Over the past year, many of us have felt the carbon removal sector shifting—less hype, more scrutiny, and far harder questions about scale, integrity, and who ultimately pays. This piece captures that transition with unusual clarity and is well worth a few minutes of your time.

The carbon removal sector has entered its first serious test.

In a detailed assessment for MIT Technology Review, James Temple charts the shift from exuberant expectations to a far more sobering phase of consolidation, policy dependence, and credibility risk.

The headline numbers are stark: after years of venture funding and corporate pledges, the industry has delivered less than one million tons of durable carbon removal—equivalent to just a few hours of US emissions.

The contrast between ambition and execution is now impossible to ignore. Hundreds of startups have emerged, but only a handful of buyers—most notably Microsoft—account for the vast majority of demand. Without those anchor purchasers, the market remains thin, fragile, and highly exposed to changing corporate priorities.

Temple’s core message is structural: voluntary corporate purchases will never be enough. At $300 per ton and above, scaling to the billions of tons required by mid-century implies trillions of dollars per year. That kind of deployment can only happen if governments step in—through emissions trading systems, aviation policy, tax credits, direct procurement, and regulation that forces polluters to pay.

Encouragingly, the policy architecture is beginning to take shape. The EU is considering integrating removals into its ETS. Japan, Canada, and aviation regulators are opening the door. The US 45Q tax credit remains one of the few durable support mechanisms still standing.

But the article also raises a warning that should resonate deeply with this community: carbon removal risks inheriting the credibility problems of offsets. Conflicts of interest in auditing, pressure to deliver volumes quickly, and weak community safeguards could undermine trust before the sector reaches meaningful scale. As Carbon180’s Noah McQueen puts it, “growth without integrity isn’t growth at all.”

Temple closes with a reframing that is both uncomfortable and necessary: carbon removal is not a market innovation problem—it is a waste management obligation. Historically high emitters should finance the infrastructure required to clean up the atmospheric legacy that will otherwise fall hardest on the Global South.

For IBI members, the implications are clear. The next phase of carbon removal will be shaped less by startups and more by standards, policy design, governance, and integrity frameworks. Biochar, BECCS, and other scalable pathways may benefit from this transition—but only if the sector earns trust, proves durability, and integrates responsibly into regulated systems.

Source: James Temple, “What’s next for carbon removal?”, MIT Technology Review, October 24, 2025.