These two keep getting mixed up. They should not.

Carbon removal and carbon capture sound similar. They are not interchangeable. When we blur them, we create confusion for buyers, policymakers, and communities. We also slow down good projects and make bad ones harder to challenge.

Let’s keep it simple.

Carbon removal takes CO₂ already in the air and stores it for the long term.

It lowers the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Carbon capture stops CO₂ before it gets released from a power plant or factory.

It reduces future emissions.

One reduces the stock of carbon already warming the planet.

The other manages the flow of new emissions.

That difference drives everything.

Why the distinction matters?

When everything gets called “carbon capture,” a few things happen fast.

• Carbon removal gets framed as fossil fuel support
• Legacy emissions disappear from the story
• Project risks get flattened
• Community trust erodes early

Carbon removal is not a single technology. It touches land, biomass, materials, labor, and governance. Calling it capture hides those choices and the accountability that comes with them.

Communities near projects notice this. They always do.

Carbon removal is not a free pass

Let’s be blunt.

Carbon removal does not excuse continued emissions.

Carbon capture does not solve climate change.

Neither replaces deep decarbonization.

Their roles are narrow and specific.

Carbon capture helps where emissions are hard to eliminate quickly.

Carbon removal deals with what is already in the atmosphere.

Only carbon removal enables net negative outcomes. That does not make it harmless. It makes it demanding. Precision matters.

The biochar lens

Biochar sits clearly on the carbon removal side of this line. When done well, it removes carbon from the atmosphere through biomass and stores it in a stable solid form.

Calling biochar “carbon capture” muddies its climate role and invites the wrong debate. The real questions for biochar are not about trapping emissions. They are about feedstock integrity, permanence, monitoring, land impacts, and who benefits locally.

Those questions deserve direct answers, not fuzzy labels.

A framing that works

Think in terms of stock and flow.

Carbon capture reduces the flow of new emissions.

Carbon removal reduces the stock already accumulated.

If the tub is already overflowing, slowing the tap helps. But draining the tub is the only way to lower the water level.

You need both. You cannot confuse them.

Why words shape outcomes

This is not a branding issue. It is a trust issue.

When language gets sloppy, communities hear spin. When spin shows up, resistance hardens. Often for good reason.

Clear language does not guarantee good projects.

But unclear language almost guarantees bad ones.

If carbon removal is going to scale with credibility, it has to stand on its own terms. What it does. What it does not do. Who decides. Who benefits.

Source and credit

This article draws on “The difference between carbon removal and carbon capture” by Team Carbon180, published July 29, 2024