Financing for carbon removal technologies varies significantly depending on whether the method is an industrial, engineered process or a nature-based hybrid approach, according to the authors of the newly released report. High-tech solutions like direct air capture require massive upfront investments and long-term contracts to be viable, while more established methods like biochar can often access traditional bank loans and operate with lower initial costs.
“The funding dynamics for CDR technologies vary significantly, reflecting differences in technological maturity, capital intensity and scalability potential.” The report also notes that “Engineered solutions such as DAC and BECCS dominate public and private funding, while hybrid solutions such as biochar and ERW attract smaller-scale, region-specific investments.”
In simple terms, building a facility that sucks carbon directly out of the sky is incredibly expensive and risky for investors, so these projects need guaranteed long-term deals and government help to get off the ground. In contrast, making charcoal-like biochar to bury in soil uses existing farming and forestry tools, which means it does not cost as much to start and can be funded more like a normal business. Other methods, like spreading crushed rocks on fields, cost less to build but face a funding gap because it is currently harder for experts to prove exactly how much carbon they are removing.
The white paper “Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies: Market Overview and Offtake” was published in March 2026 by the World Economic Forum in Geneva, Switzerland. Prepared in collaboration with Oliver Wyman and ClimeFi, the report maps the evolving financial structures, buyer profiles, and contractual frameworks scaling the global carbon removal industry.
