Carbon removal is increasingly recognised as necessary.
The world will need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to address residual emissions from sectors that remain technically difficult to decarbonise. Over time, removal may also be required to reduce atmospheric CO₂ after net zero has been reached.
But there is a strategic risk.
If governments, companies and investors assume that large volumes of cheap, reliable carbon removal will be available later, they may reduce less today.
This is known as mitigation deterrence.
It is not an argument against carbon removal.
It is an argument against using uncertain future removal as a justification for continued current emissions.
A new report highlighted by Carbon Pulse finds that expectations of future carbon dioxide removal can weaken present-day abatement, particularly when removal is assumed to be widely available at low cost.
The implication is important for every net-zero strategy.
Carbon removal should be a complement to emissions reduction.
It must not become a planning assumption that delays it.
Why carbon removal is needed
Some emissions are difficult to eliminate fully with existing technology.
These may include:
Process emissions from cement and chemicals
Parts of aviation and shipping
Some agricultural methane and nitrous-oxide emissions
Certain industrial heat requirements
Residual emissions from waste and land management
Historic emissions already accumulated in the atmosphere
Carbon dioxide removal can take several forms:
Afforestation and reforestation
Peatland restoration
Biochar
Enhanced rock weathering
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
Direct air capture with geological storage
Ocean-based approaches
Mineralisation
These approaches vary significantly in cost, durability, measurement certainty, land requirements, energy use, ecological impact and deployment readiness.
That variation matters.
A tonne stored in a forest exposed to wildfire is not equivalent in durability to a tonne injected into a well-characterised geological formation. A tonne removed by direct air capture may be durable but energy intensive and expensive. A tonne associated with enhanced rock weathering may require careful measurement of mineral reactions and downstream carbon chemistry.
Carbon removal is not one market.
It is a set of very different technical and biological pathways.
The risk of substitution
The central policy problem arises when future removal is treated as a substitute for direct emissions reductions.
A company may reason:
We can continue using high-emissions inputs today because removal technology will compensate later.
A government may reason:
We do not need to reduce emissions as quickly because future removals will close the gap.
An investor may reason:
A long-dated removal target reduces the need for near-term transition capital.
Each assumption creates risk.
Future removal may be more expensive than expected. It may not scale at the required speed. It may compete for land, water, renewable electricity, biomass or geological storage. It may face public opposition, permitting delays or measurement challenges.
The more a strategy relies on unproven future supply, the less robust it becomes.
A credible climate plan should therefore follow this sequence:
Gross emissions reduction→residual-emissions definition→high-integrity carbon removal
Not the reverse.
Gross versus net emissions
Net-zero targets can obscure the difference between reducing emissions and compensating for them.
Consider two companies.
Company A reduces its gross emissions by 90% and uses durable carbon removal for the remaining 10% of genuinely residual emissions.
Company B reduces its gross emissions by 40% and plans to purchase large volumes of future credits to claim net zero.
Both may announce a net-zero target.
Their climate strategies are not equivalent.
The distinction can be expressed simply:
Net emissions=Gross emissions−verified removals
A low net-emissions number can be achieved through very different combinations of gross reductions and removals.
That is why companies should disclose both.
Stakeholders need to see:
Current gross emissions
Near-term reduction targets
Capital expenditure aligned with reduction
The expected residual-emissions volume
The type of removal planned
The timing of delivery
The durability and verification approach
The share of the strategy reliant on uncontracted future removals
Without this information, a net-zero target can hide more than it reveals.
Removals have physical constraints
Carbon removal is not a spreadsheet exercise.
Every pathway has physical limits.
Nature-based removals
These can deliver biodiversity, resilience and livelihood benefits. But they are exposed to fire, drought, disease, land-use change and governance risk. Their carbon storage may be reversible.
Biochar and biomass pathways
These depend on sustainable feedstock supply, robust accounting for biomass sourcing, stable carbon fractions and long-term land-management practices.
Direct air capture
This may offer highly durable storage when paired with geological sequestration. But it requires energy, capital, infrastructure and time.
Enhanced weathering and mineralisation
These can provide durable carbon storage, but they depend on mining, material processing, transport, reaction rates and measurement methods.
Ocean-based methods
These may have large theoretical potential, but ecological uncertainty, governance and monitoring challenges remain.
A climate strategy that assumes removals will scale indefinitely without accounting for these constraints is not a strategy.
It is a hope.
Mitigation deterrence is a governance problem
The risk of delayed abatement can be reduced through governance.
Companies and governments should set explicit limits on how removals are used.
A strong framework would include:
Separate targets for gross emissions reductions and removals
Near-term reduction milestones
A transparent definition of residual emissions
Restrictions on using credits to meet interim reduction targets
Preference for durable, verified storage for residual emissions
Public disclosure of removal contracts and delivery risk
Board-level oversight of transition-plan assumptions
Independent assurance of emissions and removal claims
The key is to make substitution visible.
If a company plans to use removals, stakeholders should be able to see whether the removal is supplementing a genuine transition or replacing it.
Carbon removal should not be set up to fail
There is a danger in the current debate.
Some critics treat any investment in carbon removal as an excuse for fossil-fuel dependence. Some supporters treat removal as a technological solution that can compensate for delayed action.
Both positions are incomplete.
Carbon removal is likely to be necessary.
But it should be deployed responsibly.
That means investing in research, demonstration, monitoring and infrastructure while maintaining the priority of direct emissions reduction.
The correct policy position is not:
Remove later instead of reducing now.
It is:
Reduce as deeply as possible now, while building verified removal capacity for emissions that remain.
This is more demanding.
It is also more credible.
What investors should ask
Investors can play an important role by challenging assumptions about future removal.
Useful questions include:
What percentage of the company’s net-zero plan depends on removals?
What volume of residual emissions is expected in 2030, 2040 and 2050?
Are removal volumes contracted, planned or merely assumed?
Which removal pathways are being considered?
What are the cost and delivery assumptions?
What happens if removal supply is delayed or more expensive than forecast?
Does the company have a credible gross-emissions reduction pathway without removals?
Are capital expenditures aligned with that pathway?
The more transparent the answers, the more robust the transition plan.
The real role of carbon removal
Carbon removal should be treated as climate infrastructure.
It needs research, standards, storage capacity, monitoring, finance and public legitimacy.
But infrastructure takes time to build.
That is precisely why it cannot be used as an excuse to delay immediate emissions cuts.
The future need for carbon removal increases the case for starting investment now.
It does not reduce the need for current abatement.
The conclusion is clear.
Carbon removal is necessary.
Treating it as a future substitute for cuts is not.