Carbon Removal, Reduction, and Avoidance Credits Explained

Key Takeaways

• Decarbonizing steel is key to meeting ambitious climate targets in the face of rapidly expanding AI infrastructure as well as broader infrastructure growth.
• The gap between corporate climate ambitions and near-term commercial reality is widening. Despite strong demand signals from hyperscalers and other major buyers, leading producers have recently canceled or delayed flagship green steel projects, citing high energy costs, slow hydrogen market development, and unfavorable policy environments. 
• Bridging this gap requires significant capital investment and supporting mechanisms to scale low-carbon technologies. Environmental attribute certificates offer an effective mechanism to channel capital toward transformative, low-carbon steel projects, supporting technology scale-up, as well as providing a way for buyers to meet their emissions reduction targets.  
• To protect the credibility of environmental attribute certificates as a market mechanism for decarbonization, projects should seek to meet rigorous quality criteria such as additionality, verifiability, and catalytic impact.

Forging New Climate Ambitions for Steel Production

Decarbonizing steel production is essential to meet global climate targets. Steel production accounts for approximately 7–9% of global CO₂ emissions. This is driven chiefly by coal-based primary steelmaking, which still accounts for the majority of global production. Globally, at least 1.8 billion tonnes of crude steel were produced in 2025 to serve a broad array of industries including real estate, infrastructure, automotive, and data center construction. 

As hyperscalers race to build the infrastructure underpinning the AI revolution, steel demand for data center construction, and associated energy infrastructure, is increasing. While the relative share of data center demand for steel versus global steel demand is small, the need for approximately 20,000 tonnes of steel per data center has a material impact on hyperscaler’s public climate commitments. Microsoft, Meta, and other large technology companies have set ambitious 2030 climate targets that include their scope 3 emissions. The embodied carbon of the steel used to build their data centers sits squarely in scope 3.

Hyperscaler’s climate commitments have generated sector-specific demand for decarbonized steel, presenting an opportunity to affect steel decarbonization more broadly. Despite this demand, the supply of low-carbon steel remains limited. The industry faces significant scale-up challenges due to the diffuse nature of demand and the nascent market. Catalyzing growth in decarbonized steel production will require market innovations and new production pathways designed to overcome these challenges. Credible environmental attribute certificates can help bridge the gap between today’s market and tomorrow’s low-carbon steel sector.

What is an Environmental Attribute Certificate?

An environmental attribute certificate (EAC) represents the environmental attributes of a product that can be unbundled and transacted separately from the underlying physical commodity. The most widely used EACs today are renewable energy certificates (RECs), which track the environmental attributes of renewable electricity. The same concept can also be applied to steel and iron, as well as to materials such as cement and concrete.

In a book and claim model, a steel producer can implement a verified emissions reduction intervention, quantify the resulting lowered carbon intensity per tonne of steel produced, and convert that into tradeable certificates. Buyers can then purchase those certificates to support the deployment of low-carbon steelmaking capacity in cases where direct procurement of low-carbon steel is currently impractical due to geographic, contracting, or scheduling incompatibilities.

EACs are distinct from carbon credits. They do not represent emissions reduced or avoided relative to a counterfactual; they represent the intrinsic carbon intensity of the material produced, measured through a life cycle assessment. 

Decarbonizing Steel Requires Significant Capital and Infrastructure Deployment

Steel Production Today

Steel is currently made via three main production routes. About 71% of the world’s steel is produced through the blast furnace–basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) route, which emits an average of 2.33 tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO₂) per tonne of crude steel. A further 24% is produced using scrap-based electric arc furnaces (EAFs), which emit 0.68 tCO₂ per tonne on average—far lower, but still dependent on the carbon intensity of grid electricity. The remaining roughly 5% uses direct reduced iron combined with an EAF (DRI-EAF), typically using natural gas, emitting 1.37 tCO₂ per tonne on average.

While increasing scrap-based production is a critical decarbonization lever, scrap availability is limited. Primary steel production, which uses iron ore as the main feedstock rather than recycled scrap, will remain necessary at large volumes through 2050. This makes it essential to decarbonize ore-based pathways, especially ironmaking: the step where iron ore is reduced to iron and where most emissions occur.

Decarbonizing ore-based steel production requires one of three fundamental interventions: (1) replacing coal and natural gas with low-carbon fuels such as hydrogen or bio-coke, (2) electrifying ironmaking directly, or (3) capturing and storing the CO₂ generated from fossil-fuel-based processes. All three involve significant capital expenditure and dependencies on infrastructure that is not yet in place at the necessary scale. As a result, the energy and cost challenge is substantial.

Low-Carbon Steel: Emerging Pathways

A range of transformative technological pathways are currently in development to overcome these barriers, offering the potential to deliver deep decarbonization to the steel industry exceeding 90% by 2050: 

• Hydrogen-based DRI-EAF: Using green hydrogen instead of natural gas within the DRI process provides a pathway to significantly lower the carbon intensity of ironmaking. Producers such as Stegra are deploying commercial-scale facilities designed to utilize 100% green hydrogen to reduce iron ore.
• Electrifying ironmaking: 
  
  • Molten oxide electrolysis: Boston Metal is commercializing a process that uses electricity to directly convert iron ore to molten metal through electrolysis at high temperature, eliminating the need for hydrogen or carbon reductants entirely.
  • Low-temperature electrowinning: Colorado-based startup Electra uses renewable electricity to extract iron from ore via an aqueous electrochemical process that operates at near-ambient temperature. 
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS): For blast furnaces and DRI plants with long remaining lifetimes, retrofitting with CCS technology can significantly reduce emissions. With new high-emitting capacity still being built, and assets expected to operate for decades, integrating CCS will be essential to avoid long-term carbon lock-in and to decarbonize these facilities over time. To date, commercial-scale deployment remains limited. The Al Reyadah facility at Emirates Steel is the only project currently capturing CO₂ from a DRI process at scale, though a handful of other large-scale projects have entered the development pipeline.

Progress and Setbacks: A Mixed Picture

The past year sent contradictory signals about the pace of steel decarbonization. On the demand side, technology companies with ambitious climate targets are actively signaling their intent to procure near-zero steel and support its development.

