Why Carbon Dioxide Removal Matters

There was a time when climate strategy felt relatively straightforward. Reduce emissions. Improve efficiency. Switch to renewables. Rinse and repeat.

That time has passed.

Not because those things stopped mattering. They matter more than ever. But because somewhere along the way, a quiet realisation set in: even if we do almost everything right, we still don’t get to zero.

Some emissions are stubborn. Others are structural. And then there’s the carbon already sitting in the atmosphere, quietly doing its work year after year. No amount of future efficiency will make that disappear on its own.

This is usually the moment when carbon dioxide removal enters the conversation. Often cautiously. Sometimes awkwardly. And almost always with the sense that this is still something for later.

It isn’t.

The gap between ambition and reality

Spend enough time around net-zero strategies and a pattern emerges. Targets look ambitious. Pathways are carefully modelled. Assumptions are footnoted and stress-tested.

And then, somewhere near the end, there is a line that carries more weight than it first appears to.

Residual emissions will be addressed later.

Those residuals are not a rounding error. They are the hard remainder. Aviation. Cement. Industrial heat. Parts of agriculture. The things that do not yield easily, even under optimistic scenarios.

Carbon dioxide removal exists for that remainder. Not as a shortcut. Not as a substitute for reductions. But as a way of dealing honestly with what is left.

Climate science has been consistent on this point for years. All pathways that actually limit warming rely on some level of carbon removal. Not in theory. In practice.

What carbon dioxide removal actually means

At its simplest, carbon dioxide removal means taking CO₂ out of the atmosphere and storing it so it does not return anytime soon.

What complicates things is everything that follows.

How long is “soon”? How confident are we in the measurement? What happens if storage fails decades down the line?

These questions matter because removal is fundamentally different from reduction. Reductions change future flows. Removals deal with stock. With what is already there. With emissions that cannot be undone by better behaviour tomorrow.

Once that distinction becomes clear, it tends to change how climate claims are viewed.

Two approaches to removing carbon

Most discussions about carbon removal eventually arrive at the same divide. Nature-based approaches on one side. Engineered approaches on the other.

They are often mentioned together. In practice, they behave very differently.

Nature-based carbon removal

Nature-based removals rely on biological systems such as forests, soils and ecosystems to absorb carbon. They come with stories people like telling, and with co-benefits that are real and valuable.

They can play a meaningful role, particularly in the near term. But they are also exposed. Fire. Drought. Disease. Land-use change. And the uncomfortable reality that the climate itself is becoming less predictable.

From a long-term climate accounting perspective, this introduces uncertainty. Carbon stored in biological systems is often stored for decades, not centuries. Reversal risk is difficult to eliminate entirely.

For many organisations, this makes nature-based removals better suited as complementary measures rather than as the foundation of long-term neutralisation strategies.

Engineered carbon removal

Engineered removals feel different. More industrial. Less intuitive. And often less emotionally appealing.

They are also more controlled.

Biochar, geological storage, direct air capture and mineralisation are designed systems built to do one thing well: store carbon for a very long time and prove that they have done it.

Storage durations are typically measured in centuries rather than decades. Measurement and verification tend to be clearer. Reversal risks are lower by design.

For organisations thinking in terms of long-term credibility rather than short-term claims, these characteristics start to matter.

Why net zero quietly depends on removal

Net zero sounds like a finish line. In reality, it is a balance.

What cannot be eliminated must be neutralised. And neutralisation only works if the counterweight holds.

This is where the conversation has started to shift. Volume used to dominate. Permanence is now creeping in. Quietly, but persistently.

Investors ask different questions than they used to. Standards are evolving. The assumption that all credits are interchangeable is becoming harder to defend.

Once permanence enters the frame, carbon dioxide removal stops being optional. It becomes structural.

What this means for ESG managers

For ESG managers, the challenge is no longer whether carbon removal belongs in a climate strategy. It is how to engage with it responsibly.

That means asking harder questions. About duration. About verification. About what happens over time, not just at the point of purchase.

The organisations that are getting ahead of this are rarely the loudest. They are the ones tightening internal standards, clarifying definitions and being more precise about the role different climate tools actually play.

Carbon removal, used well, supports that clarity. Used poorly, it undermines it.

No shortcuts, but no denial either

Carbon dioxide removal should never be used as an excuse to delay emissions reductions. That much is clear.

But treating removal as a distant problem is simply another form of postponement.

A credible climate strategy reduces emissions as far and as fast as possible. It then looks honestly at what remains. And finally, it addresses that remainder using solutions designed to last.

That final step is uncomfortable precisely because it forces clarity.

Looking ahead

Carbon dioxide removal is moving out of the margins. Not because it is fashionable, but because the numbers leave little choice.

As climate targets tighten and expectations rise, durable, engineered removal will play a larger role in serious climate strategies. Quietly. Methodically. And with far more scrutiny than before.

For ESG managers, the question is no longer whether carbon removal matters. It is how to engage with it in a way that still makes sense twenty or thirty years from now.

That is where credibility ultimately lives.