Photo by Scott Blake/Unsplash
The role of carbon removal in climate mitigation
Along with deep and rapid emissions reductions, carbon dioxide removal — hereafter referred to as carbon removal or CDR — will also need to be scaled up to avoid increasingly harmful climate impacts.
CDR, a range of technologies and approaches that remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and store it permanently, can play multiple roles. Before and at net zero, it can compensate for emissions that will be difficult to fully decarbonize by midcentury (known as “residual emissions”). In the longer term, CDR is necessary to achieve net-negative emissions and reduce the excess CO2 in the atmosphere that is driving worsening climate impacts. Net-negative emissions will also be needed to address any exceedance of 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F), to bring temperatures back to safer levels.
Emissions reductions vs. carbon removal
Emissions reduction is critical and remains the top priority for slowing the planet’s warming. However, it will not be enough to meet our climate goals. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s most authoritative body on climate science, has stated that all pathways that limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) will require some degree of CDR.
CDR cannot take the place of or reduce the urgency to deeply and rapidly reduce emissions; it must be a complement, counterbalancing emissions that are too difficult to abate on the way to, and at, net zero. CDR and emissions reductions are not interchangeable for several reasons.
First, emitting CO2 now and removing it later is not the same as not emitting CO2 to begin with, since any greenhouse gas emissions can cause irreversible damage to ecosystems and human health for the time they are in the atmosphere. Second, CDR is limited today and it is uncertain which approaches will be able to scale, so it shouldn’t be counted on for use beyond the hardest-to-abate emissions. Third, CDR uses resources like renewable energy, land and water, and in some cases materials like concrete and steel, so should be planned for as a limited resource — and optimized to use resources most efficiently.
Once net zero is achieved, CDR will be needed to address legacy emissions, the cumulative historical emissions in the atmosphere from all sources.
The need for a diverse portfolio of carbon removal approaches
CDR includes a range of approaches and technologies — from nature-based pathways, like tree planting, to novel, technological approaches like direct air capture (DAC), which uses machines to extract CO2 from the air and can be coupled with the permanent sequestration of CO2 in deep underground geologic formations. Importantly, carbon removal differs from carbon capture and storage (CCS), which captures CO2 emissions at their source, for example a cement plant, before they’re emitted into the atmosphere, and is a form of emissions reduction.
All CDR approaches include different risks, benefits and uncertainties — for example around permanence, cost, development status, scalability, resource usage and other parameters. To realize the full potential of CDR and balance these tradeoffs, we’ll need a broad portfolio of natural and technological options.
Here, we focus on options that are generally considered to be technological. This includes DAC coupled to sequestration (DACS); a suite of biomass carbon removal (BiCRS) approaches like biochar, biomass burial, bio-oil injection and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS); enhanced rock weathering and other mineralization-based approaches; and a range of biotic and abiotic marine CDR approaches including ocean alkalinity enhancement and direct ocean carbon capture. Faster scale-up of these technologies will require addressing several barriers that exist today.
Challenges to scaling technological carbon removal
Because CDR is above all a public good of atmospheric clean-up, it is particularly dependent on regulatory requirements, subsidies or other policy mechanisms to create both supply and demand. This is in contrast with other mitigation technologies, like renewable energy, which provide a good or service of immediate value (i.e., electricity) while they decarbonize and enter an existing market.
While some CDR pathways can produce co-benefits or be used in products with economic value, this is usually not enough to drive CDR deployment to the scale needed. To date, the voluntary carbon market has been the main driver scaling CDR, but it is unlikely to scale CDR to the level needed on its own.
Supporting supply creation involves increasing public funding for research, development and deployment of CDR methods. This should be matched with sufficient demand for carbon removal, which can come through government procurement, compliance or other mechanisms.
Additional barriers to scaling include challenges related to carbon accounting, such as scientific uncertainty and inconsistency across measurement protocols; lack of comprehensive governance frameworks (e.g., to address challenges around mitigation deterrence, equity and environmental impacts); insufficient enabling infrastructure (e.g., accessible and well-characterized geologic storage); permitting and regulatory regimes that are not fit-for-purpose; and lack of broad public knowledge of and support for large-scale carbon removal.