In September 2025, Microsoft and Stegra announced a landmark agreement that combines a physical supply deal for low-carbon steel with a separate EAC purchase agreement. Around the same time, Meta announced an agreement with Electra to purchase EACs tied to the startup’s clean iron production, becoming one of the first buyers to use the EAC model for an entirely novel, pre-commercial ironmaking technology. Nucor, the largest US steelmaker, also entered into a physical iron purchase agreement with Electra.

Despite these demand signals, the industry has experienced significant setbacks. A series of low-carbon steel project cancellations and delays has raised questions about the pace and viability of the steel transition, especially due to the high costs associated with green hydrogen production.

At present, the green premium for most low-carbon steel remains too high for buyers. A combination of sustained policy support, long-term demand signals from buyers willing to pay more, and scaling of supporting industries, such as green hydrogen production, is necessary for the low-carbon steel industry to be successful in the long run.

How EACs Can Bridge the Funding Gap in Steel

EACs unbundle low-carbon steel attributes from the physical material, reducing the friction between buyers who are willing to pay a green premium and geographic or logistical constraints that may inhibit physical offtake. Buyers, such as hyperscalers procuring conventional steel for data center construction in locations where low-carbon steel is not yet available, can purchase these certificates to support the development of low-carbon capacity, attribute lower-carbon production to their steel use via a market-based mechanism, and advance toward their scope 3 targets.

A primary objective of the Criteria for High-Quality Environmental Attribute Certificates in the Concrete and Steel Sectors, jointly developed by Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) and Microsoft, is to establish high-integrity standards for the EAC market in these sectors. For steel EACs, that means demonstrating significant emissions reduction performance by reaching at least Progress Level 2 in the ResponsibleSteel Decarbonization Progress Levels framework, and aiming to achieve Progress Level 3 by 2030. ResponsibleSteel’s scrap-variable benchmark provides a technology-neutral mechanism to evaluate emissions reduction performance by accounting for the specific proportion of scrap used.

EACs for steel are designed to be catalytic. Rather than supporting incremental improvements that are already becoming cost-competitive, they should target transformative capital changes, such as replacing BF-BOF routes with DRI-EAF, adopting low-carbon hydrogen in DRI processes, or deploying novel ironmaking technologies. Multi-year purchase agreements are particularly powerful because they provide the investment certainty that first-of-a-kind projects need to access capital at a lower cost.

What this Means for Buyers and Suppliers of Low-Carbon Steel 

Whether you are producing or procuring steel, EACs are only one part of a broader decarbonization strategy. For buyers with significant emissions from steel, and other building materials such as cement and concrete, EACs can be a powerful tool to help advance scope 3 reduction goals where supply for physical low-carbon materials is limited. Suppliers can complement commercialization strategies for low-carbon materials by using EACs to monetize emissions reductions, generate additional revenue to support decarbonization investments, and help scale markets for low-carbon materials. Navigating the steel market requires decisions at the intersection of technical feasibility, greenhouse gas accounting, and capital strategy. Key considerations include:

• Greenhouse gas accounting and reportability: Cradle-to-gate emissions for steel production must be tracked using life cycle assessments and should strive for interoperability with environmental product declarations (EPDs). EAC transactions must be reported transparently, especially given the absence of formal market standards at this stage.
• Additionality and catalytic impact: EAC purchases must demonstrably support projects that would not proceed without financial support from the EAC market mechanism, and projects should have a credible pathway toward the near-zero (Progress Level 4) threshold on the ResponsibleSteel framework.
• Avoiding double counting: EAC buyers must verify that the environmental attributes they purchase are not also being claimed by the physical product buyer via an EPD.

FAQs

What is an environmental attribute certificate (EAC) for steel?
An EAC represents the environmental attributes of low-carbon steel, unbundled from the physical material itself, so a producer can quantify a verified reduction in carbon intensity per tonne and sell that value as a separate, tradeable certificate. Buyers can purchase EACs to support low-carbon steel production while still working toward their own emissions targets.

How is an EAC different from a carbon credit?
An EAC reflects the intrinsic carbon intensity of the material itself, measured through a life cycle assessment. That's different from a carbon credit, which represents carbon dioxide actively avoided, reduced or removed from the atmosphere relative to a baseline.

How are AI data centers impacting the demand for low-carbon steel?

Data centers use roughly 20,000 tonnes of steel each, and as hyperscalers build out AI infrastructure, that steel use counts toward their scope 3 emissions and public climate targets. That's turned data center construction into a meaningful driver of demand for low-carbon steel, even though supply remains limited.

What makes an EAC credible enough to count toward a company's emissions goals?
A credible steel EAC needs to meet criteria like additionality (the project wouldn't happen without the EAC revenue), verifiability through life cycle assessment, and catalytic impact toward transformative technology rather than incremental gains. Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) and Microsoft jointly developed criteria for high-quality EACs in the steel and concrete sectors, which set a threshold of at least Progress Level 2 on the ResponsibleSteel Decarbonization framework today, rising to Progress Level 3 by 2030.

Can a producer sell an EAC and also get credit for the physical steel elsewhere?
No. EAC producers need to confirm the environmental attributes they're selling aren't also being claimed by whoever buys the physical steel through an environmental product declaration; otherwise the same emissions reduction gets counted twice.

Key Takeaways

• Trust in carbon credits remains low. In part, this is because many mistakenly treat every credit type as interchangeable.
• Reduction, removal, and avoidance credits are verified against fundamentally different baselines, so credit quality must be judged based on type and project specifics, never with one blanket standard.
• The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market's Core Carbon Principles now give buyers an independent bar to check against, including 44 methodologies approved across 13 eligible crediting programs, as of August 2026.
• Removal credits still make up only 5–6% of the market, even as compliance-driven demand accelerates, per our 2026 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report.

Three Types of Carbon Credits: Reduction, Removal, and Avoidance

A carbon credit is a mechanism that allows one party to compensate another for their carbon mitigation activities. Based on their net emissions impact, there are three types of carbon credits: reduction, removal, and avoidance. 

1. Reduction credits reflect activities that decrease greenhouse gas emissions, compared to prior practices. 
2. Removal credits reflect activities that remove carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere and oceans and lock it away for decades, centuries, or millennia.
3. Avoidance credits reflect activities that prevent greenhouse gases from being emitted in the first place. For all three types, credits are assessed and issued by measuring or estimating how much carbon is reduced, removed, or avoided as a result of a credit purchase and its associated activities.

