Oxford, 02 June 2026: The 3rd Edition of the State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report finds that national pledges fall short of pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C this century by more than 5 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year by 2050. Closing this gap would require carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to grow at rates comparable to, or faster than, the most rapid clean energy transitions in history, including solar power and electric vehicles.
Cutting emissions remains the first and most important priority for tackling climate change. Most progress in limiting warming will come from reducing emissions, while CDR will help address emissions that are hardest to eliminate. However, for as long as any emissions continue, CDR will be needed to halt the rise in global temperature. Delaying emissions cuts by a decade, for example, would warm the planet by about 0.15°C and increase the need for CDR later this century.
Today, the world removes about 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere each year, almost all of it through land-based actions such as restoring forests. Novel technologies that use machines or minerals to lock away carbon only account for around 0.1% of total removals – but have been growing at 40% per year. At the same time, activity behind the scenes is also growing; research funding, trial projects and startups focused on CDR have all increased, and investment in CDR now makes up around 3% of overall investment in climate tech, rebounding last year even as wider climate investment has slowed.
Despite this momentum, the authors warn that today’s CDR system is fragile. In recent years, only about 20% of planned novel CDR capacity has actually been delivered, highlighting how challenging it is to bring new projects forward into operation. Dr Morgan Edwards, Lead Author and Assistant Professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison said, “Growing investment in CDR will depend on expectations of future demand, but those expectations are fragile. Activity is highly concentrated in a small number of countries and approaches. That creates real vulnerability – local changes in policy or market signals risk slowing progress globally”.
The report also makes clear that there is no single solution. It looks at a wide range of ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, with estimated costs ranging from under $10 to over $1,000 per tonne of CO₂, with conservative estimates for potentials for most methods around 1 billion tonnes a year. However, uncertainties remain about how much each option can really deliver sustainably and affordably, and how people will react to projects in their regions. Most people know little about CDR, and whether they accept it will depend on its impacts on who shares in the benefits.
The authors identify the time until 2030 as a decisive window. Edwards added, “Novel CDR approaches are growing quickly but need to grow even faster significantly, while proving that they can reliably lock away carbon and provide clear benefits beyond climate, healthier soils or economic opportunities.”
Steve Smith, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, said “The rapid growth of CDR technologies has been notable progress. Many projects are marketing wider environmental benefits and co-products in addition to climate benefits. This partly reflects opportunities for multiple wins, and partly reflects the scarce financial rewards available for the public good of cleaning up CO2 from the air.”
Without faster cuts in emissions and stronger, more predictable demand for high-quality CDR, the gap between where we are and where we need to be will keep widening, making climate targets much harder and more expensive to achieve.
About The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal
The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal (SoCDR) is the first independent global assessment of CDR, convened by experts at 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 tracks progress, identifies gaps, and provides clear insights to inform action through evidence. Learn more at www.stateofcdr.org.
Note to Editors: Authors are available for interview, please contact: Neha Soni-Pinto, Communications Lead, neha.soni-pinto@smithschool.ox.ac.uk | +44 7867236630
Defining CDR
CDR involves capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it durably on land, in the ocean, in geological formations or in products. Examples include reforestation, biochar, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). Some means of storage are longer-lasting and less vulnerable to reversal than others.
CDR vs CCS
CDR is not the same thing as carbon capture and storage (CCS). To count as CDR, a method must capture CO2 from the atmosphere. While some CDR methods such as BECCS and DACCS will use the same CO2 transport and storage infrastructure as CCS, CCS usually refers to a set of industrial methods for the capture of CO2 from fossil sources.
Supplementary comments from authors
Oliver Geden, German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) said “Stabilising global temperature requires bringing CO2 emissions down to net zero, and this is impossible without CDR. Furthermore, once warming exceeds 1.5°C, bringing the global temperature back down will mean removing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than we emit, by achieving net-negative emissions to rebalance the global carbon budget.
William Lamb, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said “Countries have pledged around 2.7 billion tonnes of carbon removal by 2035 and about 3.6 billion by 2050, but climate pathways require much more, especially in the long term. This leaves a gap that grows significantly over time. Most pledges rely on forests and land, with newer technologies playing only a small role. Delays in cutting emissions would make this gap even larger.”
