Achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement (1.5°C limit) requires not only a drastic reduction in emissions, but also active removing CO₂ from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal – CDR). Scientific scenarios show that without CDR, it will be impossible to offset hard-to-reduce emissions from industry and transport. For example, an Oxford-led analysis estimates that by 2050 we should capture 7–9 billion tons CO₂, in order to keep global warming below 1.5 °C, at least theoretically. International agencies (IEA, IPCC) remind us that even current natural storage facilities only absorb about 22 Gt CO₂ per year (plants, oceans), and an additional technological solution is still needed. Without massive CDR assistance, net-zero would remain unattainable - experts warn that this is a necessary "insurance" for the time being to reduce the accumulation of CO₂ if emissions cannot be reduced quickly enough.

Barriers to carbon removal

Despite their importance, CDR technologies face challenges serious barriers:

• High costs: New DAC facilities currently cost around $600–1,000 per tonne of CO₂ captured. Climeworks, which operates the largest DAC facility, Mammoth, estimates that at low volumes costs will remain in the hundreds of dollars per tonne (the target for 2030 is only $400–600/t). BECCS requires large investments, particularly in infrastructure (coal-fired pipelines, storage facilities), which increases the price per tonne.
• Limited capacity and slow expansion: Existing projects have extremely low capacity. In 2023, DAC facilities together captured only about 10,000 tons of CO₂, while natural solutions (afforestation, biochar) remove billions of tons. This is negligible compared to the needs – models show that capacity needs to be increased by 30–50 times by 2030. The too slow introduction of new technologies is lagging behind the growth of emissions and creating a huge gap.
• Lack of regulations and investments: Climate policy does not yet provide sufficient incentives. While optional carbon credit markets are only gradually growing, clear rules and massive public investment in CDR are lacking. The EU only approved the first CO₂ removal certification framework in 2024 to standardize the quality of carbon storage and facilitate financing. Governments such as the UK and Canada are only now launching strategy reviews and grant programs. Without sufficient incentives (subsidies, tax breaks, legislative obligations), many projects remain risky investments.

Projects and state initiatives

Despite the obstacles, concrete projects and programs are already emerging. Swiss Climeworks launches DAC operation in Iceland Mammoth with a capacity of 36,000 t/year (May 2024). It is the largest operating DAC plant in the world, complementing the older 4,000-tonne OrcaClimeworks is committed to an ambitious plan: to remove millions of tons of CO2 annually by 2030 and gigaton quantities by 2050. At the same time, the company is working intensively to reduce costs, but these remain high for current small series (the energy to operate the equipment is energy-intensive). Another Icelandic project Carbfix uses a unique mineralization method: the captured CO₂ is dispersed in basaltic rocks, where it is converted into solid carbonates within a few months. Carbfix recently received an EU permit to store ~106,000 t/year (3.2 million t over 30 years), demonstrating the feasibility of this method, but in a global context, this is still a pilot capacity.

Internationally, state support programs are also emerging. Denmark, for example, has concluded a government contract to purchase 1.1 million tons CDR from local companies (BioCirc, Bioman ApS, Carbon Capture Scotland), which is the second largest such deal in the world to date. At the same time, the state will support Ørsted's BECCS project for power generation through the CCUS fund - 430,000 t CO₂ per year from 2026 for 20 years. Canada in its Carbon Management Strategy (2023) set targets and instruments for the development of CDR, including a rising carbon price (~170 CAD/t by 2030) and special investment tax credits. The UK (DESNZ) launched an independent review of all CDR technologies (DAC, BECCS, natural solutions) in 2025, with a call for data collection and recommendations for a national strategy. However, these examples are more indicative of the path than a breakthrough – most potential projects are still awaiting funding and regulatory approval.

The Paris Agreement and Reality

The goals of the Paris Agreement require massive development of CDR, but the current pace of technology does not match this. The Oxford report mentioned the need 7–9 billion tons/year by 2050, while the reality is, as we have stated, only tens of thousands of tons from DAC. The global trend – sharply increasing emissions and slow deployment of CDR – is not in accordance with the needs of the strategies. According to the IPCC and IEA, the current trajectory (emissions + CDR) is “not on track” to meet 1.5°C. In other words, the gap between official targets and practice is growing: if emissions are higher than models predict and CDR production remains minimal, the chance of meeting the 1.5°C limit is fundamentally reduced.

Critical window and consequences

Right now is a critical moment. If there is no rapid increase in CDR capacity in the coming years, there will be a huge gap between 2030 and 2050. deficit capabilities. For example, for the 2°C scenario, models predict a 30-fold increase in CDR by 2030 and up to 1,300-fold by 2050 compared to today. Several studies warn that ignoring CDR investments today will have fatal consequences – “pity and delay now will deepen the CDR deficit by 2050 and jeopardize climate goals”. In practice, this means that if CDR remains in the pilot stage, we will either have to cut emissions much more aggressively elsewhere or risk exceeding agreed temperature limits. Such scenarios would significantly complicate the implementation of international commitments.

Expert recommendations

International institutions and experts emphasize combined approachWe need at the same time: (1) intensive emission reductions (to mitigate future CDR demands), (2) expanding natural solutions (afforestation, agro-efficient practices, biochar – which can provide a third of the necessary climate services by 2030), and (3) immediate investment in CDR technologies. For example, the CATF recommends that governments accelerate the development of DAC, BECCS and similar projects to achieve gigatonne volumes by mid-century. Practical steps include legislative incentives: direct purchases of CDR (as in Denmark), tax credits for tonnages withdrawn, or mandatory climate caps for heavy industry. The World Forum emphasizes government action, quoting Canadian Minister Drew Leyburn: “We are at a crucial moment; governments need to be as innovative in policymaking as the technology sector.”If these recommendations remain just theory, we risk not being able to meet even the ambitious climate goals we have set for ourselves. Spring