The Bezos Earth Fund and RMI have released a roadmap outlining the necessary steps to scale technological greenhouse gas removal (GHGR) to 10 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) annually by 2050. As these technologies develop, the voluntary carbon market (VCM) is expected to play an increasingly critical role in driving demand and enabling large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR).
Recognizing the scope and complexity of this initiative, the roadmap addresses near-term milestones, policy development, market infrastructure, and key uncertainties that could impact progress toward global climate targets. These include:
1. Science and Technology:
Technological Uncertainty and Scaling Challenges
Scaling CDR technologies is highly dependent on continued innovation. While there is optimism regarding ongoing advancements, the pace of technological progress is unpredictable. R&D breakthroughs could significantly reduce costs and accelerate deployment, but there is also the risk of hitting developmental bottlenecks, slowing the pathway to scalability. Key enablers like MRV systems also face similar uncertainties, as accurate and scalable verification processes remain crucial for building trust in removals.
Pace of Development and Substitutes
The trajectory of technological CDR will also be influenced by how nature-based removals and other substitutes evolve. Nature-based solutions may divert investment from technological pathways, affecting the scale and speed of innovation. Additionally, if novel substitutes emerge, they could shift financial flows and redefine the landscape of carbon removals, altering the competitive balance between nature-based and engineered solutions. Accelerating early-stage scaling could lead to outsized positive impacts in the long-term, but managing investment tradeoffs and diverting funds from other initiatives will remain a key challenge.
Overshoot Considerations
While the roadmap does not extensively address climate overshoot, this remains a critical factor in shaping CDR deployment. As scientists increasingly warn of overshooting 1.5°C targets, there will likely be a greater emphasis on scaling removals to reverse temperature increases. Technology readiness and investment, especially soon, will have major implications for climate overshoot. Still, the proximity and uncertainty leading to those outcomes could make overshoot scenarios challenging to manage.
2. Socio-Behavioral and Communities:
Reactive Support Driven by Climate Events
As climate disasters, such as wildfires, floods, and extreme weather intensify, public pressure and economic losses could drive greater investment into CDR. Policymakers, often driven by immediate crises, may allocate more resources to CDR as reactive measures to address mounting climate risks. However, this reactive approach introduces unpredictability, as scaling efforts may come too late to avoid climate overshoot.
Social Factors and Community Engagement
The roadmap notes the increasing emphasis on social factors in deploying CDR technologies. Community resistance or acceptance will shape the scalability of local projects, and equity considerations could constrain where and how technologies are implemented. Early engagement with communities and transparent communication about the benefits and risks of CDR will be essential to avoid social pushback that could delay deployment.
3. Finance and Markets:
Role of Energy Companies and Corporate Buyers
While tech companies dominate CDR offtake agreements, energy companies like Occidental Petroleum are positioned to lead in scaling physical removals. Occidental Petroleum’s subsidiary, 1PointFive, is set to open the world’s largest DAC facility in 2025, capturing up to 500,000 tonnes of CO2 annually. This facility far exceeds the scale of Climeworks’ Mammoth plant, highlighting the outsized role energy companies can play in accelerating deployment by leveraging preexisting infrastructure and capabilities. 1PointFive anticipates removals of its new facility to cost between USD 400-500 per tonne, which shows steady progress in reducing DAC costs. However, the decline in costs may not be steep enough to reach the 2032 cost target of USD 100 set by the US DOE.
Voluntary and Compliance Market Expansion
Without strong government support, the VCM could bridge some of the funding gaps. However, the VCM alone may not provide sufficient demand to scale CDR to the levels required. Integrating CDR into compliance markets, such as the EU ETS, could stimulate broader demand and stabilize growth. This expansion could provide the necessary financial backing to drive innovation and scale, even if direct government incentives waver.
4. Policy and Regulation:
Political Uncertainty and Regulatory Risk
The US Department of Energy (DOE) has been a major driver of DAC funding, with USD 3.5 billion announced in 2022 and USD 1.2 billion allocated to a few firms in 2023, including Occidental Petroleum subsidiaries 1PointFive and Carbon Engineering. However, future funding is uncertain, especially with political shifts that deprioritize climate action. If the next administration scales back investment tax credits or subsidies for CDR, it could deter further private investment and disrupt progress toward gigatonne-scale removals.
Scaling CDR at the pace required by the roadmap will depend heavily on government action. However, with the incoming US administration deprioritizing climate initiatives and emphasizing fossil fuel production, the federal regulatory environment appears increasingly unfavorable for scaling CDR. President-elect Donald Trump’s ambiguous climate stance raises concerns about the long-term availability of funding and tax credits essential for scaling CDR. This uncertainty makes it difficult for investors to commit capital, particularly in early-stage CDR projects.
Energy Policy and Fossil Fuels
While global initiatives push for low-carbon energy pathways, emerging economies like India continue expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. Reducing emissions from energy production remains critical, and any shortfalls in decarbonization could increase reliance on CDR to offset excess emissions. Stronger policy frameworks are essential to effectively curb emissions growth while accelerating CDR deployment, especially considering that firms could use CDR as a license to delay decarbonizing. Additionally, policy frameworks prioritizing overshoot mitigation through large-scale CDR projects could accelerate adoption, but this approach may come with high economic and political costs.
Demand-Side Policy Levers
Integrating CDR into compliance markets and national emissions reduction programs will be essential for driving long-term demand. Tools such as including CDR credits within the EU ETS could help create stable revenue streams for removals, offsetting political volatility. Without stronger policy mechanisms on the demand side, CDR growth may stall, even if supply-side advancements continue.
Overall, The Bezos Earth Fund’s roadmap highlights the scale and urgency required to achieve technological CDR targets by 2050. For VCM participants, this presents both significant opportunities and risks. The potential for a tenfold expansion in GHGR technologies could drive a future supply of high-integrity credits but hinges on favourable policy environments and sustained investment.