While credits are assessed in different ways depending on the type, one of the most important indicators of quality is a project's baseline - the emissions that would be present in a business-as-usual scenario, without action being taken to reduce, remove, or avoid them. Project developers use baselines as a means of comparison to assess the net emissions impact of a project. 

• Baselines must be accurately set and data-driven. 
• Emissions impacts of a project must be correctly calculated against its baseline. 

Reduction, removal, and avoidance projects involve very different activities and, for some types of projects, it may be more challenging to establish an accurate baseline. However, without accurate baselines, climate impacts cannot be reliably determined.

Across the voluntary carbon market, Reduction credits represent roughly 20% of the purchases. Removal credits represent roughly 5% of the purchases. The remainder, roughly 75%, are avoidance credits.

Carbon Reduction Credits

Carbon reduction must drive the majority of our push to net zero, but translating carbon reduction activities into carbon credits that can be purchased is challenging. Examples of activities represented by carbon reduction credits include reducing fossil fuel use by improving fuel efficiency, or programs that reduce the methane that is generated from farms or municipal waste processing. 

Reduction credits are measured and quantified against the baseline emissions of an existing technology or process. Some reduction credits are easy to track and measure, such as efficiency investments or destruction of fugitive methane. Other projects are more complex. For example, low-emission cookstove projects in developing regions rely on tracking patterns of cookstove use and quantifying emission factors for various fuel and stove combinations, both of which are hard to do. The result, as studies have shown, sometimes leads to overcrediting in reduction projects. 

Superpollutant Credits

One class of reduction credit, superpollutant credits, has garnered recent attention. These credits involve the reduction of non-CO2 greenhouse gases with very strong radiative forcing, such as methane, nitrous oxides, or fluorinated gases like chlorofluorocarbons. These are not a substitute for CO2 removal, but can provide rapid and profound reductions at modest cost. Many different kinds of superpollutants exist in today’s market, worth roughly $60M today. Recent purchases by tech companies and others have highlighted the potential of these reduction credits.

Another class of reduction credit, transition credits, involves the deliberate early closure of emitting assets like coal-fired power plants or heavy manufacturing facilities. Early efforts by governments, banks, and companies around the world under the Just Energy Transition Partnership agreement jump-started transition credits as a concept at COP26. The Kinetic Coalition, in partnership with many groups including Relae, has launched work to bring transition credits to market with several pilot efforts, including closing a coal plant in the Philippines 10 years early. 

Carbon Removal Credits

Projects that remove carbon come from a diverse set of solutions, from nature-based solutions like reforestation, to hybrid solutions like biochar, to engineered solutions such as direct air capture and storage. Roughly 5–6% of credits on the voluntary carbon market today are classified as removals, up from roughly 3% a few years ago.

Carbon removal baselines are determined differently depending on whether a project uses an engineered, hybrid, or nature-based solution. For engineered removals, the baseline is zero, because no carbon removal was occurring in the absence of the project. The credited removal will be the difference between the quantity of carbon removed and any emissions that occur to facilitate the removal (determined through a carbon credit life cycle assessment). Baselines for hybrid and nature-based removals can be more challenging. In natural systems, changes in carbon stocks created by removals must be measured and approximated over time, and creditable removals represent the additional carbon removed by the intervention relative to the baseline (e.g., fallow land versus a reforestation project).

Another important consideration for carbon removal credits is project durability, a measure of the likely duration of carbon storage. Stored carbon can re-enter the atmosphere either through deliberate actions (e.g., deforestation) or accidental ones (e.g., wildfires). Nature-based removals are especially vulnerable to being re-released and are usually considered less durable (i.e., stored for less than 50 years). In contrast, engineered solutions offer high durability (i.e., stored for hundreds to thousands of years), and hybrid removals also offer durability periods that are typically longer than those of nature-based removals.

While less durable, nature-based solutions are effective, cost-effective, and widely available today. They made up over 95% of all carbon removal credits issued in 2025. Engineered and hybrid solutions are more expensive and scarce but offer longer durability. Prices of engineered carbon removal are likely to fall with innovation and increased market participation, but are currently much higher than most nature-based credits. With SBTi's finalized Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0, this balance is likely to shift. Large companies must now purchase removal credits covering 1–100% of scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions between 2035 and their net-zero year, with an explicit focus on more durable CO2 removal credits.

Carbon Avoidance Credits

Examples of carbon avoidance include avoiding deforestation that would result in the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or clean energy projects that avoid the release of emissions from burning fossil fuels in possible facilities. This can be confusing, since many avoided credits are called reduction credits, as is the case with projects under the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) framework. Avoidance credits make up roughly 75% of certified credits on the voluntary carbon market today - an overwhelming majority - in part due to high availability and low price. 

Avoiding emissions is an important goal with numerous environmental, climate, community, and other benefits. Relae works with clients and customers across industries on developing and implementing strategies to avoid emissions within their value chain. However, there are significant challenges with the way that many carbon avoidance credits are created.

• Carbon avoidance credits are based on an estimate of the emissions that might have existed had a project not been funded. Because it is impossible to observe what might have happened in the absence of a project, carbon avoidance estimates are determined by considering historic data and contextual information. Statistical models can be used to create a presumed baseline that represents what would have happened in the absence of the project.

• Because the baseline is not observed in an avoided emissions project, there is uncertainty in calculating the number of carbon credits it produces. If the baseline is not set accurately, a project can overcredit. While the lack of a directly observed and measured baseline means avoidance credits will always have some degree of uncertainty, high-quality avoidance projects present compelling evidence to support their baselines, greatly reducing uncertainty. 

New datasets, statistical techniques, and methodologies are providing opportunities for developing avoidance credits with more certainty. Three REDD+ methodologies have now cleared the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) assessment for its Core Carbon Principles (CCPs), a concrete sign that credit quality standards for avoidance projects are maturing.

Defining and Standardizing Quality in the Voluntary Carbon Market

Carbon credits are intended to reduce, remove, or avoid emissions. They pay for an environmental service that must be delivered. Companies working to generate climate benefits through credit purchases must grapple with the differences and uncertainties of credit quality to ensure that the intended benefits are realized. 

While high-quality credits exist for all types of projects, a rich understanding of the differences in methodologies, geographies, physics, and ecology is required to identify high-quality projects and understand varied certainty, durability, and risk terms. Identifying high-quality carbon projects demands extensive and project-specific diligence beyond carbon market certification.

