The Dabbler Problem — Is CDR Research a Side Hustle?

Update: V2 Data (March 2026)

We’ve reclassified 122,674 researchers using an LLM-based methodology instead of keyword-only matching. 42,292 researchers lost their CDR designation because their papers weren’t actually about CDR — they were tangentially related but didn’t cross the threshold. This leaves 80,382 researchers with a genuine CDR pathway. The dabbler percentage dropped from 69% to 52.8%, which at first looks like bad news. But the real story is subtler — and slightly more hopeful. Previous version: first shot · Feedback?

This is Part 4 of the CDR Researcher Census series.

When I first published the CDR Researcher Census in January, I reported that 69% of researchers had CDR work as less than 10% of their research output. That worried me. If two-thirds of your workforce is barely engaged, how do you build a field?

I called them “dabblers” — a soil scientist with one tangential carbon sequestration paper, a physicist who contributed to a DAC proposal once, a policy researcher who cited negative emissions in a report.

Then we refined the methodology. Instead of keyword matching, we used an LLM to classify whether each paper was actually about CDR or just tangentially related. The result: 42,292 papers were reclassified as NOT_CDR. Those researchers lost their CDR designation entirely.

The new number: 80,382 researchers with a genuine CDR pathway. Dabblers? Still substantial, but now 42,417 people = 52.8% of the valid cohort.

That’s a big shift. And it changes the story.

The Dabbler Breakdown (V2)

I tracked trajectory for all 42,417 dabblers — whether their CDR output is growing, stable, exiting, or declining:

One-third of dabblers are increasing their CDR work. They haven’t committed yet, but they’re heading that direction. The entry ramp into CDR still runs through dabbling — nobody wakes up and devotes their career to enhanced weathering. They write one paper, then two, then five.

And 36% are exiting. That’s a leaky pipeline, and it matters. But notice: the exiting share is only slightly larger than the growing share (36% vs 34%). In V1, we had the same rough pattern, but with much larger absolute numbers. Now, with better filtering, the ratio is tighter. The field’s net talent flow is weak, but not collapsing.

The Commitment Pyramid (V2)

Here’s the full picture across all 80,382 researchers with a CDR pathway:

The core workforce — people for whom CDR is a significant part of their career — is roughly 10,163 researchers (Pure CDR + Focused). That’s 12.6% of researchers with a CDR pathway.

Compared to V1 (~20,600 core), that’s roughly half. But V1 was inflated by including tangential papers. V2 is asking: who is actually doing CDR work? The answer is smaller, but more real.

For context: our CDR Directory lists ~26 portfolio companies. At ~10,000 core researchers across academia and industry globally, that’s still only ~380 researchers per company on average — and most of those are in academia, not available for hire. The researcher-to-company pipeline remains thin.

Who’s Actually Growing?

Among all 24,316 researchers with a growing trajectory (across all commitment levels):

59% of the growth is coming from dabblers. But notice: the part-time cohort (researchers spending 10-25% effort on CDR) is also growing — 2,604 of them. That’s the middle tier starting to solidify.

This suggests the field is still widening (more dabblers entering) but also deepening slightly (part-timers increasing, not just dabblers).

Pathway Commitment (V2)

CDR isn’t monolithic. Some technologies attract more committed researchers:

The standouts: Ocean CDR and Enhanced Weathering have the highest % of committed researchers (15% >10% CDR). These are specialist pathways with real depth. General CDR (14.6% core) suggests that researchers who see themselves as “generalist CDR researchers” tend to commit more than those who approach CDR from within another discipline.

Soil Carbon is the behemoth — 32,495 researchers, but 93% are dabblers. This reflects the reality: soil carbon overlaps with agronomy, forestry, soil science. A huge base, shallow commitment.

The Exiting Researchers

27,400 researchers are exiting — they published CDR work and stopped. That’s 34% of the cohort with a known trajectory. Understanding why matters as much as understanding why others stay.

Possible signals:

• Career incentives changed — no CDR-specific funding or positions
• Applied opportunities were sparse — research didn’t lead to real-world deployment
• Interdisciplinary friction — CDR wasn’t recognized within their home discipline
• Trend chasing — brief interest in a fashionable topic, then moved on

This deserves study. In fact, if you’re doing research on CDR talent and retention, the exiters might be the most informative cohort.

What V2 Changes

V1 narrative: 69% dabblers seemed like a weakness — a shallow field with few committed researchers.

V2 narrative: 53% dabblers is still substantial, but it’s a filtered 53%. The researchers we removed weren’t “real” CDR researchers; they were tangential. That means:

1. Our core is smaller but more real. 10,163 truly committed researchers beats 20,600 inflated researchers. Better to know what we actually have.

2. The growth trajectory is steady, not explosive. 24,316 growing researchers = 34% of the current cohort. That’s not a boom, but it’s baseline growth. More people are entering CDR than leaving.

3. The middle tier is forming. In V1, the narrative was “dabblers or Pure CDR — not much in between.” V2 shows part-timers (8,018) and focused (4,847) researchers are real cohorts with actual commitment. That middle tier is where the field professionalizes.

4. Specialist pathways show depth. Ocean CDR and Enhanced Weathering have 15% of their researchers >10% committed. That’s not a lot, but it’s enough to sustain technical communities.

What This Means for CDR

1. The field is real but still small. 80,382 researchers isn’t nothing — that’s enough to sustain an emerging field. But it’s not enough for gigaton-scale deployment. You need another 5–10× more researchers in MRV, deployment, and systems engineering.

2. Dabblers matter more than we thought. 14,242 growing dabblers represent the entry ramp. Strengthen that ramp — more funding opportunities, CDR PhD positions, industry partnerships — and you accelerate the pipeline from dabbler → part-time → committed.

3. The middle tier is the real opportunity. Part-timers (8,018) and focused researchers (4,847) are the ones who could move to Pure CDR roles. They already have one foot in the door. Career pathways into industry, funding for CDR-specific labs, industry-academic partnerships — these shift people from part-time to full-time.

4. Specialist pathways are sustainable but small. Ocean CDR (2,485 total) and Enhanced Weathering (3,344 total) have proportionally more committed researchers. That’s good for technical depth. But at 2,000–3,000 people per pathway, any disruption (funding cuts, failed projects, policy shifts) could crater the community.

Final post in the series: CDR Science as Early Signal — is the research explosion fast enough for what climate needs?

Data from the CDR Researcher Census. V2 uses LLM-based classification; please flag edge cases or misclassifications on Bluesky or X.

🔗 Related Reading

• CDR Science as Early Signal — Is the Research Explosion Fast Enough?
• The CDR Brain Map — Where the Researchers Are (and Aren’t)
• I Counted Every CDR Researcher on Earth. Here’s What I Found.
• What Is Enhanced Weathering? A Simple Explanation