A quieter Monday after yesterday’s capital-flow blockbusters — but today’s stories cut deeper on the “how” and “whether” of carbon removal. A German expert calls CDR a dangerous dream, the EU responds by issuing the first real certification methodologies, biology offers a radically different path to DAC, a visit to Mammoth exposes corporate accountability gaps, and biochar finds maybe its most creative feedstock yet: dirty diapers.
Today on CaptainDrawdown
🌍 From Germany: “The Dangerous Dream of CO₂ Removal” — A Skeptic’s Case
Peter Droege, director of the Liechtenstein Institute for Strategic Development, argues in klimareporter.de that Germany’s publicly funded CDR research programs — “CDR terra” and “CDR mare” — are a dangerous distraction. His four critiques: CDR capacity can’t cover even Germany’s residual emissions, the CDR belief system enables fossil fuel delay, ocean-based methods risk ecosystem harm, and biosphere regeneration should take priority over tech fixes.
We disagree with the conclusion — CDR and emission cuts aren’t either/or. But the math challenge is real, and this kind of honest skepticism keeps the field accountable. Worth reading in full for anyone who wants to understand the European debate.
🔬 Bio-DAC: Microalgae Raceways That Capture CO₂ Straight From Air
Forget giant fans and chemical solvents. Researchers demonstrated a fundamentally different approach to direct air capture: 600 m² microalgae raceway reactors growing Scenedesmus under extreme carbon limitation. Starve the algae of concentrated CO₂, and they get remarkably good at pulling trace amounts from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
The energy economics are intriguing — sunlight is the input, water is the medium, and biology handles the chemistry. Still early-stage, but if scaling works, bio-DAC could undercut engineered DAC costs dramatically.
🏛️ EU’s Carbon Removal Certification Framework Gets Its First Methodologies
The European Commission adopted a delegated act setting out certification methodologies for permanent carbon removals under the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation. This is the first standardised EU framework for certifying CDR activities — voluntary, but designed to become the quality benchmark with independent verification by recognised certification bodies.
The CRCF was adopted in December 2024 as part of the EU’s climate neutrality 2050 strategy. Now the methodologies give it teeth. And if CDR credits become eligible for the EU Emissions Trading System — which the Commission must assess by July 2026 — that’s a compliance market for engineered removal.
💰 Investment Lessons From Standing Next to Mammoth
Harmonic Financial Planning visited Climeworks’ Mammoth in Iceland — the world’s largest DAC facility — and came back with a reality check for climate investors. The tech is viscerally real. But Harvard Business School studied 1,000+ companies with 2020 emissions targets: nearly a third never disclosed whether they achieved them. Among those that did report, many missed their goals but barely admitted it.
Then there’s “greenhushing” — companies doing climate work but refusing to talk about it, fearing scrutiny. CDR technology exists. Corporate accountability? Still catching up.
♻️ Diapers → Biochar: Turning Baby Waste Into Carbon Removal
Disposable diapers are the third-largest consumer item in US landfills. Each takes up to 500 years to degrade, releasing methane along the way. Seattle-based Diaper Stork sells bamboo diapers on subscription, collects them back after use, and pyrolyzes them into biochar. Over 3 million diapers diverted from landfills so far.
The plant-based diaper market hit $1.42 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $3.52 billion by 2033. Circular economy meets carbon removal meets nappies. Not every climate solution needs to be high-tech.
Also Noteworthy
🌱 Environmentalists vs. Biochar — A Mastodon thread from @GreenFire highlights a persistent tension: some environmentalists actively oppose CDR industries like biochar, even when the products create jobs and each large bag represents 1.5 tonnes of CO₂ removed. Meanwhile, a separate post details how “environmentalist” opposition helped block a sewage-to-biochar plant that would have processed 15% of New York’s biosolids. The intra-movement debate over CDR remains fierce. (Source 1, Source 2)
📊 Daily Snapshot
| Category | Signal |
|---|---|
| European debate | German CDR skepticism meets EU certification reality — the gap between critics and regulators is widening |
| DAC innovation | Bio-DAC offers a biology-first alternative to engineered DAC; energy costs could be transformative |
| EU policy | CRCF gets real methodologies; potential ETS integration assessment by July 2026 |
| Corporate accountability | Harvard data shows 1/3 of companies never disclosed 2020 target outcomes — CDR tech isn’t the bottleneck |
| Circular CDR | Diaper-to-biochar proves CDR can piggyback on waste streams; plant-based diaper market projected to hit $3.5B by 2033 |
| Community divide | Environmentalist opposition to biochar/CDR remains a real barrier to deployment |
CaptainDrawdown covers the business, science, and politics of carbon dioxide removal. Follow us on Bluesky, X, and Mastodon.