Our own diligence work reveals that high-quality projects can be hard to find. Fewer than 10% of the carbon removal projects we assessed for our 2026 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report met our quality criteria. This diligence work now has an additional, independent backstop. As of August 2026, the ICVCM has approved 44 methodologies across 13 programs, as eligible for its CCP label, including ACR, Gold Standard, and VCS. For buyers, considering projects that are CCP-eligible should be used as a first filter—not a substitute for project-level diligence, but representing a legitimate floor.

While realized emissions impacts may be difficult to prove in some cases, it is important to remember that some projects provide additional co-benefits. REDD+ projects, for example, may have a positive impact on conservation and biodiversity, and cookstove projects may offer clear human health and social welfare benefits. However, these benefits should be assessed separately from carbon reduction, removal, or avoidance benefits.

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between a carbon credit and a carbon offset? 

A carbon credit represents one verified tonne of emissions reduced, removed, or avoided. A  carbon offset describes how a buyer uses that credit, typically to counterbalance emissions it has not yet accounted for. The credit itself does not change type based on how it's claimed.

Which type of carbon credit—reduction, removal, or avoidance—is highest quality? 

No single type is inherently highest quality. Each project, regardless of type, is verified against a defined baseline. Quality depends on how rigorously that specific baseline was set and how well the project meets other quality criteria. Removal credits from engineered sources have the most straightforward baseline (zero), and avoidance credits carry the most baseline uncertainty by design, but these are only one determinant of credit quality.

Do carbon removal credits automatically meet the ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles? 

No. The ICVCM assesses methodologies and programs, not individual projects. If a project uses a methodology that is eligible for the CCP label, this can be a useful floor but is not a guarantee of high quality.

How does SBTi's near-term removal mandate change which credits I should buy now?

SBTi's finalized Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 doesn't require removal purchases until 2035, but it sets the ramp now (i.e., 1% of scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions in 2035, scaling to 100% by the net-zero year). This means the highest-durability removal supply that is scarcest and most in demand today is the same supply that many companies will need later. The SBTi guidelines are still changing, so buyers and project developers must track them closely.

Key Takeaways

• What's happening: The voluntary carbon market (VCM) stalled in 2025, with carbon credit retirements falling 7% despite a 227% surge in corporate climate commitments.
• Why it matters: Over 80% of high-durability carbon removal capacity is at risk of not being realized without additional offtake.
• The implication: For corporate buyers with 2030 climate targets, early movers will define market standards and secure the supply they need, while those who wait risk volatility and constrained access to high-quality credits.

Why the Voluntary Carbon Market Needs Action Now

The voluntary carbon market stands at a crossroads. Credit retirements in 2025 fell far below the billion-tonne-scale projections from earlier in the decade. There is a widening gulf between climate ambition and market action.

The VCM transacts credits that avoid, reduce, or remove emissions. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR), the process of removing and durably storing atmospheric CO₂, remains a small but critical segment, accounting for 5% of credits retired. Limiting overshoot of 1.5°C requires a rapid scale-up of CDR.

However, most organizations with 2030 climate goals have yet to engage in CDR procurement. Without clear market signals today, CDR supply will falter. What's missing isn't capability or knowledge, but the commitment to act. Early movers will define the market in its early stages, while latecomers may face volatility and uncertain supply.

Our latest analysis reveals both troubling trends and clear pathways forward for CDR buyers ready to move from commitment to execution.

[cta]

Five Years of Stagnation: The VCM Falls Short of Projections

For five consecutive years, muted growth and persistent oversupply of poor-quality credits have defined the market. In 2025, credit retirements—a proxy for spot-market demand—reached 157 million metric tonnes (Mt), down 7% from 2024.

This incremental growth is far below what market analysts anticipated earlier in the decade, when several projections expected demand to exceed 1 billion tonnes by 2030. 

VCM Credit Trends: Concentrated in Avoidance and Reduction

The VCM has historically been concentrated in avoidance and reduction carbon projects,  largely dominated by REDD+, renewable energy,  and cookstove credits. 2025 marks the first year a new credit type has dominated, though: projects that reduce emissions of superpollutants now make up roughly 20% of all credits issued in the VCM. Superpollutant issuances increased by about 180% between 2020 and 2025, while retirements grew by roughly 150%.

CDR Remains a Small but Critical VCM Segment 

In 2025, CDR credits accounted for only 5% of 2025 retirements, but have a more active forward offtake market—where buyers commit today to purchase credits that will be delivered in the future, providing crucial early-stage financing for projects.

Within the CDR category, high-quality credits are still hard to find. Applying our Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal, we find that less than 10% of the CDR projects we review meet our high-quality threshold with minimal reservations.

Nature-Based CDR Dominates the Spot Market

Of the all CDR credits issued in the VCM in 2025, 95% originated from nature-based CDR pathways, while 5% represented high-durability CDR pathways such as biochar or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). This distribution reflects the mature role that nature-based CDR projects continue to play in the market, alongside the early stage of durable CDR deployment.

Within nature-based credits, supply and demand dynamics differed significantly between afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation (ARR) and improved forest management (IFM). 

• For ARR credits, issuances and retirements have tracked closely at a roughly 1:1 ratio, with issuances remaining flat at around 7–8 Mt annually over the past four years, leaving little inventory available for spot purchasing. 
• IFM credits, by contrast, have grown 2.5-fold since 2023, making them one of the largest sources of growth within nature-based credits, though high-quality CDR credits from IFM are in much lower supply.

For buyers, this means ARR credits are increasingly difficult to source on the spot market, while IFM credits are more readily available—though careful diligence is needed to identify high-quality projects.

Nature-based offtakes and commitments have expanded in recent years, with more than 90 Mt of future delivery now contracted or committed. The vast majority of these commitments are concentrated in ARR projects, highlighting both the supply constraints facing ARR today and buyers' foresight in securing the supply they will need in the near future.

High-Durability CDR Is Almost Entirely Forward-Looking

The spot market for high-durability CDR credits represents only 0.3% of activity in the VCM, but important dynamics are beginning to emerge as more high-durability CDR technologies reach the market.