Greg Nemet, La Follette School of Public Affairs at UW Madison, said, “Around $5.7 billion has been committed globally to CDR research and early-stage projects since 2019, and over 40 pilot projects are now underway. But progress on the ground is slower than expected, with only about 20% of planned capacity delivered so far. Recent policy shifts, including the cancellation of more than $3 billion in US projects, show how quickly momentum can stall without stable, long-term support.”
Jan Minx, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said, “Research in CDR is growing quickly, with publications increasing by around 15% a year in recent years and funding rising fast. But progress is uneven – high-value patenting has declined, especially for technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture storage (BECCS). To meet climate goals, we need stronger and more consistent support for innovation across a wide range of approaches.”
Matthew J. Gidden, Center for Global Sustainability, University of Maryland, said “Every ambitious climate pathway we assessed combines massive emissions cuts with CDR to limit warming well below 2°C. While reducing emissions solves most of the problem, CDR is needed at gigatonne scale to get us to net zero. That means novel and conventional CDR must scale by multiple gigatonnes globally over decades, at rates matching the fastest energy transitions like solar. But real-world delays, uneven global action or climate surprises could demand even more, proactive deployment now is our best hedge against those risks.”
Candelaria Bergero, La Follette School of Public Affairs at UW Madison, said “Every credible climate pathway we looked at includes CDR alongside deep emissions cuts, reaching billions of tonnes per year by mid-century. But these pathways assume immediate policy action – in the real world, delays would mean we need even more CDR, not less.”
Carley Reynolds, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said “What we see is a clear and growing mismatch between what countries are aiming for and what’s needed to meet climate goals. Today the gap is relatively small, but by mid-century it becomes very large. That gap widens further if action is delayed, meaning we would have to rely much more heavily on large-scale CDR later on.”
Franklyn Kanyako, La Follette School of Public Affairs at UW Madison, said “Dozens of pilot projects are now up and running, but real-world delivery is still lagging behind expectations. So far, only about 20% of planned capacity has been built, showing how challenging it is to move from announcements to actual projects on the ground.”
Friedemann Gruner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said “CDR methods vary widely in estimated potential and cost, from under 1 billion tonnes a year and below $100 per tonne for some conventional methods, up to tens of billion tonnes and potentially over $1,000 per tonne for some more novel methods. Cheaper methods like reforestation are often associated with co‑benefits for nature and food security, but scaling any approach requires managing trade‑offs around land, water and energy use. Across methods, uncertainties about both costs and potentials are high, reflecting the still evolving scientific understanding of the scalability of different methods. We urgently need more research to narrow these uncertainties and guide smart investment.”
Kirsty Harrington, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, said, “Today, around 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ are removed each year, almost all of it through forests and land use. Newer novel CDR technologies are growing quickly, but they are still tiny in comparison, about a thousand times smaller. As these approaches scale up, it’s important we carefully measure how much carbon is actually removed to ensure real climate benefits.”
Leona Tenkhoff, German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) said, “More than 100 countries have set net-zero targets, but very few have clear plans for how CDR will be realised and scaled. Most policies focus on funding projects rather than creating real demand, which makes progress uncertain. How CDR grows next will depend on more stable and predictable policy support.”
Sabine Fuss, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said: "We cannot rely on a single CDR method to close the gap. Conservative estimates for removal potentials from different methods are around 1 billion tons of CO₂ per year. A diverse portfolio of CDR methods, with different approaches tailored for different contexts and geographies, would help to preserve flexibility, reduce costs, and maximise sustainability benefits."
Supplementary comments from other voices in CDR
Aaran Patel, Advisory Board, The State of CDR said, “Cutting across science, policy, perception and practice, the State of CDR is the authoritative voice on the nascent but vital removals sector. Amongst other themes, the third edition brings a greater focus to the potential agronomic co-benefits of removal pathways like biochar and enhanced rock weathering. From boosting soil health and yields to increasing farmer incomes, if done right, these removals could also increase resilience and open new channels of finance for countries like India in the Global South.”
Article Title
State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report
Article Publication Date
2-Jun-2026
