or should we leave it to the market to decide, even if it means seeing some companies fail or succeed on their own?

This is a fascinating question. I’m not an expert in world politics, but I do know that regulations vary considerably from region to region. For example, I live in New York, where policies have made it difficult to deploy pyrolysis and direct air capture, because of concerns that these technologies could divert investment from renewables or harm disadvantaged communities. However, this position is changing thanks to growing awareness and stronger reactions.

Some countries, such as Denmark, have made significant commitments to carbon elimination. Others, such as Singapore and potentially Luxembourg, are exploring financial mechanisms to support this industry. Kenya, with its abundant geothermal resources and basalt deposits, is becoming a major centre for direct air capture, in the same way as Iceland.

Infrastructure plays a key role in the success of these technologies. Some regions have policies that favour carbon elimination, whilst others are lagging behind due to outdated regulations. For example, in New York State, current climate laws aimed at banning combustion do not yet distinguish between pyrolysis and a traditional combustion process. This kind of regulatory misunderstanding is holding back the adoption of these technologies.

However, most of these technologies already fit into existing industrial frameworks. For example, parts for Climeworks’ direct air capture machines can be manufactured using existing supply chains. Enhanced rock weathering and biochar rely on materials already in production, and even ocean-based solutions use well-established methodologies, such as alkalinity enhancement.

That said, removing carbon from the oceans poses additional regulatory challenges due to international laws governing their use. The people leading these initiatives are mainly environmentalists with in-depth expertise in ecological cycles. They are extremely careful to avoid any unintended impact. They don’t work blindly--they consider the overall environmental impact far more thoroughly than most people realise.

Historically, from an ethical point of view, many industries have extracted resources from poorer countries without investing in the well-being of local communities. Do you think today’s carbon capture industry will be fairer?

What is encouraging is that many of the leading companies in the carbon capture sector are emerging from the global South. For example, Octavia Carbon, a Kenyan company, is run by Kenyan engineers, employing local talent and driving innovation from within the country. The same applies to 44.01, based in Oman, which is a pioneer in eliminating carbon by mineralisation. In Bolivia, Exomad, the largest company specialising in carbon capture via biochar, is another example: it transforms waste wood into biochar in order to improve soil quality.

The idea that rich nations dictate the rules of this industry does not really correspond to reality. Many of the major players in the sector are emerging from regions where carbon capture can have an immediate and significant impact. Interestingly, some of the biggest debates on this issue are taking place in the Global North, where politics and ideological resistance are slowing progress. In contrast, in countries such as Kenya, where geothermal energy is abundant but electrification remains a challenge, carbon capture projects can actually support infrastructure development and improve access to energy.

Every morning, Donald Trump wakes up and shakes up global geopolitics. Is it an opportunity or a challenge?

This is a fascinating time to explore a middle way: an industry focused on innovation, job creation and the dynamic transformation of materials production, whilst eliminating carbon.

You’ll be able to have a small machine in your home that extracts carbon from the air and turns it into fuel for your car--eliminating the need for petrol stations.

Leila Conners, director

Mini bio

Berkeley, the starting point

Leila Conners started her studies at the University of California, Berkeley in the mid-1980s, but dropped out to attend the American College in Paris. This desire for internationalism would prove to be a humbling lesson on the place of the United States in the world.

Los Angeles, New York and film

“I’m from Los Angeles and you know the city’s links with film,” Conners explains. “When I set up Tree Media, my intention was to explore ways to create a world that works well for everyone, focussing on sustainability and innovation.” She returned to New York to set up her company.

DiCaprio and Gorbachev

Her impact documentaries “Ice on Fire" (2019) and “The Arrow of Time” (2017) have been particularly well-received, as has her collaboration with Woody Harrelson. Screened at the Cannes Film Festival and produced and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio, “Ice on Fire” focusses on the environment and the release of arctic methane. “The Arrow of Time,” on the other hand, features Mikhail Gorbachev and covers the end of the Cold War.

The financial centre has a role to play

“Some countries, such as Denmark, have made strong commitments on carbon capture. Others, such as Singapore and potentially Luxembourg, are exploring potential financial mechanisms to support this industry. Kenya, which has abundant geothermal and basalt resources, is emerging as a major hub for the direct capture of carbon from the air, as is Iceland.”

A film to raise awareness

With “Legion 44,” Leila Conners has created a new “shock” documentary, which even allows viewers to make an online donation to help decarbonisation. By the end of February, as the film embarked on a world tour that will include Luxembourg in May, almost 5.5 tonnes had been neutralised. “At our first screenings, some of the most moved viewers were bankers and investors--people who understand how financial systems work. The innovations presented in ‘Legion 44’ show that environmental progress and economic growth can go hand in hand,” explains the self-described inquisitive philosopher. “Legion 44” opens with a conversation between carbon removal experts and the Maasai people in Kenya, discussing the possibility of drilling a well on their land. A unique and intelligent point of view.

This article was written in  for the  of Paperjam magazine, published on 26 March. The content is produced exclusively for the magazine. It is published on the site to contribute to the full Paperjam archive. .

Is your company a member of Paperjam Club? You can request a subscription in your name. Let us know via