From 2021 to 2025, roughly 80% of high-durability issuances and retirements came from biochar and geologic storage. However, the emergence of large-scale geologic CDR projects is beginning to shift the balance, with individual projects capable of delivering hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually. Early-stage methodologies such as enhanced rock weathering (ERW) and ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) issued their first credits in 2025, totaling roughly 12,000 tonnes.

While the spot market for high-durability CDR is growing and diversifying, forward offtake agreements continue to define the landscape. The ratio of high-durability spot retirements to volumes committed through forward offtake is 1:70—meaning for every tonne retired today, 70 tonnes have been committed for future delivery.

Forward Offtake Commitments Are Rising Across CDR Pathways

To date, forward offtake agreements, advanced market commitments (AMC), and large contracted deals with intermediaries cover more than 40 Mt of high-durability CDR, in addition to over 90 Mt of nature-based CDR. These cumulative volumes highlight the increasingly central role of forward purchasing in shaping future supply, particularly for capital-intensive, high-durability pathways. 

However, the success of forward offtake strategies depends critically on careful due diligence. Without a rigorous assessment of technological readiness, project viability, and delivery risks, forward commitments risk financing projects that fail to deliver, undermining both individual investments and broader market confidence.

Market Concentration of Forward Offtake Remains High

A small group of companies continues to drive the majority of forward offtake activity. In 2025, Microsoft remained the clear market leader, accounting for roughly 60% of contracted nature-based CDR offtakes and more than 80% of high-durability offtakes with a named buyer announced to date. Other active buyers—including Google, JPMorgan Chase, Equinor, and Amazon—have expanded their commitments, but overall market concentration remains high.

This concentration reveals both opportunity and risk: while anchor buyers are proving the market model works, broader participation is needed to unlock the full scale of CDR deployment required.

Growing Gap Between Climate Ambition and Market Action

Corporate climate targets anchor most current VCM activity: All of the top-10 buyers in the market today participate based on either self-declared commitments or net-zero commitments aligned with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

Demand forecasts based on these future commitments project that total CDR demand could reach 46-110 Mt by 2030, a ~6-14x growth from today. Yet, how companies decide to implement their targets will ultimately affect the composition of CDR demand within the VCM.

Rather than relying solely on public commitments, we analyzed the behavior of companies that are actively purchasing CDR today. Should today's top buyers follow through on their stated CDR commitments, CDR demand could reach a minimum of 28 Mt by 2030, with 6.5 Mt of demand for high-durability CDR.

However, the discrepancy between observed demand and target-led scenarios shows a persistent gap between what companies say and what they do. SBTi reported a 227% surge in companies setting both near-term and net-zero targets in the 18 months leading up to mid-2025, while carbon credit retirements in the VCM fell 7% in 2025. 

Shifting from intention to execution will ultimately determine whether the VCM evolves into a durable, functioning marketplace or stalls short of the scale required for credible, net-zero pathways.

Rising Trends of Greenhushing and Anonymity Obscure CDR Demand

In the broader VCM, 55% of tonnes retired on the spot market over the past three years have been anonymous, and that fraction has been increasing. A similar trend is true of high-durability CDR: nearly 40% of all offtake transactions made in 2025 did not disclose the participating buyer. This buyer behaviour could reflect the often-discussed greenhushing phenomenon.

When anonymous actors dominate, it becomes harder to track demand signals, verify corporate progress, and establish clear integrity benchmarks. This opacity creates systemic risk for the entire market.

Market Growth Tipping Points on the Horizon

Several pivotal events on the horizon could mitigate risk and unlock project development, tipping buyers into action after half a decade of limited market growth:

• Voluntary demand: SBTi's  Corporate Net Zero Standard V2.0, published in June 2026, confirms credits still can’t count toward scope 1-3 targets, but introduces a voluntary recognition program starting in 2027 and mandatory removal purchasing for large companies from 2035, starting at 1% of footprint. 
• Compliance demand: The UK's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) Authority has already committed to integrating carbon removals into the UK ETS by 2028 via an auction model. This is the first confirmed large-scale compliance pathway for CDR credits, though credit-type eligibility is still being worked out.
• Regulatory support: Publication of Article 6.4 methodologies under the Paris Agreement and loosening of CORSIA credit supply bottlenecks could expand eligible supply and boost buyer confidence.

These tipping points in policies, standards, and market structures are advancing with clear timelines, creating conditions to move CDR procurement from hesitation to activation.

CDR Supply Faces Critical Challenges

While buyer inaction poses one threat to market growth, the supply side faces its own critical challenges.

30%–220% More Investment Is Needed in Nature-Based CDR Supply

Nature-based CDR would require a 30%–220% increase in finance to support current corporate targets. Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) has identified US$18 billion in publicly committed funds for nature-based CDR announced from 2018 to 2025. If deployed immediately to generate high-quality CDR, this level of funding could translate into up to 32 Mt per year by 2030 and 290 Mt cumulatively through 2040.

This is sufficient to meet the conservative 28 Mt demand floor from today's active buyers—but falls well short of what would be needed if even a fraction of companies with 2030 targets begin executing on their stated commitments.

80% of High-Durability CDR Projects Are at Risk

The situation is more acute for high-durability CDR. We estimate that over 80% of the total 2030 credit supply pipeline is at risk, due to insufficient project offtake and financing agreements.

Without increased offtake and financing support, we expect that the landscape for capital-intensive, high-durability CDR may consolidate

CDR Buyers Will Determine Which Projects Get Built

The supply-side ecosystem features a sufficient number of high-quality CDR suppliers with the potential to scale. These suppliers face purchasing behavior insufficient to meet buyers' own stated climate goals. In this environment, every CDR procurement decision matters. Companies that delay procurement risk missing their own climate targets while also ceding competitive advantage to early movers who secure the limited supply of high-quality credits. 

Five Actions to Strengthen the CDR Market

Buyers and investors can play a critical role in reducing project risk and strengthening the CDR market. Our full report details five essential actions:

1. Use purchasing power wisely
2. Prioritize project diligence
3. Construct bankable contracts
4. Support market data transparency and CDR goals
5. Undertake project assurance

Each action addresses specific market failures and, when implemented strategically, can significantly improve the likelihood that high-quality CDR projects reach operation and deliver credits as contracted.

With 2030 only four years away, the window for action is rapidly closing. Early movers will secure supply and define market standards, while those who wait risk entering a crowded market with limited access to high-quality credits and escalating prices.

