While emissions reductions remain paramount in combating climate change, CDR assumes a crucial complementary role by addressing residual emissions that resist elimination through conventional decarbonization. The report emphasizes that for as long as any greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, CDR technologies and natural processes will be indispensable for halting further warming. It also warns that deferring emissions cuts even by a decade could raise global temperatures by approximately 0.15°C, subsequently compounding the reliance and demand for CDR later this century.

Currently, Earth’s atmosphere sees approximately 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ removed each year through predominantly terrestrial means like forest restoration, while mechanical and mineral-based carbon capture technologies constitute a minuscule fraction, around 0.1%. Despite this small scale, novel CDR technologies are experiencing rapid growth with annual increases around 40%. Investments in CDR technology, research, and start-ups have rebounded recently, now representing roughly three percent of the broader climate technology investment landscape, showcasing renewed interest even amidst a general slowdown in climate financing.

Nevertheless, this burgeoning CDR landscape remains precarious. A significant concern is the stark gap between announced project capacities and actual operational delivery—with only about 20% of planned novel CDR capacity materializing. Dr. Morgan Edwards, lead author and assistant professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison, stresses the fragility of progress, noting the concentration of activity in select countries and approaches as a source of systemic vulnerability. This creates risks that local policy fluctuations or market shifts could cascade globally, undermining momentum.

The breadth of CDR techniques is vast, ranging from nature-based solutions like reforestation and soil carbon enhancements to engineered options such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). The report details a wide cost spectrum—from under ten dollars to over a thousand dollars per tonne of CO₂ removed—highlighting the uncertain sustainable potentials for most methods, typically estimated conservatively at about one billion tonnes annually. Public awareness and acceptance remain nascent, and social license will depend heavily on equitable impact sharing and tangible co-benefits beyond carbon sequestration.

The window to decisively scale novel CDR approaches is closing fast, with the decade through 2030 identified as critical. Edwards emphasizes the urgent necessity not only for rapid capacity increases but also for validation of long-term carbon permanence and ancillary advantages like healthier soils and socioeconomic opportunities.

Oxford’s Steve Smith acknowledges promising advances: “The swift expansion of CDR technologies is noteworthy, with many projects promoting environmental co-benefits and value-added products alongside climate mitigation. This dual focus arises partly from the multifaceted gains possible and partly from insufficient financial incentives for the public good of atmospheric CO₂ removal.”

Absent accelerated emissions reductions and the establishment of stable, high-quality demand for reliable CDR, the existing gulf between ambitions and reality will only deepen, complicating and inflating the cost of achieving global climate targets. The report stresses that CDR is a vital but fragile pillar, requiring consistent policy support and financial backing.

The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal initiative is a pioneering global assessment, bringing together expertise from the University of Oxford, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, University of Wisconsin—Madison, and University of Maryland. It meticulously tracks CDR progress, identifies critical gaps, and provides evidence-driven insights for policymakers, investors, and the broader climate community.

Clarifications within the report emphasize fundamental distinctions between CDR and carbon capture and storage (CCS). For a method to qualify as CDR, it must remove CO₂ already present in the atmosphere. While some approaches utilize overlapping capture and storage infrastructure, CCS typically targets emissions directly from fossil fuel sources and industrial installations rather than atmospheric CO₂ extraction.

Several authors and experts contributing to the report underline the urgency and scale of the challenge. Oliver Geden of SWP notes that net-zero stabilization and even reversing atmospheric warming beyond 1.5°C hinges on massive, long-term CDR deployment. William Lamb of Potsdam emphasizes the substantial increase necessary beyond current pledges which largely depend on land-based approaches, with newer technologies still nascent.

Greg Nemet from University of Wisconsin – Madison highlights the fragility evident in the field, pointing to the significant proportion of canceled projects and the need for stable, long-term policy frameworks to sustain momentum. Jan Minx and Sabine Fuss of Potsdam focus on the innovation ecosystem, advocating a diversified, well-supported portfolio of CDR methods capable of addressing geographic and contextual variability while minimizing adverse tradeoffs related to land, water, and energy.

Matthew Gidden of University of Maryland encapsulates the consensus that gigatonne-scale CDR is indispensable alongside drastic emissions cuts and that proactive, timely deployment mitigates risks of higher future burdens caused by delays or climate surprises.