Important progress has been made in recent years on most of these issues, but more action is needed to meet global climate goals.
Interest and investment in carbon removal technologies is growing
The IPCC’s 2018 Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C indicated the likely need for hundreds of billions of metric tons of CDR by the end of the century. These findings were reaffirmed and refined in subsequent reports, including the IPCC’s most recent 2022 report, which lays out different scenarios for the use of CDR, noting that greater near-term emissions reductions can reduce future reliance on CDR. The 2018 report helped launch the CDR industry, spurring interest and investment in CDR technologies and policy action.
These reports also helped spur a proliferation of national and corporate net-zero targets, which imply a need for CDR. The Science Based Targets initiative reports that 2,406 companies had net-zero commitments as of January 2026, driving growing corporate interest in CDR. And at least 27 of the 80 long-term strategies submitted by governments to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as of January 2026 include plans to use or interest in using technological CDR to meet long-term climate targets.
With greater recognition of the need for CDR to meet long-term climate goals, international initiatives and investments are growing. Mission Innovation, a global initiative to accelerate research, development and demonstration investment for clean energy and technology, has a CDR mission and a goal of achieving a net reduction of 100 million metric tons of CO2 (MtCO2) per year by 2030. Mission Innovation’s CDR Launchpad commits participating countries to build at least one 1,000 or more tCO2 per year CDR project by 2025 and to share data. The Carbon Management Challenge is another multilateral effort to scale CDR along with CCS.
Government support for carbon removal
The governments of Australia, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and other countries are increasing federal research, development and demonstration funding for CDR. The U.K. has set targets for engineered CDR scale-up. Japan now allows permanent CDR as a compliance policy option under its emissions trading scheme (ETS). And Canada has an investment tax credit that supports DAC and has committed to purchasing at least $10 million worth of CDR.
The European Commission adopted the Carbon Removal and Carbon Farming regulation, the first public sector voluntary certification framework for high-quality CDR, and the European Union is funding research and development of CDR.
However, shifting politics in the United States are reducing government support for CDR and creating uncertainty about its future in the U.S. Between 2020 and 2024, the U.S. government provided significant policy support from research through deployment for CDR. While some policy support remains — for example, the 45Q tax credit, which supports deployment of DACS and BECCS — other support has declined.
Private sector investments in carbon removal
The private sector is also stepping up. Companies like Microsoft, Google and JPMorgan have invested hundreds of millions in early CDR purchases and have made their processes transparent.
In April 2022, a coalition of corporations launched Frontier, which is committed to purchasing more than $1 billion in permanent — defined by Frontier as storing carbon for over 1,000 years — CDR between 2022 and 2030. This is the largest private sector investment to date and provides a demand signal for CDR suppliers to invest.
The Carbon Removal XPrize also awarded $100 million in prizes for scalable CDR technologies in April 2025.
This level of action is far beyond anything that was happening just ten years ago. CDR, little known before 2018, is now recognized as a critical tool to achieve climate goals, and the first generation of large-scale carbon removal projects is in development.
Addressing concerns and building trust in carbon removal technology
Despite these successes, there are some concerns about the growing momentum around CDR. Some are worried that investment in CDR will distract from the urgent need to prioritize near-term emissions reductions. Most CDR technologies are not yet demonstrated at commercial scale, and there is no guarantee they will deliver the expected level of removal when deployed at large scale under real-world conditions. There are also concerns around the local environmental and social impacts of some CDR approaches.
Robust policies and governance mechanisms for CDR will be foundational to addressing these concerns and building public trust. They will create the guardrails that ensure that CDR is developed and deployed in a responsible manner.
At the international and national levels, these could include guidance around the role of CDR in national climate plans; how to measure, monitor, report and verify CDR credibly and consistently; and how to consider economic, environmental and other tradeoffs across approaches.
At the project level, assessing and minimizing negative environmental and social impacts is essential, and communication and transparency will be key. Engaging with communities early and providing opportunities for input on project configuration and local benefits will be critical to the long-term success of CDR projects.
Because technological CDR is still a relatively new industry, there is an opportunity to shape its development and ensure it is scaled and deployed responsibly.