[cta]

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the voluntary carbon market stall in 2025 despite rising corporate climate commitments?

Retirements fell 7% even as SBTi reported a 227% surge in companies setting near-term and net-zero targets. The gap reflects that most companies with 2030 goals haven't yet moved from setting targets to actually procuring credits.

Is carbon dioxide removal a proven market today, or still emerging?

CDR remains a small segment—about 5% of 2025 retirements—but it has an unusually active forward market, with buyers committing today to volumes delivered years from now. High-durability pathways like biochar and geologic storage are still early-stage relative to nature-based credits.

How does the new SBTi Net-Zero Standard affect corporate carbon credit strategy?

Under the new SBTi Net-Zero Standard, credits still can't be counted toward scope 1, 2, or 3 targets. But it introduces a voluntary recognition program starting in 2027, and requires large companies to begin purchasing carbon removals from 2035, starting at 1% of their footprint.

What should CDR buyers prioritize given current market conditions?

Given how concentrated forward offtake activity is today, buyers should prioritize rigorous project diligence and bankable contract structures over simply committing volume—the 2026 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report details five recommended actions in more depth.

Key Takeaways

• The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol’s Actions and Market Instruments (AMI) proposal would formally recognize market-based instruments across emissions scopes for the first time, within Statement 2.
• The proposal substantially expands opportunities for companies to report lower emissions from purchasing market-based instruments for low-carbon fuels (LCF), such as book-and-claim environmental attribute certificates (EACs) for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and renewable natural gas (RNG).
• Companies purchasing or already holding market-based instruments for SAF, RNG, and other low-carbon fuels should begin mapping those instruments to the AMI’s proposed reporting structure now, before the standard is finalized.

The Current Reporting Problem With Low-Carbon Fuels

A low-carbon fuel is defined as a fuel whose lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are lower than those of a relevant, use-case-specific fossil fuel baseline. Most LCFs used today are created from biogenic sources like agricultural residues, used cooking oil, or landfill gas, and their use often results in reduced GHG emissions due to the fact that the CO₂ they release during use is biogenic and not fossil.

Consumers of LCFs face a reportability problem. Many buyers track LCF purchases through market-based instruments such as book-and-claim and mass balance EACs. These instruments unbundle environmental claims from physical molecules to facilitate investment in LCFs when direct provision of the molecule is infeasible. However, the current GHG Protocol only permits the use of market-based tools for electricity-based emissions. 

Currently, companies cannot recognize the emissions benefit of an LCF purchase unless they physically receive and combust the fuel. Given that sustainable aviation fuel, renewable natural gas, and other LCFs typically flow into shared pipeline and distribution infrastructure rather than being delivered to buyers as distinct physical molecules, direct delivery is often not achievable in practice. This limitation constrains demand growth in the voluntary market.

The value of LCFs to voluntary buyers is the sustainability claim attached to the molecule, not the molecule itself. Without a credible reporting framework for market-based instruments, buyers struggle to justify LCF procurement. Producers, in turn, may face a market where buyer reluctance limits commercial opportunities for scale-up. Non-reportability inhibits one of the few available levers to incentivize voluntary investment in climate solutions.

[cta]

How Does the AMI Proposal Address Non-Reportability?

The Actions and Market Instruments (AMI) proposal introduces a four-statement reporting framework, with all four statements relevant to elements of LCFs. Together, these statements give organizations across the LCF value chain a standardized way to account for LCF procurements in their sustainability reports, whether those procurements are physical or through market-based instruments.

• Statement 1 covers the physical GHG inventory and is the traditional GHG Protocol inventory as it exists today. Companies that physically receive and combust LCFs recognize the lower GHG emissions here.
• Statement 2 proposes a market-based GHG inventory for all emissions scopes. For the first time, this will allow companies to report the carbon intensities of book-and-claim and mass balance EACs for LCFs within a GHG Protocol-aligned inventory. This is a shift from the current framework, which relegates market-based instruments for LCFs and other products, along with carbon credits, to a supplemental section outside of the core emissions inventory. By bringing these purchases into the inventory itself, Statement 2 puts market-based LCF claims on a more equal footing with the emissions companies already report.
• Statement 3 covers beyond value chain interventions as well as GHG emissions reductions/avoidance reported relative to a baseline counterfactual (e.g., the domain of carbon credits). Avoided methane emissions upstream from RNG use is one LCF-relevant example that might live here. 
• Statement 4 captures non-GHG indicators and could include things such as the quantity of an LCF procured or produced. This rounds out the story an organization tells about how LCFs fit within their operations and value chain.

How the AMI Proposal Applies to Specific Fuel Types

Two important LCFs are impacted by the current GHG Protocol guidance and offer an example of the significance of the AMI proposal. 

1. SAF is a biobased or synthetic drop-in substitute for conventional jet fuel. 
2. RNG, generally produced from organic wastes, is a drop-in substitute for conventional natural gas. 

Both are typically delivered through existing infrastructure. SAF is typically blended into a common fuel supply. RNG is often injected into the broader gas network. The buyer typically does not have a direct physical link to the molecule’s consumption, but rather an indirect claim on molecules injected into a common system.

Current GHG Protocol guidance disallows using and reporting market-based LCF emissions factors within corporate scope inventories. If finalized as proposed, the AMI proposal’s Statement 2 would open the aperture for companies to report the lower emissions from purchasing SAF or RNG market-based instruments. Here’s how that might work.

SAF: Reporting Across the Value Chain

When an airline physically receives and burns SAF in its aircraft, the lower combustion emissions are reflected in its Statement 1, scope 1 emissions inventory. This is reported the same way as conventional jet fuel.

The picture changes when airlines use market-based instruments. Many airlines purchase scope 1 SAF certificates that are decoupled from the physical fuel and tracked via book-and-claim or mass balance EACs. Under the AMI proposal, the lower emissions factors of these instrument purchases would be reflected in an airline’s Statement 2, scope 1 emissions inventory.

Corporate buyers face a parallel situation. Companies that purchase scope 3 EACs from SAF suppliers or through airline programs to address employee travel would reflect these lower emissions factors in their Statement 2, scope 3, category 6 emissions. Legitimate Statement 2 claims provide additional incentive for corporate climate action to address travel emissions.

