What is the difference between carbon capture and carbon removal?

Carbon capture stops CO₂ at the point of emission, before it enters the atmosphere, while carbon removal extracts CO₂ already in the atmosphere and stores it durably. Capture reduces the flow of new emissions from industrial facilities and power plants; removal reduces the existing stock through methods such as direct air capture, biochar and reforestation.

When does a company need carbon capture versus carbon removal?

Carbon capture is relevant mainly to operators of emissions-intensive facilities with hard-to-abate process emissions, such as cement, steel, chemicals and refining. Carbon removal is relevant to any company pursuing an SBTi net-zero target, because residual emissions, often 5-10% of the baseline, must be neutralized with removals. Most companies outside heavy industry need removal, not capture.

Can a company use carbon capture and carbon removal together?

Yes, carbon capture and carbon removal are complementary. A cement company might capture about 90% of its kiln emissions and buy removal credits for the remaining 10% to reach net zero. In target accounting, capture at a company's own facilities counts as an emission reduction, while purchased removals count as neutralization of residual emissions.

Carbon Capture vs Carbon Removal: Key Differences Explained

Quick Comparison

	Carbon Capture (CCS/CCUS)	Carbon Removal (CDR)
Scope	Captures CO₂ at point of emission before it enters the atmosphere	Removes CO₂ already present in the atmosphere
Applicability	Industrial facilities, power plants, process emissions	Atmosphere-wide; any entity funding removal projects
Required/Voluntary	Increasingly incentivized (45Q tax credits, EU Innovation Fund)	Voluntary; required under SBTi for residual neutralization
Geography	Concentrated at emission-intensive industrial sites	Global; DAC, enhanced weathering, biochar, ocean-based
Key Focus	Preventing emissions from reaching the atmosphere	Drawing down atmospheric CO₂ concentrations

What is Carbon Capture?

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) refers to technologies that intercept CO₂ from industrial exhaust streams or power plant flue gases before the CO₂ enters the atmosphere. The captured CO₂ is compressed, transported (typically via pipeline), and stored permanently in deep geological formations—depleted oil and gas reservoirs, saline aquifers, or basalt formations where the CO₂ mineralizes over time.

CCS has been operational at commercial scale since 1996, when Norway's Sleipner project began injecting CO₂ separated from natural gas into a saline aquifer beneath the North Sea. In 2025, the Global CCS Institute counted 77 commercial CCS facilities in operation, with capacity to capture about 64 million tonnes of CO₂ a year—a fraction of a percent of global emissions. The technology is mature for high-purity CO₂ streams (natural gas processing, ethanol production, hydrogen manufacturing) but remains expensive and energy-intensive for dilute streams like power plant exhaust.

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) extends the concept by using captured CO₂ as a feedstock—for enhanced oil recovery, building materials, synthetic fuels, or chemical production. The utilization pathway is controversial: using CO₂ for enhanced oil recovery effectively subsidizes fossil fuel extraction, and many utilization pathways eventually release the CO₂ back to the atmosphere, undermining the climate benefit.

What is Carbon Removal?

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) encompasses technologies and practices that extract CO₂ from the ambient atmosphere and store it durably. Unlike carbon capture, which intercepts emissions at source, CDR addresses the stock of CO₂ already accumulated in the atmosphere. The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report concluded that CDR is essential to achieving net-zero emissions and limiting warming to 1.5°C.

CDR methods span a wide spectrum. Nature-based approaches include afforestation/reforestation and soil carbon sequestration. Technological and geochemical approaches include direct air capture (DAC), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), enhanced rock weathering, ocean alkalinity enhancement, and biochar. Each method differs in permanence, scalability, cost, and co-benefits.

Direct air capture is the most discussed technological CDR method. Climeworks operates the largest DAC plant now running, Mammoth, in Iceland. Switched on in 2024, it is designed to capture up to 36,000 tonnes of CO₂ a year and store it underground through mineralization, but actual capture has been far lower so far: Heimildin reported in 2025 that it captured 105 tonnes in its first ten months. Costs remain high—the IEA put current DAC projects at roughly $500-1,900 per tonne in 2025—though it expects costs could fall to around $300/tonne by mid-century. The US Department of Energy's Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs program, funded with $3.5 billion under the 2021 infrastructure law, selected hubs in Louisiana and Texas in 2023 to share up to $1.2 billion; after a review that stalled both awards, DOE told Congress in April 2026 that it would keep them.

Key Differences

1. Source of CO₂. Carbon capture intercepts CO₂ from concentrated emission sources (10-30% CO₂ concentration in flue gas). Carbon removal extracts CO₂ from ambient air (0.04% concentration). The several-hundred-fold difference in concentration makes removal far more energy-intensive per tonne.

2. Climate function. CCS prevents new emissions from entering the atmosphere—it reduces the flow. CDR reduces the existing stock of atmospheric CO₂. Both are necessary: CCS for emissions that can't be eliminated (cement process emissions, for instance), CDR for neutralizing residual emissions and eventually drawing down historical accumulations.