The report also features voices emphasizing real-world barriers and variability in progress. Candelaria Bergero and Carley Reynolds from University of Wisconsin and Potsdam respectively, warn of widening gaps with delayed action, necessitating even greater reliance on large-scale removal in the future. Franklyn Kanyako reveals operational difficulties in realizing planned capacity, while Friedemann Gruner acknowledges the wide-ranging uncertainties in costs, potentials, and scientific understanding that call for intensified research.

Kirsty Harrington of Oxford points to the disproportionate scale between established natural CDR and novel technologies, stressing the critical importance of rigorous carbon accounting to verify actual removals and climate benefits. Leona Tenkhoff of SWP highlights the discrepancy between countries’ net-zero ambitions and their insufficiently developed CDR strategies and demand frameworks.

Finally, the report stresses that no single technology or approach will suffice. Sabine Fuss advocates for a flexible, diverse portfolio of CDR techniques tailored to different contexts, maximizing sustainability and cost-effectiveness. Aaran Patel, advisory board member, draws attention to promising agronomic pathways such as biochar and enhanced rock weathering, which can deliver multiple co-benefits including improved soil health, increased crop yields, and new financing opportunities, especially for nations in the Global South.

The path ahead is challenging but critical. Scaling carbon dioxide removal at the scope and speed required demands unprecedented global cooperation, robust innovation, and long-term policy commitment – without which the formidable goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C may slip beyond reach.

Subject of Research: Carbon dioxide removal strategies and their role in climate change mitigation

Article Title: State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report

News Publication Date: 2-Jun-2026

Web References:

• https://www.stateofcdr.org/report/3rd-edition
• https://www.stateofcdr.org/

Keywords: Climate change, Carbon dioxide removal, Climate change mitigation, Carbon capture, Carbon sequestration, Anthropogenic climate change

At the core of this discourse lies the distinction between carbon dioxide removal and traditional emissions reduction. While the latter seeks to prevent CO₂ emissions by transitioning to renewable energy sources, improving efficiency, or altering consumption patterns, CDR focuses on actively extracting CO₂ from the atmosphere. Techniques range from natural solutions such as afforestation and soil carbon enhancement to engineered interventions like direct air capture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and ocean fertilization. Although conceptually attractive, the real-world deployment of these methods is riddled with scientific, technological, economic, and governance uncertainties.

Bindl and colleagues emphasize that uncertainties pertaining to CDR are multifaceted. Technologically, many CDR approaches are at conceptual or pilot stages, with limited operational experience and unclear scalability. For instance, direct air capture, which employs chemical processes to extract CO₂ from the atmosphere, demands immense energy inputs and involves costly infrastructure investments. Similarly, BECCS combines biomass energy production with carbon capture storage, but sustainable biomass availability and potential land-use competition pose significant obstacles. These uncertainties cloud projections regarding future potential carbon removal capacities and introduce volatile variables into climate models used to shape policy.

The authors also critique the psychological and strategic dimensions of incorporating uncertain CDR pathways into climate policy. Policymakers might be tempted to defer aggressive emission cuts under the assumption that future CDR deployment will "compensate" for current emissions. This optimism bias jeopardizes near-term mitigation efforts, heightening the risk of overshooting temperature targets set by international agreements like the Paris Accord. The delayed mitigation scenario entails increased cumulative emissions that challenge the feasibility of removing requisite volumes of CO₂ later, a scenario fraught with peril if CDR technologies fail to scale or perform as anticipated.

A crucial aspect addressed in the paper concerns the socio-political implications of large-scale CDR. Many removal strategies require vast land or ocean areas, potentially engendering conflicts over resource allocation. For example, extensive afforestation could impinge upon food production or biodiversity conservation, while ocean-based methods risk unpredictable ecological side effects. The governance frameworks for such interventions remain embryonic and contested, lacking robust mechanisms to evaluate risks, equity impacts, and long-term monitoring. These governance gaps exacerbate uncertainties and could hamper sustainable CDR deployment.

Additionally, the paper highlights the importance of integrated assessment models (IAMs) in understanding the potential and pitfalls of carbon removal. These computational tools simulate the interactions between economic, energy, and climatic systems to forecast trajectories under various policy choices. Yet IAMs often rely on optimistic assumptions regarding CDR capacities and costs, which the authors argue can paint an overly sanguine picture of climate mitigation pathways. Revising these models to incorporate broader uncertainty ranges and to reflect more conservative CDR potentials could lead to more resilient policy recommendations.