RNG: Reporting Across the Value Chain

As with SAF, an organization that physically receives and combusts RNG can reflect the lower emissions in its Statement 1, scope 1 emissions inventory. 

More often, RNG is injected into the shared gas network and claimed by users through book-and-claim or mass balance certificates rather than physical delivery. Statement 2 introduces a reporting opportunity for RNG EAC purchasers to report lower scope 1 emissions. Lower emissions from RNG consumption could also be passed through as reduced scope 3 emissions for consumers of products associated with RNG consumption.

RNG carries an additional nuance. Some RNG projects may also claim to have avoided methane emissions (e.g., dairy manure methane emissions avoided by way of diversion to RNG). This type of methane avoidance attribute, typically tracked in the realm of carbon credits, would have a home within Statement 3, subject to additional disclosure requirements. Companies evaluating RNG certificates should understand which claims belong in which statement.

Application to Other LCFs and Market-Based Instruments

While SAF and RNG are two of the more prominent examples, the AMI proposal is relevant to all LCFs including renewable diesel and marine fuels. The emissions associated with market-based instrument purchases for these fuels would belong in Statement 2.

The proposed framework may also cover market-based instruments aimed at lower emissions conventional fuels, e.g., natural gas production that has taken measures to reduce fugitive methane emissions far below industry averages. Companies purchasing certificates of this type would theoretically report the reduced upstream natural gas emissions rates in Statement 2, scope 3, category 3.

Three Steps Companies Can Take Now to Prepare 

The AMI proposal is still in development. A public request for information on the initial white paper recently closed. A draft standard is in development, with a formal public consultation planned in Q3 2027. Companies that act early will be better positioned when the standard takes effect. Steps will vary depending on where in the fuels value chain an organization sits, but could include:

1. Map exposure. Identify where the organization sits in the LCFs value chain and what fuels it is currently procuring and consuming. This will help to better understand where the largest fuels-related emissions hot spots are in the current GHG inventory.
2. Record current instruments and assess quality. Catalog the instruments the company is currently producing or procuring. Understand where these instruments may sit within the AMI’s proposed four-statement framework and assess their quality against emerging eligibility criteria.
3. Engage with the process. The GHG Protocol is still defining eligibility and quality criteria for LCF instruments. Organizations can monitor interim developments from the AMI Technical Working Group. Companies with active programs have a real stake in how those criteria are written.

Frequently Asked Questions

How would the AMI proposal change the way low-carbon fuels get reported?

The core shift is the introduction of Statement 2, a new market-based GHG inventory. For the first time, companies would be able to report the lower emissions from purchasing market-based LCF instruments, including book-and-claim and mass balance EACs, within a GHG Protocol-aligned inventory. This applies to all LCFs, including SAF and RNG, and can be reflected in scope 1 or scope 3 inventories depending on where the organization sits in the LCF value chain.

Is the AMI proposal finalized, and what should companies do now?

No, the proposal is still in development. A public request for information on the initial white paper recently closed. A draft standard is in development, with a formal public consultation planned in Q3 2027. In the meantime, companies holding SAF, RNG, or other LCF instruments should map their exposure across the value chain, catalog existing instruments against the proposed four-statement framework, assess quality against emerging eligibility criteria, and monitor GHG Protocol AMI updates.

‍What should a company look for when evaluating a SAF or RNG certificate?

Buyers should confirm which claim a certificate actually conveys and where it would sit in the AMI’s proposed framework. For example, a lower-emissions carbon intensity claim belongs in Statement 2 whereas an avoided-methane claim falls under Statement 3. Buyers should also assess the instrument against the AMI's emerging eligibility and quality criteria to reduce the risk that a purchase won't qualify under the final standard. Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) has published a comprehensive set of criteria for high-quality low-carbon fuels that buyers can use as a starting point, until AMI’s eligibility and quality criteria are finalized.

Key Takeaways

• Emissions cuts alone are not happening fast enough to meet global climate goals. Direct air capture (DAC) removes carbon dioxide (CO₂) that is already in the atmosphere. It has become one of the fastest-growing carbon removal approaches even as it stays capital-intensive.
• DAC's core advantage is flexibility. Because the atmosphere fully mixes within about two weeks, a DAC facility can be sited almost anywhere with clean power and CO₂ storage and still deliver the same climate benefit.
• DAC investment has grown to roughly US$2.2 billion across 37 specialized companies since 2021. Per-tonne costs (currently US$500–1,000 or more) remain the technology's central barrier to scale.
• US federal support for DAC is still unsettled. The US Department of Energy cut its regional DAC hub program from a planned US$3.5 billion to roughly US$1.2 billion between October 2025 and April 2026. This is a signal that deployment funding, not the underlying science, is DAC's biggest near-term risk.

What Is Direct Air Capture?

Direct air capture (DAC) works by sucking in air, filtering it to remove CO₂ that has built up over time and still sits in the atmosphere. To be effective, DAC must draw a lot of air into separating equipment like filter banks or cooling towers. This is similar to the small-scale systems that have scrubbed CO₂ from air in spacecraft and submarines for decades. From there, CO₂ filtering typically involves a chemical process that binds the CO₂ for release later. While the most commonly used chemical compounds in this process are liquid solvents or solid sorbents, other chemical, electrical, and physical processes could also work.

After the filtering process, the captured CO₂ is usually stored in one of two ways. The most important is geological storage, which keeps CO₂ out of the air and oceans indefinitely in deep geological formations (typically a mile down or more) and offers the clearest climate benefits. The second is storing the CO₂ in products like concrete, which offers clearer commercial benefits. A new generation of mineralization projects is expanding this second pathway, turning captured CO₂ into building materials rather than only storing it underground. In addition, CO₂ can be recycled into fuels and chemicals, which prevents net-new CO₂ from being released but does not count as a carbon removal solution since these materials are eventually used, releasing the captured CO₂ back to the atmosphere.

The Advantages of Direct Air Capture

DAC has many advantages as a CO₂ removal approach. First and foremost, it's scalable. In effect, there are no practical limits to our ability to scrub CO₂ from the sky or store it in deep geological formations around the world. This means scaling can be fast and removals profound.

It's straightforward. The devices remove CO₂ from the air, a meter measures it, and operators store and monitor that CO₂. It's clearly additional (meaning it only happens with financial and human intervention), easily verified, and durable (stored for many hundreds of years or more), meeting the bar set by our own Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal.

