Scale up technological carbon removal

Government investment in RD&D is necessary to enable the development of a wide range of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies and approaches. A diverse portfolio of CDR technologies can balance tradeoffs associated with any one approach and reduce overall costs.

A handful of countries are already providing public funding for developing carbon removal technologies, including Australia, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, but much more will be needed to enable the scale of CDR likely needed, particularly as the funding landscape in the U.S. remains uncertain.

Comprehensive data on the total government funding for CDR RD&D is not available but is important to track in addition to the number of countries providing support since spending can vary considerably by country. One database that tracks research and development — but not demonstration — funding found that among technological approaches, biochar received the largest share of R&D funding, with smaller but increasing shares going toward direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.

New infrastructure, such as geologic sequestration facilities and CO₂ transport systems, will be needed to enable the scale-up of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. For direct air capture with sequestration (DACS) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), CO₂ pipelines or transport infrastructure by rail, barge or other means would be required when CO₂ is captured in a different location from sequestration or use.

The United States, where the vast majority of global CO₂ transport occurs, has 5,200 miles of CO₂ pipelines today, but estimates suggest 30,000–65,000 miles of CO₂ pipeline may be needed in the United States alone by midcentury (CO₂ pipelines would enable some types of CDR as well as carbon capture, utilization and storage).

Global geologic CO₂ sequestration capacity is estimated to be thousands of billions of tonnes, but further site-specific characterization is needed to determine feasibility. In the United States, for example, legal and regulatory issues related to pore space ownership and long-term site monitoring for leakage or other liabilities need to be clarified, and expedited permitting processes could allow faster project timelines.

Based on available data, 11 governments (including the EU as one government and its member countries separately) provided support for enabling infrastructure for CDR as of 2025.

Along with federal funding, private investment will need to play a role in the scale-up of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. As companies put forward net-zero pledges, many will need carbon removal to meet their targets — and some are already purchasing tonnes of carbon removal.

As of early 2026, Microsoft is by far the largest purchaser of CDR, having bought around 80% of the 44 million tonnes of CDR sold on the voluntary carbon market. Other major purchasers include Frontier, a coalition of companies including Meta and Google, which has committed to collectively purchase more than $1 billion worth of permanent CDR by 2030. Increasing the number of corporate purchasers will be important to supporting long-term, continued scale-up of CDR.

At the same time, it’s crucial that companies do not use CDR as an excuse to delay emissions reductions. The level of emissions reductions and CDR needed will vary by company — for example, a heavy industry company will likely have a harder time reducing emissions than a company with emissions predominantly from electricity.

Corporate spending on carbon removal has increased from around $9 million in 2020 to more than $7 billion in 2025.

As the number of companies purchasing carbon dioxide removal (CDR) credits increases, it is important not only to track carbon removed, but also to understand the quality of these credits in terms of their level of sustainability and social impact. Scaling up CDR technologies that provide a climate benefit while minimizing environmental and social harms will provide the greatest overall benefit.

As the CDR industry develops, companies have the opportunity to set high standards for social, equity and environmental considerations of the projects they invest in. Given the early stage of the industry, this can also set a precedent for project developers and for other companies entering the space in the future.

For example, Microsoft, which is the largest voluntary purchaser of CDR, published criteria for high-quality CDR that include requirements to both minimize and manage environmental harm and demonstrate a commitment to environmental justice. Frontier also includes criteria around community engagement and ecosystem safety in its requests for proposals.

Comprehensive data to track this indicator is not available, as the criteria behind corporate purchases are not always publicly available.

While more than 100 countries have already set net-zero emissions targets, a few are advancing beyond net zero by aiming for net-negative emissions, where carbon dioxide removal (CDR) exceeds continued emissions.

Net-negative emissions are needed to reduce atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and help reverse global temperature rise. As evidence emerges that the global community is likely to exceed the 1.5 degrees C threshold outlined in the Paris Agreement, the need for net-negative emissions is becoming increasingly clear.

As of early 2026, only three countries — Finland, Sweden and Denmark — have committed to net-negative emissions, though not yet through legally binding measures. Germany has also indicated its intent to set a net-negative emissions target. While achieving net-zero emissions is already a challenge for many countries, developed countries arguably bear a distinct responsibility to commit to net negative given their historical contribution to the excess CO₂ in the atmosphere.

Three countries — Bhutan, Suriname and Panama — claim to already be net negative, though this has been achieved due to their forest cover, not technological CDR.

Tracking mentions of technological carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in news articles each year helps indicate the level of discourse on the topic. While media attention may not directly enable deployment, it can influence public understanding and opinion, which in turn can shape policy and project decisions.

Mentions of technological CDR were minimal until around 2007, when coverage focused mainly on biochar and ocean fertilization, followed by bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). In 2021, news articles mentioning technological CDR reached 302, with direct air capture and storage as well as BECCS making up a growing share of coverage in subsequent years. Between 2021 and 2025, total news mentions declined each year, reaching 170 in 2025.

The number of technological carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects in operation helps indicate the level of deployment activity on the ground. While each project — depending on the CDR approach involved and other factors — can result in different scales of carbon removed on an annual basis, tracking the total number of projects provides a complementary measure to the total amount of CO₂ removed each year and total amounts of public and private investment. One data collection effort in 2024 found just under 200 projects worldwide, with most located in North America.

While there is no database that comprehensively tracks all CDR projects in operation today, Mission Impossible and Carbon Removal at COP reported on this in 2024. Tracking both operational projects as well as those in the development pipeline will be important to understanding the level of activity on the ground, as well as the share of the project development pipeline that becomes operational. 

While carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects can generate global climate benefits, host communities may be experiencing environmental, social and economic impacts from past harms of industrial development, and potentially from new CDR projects.

To ensure distributional equity, project developers may invest a portion of project revenues into host communities, supporting public services, local infrastructure, education, or workforce training and development.

This indicator tracks the number of projects that include formal commitments to local reinvestment through community benefit plans or agreements, revenue-sharing mechanisms or other project agreements. This reinvestment helps ensure that host communities share in the economic benefits of CDR while mitigating potential disruptions from project development.

There is no comprehensive data for this indicator, despite its importance in supporting an equitable CDR industry.

Measurement (and/or monitoring), reporting and verification (MRV or MMRV) is the process by which the amount of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is measured, reported and then verified by another party for accuracy. MRV protocols exist within both voluntary and regulatory, or compliance, contexts and lay out the steps needed for recognition in that context; they are foundational for building transparency and trust.

The number of MRV protocols developed per year for technological CDR methods increased from one or two per year in 2020 and earlier to five to 10 per year in 2022-2023. Enhanced rock weathering and biochar saw the most protocols developed in recent years.

Different CDR approaches face varying challenges related to how easy it is to measure carbon removed, whether scientific knowledge gaps remain around how the removal process works and what to measure, and technological gaps in the measurement process.

Additionally, when multiple protocols exist for CDR methods, it can create inconsistency in measurement practices, in how uncertainty is handled, and in other factors. Ultimately, moving toward consistent protocols for each method will help build trust in the industry.