3. Cost per tonne. Capture costs range from $15-120/tonne depending on the CO₂ concentration and application, according to the IEA. CDR costs range from under $100/tonne for soil carbon (the IPCC's range runs from a $45 net saving to $100, with permanence concerns) to roughly $500-1,900/tonne for current DAC projects with geological storage (IEA, 2025). The cost gap reflects the thermodynamic reality of capturing dilute versus concentrated CO₂.

4. Role in net-zero pathways. Under SBTi's Net-Zero Standard, most companies must reduce emissions by at least 90% and neutralize residuals exclusively with carbon removal. CCS applied to a company's own facilities counts as emission reduction (it prevents the emission). CDR purchases count as neutralization of residual emissions. The distinction is operationally significant for corporate target-setting.

5. Permanence. Geological storage of captured CO₂ (whether from CCS or DAC) offers permanence measured in millennia. Nature-based CDR methods (forests, soil) face reversal risks from fire, land-use change, or climate impacts. This permanence spectrum affects credit quality in carbon markets.

6. Scalability trajectory. CCS is constrained by proximity to emission sources and geological storage sites. CDR can theoretically be deployed anywhere with energy and storage access. However, both face scaling challenges: CCS requires massive infrastructure investment; DAC requires enormous quantities of clean energy.

7. Policy treatment. The US Inflation Reduction Act's 45Q tax credit provides $85/tonne for CCS with geological storage and $180/tonne for DAC with geological storage—reflecting the higher cost and greater climate value of atmospheric removal versus point-source capture.

Which One Do You Need?

If you operate emissions-intensive industrial facilities with hard-to-abate process emissions—cement, steel, chemicals, refining—CCS is directly relevant to your decarbonization pathway. These sectors produce CO₂ as a chemical byproduct of production, not just from energy use. Electrification and fuel switching can't eliminate these emissions; CCS is one of the few viable options.

If you're pursuing a net-zero target under SBTi, you'll eventually need carbon removal for residual emissions. Start by understanding what your residual emissions will be after maximum feasible reduction. For most companies, this is 5-10% of the baseline. Then evaluate CDR options—advance purchase agreements with DAC providers, biochar credits, enhanced weathering—that match your permanence requirements and budget.

For the majority of companies outside heavy industry, CCS isn't directly relevant to your operations but CDR will be. Focus your investment and procurement strategy on high-permanence removal methods, and consider forward contracts that help scale the market while locking in future supply.

Can You Use Both?

They're complementary, not competing. A cement company might deploy CCS on its kilns (reducing point-source emissions by 90%) and purchase CDR credits for the remaining 10% to achieve net-zero. An oil and gas company might use CCS for its operational emissions while investing in DAC as part of its transition strategy.

At the portfolio level, both technologies need massive scaling. The IEA's Net Zero Emissions scenario requires around 1 billion tonnes of CO₂ a year to be captured and stored by 2030 (up from just over 50 million tonnes of operating capacity in early 2025) and BECCS and DAC to remove 1.9 billion tonnes annually by 2050. Current deployment of both is orders of magnitude below what's needed.

Companies with deep pockets and long time horizons are investing in both. Microsoft has signed large CDR purchase agreements. Occidental Petroleum is completing a massive DAC facility in Texas (Stratos), whose start has slipped to 2027 after commissioning problems. The climate math requires both preventing new emissions and removing legacy ones.

Council Fire's Perspective

The carbon capture vs. removal distinction matters for honest accounting. CCS on your own facilities is an emission reduction—it belongs in your abatement pathway. CDR purchases are neutralization—they belong at the end of the net-zero journey for genuinely residual emissions. Conflating the two or using CCS to extend fossil fuel operations while claiming climate leadership is exactly the kind of narrative we help clients avoid.

We encourage clients to invest in CDR now, even at current high costs, through advance market commitments. The CDR market needs demand signals to scale and bring costs down. Early movers get supply certainty and demonstrate genuine commitment. Waiting for costs to drop is rational individually but collectively ensures costs never drop.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does carbon capture extend the life of fossil fuels?

This is the central controversy. CCS applied to fossil fuel power plants or used for enhanced oil recovery can perpetuate fossil fuel infrastructure. However, CCS applied to industrial process emissions (cement, steel) addresses emissions that can't be eliminated through fuel switching. The climate value depends entirely on the application.

How permanent is carbon removal?

It varies enormously. Geological storage (DAC + sequestration) offers 10,000+ year permanence. Biochar stores carbon for hundreds to thousands of years. Enhanced weathering mineralizes CO₂ permanently. Forest-based removal faces reversal risks from fire and disease, with effective permanence of decades to centuries without active management.

What is the difference between BECCS and DAC?

Bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) grows biomass that absorbs atmospheric CO₂, burns it for energy, and captures the resulting CO₂ for geological storage. DAC uses chemical processes to extract CO₂ directly from ambient air. Both achieve atmospheric removal, but BECCS requires land and water for biomass, while DAC requires primarily energy.

Can I buy carbon removal credits today?

Yes. Providers like Climeworks and Charm Industrial, along with many biochar producers, sell removal credits, often through platforms like Frontier (the advance market commitment backed by Stripe, Alphabet, and others) or directly. Prices depend on the method and permanence; direct air capture is the most expensive, with current projects costing roughly $500-1,900 per tonne (IEA, 2025). The market is small but growing rapidly.