Another major concern revolves around the permanence of carbon sequestration achieved through CDR. Carbon stored in biomass, soils, or geological formations is subject to reversal due to natural disturbances, land-use changes, or technical failures in storage infrastructure. Such reversals, if extensive, risk reintroducing sequestered CO₂ back into the atmosphere, negating previous mitigation gains. The authors stress that accounting for this risk is vital in climate strategy development, suggesting that carbon accounting frameworks must incorporate probabilistic assessments of permanence rather than assuming permanence by default.

The economic dimension of CDR deployment also demands scrutiny. Many technologies, particularly engineered solutions, are capital-intensive and entail ongoing operational costs. Relying on CDR within policy frameworks without fully accounting for these expenses could strain public and private budgets, diverting funds from other effective mitigation or adaptation measures. Furthermore, the development of carbon markets and pricing mechanisms, often posited as enablers of CDR investment, lacks sufficient structure and regulation, increasing the potential for market distortions or greenwashing.

Bindl and colleagues advocate for a balanced approach that recognizes the potential contributions of CDR while emphasizing robust emissions reduction strategies as the primary response to climate change. They argue that, given current uncertainties, CDR should be viewed as a complementary tool, not a substitute for immediate and deep emission cuts. This framing is particularly important in light of the limited global carbon budget remaining to keep warming below thresholds associated with severe climate impacts.

Moreover, the paper calls for intensified research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of carbon removal technologies to better characterize their feasibility, costs, and environmental impacts. Heightened interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists, engineers, economists, and social scientists is essential to generate comprehensive risk assessments and to design governance mechanisms capable of balancing innovation, safety, and equity considerations. This approach would enable more informed decision-making and help avoid lock-in effects where suboptimal technologies divert resources and attention from sustainable pathways.

The authors also underscore the necessity of transparent communication regarding the limitations and uncertainties surrounding CDR. Public trust and acceptance hinge on honest discourse about what carbon removal can and cannot achieve. Overpromising on CDR could lead to disillusionment or backlash if technologies fail to materialize at scale, potentially undermining broader climate action momentum. A nuanced narrative that emphasizes both the promise and challenges of carbon removal is essential to engage stakeholders constructively.

In terms of policy recommendations, the study encourages integrating adaptive management principles into climate strategies involving CDR. This implies continuous monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment of policies based on emerging evidence and technological progress. Sector-specific policies should also consider regional ecological and socio-economic contexts to avoid unintended consequences. For example, promoting afforestation in one region may have different implications for water resources or local communities compared to another.

The researchers highlight that most current climate models and policy frameworks inadequately represent the full spectrum of uncertainties associated with CDR, potentially skewing climate risk assessments. They advocate for the development of more sophisticated, probabilistic modeling approaches that can better accommodate uncertainty and provide policymakers with a range of plausible outcomes. Such improvements would improve the robustness and transparency of climate strategy evaluations.

Lastly, the article warns that an overemphasis on CDR risks creating a moral hazard—where the perceived availability of a technological "fix" diminishes the urgency to transform energy systems and reduce emissions fundamentally. This hazard could delay necessary structural changes across economies and societies, exacerbating climate risks over the medium and long term. The authors urge that climate policy must be grounded in immediacy, precaution, and realism, ensuring that carbon removal is treated as part of a diversified portfolio of solutions rather than a panacea.

In conclusion, the study by Bindl, Edwards, and Cui offers a timely and critical contribution to the conversation on climate mitigation strategies. Their rigorous examination of the risks tied to uncertain carbon dioxide removal technologies provides valuable guidance for policymakers, scientists, and stakeholders alike. It highlights the complexities and caveats of relying on emerging CDR technologies and reinforces the imperative to prioritize immediate emission reductions, reinforced by transparent risk management and dedicated research on carbon removal. As the global community strives to meet ambitious climate goals, such sober assessments are indispensable to crafting effective and equitable solutions.

Subject of Research: Risks and uncertainties associated with reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies in climate policy.

Article Title: Risks of relying on uncertain carbon dioxide removal in climate policy.

Article References:
Bindl, M., Edwards, M.R. & Cui, R.Y. Risks of relying on uncertain carbon dioxide removal in climate policy. Nat Commun 16, 5958 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-61106-4

Image Credits: AI Generated