It has a small physical footprint. Typical DACe systems do the carbon removal work of trees with 1,000–2,000 times less space. This leaves more room for conservation, agriculture, rewilding, and other important work.

It can be done anywhere with low-carbon energy and CO₂ storage options. Globally, our atmosphere mixes fully every two weeks, meaning that CO₂ released in China or Australia arrives over the US (and vice versa) in this amount of time. Because of this, DAC facilities can be sited anywhere and still have a climate benefit—as long as there is sufficient clean energy available and options for CO₂ storage or use are nearby. This reduces competition for land and provides opportunities for economic development in regions with the right resources.

Finally, and most critically, DAC is a backstop technology. While reducing emissions remains the top priority, there are certain types of emissions that are either very hard or very expensive to abate. The last fraction of hard-to-abate emissions can be managed through DAC, effectively capping global costs to reach net-zero emissions. In fact, the more rapidly DAC scales and deploys, the less total energy and cost are needed to achieve key climate goals.

Challenges and Concerns of Direct Air Capture

Like all climate mitigation approaches, DAC has challenges. The primary challenge today is cost. Today's large-scale systems cost roughly US$500–1,000 or more per tonne of CO₂ removed, depending on the technology and site, though several developers are targeting US$100–150 per tonne over the next 10 years. Although the costs will come down over time through deployment and wider adoption, today's high costs are a barrier to investment and deployment.

Another challenge is around the energy requirements associated with DAC. Pulling one million tonnes per year of CO₂ out of the air requires roughly 200–300 megawatts of zero-carbon energy (a combination of heat and electricity). Given the limited supply of zero-carbon energy available today, there is a valid question about whether this is the best use of that resource today.

Finally, there is the question of environmental risks and community burdens of DAC. Experience to date suggests that the total environmental burdens and consequences of this pathway are among the lowest of any clean energy and climate technology. But since DAC systems involve heavy equipment and chemicals, questions about the full environmental risks and burdens to communities remain, especially given its limited commercial deployment. Although most DAC systems will be sited in remote locations, not near communities, and pose no serious environmental risks, reasonable concerns must be addressed before permitting and building future DAC projects.

Why the Excitement Now?

Although current climate science and added urgency from organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have driven interest in DAC, other important advances have fed broad interest and excitement about its potential. Since 2017, DAC technology has matured greatly, including the deployment and operation of many projects around the world. Costs have dropped, new pathways have opened, and private investment in DAC-specific companies has reached roughly US$2.2 billion across 37 companies since 2021. 

Two large facilities illustrate where deployment stands today. Climeworks' Mammoth plant in Iceland has been operating since May 2024, although not at full capacity. Occidental's Stratos plant in Texas remains delayed past its most recent 2026 second quarter target due to a component issue, with no confirmed new startup date as of this writing. Both facilities carry substantial commercial offtake agreements from aviation, energy, insurance, and tech companies, agreements that continue to hold even as construction timelines have slipped.

In part, interest results from new policy advancements. In the US, the Inflation Reduction Act's 45Q tax credit, maintained under the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, currently provides US$180 per tonne for DAC paired with dedicated geologic storage, with added parity for utilized CO₂. The Department of Energy's Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs program, originally planned at US$3.5 billion, was cut back sharply in an October 2025 review. It was then partially restored in April 2026 when the Department of Energy confirmed its two flagship projects, Project Cypress in Louisiana and the South Texas DAC Hub, would proceed. The program's total is now expected to be near US$1.2 billion. In addition, California has amended its Low-Carbon Fuel Standard to allow DAC as a compliance mechanism, and the US Department of Energy has explored a pilot program to purchase valid, durable carbon dioxide removal, including DAC. Recently, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act was introduced to Congress, which would require the Secretary of Energy to remove CO₂ directly from ambient air or seawater.

Other programs around the world reflect this growing interest. In the UK and EU, governments have promised CO₂ removal purchases this decade, which will likely include DAC. Research programs have begun in Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan, and China. Developing nations increasingly see DAC as a potential new industry and hope to take advantage of their natural resources to expand energy access while being paid to remove CO₂ from the air and oceans.

The Future of Direct Air Capture

I'm pleased to have played a small role in DAC's new prominence. I've had the good fortune of being at DAC project groundbreakings and ribbon cuttings, led the first-ever government grants program for DAC, worked with scientists to develop new DAC technologies, published analysis over a decade ago on the need for DAC, and testified before the US Congress on the benefits and needs of DAC on three separate occasions. Based on my experience in DAC over the last 16 years, I believe that smart investment, policy, deployment, and community engagement will convert the promise of DAC into thousands of projects. These projects will help avoid the worst outcomes of climate change and restore some natural balance to the world. With federal support now concentrated on fewer, better-resourced flagship projects, rather than spread across two dozen early-stage hubs, the DAC field is being pushed toward fewer high-profile delays and more repeatable, bankable deployments.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does direct air capture differ from capturing carbon at an industrial site? 

Industrial, or point-source, capture removes CO₂ at a smokestack, where concentrations are high. Direct air capture removes CO₂ that is already spread throughout the open atmosphere. DAC facilities can operate almost anywhere with available clean power and storage, not only next to a specific emitter.

Is direct air capture actually operating today, or is it still experimental? 

Direct air capture is operating today; it is not just experimental. Climeworks' Mammoth plant in Iceland has been running since May 2024, and dozens of smaller facilities are active worldwide. However, the largest US projects, including Occidental's Stratos plant in Texas, are still working through startup delays. Once it begins operating, DAC will be fully commercial, although limited in deployment.

How much does it cost to remove one tonne of CO₂ with direct air capture? 

Current large-scale direct air capture systems cost roughly US$500–1,000 or more per tonne of CO₂ removed, depending on the technology and facility site. Several developers are targeting costs of US$100–150 per tonne later this decade, though that has not yet been demonstrated at commercial scale and is likely to take 10 years or more to achieve

Does using direct air capture reduce the need to cut emissions? 

No. Direct air capture is a backstop for emissions that are difficult or costly to eliminate outright, not a substitute for cutting emissions in the first place. Reducing emissions remains a priority; DAC addresses both what is left over (residual emissions) and what’s already in the air and oceans.

Coming Soon

New insights are on the way. Our blog is launching soon—stay tuned!