What are carbon removals?

Quick Answer: Carbon removals are processes that extract carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and store it durably, either through natural systems or engineered technologies. They are distinct from emissions reductions, which prevent CO2 from entering the atmosphere in the first place. Carbon removals are increasingly referenced in net zero frameworks as a tool for addressing residual emissions that cannot be eliminated through operational changes alone.

What are carbon removals?

Carbon removals are activities that actively draw down CO2 that is already in the atmosphere and store it in a stable form, whether in soil, biomass, geological formations, or materials. The term is sometimes used interchangeably with "carbon dioxide removal" (CDR) or "negative emissions."

The distinction from emissions reductions matters. Reducing emissions means producing less CO2 to begin with, for example by switching to renewable energy or cutting business travel. Removals address what is already there. Both are necessary in credible net zero pathways, but they serve different functions and are not substitutes for one another.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has consistently stated that limiting global warming to 1.5°C will require significant carbon dioxide removal alongside deep emissions cuts. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (2022) found that all modelled pathways to 1.5°C involve some form of CDR.

What are the main types of carbon removal?

Carbon removals fall into two broad categories: nature-based and technology-based. Each has different cost profiles, permanence characteristics, and levels of scientific maturity.

Nature-based removals

Nature-based removals use biological processes to absorb and store CO2. Common examples include:

• Afforestation and reforestation: planting trees or restoring forests so they absorb CO2 as they grow
• Soil carbon sequestration: changing agricultural practices (such as no-till farming or cover cropping) to increase the amount of carbon stored in soil
• Blue carbon: protecting or restoring coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes, which store large quantities of carbon in their biomass and sediments
• Biochar: converting organic matter into a stable charcoal-like material that locks carbon into the soil

Nature-based removals are generally lower cost and can deliver co-benefits such as biodiversity and water quality improvements. The trade-off is permanence. Forests can burn, be logged, or be affected by disease, releasing stored carbon back into the atmosphere.

Technology-based removals

Technology-based removals use engineered processes to capture and store CO2. Key examples include:

• Direct Air Capture (DAC): machines that draw in ambient air and chemically separate CO2, which is then stored underground or used in products
• Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): growing biomass that absorbs CO2, burning it for energy, and capturing the resulting emissions before they re-enter the atmosphere
• Enhanced weathering: spreading crushed silicate rock on agricultural land to accelerate natural rock weathering processes that absorb CO2

Technology-based removals tend to offer greater permanence, particularly where CO2 is stored in geological formations. The challenge is cost and scale. DAC currently costs between $300-$1,000 per tonne of CO2 removed (IEA, 2023), making it expensive relative to nature-based alternatives, though costs are expected to fall as the technology matures.

Why do carbon removals matter for net zero targets?

Net zero means reaching a point where the greenhouse gases a company (or country) puts into the atmosphere are balanced by the amount removed. In practice, most organisations will reach a point where further emissions reductions become technically or economically very difficult. These are called residual emissions, and carbon removals are the accepted mechanism for balancing them out.

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Corporate Net-Zero Standard requires companies to reduce their emissions by at least 90% before using carbon removals to neutralise the remaining 10%. This is a deliberate design choice: removals are not intended to replace the work of decarbonisation, but to address what remains after that work is done.

This framing is important for anyone building a credible decarbonisation plan. A company that offsets its way to a "net zero" claim without reducing its operational emissions is not meeting the standard that SBTi or the GHG Protocol recognises. Carbon removals have a legitimate and necessary role, but only in the context of a genuine reduction trajectory.

How do carbon removals differ from carbon offsets?

The terms are related but not identical, and the difference matters in a compliance context.

Carbon offsets is a broader term that covers any credit representing a tonne of CO2 avoided or removed. This includes avoidance credits, where a project prevents emissions that would otherwise have occurred (for example, protecting a forest from deforestation). Avoidance credits do not remove any CO2 from the atmosphere; they simply reduce the rate at which new emissions are added.

Carbon removals specifically refer to activities that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Removal credits are therefore considered higher quality in most frameworks because they address existing atmospheric concentrations rather than simply slowing the rate of increase.

Increasingly, corporate net zero standards are moving away from accepting avoidance-based offsets for neutralisation claims. The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting (University of Oxford, 2020) recommend that companies shift over time towards high-quality carbon removals with durable storage, and away from avoidance-based credits.

For companies working towards SBTi-aligned targets, understanding this distinction is practically relevant. Offsets used to claim neutralisation of residual emissions should be removal-based, not avoidance-based, to withstand scrutiny from stakeholders and reporting frameworks.

What should businesses understand about carbon removals right now?

For most businesses, carbon removals are not an immediate operational concern. The priority at this stage is measuring your full carbon footprint accurately, identifying your largest emission sources, and building a reduction plan. Removals become relevant later in that journey, when residual emissions need to be addressed.

That said, a few things are worth understanding now:

• Permanence is a key quality indicator. A removal credit backed by geological storage (such as DAC with underground sequestration) is more durable than one backed by a forest. Both have a role, but they are not equivalent.
• Additionality matters. A removal only counts if it would not have happened anyway. This is why verification and certification (through bodies such as Verra, Gold Standard, or newer registries like Puro.earth) is important when purchasing removal credits.
• The market is developing quickly. Voluntary carbon markets are under significant scrutiny following high-profile questions about the integrity of some offset projects. Quality standards are tightening, and the distinction between removals and avoidance is becoming sharper in both voluntary and compliance contexts.

Seedling's decarbonisation planning support helps companies understand where removals fit within a broader, quantified net zero plan, rather than treating them as a shortcut to a headline claim. The role of removals is to close the gap that genuine reduction cannot close, not to paper over it.