Earlier this month, Calyx Global Co-founder Duncan van Bergen sat down with Chief Scientist Deborah Lawrence and Supercritical’s Director of Climate Science, Mai Bui, to unpack what’s real, what’s hype, and what’s available in today’s carbon removals market.  Their conversation offered clear-eyed insights for anyone navigating this rapidly evolving space. Here are four key takeaways from the discussion.

 1. Engineered removals are not a slam dunk

Whether a carbon removal credit is nature-based or engineered, or whether it is issued under Verra or Puro.earth, reveals little about its actual climate benefit. Quality hinges on project specifics, not just type or method. 

Removals fall into two categories: 

• Engineered solutions like direct air capture, biochar, or enhanced rock weathering;
• Nature-based solutions (NBS) such as grassland management or afforestation and reforestation. 

Engineered approaches store carbon geologically or chemically for centuries to millennia, but are more expensive and limited in supply today. Nature-based options are more affordable and available at scale now, but additionality, permanence and measurement reliability can vary widely.

Calyx Global’s ratings data shows that high integrity and low integrity examples exist in both categories. Factors like accounting approach, storage method, local governance conditions and reliance on carbon revenue ultimately determine whether a project delivers what it claims. No label or credit type guarantees quality. Project-by-project evaluations are critical.

 2. The removals market is small but growing

Already in 2025, we’re seeing a 28% increase in removals projects compared to last year. Engineered removals make up about 25% of CDR projects currently issuing credits. Within that pool, durable methods like direct air capture and mineralization remain a small but slowly expanding slice of the voluntary carbon market. But these engineered removal projects deliver very small quantities of credits. To date, the majority of “durable” removals delivered have come from biochar projects.

Many engineered projects rely on long-term offtake agreements to scale up capacity and bring down costs over time. Early commitments play a key role in building future supply.

Recent updates to frameworks like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) are adding momentum: new interim targets included in its draft Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2 send a clear demand signal for removal credits.

 3. Portfolios help balance risk, cost and supply

Quality varies across projects, and so do costs. Generally, the more durable the removal method, the higher the price, regardless of the credits’ greenhouse gas integrity.

Most buyers weigh budget, climate targets and supply constraints when considering how to incorporate removals. Many spread delivery and durability risks by building a portfolio that combines more affordable, near-term tonnes with investments in higher-cost, durable options that help scale supply over time. Blending different approaches can also help buyers to land at a manageable average price point while still meeting their business-specific goals.

 4. There is no shortcut to quality

High prices or advanced technologies do not guarantee high integrity. Risks such as over-crediting, questionable additionality, incomplete MRV, or poor sourcing can affect removal projects of all types.

Biochar projects illustrate this well: small-scale, artisanal operations often face different risks than larger, industrial facilities. For example, uncontrolled feedstock moisture or distributed production sites (both of which can be associated with artisanal biochar projects) can complicate accurate measurement and oversight. For industrial projects, feedstock sustainability and the baseline use case are common concerns.

As Mai Bui, Director of Climate Science at Supercritical, noted during the discussion:

“You can’t eliminate risk, but carrying out due diligence can help you understand what you’re investing in.”

Standards, registries and certification frameworks provide important guardrails, but even robust frameworks cannot fully replace rigorous project-level scrutiny. Independent ratings and transparent evidence help buyers compare options and understand the real risks associated with each tonne.

Final thoughts

As more companies set clear targets for neutralizing residual emissions, understanding the real differences between credit types, project quality and durability will only become more important.

The good news is that credible data, transparent standards, and independent ratings can help separate proven impact from promise. Project-level risk assessment remains the clearest path through the hype.

Thank you to everyone who joined us for an open, honest conversation about the state of carbon removals today. We welcome further discussion on this topic. Reach out to us to be connected. For those of you who would like to dig deeper, watch the “Carbon removals: What’s real, what’s hype and what’s available” webinar on demand.