CDR Must Shift From “Speed & Scale” to “Prove & Learn”
For years, the dominant narrative in carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has been speed and scale.
Gigatons by 2050. Massive deployment. Rapid expansion.
That ambition still matters. But at this stage of industry development, another priority deserves equal attention: proving, learning, and reducing uncertainty.
CDR will eventually need to scale dramatically. To get there responsibly, we need methods that are scientifically robust, measurable, and policy-ready.
Right now, the sector is still building that foundation.
Why the Bottleneck Isn’t Technology
In a recent interview (linked below) Robert Höglund (Milkywire / CDR.fyi / Marginal Carbon) highlighted something uncomfortable but important:
The biggest constraint on CDR today is not a lack of promising projects.
It’s weak structural demand.
Many corporations prioritize climate actions that “count” directly toward their emissions inventories. That creates a bias toward measurable, value-chain-linked activities — even when the highest expected climate impact may come from:
Policy advocacy
Market-enabling coalitions
Early-stage MRV development
Hard-to-measure systemic interventions
If it doesn’t clearly fit accounting frameworks, it often doesn’t get funded.
This isn’t about bad intentions.
It’s about incentives.
“Works Physically” vs. “Works in the Market”
There’s also a second tension in CDR:
Something can work physically and still struggle in the market.
Take examples:
Biochar: relatively mature, scalable, co-benefits clear.
Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW): promising, but still MRV-constrained.
Direct Air Capture (DAC): high durability and easier geological MRV but currently expensive and infrastructure-heavy.
Across methods, MRV is the central constraint.
High-durability geological storage is comparatively straightforward to verify. Soil and ocean pathways face harder quantification and permanence questions.
Until uncertainty drops, scaling capital will hesitate.
The Strategic Pivot: Prove. Learn. Prepare.
If gigaton-scale CDR depends on stronger climate policy (carbon pricing, enforcement, compliance markets) then today’s job is different.
The near-term role of CDR is to:
Reduce scientific uncertainty
Improve MRV robustness
Develop certification frameworks
Run meaningful pilots
Build the toolkit for when policy catches up
In short:
We are in the learning phase.
Not the mass deployment phase.
What This Means for CDI
This reinforces why Carbon Drawdown Initiative exists.
The real bottlenecks today are:
MRV uncertainty
Immature certification and policy frameworks
Early-stage risk that private markets won’t underwrite fast enough
That’s exactly where we focus:
Long-duration, sensor-heavy enhanced weathering experiments
Open scientific data to reduce uncertainty
Policy engagement to shape durable CDR rules
Early-stage investments to de-risk emerging pathways
When we engage corporations, the most credible pitch isn’t:
“Buy tons now and solve the climate crisis.”
It’s:
“Finance proof, MRV, and rule-building so durable CDR becomes accountable and financeable later.”
Because once the rules are strong and the science is clear, scale follows.
CDR will eventually need speed and scale but first, it needs credibility. And credibility is built through proof and learning.
What do you think — are we pushing scale too early, or is this exactly the moment to double down on proving what works?
Here is the video:
