Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a critical tool in the fight against climate change. For the first time in human history, we have solutions to help us address the excess CO2 that we have put into our atmosphere. These technologies—many of which are still in development and need our support— have the potential to rebalance our carbon budget and mitigate the most adverse effects of climate change. But as we’ve seen with the scandals that have plagued the traditional voluntary carbon markets (VCMs), not all carbon credits are created equal. Therefore, it is important to have standards in place to ensure that carbon removal projects are of high quality and deliver their promised impact, in order to avoid the same shortcomings as traditional VCM projects. This is why Climate Vault’s recently-submitted feedback to the Department of Energy on its Notice of Intent to create a Voluntary Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) Purchasing Challenge contained a strong emphasis on instilling transparent, credible, and verifiable assessment criteria—cornerstones of our operational ethos.
Ensuring the Quality & Integrity of CDR Credits
The DOE’s program is designed to foster a robust market for carbon removal by incentivizing organizations to commit to purchasing and retiring CDR credits annually, in increasing volumes, starting no later than 2025. Importantly, it also requires these “Credit Buyers” to disclose their CDR purchases and related project data. In doing so, the DOE seeks to enhance market transparency, bolster the quality and integrity of carbon removal credits, and pave a path for greater participation in the CDR market.
By setting rigorous criteria for CDR projects, the DOE has the opportunity to create a reliable and effective system that can drive major demand for high-quality carbon removals. Based on our experience, these criteria should take into consideration:
1. Additionality
Additionality is a cornerstone of any credible carbon removal project. Without additionality, there is a risk that the CDR market becomes saturated with low-quality credits that do little to drive real climate action—much like the issues faced by the traditional voluntary carbon markets. This criteria ensures that the carbon removals generated by a project are genuinely “additional”—meaning they wouldn’t have occurred in the absence of the project and the credit purchase made by the buyer. This concept is vital to the integrity of the CDR market.
Additionality is a strict requirement at the core of the selection process for Climate Vault’s own RFP for Innovative CDR Projects and is often an area where applicants fall short. Each proposal is rigorously assessed to ensure that the carbon removals are not only real but also result from activities that would not have occurred without the award’s support.
2. Leakage
Leakage refers to the unintended consequences that a CDR project might have on existing emissions within its sector or industry. For example, a project that sequesters carbon in one region might inadvertently increase emissions in another, such as by shifting existing production activities elsewhere or by displacing existing carbon sinks. Leakage can undermine the effectiveness of CDR projects by offsetting the very reductions they aim to achieve. Addressing leakage is crucial for ensuring that CDR projects provide a net positive impact on global emissions.
3. Permanence
Permanence is a critical factor in determining the long-term effectiveness of CDR projects. It refers to the durability of the carbon storage—how long the captured CO2 will remain sequestered and out of the atmosphere. The importance of permanence in CDR cannot be overstated, as the primary goal of these projects is to achieve long-lasting reductions in atmospheric CO2 levels. If the carbon is released back into the atmosphere after a short period, the project fails to deliver meaningful climate benefits and can even create a false sense of progress.
Climate Vault’s RFP criteria includes a minimum permanence threshold of 50 years. This standard is designed to strike a balance between current technological capabilities and the urgent need for climate action. While longer-term storage solutions, such as those guaranteeing 100 or even 1,000 years of sequestration, are ideal, they are not yet widely available. By setting a 50-year threshold, this encourages immediate action with the best available technologies, while also supporting the continued development of more durable carbon removal methods.
4. Technical & Economic Feasibility
Investments in carbon credits should contribute to technologies that have the potential to be replicated at scale and make a meaningful contribution to achieving worldwide carbon neutrality, while also achieving reasonable price points. CDR project developers should be able to outline the key barriers to market entry and risks to scaling, including costs, legal and regulatory requirements, and permitting needs.
5. Environmental & Social Impacts
It is imperative that CDR project developers consider and address the potential social, political, and ecosystem risks associated with their solutions, including:
Identifying their stakeholdersEngaging with, or having a plan in place to engage with, their identified stakeholdersUnderstanding stakeholder perspectivesIdentifying the likelihood of adverse reactions to the projectConsidering any site-specific environmental equity concerns regarding the proposed project.
6. Innovation
The last criteria should include an assessment of the novelty of the technology or business model presented by the CDR project developer, including competitive differentiation. Given the nascency of the CDR space and the urgency of the climate crisis, it is critical to support and scale a large and diverse set of innovative carbon removal solutions and to do so as quickly as possible. It will require a myriad of solutions, across pathways, in order to have a chance to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.
Unfortunately, novel methods—technologies that are partially- or fully-engineered—only account for 0.1% of global CDR, according to the 2024 State of Carbon Dioxide Removal Report. This includes projects like biochar, enhanced rock weathering, direct air capture with carbon storage (DACCS) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). For removal of historical CO2 emissions to succeed, there must be immense advancements of more high-quality novel CDR methods this decade.
Supporting & Scaling High-Quality CDR Projects
Climate Vault currently evaluates CDR solutions across three pathways under the Climate Vault RFP for Innovative CDR Projects. Through a comprehensive RFP process, Climate Vault cuts through the complexity of the CDR space to identify the most impactful carbon removal solutions on behalf of our customers—reducing the administrative burden for sourcing and securing the highest quality and impactful CDR credits. By applying similar criteria to those outlined above, this rigorous approach helps safeguard the integrity of the carbon removal market, while also accelerating the scaling of these critical technologies.
As the carbon removal market continues to evolve, establishing clear and stringent criteria for CDR is more important than ever. The DOE’s program has the potential to support the scaling of high-quality CDR technologies that drive significant climate action in the years to come. By focusing on these six criteria for high-quality CDR projects, the DOE can ensure that the projects supported under its purchase program are not only effective in removing carbon from the atmosphere but also contribute to broader climate goals. With novel CDR technologies, achieving gigatonne-scale carbon removal is within our grasp, but it will take continued effort, unwavering support by stakeholders, and strict high-quality standards to achieve this impact.
The carbon landscape is complicated. Download your copy of Climate Vault’s Carbon Landscape eBook for detailed insight into CDR, voluntary and compliance carbon markets, emission allowances, carbon offsets, RECs, and reporting frameworks and standards.
